The extent of family and school social capital promoting positive subjective well-being among children in Shenzhen,

China

Dr. Maggie LAUDepartment of Social Sciences

The Hong Kong Institute of Education 

AND 

Dr. Wanxin LIDepartment of Public and Social Administration

City University of Hong Kong

The third Conference of the International Society for Child Indicators University of York

(27 – 29 July 2011)

Objectives

Examine the extent to which variations in family and school social capital can be explained by child’s differing socioeconomic and demographic background and school characteristics

Examine the extent to which family and school social capital in combination might be associated with variations in child subjective well-being

2

Background

Relationships between family background and variation of social capital accrued, and effects of social and cultural capital on child and adolescents’ well-being in China. Adolescents’ disadvantaged socioeconomic background may

contribute to the unequal access to the social networks and their embedded resources which affects their employment opportunities (Yan & Lam, 2009)

Children’s education engagement in poor area of China is not only associated with their socioeconomic status, but also cultural capital, and family and school social capital (An, 2005)

Issue of gender inequality in social capital contributing to gender differential in network diversity and size (Lin, 2000)

Effects of hukou system (i.e. urban vs. rural residents) on education opportunies and health care access for migrant children in urban China (Liang, Guo, & Duan, 2008)

Given China’s one-child policy, children shoulder various degree of parent expectation and the pressure of being his/her family’s ‘only hope’ (Fong, 2004; Wang & Fong, 2009)

3

Child well-being

Multi-dimensional – The dimensions include material well-being, child health, educational attainment and participation, children’s relationship with friends and family, their feelings about their own well-being, their involvement with problem behaviours, etc

Ecological – Individual well-being is influenced not only by personal attributes, but also by the characteristics of the contextual factors emphasizing the significance of interactions among individuals, family, peers, schools, neighbourhood, the broader community, and society at large

Subjective well-being (SWB) is considered as a crucial and valuable outcome measure for better policy advocacy, planning, monitoring and evaluation (UNICEF, 2001)

SWB (Diener, 1984; Diener, Scollon, & Lucas, 2009)

Cognitive component – life satisfaction in terms of overall subjective assessment of the satisfaction and/or within specific domains

Affective component – the experience of positive and negative emotions

4

Social capital

consists of resources embedded in social relations and social structure

can be accumulated over time, and be mobilized when an individual wishes to increase the likelihood of success in a purposive action

can be categorized into two dimensions (Grootaert & Van Bastelaer, 2002; Krishna & Shrader, 2002)

Structural social capital (SSC) – is an objective and observable construct and the established roles and networks can facilitate purposive action

Cognitive social capital (CSC) – is a subjective element and refers to shared norms, values, trust, attitudes and beliefs

/ …. continued5

Social capital

Social capital includes: Structural component – the social setting which facilitates or

inhibits interpersonal interactions, and access to resources (Coleman, 1988; Israel et al., 2001)

Family structure and number of sibling in the household are examples of the structural component

school band and school type in terms of school resources and teachers’ qualification are two examples of structural attributes

Process component – the actual and interpersonal interactions between parents and their children; the extent of social interactions with friends and schoolmates, and trust and trustworthiness with peers and schoolmates and experience of being bullied

Parents discussing important issues with their children, and parental involvement in children’s educational experience

Children’s participation in social activities with friends, willingness to offer help, etc

/ …. continued

6

Foci of the current study

Both structural and cognitive social capital can be incorporated into family and school social capital measures

Family and school social capital can be described at two key dimensions, including: child–parent relationships – discussing important issues with

parents, interpersonal interactions between children and parents; and perception of child–parent relationships

formal and informal extra familial ties — parental involvement in school activities, interpersonal interactions with friends and schoolmates; perceptions of connectedness to friends, teachers and schools, feelings of trust and safety

Variations in family and school social capital can be assessed by: socioeconomic background – family structure, parents’ income

and educational level, number of siblings in a household, hukou status

school characteristics – type of school, and school band and perception of school safety

7

Methods

The subject of the study was drawn from the sixth-grade primary school students and their parents As they are the 11–12 year-old children who are capable to

comprehend and answer self-administered questionnaires in plain language

The study was undertaken in the Nanshan district in Shenzhen, Guangdong province The sample was drawn from Shenzhen since it was the first

special economic zone in China which has enjoyed rapid economic growth, but also encountered challenges resulting from industrialization and urbanization

Marginality of rural migrants and their family members in the urban welfare and educational system is one typical example

/ …. continued

8

Methods

There were altogether 57 primary schools in Nanshan district in 2009 In terms of school resources, teacher qualifications and school type, the

schools have been divided into 4 categories from band A (which is the best) to band D. They include 8, 34, 10 and 5 schools in each category accordingly

School bands A, C, and D were oversampled so as to have a meaningful comparison between families who have access to those exceptionally “good” and “bad” schools It randomly selected 3, 7, 3, and 3 schools from each category Two classes were randomly selected in each participant school and all

the students in both classes and their parents were invited to participate in the study

The stratified random sample comprised of 1306 sixth-grade primary school children and their parents in Nanshan district, Shenzhen, China

/ …. continued

9

Findings

Family background and school characteristics of primary school children (Table 1)

Reliability analysis of family social capital, school social capital, and child SWB (Table 2)

Family social capital, school social capital and child SWB by family background and school characteristics (Table 3)

Correlations between child SWB, family social capital and school social capital (Table 4)

Hierarchical regression of child SWB by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, family and school social capital (Table 5)

/ …. continued

10

N (%)Gender

Male 728 56.1Female 569 43.9

Household Registration in ShenzhenNo 505 48.0Yes 546 52.0

Number of childrenOnly one child 573 50.72 children 359 31.73 or more children 199 17.6

Family structureTwo-parent family 977 93.9Single parent family 64 6.1

Parent’s educationJunior secondary or below 291 27.5Senior secondary 304 28.8Non-degree 228 21.6Degree 188 17.8Master degree or above 46 4.4

Monthly family income RMB < 2,000 128 12.5RMB 2,000 - 4,999 322 31.5RMB 5,000 - 9,999 245 23.9RMB 10,000 - 19,999 189 18.5RMB 20,000 - 49,999 101 9.9RMB > 50,000 38 3.7

Type of schoolPublic school 997 76.8Private school 301 23.2

School band1 (Best) 330 25.42 457 35.23 235 18.14 276 21.3

Table 1: Family background and school characteristics of primary school children

Alpha if item deletedFAMILY SOCIAL CAPITAL (20 items) Alpha = 0.8434(I) Bond between children and parents – Structural social capital

Discussing important issues with parents - Health .8331Discussing important issues with parents - Relationship with classmates/friends

.8298

Discussing important issues with parents - Relationship with teacher .8306Discussing important issues with parents - Sports/extra-curriculum activities .8292Discussing important issues with parents - Social events/news .8324Discussing important issues with parents - School work .8348Discussing important issues with parents - Future plan .8337Interpersonal interactions with parents and children - Read or buy books .8328Interpersonal interactions with parents and children - Join extra-curriculum classes

.8426

Interpersonal interactions with parents and children - Shopping .8417Interpersonal interactions with parents and children - Dinning out .8430Interpersonal interactions with parents and children - Sports .8284Interpersonal interactions with parents and children - Watching movie .8373Interpersonal interactions with parents and children - Playing together .8316

(II) Bond between children and parents – Cognitive social capitalParent-child relationship – Parents understand me .8361Parent-child relationship – Parents care about me .8389Parent-child relationship – Parents respect my opinions .8360* Parent-child relationship – Parents do not know my good friends .8461* Parent-child relationship – Parents care about my study than any other things

.8480

Level of trust – Family members .8397SCHOOL SOCIAL CAPITAL (18 items) Alpha = 0.7025(III) Teacher-student relationship - Cognitive social capital

Teacher-student relationship - Teachers cared about them .6879Teacher-student relationship - Teacher treated all the students the same fairly in their schools

.6875

Level of trust - teachers .6799(IV) Peer relationship – Structural social capital

Participation in social activities with classmates and friends - Celebrating holidays .6838Participation in social activities with classmates and friends - Celebrating birthdays .6840

Table 2: Reliability analysis of family and school social capital and child subjective well-being

Alpha if item deletedSCHOOL SOCIAL CAPITAL

Participation in social activities with classmates and friends - Sports .6882Participation in social activities with classmates and friends - Watching movie .6896Participation in social activities with classmates and friends - Studying/reading groups

.6778

Participation in social activities with classmates and friends - In-depth conversations/sharing

.7011

Participation in social activities with classmates and friends - Inviting friends to one’s home

.6859

Reciprocity and trust with peers and schoolmates - Participate in study group to help each other

.6851

*Reciprocity and trust with peers and schoolmates - I was bullied by other children in school

.7032

(V) Peer relationship – Cognitive social capitalReciprocity and trust with peers and schoolmates - Others will help if I have difficulties in study

.6821

Level of trust – good friends .6904Level of trust – classmates .6894

(VI) Bonds between parents and schools – Structural social capitalParental involvement in school activities - Weekend activities .7075Parental involvement in school activities - Seminars organized for parents .7001Parental involvement in school activities - Parents meetings .7006

CHILD SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING (3 items) Alpha = 0.4130Self-reported happiness .2126*Feel pressured by schoolwork .4285Self-rated health status .3522

Table 2 (Continued….)

*negatively worded item (reverse coded)

Bond between children and parents (I)

Bond between children and parents (II)

Teacher-student relationship (III)

N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank

Sig. N Mean rank

Sig.

Gender .012 .468 .007

Male 681 633.00 702 636.58 716 666.49

Female 539 582.07 557 621.70 567 611.07

Number of children .032 .001 .000

Only one child 549 453.70 556 473.08 564 429.46

2 or more children 329 415.80 344 414.01 350 502.69

Household Registration in Shenzhen .000 .000 .000

No 475 449.07 490 471.16 497 572.70

Yes 517 540.07 523 540.57 534 463.23

Family structure .955 .309 .595

Two-parent family 923 491.87 946 505.83 960 513.24

Single parent family

60 493.98 60 466.71 63 493.12

Monthly family income

.000 .071.000

RMB < 2,000 123 405.74 123 438.73 125 558.47

RMB 2,000 - 4,999 297 456.51 312 481.13 320 550.92

RMB 5,000 - 9,999 231 491.19 238 515.28 239 511.14

RMB 10,000 - 19,999

178 550.26 179 532.36 183 447.43

RMB 20,000 - 49,999

99 513.42 97 490.78 100 384.36

RMB > 50,000 36 483.35 38 472.86 38 445.64

Table 3: Family and school social capital by family background and school characteristics

Bond between children and parents (I)

Bond between children and parents (II)

Teacher-student relationship (III)

N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank

Sig. N Mean rank Sig.

Parent’s education .000 .000 .000

Junior secondary or below 268 399.51 279 423.41 286 599.01

Senior secondary287 509.19 296 525.05 300 534.64

Non-degree 217 534.62 219 550.79 225 497.41Degree 183 570.62 182 553.25 183 438.32Master degree or above 41 557.61 44 587.48 44 350.03

Type of school .000 .000 .039Public school 947 632.08 970 664.74 986 630.94Private school 274 538.15 290 515.98 298 680.76

School band .000 .000 .0001 (Best) 317 694.24 320 678.53 325 518.212 435 656.53 448 691.69 453 661.263 219 499.43 225 552.51 234 606.924 250 523.97 267 535.98 272 790.38

School campus is safe.001 .000

.000

strongly disagree54 522.95 56 395.55 59 290.31

disagree 144 571.10 147 468.61 149 437.96agree 565 579.85 586 616.06 599 588.07strongly agree

442 652.76 456 709.62 464 805.42

Table 3 (Continued….)

Peer relationship (IV) Peer relationship (V) Bonds between parents and schools (VI)

N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank

Sig. N Mean rank Sig.

Gender .000 .266 .830

Male684 575.27 718

651.48

517 478.22

Female540 659.66 564

628.80

435 474.46

Number of children .933 .487 .005

Only one child542 437.43 567

453.83

488 378.75

2 or more children333 438.92 349

466.09

304 424.99

Household Registration in Shenzhen .000 .040 .009No

466 455.24 494497.0

4429 479.19

Yes520 527.79 538

534.37

481 434.37

Family structure .950 .907 .557

Two-parent family 922 490.36 962

512.77

850 451.24

Single parent family58 492.74 62

508.35

54 472.30

Monthly family income .003 .220 .001

RMB < 2,000118 406.13 127

504.63

111 533.00

RMB 2,000 - 4,999301 456.11 316

489.73

270 457.69

RMB 5,000 - 9,999230 520.91 242

494.01

218 421.90

RMB 10,000 - 19,999174 504.45 182

538.45

173 418.08

RMB 20,000 - 49,99998 484.26 100

474.07

83 408.39

RMB > 50,00037 516.43 38

571.54

35 444.46

Table 3 (Continued….)

Peer relationship (IV) Peer relationship (V)

Bonds between parents and schools (VI)

N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank Sig.

N Mean rank Sig.

Parent’s education .008 .271 .000

Junior secondary or below 270 443.30 286 512.84 251 514.31Senior secondary 288 505.85 298 498.83 268 465.64Non-degree 213 531.63 227 544.16 193 440.89Degree 178 517.22 184 520.98 163 406.18Master degree or above 43 508.17 44 581.18 44 399.08

Type of school .000 .009 .841

Public school 943 653.13 983 656.62 739 476.06Private school 282 478.82 300 594.08 214 480.25

School band.000 .002 .000

1 (Best) 317 667.37 325 661.37 242 425.602 429 646.05 452 680.05 344 491.663 219 626.49 234 578.78 164 438.344 260 480.82 272 610.01 203 544.67

School campus is safe .000 .000 .002

strongly disagree 55 446.97 59 388.52 39 459.10disagree 147 542.40 149 535.24 110 381.46agree 577 594.79 600 587.02 440 480.45strongly agree 442 675.39 466 766.72 353 489.77

Note: Kruskal Wallis Test

Table 3 (Continued….)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(1) SWB 1.650*** .757*** .639*** .245*** .434*** .337*** .342*** .265*** .052

(2) Self-reported happiness 1.239*** .275*** .269*** .407*** .306*** .368*** .318*** .053

(3) Feel pressured by school work

1.122*** .093** .315*** .237*** .168*** .085** .029

(4) Self-rated health status 1.193*** .174*** .165*** .213*** .202*** .035

(5) Bond between children and parents (I - SSC)1 .373*** .161*** .249*** .520*** .067*

(6) Bond between children and parents (II - CSC)1 .311*** .356*** .318*** .049

(7) Teacher-student relationship (III - CSC)1 .388*** .212*** .135***

(8) Peer relationship (IV - SSC)1 .345*** .092**

(9) Peer relationship (V - CSC)1 .050

(10) Bonds between parents and schools (VI - SSC)

1

Table 4: Correlations between child subjective well-being, and family and school social capital

*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

Table 5: Hierarchical regression of subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary school children by socioeconomic and demographic background, family and school social capital variables

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5Personal characteristics

Gender -.050 -.052 -.061 -.022 -.014Number of siblings -.046 -.033 -.027 -.013 -.023

Family backgroundHukou status in Shenzhen -.020 -.039 -.027 -.034Family income -.046 -.046 -.012 -.022Parent’s education .064 .043 -.011 .013Whether the parents got divorce -.054 -.057 -.039 -.038

School characteristicsSchool campus is safe .264*** .154*** .077*Type of school -.038 -.006 .015School band -.078 -.016 -.055

Family social capitalBond between children and parents (I - SSC) .116** .073Bond between children and parents (II - CSC) .401*** .326***

School social capitalTeacher-student relationship (III - CSC) .157***Peer relationship (IV - SSC) .042Peer relationship (V - CSC) .102**Bonds between parents and schools (VI - SSC) -.020

R .070 .099 .289 .520 .553R2 .005 .010 .083 .271 .305

Adjusted R2 .002 .001 .072 .260 .291F 1.776 .875 19.123*** 91.661*** 8.812***

R2 change .005 .005 .074 .187 .035

*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

Discussion and conclusions

Variations in family and school social capital could be explained by child’s differing socioeconomic and demographic background and school characteristics Girls, children who are the only child at home, family with household

registration in Shenzhen, parents with higher education attainment and monthly family income had strong interactions with parents and peers, and also close perceived parent–child and peer relationships

Children who have two or more sibling and do not have household registration had close perceived teacher–student relationship, and their parents had close connections with schools

Children studying in public schools, top rank schools (i.e. school band) (in terms of better school facilities, quality of teaching, extra-curriculum activities organized), and having good impression of school safety relatively with high level of family and school social capital

There were links between child’s perception of connectedness to their parents, peers, and teachers, and their positive child subjective well-being

/ …. continued

20

Discussion and conclusions

Limitations and contributions of this study The subject of the study mainly focused on 11–12 year-old children and it

might ignore significance of children’s age on their feelings about their own well-being (Huan et al., 2008; Wong et al., 2010)

The results of this study contributed to the literature by enriching our understanding of the extent of family and school social capital promoting positive subjective well-being among primary school children in transitional China

Findings of this analysis provide evidence for future child and family related service planning

Financial and social support from schools and teachers should be prioritized to children who are in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions. This is particularly true for migrant children without sufficient parental supervision and emotional support

school teachers can actively engage parents in their children’s educational experience through interactive communication (including face-to-face, telephone and text messaging)

21

2222

~ End ~

Thank you!