EDUCATION
10.1177/0013124504274188
Tsui
/ FAMILYAND
ANDURBAN
ACHIEVEMENT
SOCIETY / May 2005
FAMILY INCOME, HOME ENVIRONMENT,
PARENTING, AND MATHEMATICS
ACHIEVEMENT OF CHILDREN IN CHINA
AND THE UNITED STATES
MING TSUI
Millsaps College
Using standardized tests and surveys of eighth graders in China and the United States, this study
explores the relationships among family income, parenting, home environment, and mathematics achievement. Focusing on Chinese only children and American children with no more than
one sibling, the study found that the mathematics achievement of Chinese eighth graders is
higher than American students. Chinese parents had higher expectations for their children and
talked more frequently with them about school. Furthermore, the relationship between parental
expectations and mathematics scores is stronger for Chinese students than for American students. China’s national curriculum, well-trained elementary and secondary school mathematics
teachers, high parental expectations, a universal concern for children’s education engendered by
the one child rule, and children’s willingness to work hard on mathematics are discussed as
possible causes for the higher mathematics achievement of Chinese children.
Keywords: mathematics achievement; education systems; parental expectations; home
environment
In the past four decades, studies in the United States have consistently
shown that family income is related to children’s cognitive development and
academic achievement. Children of lower-class families are more likely to
drop out of high school and do poorly on standardized tests than middle and
upper-class children (Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal, McAdoo, & Coll, 2001b;
Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994;
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002).
Moreover, some studies have shown that compared to nonpoor parents, poor
parents (those living at or under the poverty line) not only devote fewer
AUTHOR’S NOTE: This project was supported by a grant from the Hearin Foundation. The
author expresses thanks to Ed Venator for his valuable suggestions, criticisms, and editorial
assistance and thanks the editor and four anonymous Education and Urban Society reviewers for
their suggestions for revision.
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY, Vol. 37 No. 3, May 2005 336-355
DOI: 10.1177/0013124504274188
© 2005 Corwin Press, Inc.
336
Tsui / FAMILY AND ACHIEVEMENT
337
financial resources to their children’s education but are also less likely to read
to their children and help them with school work (Bradley, Corwyn,
McAdoo, & Coll, 2001a).
To explain these effects of family income, some researchers emphasize a
direct link between money and children’s cognitive development and school
performance. They argue that the poor academic performance of poor children is caused by their families’ lack of experiences, services, or financial
resources to purchase educational materials (Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn,
& Smith, 1998; Haveman & Wolfe, 1994; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov,
1997). Others believe that the negative effects of poverty on children’s academic achievement are indirect. According to this view, economic hardship
causes emotional distress in parents, which, in turn, causes them to be less
attentive and less interested in their children’s education (Conger et al., 1992;
Guo & Harris, 2000).
Acknowledging that the level of income does matter, some scholars argue
that it is parents’ spending preferences that affect children’s education
(Becker & Tomes, 1986; Foster, 2002). Their argument suggests that regardless of income, parents who highly value their children will devote more
resources to their well-being. Because low-income households have limited
resources, investment in children’s education requires parental self-sacrifice.
Using historical and cross-cultural data, several researchers have found that,
although parents love their children, their willingness to invest in children’s
education (and other aspects of their well being) is affected by the number of
children in the family, public expenditures on education, and their assessment of the financial return of such investment to the family. When education
must be financed by the family, additional children reduce the amount of
investment in each child, particularly in low-income families (Becker &
Tomes, 1986; Rosenzweig & Schultz, 1982). However, poor and middleincome parents are more willing to invest in their children if they believe that
such investment increases children’s potential for financial contribution to
the family and that children can be counted on to care for elderly parents
(Becker & Tomes, 1986).
Researchers also argue that nonmonetary factors such as parenting (measured by parents’educational expectations for their children and the attention
parents give to their children’s education) and home environment (measured
by the presence of books, newspapers, and other learning materials at home)
can be more important for children’s academic achievement than money.
They have found that regardless of family income, high parental expectations
and more parental attention to and effort toward their children’s education
help raise children’s academic achievement (Bradley et al., 2001b; Coleman,
1988; Mayer, 1997; McLanahan & Sandefer, 1994; Yeung et al., 2002).
338
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / May 2005
In a well-designed cross-cultural study, Stevenson (1992) showed that
teaching styles and educational structures also affect children’s academic
achievement. He found that on the same mathematics tests, the first- and
fifth-grade students in Beijing, China did so much better than their counterparts in Chicago that the average score of only 1 of the 20 Chicago area
schools “was as high as the worst” of the ten Beijing schools (Stevenson,
1992, p. 71). On a computation test, only 2% of the Beijing first graders
scored as low as the mean for their Chicago counterparts. Although the variable family income was not used in Stevenson’s study, the fact that 98% of
Beijing children scored higher than the average score of American children
means that many poor Chinese students did as well or better than well-to-do
American children. Stevenson attributed Chinese children’s higher achievement to China’s educational system; well-prepared, enthusiastic teachers;
and academic and social activities that make school an enjoyable place for
students.
Using my 1999 survey of Chinese eighth graders and the 1988 National
Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) of American eighth graders,1 the
present article explores the relationships among family income, parenting,
home environment, and mathematics achievement of children in China and
the United States. Although I expect a positive relationship between family
income and children’s mathematics achievement in both countries, I also
expect that Chinese children in general do better than their American peers.
Because Chinese parents have only one child, I expect that regardless of
income, parents’ expectation for children’s education will be higher in China
than in the United States. Furthermore, because high parental expectations
have been found to lead to higher academic achievement, I predict that high
parental expectations among poor Chinese families will help mitigate the
effects of low income on children’s academic achievement. In other words,
the relationship between income and achievement is weaker with Chinese
children than with American children.
METHODS
To compare achievement in mathematics of Chinese and American students and to explore the relationships among family income, home environment, parenting, and children’s academic achievement, the ideal situation
would be to give the same mathematics test to groups of Chinese and American children who share similar socioeconomic characteristics. However, in
addition to the high cost, such research would be difficult to conduct because
of differences in school curricula and living standards in the two countries.
Tsui / FAMILY AND ACHIEVEMENT
339
Because I did not have the resources to conduct a cross-cultural study similar to that of Stevenson, I decided to compare the findings of my 1999 survey
with those of the NELS. The two data sets are comparable because the Chinese survey contained many questions that were modeled after the NELS
questionnaire. For mathematics performance, I compared the mathematics
scores of a 100-minute, second-semester final examination of Chinese eighth
graders and the scores of a 30-minute mathematics test created by the NELS.
Although China has a lower level of economic development and a lower
standard of living than the United States, I believe that because the Chinese
survey was conducted in Wuhan, a large, industrial city with an emerging
middle class, the socioeconomic characteristics of these Chinese students
and their families are somewhat comparable to a national sample of American students.
To explore the relationship between family income and mathematics performance, I divided the Chinese and American respondents into poor and
nonpoor families according to their reported family income. Because 98% of
the Chinese respondents were the only children in their families (because of
China’s one child rule), to control the effects of family size, I included only
those American respondents who had no more than one sibling. Taking into
consideration that some Asian American eighth graders in the NELS were
first-generation immigrants, I also excluded Asian American respondents
from the sample to help maintain the integrity of cultural differences.
The Chinese respondents, 1,021 eighth graders, were from three high
schools in different districts of the city of Wuhan. To seek a representative
sample, I included one highly selective key-point school and two regular or
average schools. Because students are sorted into different classes within a
particular school according to their ability, I decided to survey every class in
each participating school and asked all students in these classes and their parents to complete questionnaires. Detailed instructions on how to fill out the
questionnaire were given to homeroom teachers, who checked the quality of
the completed questionnaires when students handed them in. The children
took the questionnaires home, and the part concerning parents’ education,
parental expectations and investment, and family income (printed on a separate page) was filled out by their parents. I collected 1,021 questionnaires
from a sample of 1,040 students, yielding a return rate of 98%. Of them, 31
questionnaires were excluded because family income was not reported,
yielding data on 990 children (525 females and 465 males).
The original questionnaire included 90 variables related to gender, intergenerational relations; interactions with parents and grandparents regarding
both academic and nonacademic matters; time spent on homework, television watching, or on other activities; parents’ education-related expectations
340
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / May 2005
and investment; and children’s academic and occupational aspirations and
their performance in mathematics.2 In this study, I included six relevant variables that could be compared to the American data. These variables are
parental educational expectations for their children, talking with parents
about school, parents’ checking homework, educational materials available
at home, mathematics scores, and family income.
The American data came from the NELS base-year survey of eighth graders conducted in 1988. This stratified, clustered national probability sample
included 24,599 eighth graders from 1,052 public, private, and parochial
schools in the United States and had separate questionnaires for students,
parents, and teachers. Respondents were asked about school work, academic
achievement, opinions about school, interaction with their parents, and parent educational expectations. Six variables from the students’ and parents’
questionnaires were included in this study. To make the two data sets comparable, I limited the American sample to those respondents who were only
children or had only one sibling (n = 8,747: 4,318 females and 4,429 males).
Compared with the original sample of 24,599, this reduced sample of children from small families scored higher in mathematics (25% scored at
advanced level as compared to 18% for the large sample), and the average
educational levels of the parents were higher.
Because many questions in the Chinese survey were modeled after the
NELS questionnaires (often with minor variations in wording), the responses
can be compared directly. In both surveys, the question “How far in school do
your parents want you to go?” was used to assess parents’ educational expectations for their children and the children’s knowledge of such expectations.
(The U.S. survey used father and mother instead of parents and asked
respondents to answer them separately. I combined the responses from the
two answers and used the mean to represent expectation for parents.) The
answer choices are similar for Chinese and Americans: They ranged from
“less than high school graduation” to “attend a higher level of school after
graduating from college.” I classified responses below “complete college” as
low expectations and responses of “graduating from college or higher” as
high expectations.
Another parenting variable in both surveys is “talking with parents about
school.” The NELS question was “Since the beginning of the school year,
how often have you discussed each activity with your parents (or guardian):
selecting courses or programs, school activities or events, and things studied
in school.” Because there are no electives and few extracurricular activities
for Chinese eighth graders, only “things studied” was used in this analysis.
Because most Chinese parents talk with their children about school everyday,
I reworded the NELS question to “How often did you talk to your parents
Tsui / FAMILY AND ACHIEVEMENT
341
about school in the last week?” in the Chinese survey. The choices for
answers in both surveys were (a) not at all, (b) once or twice, and (c) three or
more times. In the Chinese questionnaire, I added every day to the choices. To
compare the responses, I combined every day in the Chinese data into the category three or more times.
The question “How often do your parents (or guardian in the NELS) check
whether you have done your homework?” was used as an indicator for parental attention and effort to children’s education. The answers were (a) often,
(b) sometimes, (c) rarely, and (d) never.
I used one variable “educational materials available at home” to measure
family learning environment. In the NELS and Chinese surveys, this information was obtained by the question, “Which of the following does your
family have in your home?” Sixteen items were listed in the American survey, and 9 listed in the Chinese survey3. For this study, I selected 8 items
related to learning: a place to study, a daily newspaper, regularly received
magazine, an encyclopedia, a dictionary, computer, pocket calculator, and at
least 50 books (the Chinese survey did not ask about specific numbers of
books, only having books related to school work). Because the responses in
the Chinese survey were coded simply as “number of items checked yes, ” I
could not compare the two data sets item by item. Instead, I recoded the
responses as 0 to 5 items and 6 to 8 items. I decided to code this way because
items such as dictionary, encyclopedia, pocket calculator, and books are
necessities for eighth graders.
Mathematics scores for the American data came from a 30-minute standardized test. The test was designed specifically for the NELS to measure
proficiency in mathematics. Students were scored as proficient or not proficient at one of the following levels: Level 1: Basic—simple arithmetical
operation on whole numbers; Level 2: Intermediate—operations with decimals, fractions, and roots; and Level 3: Advanced—simple problem solving,
requiring conceptual understanding and the development of a solution strategy (Hafner, Ingels, Schneider, & Stevenson, 1990, p. B-13). For the present
analysis, I combined levels 1 and 2 and recoded them as low mathematical
performance.
The mathematics scores for Chinese eighth graders were from a 100minute standardized eighth-grade achievement test, used by schools as the
second-semester final examination. Because the least difficult question in
this test involved algebra (both computation and word problems), I grouped
students who scored at 50 points or higher (out of a possible 100) as reaching the advanced level of mathematical performance. Because the Chinese
test is more rigorous than the NELS test, it is reasonable to assume that
some Chinese students classified as low in mathematics achievement did
342
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / May 2005
better than some American students classified as advanced in mathematics
achievement.
In the NELS questionnaire, the variable family income referred to annual
income and had categories from “none” to “$200,000 or more.” For the present study, respondents were termed “poor” if their family income was less
than $19,999 and “nonpoor” if their family income was $20,000 or more.
Because the 1988 official poverty line was about $13,000 for a family of four,
some of these families were not in extreme financial difficulties. The Chinese
survey asked respondents their family’s monthly income. I combined the
original nine categories (ranging from “less than 300 yuan” to “1,700 yuan”)
into “poor” (less than 699 yuan) and “nonpoor” (700 yuan or more). The official poverty line in Wuhan was 200 yuan per person a month. Because most
of our respondents lived in three-person households, 700 yuan was above the
official poverty line.4
FINDINGS
Chinese students did far better in mathematics than did their American
counterparts ( 2 = 1036.3, p > .001)5: 76% of Chinese eighth graders, as compared to 25% of their American peers, scored at advanced level of mathematics.6 Although in both countries, children from nonpoor families achieved
better mathematics scores than did children from poor families (Chinese:
2 = 37.1, p > .001; American: 2 = 228.2, p > .001), 64% of poor Chinese
children achieved at advanced level in mathematics as compared to 10% of
poor American children (see Figure 1).
Independent of culture, a relationship between parental expectations and
achievement was found. More children whose parents had high expectations
scored at advanced levels of mathematics than did children whose parents
had low expectations (Chinese: 2 = 115.8, p > .001; American: 2 = 320.6,
p > .001). This relationship between parental expectations and mathematics
scores is stronger for Chinese students than for American students. The partial correlation (r) between parental expectations and mathematics scores,
controlling for family income, is 0.37 (p > .001) for Chinese eighth graders
and 0.15 (p > .001) for American eighth graders. As shown in Figure 2, more
Chinese children whose parents had low expectations scored at the advanced
level in mathematics than American children whose parents had high
expectations.
When I compared children’s knowledge of parental expectations (see Figure 3), I found both cultural and class (i.e., income) differences. First, all
Tsui / FAMILY AND ACHIEVEMENT
90
343
82.1
Percent at Advanced Level
80
70
64.4
60
Poor American
50
Poor Chinese
40
28.9
30
Non Poor American
Non Poor Chinese
20
10
9.7
0
Figure 1:
Relationships Among Culture, SES, and Achievement in Mathematics.
Figure 2:
Mathematics Achievement as a Function of Parental Educational
Expectations
Chinese eighth graders knew their parents’ expectations regarding how far in
school they should go, whereas 13.8% of the poor and 6.3% of the nonpoor
American children did not know their parents’wishes and another 13% of the
poor and 6% of the nonpoor American children indicated they did not answer
the question. Second, although in both countries, high-income parents
were more likely to want their children to at least complete college than were
low-income parents, the difference between poor and nonpoor in parental
expectations was smaller for the Chinese (11.5%) than for the Americans
(27.3%). In fact, the percentage of Chinese low-income parents who had high
344
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / May 2005
Figure 3:
Children’s Knowledge of Parental Expectations as a Function of Level of
Parental Expectations, Culture, and SES.
expectations for their children (79.7%) was higher than that of American
high-income parents (74.3%).
Chinese parents had more frequent talks about school with their children
than did American parents (see Table 1). Among the Chinese, 65.7% of poor
and 63.5% of nonpoor discussed schoolwork with their children three or
more times during the week prior to the survey. Among the Americans,
46.1% of poor and 58.8% of nonpoor discussed schoolwork with their children three or more times since the beginning of the school year (the NELS
data were gathered between February 1 and June 30). Nonpoor American
parents had more frequent conversations with their children about school
than did poor parents ( 2 = 99.1, 2df, p > .001), whereas there is no such class
difference for the Chinese respondents ( 2 = 0.51, not significant).
With regards to “parents’checking homework,” there were no class differences in China or in the United States. American parents were actually more
active in this matter than their Chinese counterparts: Although more than
40% of American poor and nonpoor parents checked homework often, less
than 30% of Chinese parents did so (see Table 1).
Both nonpoor Chinese and nonpoor American families had more learning
materials than did poor families (Chinese: 2 = 71.6, p > .001; American: 2 =
531.7, p > .001). Among poor families, there was a cultural difference in
learning materials: Poor Chinese families had more learning materials in the
home than did poor American families ( 2 = 5.7, p > .05). Other evidence of
generous family spending on education was found elsewhere in the Chinese
survey: Education spending was the second largest expense after food; 55%
of the families hired tutors; and 76% of parents were willing to borrow
money for college.
345
TABLE 1
a
0
0.0
25.4
44.8
29.5
0.0
0.3
59.4
40.6
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Missing
0-5 items
6-8 items
199
136
85
150
99
0
1
18
97
220
n
5.4
28.9
65.7
%
Not at all
Once or twice
b
Three or more times
Missing or
multiple response
Coding
31.5
68.5
27.5
41.2
31.3
0.0
0.0
0.5
5.0
31.0
63.5
%
206
449
180
270
205
0
0
3
33
203
416
n
Nonpoor
(n = 655)
66.2
33.8
44.0
28.7
16.0
10.6
0.7
2.2
13.9
37.7
46.1
%
1,078
550
717
467
260
173
11
36
227
614
751
n
Poor
(n = 1,628)
%
35.1
64.9
45.1
28.7
17.2
8.7
0.4
1.0
2,497
4,622
3,212
2,033
1,225
620
29
74
581
2,279
4,185
n
Nonpoor
(n = 7,119)
8.2
32.0
58.8
American
a. The wording of this question was different for Chinese and American respondents. The question for Chinese respondents was “During the previous week, how often
did you talk about school with your parents?” The question for American students was “Since the beginning of the school year, how often have you discussed things
you have studied in class with your parents?”
b. For the Chinese data, category “Three or more times” includes “Talking about school everyday.”
Learning materials at home
How often parents check on
respondent’s homework
Talking about school with parents
Interview Items
Poor
(n = 335)
Chinese
Percentage and Number of Response to Interview Items by Income: Chinese and American Eighth Graders
346
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / May 2005
DISCUSSION
Before exploring the achievement difference between the two countries,
it should be noted that mathematics education in the United States has
improved somewhat since 1988 (Applebome, 1996a, 1996b). According to
the Third International Mathematics and Science Study of 41 countries conducted in 1995, American eighth graders scored only slightly below the international average on mathematics, a better result than those of earlier tests, but
still far below the achievement of students in Singapore, South Korea, Japan,
and Hong Kong (Applebome, 1996b). Additionally, I should remind readers
that the American respondents included in the present study represent only
children of small families, children who did relatively better in mathematics
than their counterparts from large families.
Consistent with my expectations, the mathematics achievement of Chinese eighth graders was higher than that of American students. Chinese parents had higher expectations for their children and talked more frequently
with them about school. There are several possible, probably interacting reasons for this higher mathematics performance of Chinese children: China’s
elementary and secondary education systems, its child-oriented values, societal emphasis on education, high parental educational expectations, close
contact between parents and teachers, and children’s willingness to work
hard on mathematics.
The risks of causal attribution associated with nonexperimental research
are exaggerated when data are self-reported and are obtained in differing
places at differing times using different measuring instruments. Hence, the
following discussion of possible causes of the score differences obtained in
my research is inherently speculative. Like other speculative commentary, it
is a consideration of plausible factors, offered as food for thought, as a
stimulus for further research.
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
The relatively poor mathematics performance of American eighth graders
may be related to aspects of the American education system. For neither elementary nor secondary education are there national curricula defining what
children should learn at each grade. As a result, standards vary widely from
state to state, from district to district within states, and even from school to
school within districts (Applebome, 1996a; Stevenson et al., 1987). A
National Science Foundation assessment of mathematics education found
that mathematics scores for the 13-year-olds in the four best American states,
Tsui / FAMILY AND ACHIEVEMENT
347
Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Maine, ranked with children in the top
performing countries: Taiwan and South Korea, whereas children in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and the District of Columbia ranked with those
in the lowest nation, Jordan (Applebome, 1996a).
With mostly positive reports from local schools about children’s academic performance and with no national standard to refer to, American parents tend to be satisfied with their local schools and with their children’s performance. Because residential communities are often segregated by income
and because schools in middle- and upper-middle-class communities tend to
do better on tests, there is no strong, universal demand for a national curriculum in the United States (Stevenson et al., 1990).
In China, a demanding and rigorous national curriculum (which imposes
a universal standard at elementary and secondary school levels), citywide
high school entrance examinations, and a highly competitive national college
entrance examination help hold individual schools accountable. For the past
20 years, the Chinese government has allowed parents to request the district
school they want their children to attend. High-quality schools are allowed,
with a sponsor fee (ranging from 8,000 to 12,000 yuan), to admit those students who want to enroll but who scored a few points lower (on the entrance
examination) than the required admission scores set by the school. Because
schools use a part of this fee as bonus to teachers, there is a strong incentive to
improve the quality of education at the individual school level. To help parents choose schools and enrich city coffers (50% of sponsor fee goes to the
city government), city officials publish and rank each school’s performance
on the entrance examination in local newspapers and give additional funding
to schools that do well on these exams. Moreover, because the municipal government sets the base salary for teachers and assigns teachers to their schools,
except for a few highly selective key-point schools that are allowed to hire
their own teachers, there is little difference in the overall quality among urban
schools (personal communication with a principal in Wuhan).
In addition to curricula and standards, the difference in mathematics performance between American and Chinese students may be explained by a
differential stress on teacher education and differences in the prescribed
qualifications of mathematics teachers in the two countries. When applying
for admission to a normal school or a teacher’s college, applicants in China
are required to choose an academic major (in China, education is not a
major). Except for a few courses in child development and theories of teaching, these future teachers spend most of their time learning the content of that
major and the related subjects. When they arrive at their teaching positions,
they are expected to teach the subject they trained for. From the elementary
school level on, most teachers teach only one subject and one or two grades
348
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / May 2005
repeatedly. As a result, most teachers in China are highly proficient in their
subject matters and enjoy teaching them. “He is so excited about mathematics,” one tenth grader in Wuhan described her mathematics teacher, “he
makes doing math sound like romance. It makes you feel weird not to love it.”
Well-trained, experienced teachers and a lot of practice (homework) beginning in the first grade make most Chinese students comfortable with mathematics. Indeed, mathematics and English were tied at the first place as the
most liked subject by the Chinese eighth graders I surveyed (Tsui & Rich
2002).
Mathematics tends to hold a lower status among American teachers than
among Chinese teachers and is a subject most American teachers do not like
to teach (Stevenson et al., 1990). In the NELS survey, only 34.4% of American eighth graders attended algebra class at least once a week; Chinese eighth
graders have mathematics that includes algebra, trigonometry, and geometry
every day. The relatively low interest in mathematics among American
eighth graders may, at least partly, be the result of the poor mathematics instruction they received before they get to the eighth grade. More than
90% of American elementary schools are organized around self-contained
classes, where children work with the same teacher for all or nearly all subjects (Alt & Choy, 2000). Although such classroom organization enables
teachers to know their students and track their progress, it also requires teachers to teach all grade-related subjects. If a teacher lacks basic knowledge and
training in mathematics, he or she will not be able to teach it well and many
students may come to dislike, or even fear, mathematics. Furthermore, without a standardized curriculum, elementary school teachers can even choose
to devote little class time to mathematics (Geary, Bow-Thomas, Liu, &
Siegler, 1996; Stevenson et al., 1990).
Henke et al. (1997) have found that many American elementary school
teachers are indeed not academically prepared to teach mathematics. A 1993
to 1994 national survey of teachers found that at the elementary school level,
only 2% of public-school teachers and 5% of private-school teachers had
majored in mathematics or natural sciences as undergraduates. At secondary
school level, the percentage was 19.6 for public-school teachers and 23.2 for
private-school teachers. The survey also found that among secondary school
teachers whose main teaching field was mathematics, 34% of public-school
teachers and 42% of private-school teachers had neither an undergraduate
major nor minor in mathematics (Henke et al., 1997).
One cross-cultural study (Geary et al., 1996) suggested that American
teachers’ lack of training in mathematics affects children’s achievement.
Testing the mathematics achievements of Chinese and American children (in
kindergarten to third grade) over a period of 5 months, they found that
Tsui / FAMILY AND ACHIEVEMENT
349
although there was little difference in mathematics ability and competence
between Chinese and American kindergartners at the beginning of the study,
after 5 months of schooling, Chinese kindergartners showed significantly
greater progress in arithmetic competency than did their American counterparts. At Grades 1, 2 and 3, the test scores for Chinese students were not only
much higher than their American peers at the beginning of the study, but they
improved at a significantly greater rate than did the scores of the American
students over the 5-month duration of the study (Geary et al., 1996). Given
teachers’ lack of knowledge and preparation in mathematics, it is not surprising that relatively few eighth graders have sound mathematical skills.
CHILD-ORIENTED CULTURE AND
EMPHASIS ON EDUCATION
In addition to a demanding curriculum and good teachers, the higher performance of Chinese students may be attributed to their willingness to work
hard on academics, a willingness engendered, I believe, by a societal emphasis on and adults’ attention to education in Chinese cities. Although basic
arithmetic can be made easy, even enjoyable to learn, more abstract mathematics can be difficult for some students. Notwithstanding the high quality of
teachers, the size of a Chinese class (45 to 60 students on average in both elementary and secondary schools) means that students must often solve difficult problems on their own, so good mathematics grades require a strong
desire and discipline to learn. In my survey, I found a strong belief in education and in diligence: 50% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement
“There is no future without a good education,” and 94% chose “Hard work”
as the most important factor for academic success. In contrast, American parents and children tend to believe that achievement in mathematics depends on
innate ability, and they tend to spend less time and effort on mathematics
(Stevenson, 1992).
China has a long tradition of emphasizing education. Since the early 20th
century, mathematics and natural sciences have been considered to be the
most prestigious academic subjects. The recent market reform and the one
child per family rule have pushed this emphasis to a higher degree, particularly in large cities, where 90% of families have only one child and a college
education at an elite university, which can lead to a stable, high-paying job.
The direct link between education and financial security as well as the reality
that for many parents old age security depends on the academic success of
their only child has made families in urban China almost obsessed with education. In my survey, the high parental expectations, generous investment,
350
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / May 2005
and frequent discussion about school with children are clear evidence of this
obsession. Given the fact that even in 2003 less than 20% of children in
China’s large cities had a realistic chance to enter a 4-year college (the
chances are much smaller in smaller cities and rural areas), students know
they must work hard to have a secure future and not to disappoint their parents.7 In my survey, after an 8-hour school day, 55% of respondents spent at
least 2 hours each week day and 8 hours during the weekend doing homework (compared to less than 6 hours a week on homework for American students) (Ingels, Abraham, Karr, Spencer, & Frankel, 1990). Only 27% of Chinese students considered the amount of homework as too much.8
The willingness to study hard is also sustained by social pressure and by
almost total cooperation between parents and teachers in Chinese cities. Students’ midterm and final examination scores are ranked for each grade and
made known to all students and parents. This system puts a lot of pressure on
individual students to move up in rank, or at least not to lose one’s place on
the scale. Parents encourage children to work hard by bragging and expressing their anxiety about their children’s school rank to their neighbors and colleagues, often in front of their children. Because academic performance is the
number one topic of conversation in Chinese cities, many children are compelled to work hard continuously. When asked, 95% of my respondents
thought they did not work hard enough and had not yet met their parents’
expectations.
In China, children rarely miss school, even when they are ill. Although
many children complain about school, they nevertheless view attending
classes and doing homework as their duty and obligation (Rosenthal, 2003;
Stevenson, 1992). I believe that one of the reasons children develop such a
serious attitude toward school is because of the obvious respect their parents
have for teachers. Students often use the word “ting” (meaning “listen to” or
“obey”) to describe their parents’ interaction with teachers. Chinese parents,
particularly this generation of one-child parents, often trust teachers absolutely and seldom disagree with teachers’ decisions. One story I heard in
Wuhan concerned the tendency of teachers to tell parents to which of the
senior high schools their children should apply. When one parent said her son
could get admitted to a more selective school, the teacher replied, “I don’t
think so. If you do not take my advice, you’d better find 9,000 yuan (meaning
the sponsor fee).”9 During my interview with teachers, I saw a mother asking
a teacher to double the amount of her son’s summer homework because the
teacher told the mother that her son would do better if “he is not so lazy.”
Whereas some American parents might object to such a comment, Chinese
parents see it as a sign of a caring teacher and trust the teacher more because
of it. Such high respect and deference elevates teachers’ status and authority
Tsui / FAMILY AND ACHIEVEMENT
351
in the eyes of their students, which in turn make teaching and classroom management easy and enjoyable for teachers. I noticed that parents in Wuhan
often had teachers’ home and cell phone numbers and did not hesitate to call
after working hours.
In the United States, however, teachers seem to get far less support from
parents. In the 1993 to 1994 national survey of teachers, only 12% of publicschool teachers and 42% of private-school teachers strongly agreed with the
statement, “I received a great deal of support from parents for the work I do.”
In public schools with more than 40% of low-income students, only 9.9% of
teachers agreed with the statement (Henke et al., 1997). Because support
from parents affects teachers’ morale and effectiveness, it is likely that the
lack of such support indirectly affected the mathematics achievement of
American students.
In China, the emphasis on education is also related to the one child per
family rule. Although the policy was implemented for population control, it
has engendered a strong belief and shared interest in the education of the only
children. Evidence of such child-oriented values is everywhere, from businesses that flourish publishing academic study aids to the local schools that
tend to be the best buildings in every urban community. As many teachers are
also parents of only children, they understand and share parents’ concerns
about education. Furthermore, because there are no private schools in China,
the fact that everyone, including teachers, must send his or her child to the
same neighborhood school leads to a strong desire to improve education in all
schools. Such a universal strong desire is not apparent in the United States.
HOME ENVIRONMENT AND PARENTS’
SELF-SACRIFICE FOR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION
The most interesting and intriguing finding of this study is how well Chinese children from poor families did on mathematics relative to the performance of poor and even nonpoor American students. This finding suggests
that although money makes a difference, there are more important factors
related to academic achievement.
As I described earlier, all Chinese eighth graders knew how far in school
their parents wanted them to go but about 20% of American eighth graders
did not. Furthermore, most Chinese children thought that they did not study
hard enough and that they had not met their parents’ expectations. This clear
understanding of parental expectations and sense of indebtedness to parents
may help to explain the high mathematics achievement of poor Chinese children. They may also explain why the relationship between parental expecta-
352
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / May 2005
tions and mathematics scores is stronger for Chinese students than for American students.
I argue that Chinese children are more likely to respond to parental expectation than their American counterparts because in China, such expectations
are often validated by self-sacrifice. One evidence of this kind of sacrifice is
found in the number of learning materials in the Chinese home (see Table 1):
Poor Chinese families invested relatively more than their American counterparts. I need to stress that as regards purchasing power, many of these learning materials were very expensive for an average family in Wuhan. For example, in 1999 (when the survey was conducted), a typical, Chinese-made
personal computer cost 8,000 yuan, more than the total annual income of a
poor Wuhan family, whereas even a high end $3,000 computer only cost 15%
of the annual income of an American low-income family in 1988.
During my summer research in China in the past 10 years, I frequently
witnessed the huge personal sacrifices parents made for their child. One
mother told me that she had not bought herself any new clothes for seven
years because half of her family’s 400 yuan monthly income went to her
son’s schooling. One dentist explained why, despite the high income earned
by her and her banker husband, she had started washing clothes by hand to
save money on utilities: “My son went to language school in Germany, most
of our income goes to support him and repay the money we borrowed for
him.” Another family grew vegetables in a nearby empty lot so they could
save money to pay for after-school tutorials offered by the school, whereas
the mother, who worked as cleaning lady for several families, often did not
eat until she got home late in the afternoon because she did not want to spend
even one yuan for lunch.
CONCLUSION
This study has shown that although money makes a difference, high parental expectations, a rigorous national curriculum, well-trained and enthusiastic teachers, strong parental support for teachers, and societal emphasis on
education may be more important for children’s academic achievement.
Although certain cultural differences such as China’s traditional reverence
for education and child-centered values engendered by the one child policy
would be difficult, if not impossible, to duplicate in the United States, the
two educational practices used in China (a clear, high national standard and a
content-oriented training for mathematics teachers) could be adopted by the
United States to improve children’s mathematics achievement.
Tsui / FAMILY AND ACHIEVEMENT
353
NOTES
1. The National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) has four follow-up surveys; I, however, decided to use the 1988 base-year study because it provided information on family income
and sampled eighth graders.
2. The original purpose of my survey was to investigate the differences between single-girl
and single-boy families with regard to parental expectation and investment in children’s education, children’s own educational aspirations, and mathematical performance. I found no gender
differences related to education between single-girl and single-boy families and no gender differences in mathematical performance (Tsui & Rich, 2002).
3. The omitted items from the U.S. survey are “typewriter,” “washing machine,” “electric
dishwasher,” “clothes dryer,” “microwave oven,” “an atlas,” “VCR,” “a room of your own.”
Because most Chinese families did not have these home appliances, “television” is the only omitted item from the Chinese survey.
4. In terms of purchasing power, 700 yuan a month for a family of three was enough only for
basic necessities such as food, rent, and utilities. To pay for school fees and other educationrelated expenses (70 to 100 yuan a month), parents must sacrifice. During my interviews with the
parents, many told me that they spent little to nothing on themselves and that they often ate the
cheapest vegetables. In a city known as one of the three stoves in China, some did not even use an
electric fan in the summer. However, unlike the majority of the poor American urban families,
most of the poor in China have become poor because of the collapse of state-owned companies in
the early 1990s. They tend to live among nonpoor families and do not constitute a distinct underclass.
2
5. Unless otherwise noted, all reported tests have 1df.
6. The difference in mathematics scores for American children with one sibling and American only children is not significant. In absolute terms, children with one sibling did better than
only children.
7. Although a relatively small number of high school graduates are admitted to 4-year universities, a much larger percentage of high school graduates are able to enter 2- or 3-year colleges.
Although admission to these institutions is competitive, they require lower scores on the same
college entrance examination than do 4-year universities.
8. The long school day may explain why Chinese parents do not check homework as frequently as do American parents. Most Chinese students complete at least half of their homework
in school and have them checked by teachers and class monitors. Another reason for Chinese parents’ infrequent involvement in homework could be the general low education level of Chinese
parents in my survey. Although most of these parents had a high school diploma, many actually
only finished elementary school because their education was interrupted during the Cultural
Revolution in the 1970s.
9. The Chinese system requires students to select schools before they take high school or college entrance examination. Because good schools do not want to see themselves as the second
choice, they often reject students who choose them as their second choice. As a result, if a student
fails to meet the score requirement of their first choice, he or she is often assigned to the third
choice.
354
EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY / May 2005
REFERENCES
Alt, M. N., & Choy, S. P. (2000). In the middle: Characteristics of public schools with a focus on
middle schools (National Center for Education Statistics 2000-312). Washington DC: U.S
Department of Education.
Applebome, P. (1996a, April 26). Science and math up sharply in some schools, study says. The
New York Times, pp. A1, A10.
Applebome, P. (1996b, November 21). U.S. gets ‘average’ grades in math and science studies.
The New York Times, pp. A1, A12.
Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1986). Human capital and the rise and fall of families. Journal of
Labor Economics, 4, S1-S139.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H. P., & Coll, C. G. (2001b). The home
environments of children in the United States Part II: Relations with behavioral development
through age thirteen. Child Development, 72, 1868-1886.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., McAdoo, H. P., & Coll, C.G. (2001a). The home environments of
children in the United States Part I: Variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child
Development, 72, 1844-1867.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. Future of Children,
7, 55-71.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Suppl. 95), 95-120.
Conger, R., Conger, K., Elder, G., Lorenz, F., Simons, R., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A family
process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526-541.
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and earlychildhood development. Child Development, 65, 296-318.
Duncan, G. J., Yeung, W. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). How much does childhood
poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63, 406-423.
Foster, E. M. (2002). How economists think about family resources and child development.
Child Development, 73, 1904-1914.
Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C. C., Liu, F., & Siegler, R. S. (1996). Development of arithmetical
competencies in Chinese and American children: Influence of age, language, and schooling.
Child Development, 67, 2022-2044.
Guo, G., & Harris, K. M. (2000). The mechanisms medicating the effects of poverty on children’s
intellectual development. Demography, 37, 431-448.
Hafner, A., Ingels, S., Schneider, B., & Stevenson, D. (1990). A profile of the American eighth
grader: National Educational Longitudinal Study: 88 student descriptive summary.
(National Center for Education Statistics 90458). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1994). Succeeding generations: On the effects of investments of children. New York: Russell Sage.
Henke, R. R., Choy, S. P., Chen, X., Geis, S., Alt, M. N., & Broughman, S. P. (1997). America’s
teachers: Profile of a profession, 1993-1994. (NCES 97-460). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Ingels, S. J., Abraham, S. Y., Karr, R., Spencer, B. D., & Frankel, M. R. (1990). National education longitudinal study of 1988: Base year Student component data file [Users’ manual].
(National Center for Education Statistics 90-464). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Tsui / FAMILY AND ACHIEVEMENT
355
Mayer, S. E. (1997). What money can’t buy: Family income and children’s life chances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rosenthal, E. (2003, May 20). The sheltered children of Beijing. The New York Times, p. A6.
Rosenzweig, M. R., & Schultz, T. P. (1982). Market opportunities, genetic endowments, and
intrafamily resource distribution: Child survival in rural India. American Economic Review,
72, 803-815.
Smith, J. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1997). The consequences of living in poverty
for young children’s cognitive and verbal ability and early school achievement. In G. J.
Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 132-189). New
York: Russell Sage.
Stevenson, H. W. (1992, December). Learning from Asian schools. Scientific American, 70-76.
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S. Y., Chen, C., Lummis, M., Stigler, L., Liu, F., et al. (1990). Mathematics achievement of children in China and the United States. Child Development, 61, 10531066.
Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lucker, G. W., Lee, S. Y., Hsu, C. C., & Kitamura, S. (1987).
Classroom behavior and achievement of Japanese, Chinese, and American children. In
R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, (pp. 153-204). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tsui, M., & Rich, L. (2002). The only child and educational opportunity for girls in urban China.
Gender & Society, 16, 74-92.
Yeung, W. J., Linver, M. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). How money matters for young children’s
development: Parental investment and family processes. Child Development, 73, 1861-1879.
Ming Tsui is an associate professor of sociology at Millsaps College. Her research focuses on
marriage and the family, gender, education, and employment in China. Her publications have
appeared in the Journal of Marriage and the Family, Gender & Society, Sociological Spectrum,
Pacific Affairs, Asian Thought and Society, and Taiwanese Journal of Sociology.