The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
THE ROLE OF “CONCERTED CULTIVATION” IN CHILDHOOD
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT GROWTH PROCESSES:
CLASS AND RACE DIFFERENCES FROM KINDERGARTEN
THROUGH THIRD GRADE
A Thesis in
Sociology and Demography
by
Jacob E. Cheadle
c© 2005 Jacob E. Cheadle
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
August 2005
The thesis of Jacob E. Cheadle was reviewed and approved∗ by the following:
Paul R. Amato
Head of the Department of Sociology
Professor of Sociology, Demography, and Family Studies
Thesis Advisor, Chair of Committee
George Farkas
Professor of Sociology, Demography, and Education
Nancy S. Landale
Professor of Sociology and Demography
D. Wayne Osgood
Professor of Crime, Law and Justice and Sociology
Suet-ling Pong
Associate Professor of Education, Sociology, and Demography
∗Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
Abstract
Drawing on longitudinal data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kinder-garten Class Cohort of 1998-1999, which follows children from kindergarten entry tothe end of third grade, this study assesses (1) the generalizeability of Lareau’s (2003)notion of ‘concerted cultivation’ and (2) the extent to which this concept mediates raceand social class differences in children’s general knowledge, mathematics, and readingachievement growth. In the first analytic stage, ‘concerted cultivation,’ as identified byLareau (2003) in a recent ethnographic study, is captured as a latent variable using in-dicators of (a) parental participation with school, (b) child participation in organizedleisure activities, (c) and academic resources in the home. Using traditional SEM andIRT modeling techniques, these items are conceptualized as the product of a higher-orderfactor, labeled ‘concerted cultivation,’ which embodies a cultural logic of child-rearing.Not only does the evidence support a generalization of Lareau’s (2003) observations froma small local sample to the U.S. population, the factor structure of concerted cultivationis highly stable over time and the latent construct varies positively with increasing socialclass and advantage on other sociodemographic characteristics, largely in accord withexpectations. The second analytic stage assesses (a) the association between concertedcultivation and children’s academic skills and (b) the role concerted cultivation plays inracial and social class disparities in achievement growth. Findings based on three-levelpiecewise growth models with school-level fixed-effects illustrate that the measure of con-certed cultivation is an important predictor of children’s early academic competencies,particularly at kindergarten entry, while also mediating race and class differences in chil-dren’s growth. Adjusting for concerted cultivation reduces the black-white reading gapto non-significance and mediates the Hispanic-white reading gap by over 40% at kinder-garten entry. Concerted cultivation typically reduces race and social class gaps in thegrowth parameters by 20%-40%, indicating a substantial reduction in coefficient magni-tude, although a significant proportion of race and class differences are left unaccountedfor. After including concerted cultivation along with the full covariate list, black childrencontinually lose ground in mathematics and reading during the school year, while Asianchildren gain significant ground relative to other children over the summertime. Con-sistent with a growing body of research documenting the importance of early childhoodexperiences in shaping later race and social class achievement disparities, this researchfurther points to the need for effective early childhood policy interventions to reducedisparities in children’s academic skill levels at kindergarten entry.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures viii
List of Tables xi
Acknowledgments xiv
1 Motivation & Introduction 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 The Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.3 Test Score Convergence Since 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.4 Individual-Level Differences in Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.5 Social Group Differences: Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.6 The Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171.7 Chapter Previews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2 Concerted Cultivation 202.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.2 ‘Concerted Cultivation’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222.3 Social Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.4 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4.1 Financial Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.4.2 Human Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292.4.3 Cultural Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Student Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.4.4 Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.5 The School & Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422.6 The Summertime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442.7 Summary & Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
iv
3 Data & Methods 493.1 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.1.1 The Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503.1.2 Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
General Knowledge Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Mathematics Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Reading Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.1.3 The Sample & Control Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Race & Social Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Child Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Family Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Additional Covariates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623.2.1 Concerted Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623.2.2 Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4 Concerted Cultivation 684.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.2.1 The Covariate List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694.2.2 The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714.2.3 1 Wave CFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734.2.4 3 Wave CFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754.2.5 Summary & Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.3 Predicting Concerted Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804.4 Concerted Cultivation: The Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5 General Knowledge Achievement 905.1 General Knowledge Achievement Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905.2 General Knowledge Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2.1 Non-Centered Growth Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Initial Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Kindergarten Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Summer Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971st Grade Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.2.2 Group-Mean Centered Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Initial Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103The Slope Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
v
5.2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065.3 Interactions with Concerted Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.3.1 Race x Concerted Cultivation Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . 1105.3.2 SES x Concerted Cultivation Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . 1135.3.3 SES x Race x Concerted Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.4 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6 Math Achievement 1226.1 Math Achievement Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.1.1 Non-Centered Growth Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Initial Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126The Kindergarten Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129The Summer Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130The 1st Grade Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130The 2nd − 3rd Grade Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.1.2 Group-Mean Centered Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Initial Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139The Slope Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.2 Interactions with Concerted Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1496.2.1 Race x Concerted Cultivation Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . 1496.2.2 SES x Concerted Cultivation Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . 1526.2.3 SES x Race x Concerted Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
6.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7 Reading Achievement 1597.1 Reading Achievement Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.1.1 Non-Centered Growth Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163Initial Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163The Kindergarten Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166The Summer Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167The 1st Grade Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167The 2nd − 3rd Grade Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.1.2 Group-Mean Centered Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175Initial Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176The Slope Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
7.2 Interactions with Concerted Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
vi
7.2.1 Race x Concerted Cultivation Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . 1867.2.2 SES x Concerted Cultivation Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . 1897.2.3 SES x Race x Concerted Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
7.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
8 Discussion & Conclusion 1978.1 Re-Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1978.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
8.2.1 Concerted Cultivation & Cultural Capital . . . . . . . . . . . 1998.2.2 Operationalizing ‘Concerted Cultivation’ . . . . . . . . . . . . 2028.2.3 Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
8.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
A Appendix 226A.1 Supplementary General Knowledge Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227A.2 Supplementary Math Achievement Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234A.3 Supplementary Reading Achievement Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Bibliography 250
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 How Unequal Schools Can Serve as Equalizers (Downey et al. 2004:614) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 NAEP Math Achievement Scores for 9 Year-Olds by Race and FreeLunch Eligibility (as a Social Class Indicator) for Selected Years . . 10
1.3 NAEP Reading Achievement Scores for 9 Year-Olds by Race andFree Lunch Eligibility (as a Social Class Indicator) for Selected Years 11
3.1 Graphical Depiction of Children’s Academic Growth Model . . . . 66
4.1 Graphical Depiction of the Concerted Cultivation CFA . . . . . . . 724.2 Item Characteristic Curves for Child Activities and Parent Partici-
pation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764.3 Between-Wave Correlations for ‘Concerted Cultivation.’ . . . . . . . 774.4 Concerted Cultivation by Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854.5 Concerted Cultivation by Social Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864.6 Concerted Cultivation by Social Class & Race . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.1 Graphical Depictions of Race Differences in Children’s General Knowl-edge Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st Grade from Ta-ble 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.2 Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s Gen-eral Knowledge Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st Gradefrom Table 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.3 Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s General Knowl-edge Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st Grade by Con-certed Cultivation from Table 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.4 Graphical Depictions of Group-Centered Race Differences in Chil-dren’s General Knowledge Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through1st Grade from Table 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
viii
5.5 Graphical Depictions of Group-Centered Social Class Differencesin Children’s General Knowledge Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 1st Grade from Table 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.6 Graphical Depictions of Group-Centered Differences in Children’sGeneral Knowledge Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st
Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.1 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Race from Table 6.2 . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.2 Graphical Depictions of Race Differences from Whites’ in Children’sMath Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade fromTable 6.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
6.3 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Social Class from Table 6.2 . . . . . . 135
6.4 Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 6.2 136
6.5 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 6.2 137
6.6 Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s Math Growth fromKindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivationfrom Table 6.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.7 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Race from Table 6.2, Group-MeanCentered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.8 Graphical Depictions of Race Differences from Whites’ in Children’sMath Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade fromTable 6.3, Group-Mean Centered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.9 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Social Class from Table 6.3, Group-Mean Centered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.10 Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table6.3, Group-Mean Centered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.11 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 6.3,Group-Mean Centered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.12 Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s Math Growth fromKindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivationfrom Table 6.3, Group-Mean Centered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
ix
7.1 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Race from Table 7.2 . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.2 Graphical Depictions of Race Differences from Whites’ in Children’sMath Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade fromTable 7.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
7.3 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Social Class from Table 7.2 . . . . . . 172
7.4 Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 7.2 173
7.5 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 7.2 174
7.6 Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s Math Growth fromKindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivationfrom Table 7.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.7 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Race from Table 7.2 . . . . . . . . . . 180
7.8 Graphical Depictions of Race Differences from Whites’ in Children’sMath Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade fromTable 7.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
7.9 Graphical Depictions Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Social Class from Table 7.3 . . . . . . 182
7.10 Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 7.3 183
7.11 Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from KindergartenEntry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 7.3 184
7.12 Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s Math Growth fromKindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivationfrom Table 7.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
x
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Typology of Differences in Child Rearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1 ECLS-K Weighted Sample Means, Standard Deviations, and Proportions for theTotal Sample, by Race and Social Class, for the Control Variables at Kinder-garten Entry (Approximate N = 14, 152) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.1 Measures Used to Specify the Concerted Cultivation CFA . . . . . . . . . . 704.2 Results for the Kindergarten Concerted Cultivation CFA. The ‘Discrimination’
Parameters are Analogous to Factor Loadings Standardized with Reference tothe Latent Variable, and the ‘Difficulty’ Parameters are Intercepts . . . . . . 74
4.3 Concerted Cultivation CFA at Kindergarten, First Grade, and Third Grade.The Item Discrimination Parameters are Standardized with Respect to the La-tent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.4 SEM Partially-Standardized Regression Coefficients for Models Predicting Con-certed Cultivation (N = 14, 152) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.5 Concerted Cultivation Distributional Characteristics by Race andSocial Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.1 Null Growth Models for General Knowledge Achievement Scores(IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade . . . . 92
5.2 Growth Models for General Knowledge Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kinder-garten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, ConcertedCultivation, and Selected Covariates (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3 Group-Mean Centered Growth Models for General Knowledge AchievementScores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade by Race,Social Class, Concerted Cultivation, and Selected Covariates (ECLS-K) . . . . 104
5.4 Race Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for General Knowl-edge Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring ofThird Grade (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
xi
5.5 Social Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for GeneralKnowledge Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Springof Third Grade (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.6 Race & Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for Gen-eral Knowledge Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until theSpring of First Grade (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.1 Null Growth Models for Math Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kinder-garten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.2 Growth Models for Math Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten EntryUntil Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, Concerted Cultivation, andSelected Covariates (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.3 Group-Mean Centered Growth Models for Math Achievement Scores (IRT) fromKindergarten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, ‘Con-certed Cultivation,’ and Selected Covariates (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.4 Race Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for Math Achieve-ment Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade(ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.5 Social Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for MathAchievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of ThirdGrade (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
6.6 Race & Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for Math-ematics Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Springof Third Grade (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.1 Null Growth Models for Reading Achievement Scores (IRT) fromKindergarten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.2 Growth Models for Reading Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten EntryUntil Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, Concerted Cultivation, andSelected Covariates (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.3 Group-Mean Centered Growth Models for Reading Achievement Scores (IRT)from Kindergarten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class,Concerted Cultivation, and Selected Covariates (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . 177
7.4 Race Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for Reading Achieve-ment Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade(ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
7.5 Social Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for Read-ing Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring ofThird Grade (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
xii
7.6 Race & Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for Read-ing Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring ofThird Grade (ECLS-K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
A.1 Proportion Reduction in Coefficient Magnitude Between Models forGeneral Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
A.2 Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Co-efficients for Table 5.2, General Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
A.3 Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Co-efficients for Table 5.3, General Knowledge, Group-Mean Centered . 229
A.4 Supplementary Models for General Knowledge Achievement withthe Full Covariate List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
A.5 Proportion Reduction in Coefficient Magnitude Between Models forMath Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
A.6 Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Co-efficients for Table 6.2, Mathematics Achievement . . . . . . . . . . 235
A.7 Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome RegressionCoefficients for Table 6.3, Mathematics Achievement, Group-MeanCentered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
A.8 Supplementary Models for Mathematics Achievement with the FullCovariate List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
A.9 Proportion Reduction in Coefficient Magnitude Between Models forReading Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
A.10 Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Co-efficients for Table 7.2, Reading Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
A.11 Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Co-efficients for Table 7.3, Reading Achievement, Group-Mean Centered 244
A.12 Supplementary Models for Reading Achievement with the Full Co-variate List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
xiii
Acknowledgments
The dissertation is a large project, unfolding not only in front of the computer orin conversation with engaging readings, but also in offices and at bars, with familyand friends and mentors. It is a topic for discussion or monologues that sometimesputs the other parties to sleep, and at other times simply bores them to politelyshed inner-tears. For all the prosaic conversation those writing dissertations imposeon other people, those other people probably never realize how lucky they are tohave the conversation and not word after word after word of text that evolve fromthe process, each little paragraph mounting the committee member’s backs withall the panache of little monkeys. Nobody gets it worse than the Advisor. Onemight be tempted to say, “That’s their job.” But the truth is, not all advisors arecreated equal, and I’ve been lucky in this regard.
I would like to thank my Advisor, Paul Amato, who, despite becoming Depart-ment Chair this last year, found time for weekly meetings and usually managedto get my chapter drafts to me on time. Not only was Paul a constant source offeedback, his management style was extremely patient, despite worries he no doubtnurtured that I would not finish. At some point one must quit dreaming up newmodels and reorganizing the substantive focus of the dissertation, and I know hequietly worried that I would never transition from that phase to the “I just wantthe thing done” stage. Not all advisors give their students so much freedom, andalthough I took a little longer to complete the dissertation than some, I’m thankfulfor having had the time and support to wander through the statistical issues whichwere apparent early on, and to which I was only able to incorporate partial solu-tions in this work. Even when the methods component over-awed the substantivefocus of the dissertation, Paul was supportive, although he often looked at me likeI was insane when I wandered in to his office babbling about a 24hr model runin WinBUGS. While powerful computers become increasingly ubiquitous, good dis-sertation chairs remain a precious commodity; they are the artists of professional
xiv
development.Paul, of course, was not alone in nurturing the interests that gave rise to this
dissertation. Without relying on any implicit ranking, I note two more faculty inalphabetical order, George Farkas and Sean Reardon. It was George’s stimulatinglectures that first interested me in student achievement, it was his idea that I usethe ECLS-K, it was George who gave me the last round of feedback on the finaldrafts of my dissertation, and it was at his suggestion that I met Sean. Aftermeeting Sean, I joined him on a project with Claudia Galindo that presaged myown work. Just as George’s conceptual discussions nurtured my growing interestsin childhood academic achievement, Sean’s approach to modeling the phenomena,as well as his remarkable ability to consider hypothesis testing, had a profoundinfluence on my methodological development. I suppose that Paul, George, andSean are the Academic Trinity to which this dissertation owes its narrow life, andto which much of my own development is indebted.
Other committee member played roles at various stages in the progress of mydissertation. Things get a little tangled at this point because Sean left PSU forStanford during the final year of work, necessitating some changes. The originalcommittee consisted of Paul Amato, George Farkas, Sean Reardon, Nancy Landale,and Bob Schoen. My thanks to both Nancy and Bob who were present for theinitial draft of my proposal. Before Sean left, he was both an outside committeemember and my “methodologist,” so Wayne Osgood and Suet-ling Pong joinedand finished the project after Sean left. My thanks to both Wayne and Suet-lingas well, who came on board late in the project.
Two more Penn State faculty played notable roles, although they were notexplicitly involved in the project. At a critical juncture, during which I presenteda job-talk based upon an earlier formation of the dissertation, Mark Hayward(along with George and Bob), offered some very helpful advice on the conceptualframing of my project. It was after this job talk that I picked up Lareau, seekinga richer theoretical framework around which to orient my work. To Mark, “Thankyou for coming to that talk and giving me some very serious advice on ‘windowdressing.’” Francis Dodoo, who I TA’d for in the Spring, was also present at thejob talk. My sincere thanks to Francis, however, stem from the freedom he allowedme while I worked with him.
Faculty may have the most conspicuous impacts on a dissertation, but they arenot the only influences, nor are they necessarily the most important. Through thisprocess, I’ve been lucky to have an understanding and supportive partner, BridgetGoosby, one who has already survived this performance herself. She knows I’mthankful, but now she can read it and know that at some point maybe as manyas six or seven people will have read it too. Two close friends here at Penn Statewere also important; friends who don’t fall asleep when you get too academic are
xv
as rare and precious as good advisors, and I extend my many thanks to (again,alphabetical) Paul-Philippe Pare and Mike Stout for their camaraderie and many(and ongoing) discussions.
Some few thousand miles back West live my family and the friends of adoles-cence and young adulthood. My parents, Richard and Suzanne Cheadle, and mysister, Lisa, have never hesitated to share their pride in me with me, nor have theyhesitated ever to support or encourage me. Thank you. The same goes through formy surviving grandmother, Elsie Olson, as well as the bulk of my extended-family.They’ve been asking for years when I’ll be finished; now, I guess. The same goes formy many friends back home, Eric McDaniel, Jim and Nicole Morrell, Eric Olson,Dan Schwert, Donney and Becky Legge, and Phil Lyne, to choose some names,perhaps too selectively. Whenever I visit back home, I also visit the faculty whofirst put forth the conceptual fireworks that attracted me to sociology. Thank youfor your many conversations Ed and Karen Stephan, and your early mentoringLucky Tedrow and Jay Teachman.
In addition to the excellent support offered by the Penn State sociology de-partment and the Population Research Institute, I was also fortunate to receiveexternal funding that helped to support this research. First and foremost: Thisresearch was supported by a grant from the American Educational Research Associa-tion which receives funds for its “AERA Grants Program” from the National ScienceFoundation and the National Center for Education Statistics of the Institute of Ed-ucation Sciences (U.S. Department of Education) under NSF Grant #REC-9980573.Opinions reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the grantingagencies. Secondly, the RGSO here at PSU purchased Mplus and some key booksthat allowed me to complete the analytic portion of the dissertation.
To all, thank you.
xvi
CHAPTER
ONE
Motivation & Introduction
1.1 Introduction
With passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization of
2001, commonly known as “No Child Left Behind (NCLB),” questions surrounding
social group1 disparities in children’s academic achievement have received new
impetus. The “high stakes” paradigm driving the development of NCLB has moved
the testing of academic competencies into the public spotlight in an unprecedented
fashion. By stipulating financial consequences for low-performing schools which
are unable to incrementally improve student performance over time, NCLB has
given the U.S. education system a new sense of urgency in its orientation towards
academic benchmarking via standardized testing. Given the potential financial
deficits for schools which are unable to meet state defined goals, there is a real fear
that the structural consequences of NCLB will ultimately prove to be yet another
detriment in the lives of children who are already significantly disadvantaged.
NCLB is a fundamentally optimistic piece of legislation, positing that academic
achievement gaps for different social groups can be minimized through a focus on
district-wide and school-level accountability. This raises an important question:
Do schools have the ability to erase race and social class achievement gaps? The
short answer to this question is simple: To the extent that schools are responsible
1I will often use “social group” when discussing broad social categorizations or when referring,in particular, to multiple social group categorizations such as ‘race’ and ‘social class.’
2
for the gaps, they should be able to eliminate them. As a piece of legislation, NCLB
does not explicitly posit an explanatory developmental model, yet there are strong
assumptions about the role environments play in academic achievement processes.
NCLB, by design, suggests that school and classroom characteristics which are
amenable to change are at fault for minority and low social class children’s gaps
in math, reading, and science.2
What is the role the formal education system plays in social group achievement
gaps? Schools, it would seem, must play an important role if they are to ameliorate
social group disparities. What if, in fact, family advantage is more strongly related
to academic achievement gaps, however? This is not a new question, and no
doubt policy makers and scholars alike were startled at the findings of the famous
Coleman Report (Coleman et al. 1966; see also Coleman 1972) which found, in
fact, that family background was the single most important predictor of student
achievement, followed by the characteristics of the student body. The evidence
demonstrating large skill differences between children when they are very young is
strong (Farkas and Beron 2004; see also Lee and Burkam 2003 for a discussion of
skill differences at kindergarten entry), and the family implication is well supported
in the developmental literature (e.g. Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov,
and Crane 1998a; Phillips, Crouse, and Ralph 1998b). With the attention paid to
schools in achievement processes increasing, researchers and policy makers would
be remiss to disregard other important sources of variation in children’s lives,
particularly during the often neglected early school years (Alexander and Entwistle
1989: 1).
More recent research suggests, in the words of Downey, von Hippel, and Broh
(2004), that schools are the great equalizer,3 ameliorating out-of-school disadvan-
tage. This claim is supported by evidence indicating that children uniformly grow
faster during the school year than over the summer time, variability in growth rates
are smaller during the school year than during the summer, and in many cases so-
2The School Readiness Act of 2003, which states that Head Start should be designed toprovide education-oriented training to prepare children for school, points out that the Bushadministration is not unaware of the importance of differences in levels of school readiness acrosssocial groups. See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/pdf/hs reauthorization.pdf.
3This is a allusion to Bowles and Gintis’s (1976) seminal work, Schooling in Capitalist America:Educational Reform and Contradictions of Economic Life.
3
cial group gaps also grow at smaller rates.4 In fact, research suggests that about
35% of the variance in children’s test scores at kindergarten entry resides between
schools, while about 15% of the variance in children’s growth rates is between
schools (Reardon 2003). This partitioning of the variance components suggests
that although children in different schools have disparate skills at kindergarten
entry and grow at different rates during school, there is more variability in growth
rates between children within schools. However, nearly 70% of the between-school
variance at kindergarten entry and about 15% and 26% of the between-school vari-
ance in kindergarten and first grade learning rates, respectively, is due primarily to
differences in the racial and social class composition between schools (Downey et al.
2004).5 Thus, much of the variability in between-school growth differences is due
to compositional differences, factors whose distributions are broadly structural and
largely outside the control of school policy. In addition, the school-compositional
disparities are themselves the aggregation of between-child social group disparities,
which indicates that much of the between-school differences in children’s growth
is due to extra-school factors such as the family.6
The studies cited above (e.g. Reardon 2003; Downey et al. 2004) show that
schools greatly increase children’s learning rates, but also demonstrate smaller vari-
ability in children’s learning growth across schools in relation to non-school factors.
As depicted in figure 1.1, which is taken from Downey and colleagues (2004: 614),
because there is less variability in school than non-school environments, disadvan-
taged children may actually benefit more from school than advantaged children. It
is important to note that the arrows in the figure represent growth rates relative
to out-of-school rates for each group, and not that disadvantaged children grow
faster when in school. When considered in this light, it is difficult to imagine how
schools are supposed to appreciably eliminate race and social class gaps when they
do not appear to be the primary source of social group difference. Without an even
4Black-white differences in growth are consistently larger during school, however.5Downey et al. (2004) do not compute the between-school R2 values in their paper. However,
since they do not group-mean center the between-student variables in their three-level model,their coefficient estimates are in fact correlated with their between-school random effects (seeRaudenbush and Bryk 2002). Decreases in the between-school variance components in this caseindicate the proportion of variance which would be explained if the group-means were includedin the between-school model.
6These between-school compositional differences could also proxy for other school character-istics.
4
Figure 1.1. How Unequal Schools Can Serve as Equalizers (Downey et al. 2004: 614)
Non-School Environment School Environment
High quality homes
and neighborhoods
Extremely poor homes
and neighborhoods
Excellent Schools
Poor Schools
Note: Because non-school environments vary more than school environments, a child from a disadvantagednon-school environment can attend a disadvantaged school and yet still enjoy a greater school benefit than achild from an advantaged non-school environment who attends an advantaged school.
larger, more comprehensive policy overhaul than NCLB, it is also unlikely that the
quality of schools advantaged and disadvantaged children attend will be equalized.
One certainly has a difficult time imagining a disadvantaged school populated by
children from advantaged families. The implication is that, at minimum, after
equalizing school environments, disadvantaged children would need to outperform
advantaged children who attend schools of the same quality, which is an unlikely
proposition considering children’s early school disparities.
Given the relatively modest proportion of the variance in children’s learning
rates that is due to schools,7 and the fact that a significant proportion of this
variance is in fact due to school characteristics outside of the school’s control, the
pertinent question is: What non-school factors are most importantly implicated in
children’s social group differences in academic competencies? In a recent ethno-
graphic study, Lareau (2003) reported pronounced social class differences in the
7To note that the between-school variance components are smaller than the between-childcomponents should not be taken to imply that schools are not important. They are. Schoolshave very large impacts on children’s learning, as one would expect, but the impacts are notas varied as one might expect either, even after considering the disparities that exist betweenschools (e.g. Kozol 1991).
5
way parents organize their own lives around their children’s, and in the way that
parents seek to configure their children’s lives, largely by structuring time outside
of school and through language use. According to Lareau (2002, 2003), parents
of different social classes seek to cultivate their children with strikingly dissimilar
strategies, with corresponding consequences for the skills and abilities children de-
velop. Lareau’s (2003) typology identified two categorically defined approaches to
child rearing, concerted cultivation and the accomplishment of natural growth.8
Because children begin school with acute skill dissimilarities, disadvantaged
children would need to learn at faster rates than their advantaged counterparts
when school is in session. This seems unlikely, and without great attention to
early childhood learning processes, NCLB will be a failure in reducing social group
disparities.9 The implication is clear: Educational policy needs to develop a viable
out-of-school, early childhood component which reduces children’s early disparities.
Understanding the family pathways through which initial skill differentials develop
and propagate over time is crucial in this regard (see Farkas and Beron 2003).
In this dissertation, I use a new nationally representative data set, the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class Cohort of 1998 (ECLS-K), to
assess the implications of a parenting strategy, which Lareau terms ‘concerted cul-
tivation,’ for children’s general knowledge, mathematics, and reading skill growth
from kindergarten entry through the spring of third grade. The research is orga-
nized around four fundamental questions: (1) Is it possible to operationalize ‘con-
certed cultivation,’ and is concerted cultivation identifiable in the population? (2)
How does the distribution of concerted cultivation vary across population groups
and subgroups? (3) What role does concerted cultivation play in race and so-
cial class differences in children’s general knowledge, mathematics, and reading
achievement at kindergarten entry? (4) What role does concerted cultivation play
in the temporal pattern of children’s growth in general knowledge, mathematics,
and reading skills once school begins?
8These concepts are defined in Chapter 2.9It must be noted, however, that NCLB could still be a success in one sense if it results in
system-wide increased performance.
6
1.2 The Family
Research suggests that early skill differentials among children accumulate over the
life-course (Farkas and Beron 2004) with broad implications for educational (Hart
and Risley 1995; Ensmigner and Slusarcik 1992; Alexander, Entwisle, and Horsey
1997; Teachman 1997; Teachman 1996; Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, and Carlson
2000), labor market (Murnane, Willett, Duhaldeborde, and Tyler 2001; Kerck-
hoff, Raudenbush, and Glennie 2001; Raudenbush and Kasim 1998) and general
life outcomes, implicating academic competencies in intergenerational poverty and
disadvantage transmission (Farkas 2003). Given the broad reach of educational
inequalities over the life course and across generations, it is not surprising that the
education system functions under constant scrutiny.
However, to the extent that family environments differ across social groups
and produce disparate achievement trajectories, early childhood experiences are
incriminated broadly over the life course, and consequently, across generations
too. Schools are not the sole arbiter of children’s academic competencies. The
reading and mathematics skills developed first within the family, then over the early
educational years, are cumulative, so children who do not acquire basic reading
and mathematics skills at the onset risk falling ever farther behind (Entwisle and
Alexander 1989, 1993). To the extent that poor and minority families are unable to
encourage the development of a strong cognitive foundation, do their children enter
and pass through the schooling system with important achievement disadvantages
that are the consequences of preschool experiences? Upon school entry, does the
role of the family diminish and fade to insignificance over time?
In Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, Lareau (2003) reports
differing parental perceptions by social class on the roles they as parents are ex-
pected to play in facilitating their children’s cognitive and noncognitive skills. This
detailed ethnographic research on twelve families demonstrates how the cultural
resources of parents can have powerful impacts on children’s life chances, drawing
into relief the diverse pathways through which the social stratification of family
life and childrearing coalesce to produce persistent inequalities in educational ex-
periences across diverse social groups. Higher class parents engage in what Lareau
termed ‘concerted cultivation’ in deliberate attempts to foster their children’s cog-
7
nitive and social skills, whereas less advantaged parents engaged in a collection
of practices she termed ‘the accomplishment of natural growth.’ Both cultural
repertoires represent parenting strategies and embody notions of cultural capital
as reflected in parents’ skills, habits, and styles (see Swidler 1986; Farkas 1990;
1996). Within an intergenerational framework, it is these parenting behaviors
through which parents transmit their human and social capital to their children,
perpetuating advantage and disadvantage across generations.
Parents vary importantly in the cognitive assets and the quantity of financial
and human capital they are able to employ for the benefit of their children’s devel-
opment. Do differences in the environments that parents are able to create for their
children in terms of the nurturative content, substance of their interactions, and
the materials they are able to make available create and perpetuate social group
differences in academic achievement? Parental styles of interaction, approaches
to learning, behavioral patterns, and habits of daily routines vary considerably.
Although social group differences in cognitive development are well documented
and implicated in intra- and intergenerational outcomes (Farkas 2003), it is less
certain how early differences in cognitive achievement propagate over time.
The research presented in later chapters is concerned with relating concerted
cultivation to child cognitive outcomes. One general way of asking the motivating
question is, “What role does the parenting strategy Lareau (2003) terms ‘concerted
cultivation’ play in fostering racial and socioeconomic disparities in childhood aca-
demic achievement?” Another way to frame the inquiry is, “How does concerted
cultivation influence children’s learning trajectories, and what role do these prac-
tices play in creating or perpetuation racial and socioeconomic outcome dispari-
ties?” Although educational researchers, sociologists, and developmental and fam-
ily psychologists have dedicated considerable time and effort to related inquiries,
this work is, to my knowledge, the first attempt to test Lareau’s (2003) model
using nationally representative data, although Lareau’s model is in many respects
consistent with approaches drawing upon the HOME (Bradley 1985) inventories in
the NLSY data (e.g. Farkas and Beron 2004; Guo and Harris 2000; Brooks-Gunn,
Klebanov, and Duncan 1996; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov 1997; Phillips,
Crouse, Ralph 1998a).
8
1.3 Test Score Convergence Since 1965
Cognitive achievement and IQ measures have shown persistent racial and socioe-
conomic differences over time. Although the original tests were biased by both
race and social class content, recent tests have significantly reduced this liability
(see Jencks 1998 for a discussion of racial bias in testing). While researchers’ test-
ing apparatus has improved, however, many of the social factors contributing to
racial and socioeconomic differences in cognitive achievement remain unmitigated.
Asian students generally score the highest on achievement tests (Sun 1998; Sue
and Okazaki 1990), for which they have been popularly labeled the “model minor-
ity,” followed by whites, and a variable ordering of black and Hispanic students.
Although Asian and Hispanic groups have long histories in the United States, as
aggregates they have only recently begun to be adequately represented in survey
data. Limitations remain, however. With the possible exception of Mexican Amer-
icans, the option of disaggregating Asian and Hispanic into their heterogeneous
constituents is generally not viable due to sample limitations. For these reasons,
longitudinal studies of racial disparities in test scores have focused primarily on
black and white students.
Using every major national survey of high school students since 1965, Hedges
and Nowell (1998), in the Black-White Test Score Gap, demonstrate that racial
differences in test scores have decreased over time (see also Kao and Thompson
2003; Alexander 1997; Cook and Evans 2000; Hauser 1995). However, black stu-
dents are still underrepresented in the upper tails of the achievement distribution,
a finding which holds across all types of tests (academic and vocational), and does
not seem to be changing. Grissmer, Flanagan, and Williamson (1998), in the same
volume, focus on why the black-white gap narrowed using the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP). According to the NAEP data, the gap decreased
more for adolescents (13 and 17 year-olds) than children (9 year-olds) throughout
the 1970’s and 1980’s. However, in the first six years of the 1990’s the gap between
white and black adolescents increased, although scores remained higher than they
were in the 1970’s.
Black children gained more than adolescents over the 1970’s but less during
the 1980’s. Except for a small increase in black children’s math scores relative
9
to whites between 1988 and 1996, black cohorts have registered small gains or
declines. However, Grissmer and his colleagues (1998) report that those gains
made by children appear to be sustained, and may even have increased over time.
The test score variance in mathematics fell for both black and white students be-
cause lower-scoring students gained more than their higher-scoring peers (Grissmer
et al. 1998). Among 9 and 13 year-olds, however, the variance in reading scores in-
creased because higher-scoring students gained more. Unfortunately, the evidence
suggests that the gap has stopped narrowing, and it is unclear if the gap has begun
widening again (Phillips, Crouse, and Ralph 1998). Grissmer, Kirby, Berends, and
Williamson (1994) have shown that Hispanic students have also made gains rela-
tive to whites. There is less evidence, however, of achievement score convergence
by socioeconomic status (Hedges and Nowell 1998).
Average NAEP10 math and reading test scores for 9 year-olds by race and free
lunch eligibility, as a social class indicator, are presented in figures 1.2 and 1.3.
Despite the fact that the political and media rhetoric in recent years has focused
on “failing schools,” the upward trend in math scores continued throughout the
1990’s and into the 21st century. All children made gains over this period, although
Hispanic and black children remain disadvantaged relative to white and Asian
children. These trends also indicate that the Asian advantage over other groups
has deteriorated slightly in recent waves while test scores have generally continued
to rise. Unfortunately the measure of social class available for these data is limited
to eligibility for reduced-price and free lunches and the timeline is based on only
three assessments. Basing trends on timelines this short is difficult, yet the graph
suggests that while math scores continued to grow for children not eligible for free
lunches, mirroring the white trend, math scores were stagnant for disadvantaged
children between 1996 and 2000, but improved significantly in 2003.
The reading scores presented in figure 1.3 bounce around so that distinguishing
trends from sampling fluctuations is a problematic exercise. To the extent that
gains between 1996 and 2002 were real, the upward trend appears to have been
largely derailed during the latest wave for all groups except Hispanic children.
More than assessing trends in the data, figures 1.2 and 1.3 illustrate that social
10These data are gathered from the online “The Nation’s Report Card,” available athttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/search.asp.
10
Figure 1.2. NAEP Math Achievement Scores for 9 Year-Olds by Race and Free LunchEligibility (as a Social Class Indicator) for Selected Years
190
200
210
220
230
240
NA
EP
Mat
hem
atic
s
1990 1992 1996 2000 2003Year
Total Not Elligible−−Free Lunch
Reduced Lunch Free Lunch
White Black
Hispanic API
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2003 Reading Assessments.
class differences (although poorly measured) are often the magnitude of differ-
ences found across race/ethnic groups. Perhaps because of the social visibility
and salience of race in American society, research often focuses on race differences.
Indeed, social class is often the pre-eminent explanation invoked to explain race
differences, yet social class inequalities within race/ethnic groups are often robust
and difficult to explain quantitatively. As this discussion moves forward, it is im-
portant to recognize that Lareau’s (2003) model, while possibly lending itself to
explaining race differences, is also a potentially important mediator of social class
differences in children’s test scores. Given that social class differences are similar
in magnitude to racial disparities, and appear to track them over time, social class
11
Figure 1.3. NAEP Reading Achievement Scores for 9 Year-Olds by Race and FreeLunch Eligibility (as a Social Class Indicator) for Selected Years
190
200
210
220
230
NA
EP
Rea
ding
1992 1996 2000 2003Year
Total Not Elligible for Free Lunch
Reduced Lunch Free Lunch
White Black
Hispanic API
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2003 Reading Assessments.
remains a potent source of differentiation among children in need of explanation.
1.4 Individual-Level Differences in Achievement
While not all studies have found substantial differences in children’s early academic
competencies (see Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson 1997 for inequalities at first
grade entry among Baltimore area students), studies by a number of authors across
numerous data sources report that early differences by race and social class are
pronounced (Lee and Burkam 2002 using the ECLS-K; Applebee, Langer, and
Mullis 1988 using NAEP; Farkas and Beron 2004; Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan,
12
Klebenov, and Crane 1998 using the CNLSY and IHDP; see also Stipek and Ryan
1997; Hart and Risley 1995 using The Social World of Children Learning to Talk).
The study by psychologists Hart and Risley (1995), which tracked a group of
children from 9 months to 3 years, is uniquely informative. Their study uncovered
vast differences in the linguistic culture of the home by social class (see also Heath
1983; Lareau 1987, 1989, 2003). Where children in professional families heard
2,150 words per hour on average, working-class children heard 1,250, and children
in welfare families heard only 620. The differences over the first three years of
life are staggering: 30 million, 20 million, and 10 million words for children from
professional, working-class, and welfare families, respectively. Children in different
social strata acquire vastly different vocabularies and correspondingly differing
amounts of knowledge about the world, which lead to important pre-kindergarten
differences in cognitive achievement.
In agreement with Hart and Risley’s (1995) findings, Farkas and Beron (2004)
report significant social group differences in children’s oral vocabulary and vocab-
ulary knowledge by 36 months of age (see also Jencks and Phillips 1998; Guo
1998). Lee and Burkham (2002: 1) use the ECLS-K11 to study children’s school
readiness at kindergarten entry, noting, “There are substantial differences by race
and ethnicity in children’s test scores as they begin kindergarten. Before even
entering kindergarten, the average cognitive score of children in the highest SES
group are 60% above the scores of the lowest SES group. Moreover, average math
achievement is 21% lower for blacks than for whites, and 19% lower for Hispanics.”
Race and social class differences in children’s academic skills at kindergarten
entry are marked. Given these large initial differences, how does previous research
suggest these differences change over time? Data drawn from a variety of sources
indicate that children of different social groups grow at different rates throughout
childhood. Using a sample of students from the Baltimore area, Entwisle and
Alexander and their colleagues report that although there are few black-white
differences in reading and math scores in first grade, their paths diverge over
time (Entwisle and Alexander 1992; 1994; Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson 1997,
2001). Low socioeconomic status Baltimore area children also have flatter growth
trajectories (Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson 2001).
11This is the same data used for the analytic sections of this work.
13
Meaningful disparities in the growth of children’s academic competencies are
convincingly documented using nationally representative data as well. Farkas and
Beron (2004) find broad differences in children’ oral vocabulary and vocabulary
knowledge growth throughout early childhood, with strong social group differences
in the assessment when children are younger. However, Farkas and Beron (2004)
find no widening of social group gaps in vocabulary during the school years, which,
as these authors note, may be a result of the more uniform vocabulary used in
school.
Bryk and Raudenbush (1988) observe that children whose mothers have lower
educational attainment perform less well on reading and mathematics tests and also
exhibit lower learning rates. In a similar vein, Boardman and colleagues (2002)
report that the children whose mothers have a low education fall increasingly
behind with age, as do black children. The achievement trajectories among black,
white, and Hispanic students differ in important ways. Racial disparities between
non-Hispanic black and white children increase steadily with age, more strongly
for reading than math scores, but while Hispanic children score lower than whites,
the difference remains constant over time. Boardman et al. (2002) also find that
the children whose mothers have a low education fall increasingly behind with age,
as do black children. The net result is the well known fact that black and Hispanic
and lower social class children acquire fewer reading and mathematics skills as they
age.
Reardon (2003) employs a three-level piecewise growth modeling strategy to
study the growth of reading and mathematics gaps by race and social class over
the kindergarten and first grade years. Although between-school compositional
factors appear to account for a significant portion of racial gaps in first grade
growth rates, out-of-school and within-school processes are strongly implicated in
children’s school readiness, differential growth rates over the summer, and over the
kindergarten year (see also Downey et al. 2004; Fryer and Levitt 2004). According
to Phillips, Crouse, and Ralph (1998a), who used a number of data sources, white
students who begin school with achievement scores at the population mean will
leave high school with scores that are still at the mean, whereas black students
drop significantly in the distribution. The estimated decrease from the mean is
sizeable, .34 standard deviations for math and .39 standard deviations for reading.
14
In addition, they found that (Phillips et al. 1998a: 254) 56% of the math gap and
43% of the reading gap at the end of high school can be attributed to the fact that
blacks begin school with fewer skills than whites.
Many minority children face double jeopardy since the race/ethnicity effects
that have been discussed so far reflect disparities in addition to socioeconomic
disadvantages in cognitive development. Higher poverty rates among black and
Hispanic children are well documented and are a persistent feature of more general
inequality patterns. In many cases, socioeconomic disadvantages are larger than
those documented across racial and ethnic categorizations.
The evidence is clear that children from different social groups begin school
with vastly different reading, mathematics, and general cognitive skills, and, fur-
thermore, that children continue to learn at different rates as they age. Under-
standing how and why is not only important for a theoretical understanding of
developmental processes, but also for decision making educators and policy formu-
lators. The movement to a national policy designed around ‘high stakes testing’
highlights the salience of social group differences in children’s academic compe-
tencies. If schools are to leverage their resources to maximum effect, policy needs
to be based on a clear understanding of developmental processes, within which
children’s family lives are strongly implicated. If the formal schooling system is
to achieve the goals outlined in NCLB of reducing social group achievement gaps,
the education system needs to become more involved in facilitating the learning of
children at younger ages.
1.5 Social Group Differences: Perspectives
Before beginning the more detailed discussion of Lareau (2003) and work relating
family characteristics to social group distinctions in academic outcomes, it is worth
embedding the family issues that are the core of this research into a broader net-
work of ideas on educational inequality.12 Phillips and colleagues (1998b) note two
competing perspectives employed to inform our thinking about racial differences
12The importance of intergenerational processes that have already been noted strike me ashaving significant implications for life-course studies, although this research is right-truncated atthe far left end of the age distribution whereas most life-course research is left-truncated to theright of center.
15
in mathematics and reading skills. In addition, I elaborate on and generalize these
perspectives to socioeconomic disparities, noting that racial and socioeconomic in-
equalities may be in large measure the product of differing processes, as evinced
by the residual race effects that are typically encountered in regression modeling.13
The first perspective has a developmental focus. According to this perspective,
social group differences in home environments result in differences in children’s
cognitive skill levels at the time they enter elementary school. Schools, therefore,
are not the primary source of social group differences and may not be able to
readily alter disparities. Rather, children in different social groups have recourse
to differing levels of human, cultural, and social capital through their parents, with
robust developmental consequences. Much of the work cited previously supports
this perspective (e.g. Farkas and Beron 2004; Coleman et al. 1966; Lee and
Burkham 2003), although family-based controls may not be sufficient to account
temporal patterns of change once children enter school (e.g. Fryer and Levitt 2004)
There are three primary ways that families under this framework can influence
children’s achievement: (a) Children may start school with baseline differences
that do not change over time. Although cross-sectional data have been shown to
support such a proposition, longitudinal data suggest that not all social group dif-
ferences in achievement are constant with age (e.g. Phillips et al. 1998; Downey
et al. 2004; Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson 2001; Fryer and Levitt 2004; Rear-
don 2003); (b) Because some families are not able to facilitate children’s learning,
disadvantaged children may evince flatter slopes, which means that differences
in child achievement grow over time. Previous studies, unfortunately, have not
been able to address this possibility sufficiently because data with adequate family
controls and school nesting have not been available. To the extent that schools
differentially impact academic growth rates and children are non-randomly allo-
cated to schools (Condron and Roscigno 2003), previous estimates are an unknown
admixture of between-child and between-school effects (see Raudenbush and Bryk
2002: 137, figure 5.1); (c) Children may learn the same amount in the school year,
but differential growth rates over the summer when students are out of school may
contribute to social group disparities (Entwisle and Alexander 1992, 1994; Alexan-
13Notably, Fryer and Levitt (2004), using the ECLS-K, largely explain black-white gaps inreading and mathematics achievement using only a small covariate list, suggesting that, at leastfor recent cohorts of children, black-white disparities are largely class and resource based.
16
der, Entwisle, and Olson 1997, 2001; Heynes 1978). In addition, (b) and (c) may
be combined, suggesting family influences throughout the year.
The second perspective noted by Phillips and colleagues (1998) comes in “strong”
and “weak” forms and is rooted in structural explanations for social group differ-
ences in children’s cognitive development.14 The general argument of this per-
spective is that neither initial skill inequalities nor home environments account for
cognitive skill differentials as children age. The “strong” version contends that
children start out with similar cognitive skills, but achievement disparities arise
when children’s teachers either ask too little of them, teachers are incompetent,
teachers are classist or racist, or other features of the school produce dispropor-
tionate benefits or detriments for one group over another. However, data from the
ECLS-K suggest that social group differences are already in place by the time chil-
dren enter kindergarten (Denton et al. 2000; Lee and Burkham 2002), and other
researchers have noted that schools may have a compensatory rather than negative
effect on children’s learning (Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson 1997; Downey et al.
200415). The “weak” version recognizes that students may enter school with differ-
ent skills, but that the gap widens as a result of schooling, which is consistent with
Fryer and Levitt’s (2004) and Reardon’s (2003) findings. Both the “strong” and
“weak” versions posit that social group differences in growth rates are principally
a function of school or classroom characteristics.
Of course, student differences may change over time due to some combination of
school and family influences. For example, students from homes where the parents
have fewer resources may exhibit lower growth rates, either during the school year,
over the summer, or both, and because their parents have low human and financial
capital they may also attend poor schools that are less able to foster achievement.
These students could face a double disadvantage in the case of lower socioeconomic
status, and a triple-disadvantage in the case of poor and minority children. How-
ever, data from Baltimore suggests that schools may have a compensatory rather
than a negative effect, at least for reading skill development (Entwisle and Alexan-
14The ‘reproductionist’ perspective on the role of schools in achievement gaps is drawn froman entirely different ideological perspective than NCLB and is largely inconsistent in the de-tails, although there may be apparent global similarities, i.e., schools are the principal culprit inachievement gaps.
15Black children during the kindergarten and first grade years being a key exception.
17
der 1994), which suggests that the achievement patterns evinced by children may
be a complex pattern of school and family influences, and that school influences
may be more complex than structural explanations for social group disadvantages
have suggested. As a study of the parenting strategies outlined by Lareau (2003),
the research presented here is concerned principally with the first perspective, al-
though the methodology employed allows the model to account for constant school
level relationships by comparing children in the same schools and estimating the
average within-school association (which, unfortunately, Downey et al. 2004 did
not do). In addition, the flexibility of the growth modeling approach utilized here
allows children’s growth to capture any of the above forms, although the models
used are not specified to test all of these many hypotheses.16
1.6 The Contribution
Before previewing the following chapters, it is worth taking a moment to note how
this work fits in with the larger literature from which it draws. This work makes
a number of important contributions to the existing literature on children’s family
lives and academic achievement. First, by addressing Lareau’s (2003) important
ethnographic piece17 with a different methodology, my research tests influential
findings that have been studied at the micro level, quantifying relationships and
assessing the feasibility of generalization to the U.S. population. Indeed, there
is a hierarchy of detail gathered across ethnographic research, smaller-scale de-
tailed psychological data sets, and the large scale survey enterprizes such as the
one leveraged here. Finding correspondence between ethnographic and survey re-
search offers insights into how the ethnographic research generalizes to the larger
population on the one hand, and provides insights into processes that are not
16The proximity of the family to developmental processes means that not all of these competinghypotheses need to be tested. If this were a study of school-effects, however, eliminating family-level selection processes would be a principal concern.
17This important work has received an impressive number of accolades, including: (1) AESACritics Choice Award, American Educational Studies Association. (2) C. Wright Mills AwardFinalist, Society for the Study of Social Problems, (3) Sociology of Culture Section Best BookAward, American Sociological Association, (4) William J. Goode Best Book Length Contibu-tion to Family Sociology Award, American Sociological Association, and (5) 2004 DistinguishedContribution to Scholarship Award, American Sociological Association Section on Children andYouth.
18
discernable in statistical analyses on the other.
Second, by elaborating key mediating mechanisms in social class and racial
disparities, this dissertation seeks to further clarify the pathways through which
social class is transferred intergenerationally. Indeed, because both race and social
class are implicated in so many ways over the life course, research highlighting the
development of race and class differences provides key details on group biographies
generally not observable when older samples are relied upon. Studies of adults,
for example, generally have little to say about the processes by which social group
disparities are reproduced, although they may control for retrospectively measured
covariates.
Third, little research has been conducted on children making the transition to
school using nationally representative, longitudinal data. This research elaborates
on the relationship between family environments and children’s academic growth
with a detail that has not been possible using prior data. Understanding the
family-achievement relationship when children are in school is important for policy
makers seeking to ameliorate race and class differences in educational outcomes. If
educational policies are to succeed, they must be designed with the whole gestalt
of children’s lives in view. The family-child dimension of academic achievement is
one piece of that puzzle, but one of profound significance. Hopefully, illustrating
family processes important for children’s scholastic growth will help policy makers
consider new ways to capitalize on the family as an important force in children’s
development. Capitalizing on these linkages is of great consequence when money
for policies is limited and every dollar spent must be spent to effect.
Finally, because children are assessed at the fall and springtime of kindergarten
and first grade, key hypotheses relating family environments to summer increments
and decrements can be assessed (see Cooper, Ni, and Charlston 1996). Previous
research has found evidence of race and class differences in children’s learning
rates when school is out. Clarifying the seasonal nature of learning is important
theoretically and has important policy implications as well.
19
1.7 Chapter Previews
Global differences in children’s growth have been discussed in some detail above.
In Chapter 2, I introduce Lareau’s (2003) concept of ‘concerted cultivation’ in
more detail, relating the notion of ‘cultural capital’ to prior work on children’s
academic achievement. The chapter ends with an outline of the research questions
guiding the analysis. Chapter 3 introduces the data and methods used to conduct
the subsequent analyses.
Chapter 4, the first analytic chapter, addresses the question of whether or not
concerted cultivation can be identified with extant survey data using non-linear
structural equation modeling techniques. In short, there is evidence that concerted
cultivation exists at the population level and that it is strongly associated with
social class as Lareau (2003) suggests, although there are important race differences
net of social class.
Chapters 5, 6, and 7 relate the measure of concerted cultivation to children’s
general knowledge, mathematics, and reading achievement growth, respectively. In
all cases, concerted cultivation is an important predictor of children’s school readi-
ness, in addition to playing a key role in mediating early social group disparities.
The largest reductions in coefficient magnitude occur for the black- and Hispanic-
white reading differences at kindergarten entry, with the black-white disparity
reduced to non-significance and the Hispanic-white gap reduced by approximately
40%. Over time, however, the black-white gap continues to grow for both the math
and reading tests, even when the full covariate list is included in the model. In
general, however, the largest reduction in coefficient magnitudes for the race and
social class indicators occurs when concerted cultivation is added the model. The
typical reduction across growth parameters and tests is between 20–40%, indicat-
ing on the one hand an important role for concerted cultivation in achievement
processes, but also that other factors play key roles.
Chapter 8 summarizes the research questions and points of agreement and
disagreement with Lareau (2003) and other evidence from the literature on early
childhood academic achievement. The second part of Chapter 8 attempts to draw
the gestalt of the earlier chapters into focus, integrating the results and discussing
future research avenues, limitations, and policy implications.
CHAPTER
TWO
Concerted Cultivation
Professionals who work with children, such as teachers, doctors, andcounselors, generally agree about how children should be raised... Thesestandards include the importance of talking with children, developingtheir educational interests, and playing an active role in their school-ing. Similarly, parenting guidelines typically stress the importance ofreasoning with children and teaching them to solve problems throughnegotiation rather than with physical force. Because these guidelinesare so generally accepted, and because they focus on a set of practicesconcerning how parents should raise children, they form a dominantset of cultural repertoires about how children should be raised. Thiswidespread agreement among professionals about the broad principalsfor child rearing permeates our society (Lareau 2003: 4).
2.1 Introduction
While professional’s may agree on the proper way to raise children, it is safe to
say that there is considerable heterogeneity in the U.S. population regarding par-
enting strategies. The idea that the behaviors and actions of parents enacting
these strategies are highly correlated and perhaps even stratified is of consider-
able interest. The notion, restated, is that the diversity in parenting strategies
is not simply deviations around a single overarching strategy, but is composed of
variability around multiple underlying strategies. This is, essentially, the position
taken by Lareau (2002, 2003) in her recent book on childhood and family life. Re-
21
searchers, generally constituting a stratum of individuals immediately implicated
in the quote beginning this chapter, are privy to knowledge of the forms generally
endorsed by child professionals—often implicitly and without overt rationalization,
as are other educated, professional parents. Not all individuals, however, are fully
knowledgeable of what Lareau (2003) describes above as the overarching, dom-
inant child-rearing ideology (see Chin and Phillips 2004 for a counter position).
And even in cases where parents are knowledgeable of middle-class norms, they
may raise their children from what is, ultimately, a meaningfully different script.
The cultural repertoires that parents adopt are often implicit, being more a
product of socialization than explicitly conscious, rational construction. Lareau
(2003) finds that not only do parents employ different strategies, but that the ‘plans
of action’ employed by parents vary importantly by social class, each embodying
their own cultural logic. This work is important because it goes beyond simply
detailing a list of potential covariates related to children’s home environments
by identifying a series of behaviors and actions that reflect parents’ underlying
strategies, which is a notion of sociological salience—given, in particular, the often
taken-for-grantedness of these strategies within social groups (Lareau 2003; see
also Kohn 1977).
Lareau’s research is part of a longer tradition which has noted meaningful class-
based orientations towards parenting strategies (e.g. Kohn 1977; Alwin 1984; the
works in Kohn and Schooler 1983). Being heavily influenced by Pierre Bourdieu
(1977a, 1977b, 1984, 1986; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977), Lareau fits into a broader
conceptual matrix seeking to both elaborate the notion of capital (see Farkas 1996,
for example) and to relate the various dimensions of capital to status attainment
processes. The key idea upon which Lareau draws in framing her discussion of
parenting strategies is the notion of cultural capital, which fundamentally operates1
at a level between the well established micro-level human capital paradigm highly
developed in economics and social capital (Coleman 1988), which has important
macro connotations (Portes 1988, 1998, 2000). In socialization processes, cultural
capital is, on the one hand, a means of transferring human capital from parents
to offspring, and, on the other, a means of generating social capital, connecting
1Although cultural capital is a macro level construct varying across social groups, such associal class, as a form of action, it is a quality of individuals.
22
children to a broader network of relationships. Cultural capital is a deep concept,
not only bridging the divide between human and social capital, but with important
implications for the way individuals come to see society and their place and roles
within it (Lareau 2002, 2003).
Academic achievement is but one of many dimensions of children’s lives within
which, via parenting strategies, cultural capital is implicated. Yet the development
of cognitive skills inherent in academic achievement processes is an important
dimension with consequences important in the development of individual biography
by opening up or limiting educational and labor market opportunities (Farkas
2003; Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Murnane et al. 2000; Kerckhoff et al. 2001;
Raudenbush and Kasim 1998). The remainder of this chapter explores these issues
in more depth.
2.2 ‘Concerted Cultivation’
In Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, Lareau (2003) reports differ-
ing parental expectations on their role in facilitating their children’s cognitive and
noncognitive competencies. These differing self-oriented expectations have impor-
tant consequences for the organization of children’s routines, which, in turn, have
consequences that ripple through children’s lives. These ripples, which are prod-
ucts of parental cultural resources, have powerful impacts on children’s life chances,
setting them on paths to academic success in some cases, and potential failure in
others. Parenting practices are the pathway through which the social stratifica-
tion of family life and childrearing coalesce to produce persistent inequalities in
educational experiences among and across diverse social groups.
Higher class parents engage in what Lareau terms ‘concerted cultivation’ in
deliberate attempts to foster their children’s cognitive and social skills. Less ad-
vantaged parents, in contrast, engaged in a collection of practices she termed ‘the
accomplishment of natural growth.’2 Both cultural repertoires represent parenting
strategies that embody notions of cultural capital as reflected in parents’ skills,
2I will often refer to simply ‘concerted cultivation’ rather than juxtaposing both concepts. Inaddition, I will at times refer to the ‘concerted cultivation paradigm’ when referring to Lareau’s(2003) model.
23
habits, and styles (see Swidler 1986; Farkas 1990; 1996). Within an intergenera-
tional framework, it is these parenting behaviors through which parents transmit
their human and social capital to their children, perpetuating advantage and disad-
vantage across generations and preparing children for life as members of particular
social classes (Kohn 1977).
Concerted cultivation is a concept capturing a goal-oriented series of prac-
tices parents adopt in order to prepare their children for immediate academic and
long-term labor market success. Higher social class parents in Lareau’s study
viewed concerted cultivation as their primary responsibility and, accordingly, par-
ents largely structured their lives in efforts to directly stimulate child development.
According to Lareau (2003, p. 238):
In these families, parents actively fostered and assessed their children’stalents, opinions, and skills. They scheduled their children for activi-ties. They reasoned with them. They hovered over them and outsidethe home they did not hesitate to intervene on the children’s behalf.They made a deliberate and sustained effort to stimulate children’sdevelopment and to cultivate their cognitive and social skills.
The process of concerted cultivation was one of continual engagement, whether
through the structuring of children’s time with formal activities, or by means of
language use designed to elicit responses from children, or interfacing with other
professionals on their children’s behalf.
Lower class parents generally perceived themselves as caretakers, providing
material resources and comforts to their children, often in the face of financial
difficulties.
The working-class and poor parents viewed children’s development asunfolding spontaneously, as long as they were provided with comfort,food, shelter, and other basic support. I have called this cultural logicof child rearing the accomplishment of natural growth... Parents whorelied on natural growth generally organized their children’s lives sothey spent time in and around home, in informal play with peers, sib-lings, and cousins... Unlike in middle-class families, adult-organizedactivities were uncommon. Instead of the relentless focus on reason-ing and negotiation that took place in middle-class families, there wasless speech (including less whining and badgering) in working-classand poor homes. Boundaries between adults and children were clearlymarked (Lareau 2003, pg 238)....
24
These parents clearly delineated the world of adults from the world of children, and
where middle and upper middle class parents expended great effort to structure the
lives of their children, largely relying on formal activities such as sports teams or
dance lessons in which children interact repeatedly with adults, lower social class
parents gave their children much greater freedom to structure their own activities.
Correspondingly, lower social class parents were much less involved in structuring
their children’s lives and were far less oriented in managing and encouraging their
children’s skill development.
These disparate strategies lead to different childhood experiences and orienta-
tions and are consistent with previous research on social class differences in par-
enting (Kohn 1977; Kohn and Schooler 1969; Kohn 1959; Duvall 1946; Lynd and
Lynd 1929). Table 2.1 presents a summary table from Lareau (2003: 31) depicting
the developmental ‘consequences’ of both parenting strategies. In Lareau’s study,
the lifestyle organization and child-parent interaction underlying the class-based
practice of concerted cultivation were continually orchestrated towards their chil-
dren’s development, whether the action was a conscious or unconscious adoption
of the cultural logic underlying the strategy. The distinctions in temporal organi-
zation between middle and lower-class parents, i.e., concerted cultivation and the
accomplishment of natural growth, were pronounced,3 as were the distinctions in
language use (as we will see with more detail below) and interactions with profes-
sionals. Although Lareau (2003: 244) suggests that the differences in experiences
between children raised in homes differing by social class and parenting strategy
should lead to advantages in standardized testing for children from homes practic-
ing concerted cultivation, this model has yet to be directly tested.
2.3 Social Class
Lareau’s (2003) discussion of concerted cultivation is fundamentally a discussion
about social class and the resources available to families of different classes. Among
sociologists and developmental psychologists, discussions regarding resources usu-
ally fall into a more general debate regarding socioeconomic status, and vice versa.
3For example, Lareau (2003: 264) was unable to find a “middle-class child who participatedin no organized activities.”
25
Table 2.1. Typology of Differences in Child Rearing
Child-Rearing Approach
Accomplishment ofConcerted Cultivation Natural Growth
Key Elements Parent actively fosters and Parent cares for child andassesses child’s talents, allows child to growopinions, and skills
Organization Multiple child leisure ac- “Hanging out,” particu-of Daily Life tivities orchestrated larly with kin, by child
by adults
Language Use Reasoning/directives DirectivesChild contestation of Rare questioning or
adult statements challenging of adultsExtended negotiations by child
between parents and General acceptance bychild child of directives
Interventions Criticism and inter- Dependence onin Institutions ventions on behalf institutions
of child Sense of powerlessnessTraining of child to take and frustration
on this role Conflict between child-rearing practices athome and at school
Consequences Emerging sense of entitle- Emerging sense of con-ment on the part of the straint on the part ofchild the child
Source: Leareau (2003), pg. 31.
Citing Mueller and Parcel (1981), McLoyd (1998: 188) defines socioeconomic sta-
tus as “an individual’s, a family’s, or a group’s ranking on a hierarchy according
to its access to or control over some combination of valued commodities such
as wealth, power, and social status.” Socioeconomic status is a (potentially mul-
tidimensional) latent construct,4 and so it is measured in various ways, gener-
4This type of latent construct is formative, as compared to reflective, that latter being thetype of latent variable modeling common in factor analysis and structural equation modeling(Skrondal and Rabe-Hesketh 2004).
26
ally including parental occupation, parental education, family income, and some-
times prestige, and power (McLoyd 1998). From this list of factors, one can see
that socioeconomic status is somewhat more stable than income measures because
parental education, in particular, is mostly a stable characteristic in adulthood; al-
though a parent may lose their job, if there are two parents, measures like parental
occupation may still be quite stable over time, though income itself can change
significantly.
Socioeconomic status, however, is used in the literature to denote individual,
family, or group differences other than simply wealth and power and social status
(Bradley and Corwyn 2002). In many cases it is used to reference differences in
parental skills, and noncognitive traits like parenting styles, and other behaviors
related to concepts like ‘concerted cultivation.’ These discussions operate at two
levels. On the first, the argument is “valueless,” that is, children from different
social classes acquire different skills, habits, and styles. On the second, these skills,
habits, and styles are rewarded differently based upon their similarity to those
of higher socioeconomic status group members who control the reward system
(Lamont and Lareau 1988). In discussions of cognitive achievement, it must be
noted, social class need not operate at the second level in all instances because
differences in skills, habits, and styles, imply real development; doing math, for
example, is not highly subjective and so is not subject to class biases in assessment,
and socioeconomic differences can produce outcome differences on these measures
(of course, the tests are probably not perfectly objective either).
While I will refer to socioeconomic status, or class, it is an imprecise language
for discussing children’s developmental trajectories on its own because it is ulti-
mately an agglomeration of characteristics, including its own mediating pathways.
To be more precise, socioeconomic status is a very general construct where the vari-
ables of interest are often implicit rather than explicit, a characteristic that makes
works like Lareau’s (2003), which is principally about the underlying mechanisms
of social class, insightful and important. The idea of human capital, developed by
economists (Shultz 1961, 1963; Becker 1964), and its more social derivations, cul-
tural (e.g. Lamont and Lareau 1988) and social capital (Coleman 1998), are useful
tools for specifying the family and social processes that are thought to produce
racial and socioeconomic differences in child developmental outcomes like academic
27
achievement.
2.4 Resources
At the beginning of a child’s life, the family, as the principle agent of protection and
socialization, establishes and catalyzes the child’s early cognitive development. Not
all families are able to provide equally for their youngsters, however. Some families
have a paucity of resources. These resources may be of different types: financial,
human, cultural, and social. Often, a deficit in one area implies a deficit in other
areas. In observing strong social class distinctions in parenting strategies, Lareau
(2003) observed distinctions in financial, human, and social capital resources.5 It
is this collection of resources that researchers typically refer to when they refer to
social class, and, within the larger discussion of ‘resources,’ concerted cultivation
represents an explanatory pathway through which these resources influence child
academic achievement.
2.4.1 Financial Capital
Financial capital has been found to be an important predictor of child outcomes,
although it seems that financial resources proxy for underlying class-based behav-
ioral patterns like concerted cultivation in many circumstances. Family income
appears to be more strongly related to children’s ability and achievement than
emotional outcomes (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997). Economic deprivation may
be most harmful to children’s life chances when it occurs early in life (Duncan
and Brooks-Gunn 2000), and persistent poverty has more adverse effects than
transitory poverty on preschool children’s cognitive development. Although the
association between the timing of poverty and children’s cognitive achievement is
not entirely clear (Smith, Brooks-Gunn and Klebanov 1997), timing appears to
become more important as children age into adolescence (Guo 1998). In general,
5Social capital deficits in Lareau’s (2003) study were somewhat more ambiguous by socialclass than for financial and human capital. While higher social class parents had greater accessto educational knowledge through parental networks, these families appeared to be less inte-grated with their local neighborhoods and extended-family members. This, to a certain extent,highlights the multidimensional nature of social capital. For a more thorough discussion, seeHorvat, Weininger, and Lareau (2003).
28
however, children who experience depressed economic situations, whether they be
of long or short duration, do not do as well as children who do not experience
poverty (McLoyd 1998).
Financial resources are important for child development by determining access
to academic resources, quality institutions such as better schools, in addition to
providing the basic necessities of life like adequate nutrition. Guo and Stearns
(2002), for example, note that parents with more resources, by providing numer-
ous types of cognitively stimulating materials, allow their children to choose the
resources they enjoy most, increasing the likelihood they will dedicate more time
to those materials.6 Indeed, access to material resources provides opportunities
for young children not only to play with the stimulating materials that they enjoy,
but as Lereau (2003) observed, financial resources also create opportunities for
experiences like participation in structured activities (e.g. soccer club), which is
so important in the cultural capital paradigm.
Chin and Phillips (2004) raise the question of whether or not differences in
observed levels of concerted cultivation are fundamentally the product of differing
levels of financial resources available to parents. They note that many parents
in their ethnographic study are familiar with the cultural logic of concerted cul-
tivation but are unable to acquire the goods and services to translate their goals
and desires into action. Lareau (2002: 771-772) also discusses the role of financial
resources, noting that, “[i]t is the interweaving of life experiences and resources,
including parents’ economic resources, occupational conditions, and educational
backgrounds, that appears to be most important in leading middle-class parents
to engage in concerted cultivation...”
Middle-class parents often were preoccupied with the pleasures andchallenges of their work lives. They tended to view childhood as a dualopportunity: a chance for play and for developing talents and skills ofvalue later in life...
Working-class and poor parents’ conceptions of adulthood and child-hood also appeared to be closely connected to their lived experiences.For the working class, it was the deadening quality of work and thepress of economic shortages that defined their experience of adulthoodand influenced their vision of childhood. It was dependence on pub-lic assistance and severe economic shortages that most shaped poor
6They discuss this in the context of environmental-genetic interactions.
29
parents’ views. Families in both classes had many worries about basicissues: food shortages, limited access to healthcare, physical safety, un-reliable transportation, insufficient clothing. Thinking back over theirchildhoods, these parents remembered hardship but also recalled timeswithout the anxieties they now faced. Many appeared to want theirown youngsters to concentrate on being happy and relaxed, keepingthe burdens of life at bay until they were older (Lareau 2002: 771).
Financial resources, on the one hand, have lasting implications for parental views
on child-rearing and the ability for parents to realize these views, and on the
other, do not sufficiently explain social group gaps in achievement (Mayer 1997).
For this reason, it is necessary to expand the notion of ‘capital’ so that it embodies
characteristics of individuals and families that in many cases are more proximate
‘causes’ of childhood academic achievement processes.
2.4.2 Human Capital
Coleman (1988) considered human capital to be the most original and important
development in the economics of education. Farkas (1996: 9), in a similar vein,
begins by noting the essentially complete triumph and broad applicability of the
concept. The basic idea of human capital is that ”[j]ust as physical capital is
created by changes in materials to form tools that facilitate production, human
capital is created by changes in persons that bring about skills and capabilities
that make them able to act in new ways” (Coleman 1988: 100). Human capi-
tal is an individual characteristic since it resides within people. Thus, children’s
achievement trajectories are the rate of human capital development, and changes
in reading and math skills imply changes in individual productive capacities. Of
course, human capital embodies more than simply reading and math skills, and
to some extent may be specific to the outcome of interest (for example, skilled
craftsman and mathematics professors have differing levels and kinds of human
capital). Like socioeconomic status, it is a latent construct and cannot be mea-
sured directly, although parental cognitive skill and education are two common and
important indicators for studies of children’s academic achievement. However, the
definition of human capital does not immediately imply how parents foster their
children’s human capital development. In this sense, human capital is no more
30
transparent than the more general notion of ‘socioeconomic status’ in elaborating
the processes surrounding children’s skill acquisitions.
The human capital perspective is derived from an intellectual root quite dif-
ferent from sociologists’ concern for socioeconomic status, although in current
thinking these two factors are inextricably intertwined. Where class position em-
phasizes group membership and the shared understandings that constitute group
culture, the human capital paradigm has traditionally emphasized atomistic indi-
viduals engaged in rational, economizing action, “based upon their exogenously
given tastes and endowments of biologically determined skills and abilities. Con-
sequently, group differentials in schooling and training attainment, and in conse-
quent outcomes such as earnings, must be attributable to essentially ‘accidental’
group differences in such tastes and natural abilities” (Farkas 1996: 9). The ra-
tional choice perspective within which the notion of human capital was developed,
particularly as traditionally espoused by human capital economists, ignores the
embeddedness of individual economic action in culture and social structure (Gra-
novetter 1985). Thus, while human capital is an important idea, it is limited and
must be extended both for conceptual reasons and for lack of transparency when
considering intergenerational processes.
2.4.3 Cultural Capital
Tied-up with disparities in financial and human resources, Lareau (2003) and her
team witnessed a further stratification in the cultural logic underlying parental
behavior and actions regarding their children that transcend bank accounts and
endowments of personal productive capacity. Farkas (1996: 10; see also Hodson
and Kaufmann 1982 [cited in Lamont and Lareau 1988]) notes that “on the one
hand, human capital economists offer no realistic understanding of what appears
to be extremely different educational ‘investment’ by poor and minority groups.
That is, the economists’ emphasis on individual choice is blind to patterns of cul-
tural resources and influence as well as choices that are made for the individual by
other persons.” Human capital and rational choice need a mechanism for social re-
production other than exogenous tastes and preferences since neither is randomly
distributed in the population. To be more specific, correlations within-groups over
31
time imply that although tastes and preferences may be exogenous influences on
young children, they are endogenous to the group, so eventually offspring repro-
duce these social or cultural forms. However, the individual, rational choice aspect
of social reproduction means that these forms are never perfectly reproduced. Re-
ferring to the Farkas cite at the opening of this paragraph, for child development
a perspective reconciling individual action with group dynamics that translates
human capital intergenerationally is needed.
Cultural capital has been posited as that mechanism, or series of mechanisms.
This perspective is rooted in the writings of Bourdieu (1977a, 1977b, 1984, 1986;
Bourdieu and Passeron 1977), namely the concepts of cultural capital and habi-
tus. Two difficulties immediately present themselves to researchers interested in
‘cultural capital.’ First, Bourdieu’s own writings lack clarity, giving rise to inter-
pretational difficulties (Lamont and Lareau 1988; Kingston 2001). Second, Bour-
dieu’s conceptualization was based on the context in France, suggesting that his
vision of ‘cultural capital’ does not have the same meaning in the United States.
Importantly, Kingston (2001: 91) notes, when discussing Lamont’s (1992) U.S.
based study regarding “the symbolic boundaries that upper-middle-class men in-
voked to separate themselves from others and, reciprocally, to define their own
sense of group identity. In establishing their own symbolic boundaries, these men
expressed little concern about cultural orientations—decidedly less than they did
about moral and economic considerations,” which stands somewhat in contrast to
France.
In response to these ‘difficulties,’ cultural capital has been expressed in a num-
ber of ways, some arguably more consonant with Bourdieu’s original intent, others
more ‘Americanized.’7 Lamont and Lareau (1988: 156), for example, defined cul-
tural capital as “institutionalized, i.e., widely shared, high-status cultural signals
(attitudes, preferences, formal knowledge, behaviors, goals, and credentials) used
for social and cultural exclusion.” This widely regarded definition in the education
literature is notable for highlighting the exclusionary and often arbitrary nature
of cultural signals. Social groups have their own distinctive subcultures that are
transmitted to their offspring. These subcultures are signalled through actions,
i.e., habits and styles, with within- and between-group implications. According to
7Referring to the United States.
32
this interpretation, cultural capital is a signaling mechanism that is rewarded by
educators when the appropriate forms are followed. That is, high or middle-class
cultural forms are reified by teachers and school administers, while the forms char-
acterizing lower class and disadvantaged groups are denigrated. McLoyd (1998:
193), for example, has argued that “teachers tend to perceive poor and low-SES
students less positively and to have lower achievement expectations than for non-
poor children, largely on the basis of noncognitive considerations (e.g., speech
patterns and dress).” This implies that the important roles that parents play in
facilitating their children’s education operates, at least in large measure, by influ-
encing children’s development of social styles and ability to signal class position,
rather than directly through actual knowledge acquisition and cognitive skills.
In another ethnographic study, Lareau (1989) pointed to differences in parental
interaction with schools by socioeconomic status as an important mediator of chil-
dren’s schooling experiences. Higher class parents were more comfortable with
teachers and were more likely to intercede on their children’s behalf. Lower class
parents, on the other hand, were largely disengaged from their children’s teacher
and the school. These different behaviors not only prepared children differently
to interact with teachers, but also played a role in defining teacher-student rela-
tionships. There are also important differences in parenting practices that may
play an important role in miscommunication been teachers and their young stu-
dents of different social classes. According to Heath (1983), lower-class and black
parents engage their children with different speech patterns than middle-class par-
ents. Lower-class and black parents use restricted codes and are more likely to
use directives (“Don’t do that.”) whereas middleclass parents use elaborated codes
that draw children into conversation (“Why are you doing that? Could you stop
please?”). Lareau (1989; 2003) has discussed similar patterns (see also Hart and
Risley 1995) and noted that parents applied discipline differently to children by
socioeconomic status (Lareau 2002, 2003; Kohn 1977). These differing styles of
speech and punishment patterns may result in the behavioral difficulties more of-
ten found among lower class than upper class students because children whose
parents use directives and physical punishment may misunderstand the serious-
ness of their teacher’s warnings regarding their behavior since they come to expect
anger to be expressed with directives and physical punishment threatened when
33
their parents finally “get serious” with them. Middle-class students, on the other
hand, are raised with a different set of expectations that are more consonant with
their teacher’s expectations. For instance, rather than giving directives, questions
are asked (“Would you please sit still?”), and physical punishment or its threat
are anathema in the classroom.
So far, the preceding cultural capital discussion suggests that social differences
in child academic outcomes result from the parent-teacher/school interactions be-
cause the middle-class educational culture does not accommodate disadvantaged
children’s non-cognitive behaviors. However, as other researchers have noted, cul-
tural capital is more than a series of signals (see Kingston 2001 for a discussion); it
directly produces tangible skills by transmitting styles and behaviors that are more
than simply class-based signals (Swidler 1986; Farkas 1990; 1996). From this per-
spective, which it can be argued is more ‘productivity based’ along a U.S. model,
the “general cultural background, knowledge, disposition, and skills” (MacLeod
1987: 13) of cultural capital are emphasized–which I have referred to previously
as skills, habits and styles, following Farkas (1996). Embedding this democratized
version of cultural capital into the previous discussion (of Heath 1983, Lareau
1987, 1989, and Hart and Risley 1995) for instance, suggests that the middle-
class speech patterns with which children are raised encourages children to think
critically, justify their actions, and requires them to think about their actions in
relation to those around them; these speech patterns are one of the hallmarks of
‘concerted cultivation’ and represent a potentially important means of cognitive
skill acquisition for children.
Embodied in the disparate, class-based speech patterns of concerted cultivation
and the accomplishment of natural growth are skills valuable in the educational
enterprise. This aspect of cultural capital conforms more with a developmental
perspective that views child development as an outgrowth of family processes,
parenting styles, and environment, with real implications for children’s human and
cultural capital formation, and not simply the result of values placed on the skills
by the dominant class and its gatekeepers.8 In addition, there is an ‘impersonality’
involved in standardized testing, so while teachers may downgrade students who
8Of course, the signaling component of concerted cultivation may take on renewed importanceat the extreme right tail of the social class distribution (e.g. Mills 1956).
34
‘miss-signal,’ it is less clear how signalling mechanisms could bias more objective
test scores downward, particularly when skill differences are found so early in
children’s lives (see Chapter 1). The early skill differences are important for the
skill-oriented perspective because one could argue that teacher encouragement (e.g.
the McLoyd 1998 cite earlier) and tracking via a class-based selection method biases
standardized test scores downward. While this may still occur, early childhood
differentials clearly suggest that the skill-based component is much larger, at least
at kindergarten entry.
In all likelihood, cultural capital in American society is not merely a signalling
mechanism or simply a concept adequately (or necessarily meaningfully) opera-
tionalized as highbrow culture, a la Bourdieu (see for example DiMaggio 1982;
DiMaggio and Mohr 1985). Within this Americanized tradition, Lareau’s (2003)
discussion9 of concerted cultivation posits that parenting strategies lead to cog-
nitive skill differences (at least as measured by standardized tests) that are the
results of different environments and experiences that parents create for their chil-
dren based upon the cultural logic (i.e., cultural capital) of their preferred parent-
ing strategy in addition to proficiency in signaling competencies to professionals.
These skill differences represent a significant class-based advantage because parents
by social class utilize parenting strategies based upon dissimilar cultural logics.
Quantitative research demonstrates that social class indictors such as family
income and the mother’s education may largely operate through parental skills
and habits by shaping the home environment (Guo and Harris 2000; Mayer 1997;
Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, and Duncan 1996; Smith, Brooks-Gunn and Klebanov
1997). Furthermore, indicators of socioeconomic status have been associated with
parenting styles that have indirect effects on achievement through home skill-
building activities and school behavior (DeGarmo, Forgatch, and Martinez, Jr.
1999). Bradley and Corwyn (2002) also find that higher socioeconomic parents
engage children in more conversations, read to their children more, and provide
more teaching experiences. Their conversations are richer, contain more contingent
responsiveness, include more efforts to elicit child speech, and their teaching style
includes more scaffolding and complex verbal strategies (see also Hart and Risley
9Whereas Lareau’s (1989) earlier work was mostly concerned with the traditional signal-basedconception of cultural capital, her more recent work (2003) appears to have ‘softened,’ allowingfor developmental consequences of parenting strategies as manifestations of cultural capital.
35
1995; Smith, Landry, and Swank 2000).
A key notion that has not yet been defined here is that of ‘habitus,’ which
“is composed of attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of those inhabiting one’s social
world” (MacLeod 1987: 15; See also Dumais 2002). As seen in table 2.1, these
practices further lead to a disparate habitus by social class, resulting in an emerging
sense of entitlement for advantaged children, and what Lareau describes as an
emerging sense of constraint in reference to professionals (e.g. teachers, doctors,
etc.) for lower-class children (see also Kohn 1977; Bowles and Gintis 1976 also
discuss how schools encourage the indoctrination of class-based habitus). The
implication is that concerted cultivation, as a manifestation of cultural capital, is
driven by the habitus of parents, and this habitus is consequently reinforced in
children with the obvious implications for the intergenerational transfer of social
class.
Student Achievement
Numerous studies have attempted to directly operationalize and test notions of cul-
tural capital as high-brow culture (Dumais 2002; Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997;
DeGraaf 1986; Di Maggio 1982; Downey 1995; Ganzeboom, DeGraaf, and Robert
1990) and/or educational resources (Teachman 1987; Blake 1981; Downey 1995;
Burkam, Ready, Lee, and Logerfo 2004). In a paper entitled The Unfulfilled
Promise of Cultural Capital Theory, Kingston10 (2001: 89) argues that “(1) defined
in terms of exclusionary class-related practices and dispositions, cultural capital
does not substantially account for the relationship between social privilege and
academic success and (2) too many conceptually distinct variables have come to
be placed under the big umbrella of cultural capital, creating a distorted sense of
what accounts for academic success.” As Dumais (2002: 49) further notes, “there
is no consensus on what cultural capital means, whether it has an effect, or what
the effect is.” In addition, most studies of cultural capital deal with adolescents,
rather than children. One notable exception using the ECLS-K found few effects
and that, furthermore, the measures of cultural capital did not explain social class
differences in young children’s learning rates over the summertime (Burkam et al.
2004).
10Lareau begins her 2002 piece addressing Kingston (2002).
36
As Lareau’s (2003) work is relatively recent, no quantitative studies have yet
attempted to operationalize cultural capital as a concept such as ‘concerted culti-
vation.’ Given the clarity of Lareau’s research, this sort of conceptual reorientation
represents an a potentially important improvement over previous research for two
important reasons. First, Lareau’s (2003) work is observation-based and not sim-
ply derived from the available covariate list in survey data. Second, given the
broad range of measures researchers have utilized in attempting to operationalize
cultural capital (e.g. Kingston 2001), concerted cultivation is a potentially unify-
ing, theoretically justified construct. Furthermore, there is a large body of research
on children’s achievement that provides a significant amount of indirect evidence
consistent with the concerted cultivation paradigm.
Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo, and Coll (2001a) use the NLSY HOME inventories
(Bradley 1985) to document significant and meaningful differences in the cultural
capital available in the home environments of children by race and socioeconomic
standing in a way largely consistent with that described in Lareau’s (2003) dis-
cussion of concerted cultivation. Black11 and Hispanic mothers respond less often
to their children, and across all ethnic groups and age groups, non-poor mothers
are more likely to show both verbal and physical affection, and are more likely to
respond verbally. Less affluent parents are also more likely to spank their chil-
dren. Black and Hispanic parents read to their children less often than white and
Asian parents, poor mothers are much less likely to read to their children prior
to school entry, and non-poor mothers are twice as likely to read to their children
three or more times a week. There are also race and socioeconomic differences
in the extent of father involvement with children. When Bradley and colleagues
(2001b) assessed the role of the home environment on early motor and social devel-
opment, vocabulary development, academic achievement, and behavior problems,
consistent relations with the learning environment were found, while parental re-
sponsiveness and spanking varied as function of the outcome, age, ethnicity, and
poverty status. Importantly, Lareau (2003) observed differing distributions of these
various sources of influence by parenting strategy.
A significant portion of the race and socioeconomic differentials in cognitive test
11It should be noted that Lareau (2003: Appendix A) finds few differences by race, but itshould further be noted that she had a very difficult time recruiting middle-class blacks into thestudy.
37
scores have been explained in a way consistent with the concerted cultivation par-
adigm using variables detailing family environments (Parcel and Menaghan 1994;
Duncan, Brooks-Gunn and Klebanov 1994; Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov and Dun-
can 1996; Smith, Broods-Gunn, and Klebanov 1997). Using data from the Infant
Health and Development Program (IHDP), Brooks-Gunn and colleagues (1996) re-
port that black children scored approximately one standard deviation lower than
white children on a measure of IQ, but accounting for ethnic differences in poverty
reduced the race coefficient by more than half. Including differences in the home
environment like the amount of cognitive stimulation, a goal consistently enter-
tained by parents practicing concerted cultivation, reduced the ethnic differentials
by an additional 28%, and explained the influence of mother verbal ability and ed-
ucation. Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, and Crane (1998) used both
the NLSY and IHDP to document that although socioeconomic status accounts for
a good proportion of the race gap, including measures of the cognitive environment
attenuates the race coefficient by more than half, and decreases the magnitude of
socioeconomic effects. The IHDP results further suggest that better parenting
measures might explain even more of the gap.
Utilizing the NLSY, Guo and Harris (2000) fully mediate the influence of family
poverty on children’s intellectual development using measures of cognitive stimula-
tion in the home, physical environment of the home, and the child’s health at birth.
Even with these controls, however, they are unable to completely erase the black-
white difference across test scores. Importantly, Guo and Harris (2000) also found
that maternal education has indirect effects on intellectual development through
cognitive stimulation, while maternal ability (AFQT) had direct effects, and also
operated through cognitive stimulation and parenting style (see also Farkas and
Beron 2004).
Indicators of socioeconomic status have been associated with better parenting,
which has indirect effects on achievement through home skill-building activities and
school behavior (DeGarmo, Forgatch, and Martinez, Jr. 1999). Mothers frequency
of stimulation is also important (Smith, Landry, and Swank 2000). In a unique
study of children’s vocabulary growth, psychologists Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley
(1995) tracked a group of children from 9 months to 3 years. Their study showed
that in addition to the differences in content mentioned by Heath (1983) and
38
Lareau (1987, 1989, 2003), children in professional families heard 2,150 words per
hour on average, while working-class children heard 1,250, and children in welfare
families heard 620. The differences over the first three years of life are staggering;
30 million, compared to 20 million, compared to 10 million words for children from
professional, working-class, and welfare families, respectively. Children in different
social strata acquire vastly different vocabularies and correspondingly differing
amounts of knowledge about the world, which lead to important pre-kindergarten
differences in cognitive achievement.
Senechal and LeFevre (2002) report that children’s exposure to books is related
to children’s receptive language, and parental involvement is linked to children’s
emergent literacy. Smith, Landry, and Swank (2000) show that mothers verbal
scaffolding (specifying relations between objects, actions, and concepts) is impor-
tant for understanding individual differences in children’s cognitive skills. Bradley
Rock, and Caldwell (1987) find that academic achievement among black children
is related to the responsiveness of parents and the general emotional climate of
the home, growth fostering materials, paternal involvement, and the physical en-
vironment are also related, although more modestly and less consistently. Bradley
and Corwyn (2002) also find that higher socioeconomic parents engage children
in more conversations, read to their children more, and provide more teaching
experiences. Their conversations are richer, contain more contingent responsive-
ness, and include more efforts to elicit child speech. Their teaching style includes
more scaffolding and complex verbal strategies. In another detailed study, Landry,
Smith, Loncar, and Swank (1997) report that parenting behaviors that are sensi-
tive to children’s focus of interest and that do not highly control or restrict their
behaviors predicted greater increases and faster rates of cognitive language and so-
cial development. Children whose mothers used more restrictive styles have lower
growth rates.
The foregoing discussion highlights a number of parental behaviors, such as
language and use of stimulating materials, related to children’s academic compe-
tencies that are reflective of the underlying parenting strategy that Lareau (2003)
termed ‘concerted cultivation.’ Taken together, these results suggest both that
concerted cultivation is an important predictor of academic success and that con-
certed cultivation captures a macro-level concept and is not simply an artifact of
39
the small samples with which Lareau (2003) was working.
2.4.4 Social Capital
Cultural capital12 has had different meanings for different authors: highbrow cul-
ture, socioeconomic signaling mechanism, and more proximate skills, habits, and
styles used to transmit human capital intergenerationally—all of which are cor-
rect. Whereas financial and human capital inhere in the family and individual,
cultural capital, as the product of interactions, exists within individuals, families,
and social relationships, and so it operates at multiple levels. Cultural capital is
the realization of human and financial capital, but it is also a mode of action whose
value lies in interaction with other individuals. Thus, Farkas (1996: 11) notes that
cultural capital “is compatible with Ogbu’s (1974, 1978, 1986) emphasis upon the
negative schooling effects of castelike minority status.” This is the case because
behavior styles are learned both within-families, from parents and siblings, and
in broader social contexts like peer groups at schools. As noted by Wilson (1996:
72), “skills, habits, and styles are often shaped by the frequency at which they are
found their own community” and
ghetto-related behaviors often represent particular cultural adaptationsto the systematic blockage of opportunities in the environment of theinner city and the society as a whole. These adaptations reflect inhabits, skills, and styles, and attitudes [i.e., habitus] that are shapedover time (Farkas and Beron 2001: 9-10).
Community resources and patterns of relationships can influence children’s cog-
nitive and noncognitive development. People use these social relationships instru-
mentally, which denotes another form of capital, social capital (Coleman 1988).
As with cultural capital, social capital has been conceptualized in more than one
way (see Portes 1998, 2000). Commenting on Bourdieu’s writing on forms of cap-
ital, Portes (1998:4) notes, “through social capital, actors can gain direct access
to economic resources” and that “they can increase their cultural capital through
contacts with experts or individuals of refinement.” Portes (1998: 6) goes on to
12Although I do not specifically incorporate social capital into the modeling framework com-prising the analytic chapters of this dissertation, I discuss social capital to complete the discussionon ‘resources.’
40
state that “the consensus is growing in the literature that social capital stands for
the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks
or other social structures.” This derives specifically from Coleman’s (1998) original
definition of social capital.
However, the focus on the instrumental nature of social capital limits the ap-
plicability of the idea, and constrains it to behavior that does not seem consonant
with a complex social world. For example, the influence of peers on cultural cap-
ital in Ogbu’s (1974, 1978, 1986) work has non-positive educational consequences
by virtue of the effects on student behaviors, styles, skills, and attitudes, but the
influence is clearly a function of social capital. Students must adapt their behavior
so that they can access their social networks, which implies that social capital is
not simply vertically oriented, as is the case with financial and human capital, but
can operate horizontally as well. This is not really surprising when we think about
it, however, since we imagine that the role and effect of social capital will vary
depending on the outcome. With the simpler, unidirectional definition of capital,
more is more and less is less, which is not always the case with social capital.
Sometimes more is less and less is more because social capital moderates as well
as mediates social processes, which is exemplified by Ogbu’s work.
The oppositional culture example also leads to a second interpretation of so-
cial capital, the community definition (Portes 2000). Portes (2000) notes that
early community-based definitions suffered from circularity of logic and tautologi-
cal statements, but that more recent conceptions have been better specified. The
literature on contextual effects often wants to get at community-based concepts
of social capital. Raudenbush and Sampson (1999) discuss the development of
ecometrics, the ecological analog to psychometric measures. Collective measures
of social cohesion and control are an attempt to measure the emergent influence
of social capital. Whereas the individual conception of social capital is a “sum is
equal to its parts argument,” the collective, community-based conception is a “the
sum is greater than the whole of its parts” argument. Thus, in Ogbu’s work the
influence of social networks on cultural capital is not simply the result of individual-
level relationships, but is also the product of collective organization, or community
effects that influence individual behaviors and subsequently, cognitive and noncog-
nitive development. The process denotes feedback loops since students who do not
41
behave in certain ways will be unable to access the social capital that inheres in
relations among students, but following the proper behavioral forms replicates the
context and fosters the qualities of the social capital that arise within the context
and consequently influences cultural and human capital development in specific
ways.
Social capital can take a variety of forms, from the acquisition of information
through friendship networks, to implicit collective monitoring of the young based
upon reciprocal relationships, to the formation of formalized institutional arrange-
ments. Zhou and Bankston (1998) in a study of a Vietnamese community in New
Orleans provide a rich account of a community with an impressive degree of social
capital, although the parents lack high levels of financial and human resources.
Not only do Vietnamese in the community use informal networks to acquire infor-
mation, the information about their children and their children’s friends operates
on both levels discussed above. First, they garner immediate information about
youth, but secondly, the combined networking (application of social capital) has
an emergent effect of collective monitoring and sanctioning. These informal mech-
anisms encourage noncognitive behaviors in the children of the community, which
fosters academic achievement. The dense associations also became institutional-
ized into Vietnamese language and academic institutions, which translated directly
into cognitive skills.
Each form of capital is a dimension of a more fundamental concept: resources.
While the amount of resources available to a family for the purposes of their chil-
dren’s development seems quite simple on the surface, the preceding discussion
highlights how diverse the resources employed in raising the young are. While fi-
nancial and human capital are relatively “clean” concepts, the issues get “dirtier”
when we consider cultural and social capital because they reside partially within
and partially outside individuals in group contexts born of their social relationships
and the relationships of those around them. The problems are further compounded
when thought of as strictly individualized concepts, rather than as part of a larger,
more integrated schema, because there is certainly a significant degree of endo-
geneity in the system since one form of capital can facilitate gains in another.
However, despite ambiguities (and occasional contradictions) in these concepts,
employing them is useful because together they unify the concept of resources,
42
specify the mediating pathways of socioeconomic status (and to some extent de-
fine it), and embed the rational choice paradigm (perhaps imperfectly) into a social
framework. Furthermore, doing so allows individual-social structure interactions,
posits within-individual developmental consequences, and is consistent with both
continuity and change across generations.
The purpose here has been to review social capital, for completeness, as a type
of resource available to children through their parents in the context of resources.
Social capital, however, will not be treated substantively in the analysis phase,
although it must be noted that the underlying strategies of concerted cultivation—
participation in formal activities and parental involvement with other professionals
is likely help to create social capital for children. Lareau (2003) also notes, how-
ever, that families of different social classes have differing types of social capital,
with non-concerted cultivation families having more access to local, informal and
familial networks. In terms of academic achievement, however, one would clearly
suspect that the social capital developed and accessed by higher social class fami-
lies is more importantly related to children’s success (e.g. Horvat, Weininger, and
Lareau 2003).
2.5 The School & Classroom
The role that the family environment plays in the perpetuation of racial and so-
cioeconomic differentials falls into a larger discussion that includes school contexts.
Entwisle and Alexander (1993) note, along with Lareau (1988, 2003), that differ-
ences between the home and school environments for children who are not from
the middle class can be dramatic. Social group differences in cultural capital have
meaningful influences not only on the tangible skills that students bring with them
to school, but also on how those skills are shaped.
Lower SES children are much more often identified by their kinder-garten teachers as being at risk for serious academic or adjustmentproblems; they are absent more in first grade; and they receive lowerteacher ratings on behaviors related to school adjustment such as inter-est/participation and attention span/restlessness [the latter two stronglypredict later academic progress; see Alexander, Entwisle, and Dauber1993] (Entwisle and Alexander 1993: 407).
43
In addition,
The conventions of the school, with its achievement orientation, itsexpectations that children will stay on task and work independentlywithout close monitoring, its tight schedule of moving from lesson tolesson, its use of ’network’ English, its insistence on punctuality, andits evaluation of children in terms of what they can do instead of whothey are all can be daunting (Entwisle and Alexander 1993: 405).
Parental characteristics such as income and education probably play an impor-
tant role in determining the family’s residential location, which in turn influences
school access (Roscigno 1998). Somewhat independently of socioeconomic status,
racial bias in housing and lending markets importantly determines residential loca-
tions allocated to different social groups, with whites garnering the more favorable
locations (Massey and Denton 1993; Yinger 1995). Research suggests that segre-
gation between non-Hispanic whites and black, Hispanic, and Asian students, is
increasing, while segregation between black, Hispanic, and Asian students is de-
creasing in metropolitan areas (Reardon, Yun and Eitle 2000). Moreover, there is
substantial social group variation between schools and less variation within schools
in the earlier than later grades (Entwisle and Alexander 1993). This homogeneity
arises because elementary schools have smaller catchment areas that match resi-
dential neighborhoods (Entwisle and Alexander 1989). For these reasons, both the
social climate and organizational characteristics of schools may vary significantly,
imparting benefits for some groups relative to others.
Entwisle and Alexander’s (1992; Entwisle, Alexander, and Oldson 1997; En-
twisle and Alexander 1994; Alexander et al. 2001) research points to the impor-
tance of school composition, which was more important for reading achievement
than for mathematics. Even the poorest black children did better on math tests in
integrated than segregated schools, but scores diverged significantly for whites and
blacks in same-race segregated schools. One major finding was that the students in
integrated schools progressed more slowly over the school year than expected, par-
ticularly the black students. Although black children in racially segregated same-
race schools did better in winters, they tended to lose ground over the summers. In
fact, the black students in integrated schools learned more over the two-year study
only because of their much larger summer gains. Net of parental education and
44
gender, the white children’s reading scores did not differ significantly in winter or
summer by whether or not they attended a white-segregated or integrated school.
The purpose here is not to conduct a full-blown review of school and/or school-
ing effects, but to remind readers that compositional details are an important
consideration in studies of children’s academic achievement. These sources of vari-
ation will not be treated substantively in the analysis phase, however. Rather,
methods adjusting for relatively constant school-level factors will be used to elim-
inate confounding between parental and school characteristics.
2.6 The Summertime
At the nexus of discussions regarding family and school influences on achievement
are studies considering summer vacation influences on children’s test scores. These
studies are important because they break the year into two components: when
school is in session and when school is not in session. Separating school and family
effects can be difficult because parental characteristics and school characteristics
can be correlated in important ways (Roscigno 1998; Entwisle and Alexander 1989,
1993). In the summers, however, when children are not in school, families are the
most proximal source of influence on children’s academic growth. Thus, summer
slopes have been thought to provide the most accurate estimates of family influ-
ences on children’s achievement. Unfortunately, research on summer learning has
received little attention in the literature because of the data requirements (tests
must be administered in both the fall and spring for two years to provide estimates
of the school year and summer slopes).
Following students over time at multiple points in a year makes it possible
to begin disaggregating school from family effects. Although most large data sets
that have repeated measures are spaced too broadly to capture the seasonal nature
of learning, at the time of their publication, a review by Cooper, Nye, Charlton,
Lindsay, and Greathouse (1996) found that 39 studies had been conducted over the
course of the 20th century. Their meta-analysis of the 13 most recent and method-
ologically sound studies indicated that the summer break was more detrimental
for math than reading and that lower-class students’ reading skills decreases in the
summer while middle-class students’ skills remained the same or increased slightly.
45
The estimated magnitude of the summer differential was .1 standard deviation, an
amount that does not sound impressively large until one considers the temporal
nature of the learning process and realizes that summers over time can contribute
significantly to social group differences in achievement unless schools are able to
make up these losses.
The research by Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2001), Entwisle and Alexan-
der (1992, 1994) and Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson (1997) is notable because
their studies of Baltimore students begin in the first grade and captures summers.
On the whole, Alexander et al. (2001: 183) report that disadvantaged children
“keep up during the school year, but before they start first grade and in summers
between grades the out-of-school resources available to them are not sufficient to
support their achievement.” Although they found that black students had lower
math scores than white students, they were not the result of differences in either
summer or school-year learning (Alexander et al. 2001), unlike the findings of
Heynes (1978) who studied older children.
The patterns were somewhat different for reading than for mathematics (En-
twisle and Alexander 1994; Alexander et al. 2001). Although they found no racial
differences in reading scores once summer learning was accounted for, during the
school year both white and black children whose parents’ education levels were low
gained as much or more than their more advantaged peers, but when school was
open they fell behind. In some cases, the scores of children whose parents had low
education levels actually decreased over the summer.
More recent studies using the nationally representative ECLS-K have also at-
tempted to shed light on summer learning by looking at student gains between
kindergarten and first grade. In one study, black children, for example, were found
to learn fewer math-based skills over the summer, although there were no race
differences for reading (Lee et al. 2004). Higher social class children learned more
and lower social class children less, per expectations, for both math and reading
over the summertime. The evidence in their study that cultural capital, opera-
tionalized as a series of activities, is related to children’s summer learning is sparse
and not meaningfully related to race differences or class differences in children’s
reading, although class differences in math were somewhat ameliorated. Using a
more complex modeling strategy and different covariate list, however, Downey and
46
colleagues (2004; see also Reardon 2003 [who did not include Asians in the analy-
sis]), although using the same data, did not replicate Lee et al.’s results. Downey et
al. (2004) found that children gained few reading skills over the summer, although
Asian and higher social class children grew at significantly higher rates. All chil-
dren were found to learn math skills over the summer, with Asians again accruing
a significant advantage. There were no social class differences in children’s math
growth rates over the summertime.
The extent to which cultural capital, specifically concerted cultivation, differ-
entiates children’s summertime learning rates or is implicated in race and class
differences remains an open question—with both theoretical and policy implica-
tions.
2.7 Summary & Research Questions
Lareau’s (2003) concerted cultivation paradigm represents an important elabo-
ration which unifies two (sometimes disparate) conceptions of cultural capital.
Clearly resolving these conceptual distinctions13 is important because cultural cap-
ital is an idea important for understanding social class globally, in addition to
playing a key role in understanding the role of class and resources in the intergen-
erational transmission of advantage. On the one hand, researchers often consider
cultural capital principally a series of signals which are mostly arbitrary in nature,
while others have broader conceptualizations including aspects of the home envi-
ronment. Lareau’s (2003) work on parenting strategies illustrates the interplay of
these two perspectives, unifying them by elaborating the underlying cultural logic
with which parents act.
The practice of concerted cultivation is identifiable through a number of child-
oriented activities and parental behaviors. In seeking quickened child development,
parents who identify with its cultural logic expend great effort to structure their
children’s time through formal, organized activities. In doing so, these parents
seek to acquire experiences for their children that they hope will have lasting con-
sequences on their development through the accumulation of skills and beneficial
habits. Concerted cultivation practicing parents also tend to be more active with
13Which, admittedly, not all researchers acknowledge exist or consider particularly important.
47
teachers and other professionals, rarely hesitating to intercede on their children’s
behalf. These parents actively search for new learning materials and speak differ-
ently to their children, engaging them in conversations and encouraging them to
rationalize and defend their own actions, sometimes to the later irritation of parents
who discover that they are raising little ‘lawyers,’ and their children are not always
as obedient as they would prefer. Concerted cultivation is a very child-oriented
approach to raising children. While parents who follow the forms associated with
the accomplishment of natural growth no doubt care equally for their children,
they allow their children to develop in a more natural, relaxed fashion, without
the continuous drive towards the development of skills.
Lareau’s (2003) work raises a number of questions which will be addressed in
the analytic portion of the dissertation:
1. Do the parental behaviors and child activities identified by Lareau (2003),such as child activities, parental involvement with the school, and learningmaterials, covary systematically in a way consistent with the concept of ‘con-certed cultivation’?
2. Is ‘concerted cultivation’ stable over childhood? Given that concerted cul-tivation represents an underlying, often implicit strategy, the expectation isthat families should rank consistently on this measure over time.
3. How does concerted cultivation vary across population subgroups? Lareau’s(2003) observations suggest that (1) the association of concerted cultiva-tion with social class should be large, and (2) social class should be a moreimportant predictor than race. How this parenting strategy varies acrosspopulation subgroups is a question of considerable interest.
The experiences and nature of linguistic interaction between children and adults
in concerted cultivation oriented families implies real consequences for children’s
cognitive development (Lareau 2003: 244). In response, a second set of questions
relating concerted cultivation to general knowledge, mathematics, and reading
achievement are posed:
1. How is concerted cultivation related to children’s kindergarten readiness?Prior research suggests that children from families practicing concerted cul-tivation should have accrued significant advantages in school readiness bykindergarten entry.
48
2. Is concerted cultivation related to children’s growth over the summertime?Since schools are out of session, home environments are expected to be relatedto children’s growth over this period.
3. Does concerted cultivation have an impact during the school year after ad-justing for stable school and parental characteristics? If so, how strong isthis association, and does it account for race and social class differences ingrowth rates?
The following chapters turn to these questions in detail. Does large scale-
survey data representative of the United States population find support for or
against Lareau’s (2003) insightful and telling work? These results are important
not only for testing important ethnographic research, but also because understand-
ing the genesis of social group disparities in academic achievement is important in
a world of limited resources where familial disadvantage is all too often reproduced
and perpetuated across generations despite the best efforts of parents and child
professionals.
CHAPTER
THREE
Data & Methods
3.1 Data
The data used1 for this study are drawn from the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K). Developed under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES), the ECLS-K is a longitudinal study focusing on children’s early school
experiences beginning at kindergarten entry.
In general, the ECLS-K focuses on children’s 1) transition to school, 2)schooling and performance in the early grades, and 3) the interactionof school, family, and community... The four key issues addressed bythe ECLS-K are 1) school readiness; 2) children’s transitions to kinder-garten, first grade, and beyond; 3) the relationship between children’skindergarten experience and their elementary school performance; and4) children’s growth in math, reading, and general knowledge (i.e., sci-ence and social studies) and progress through elementary school (pg.2).
The holistic approach to children’s developmental issues across contexts and over
time makes the ECLS-K the most appropriate data set currently available to study
the relationship between parenting strategies and children’s academic achievement.
1The information for this section is from the ECLS-K Project Summary,http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/pdf/ksum.pdf.
50
3.1.1 The Design
The sampling frame2 for the ECLS-K is rather complex, being of a multistage
cluster design. First, primary sampling units (PSU) were drawn from 1990 county-
level population data and updated with information from the 1994 population
estimates of 5 year-olds by race-ethnicity from the U.S. Census Bureau. The
updated information on race was used to construct a measure of size to facilitate
the oversampling of Asian and Pacific Islander children (henceforth Asian). In the
next stage, a sample of 100 PSUs was drawn and then stratified based on size,
race, and 1988 per capita income.
Third, a sample of public and private schools offering kindergarten was drawn
from the sample of PSUs using the 1995-96 Common Core of Data3 (CCD) and the
1995-96 Private School Universe Survey4 (PSS). In 1998 the school sampled was
freshened so that newly opened schools or schools with newly available kindergarten
programs that were not in the CCD and PSS could be included. In addition,
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Department of Defense (DOD) were directly
consulted since schools run by these organizations are generally not included in
the CCD. Within each PSU, schools were selected with probability proportional to
the size of the kindergarten cohort with public and private (divided into religious
vs. nonsectarian) schools constituting distinct sampling strata. “Within each of
these strata, schools were sorted to ensure good sample representation across other
characteristics” (pg. 4-5). After freshening the sample and ensuring eligibility of
schools, a total of 1,277 schools were drawn, 914 public and 363 private.
In the final stage, a sample of children was drawn from within schools using a
complete list of all kindergartners, including those with special needs.5 Within each
school, children were stratified into ‘Asian’ and ‘all other’ children with the goal
of 24 students per school.6 “Once the sampled children were identified, parent
2Information from this section is taken from NCES (2000) unless otherwise noted.3U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of
Data, Public School Universe Survey, 1995-96.4U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Private School
Universe Survey, 1995-96, NCES 98-229, by Stephen P. Broughman and Lenore A. Colaciello.Washington, DC: 1998.
5Note that classroom clustering was not built into the sampling frame. The ECLS-K consti-tutes a sample of schools, not classrooms.
6For the school sampling, in same cases small schools were grouped together.
51
contact information was obtained from the school” (pg. 4-8). Approximately
21,000 children were drawn into the sample, although for various reasons the sample
with available child data was 19,173, and the sample with some parent data was
18,097.
The first round of assessments took place in the fall of kindergarten. Children
were assessed in the spring of kindergarten, a 20% random subsample was assessed
in the fall of first grade, and the full sample was assessed again at the spring
of first grade and the spring of third grade.7 The sample was freshened in the
spring of kindergarten to include schools that were not operational during the fall
of 1998, and again in the spring of first grade to include children who did not
attend kindergarten.8 In addition, a 50% subsample of schools was selected where
children who moved were followed. By the end of third grade there are a total of
15,305 students, with 12,070 in public schools and 3,235 in private. In the spring
of third grade, 13,489 children had available parent data.
3.1.2 Dependent Variables
The ECLS-K9 uses a series of sophisticated cognitive batteries drawn from such
sources as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) fourth-grade
test specifications of 1992, 1994, and 1996 to assess children general knowledge
(science and social studies), mathematics, and reading skills.10 As a tool to inform
public schooling policy, the ECLS-K cognitive batteries were designed so that
“tests should represent the typical and important cognitive goals of elementary
schools’ curricula” (pg. 2-1). The tests were individually administered because
young children are not experienced test takers, and the designers believed that
“individual administration could provide more sensitivity to each child’s needs
than a group-administered test” (pg. 2-2). In addition, the tests were not timed
so that children could take as much time as necessary.
The tests were also ‘adaptive’ in nature, which allowed each test to be suitable
to the child’s competence level. In adaptive testing, children are first given a
7Data for this section are drawn from NCES (2004).8There was no student freshening in the third grade sample.9Unless otherwise noted, information for this section are drawn from NCES (2002).
10In addition, there are also psychomotor and social rating scales.
52
routing test which is used to inform the test administrator of the child’s skill level.
“A child who is essentially performing on grade level should receive items that span
the curriculum for his or her grade. Children whose achievement is above or below
grade level should be given tasks with difficulty levels that match their individual
level of development at the time of testing, rather than a grade-level standard”
(pg. 2-3). The use of adaptive tests, by adjusting to the child’s skill level, reduce
both ceiling and floor effects so that the children’s skills could be assessed more
accurately.
The ability of adaptive testing procedures to adjust to children’s competency
levels is also important for assessing children over time.
Although the forms are tailored for individuals within a grade, theoverall grade-level forms should reflect core curriculum elements forthat particular grade. At the same time there must be overlappingitems in forms within a grade, as well as across grades. These linkingitems tie the vertical scale together both across forms within a gradeand across grades. About 20 to 30 percent of the items should overlapbetween adjacent grades (pg. 2-2). Adaptive testing relies on ItemResponse Theory (IRT) assumptions in order to place children whohave taken different test forms on the same vertical score scale (pg.2-3).
The ability to calibrate tests over time using IRT metric is key to appropriately
modeling achievement growth, particularly given the length of the study which, in
the sample used, is from kindergarten entry to the end of third grade.11
The process by which children’s achievement becomes translated into a mean-
ingful numeric scale then follows a number of stages. First, children are adminis-
tered routing tests so that appropriate items are used. Second, children are given
test elements suitable for the child’s level. Third, the test items are calibrated us-
ing a three-parameter IRT model which estimates the probability of a child getting
an answer given the child’s underlying ability. “The three-parameter IRT logistic
model uses the pattern of right, wrong, and omitted responses to the items admin-
istered in a test form and the difficulty, discriminating ability, and ‘guess-ability’
of each item, to place each test taker at a particular point, θ (theta), on a con-
11The ECLS-K will follow children through high school, although it is not clear whether ornot NCES will attempt to calibrate the tests only to the end of the fifth grade, which was theoriginal intention, or all the way through high school.
53
tinuous ability scale” (pg. 4-1). In these models, the item difficulty is essentially
the model intercept, the discrimination parameter is proportionally a slope, and
the ‘guess-ability’ a lower asymptote. Intuitively, these models are essentially non-
linear confirmatory factor analysis models, representing a generalization similar to
the extension from OLS to logistic (or probit) regression.
The average intercorrelations between the tests across waves are approximately
.75 for reading and mathematics, .57 for reading and general knowledge, and .66 for
mathematics and general knowledge. These routinely high correlations indicated
that children doing well in one area are expected to be doing well in the other
areas, particularly for math and reading.
General Knowledge Achievement
The general knowledge12 achievement test is evenly divided between the natural
sciences and social studies. This test was only administered through first grade;
later tests drop the social studies portion, so the following analyses assess gen-
eral knowledge from kindergarten entry the spring of first grade. For the science
portion of the battery, subject matter is evenly divided between earth and space
science, physical science, and life science. Particularly over the early grades, earth
and space science is principally concerned with questions about the relationship be-
tween the earth and other bodies in space, e.g., patterns of night and day, and the
seasons. Physical science includes matter and energy and their transformations,
and motion. Life science questions pertain globally to nature, more specifically to
interdependence, adaptation, ecology, and health and the human body.
The social studies segment of the general knowledge test is stratified into two
areas, denoted ‘knowledge’ and ‘analysis and interpretation.’ Although the social
studies portion of the test includes areas on history, government, culture, geog-
raphy, and economics, the tests are heavily weighted largely to culture (50 items
at kindergarten entry) and geography (20 items at kindergarten entry). The cul-
ture questions “includes a number of questions about everyday objects and their
uses (What do trains and planes have in common?) and social roles (What does a
fireman do?)” (pg. 2-15) while “[g]eography in the early grades typically includes
learning about where one lives in relation to the rest of the nation and the world,
12Unless otherwise noted, information for this section is drawn from NCES (2002).
54
gaining familiarity with maps and the globe, and learning about different types of
land and water and how people, plants, and animals have adapted to them” (pg.
2-15).
The test reliabilities range between .88 and .89 over the study period. Fur-
thermore, differential item functioning (DIF) indicated that few items or groups
of items behaved differently by race, class, or gender. In fact, differential item
functioning was more favorable across groups for the general knowledge test than
for either the mathematics or reading tests, despite the large mean differences in
test scores across social groups (Chapter 5).
Unlike the mathematics and reading tests, similar general knowledge tests have
not typically been administered in large surveys (e.g. the Children of the National
Longitudinal Study of Youth), meaning that this series of questions does not link
as easily to previous studies. The importance of this outcome for the present study,
however, derives from the broad applicability of the test itself. General knowledge
tests are noteworthy, particularly for researchers concerned with how families influ-
ence a broad range of children’s skills. Lareau (2003), for example, cites numerous
examples where parents engaging in a pattern of concerted development seek to
increase children’s knowledge of the world at every opportunity through the use of
questioning and refining definitions.
General knowledge tests are also relevant because often the items used to con-
struct these tests relate to a number of issues crossing through politics, history,
economics, and science, that may be more likely to manifest in conversations than
in purely reading or mathematics skills. Thus, general knowledge tests probably
reflect issues that translate across a number of domains through which children can
quickly signal their competencies and that, furthermore, are strongly implicated in
the diverse array of experiences children in concerted cultivation oriented families
are exposed to.
Mathematics Achievement
The mathematics13 battery assesses children across a number of content strands.
Areas include (pgs. 2-7 & 2-8):
13Unless otherwise noted, information for this section are drawn from NCES (2002).
55
• Number Sense, Properties, and Operations. This refers to children’s un-derstanding of numbers (whole numbers, fractions, decimals, and integers),operations, and estimation, and their application to real-world situations.Children are expected to demonstrate an understanding of numerical rela-tionships as expressed in ratios, proportions, and percentages. This strandalso includes understanding properties of numbers and operations, ability togeneralize from numerical patterns, and verifying results.
• Measurement. Measurement skills include choosing a measurement unit,comparing the unit to the measurement object, and reporting the resultsof a measurement task. It includes items assessing children’s understandingof concepts of time, money, temperature, length, perimeter, area, mass, andweight.
• Geometry and Spatial Sense. Skills included in this content area extend fromsimple identification of geometric shapes to transformations and combina-tions of those shapes. The emphasis of the ECLSK is on informal construc-tions rather than the traditional formal proofs that are usually taught inlater grades.
• Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability. This includes the skills of col-lecting, organizing, reading, and representing data. Children are asked todescribe patterns in the data, or making inferences or drawing conclusionsbased on the data. Probability refers to making judgments about the like-lihood of something occurring based on information collected on past oc-currences of the event in question. Students answer questions about chancesituations, such as the likelihood of selecting a marble of a particular colorin a blind draw when the numbers of marbles of different colors are known.
• Patterns, Algebra, and Functions. Consistent with the NCTM [Commissionon Standards for School Mathematics of the National Council of Teachersof Mathematics (NCTM 1989).] kindergarten to fourth-grade curriculumstandards, the ECLSK framework groups pattern recognition together withalgebra and functions. Patterns refer to the ability to recognize, create,explain, generalize, and extend patterns and sequences. In the kindergartentest, the items included in this category consist entirely of pattern recognitionitems. As one moves up to the subsequent grades, algebra and functionitems are added. Algebra refers to the techniques of identifying solutionsto equations with one or more missing pieces or variables. This includesrepresenting quantities and simple relationships among variables in graphicalterms. It should be noted that while pattern recognition is relatively heavilyemphasized in kindergarten and even first-grade classrooms, the proposedframework tends to de-emphasize the assessment allocation since it is notclear what to expect with reference to longitudinal trends in this skill area.
56
The largest category of time spent on items across waves are drawn from number
sense, properties, and operations. The radiabilities across the first four waves of
data ranged from .92 to .94. Differential item function indicated few differences
across groups, with the possible exception being a Hispanic-white difference at the
spring of first grade (the report was released before third grade data were available).
As one of the critical areas of knowledge specified in NCLBH, understanding the
genesis of early child-skill differentials is of key importance so that schools can
use their resources most effectively. Children’s mathematics achievement from
kindergarten entry through the third grade is the focus of Chapter 6.
Reading Achievement
As with general knowledge and mathematics, the reading14 battery assessed chil-
dren across numerous content strands, as follows (pg. 2-10):
• Initial understanding requires readers to provide an initial impression orglobal understanding of what they have read. Identifying the main pointof a passage and identifying the specific points that were drawn on by thereader to construct the main point that would be included in this category.
• Developing interpretation requires readers to extend their initial impressionsto develop a more complete understanding of what was read. It involves thelinking of information across parts of the text, as well as focusing on specificinformation.
• Personal reflection and response requires readers to connect knowledge fromthe text with their own personal background knowledge. Personal back-ground knowledge in this sense includes both reflective self-understanding,as well as the broad range of knowledge about people, events, and objectsthat children bring to the task of interpreting texts.
• Demonstrating a critical stance requires the reader to stand apart from thetext and consider it objectively. This is includes questions asking about theadequacy of evidence used to make a point, or the consistency of someone’sreasoning in taking a particular value stance. In kindergarten and first grade,some questions about unrealistic stories were asked to assess the child’s no-tion of real vs. imaginary. Such story types allow us to get information oncritical skills as early as kindergarten.
14Unless otherwise noted, information for this section is drawn from NCES 2002.
57
Over the first four waves, the reliability estimates ranged from .93 to .97. There
were a few cases of differential item functioning (DIF) between white and black,
Hispanic, and Asian children. As explained in the psychometric report,
[i]n all cases where the DIF occurred against the minority group, theitems were submitted to the fairness committee for review and all theitems were passed by the committee. In other words, a judgment wasmade that the difference in performance was due to skill differences con-sistent with the test specifications and not due to factors that wouldunfairly bias the item against the subgroup. It should be kept in mindthat there are 72 reading items in the test forms for kindergarten and92 for first grade. With five sets of comparison groups and four roundsof data, more than 1,500 comparisons are made in an attempt to sta-tistically identify items showing DIF, so chance alone could account forsome of the findings. In an achievement test covering reading develop-ment where children are growing very fast but at quite different rates,one might identify DIF at one time point and then see it reduced or goaway later in the children’s development (pg. 5-10).
The reading assessments are further complicated because of language issues
for Hispanic children. The ECLS-K administered the Oral Language Development
Scale (OLDS) to assess children who had a non-English language background. Only
children who passed the OLDs were administered the reading test, so the sample
at each given wave is only representative of those children who showed a basic level
of English competency.15 Children’s reading achievement from kindergarten entry
through the third grade is the focus of Chapter 7.
3.1.3 The Sample & Control Variables
Race & Social Class
Descriptive statistics for the sample are presented in table 3.1. The approximate
sample size at kindergarten entry with available data is 14,152 cases–although it
should be noted that this wave-specific sample size fluctuates due to the sample
refreshing, in addition to family mobility and attrition. The sample is approxi-
mately 60% white, 13% black, 17% Hispanic, and 5% Asian, with a heterogenous
‘other’ category comprising the remaining 5%.
15For mathematics, children were given an alternative Spanish translation.
58
Tab
le3.
1.E
CLS-
KW
eigh
ted
Sam
ple
Mea
ns,St
anda
rdD
evia
tion
s,an
dP
ropo
rtio
nsfo
rth
eTot
alSa
mpl
e,by
Rac
ean
dSo
cial
Cla
ss,fo
rth
eC
ontr
olV
aria
bles
atK
inde
rgar
ten
Ent
ry(A
ppro
xim
ate
N=
14,1
52)
Rac
eSo
cial
Cla
ss
Tot
alW
hite
Bla
ckH
ispa
nic
Asi
anB
.25
%M
.50
%T
.25
%
Sam
ple
Size
(N)
1415
283
6618
3324
1877
432
6272
2136
69%
ofTot
al59
.12
12.9
517
.09
5.47
23.0
551
.02
25.9
3W
hite
12.3
454
.24
33.4
2B
lack
39.7
749
.37
10.8
6H
ispa
nic
47.3
542
.56
10.0
9A
sian
20.5
443
.41
36.0
5So
cial
Cla
ss0.
050.
30-0
.42
-0.5
00.
28-1
.11
-0.0
81.
33(s
d)(0
.99)
(0.9
1)(0
.92)
(0.8
8)(1
.09)
(0.5
8)(0
.37)
(0.5
5)A
geat
K.E
ntry
(Mon
ths)
65.5
665
.99
65.1
364
.80
64.6
565
.26
65.6
465
.66
(sd)
(4.2
4)(4
.24)
(4.0
8)(4
.23)
(4.0
3)(4
.23)
(4.2
5)(4
.24)
Fem
ale
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.50
0.49
0.50
Seco
ndK
.0.
040.
040.
050.
050.
040.
060.
040.
03N
on-E
nglis
hLan
g.at
Hom
e0.
130.
010.
010.
490.
600.
300.
080.
06St
epPar
ent
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.02
0.10
0.09
0.03
Sing
lePar
ent
0.20
0.12
0.54
0.21
0.08
0.36
0.18
0.09
Oth
erFa
mily
Stru
ctur
e0.
020.
010.
030.
010.
030.
010.
020.
03C
hild
/Adu
ltR
atio
-1
0.34
0.25
0.71
0.34
0.27
0.65
0.26
0.22
Mot
her’
sA
ge(Y
ears
)33
.19
33.9
631
.15
31.8
135
.05
30.4
632
.75
36.5
1(s
d)(6
.03)
(5.6
2)(6
.72)
(6.0
7)(5
.76)
(6.1
6)(5
.72)
(4.9
0)M
othe
rW
orks
Par
t-T
ime
0.46
0.43
0.61
0.42
0.49
0.38
0.51
0.42
Mot
her
Doe
sn’t
Wor
k0.
320.
300.
260.
400.
360.
440.
270.
31M
othe
rW
orke
dP
rior
toB
irth
0.74
0.77
0.81
0.63
0.61
0.61
0.79
0.76
Hig
hSc
hool≤
Ed.
Exp
ect.
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.08
0.03
0.21
0.07
0.01
Gra
duat
eSc
hool
Ed.
Exp
ect.
0.28
0.22
0.34
0.40
0.44
0.27
0.24
0.37
Hom
eB
ased
Car
e0.
240.
250.
220.
250.
230.
220.
270.
21H
ead
Star
t0.
090.
040.
220.
120.
100.
220.
070.
01C
ente
r-B
ased
Car
e0.
490.
550.
440.
350.
460.
270.
490.
68
59
Social class is a standardized measure composed of parental occupation, educa-
tion, and income. The scale is computed as the average of the z-scores across these
items for each child, with each item being used to compose the measure given equal
weight.16 White and Asian children are both similarly advantaged regarding social
class (about .3 standard deviations), while both black and Hispanic children are
similarly disadvantaged (over .4 standard deviations). Interestingly, Asian families
are the most variable in terms of social class and Hispanic families the least.
The final three columns of table 3.1 decompose social class into the bottom
and top quartiles, and the middle 50% of the distribution. Children in the lower
quartile come from homes, on average, over 1 standard deviation below the mean
on social class, while children from homes in the upper quartile are over 1.3 stan-
dard deviations above the mean. The distribution of race/ethnic groups across
social class strata highlight the relative advantage of white and Asian children,
particularly given their increased probability of being in the upper quartile of the
distribution, compared to the black and Hispanic children who are over-represented
in the lower quartile.
Child Variables
In addition, a number of control variables are included in the table and used
in the later regression analyses. The child’s age in months at kindergarten entry
represents an important characteristic to adjust for because all children are learning
at rapid rates during this time of their lives and older children have, obviously, had
more time to learn and mature (Reardon 2003; Downey et al. 2004; Burkam et al.
2004). Because the beginning age of kindergarten entry is relatively standardized,
there are few differences by race or social class. The average child begins school
at approximately 66 months or 5.5 years of age. This variable is centered at the
grand mean (66 months) in subsequent analyses.
Additional covariates include whether or not the child is female and whether
16Supplementary work suggests that despite collapsing a significant amount of data into ascalar entity, adding the individual items, while contributing more detail, does not really providesignificantly more information. In addition, including the items individually adds complexityto the analysis because the researcher is then posed with difficult problems such as, “Whatdo I do about father’s education for children without fathers?” as well as having interpreta-tional/parceling questions relating to variables that are highly intercorrelated.
60
or not the child is a second time kindergartner. The probability that the child is a
second time kindergartner does not vary strongly by race/ethnic status, although
second timers are more likely to be lower than higher socioeconomic status.
Family Variables
Because this analysis includes heterogenous groupings such as ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Asian,’
who are likely to be from immigrant families, it is important to adjust for the fact
that children from these families are likely to experience a non-English language
environment in the home. In this case, whether or not a non-English language
is spoken in the home is constructed to differentiate these children, who, in the
home-based context, may not be able to get help with English-based reading skills.
Asian, Hispanic, and low socioeconomic children are far mare likely to come from
these homes than white, black, or middle and higher class children.
Family structure has been shown to be importantly related to children’s aca-
demic success and is also importantly related to both race and social class. Two-
parent, continuously married families represent the baseline, comparison group,
with additional categorizations comprising step parent family, either mother or fa-
ther,17 single parent, generally single mother, and an other category comprised of
children living with their grandparents and other miscellaneous groupings. Well
over one-half of white children live with both biological parents, although nearly
20% of white children live with a single parent at kindergarten entry. Over one-half
of black children live with a single parent and about 40% live with married parents.
Proportions for Hispanic children are similar to those for whites, while the vast
majority of Asian children live with both biological parents. In terms of family
structure, Asian and upper quartile social class families are distributed similarly.
Not surprisingly, as social class lowers, the proportion of children in single parent
family increases.
The mother’s age may be important since older mothers are likely to have
more stable employment and higher education, and, in general, to have more life
experience and greater maturity. The mother’s age at kindergarten entry is lower
for more disadvantaged groups. This variable is centered at the sample grand-mean
(33.2 years) in subsequent analyses.
17The vast majority of these families have a stepfather.
61
Mother’s employment status is also included, with full-time employment the
baseline category. The indicator categories are mother works parttime and mother
does not work. Across all race/ethnic categorizations, mothers are most likely to
work part time. Black mothers have the lowest unemployed rate, and a significantly
higher part-time work status rate than mothers of other groups (60% vs about 43
– 49%). The proportion of mothers working full-time and part-time increases
with increasing social class, although the lowest level of maternal unemployment
is found for the middle class.
In addition, whether or not the mother worked prior to the child’s birth is
included. White and black mothers are both more likely to have worked than
either Hispanic or Asian mothers, and lower social class mothers are less likely
than either middle or upper class mothers. In all cases, over 60% of mothers
worked, however.
Additional Covariates
Parental educational aspirations for their children, which is an obvious proxy for
parental academic orientations, have been found to be related to children’s later
academic achievement. To get more than a high school education but less than
a graduate degree is the reference category with indicators for high school degree
or less or a graduate degree or higher expectation is included in the analysis.
Black parents are the most likely to think that their children will not go far in
school (12%), but are also more likely than white parents to think that their
children will get a graduate degree. Over 40% of both Hispanic and Asian parents
believe their children will get graduate degrees, proportions that are higher than
the expectations for high social class parents. Over 20% of lower class parents
believe that their children will not go beyond high school.
Children’s early experiences differ not only with respect to their home environ-
ments but also with regard to pre-schooling experiences. No care is the reference
category, with home-based care, head start, and center-based care coded as dummy
variables. Across social groups, the proportion receiving home-based care is rela-
tively static. Not surprisingly, however, disadvantaged groups are more likely to
have received head start, while advantaged groups are more likely to have received
some form of center-based care.
62
3.2 Methods
The analysis proceeds in two conceptually distinct sections. The first analysis
addresses the ability to identify ‘concerted cultivation’ and study the relationship
between this concept and the covariates discussed in the previous section. The
second phase of the analysis relates concerted cultivation to growth in the three
academic outcomes, general knowledge, mathematics, and reading achievement.
3.2.1 Concerted Cultivation
Since ‘concerted cultivation’ is a latent construct, variables that Lareau (2003)
describes as being related to this construct must be identified, then allowed to
covary under a suitable parametric specification (discussed in more depth next
chapter). The approach taken is one of ‘confirmatory factor analysis’ (CFA), which
is a type of factor analysis where the underlying model is specified and checked
against the observed covariance structure of the items. The details will be discussed
in more extensively in the following chapter; however, at this stage it is important
to note that the indicators used are not normally distributed, which raises potential
difficulties in the analysis. In response to this, an approach analogous to the IRT
models (van der Linden and Hambleton 1997; De Boeck and Wilson 2004) discussed
above are used to conduct a nonlinear CFA. In this case, a two-parameter IRT
model with a probit link function is used. The general two-parameter IRT model,
which estimates the probability, Pi(θ) that an individual with ability θ “gets an
item correct,” δi is formulated as,
Pi(δi = 1|θ) =1
1 + exp−ai(θ−bi), (3.1)
where ai is the item discrimination, bi is the item difficulty. However, in practice
there is no special reason to use the logit model. In this case, a probit model is
used,
Pi(δi = 1|θ) = Φ(αiθ + βi), (3.2)
63
where Φ(·) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function. The general
notation, expressed as a probit function is
Pi(δi = 1|θ) = Φ(ai(θ + bi)), (3.3)
which implies that αi = ai, and
bi =βi
αi
. (3.4)
In the next chapter, the model parameters will be expressed as α and β from
model 3.2, where α is the ‘discrimination’ parameter which is the slope or fac-
tor loading, and β is the item ‘difficulty’ or intercept. Both the CFAs specifying
the hypothesized concerted cultivation model and subsequent regression models
predicting concerted cultivation use a limited-information, weighted least square
estimator18 with robust (sandwich) standard errors and mean- and variance- ad-
justed chi-square statistics, allowing for missing data on observed outcomes (i.e.,
the indicators used to define the CFA) in Mplus19 v3 (Munthen and Munthen
2004).20 All analyses use the weights provided by the ECLS-K so that results are
generalizable to the U.S. population of kindergartners in 1998.
Although Mplus allows for an impressive range of sophisticated models to be
fit to the data, it is not quite flexible enough to accommodate the growth model
used for the subsequent analyses. The problem, essentially, is that although Mplus
allows for individually varying times of observation, piecewise growth models with
individually varying times of observation cannot be fit to the data.21 By fixing
the factor loadings on the growth parameters as is typical in latent growth curve
modeling, it is possible to estimate piecewise growth models. For the problem at
hand, however, this approach has certain flaws.
The advantage of conducting all analyses in Mplus is that the structural equa-
tion modeling (SEM) framework allows the incorporation of the CFA directly, ame-
liorating measurement in the latent, concerted cultivation construct (e.g. Bollen
18Using the ‘WLSMV’ estimator.19A small grant by the Penn State Research and Graduate Studies Office (RGSO) Dissertation
Support System allowed me to purchase this software and manual.20Using the ‘type = complex missing’ commands21In the structural equation modeling framework, individually varying times of observation
represent a significant integration problem.
64
1989). So, in this case, a decision had to be made between (1) adjusting for mea-
surement error in concerted cultivation but fixing the growth parameters to the
average observation times, and (2) leveraging the varying times of observations to
more accurately represent the underlying data generating process using HLM v6
software, but treating concerted cultivation as a ‘known’ variable which is mea-
sured without error. In this case, option (2) appears preferable because bias in the
associations between concerted cultivation and academic achievement are likely to
be downwards (supplementary analyses suggest this is the case), so that coefficient
estimates represent a lower bound. For case (1), if time in school is related to
children’s growth, which it is, then not accounting for variability in times of ob-
servation will misappropriate variance in children’s test scores. By not accurately
capturing the data generating process, it is not clear how coefficient estimates will
be biased. Although this approach is less than optimal, it is an appropriate for-
mulation given the practicalities of the situation. In order to do this, factor scores,
which are not free of measurement error (Bollen 1989), are output from Mplus and
then input to HLM as a known variable.22
3.2.2 Academic Achievement
After the distribution of concerted cultivation across population subgroups has
been analyzed, the next step is to incorporate the concerted cultivation factor
scores into a model of children’s growth. The basic structure of the model is drawn
from the familiar random-effects model (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002; Singer and
Willett 2003) following Reardon (2003; see also Downey et al. 2004; March and
Cormier 2002). The level 1, within-student model, where t indexes within-unit
observations, i indexes students, and j indexes schools, is represented as:
Ytij = π0ij + π1ijKtij + π2ijStij + π3ijFtij + π4ijTtij + εtij,
22For information on how Mplus computes factor scores from the posterior distribution, seethe online technical appendices: http://www.statmodel.com/mplus/techappen.pdf
65
and the level 2, between-student model where the πpij are rates representing points
gained per month:
πpij = βp0j +
Q∑q=1
βpqjXq{t}ij + η(2)p.ij, (3.5)
and the level-3, between-school model:
βp0j = γp00 + η(3)p..j, (3.6)
βpqj = γpq0, (3.7)
where K is time in kindergarten, S is summer duration, F is time in first grade,
and T is the the length of time from the first grade to the third grade assessment.23
The above formulation says that growth is a piecewise function of time; kinder-
garten, a summer break, first grade, and the second and third grades. Initial
status and the temporal slopes are allowed to vary between students and schools
randomly, conditioned on between-student variables Xq{t}ij. Generally, level-2 co-
variates are not allowed to vary across occasions, but in this case the between-child
covariates are included as time changing covariates specific to the period. This is
possible because the piecewise approach breaks the timeline into meaningful seg-
ments. The η(l) represent random effects or deviations at level l and are assumed
MV N(0,Ψ(l)) within level and orthogonal across levels. In addition, because there
are up to five observations per child and five child-level random effects, the level-1
variance is fixed using precision weights.24
The model is presented graphically in figure 3.1, where it can be seen that
children are allowed to grow at distinctive rates over different periods of their early
schooling careers. Coefficient estimates in these models, however, can be biased if
the between-student variables Xq{t}ij are correlated with the random effects, Ψ(3),
or, in other words, if there is a significant “between” school relationship between
the outcome and group-means. In response to this potential source of bias (see
23Details on the creation of the timing variables are available in Reardon (2003).24In older versions of HLM, the weights were in fact precision weights, 1
(1−α)σ2 , where α isan estimate of the test reliability and σ2 is the variance of the tests. HLM v6, however, nowdoes the inversion so the weights are constructed as (1−α)σ2, which is the estimate of the true,wave-specific variance.
66
Figure 3.1. Graphical Depiction of Children’s Academic Growth Model
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Raudenbush and Bryk 2002, chapter 5) a second set of school level “fixed-effects”
models is estimated. In the HLM context, this is accomplished by group-mean
centering the between-child covariates,
πpij = βp0j +
Q∑q=1
βpqj
(Xq{t}ij −Xq{t}.j
)+ η
(2)p.ij, (3.8)
which is analogous to controlling for the group means, Xq{t}.j, at the school-level,
but is ultimately more parsimonious and does not produce multicollinearity. Fur-
thermore, there are a very large number of parameters estimated in these models
already. Note that because the characteristics of children’s schools change, as do
student-specific values, the decreasing nesting structure of the data due to movers
is accommodated by allowing the school means to be period-specific. To not allow
for a temporal adjustment of school means potentially undermines the basic as-
sumption of the fixed-effects model of constant aggregate influences. In this case,
the parameter estimates are period-specific fixed-effects.25
25Furthermore, to the extent that school-level fixed-effects models are required to get unbiasedestimates of ‘average within-school’ relationships, group-mean centering is easily accomplished inthe known-variable case, but becomes significantly difficult in latent variable approach. Although
67
Because the growth model estimates period-specific parameters, a covariate is
included for whether or not a child moved over a given period (Reardon 2003,
dropped children that moved). In the presence of movers, the nesting structure
of the data becomes non-constant, but is too sparse to estimate a cross-classified
model. This means, in essence, that there is a degree of model misspecification
because the computation of the random effects assumes constant nesting. In prac-
tice, this probably means that some of the between-child variance is absorbed into
the higher level, between schools. Because, in this case, focal interest is on the
regression parameters and less on the variance components, it is more important
to salvage degrees of freedom, particularly when one considers the large number
of parameters and the reduced sample in the fall of first grade (which is needed to
estimate the summer and first grade slopes).26
Although mixed-models can handle missingness on the dependent variable with
some flexibility, other techniques need to be used when right-hand-side covariates
are missing. Five multiple imputation data sets are generated (Allison 2001; Little
and Rubin 1987) for the independent variables allowing for categorical variables.27
Imputation was done as a flat file with wave-specific variables distributed as the
columns (see Allison 2001), including the dependent variables. Imputed values
for the dependent variable, however, are not used (see Downey et al. 2004: 619).
Sample sizes increase from a maximum of 11,000 cases to 16,202. The sample sizes
vary with outcome,28 however, so the exact numbers are reported in the outcome-
specific analytic chapters.
it is possible to do so by creating a between-unit CFA and fixing the loadings, the number ofintegration points necessary exceeded the memory capacity of the computers I had available.
26Dropping movers does not substantially change the results.27Using mvis.ado for Stata v8 which allows variables to be distributed normal, ordinal, logit
or probit, and multinomial. See Royston (2004), the software developer28NCES re-scales the tests at each wave when new data arrive. Unfortunately, it has been
their policy to re-scale tests only for those children who took the test. This places unfortunatelimitations on the sample sizes for the math and reading tests because of the smaller wave 5sample size. In principal, there is no reason why the tests should not be recalibrated for allchildren who have been assessed at least once.
CHAPTER
FOUR
Concerted Cultivation
4.1 Introduction
Of central concern to a study linking parenting strategies to children’s academic
achievement is the question of whether the available survey data can be used to
identify those strategies. The purpose of this chapter is to (1) identify such a con-
struct, and then (2) look at the children’s differing exposure levels. Lareau’s (2003)
research, while rich in detail, is faced with the classic problem of ethnographic re-
search: the ability to generalize from the small-scale sample and contexts within
which the observations are embedded. Survey research has the opposite prob-
lem: Under the mechanics of random sampling, generalizations can be offered, yet
there is a distinct problem of detail and process. Indeed, detail in survey research
is fundamentally parametric, particularly for more sophisticated questions, while
ethnographic is by nature non-parametric. The strengths of these two perspectives
should be taken as complementary, particularly when the non-parametric obser-
vations of ethnographic research can formulated and recast parametrically with
generalizable survey data. A combination of these two perspectives can add fur-
ther validation (or the converse) to ethnographic research, while providing deeper
theoretical meaning and insight into the parametric survey component.
69
4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.2.1 The Covariate List
Concerted cultivation is not a single variable, there is no simple question such as
“do you practice ‘concerted cultivation’” that survey researchers can ask. Nor is
it even a unidimensional construct, being composed of a single set of inter-related
behaviors or actions. Rather, concerted cultivation is a multidimensional idea for
which Lareau (2003) has noted three principal dimensions, as expressed in table
2.1. The underlying parenting strategy or cultural logic that Lareau (2003) recog-
nized are identified by pronounced differences in (1) the organization of children’s
daily lives, (2) language use, and (3) parental interventions with institutions. Par-
ents who practiced concerted cultivation used formal activities with professionals
and adults to structure their children’s time and to provide access to a host of
experiences which provide children with training for school and later labor mar-
ket success. These parents were also involved with their children’s teachers and
schools, constantly monitoring these environments to ensure they matched with the
educational aspirations they held for their children. Language use also tended to
be geared more towards reasoning and the elicitation of responses. Without either
detailed observational studies of the family linguistic environment (see Hart and
Risley 1995 for a unique quantitative treatment) or a highly correlated proxy, such
as parental cognitive scores (perhaps), language use is a problematic dimension.
The bulk of Lareau’s (2003) discussion dealing with the organization of chil-
dren’s lives focused on extracurricular activities as a means of garnering both
educational and social experiences for their children. The first panel of table
4.1 lists variables in the ECLS-K that measure children’s participation in extra-
curricular activities—which, it must be remembered, children participate in en-
tirely at parental discretion. Activities include dance classes, organized athletics,
clubs, music lessons, art classes or lessons, and a more general participation in
organized activities category.
Direct indicators of parental institutional interventions are somewhat difficult,
although the ECLS-K provides a number of items presumably related to such a
concept as it relates to schools. In panel 2 of table 4.1, a number of items related
to parental participation with various aspects of the children’s schools are listed.
70
Table 4.1. Measures Used to Specify the Concerted Cultivation CFA
Variable Description
Outside of school hours, has CHILD ever participated in:
P2DANCE Dance lessons?
P2ATHLET Organized athletic activities, like basketball, soccer, baseball, or gymnastics?
P2CLUB Organized clubs or recreational programs, like scouts?
P2MUSIC Music lessons, for example, piano, instrumental music or singing lessons?
P2ARTCRF Art classes or lessons, for example, painting, drawing, sculpturing?
P2ORGANZ Organized performing arts programs, such as children’s choirs, dance programs,
or theater performances?
Since the beginning of this school year, have you or the other adults in your household
P2ATTENB Attended an open house or a back-to-school night?
P2ATTENP Attended a meeting of a PTA, PTO, or Parent-Teacher Student Organization?
P2PARGRP Gone to a regularly-scheduled parent-teacher conference with CHILD’s teacher or
meeting with CHILD’s teacher?
P2ATTENS Attended a school or class event, such as a play, sports event, or science fair?
P2VOLUNT Acted as a volunteer at the school or served on a committee?
P2FUNDRS Participated in fundraising for (CHILD)’s school?
Material Resources
P1CHLBOO About how many children’s books does CHILD have/are in your home now,
including library books? Please only include books that are for children. (ln)
Lareau (2003, 1988) and other authors have documented widely different parental
participation rates in their children’s schools by social class in ways highly consis-
tent with the concerted cultivation paradigm. Parent-teacher meetings represent a
significant opportunity for parents to interact with teachers, and most higher class
parents practicing concerted cultivation capitalize on these opportunities, using
them to interview and assess their children’s teachers. Other opportunities such as
open houses and back-to-school nights represent important opportunities to net-
work and gather information on teachers, as do various meetings, school and class
events, volunteering and serving on committees, and fundraising.
There are no direct measures of the parental linguistic patterns, nor is there
direct cognitive information such as IQ tests for parents. Although this represents
a potential gap in the ability of this study to fully capture ‘concerted cultivation,’
it is possible to identify other material resources in the home, whose correlation
with language use is probably quite strong.1 Although the number of books in
the home is a less than ideal proxy for language use, academic materials may
1Maternal ability (AFQT) has been show to operate at least partially through cognitive stim-ulation in the environment (Guo and Harris 2000).
71
constitute a significant dimension of their own.2 Although numerous questions
pertaining to the presence of newspapers and other reading materials in the home
were asked, these variables are not available across waves. The number of books
that are specifically the child’s is the only measure of material academic resources
available across waves.3
4.2.2 The Model
The concerted cultivation CFA model is depicted in figure 4.3. According to this
model, an underlying latent factor which, after Lareau (2003), I have referred
to as ‘concerted cultivation,’ produces the latent traits or dimensions discussed
above, namely the underlying propensity for parents to participate or intervene
with school, the underlying propensity to structure children’s lives through activ-
ities, and the underlying propensity for parents to seek out and acquire learning
materials. These latent traits then lead parents to behave and act differently, which
are identified by the observed measures. The key idea here is that it is not so much
the number of child activities or ways that parents interact with school, but the
underlying propensity or disposition, which, in fact, results from the underlying
parenting strategy that guides parental behaviors and actions.
How measures of language use would influence or relate to the underlying model
is an open question. However, to the extent that the model implied by Lareau
(2003) and shown in figure 4.3 is consistent with the data, the underlying ‘con-
certed cultivation’ measure likely captures the elements of language use which are
highly correlated with the other factors. To the extent that these items exhibit the
expected ‘covariance structure,’ elements of language use are probably captured in
the model, albeit imperfectly.
Residual correlation in the model between dance lessons, music lessons, and
participation in the general organized activities categories are necessary because
2Lareau (2003) notes, for example, the differing availability of learning materials in concertedcultivation practicing families, and, in particular, the extent to which parents seek to cultivatechildren’s interests by seeking out materials.
3In actuality, the natural logarithm of the number of books is taken since, firstly, it is hardto imagine that an additional book means the same for a child who has 100 as compared to 5books. Second, large variances in structural equation modeling can lead to estimation problems,which is in fact the case here. Taking the ln decreases the variance to a level more constant withthe other covariates in the model.
72
Figure 4.1. Graphical Depiction of the Concerted Cultivation CFA
Co
nce
rted
Cu
ltiv
atio
n
P2
AT
TE
NB
P2
AT
TE
NP
P2
PA
RG
RP
P2
AT
TE
NS
P2
VO
LU
NT
P2
FU
ND
RS
P2
DA
NC
EP
2A
TH
LE
TP
2C
LU
BP
2M
US
ICP
2A
RT
CR
FP
2O
RG
AN
ZP
1C
HL
BO
O
Par
ent
Par
tici
pat
ion
Ch
ild
Act
ivit
ies
Mat
eria
l
Res
ou
rces
1
73
of the non-uniqueness of the last category. In addition, allowing correlations be-
tween these items improves model fit. Furthermore, the latent factor associated
with material academic resources is fixed to the observed child books indicator to
identify this portion of the model.
4.2.3 1 Wave CFA
The CFA results for concerted cultivation are presented in table 4.2. The coef-
ficients for the ‘discrimination’ or slope parameters and ‘difficulty’ or intercepts
are presented in the probit metric (see chapter 3). These parameter descriptions
pertain to child activities and parental participation which are modeled in the IRT
formulation; the other loadings are interpreted in the usual fashion. Furthermore,
the difficulty parameters are partially standardized in relation to the underlying
latent construct, which means they represent the change in the probability of a ‘1’
(as opposed to ‘0’) on the item for a standard deviation change in the underlying
factor, i.e. child activities.
To facilitate interpretation, figure 4.2 depicts the item characteristic curves
plotting the predicted probability of the actions and behaviors for the standardized
underlying factor (for a review of the model parameters see section 3.2.1). The
item characteristic curve for child activities highlights that athletics are the most
common form of activities, and that for higher θ the probability that children will
participate in the various activities is extremely high, while the probability is quite
low for children from families with a low propensity. The story for the other items
is somewhat similar, although the probability of participation does not approach
1, the children who are more likely to participate are clearly well to the right of
the mean in the distribution.
Parent participation is most clearly captured towards the middle of the distri-
bution for parental participation. Probabilities at the mean for almost all forms of
participation are relatively high (approximately .5) while the probabilities generally
approach 1 for high propensity parents and 0 for less inclined parents, although par-
ents across the distribution attend parent-teacher meetings. These results indicate
that parents to the right of the mean are highly likely to participate with children’s
schools in various ways, while those parents on the left side of the distribution are
74
Table 4.2. Results for the Kindergarten Concerted Cultivation CFA. The ‘Discrimination’ Pa-rameters are Analogous to Factor Loadings Standardized with Reference to the Latent Variable,and the ‘Difficulty’ Parameters are Intercepts
Discrimination Difficulty
Child ActivitiesDance Lessons 0.547 -0.977Athletics 0.679 -0.121Clubs 0.508 -1.114Music 0.509 -1.445Arts and Crafts 0.456 -1.473Organized Performing Arts 0.446 -1.050
Parental ParticipationAttend Open House, Back to School Night 0.683 0.631Attend PTA, PTO, etc., Meeting 0.392 -0.404Attend Parent-Teacher Meeting 0.395 1.004Attend School or Class Event 0.618 0.409Volunteer at School or Serve on Committee 0.710 -0.055Participated in School Fundraiser 0.552 0.233
Material Resourcesln(# of Books +1) 1.000
Concerted Cultivation (Standardized Loadings)Child Activities 0.850Parental Participation 0.908Material Resources 0.602
Summary StatisticsR2 Child Activities 0.722R2 Parental Participation 0.824R2 Material Resources 0.362
χ2 (df = 43)a 497.024RMSEA 0.025CFI 0.949TLI 0.958
N 16,402
75
rarely involved, and that when they are, it is usually to attend parent-teacher
meetings.
The middle panels of table 4.2 displays the fully-standardized factor loadings for
the continuous parent participation, child activities, and material resource factors
on concerted cultivation. The child activities loading is .85, while that for parent
participation is even larger, .91. The correspondence suggests that the activities
and parent participation latent variables or propensities can in large measure be
exchanged or interchanged with the ‘concerted cultivation’ factor. As implied
by the high loadings, the latent-variable R2 values are high, .72 and .82 for child
activities and parent participation, respectively. The loading for material resources
is also respectively high, being over .6 (implying an R2 of .36).
In addition to the high degree of interrelationships amongst the measures com-
posing concerted cultivation measure, which is consistent with the expectations
derived from Lareau’s (2003) work, the model fit statistics suggest good overall
model fit. The RMSEA of 0.025 is well within norms of ‘good model fit’, as are
the CFI (.949) and TLI (.958). The χ2 fit is highly statistically significant, but
this is not surprising given the large sample size (N = 16, 402). Taken together,
the overall suggestion is that the observed variables are related in a fashion highly
consistent with the patterns observed by Lareau (2003).
4.2.4 3 Wave CFA
The ECLS-K repeats the measures used to define concerted cultivation in the
previous section again at the end of the first and third grades. The results for
a model depicting a simultaneous estimation of all three CFAs are are presented
in table 4.3 and a graphical representation of the between wave correlations are
depicted pictorally in figure 4.3. The ranking of the children’s families on the
latent concerted cultivation factor over the 4-year span is remarkably consistent.
Correlations over .95 between waves and a correlation of nearly .94 over a 4-year
span, suggests remarkable consistency in the concerted cultivation measure over
time. These results mean that to the extent that parental behaviors change, those
behaviors and actions change proportionally for every family in the population.
The overall suggestion is one of remarkable consistency, which we would expect
76
Figure 4.2. Item Characteristic Curves for Child Activities and Parent Participation
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
Pro
babi
lity
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4Theta
Dance Lessons
Athletics
Clubs
Music
Arts/Crafts
Org. Arts
Item Characteristic Curve for Child Activities
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
Pro
babi
lity
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4Theta
Open House
Meeting
Parent−Teacher
School Event
Colunteer
Fundraiser
Item Characteristic Curve for Parent Participation
77
Figure 4.3. Between-Wave Correlations for ‘Concerted Cultivation.’
Concerted
Cultivation:Kindergarten
Concerted
Cultivation:1st Grade
Concerted
Cultivation:3rd Grade
ρ=0.985 ρ=0.969
ρ=0.939
given the theoretical nature of concerted cultivation—that it is a parenting strategy
that reflects an underlying cultural logic or form of cultural capital.
A question of interest in this regard is the degree of factorial invariance in the
loading characteristics across waves. Unfortunately, the large N (16,925) means
that this sample is overpowered and able to detect trivial between-wave differences
in the parameter estimates when using χ2 goodness-of-fit difference testing.4 Vi-
sual inspection of the parameter estimates suggest a high degree of correspondence
across waves, although a few indicators deviate—usually decreasing in importance
over time. The story, overall, however, is highly consistent and impressive when
one considers the myriad changes that this period of childhood encompasses. Fur-
thermore, the factor loadings regressing the first-order latent variables on concerted
cultivation5 are notably consistent over time, which means that although there is
a little bit of ‘movement’ relating the items to child activities and parent partic-
ipation, the relationship of concerted cultivation with these factors and material
resources is for all practical purposes invariant.
4Due to the estimator used for the parameter estimates, Mplus must use a special test toconduct difference tests. See the technical appendices online at www.statmodel.com for details.
5Which also means that the R2 values are highly consistent across waves.
78
Table 4.3. Concerted Cultivation CFA at Kindergarten, First Grade, and Third Grade. TheItem Discrimination Parameters are Standardized with Respect to the Latent Variables
Kindergarten First Grade 3rd Grade
Item Discrimination (Factor Loadings, Slopes)
Child Activities
Dance Lessons 0.569 0.492 0.251
Athletics 0.685 0.689 0.555
Clubs 0.509 0.571 0.539
Music 0.485 0.510 0.459
Arts and Crafts 0.442 0.460 0.307
Organized Performing Arts 0.428 0.417 0.362
Parental Participation
Attend Open House, Back to School Night 0.679 0.692 0.680
Attend PTA, PTO, etc., Meeting 0.373 0.373 0.348
Attend Parent-Teacher Meeting 0.379 0.416 0.360
Attend School or Class Event 0.627 0.673 0.699
Volunteer at School or Serve on Committee 0.718 0.784 0.817
Participated in School Fundraiser 0.555 0.578 0.614
Material Resources
ln(# of Books +1) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Item Difficulties (Intercepts)
Child Activities
Dance Lessons -0.977 -0.881 -1.137
Athletics -0.120 0.140 0.236
Clubs -1.114 -0.569 -0.459
Music -1.445 -1.260 -0.889
Arts and Crafts -1.473 -1.241 -1.198
Organized Performing Arts -1.050 -0.865 -0.722
Parental Participation
Attend Open House, Back to School Night 0.631 0.772 0.969
Attend PTA, PTO, etc., Meeting -0.404 -0.210 -0.144
Attend Parent-Teacher Meeting 1.004 1.173 1.315
Attend School or Class Event 0.409 0.609 0.813
Volunteer at School or Serve on Committee -0.055 -0.032 -0.026
Participated in School Fundraiser 0.233 0.401 0.456
Concerted Cultivation (Standardized Loadings)
Child Activities 0.877 0.876 0.908
Parental Participation 0.896 0.876 0.825
Material Resources 0.591 0.571 0.548
Across Wave Correlations
Kindergarten 1.000
First Grade 0.979 1.000
3rd Grade 0.936 0.970 1.000
Summary Statistics
R2 Child Activities 0.769 0.768 0.824
R2 Parental Participation 0.802 0.767 0.680
R2 Material Resources 0.349 0.326 0.301
Fit Indices, Full Model RMSEA CFI TLI
N = 16, 925 0.025 0.947 0.967
χ2 = 1, 763∗∗∗, df = 150a
79
4.2.5 Summary & Notes
These results provide further evidence supporting the concerted cultivation para-
digm. Not only is the general factor observable in the data consistent with Lareau’s
(2003) observations, but the system of relationships defining this factor over time
also show a high degree of consistency over a 4-year span, which is a long period
when dealing with young children. In addition, given the theoretical orientation
towards concerted cultivation as a model of action expressing cultural capital or
a cultural logic, the results completely conform to expectations of temporal con-
sistency. Due to the high consistency of concerted cultivation over time, both
in family rankings within the distribution and the factor structure across waves,
subsequent analyses will use the kindergarten scores.
Before continuing, there are two notes or addendums that must be made. First,
the CFA model reported is one of many that was tested. Researchers familiar
with the ECLS-K have probably noted the absence of the ‘cognitive environment’
measures (HOME subscales) detailing questions pertaining to reading to the child,
playing games, etc. These items were consistent with concerted cultivation during
kindergarten, though the loadings dropped significantly over time. This is mostly
the result of the age-graded nature of those often-used items. In addition, due
to the highly consistent rankings of families on the concerted cultivation measure,
including the additional items has only a trivial impact on the subsequent analyses.
Second, it would be disingenuous to continue the discussion without noting
that I have conceptualized ‘concerted cultivation’ in a way that is not entirely con-
sistent with Lareau (2003). The underlying distribution of concerted cultivation
presented has assumed a continuous, mostly normal-shaped distributional form.
Lareau (2003: 30 & 236) explicitly rejects what she describes as gradation, ex-
plicitly positing categorical analysis. Statistically, this implies latent class analysis
(see Clogg 1995) rather than the more traditional CFA approach undertaken here,
leaving the question of which approach fits the data better for future research.
However, it should be noted that (1) Lareau (2003), in a small, localized sample
would have been unable to observe the full range of population heterogeneity (e.g.
Chin and Phillips 2004), and (2) the proposed model appears to fit the data quite
well. Rather than categorizing ‘concerted cultivation’ and ‘the accomplishment of
natural growth,’ this analysis has considered them to be poles on a continuum. I
80
return to this issue in more detail in the final chapter.
4.3 Predicting Concerted Cultivation
Results for a regression model series predicting concerted cultivation are presented
in table 4.4. All reported coefficients are standardized with respect to concerted
cultivation so that the coefficients for dummy variables reflect standardized differ-
ences, the coefficient for social class is fully-standardized, while the coefficients for
the non-dichotomous remaining covariates refer to the variables in their natural
metric. The first column presents ‘bivariate’ models while columns A–D display
results for a series of multiple regression models with increasingly complex speci-
fications.
Initial race differences are quite large, nearly over a standard deviation for all
groups except ‘others,’ although these differences are not as large as those for
social class. Notably, these race differences are far larger than those expected from
Lareau’s (2003), probably because of the truncated population heterogeneity in her
sample. Two children differing by two standard deviations on the social measure
are expected to come from families differing by over 1.4 standard deviations of
concerted cultivation. Social class explains nearly 50% of the variance in concerted
cultivation, while race explains over 25%. Together these two variables, race and
social class, explain nearly 60% of the variance, which suggests that most of the
variance attributable to race is in fact due to differences in social class across
race/ethnic groups.
The coefficients associated with both race and class decrease when both are
entered in the same model (A). The social class parameter shrinks by about 110
th
of a standard deviation while the magnitude of the black and Hispanic coefficients
decrease by nearly .4 standard deviations. The gap widens for Asians, however,
suggesting that Asian children of the same social class as white children come from
families over 1 standard deviation lower on concerted cultivation. The coefficients
decrease in magnitude when the family covariates are added to the equation (model
C), although all the race and social class differences remain large. Both the Asian
and Hispanic parameters decrease largely in model C when the non-English lan-
guage spoken in the home is added. This result is intuitive; and since concerted
81
cultivation represents a form middle-class U.S. cultural capital, it is not surprising
that immigrant parents are likely not familiar with these practices and so do not
manifest them. Children from families where a non-English language is spoken in
the home come from families that, on average, score nearly .82 standard deviations
lower on the concerted cultivation measure.
Although children from single parents come from lower concerted cultivation
homes relative to two-parent, biological families, the largest family structure dif-
ference is from step parent homes, where parents appear to be significantly less
engaged. In addition, the mother’s work status is related to concerted cultivation
with children whose mothers work part time or not at all, scoring significantly
lower on concerted cultivation, even after adjusting race, social class, and other
family covariates. Parents with low expectations for their children are also far less
likely to engage in concerted cultivation. The initial difference is huge, over -.9
standard deviations, and remains sizeable even after the full covariate list is added
to the model (-.4 standard deviations).
The covariate list explains a large proportion of the variance in concerted culti-
vation. As noted above, the single largest predictor is social class (.48%), with race
contributing significant additional explanatory power (.59%, an additional 10%).
When the full-covariate list is added nearly 70% of the total variance in concerted
cultivation is explained.
4.4 Concerted Cultivation: The Distribution
In the following chapters, concerted cultivation is used to predict child academic
achievement from kindergarten entry over the early grades. As noted in Chapter
3, software limitations preclude the possibility of estimating the piecewise growth
model with varying times of measurement while incorporating the CFA directly
into the equation, so factor scores are output and treated as ‘known’ in HLM v6.6
One way to check the consistency of the factor score with the latent variable is
6I have also done some work attempting to estimate the full model using WinBUGS, a Bayesiananalysis program. Although this appears to be possible, computation time is staggeringly long,necessitating the compromise approach adopted. For an introduction to Bayesian statistics,which is where ‘multilevel modeling’ draws its inspiration, see Congdon (2003), Gelman, Carlin,Stern, and Rubin (2003).
82
Table 4.4. SEM Partially-Standardized Regression Coefficients for Models Predicting Con-certed Cultivation (N = 14, 152)
Model
Variables Bivariate A B C D
Black −1.018 ** −0.666 ** −0.657 ** −0.573 ** −0.587 **(0.055) (0.039) (0.039) (0.035) (0.034)
Hispanic −1.160 ** −0.729 ** −0.719 ** −0.357 ** −0.370 **(0.045) (0.034) (0.033) (0.033) (0.033)
Asian −0.930 ** −1.013 ** −1.004 ** −0.578 ** −0.573 **(0.063) (0.046) (0.047) (0.049) (0.048)
Other −0.605 ** −0.374 ** −0.359 ** −0.275 ** −0.259 **(0.061) (0.045) (0.043) (0.041) (0.039)
Social Class 0.707 ** 0.595 ** 0.596 ** 0.495 ** 0.426 **(0.015) (0.013) (0.013) (0.013) (0.013)
Age at K. Entry 0.021 ** 0.008 ** 0.007 ** 0.007 **(0.004) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
Female 0.161 ** 0.155 ** 0.160 ** 0.148 **(0.022) (0.018) (0.017) (0.016)
Second K. −0.359 ** −0.091 −0.091 −0.049(0.070) (0.054) (0.049) (0.048)
Non-English Lang. at Home −1.319 ** −0.815 ** −0.853 **(0.049) (0.038) (0.038)
Step Parent −0.591 ** −0.298 ** −0.284 **(0.044) (0.033) (0.033)
Single Parent −0.781 ** −0.180 ** −0.192 **(0.042) (0.026) (0.026)
Other Family Structure −0.002 −0.094 −0.073(0.091) (0.069) (0.067)
Child/Adult Ratio - 1 −0.272 ** −0.081 ** −0.059 **(0.019) (0.013) (0.012)
Mother’s Age (centered) 0.057 ** 0.012 ** 0.011 **(0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
Mother Works Part-Time −0.444 ** −0.234 ** −0.245 **(0.033) (0.023) (0.023)
Mother Doesn’t Work −0.446 ** −0.130 ** −0.111 **(0.036) (0.027) (0.026)
Mother Worked Prior to C. Birth 0.196 ** 0.006 −0.021(0.031) (0.021) (0.021)
High School or Less Ed. Exp. −0.930 ** −0.400 **(0.045) (0.031)
Graduate School Ed. Exp. −0.029 0.066 **(0.031) (0.020)
Home Based Care 0.320 ** 0.133 **(0.038) (0.028)
Head Start −0.402 ** −0.021(0.056) (0.036)
Center-Based Care 0.708 ** 0.247 **(0.038) (0.026)
R2 .27a,.48b 0.587 0.597 0.663 0.687
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a R2 for the race bivariate regression.b R2 for the social class bivariate regression.
83
Table 4.5. Concerted Cultivation Distributional Characteristics by Race and SocialClass
Variable X Sx Min Max
Total −0.010 1.004 −3.444 2.941Race
White 0.373 0.836 −3.444 2.941Black −0.559 0.918 −3.444 2.568Hispanic −0.598 1.000 −3.444 2.216Asian −0.511 1.015 −3.444 2.338
Social ClassBottom 25% −0.873 0.868 −3.444 2.139Middle 50% 0.084 0.842 −3.444 2.632Upper 25% 0.688 0.786 −2.485 2.941
to read the factor score back into the SEM package, correlating it with the factor
estimated as the CFA. I tried this but was not able to get the model to converge—
probably due to the high correlation, which suggests a high degree of consistency
between the latent and observed scores. In addition, factor scores computed us-
ing different models also generally correlate between .97 and .99. Although the
evidence suggests a strong degree of correspondence between the latent variable
and factor score, which implies that measurement error should play a small role in
biasing coefficient estimates, Mplus estimates produce larger effect sizes than the
‘observed’ analysis using HLM. However, it is not clear if these larger effect-sizes
are in fact artifacts caused by the inability to incorporate varying times of obser-
vation into the piecewise growth model. In practice, it is safe to assume that the
HLM results presented in the next chapters are slightly biased downwards, and the
Mplus results which are not shown are probably biased upwards as a result of the
underestimation of between-child variances.
Table 4.5 presents descriptive statistics for the concerted cultivation factor score
by race (figure 4) and social class (figure 4.5), and race and social class (figure 4).
Whites are the only group to encompass the full range of the concerted cultivation
distribution (table 4.5 and figure 4), and, although most groups span a large range
of the distribution, there are acute dissimilarities across groups, as we expect,
given the previous analysis. It should be noted, however, that the race differences
in means for the factor score are smaller than those in the SEM models in table 4.4.
84
This finding suggests race and concerted cultivation are less strongly associated
when using the factor scores as compared to the CFA because of measurement
error, implying that the ability of concerted cultivation to explain race gaps in
children’s academic achievement is lessened as a result when using factor scores.
Again, as stated previously, results such as these are consistent with the notion
that factor scores introduce a degree of downward bias in coefficient estimates.
Table 4.5 and figure 4.5 also demonstrate differences in the coverage of the
concerted cultivation distribution by social class. Although the standard deviations
are relatively consistent, there are striking dissimilarities in the means, as expected
from table 4.4. Histograms by race and class are presented in figure 4. Lower-class
white children, although likely to come from disadvantage concerted cultivation
families, are more likely to come from the positive side of the distribution than
children in other groups. The tendency toward negative concerted cultivation
values for lower social class minority group members will have implications for the
achievement analyses in chapters 5, 6, and 7.
4.5 Discussion
Lareau (2003) describes a number of differences in the ways that parents organize
their children’s lives, interact with professionals, speak, and utilize academic re-
sources. These practices identify the underlying parenting strategies, embodying a
cultural logic which is a form of parental cultural capital. Although Lareau’s (2003)
study is ethnographic, by noting patterns of behaviors and actions, the observa-
tions offered lend themselves to parametric model formulation using latent variable
modeling. Although ethnographic research is often limited in its generalizeability
without verification using techniques designed to capture broader ranges of popula-
tion heterogeneity, when confirmation is found, the ethnographic research provides
deeper insights into the data-generating process observed in the estimated relation-
ships than survey data can provide alone. In this case, data using the ECLS-K
find broad support for the notion of ‘cultural capital’ when expressed as a pattern
of relationships between variables. Not only are the patterns of relations amongst
the indicators consistent with concerted cultivation, the parameter estimates are
relatively invariant over the 3-year study period, and parents rank nearly perfectly,
85
Figure 4.4. Concerted Cultivation by Race
0
5
10
15
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
White
0
5
10
15
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Black
0
5
10
15
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Hispanic
0
5
10
15
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Asian
Concerted Cultivation
implying remarkable consistency in parenting strategies over time.
One unfortunate limitation of the model is a notable inability to directly capture
parental language use. However, given the strong support found for the other
dimensions of the cultural capital model, it is likely that elements of language
use are captured by the latent constructs through correlations with the observed
outcomes. Obviously, however, one expects that the model would be stronger if
items measuring language use were included.
The models predicting concerted cultivation support Lareau’s (2003) findings
that social class is the defining characteristic differentiating families. Indeed, social
class explains nearly 50% of the variance in concerted cultivation. Race, however,
appears to play a larger role than Lareau (2003) suggests, which is not really
86
Figure 4.5. Concerted Cultivation by Social Class
0
5
10
15
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
Full Sample
0
5
10
15
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
SES: Middle 50%
0
5
10
15
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
SES: Bottom 25%
0
5
10
15
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4
SES: Upper 25%
Concerted Cultivation
surprising when one considers the limited racial heterogeneity in social class in her
study.7 Although race/ethnic group indicators remain strong, important predictors
with increasingly complex model specifications, inclusion of the race categories
explains about another 10% of the variance above and beyond social class.
The strong negative effect of having a non-English language spoken in the home,
a clear proxy for immigrant status, also provides further evidence in support of
the ‘concerted cultivation’ interpretation of the CFA model. Because concerted
7There was also limited heterogeneity in racial composition; white and black children were theonly two groups included in Lareau’s (2003) analysis, and it is not likely that the full distributionwas covered for either of these groups. In addition, Lareau did not include either Hispanic orAsian families, two composite groups that are extremely heterogenous along a number of socialdimensions. Note that I too ignore some of the variability across these groups by using the broadcategorizations ‘Hispanic’ and ‘Asian.’
87
Figure 4.6. Concerted Cultivation by Social Class & Race
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=1294
Low SES: White
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=5284
Middle SES: White
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=3231
High SES: White
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=1021
Low SES: Black
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=1123
Middle SES: Black
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=274
High SES: Black
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=1422
Low SES: Hispanic
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=1217
Middle SES: Hispanic
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=311
High SES: Hispanic
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=263
Low SES: Asian
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=469
Middle SES: Asian
0
5
10
15
20
Per
cent
−4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4N=370
High SES: Asian
Concerted Cultivation
88
cultivation is a U.S. family cultural repertoire, it would be surprising to find that
recently arrived immigrant families have adopted middle-class parenting practices.
Although many parents probably come to adopt the cultural logic of concerted
cultivation, they are likely to be higher social class parents, and, importantly,
time must be give for cultural diffusion. While including the non-English language
indicator explains significant portions of the differences in concerted cultivation
of Hispanic and Asian families relative to whites, the models indicate that Asian
families have lower levels of concerted cultivation than white families of the same
social class. Coefficients are reduced for both black and Hispanic families when
social class is included, as expected however.
Net of social class and race, single-parent families practice less concerted cul-
tivation than two-parent biological families. The disadvantage is even larger for
step parent families. These findings are consistent with previous research sug-
gesting that stepfathers are less involved with children than biological fathers.
Furthermore, these differences in family structure do not appear to be strictly
the result of temporal constraints since mothers who are employed full time are,
on average, more likely to practice concerted cultivation than part-time and non-
employed mothers. While parents who expect their children to get graduate or
professional degrees practice marginally more concerted cultivation, parents with
low educational expectations for their children practice considerably less. The
sizeable deficit highlights how parental goals or expectations for their children can
operate through parental actions.
Without the guiding hand of Lareau’s (2003) ethnographic research, it not
clear from the previous literature that the items used for the CFA analysis should
cohere in the fashion they do. The diverse number of ways the cultural capital
has been used in the literature suggests that researchers have been attempting to
operationalize cultural capital in a somewhat haphazard fashion. Given the lack
of clear guidance and cultural dissimilarities between the U.S. and France, where
the concept was developed by Bordieu, this is not surprising. However, Lareau’s
(2003) work outlines an American model which links across many dimensions of
child and family life, creating a rich backdrop for the development of hypotheses.
Furthermore, Lareau’s (2003) richly detailed study highlights the underlying logic
of the practice of concerted cultivation, giving the latent variables operational-
89
ized in the CFA deeper theoretical meaning than simply an interesting covariance
structure amongst observations, and illustrating the different ways that parents
view their roles. Having found confirmation for Lareau’s (2003) conception of cul-
tural capital as a parenting strategy denoted ‘concerted cultivation,’ the remaining
analytic chapters relate this concept to children’s academic growth.
CHAPTER
FIVE
General Knowledge Achievement
5.1 General Knowledge Achievement Growth
Research on childhood academic achievement has tended to focus on reading and
mathematics achievement. Part of this focus is simply the product of the availabil-
ity of these tests in large data sets, but also reflects the importance of these skills
in other areas of academic competence. General knowledge1 tests are notewor-
thy, however, particularly for researchers concerned with how families influence
a broad range of children’s skills. Lareau (2003), for example, cites numerous
examples where parents engaging in a pattern of concerted development seek to
increase children’s knowledge of the world at every opportunity through the use of
questioning and refining definitions.
General knowledge tests are relevant because the items used to construct these
tests relate to a number of issues extending across politics, history, economics, and
science, that may be more likely to become manifest in conversations and the gen-
eral content of parent-child interactions than purely reading or mathematics skills.
In addition, because the questions composing these tests cross numerous academic
domains, general knowledge tests probably reflect a knowledge-base through which
children can quickly signal their competencies to teachers and other professionals
and which will, later in life, play roles similar in the labor market and social life.
1It’s important to note that “general knowledge” is an achievement, not an IQ test.
91
Denton et al. (2000) have demonstrated very large general knowledge skill
differences across social groups. Although previous research assessing test scores
across numerous domains using the NAEP data (Lapp, Grigg, and Tay-Lim 2002)
suggest group disparities across a number of academic domains (see also Hedges
and Nowell 1998; Phillips et al. 1998b; Jencks and Phillips 1998), those found in
the ECLS-K are larger than expected, which has tempered researchers’ interest in
the test (e.g. Fryer and Levitt 2004). It is worth reiterating at this point that the
characteristics of general knowledge test across social groups are actually better
than those for the other tests (NCES 2002).
5.2 General Knowledge Growth
Results for two descriptive, baseline growth models are presented in table 5.1 for
baseline comparisons with later models. The growth parameters are arrayed across
the columns, rather than down the rows as is typical. The first unconditional
model includes no control variables, while the second conditional baseline model
includes covariates for age at kindergarten entry, whether the child is a second
time kindergartner, and whether the child changed schools over a given period—
covariates which are included in all subsequent models. Children begin school with
a mean general knowledge achievement test score of approximately 20 points with
a standard deviation of (√
35.8 =) 6 points. Test scores increase at over .8 points
per month over the kindergarten year, nearly two times faster than during the
summertime, and rise somewhat slower during first grade (.7 points per month).
The variances on the slope parameters are small but significant. Small variances
indicate that, on average, children grow at similar rates over the study period.
Surprisingly, and in contrast to the results for mathematics and reading scores
(chapter’s 6 and 7), variability of the summertime between children is smaller
than for either kindergarten or first grade, although differences between-school are
larger. Children, on this measure, appear to grow at relatively uniform rates. The
between-student random effect correlations (level-2) indicate that children who
begin the test with higher scores grow at slower rates than children in the same
schools during the subsequent periods, with the negative correlation increasing with
time. Surprisingly, the summer and first grade growth rates are nearly collinear
92
Table 5.1. Null Growth Models for General Knowledge Achievement Scores (IRT) fromKindergarten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade
Intercept Kindergarten Summer 1st
Null Model (w/out Covariates)Growth Parameters 20.004 0.822 0.425 0.663
(0.156) (0.008) (0.030) (0.010)
L-2 Random Effects1
Intercept 35.787Kindergarten −0.120 0.062Summer −0.299 0.135 0.0261st −0.507 0.254 0.949 0.039
L-3 Random Effects1
Intercept 20.296Kindergarten 0.097 0.024Summer −0.070 −0.316 0.1451st −0.263 −0.014 −0.527 0.024
Null Model (w/ Covariates)Growth Parameters 20.376 0.824 0.422 0.664
(0.151) (0.008) (0.030) (0.010)Second Time K. −1.085 −0.072 −0.169 −0.025
(0.300) (0.028) (0.108) (0.035)Age at K. Entry 0.371
(0.012)Changed Schools 0.047 0.087 −0.046
(0.037) (0.045) (0.035)
L-2 Random Effects1
Intercept 32.693Kindergarten −0.120 0.062Summer −0.299 0.135 0.0261st −0.507 0.254 0.949 0.039
L-3 Random Effects1
Intercept 18.570Kindergarten 0.071 0.024Summer −0.027 −0.324 0.1391st −0.292 −0.016 −0.523 0.024
Note: Columns represent level-1 parameters in the growth models.1 Diagonals are variances and off diagonals correlations.
93
with a correlation of approximately .95. The between-level correlations follow a
similar, albeit attenuated pattern.
A very large proportion of the total variance in children’s general knowledge
test scores resides between schools. Schools with higher than average initial treat-
ment tended to have lower average growth rates during the first grade, although
the average level of initial status is not related to the other growth parameters.
Average growth rates over the summertime also tend to be lower when average
kindergarten growth was higher. The variances around the school-year growth pa-
rameters are both small and similar, while there is more variability in growth over
the summertime. The between-school variability in summertime growth is larger
than for any of the other variance components, including those at the between-
student level.
The results of the initial, baseline growth model highlight the following:
1. Although there is significant variability in children’s test scores at kinder-garten entry, there is also significant variability in the average levels of stu-dent achievement between schools.
2. Growth rates are relatively uniform during the school year, both betweenchildren and and between schools.
3. Children who begin kindergarten with more skills tend to learn at slowerrates than children in the same schools over subsequent periods.
4. Variability in summer growth rates between children is large, and further-more, summer and first-grade learning are highly collinear. The largestgrowth parameter variability occurs in the summer slope between schools.
5.2.1 Non-Centered Growth Models
Results for a series of three-level growth models predicting children’s general knowl-
edge growth over the kindergarten and first grade years are presented in table 5.2.
In addition, coefficient reduction summaries and standardized coefficients are avail-
able in Appendix tables A.1 and A.2. All coefficients for equations A through F are
reported in the table while the full model results for model G are available in Ap-
pendix table A.4 (along with a series of intermediate models).2 Models A through
2Non-focal parameters are not reported in the main table because the large number of para-meters results in excessive table length.
94
C are descriptive in nature, estimating what is essentially the “bivariate” relation-
ship between race (A), social class (B), and concerted cultivation (C) on children’s
general knowledge trajectories. The next model set in the series, D and E, adjusts
the race (D) and social class equations (E) for difference in concerted cultivation
levels. Race, social class, and concerted cultivation are included simultaneously in
model F, while the full control list is entered into the equation in model G.3 All
models adjust for whether or not the child is a second time kindergartner, age at
kindergarten entry, and whether or not the child moved during a given period.
Initial Status
The first panel of regression coefficients in table 5.2 represent differences in chil-
dren’s expected general knowledge achievement scores at kindergarten entry. Dif-
ferences across social groups are striking. Hispanic, Black, and Asian children
(model A), for example, score between 4.4 and 5.3 points (.73 and .89 standard de-
viations4) lower than whites, on average. These race differences are far larger than
those reported on the other tests (see Chapters 6 and 7). Disparities by social class
(model B) are also large—nearly 2.5 points for each standard deviation increase
on the social class composite (.42 standard deviations on the test). The gap for
children two standard deviations apart is nearly .85 standard deviations, a tremen-
dously large difference in children’s general knowledge as assessed at kindergarten
entry.
Before estimating the extent to which these social group differences in children’s
general knowledge scores at kindergarten entry are due to differences in parenting
practices, it is important to uncover the simple relationship between concerted
cultivation and children’s scores. The disparity by the concerted cultivation mea-
sure is larger in magnitude (model C) than that for social class,5 2.9 points for
each standard deviation, which is a difference of .49 standard deviations on the
test. Children are clearly differentiated with regard to their early knowledge base
by the parenting strategies of their parents, as expected from the differences in
3Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix table A.4.4The standardized race differences are computed by dividing the coefficient by the standard
deviation of the corresponding variance component from the first null model in table 5.1, whichin this case is the intercept.
5The statistical significance of this statement was not assessed.
95
Table 5.2. Growth Models for General Knowledge Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kinder-garten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, Concerted Cultivation, andSelected Covariates (ECLS-K)
Model
Variablesa,b A B C D E F G
Initial Status 22.238 ** 20.350 ** 20.358 ** 21.697 ** 20.345 ** 21.625 ** 21.416 **(0.134) (0.116) (0.108) (0.109) (0.095) (0.099) (0.193)
Black −4.669 ** −3.446 ** −3.191 ** −3.094 **(0.205) (0.196) (0.189) (0.193)
Hispanic −4.378 ** −3.137 ** −2.841 ** −1.731 **(0.189) (0.184) (0.179) (0.188)
Asian −5.292 ** −3.528 ** −4.039 ** −2.178 **(0.274) (0.267) (0.261) (0.281)
Other Race −2.926 ** −2.219 ** −2.157 ** −1.877 **(0.276) (0.263) (0.256) (0.251)
Social class 2.492 ** 1.692 ** 1.681 ** 1.328 **(0.065) (0.068) (0.068) (0.071)
Concerted Cultivation 2.926 ** 2.602 ** 2.359 ** 2.017 ** 1.635 **(0.065) (0.067) (0.069) (0.071) (0.073)
Second K. −0.895 ** −0.625 * −0.714 * −0.605 * −0.478 −0.395 −0.348(0.290) (0.294) (0.283) (0.277) (0.281) (0.275) (0.275)
Age at K. Entry 0.358 ** 0.384 ** 0.373 ** 0.362 ** 0.383 ** 0.371 ** 0.373 **(0.012) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.010)
Kindergarten Slope 0.835 ** 0.824 ** 0.825 ** 0.835 ** 0.825 ** 0.834 ** 0.856 **(0.009) (0.008) (0.008) (0.009) (0.008) (0.009) (0.014)
Black −0.040 * −0.042 * −0.039 * −0.043 *(0.018) (0.019) (0.019) (0.020)
Hispanic −0.026 −0.021 −0.019 −0.023(0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.019)
Asian −0.009 −0.004 −0.005 −0.018(0.026) (0.027) (0.027) (0.029)
Other Race 0.009 0.008 0.009 0.008(0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026)
Social class 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.003(0.006) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007)
Concerted Cultivation 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.006(0.006) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.008)
Second K. −0.070 * −0.067 * −0.071 * −0.071 * −0.068 * −0.068 * −0.070 *(0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028)
Changed School 0.050 0.059 0.081 * 0.080 * 0.083 * 0.082 * 0.084 *(0.037) (0.037) (0.037) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036)
Summer Slope 0.415 ** 0.423 ** 0.425 ** 0.411 ** 0.426 ** 0.412 ** 0.379 **(0.036) (0.030) (0.030) (0.037) (0.030) (0.037) (0.050)
Black 0.082 0.096 0.104 0.100(0.073) (0.075) (0.076) (0.078)
Hispanic 0.036 0.050 0.052 0.071(0.069) (0.071) (0.071) (0.075)
Asian −0.017 0.007 −0.009 0.021(0.106) (0.107) (0.108) (0.116)
Other Race −0.105 −0.092 −0.088 −0.081(0.093) (0.093) (0.093) (0.094)
Social class 0.054 * 0.051 0.056 * 0.072 *(0.024) (0.027) (0.027) (0.028)
Concerted Cultivation 0.012 0.019 −0.006 −0.002 0.002(0.025) (0.026) (0.028) (0.029) (0.030)
Second K. −0.174 −0.153 −0.163 −0.168 −0.151 −0.155 −0.149(0.108) (0.108) (0.108) (0.108) (0.108) (0.108) (0.109)
Changed School 0.091 * 0.085 * 0.090 * 0.096 * 0.086 m 0.090 * 0.089 *(0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.044)
1st Grade Slope 0.638 ** 0.665 ** 0.664 ** 0.646 ** 0.664 * 0.647 ** 0.687 **(0.012) (0.010) (0.010) (0.012) (0.010) (0.012) (0.016)
Black 0.028 0.010 0.006 0.012(0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.025)
Hispanic 0.044 * 0.026 0.023 −0.002(0.022) (0.022) (0.023) (0.024)
Asian 0.157 ** 0.130 ** 0.138 ** 0.097 *(0.033) (0.034) (0.034) (0.036)
Other Race 0.081 ** 0.070 * 0.069 * 0.068 *(0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.031)
Social class −0.038 ** −0.025 ** −0.028 ** −0.036 **(0.008) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009)
Concerted Cultivation −0.040 ** −0.034 ** −0.032 ** −0.025 ** −0.023 *(0.008) (0.008) (0.009) (0.009) (0.010)
Second K. −0.025 −0.036 −0.033 −0.031 −0.038 −0.037 −0.033(0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035)
Changed School −0.046 −0.041 −0.045 −0.044 −0.041 −0.040 −0.025(0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Table continued on next page.b Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix table A.4.
96
Table 5.2 – Continued: General Knowledge AchievementModel
Variablesa A B C D E F G
Level-2 Variance ComponentsIntercept 31.094 ** 30.066 ** 28.949 ** 28.295 ** 27.851 ** 27.851 ** 25.902 **Kindergarten Slope 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.060 **Summer Slope 0.027 ** 0.026 ** 0.027 ** 0.028 ** 0.028 ** 0.028 ** 0.030 **
1st Grade Slope 0.038 ** 0.039 ** 0.038 ** 0.036 ** 0.037 ** 0.037 ** 0.035 **
Level-3 Variance ComponentsIntercept 10.811 ** 9.595 ** 7.924 ** 5.189 ** 5.513 ** 5.513 ** 2.866 **Kindergarten Slope 0.023 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.023 ** 0.023 ** 0.023 ** 0.023 **Summer Slope 0.139 ** 0.142 ** 0.141 ** 0.140 ** 0.142 ** 0.142 ** 0.139 **
1st Grade Slope 0.023 ** 0.022 ** 0.023 ** 0.022 ** 0.022 ** 0.022 ** 0.022 **
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix table A.4.
parent-child content and child experiences that Lareau (2003) observed.
When concerted cultivation is added to model A in model D, the racial group
disparities reduce significantly (26% for blacks, 28% for Hispanics, and 33% for
Asians) in magnitude, suggesting that a substantial proportion of minority group
disadvantages are related to parenting practices. Yet, the differences from whites
remain disproportionately large in all cases, clearly implicating factors other than
the parenting strategies captured by the concerted cultivation measure. The story
is similar for social class (model E) where the coefficient reduces by approximately
32%. Again, a substantial reduction, although the expected baseline difference
remains nearly 1.7 points for each standard deviation difference in social class.
As with the social group covariates, race and social class, the initial estimate of
concerted cultivation with children’s general knowledge achievement was overesti-
mated due to shared correlations with other factors. Not surprisingly, the greatest
reduction in the concerted cultivation relationships arose when social class ap-
peared in the equation (19%). Notably, however, concerted cultivation is of similar
magnitude to the social class association for the general knowledge test.
Although the race and social coefficients continue to decrease in magnitude
with additional covariates, the largest absolute reduction in all cases occurs when
concerted cultivation is entered in to the equation. Differences remain large at
model G when the full covariate list is included. Black children, after adjustments,
are the most disadvantaged group, scoring over a 12
standard deviation (3 points)
below white children (model G). Approximately half of both the Hispanic and
Asian disadvantages are due to the frequency with which these children come
from homes where a non-English language is regularly spoken. Despite reductions
97
in coefficient magnitude, concerted cultivation persists as one of the strongest
predictors of children’s early school general knowledge readiness, with a larger
point estimate, in fact, than social class (1.3 versus 1.6 points, or .22 versus .27
standard deviations).
Kindergarten Slope
Coefficients for the children’s kindergarten learning rates as a function of race,
social class, and concerted cultivation are displayed in the second panel of table 5.2.
Children’s general knowledge scores increase by over .8 points per month while in
kindergarten with few systematic differences across social groups, although second
time kindergartners learn at a significantly lower rate than other children, while
those who changed schools appear to do better, on average. Amongst social groups,
the only systematic difference is a deficit of .04 points per month (about .16-.17
standard deviations) for black children which remains impervious to adjustment
by social class, concerted cultivation, and the other covariates included in model
G. The concerted cultivation measure is not systematically related to children’s
general knowledge growth during the kindergarten year.
Summer Slope
Children continue to learn over the summertime at a rate approximately half that
reported during kindergarten, which is still significant. Although previous research
has suggested learning deficits by race in the summertime (Cooper et al. 1996;
Alexander et al. 2001), no race differences are found in general knowledge using
the ECLS-K. Consistent with prior research, however, children from lower social
class families lose ground over the summer while advantaged children grow at a
substantially faster rate. These differences are moderately large. The social class
coefficient in model G, for example, is nearly 20% of the average growth rate for
all children. Another way of looking at the social class advantage/disadvantage
is to standardize the coefficient with respect to the between child variance of the
summer slope, which suggests a standardized slope of .45. This large difference is
indicative of the large social class differences in summer growth, larger than during
the school year, which led Downey et al. (2004) to recently conclude that schools
98
have a tendency to reduce inequality.
There are large and meaningful differences in children’s summer learning rates
by social class; however, these differences in growth are not attributable to con-
certed cultivation which is not statistically associated with children’s growth. This
null finding is surprising as summer is the time when family influences are most
likely to be visible, and they are, but through social class and not cultural capital.
1st Grade Slope
The final panel on the first page of table 5.2 contains the parameters for growth over
first grade. Although Hispanic children appear to be growing at a faster rate than
white children (model A), this finding does not hold when additional covariates
are added to the model. The rate of general knowledge growth for Asian children,
however, is significantly higher than for white children, and the finding is robust
across model specifications. By model G, the Asian coefficient is about 14% of the
average growth rate (.69 points per month).
Higher social class children and those from homes that score higher on the
concerted cultivation measure grow more slowly over first grade, contrary to ex-
pectations. However, the difference is small (-.04 points per month for social class
and -.03 points per month for concerted cultivation, in model G) and the children
who are implied to be growing the slowest over first grade have already accumu-
lated significant advantages on the test. It must also be remembered that the
mixed growth model is attempting to estimate the average within-school growth
rate,6 which suggests that advantaged social class and concerted cultivation chil-
dren grow faster than their less advantaged peers in the same school. Because
these children are already significantly advantaged as a result of home advan-
tages, the slow growth rates may reflect within-school ceiling effects (as opposed
to test-specific ceiling effects). That is, many of these children may be “learning”
redundant information.
6In normal random effects models, this is typically not the case because, as explained inthe following section, covariates are often correlated with the random effects. The associationsestimate in these models, are in fact weighted averages of “within-” and “between-school” as-sociations. The next series of models, which leverage school-level “fixed-effects,” address the“average within-school” association more effectively.”
99
Summary
Figures summarizing race, social class, and concerted cultivation gaps are depicted
in figures 5.1 to 5.3. Figure 5.1 depicts both growth figures by race with and
without controlling for concerted cultivation in the top panel, and curves depict-
ing race/ethnic differences from whites in the bottom panel. Both sets of curves
illustrate the approximately 30% reduction in race differences at kindergarten en-
try for all groups, and highlight the black-white differences in growth over the
kindergarten year and the reducing Asian-white gap over the first grade, while the
Hispanic-white gap remains relatively constant over the study period.
Corresponding figures for social class are presented in figure 5.2. The compres-
sion of the social class gaps from the unadjusted to the adjusted figure in the top
panel is indicative of the over 30% reduction in social class coefficient magnitude,
which is also apparent in the difference curve in the bottom panel. Although chil-
dren of different social classes grow at different rates over the summer, concerted
cultivation is not implicated in the gap.
Although playing an important role in children’s initial general knowledge skills
at kindergarten entry, concerted cultivation is not strongly implicated in general
knowledge growth, as evinced by the growth and difference curves portrayed in the
top and bottom panels of figure 5.3. The largest action of concerted cultivation is
prior to kindergarten entry, and as shown in the figures, children advantaged on this
measure, somewhat surprisingly, learn at slower rates during the first grade year.
This pattern of growth, however, may be the result of within-school or classroom
ceiling effects. Even if this is the case, however, it implies that concerted cultivation
is not contributing to children’s general knowledge growth over this period.
5.2.2 Group-Mean Centered Models
Often covariates are correlated with the random effects in multilevel models, which
appears likely when considering how the level-3 variance components change across
the original model set in table 5.2. For example, adding concerted cultivation in
model C explains over 55% of the variance in the level-3 intercept, although much
smaller proportions of the variances in the slopes are explained due to variability in
average levels of concerted cultivation across schools. That the covariates might be
100
Figure 5.1. Graphical Depictions of Race Differences in Children’s General KnowledgeGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st Grade from Table 5.2
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Unadjusted (Model A)
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Adjusted (Model D)
−6
−4
−2
0
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Black−White General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
−6
−4
−2
0
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Hispanic−White General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
−6
−4
−2
0
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Asian−White General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
101
Figure 5.2. Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s GeneralKnowledge Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st Grade from Table 5.2
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Adjusted (Model E)
−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Low SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low SES Adjusted (Model E)
High SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
High SES Adjusted (Model E)
SES General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
102
Figure 5.3. Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s General KnowledgeGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st Grade by Concerted Cultivation fromTable 5.2
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
Concerted Cultivation:Unadjusted (Model C)
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult
Low C. Cult (−1 sd)
Concerted Cultivation:Adjusted (Model G)
−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Low C. Cult: Unadjusted (Model C)
Low C. Cult Adjusted (Model G)
High C. Cult: Unadjusted (Model C)
High C. Cult Adjusted (Model G)
Concerted Cultivation: General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
103
correlated with the random effects is not surprising considering the unequal access
to educational opportunities across social groups. For this reason, the next series
of models replicate those in table 5.2 but with the covariates centered around
their respective group means. These models are, in effect, growth models with
school-level fixed-effects, which means the between-student parameters represent
average expected general knowledge scores between-children who attend the same
school.7 In addition, this approach has the added benefit of adjusting for constant
school-level confounders. Results are presented in table 5.38 and figures 5.4 to 5.6.
Initial Status
The race and social group differences in children’s general knowledge test scores
at kindergarten entry are noticeably smaller when children in the same schools are
compared, although differences are still remarkably large.9 Overall, the story por-
trayed by the non-group-mean centered and group-mean centered models is consis-
tent, however. Concerted cultivation mediates approximately 30% of the race and
social class differences in children’s initial general knowledge achievement, which is
a proportion essentially equal to that from the non-centered models. Notably, the
concerted cultivation coefficient estimate is again larger10 than that reported for
social class, indicating the importance of parenting strategies for children’s school
readiness.
The Slope Parameters
Whereas the non-group-mean centered models suggest differential growth rates
over the kindergarten year between black and white children, the results presented
in table 5.3 suggest that this relation does not hold once black and white children
in the same schools are compared. Consistent with the previous results, there
are no other statistically significant social group differences in children’s learning
7Notably, this is usually what researchers want their coefficients to represent. I present boththe group-mean centered and non-centered models because researchers are not yet entirely fa-miliar with the differences between these two approaches to model formulation.
8Partially-standardized regression slopes are reported in Appendix table A.3, coefficient mag-nitude reduction in A.1, and results for the full model are presented in table A.4.
9See Appendix table A.3 for the standardized differences.10This is merely an “eyeball” difference and is not assessed statistically.
104
Table 5.3. Group-Mean Centered Growth Models for General Knowledge Achievement Scores(IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, ConcertedCultivation, and Selected Covariates (ECLS-K)
Model
Variablesa,b A B C D E F G
Initial Status 20.019 ** 20.026 ** 20.042 ** 20.040 ** 20.043 ** 20.040 ** 20.039 **(0.156) (0.156) (0.156) (0.156) (0.156) (0.156) (0.156)
Black −3.797 ** −2.745 ** −2.527 ** −2.506 **(0.234) (0.229) (0.227) (0.229)
Hispanic −3.514 ** −2.378 ** −2.098 ** −1.206 **(0.206) (0.203) (0.201) (0.206)
Asian −4.786 ** −3.186 ** −3.523 ** −1.864 **(0.289) (0.284) (0.281) (0.298)
Other Race −2.183 ** −1.470 ** −1.363 ** −1.170 **(0.296) (0.287) (0.284) (0.280)
Social class 2.106 ** 1.426 ** 1.412 ** 1.133 **(0.071) (0.073) (0.073) (0.075)
Concerted Cultivation 2.520 ** 2.245 ** 2.059 ** 1.795 ** 1.485 **(0.070) (0.072) (0.073) (0.075) (0.077)
Second K. −0.818 ** −0.519 −0.637 * −0.571 * −0.395 −0.341 −0.279(0.298) (0.301) (0.291) (0.287) (0.290) (0.286) (0.288)
Age at K. Entry 0.349 ** 0.364 ** 0.357 ** 0.352 ** 0.362 ** 0.357 ** 0.356 **(0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011)
Kindergarten Slope 0.822 ** 0.821 ** 0.822 ** 0.822 ** 0.822 ** 0.822 ** 0.825 **(0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008)
Black −0.016 −0.016 −0.013 −0.014(0.023) (0.023) (0.023) (0.024)
Hispanic −0.024 −0.019 −0.017 −0.021(0.020) (0.021) (0.021) (0.021)
Asian −0.011 −0.007 −0.011 −0.025(0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.031)
Other Race −0.019 −0.018 −0.018 −0.017(0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029)
Social class 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.006(0.007) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008)
Concerted Cultivation 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000(0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.008) (0.008)
Second K. −0.066 * −0.063 * −0.065 * −0.065 * −0.062 * −0.061 * −0.062 *(0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029)
Changed School 0.061 0.069 m 0.088 * 0.088 * 0.091 * 0.091 * 0.093 *(0.037) (0.037) (0.037) (0.037) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036)
Summer Slope 0.425 ** 0.426 ** 0.426 ** 0.427 ** 0.427 ** 0.427 ** 0.428 **(0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030) (0.030)
Black 0.138 0.150 0.043 0.161 0.146(0.092) (0.093) (0.030) (0.093) (0.094)
Hispanic 0.018 0.033 0.036 0.058(0.081) (0.082) (0.082) (0.084)
Asian −0.023 0.004 −0.003 0.040(0.114) (0.116) (0.116) (0.123)
Other Race 0.099 0.114 0.118 0.118(0.109) (0.109) (0.109) (0.110)
Social class 0.047 0.010 0.048 0.062 *(0.028) (0.030) (0.030) (0.031)
Concerted Cultivation 0.023 0.029 −0.159 0.016 0.016(0.028) (0.029) (0.113) (0.030) (0.032)
Second K. −0.178 −0.161 −0.171 −0.173 0.054 −0.159 −0.157(0.113) (0.113) (0.113) (0.113) (0.051) (0.113) (0.114)
Changed School 0.054 0.053 0.054 0.056 0.056 0.055(0.051) (0.051) (0.051) (0.051) (0.051) (0.051)
1st Grade Slope 0.662 ** 0.662 ** 0.662 ** 0.662 ** 0.662 ** 0.662 ** 0.662 **(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)
Black 0.015 −0.001 −0.006 0.002(0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.030)
Hispanic 0.054 * 0.036 0.033 0.010(0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.027)
Asian 0.180 ** 0.152 ** 0.156 ** 0.114 **(0.036) (0.037) (0.037) (0.039)
Other Race 0.031 0.018 0.017 0.016(0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035)
Social class −0.032 ** −0.020 * −0.023 * −0.030 **(0.009) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)
Concerted Cultivation −0.043 ** −0.037 ** −0.037 ** −0.030 ** −0.027 **(0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.010) (0.010)
Second K. −0.022 −0.030 −0.028 −0.028 −0.033 −0.034 −0.030(0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036)
Changed School −0.044 −0.038 −0.042 −0.042 −0.038 −0.039 −0.025(0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Table continued on next page.b Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix table A.4.
105
Table 5.3 – Continued: General Knowledge Achievement, Group-Mean CenteredModel
Variablesa A B C D E F G
Level-2 Variance ComponentsIntercept 31.050 ** 30.061 ** 28.917 ** 28.165 ** 27.806 ** 27.095 ** 25.812 **Kindergarten Slope 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.062 ** 0.060 **Summer Slope 0.026 ** 0.026 ** 0.027 ** 0.027 ** 0.028 ** 0.027 ** 0.028 **
1st Grade Slope 0.038 ** 0.039 ** 0.038 ** 0.037 ** 0.038 ** 0.037 ** 0.035 **
Level-3 Variance ComponentsIntercept 20.550 ** 20.503 ** 20.530 ** 20.607 ** 20.573 ** 20.654 ** 20.818 **Kindergarten Slope 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 **Summer Slope 0.145 ** 0.145 ** 0.145 ** 0.145 ** 0.145 ** 0.146 ** 0.144 **
1st Grade Slope 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 ** 0.024 **
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix table A.4.
rates over the kindergarten year, nor is concerted cultivation related to children’s
growth.
As with the kindergarten growth factor, summer results remain largely un-
changed when the growth models are estimated with school-level fixed-effects.
However, the relation of social class to children’s general knowledge acquisition
during the summertime is less consistently related. Descriptively, there is little ev-
idence that children who attend the same schools and, correspondingly, are likely
live in similar neighborhoods, grow at different rates over the summertime. In the
full model (G), however, social class emerges again as an important predictor, sug-
gesting that children otherwise equal on the covariate list who come from higher
social class family backgrounds grow at increased rates. Concerted cultivation,
in agreement with the previous models, does not appear to be related to chil-
dren’s general knowledge acquisition over the summertime, or provide systematic
information on children’s growth patterns.
The story for general knowledge growth over the first grade in table 5.3 is
based essentially on the same pattern of findings as those presented in table 5.2.
Notably, Hispanic children appear to grow more quickly in the descriptive race
model (A), but this association is in fact due to differences in the average level
of concerted cultivation Hispanic children experience. As before, Asian children
grow at a faster rate than white children, although the coefficient is slightly larger
when Asian children are compared to white children in the same schools than in
the population-based model reported in table 5.2.
The negative association between social class and concerted cultivation and
children’s growth during the first grade persists after constant, unobserved school
106
characteristics are adjusted for. Although the relationships with growth are small,
they still capture a convergence over time in children’s general knowledge.
5.2.3 Summary
The school-level fixed-effects models are consistent with the non-centered growth
models, although coefficient magnitudes tend to be reduced because the original
coefficient estimates were biased upward as a result of between-school relationships
in the group-means. The race (5.4), social class (5.5), and concerted cultivation
(5.6) figures tell stories similar to those seen previously. Although coefficients are
smaller in the centered models, the reduction in coefficient magnitude are slightly
larger than in the non-centered models, so the gaps after controlling for concerted
cultivation are slightly smaller in the figures.
As with the previous models, Asian children learn more quickly than other
children during the first grade year, which is clearly visible in both panels of figure
5.4. There is less evidence, however, of social group disparities in summertime
learning rates (see figure 5.5), although large differences emerge in the full-model.
These results are somewhat ambiguous since, in general, children of different social
class do not learn at different rates, but do once children are equalized on a sizeable
covariate list. The slower growth rates for advantaged children over the first grade
year are also visible in the figure, although the difference is not large enough
to account for the sizeable gaps that develop prior to kindergarten and over the
summertime.
The concerted cultivation growth and difference curves in figure 5.5 highlight
the general knowledge disparities at kindergarten entry and the small negative
decrement to growth rates over the first grade. These curves also illustrate the
reduction in the concerted cultivation coefficient magnitude when the full covariate
list is included in the model specification. Even after partializing the model with
a large covariate list of covariates that were shown in Chapter 4 to be related to
concerted cultivation, concerted cultivation remains amongst the most important
predictors in the model. The magnitude of the concerted cultivation and social
class decrements to first grade growth are of also of similar magnitude between
the centered and non-centered models. Thus, children in the same schools who
107
Figure 5.4. Graphical Depictions of Group-Centered Race Differences in Children’sGeneral Knowledge Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st Grade from Table 5.3
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Unadjusted (Model A)
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Adjusted (Model D)
−6
−4
−2
0
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Black−White General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
−6
−4
−2
0
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Hispanic−White General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
−6
−4
−2
0
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Asian−White General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
108
Figure 5.5. Graphical Depictions of Group-Centered Social Class Differences in Chil-dren’s General Knowledge Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st Grade fromTable 5.3
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Adjusted (Model E)
−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Low SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low SES Adjusted (Model E)
High SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
High SES Adjusted (Model E)
SES General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
109
Figure 5.6. Graphical Depictions of Group-Centered Differences in Children’s GeneralKnowledge Growth from Kindergarten Entry Through 1st Grade by Concerted Cultiva-tion from Table 5.3
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
Concerted Cultivation:Unadjusted (Model C)
15
20
25
30
35
40
Gen
eral
Kno
wle
dge
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult
Low C. Cult (−1 sd)
Concerted Cultivation:Adjusted (Model G)
−3
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade
Low C. Cult: Unadjusted (Model C)
Low C. Cult Adjusted (Model G)
High C. Cult: Unadjusted (Model C)
High C. Cult Adjusted (Model G)
Concerted Cultivation: General KnowledgeAchievement Difference
110
are more advantaged on these two ‘characteristics’ learn at slower rates over this
period. Notably, if the social class and concerted cultivation trends continue, then
the initial disparities between advantaged and disadvantaged children will reduce
significantly.
5.3 Interactions with Concerted Cultivation
The previous models estimated race and social class effects descriptively and after
adjusting for concerted cultivation and other covariates. Important parameters
included the race and social class coefficients across model specifications, in ad-
dition to the concerted cultivation coefficients. These models are principally con-
cerned with the (1) the extent to which concerted cultivation mediates race and
class differences, and (2) the average relationship between concerted cultivation
and children’s growth trajectories across social groups. Does concerted cultivation
function equally for groups of differing social status and race/ethnic identification?
Results are reported in table 5.4 for race interactions, table 5.5 for the social class
models, and race by class by concerted cultivation interactions are presented in
table 5.6.
5.3.1 Race x Concerted Cultivation Interactions
Results for model A in table 5.4 are estimates of race and concerted cultivation
interactions prior to controlling for social class, while model B adds social class.
Models C and D are replicates of models A and B but use group-mean centering to
eliminate unmeasured contextual factors. Consistent with the previous discussion,
the coefficients reported in models C and D are average effects based upon children
who attend the same schools.11
Because race categorization/identification is a nominal measure which has been
parsed into dichotomous indicator variables, the coefficients in table 5.4 have an
intuitive interpretation. The concerted cultivation main-effect represents the av-
11In addition to these models, I also estimated a series of equations where the sample wasrestricted to only those cases covered over the range of common support because of differencesin the distribution of concerted cultivation across race/ethnic groups. Findings are virtuallyidentical.
111
Table 5.4. Race Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for General Knowl-edge Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade (ECLS-K)
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
Initial Status 21.703 ** 21.640 ** 20.044 ** 20.043 **(0.111) (0.101) (0.156) (0.156)
Black −3.957 ** −3.660 ** −3.152 ** −2.905 **(0.207) (0.201) (0.239) (0.236)
Hispanic −2.950 ** −2.658 ** −2.250 ** −1.981 **(0.188) (0.183) (0.206) (0.204)
Asian −3.325 ** −3.851 ** −3.014 ** −3.361 **(0.278) (0.273) (0.294) (0.291)
Other −2.228 ** −2.168 ** −1.471 ** −1.369 **(0.264) (0.257) (0.288) (0.285)
Social Class 1.669 ** 1.402 **(0.068) (0.073)
Concerted Cultivation 2.640 ** 2.025 ** 2.316 ** 1.851 **(0.088) (0.091) (0.093) (0.095)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.983 ** −0.843 ** −0.921 ** −0.826 **
(0.180) (0.177) (0.187) (0.185)Hispanic 0.495 ** 0.519 ** 0.334 0.338
(0.177) (0.174) (0.184) (0.182)Asian 0.453 0.454 0.368 0.369
(0.259) (0.255) (0.263) (0.260)Other 0.052 0.123 −0.068 −0.044
(0.249) (0.245) (0.257) (0.254)Additional ControlsSecond Time K. −0.614 * −0.406 0.350 ** 0.356 **
(0.277) (0.275) (0.011) (0.011)Age at K. Entry 0.360 ** 0.369 ** −0.582 * −0.352
(0.011) (0.011) (0.287) (0.286)
Kindergarten Slope 0.842 ** 0.841 ** 0.823 ** 0.823 **(0.010) (0.010) (0.008) (0.008)
Black −0.035 −0.032 −0.012 −0.010(0.020) (0.020) (0.024) (0.024)
Hispanic −0.023 −0.020 −0.020 −0.018(0.018) (0.018) (0.021) (0.021)
Asian 0.004 0.002 −0.003 −0.007(0.028) (0.028) (0.030) (0.030)
Other 0.000 0.001 −0.024 −0.024(0.026) (0.026) (0.029) (0.029)
Social Class 0.010 0.013(0.007) (0.008)
Concerted Cultivation −0.010 −0.012 −0.011 −0.015(0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.010)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack 0.044 * 0.044 * 0.035 0.035
(0.018) (0.018) (0.019) (0.019)Hispanic 0.027 0.026 0.028 0.028
(0.018) (0.018) (0.019) (0.019)Asian 0.054 * 0.055 * 0.041 0.041
(0.026) (0.026) (0.027) (0.027)Other 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.003
(0.026) (0.026) (0.027) (0.027)Additional ControlsSecond Time K. −0.071 * −0.068 * −0.064 * −0.061 *
(0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.029)Changed Schools 0.077 * 0.079 * 0.085 * 0.088 *
(0.036) (0.036) (0.037) (0.036)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
112
Table 5.4 – Continued: General Knowledge Achievement, Race Interactions
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
Summer Slope 0.398 ** 0.398 ** 0.427 ** 0.428 **(0.038) (0.038) (0.030) (0.030)
Black 0.072 0.079 0.138 0.148(0.080) (0.080) (0.097) (0.097)
Hispanic 0.050 0.055 0.038 0.042(0.073) (0.073) (0.083) (0.083)
Asian 0.012 −0.005 0.017 0.011(0.114) (0.115) (0.122) (0.122)
Other −0.079 −0.076 0.126 0.130(0.094) (0.094) (0.110) (0.110)
Social Class 0.055 * 0.048(0.027) (0.030)
Concerted Cultivation 0.059 0.039 0.070 0.057(0.035) (0.037) (0.038) (0.039)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.120 −0.124 −0.096 −0.100
(0.075) (0.075) (0.079) (0.079)Hispanic −0.053 −0.048 −0.064 −0.061
(0.067) (0.067) (0.071) (0.071)Asian −0.073 −0.076 −0.061 −0.062
(0.104) (0.105) (0.108) (0.108)Other −0.019 −0.022 −0.072 −0.076
(0.087) (0.087) (0.091) (0.090)Additional ControlsSecond Time K. −0.169 −0.157 −0.176 −0.162
(0.108) (0.108) (0.113) (0.113)Changed Schools 0.092 * 0.086 m 0.054 0.054
(0.045) (0.045) (0.051) (0.051)
1st Grade Slope 0.657 ** 0.657 ** 0.662 ** 0.662 **(0.013) (0.013) (0.010) (0.010)
Black 0.029 0.026 0.009 0.004(0.026) (0.026) (0.031) (0.031)
Hispanic 0.026 0.023 0.034 0.031(0.023) (0.023) (0.026) (0.026)
Asian 0.114 ** 0.122 ** 0.135 ** 0.139 **(0.036) (0.036) (0.039) (0.039)
Other 0.061 * 0.061 * 0.012 0.011(0.031) (0.031) (0.035) (0.035)
Social Class −0.027 ** −0.022 *(0.009) (0.010)
Concerted Cultivation −0.062 ** −0.053 ** −0.058 ** −0.051 **(0.011) (0.012) (0.012) (0.013)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack 0.088 ** 0.089 ** 0.059 * 0.059 *
(0.024) (0.024) (0.025) (0.025)Hispanic 0.046 * 0.045 * 0.033 0.032
(0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.022)Asian 0.018 0.019 0.002 0.002
(0.033) (0.033) (0.034) (0.034)Other 0.037 0.038 0.053 0.054
(0.030) (0.030) (0.031) (0.031)Additional ControlsSecond Time K. −0.031 −0.036 −0.026 −0.032
(0.035) (0.034) (0.036) (0.036)Changed Schools −0.045 −0.041 −0.042 −0.039
(0.035) (0.035) (0.036) (0.036)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
113
erage expected difference in general knowledge test scores for white children who
differ by one standard deviation on the measure. The race interactions capture
the increments or decrements to the expected difference for the specific group from
whites. For example, the negative interaction coefficient for black children repre-
sents a lower return to concerted cultivation than white children experience. From
model D, the estimated return in points at kindergarten entry is (1.85-.83=) 1.02
points, compared to 1.85 points per standard deviation difference in concerted cul-
tivation for all other groups. This lower return is a perplexing finding, and one
with implications for policies utilizing the parent-child connection to ameliorate
black-white differences in children’s test scores. These results are similar to those
found by Farkas and Beron (2004)12 and Sun (1998). Although Hispanic children
appear to benefit disproportionately from the practices of concerted cultivation,
these findings do not hold for children who attend the same schools.
While black children do not appear to benefit from concerted cultivation to the
same extent as other children, there are indications that black children’s subse-
quent growth is higher, on average, when concerted cultivation is higher, than it
is for other children. Although the positive increment for growth during kinder-
garten does not persist across model specifications, black children do not face the
concerted cultivation decrement that other children do during the first grade. This
pattern of findings is surprising, so it will receive more attention in section 5.3.3
where race, social class, and concerted cultivation are interacted.
5.3.2 SES x Concerted Cultivation Interactions
In the previous section, the question of whether or not concerted cultivation relates
to children’s general knowledge achievement differently for different social groups
was asked. This section is conceptually similar, although the question is posed for
social class instead. Although social class is used as a standardized, continuous
covariate in the preceding analyses, in the following section social class is coded
as a series of dummy variables to ease interpretation. By coding social class as a
series of categorical indicators, the interpretation of the interactions is similar to
those in the race interaction models. The first grouping, low social class, captures
12They show this relation with the PPVT for social class, mother’s verbal AFQT, and cognitivestimulation (pg. 484, Table 4).
114
the bottom quartile of the distribution, average social class captures the middle
50% of the distribution, and high social class is composed of the top quartile.
Middle-class is the reference category. The results presented in table 5.5 follow a
parallel progression to those presented in table 5.4.
There are two notable findings for children’s school readiness in table 5.5. First,
the decrements associated with being low class or the increments associated with
high class families are similar in magnitude, particularly in models B and D, sug-
gesting that the association of children’s school readiness with family social class
is approximately linear in shape. Second, the interactions of social class with con-
certed cultivation are nonsignificant. According to this classification scheme, the
relationship between children’s general knowledge scores at kindergarten entry and
the extent to which parents practice concerted cultivation does not vary by social
class.
Although the results of previous analyses suggest little differentiation amongst
social groups in children’s general knowledge growth over the kindergarten year,
across all model specifications in table 5.5, children from high social class families
who practice higher levels of concerted cultivation grow at a slightly lower rate
(about 5%) during kindergarten. This finding is surprising and contrary to expec-
tations, although not very large in magnitude. No interactions by social class and
concerted cultivation are significant during the summertime. In fact, as has been
reported previously, there is little social group differentiation in children’s general
knowledge growth over the summertime, although children continue to learn.
The previous models have reported that children from higher social class fami-
lies and families that practice more concerted cultivation grow at a lower rate over
the first grade year. The results presented in table 5.5 further illustrate this fact,
and suggest that the negative social class coefficient reported previously is driven
principally by the lower growth rates of higher social class children. There is little
consistent evidence, however, that concerted cultivation has a differential relation-
ship to children’s growth by social class, although higher social class children grow
more slowly over the kindergarten year.
115
Table 5.5. Social Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for GeneralKnowledge Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade(ECLS-K)
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
Initial Status 20.254 ** 21.495 ** 20.057 ** 20.054 **(0.110) (0.112) (0.155) (0.155)
Black −3.255 ** −2.566 **(0.190) (0.227)
Hispanic −2.843 ** −2.108 **(0.180) (0.202)
Asian −3.921 ** −3.439 **(0.262) (0.282)
Other −2.173 ** −1.371 **(0.257) (0.284)
Low SES (< −1 SD) −2.156 ** −2.025 ** −1.812 ** −1.702 **(0.175) (0.174) (0.180) (0.179)
High SES (> + SD) 2.265 ** 2.321 ** 1.901 ** 1.943 **(0.164) (0.163) (0.170) (0.169)
Concerted Cultivation 2.448 ** 2.117 ** 2.131 ** 1.879 **(0.093) (0.093) (0.097) (0.097)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −1 SD) −0.284 −0.269 −0.284 −0.259
(0.168) (0.166) (0.172) (0.170)High SES (> + SD) 0.082 0.075 0.107 0.061
(0.163) (0.161) (0.167) (0.166)Additional ControlsSecond Time K. −0.517 −0.432 0.360 ** 0.354 **
(0.280) (0.274) (0.011) (0.011)Age at K. Entry 0.379 ** 0.368 ** −0.440 −0.385
(0.011) (0.011) (0.289) (0.285)
Kindergarten Slope 0.837 ** 0.845 ** 0.822 ** 0.822 **(0.009) (0.011) (0.008) (0.008)
Black −0.036 m −0.013 **(0.019) (0.023)
Hispanic −0.015 −0.014(0.018) (0.021)
Asian −0.011 −0.015(0.027) (0.029)
Other 0.009 −0.018(0.026) (0.029)
Low SES (< −1 SD) −0.026 −0.024 −0.024 −0.023(0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018)
High SES (> + SD) 0.031 0.030 0.032 0.031(0.017) (0.017) (0.018) (0.018)
Concerted Cultivation 0.011 0.009 0.004 0.002(0.009) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −1 SD) 0.021 0.023 0.029 0.031
(0.017) (0.017) (0.018) (0.018)High SES (> + SD) −0.055 ** −0.055 ** −0.050 ** −0.050 **
(0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017)Additional ControlsSecond Time K. −0.066 * −0.066 * −0.060 * −0.059 *
(0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.028)Changed Schools 0.079 * 0.078 * 0.086 * 0.086 *
(0.036) (0.036) (0.036) (0.036)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
116
Table 5.5 – Continued: General Knowledge Achievement, SES Interactions
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
Summer Slope 0.419 ** 0.403 ** 0.427 ** 0.428 **(0.037) (0.042) (0.030) (0.030)
Black 0.109 0.165(0.075) (0.093)
Hispanic 0.050 0.032(0.071) (0.082)
Asian 0.005 0.005(0.108) (0.116)
Other −0.083 0.122(0.093) (0.109)
Low SES (< −1 SD) −0.056 −0.063 −0.054 −0.064(0.069) (0.070) (0.072) (0.072)
High SES (> + SD) 0.117 0.123 0.094 0.101(0.066) (0.066) (0.069) (0.070)
Concerted Cultivation 0.048 0.054 0.054 0.063(0.037) (0.038) (0.039) (0.040)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −1 SD) −0.060 −0.060 −0.056 −0.066
(0.066) (0.066) (0.068) (0.069)High SES (> + SD) −0.122 −0.126 m −0.094 −0.099
(0.065) (0.065) (0.068) (0.068)Additional ControlsSecond Time K. −0.155 −0.159 −0.162 −0.162
(0.108) (0.108) (0.113) (0.113)Changed Schools 0.090 * 0.094 * 0.054 0.056
(0.045) (0.045) (0.051) (0.051)
1st Grade Slope 0.688 ** 0.671 ** 0.662 ** 0.661 **(0.012) (0.014) (0.010) (0.010)
Black 0.007 −0.007(0.024) (0.030)
Hispanic 0.029 0.037(0.022) (0.026)
Asian 0.134 ** 0.153 **(0.034) (0.037)
Other 0.066 * 0.015(0.030) (0.035)
Low SES (< −1 SD) 0.008 0.009 0.006 0.008(0.022) (0.022) (0.023) (0.023)
High SES (> + SD) −0.069 ** −0.075 ** −0.053 * −0.060 **(0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.023)
Concerted Cultivation −0.051 ** −0.044 ** −0.049 ** −0.044 **(0.012) (0.012) (0.013) (0.013)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −1 SD) 0.052 * 0.051 * 0.038 0.039
(0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.022)High SES (> + SD) 0.006 0.009 −0.002 0.002
(0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.022)Additional ControlsSecond Time K. −0.035 −0.034 −0.031 −0.031
(0.035) (0.034) (0.036) (0.036)Changed Schools −0.040 −0.040 −0.038 −0.039
(0.035) (0.035) (0.036) (0.036)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
117
5.3.3 SES x Race x Concerted Cultivation
The next series of models, which are presented in table 5.6, estimate race by
concerted cultivation interaction models for the bottom quartile of the social class
distribution (‘A’ models), the middle-50% (‘B’ models), and the top quartile (‘C’
models) for (1) race and concerted cultivation and (2) the entire covariate list. The
previous finding that black children do not receive the same general knowledge
benefit from concerted cultivation at kindergarten entry are interesting, and a bit
perplexing too (e.g. Farkas and Beron 2004; Sun 1998). Results from table 5.6
illustrate which black children are benefitting, and which are not.
The race by concerted cultivation findings present interesting results. Both
poor and middle-class black children receive much lower returns on concerted cul-
tivation, despite the fact that poor children receive marginally higher returns on
concerted cultivation in general. Higher social class black children, however, do not
differ significantly from whites. The previous findings showing the lessened return
to concerted cultivation for black children, then, is driven by the lower return on
concerted cultivation amongst middle- and lower-class children. Importantly, the
lack of return implies that black children who are disadvantaged with regard to
concerted cultivation, do not in fact face the same consequence as other children.
In a similar vein, lower-class Asian children also report decreased returns on con-
certed cultivation, but amongst the groups more likely to have negative values on
the scale, they are also less likely to face decrements from the absence of behaviors
that comprise the concerted cultivation measure. On the other hand, middle-class
Asian children benefit disproportionately by the practices of concerted cultivation
when they come from families in the right-hand side of the distribution, but face
larger decrements when their family environment is to the left.
Higher social class children face a small decrement during kindergarten when
their parents practice concerted cultivation, although this group is likely to already
be significantly advantaged relative to other children. This finding mirrors that
found in the previous section. Concerted cultivation is not a significant predictor of
children’s general knowledge growth over the summertime, although black children
appear to face a further negative impact. The interpretation in this case, however,
is different from those previously offered. In this case, the cultivation effect for
lower-class black children is (.14-.49=) -.35, which indicates that children from
118
Table 5.6. Race & Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for GeneralKnowledge Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of First Grade(ECLS-K)
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2
Initial Status 19.776 ** 20.101 ** 21.490 ** 21.255 ** 24.272 ** 22.639 **(0.201) (0.400) (0.123) (0.263) (0.222) (0.541)
Black −4.282 ** −4.210 ** −3.727 ** −3.378 ** −4.669 ** −3.657 **(0.361) (0.369) (0.260) (0.262) (0.537) (0.545)
Hispanic −3.877 ** −2.643 ** −2.483 ** −1.529 ** −2.476 ** −1.345 *(0.396) (0.425) (0.238) (0.244) (0.563) (0.565)
Asian −5.599 ** −3.699 ** −2.926 ** −1.315 ** −4.442 ** −2.859 **(0.913) (0.939) (0.431) (0.448) (0.489) (0.541)
Other −4.201 ** −3.930 ** −2.168 ** −1.692 ** −2.733 ** −2.202 **(0.542) (0.533) (0.345) (0.336) (0.690) (0.678)
Social Class 0.198 1.377 ** 1.342 **(0.167) (0.210) (0.215)
Concerted Cultivation 2.369 ** 1.939 ** 2.166 ** 1.686 ** 2.042 ** 1.756 **(0.227) (0.232) (0.128) (0.129) (0.189) (0.193)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −1.146 ** −0.932 ** −1.038 ** −1.021 ** 0.508 0.272
(0.321) (0.320) (0.282) (0.273) (0.563) (0.550)Hispanic −0.261 −0.345 0.388 −0.168 0.437 −0.123
(0.356) (0.354) (0.274) (0.274) (0.616) (0.604)Asian −1.451 * −1.247 m 1.498 ** 0.917 * 0.407 0.129
(0.660) (0.649) (0.429) (0.425) (0.502) (0.495)Other −1.175 * −1.122 * 0.235 0.153 1.360 * 0.941
(0.510) (0.504) (0.376) (0.365) (0.629) (0.618)
Kindergarten Slope 0.820 ** 0.825 ** 0.852 ** 0.866 ** 0.887 ** 0.908 **(0.023) (0.037) (0.012) (0.017) (0.020) (0.037)
Black −0.065 −0.078 −0.017 −0.015 −0.060 −0.080(0.041) (0.043) (0.026) (0.027) (0.051) (0.053)
Hispanic −0.064 −0.033 −0.021 −0.032 −0.074 −0.100(0.046) (0.049) (0.024) (0.025) (0.054) (0.056)
Asian −0.005 0.055 −0.051 −0.088 0.039 0.004(0.107) (0.111) (0.044) (0.047) (0.048) (0.054)
Other 0.069 0.067 −0.031 −0.032 −0.012 −0.023(0.062) (0.062) (0.034) (0.034) (0.067) (0.067)
Social Class −0.020 0.026 −0.005(0.019) (0.022) (0.021)
Concerted Cultivation 0.047 0.046 −0.008 −0.008 −0.050 ** −0.042 *(0.026) (0.026) (0.013) (0.013) (0.018) (0.019)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.010 −0.012 0.044 0.040 −0.024 −0.026
(0.037) (0.037) (0.029) (0.029) (0.055) (0.056)Hispanic −0.038 −0.045 0.034 0.044 0.093 0.103
(0.042) (0.042) (0.027) (0.028) (0.061) (0.061)Asian 0.012 0.006 0.075 0.084 0.057 0.075
(0.077) (0.077) (0.047) (0.048) (0.051) (0.052)Other −0.019 −0.022 0.007 0.007 0.031 0.036
(0.059) (0.059) (0.038) (0.038) (0.061) (0.061)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.Note 1: Table continued on the following page.Note 2: ‘A’ models are for the lower quantile of the social class distribution, ‘B’ models are estimated from themiddle 50% of the distribution, and ‘C’ models use the top quantile of the social class distribution. For theconcerted cultivation distribution by race and social class, see figure 4Note 3: ‘-1’ models include second time kindergartner, age at kindergarten entry (-66 months), and whether ornot the child changed schools over the given period. ‘-2’ models include the full covariate list.
119
Table 5.6 – Continued: General Knowledge Achievement, Race & Social Class Interactions
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2
Summer Slope 0.393 ** 0.503 ** 0.416 ** 0.409 ** 0.470 ** 0.283 *(0.097) (0.145) (0.046) (0.063) (0.078) (0.137)
Black −0.128 −0.075 −0.034 −0.062 0.395 * 0.344(0.177) (0.180) (0.103) (0.105) (0.199) (0.204)
Hispanic 0.033 0.149 0.064 0.094 0.110 0.060(0.181) (0.190) (0.096) (0.101) (0.182) (0.189)
Asian 0.061 0.335 −0.051 0.002 0.178 0.071(0.472) (0.480) (0.185) (0.193) (0.181) (0.200)
Other −0.261 −0.186 −0.104 −0.095 0.047 0.047(0.209) (0.211) (0.125) (0.126) (0.244) (0.245)
Social Class 0.163 * −0.029 0.050(0.081) (0.088) (0.079)
Concerted Cultivation 0.174 0.163 0.075 0.088 −0.037 −0.063(0.105) (0.107) (0.051) (0.054) (0.069) (0.072)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.494 ** −0.497 ** −0.039 −0.040 −0.055 −0.015
(0.158) (0.158) (0.119) (0.120) (0.213) (0.214)Hispanic −0.156 −0.181 −0.053 −0.077 −0.129 −0.096
(0.155) (0.156) (0.108) (0.110) (0.199) (0.201)Asian −0.033 0.040 −0.137 −0.181 −0.249 −0.267
(0.333) (0.326) (0.194) (0.196) (0.189) (0.191)Other −0.180 −0.178 −0.059 −0.066 −0.109 −0.130
(0.192) (0.192) (0.134) (0.134) (0.225) (0.226)
1st Grade Slope 0.680 ** 0.744 ** 0.677 ** 0.700 ** 0.585 ** 0.655 **(0.032) (0.046) (0.016) (0.021) (0.026) (0.044)
Black 0.023 0.024 0.062 0.067 m −0.004 0.006(0.056) (0.057) (0.034) (0.034) (0.063) (0.065)
Hispanic 0.051 0.005 0.021 −0.008 0.082 0.077(0.055) (0.059) (0.031) (0.033) (0.057) (0.059)
Asian 0.048 −0.071 0.135 * 0.085 0.136 * 0.124 *(0.149) (0.153) (0.059) (0.061) (0.057) (0.062)
Other 0.120 0.109 0.085 * 0.077 0.048 0.046(0.069) (0.070) (0.041) (0.042) (0.079) (0.079)
Social Class −0.014 −0.021 −0.036(0.025) (0.029) (0.025)
Concerted Cultivation −0.057 −0.064 m −0.069 ** −0.068 ** −0.023 −0.013(0.033) (0.034) (0.017) (0.018) (0.022) (0.023)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack 0.122 ** 0.126 * 0.089 * 0.086 * 0.044 0.035
(0.051) (0.051) (0.038) (0.038) (0.067) (0.067)Hispanic 0.082 0.104 * 0.044 0.066 −0.083 −0.085
(0.047) (0.048) (0.035) (0.035) (0.062) (0.063)Asian 0.007 −0.006 0.042 0.062 −0.005 0.010
(0.106) (0.105) (0.061) (0.062) (0.057) (0.058)Other 0.103 0.101 0.030 0.031 0.004 0.015
(0.067) (0.068) (0.044) (0.044) (0.075) (0.075)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01 Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.Note 1: ‘A’ models are for the lower quantile of the social class distribution, ‘B’ models are estimated from themiddle 50% of the distribution, and ‘C’ models use the top quantile of the social class distribution. For theconcerted cultivation distribution by race and social class, see figure 4Note 2: ‘-1’ models include second time kindergartner, age at kindergarten entry (-66 months), and whether ornot the child changed schools over the given period. ‘-2’ models include the full covariate list.
120
negative-valued families are growing at faster rates than children from families in
the positive part of the distribution, who face the deficit. Trends for black children
do a reversal, however, during the first grade year. Whereas white lower- and
middle-class children (it is these children driving the negative concerted cultivation
coefficient in previous analyses) grow more slowly for higher levels of concerted
cultivation, this negative relationship is null or slightly positive for black children
in those socioeconomic strata.
These findings are complex and suggest that in some cases, black children
suffer from fewer negative impacts relative to advantaged concerted cultivation
children, primarily prior to school and during the summertime. Given the social
class graded nature of the race-specific concerted cultivation distributions, the
data do not support strong hypotheses about how lower-class black children are
expected to benefit from high levels of concerted cultivation.
5.4 Chapter Summary
The pattern of results is more confusing and difficult to interpret than the ini-
tial models in table 5.1 suggested when race by concerted cultivation interactions
are included in the models. Overall, however, concerted cultivation is amongst
the most powerful predictors of children’s general knowledge school readiness em-
ployed in the analysis. Children from families that practice high levels of concerted
cultivation have significantly more knowledge about the world, as measured by the
test, than other children. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, this relationship is even
stronger than that for social class, although racial/ethnic deficits remain trou-
blingly large, particularly for black children, even with the full covariate list is
included in the model. Children by social group do not have consistently differ-
entiated growth rates, and in fact, there is a small tendency towards convergence
over time for all social groups. The lack of differentiation, in turn, means that
variances around growth parameters are generally small.
The results, once race and social class interactions with concerted cultivation
are taken into consideration, particularly for black children, are puzzling. On the
surface, the results in table 5.4 indicate that black children receive fewer returns
on concerted cultivation than other children. Perhaps a statistical answer lies in
121
the consideration of table 4.5 and figures 4, 4.5, and 4. Given the distribution of
concerted cultivation across lower-class black families, it seems that many black
children are actually not doing as poorly as we would expect if the children were
white, aside from the main-effect disparity. Lower social class Asian children also
showed a much more constrained relationship with concerted cultivation, although
middle-class children experienced a magnification of the concerted cultivation as-
sociation.
The magnitude of the concerted cultivation and social class decrements to first
grade growth are also of similar magnitude between the centered and non-centered
models. Children in the same schools who are more advantaged on these two
‘characteristics’ learn at slower rates over this period. Parents may contribute to
general knowledge growth less over time as the importance of concerted cultivation
transitions from being cognitive to social and psychological in nature (e.g., chil-
dren’s emerging sense of entitlement versus constraint). In conjunction, it is also
possible that advantaged children learn relatively less in school since teachers must
teach to a distribution and many of these children have already accrued significant
advantages. If this is the case, many advantaged children acquire redundant gen-
eral knowledge during the first grade, which leads to slightly smaller overall growth
rates during this period. In addition, there may be a divergence in the sorts of
knowledge children acquire from their parents and those items administered on the
general knowledge test.
CHAPTER
SIX
Math Achievement
Mathematics instruction is facing increasing scrutiny as international data such
as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, formerly
known as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study) show U.S. chil-
dren underperforming relative to children in other Western, industrialized coun-
tries (Gonzales, Guzmn, Partelow, Pahlke, Jocelyn, Kastberg, and Williams 2004).
Larger market forces are also driving interest in mathematics education as technol-
ogy industry leaders bemoan the paucity of mathematics skills children leave school
with. At a time when the U.S. populace expresses increasing concern over the ‘out-
sourcing’ of jobs, the inability of the education system to produce workers with
the necessary skills for high-paying market segments presents a troubling problem
for policy makers and business leaders. Not surprisingly, improving mathematics
achievement is one of the principal aims of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Within this broad social issue, it is worth asking what role the family plays
in children’s mathematics skill development. Children begin school with large
differences in math knowledge (Lee and Burkham 2003) and grow at different rates
during school (Downey et al. 2004; Phillips et al. 1998b). What is the pattern
of change for mathematics achievement from kindergarten entry through the third
grade for different social groups, and what role does concerted cultivation play in
this process?
123
6.1 Math Achievement Growth
Results for two descriptive, baseline growth equations are presented in table 6.1
for baseline comparisons with later models. The growth parameters are arrayed
across the columns, rather than down the rows as is typical. The first uncondi-
tional model includes no control variables, while the second conditional baseline
model includes covariates for age at kindergarten entry, whether the child is a
second-time kindergartner, and whether the child changed schools over a given
period—covariates which are included in all subsequent models. Children begin
school with broadly varying math skills, with a mean of 18 points and a standard
deviation of (√
52.3 =) 7.2 points. In addition, children appear to grow between
2 and 5 times faster over the school year than during the summer when they are
out of school, although even then children, on average, acquire about .5 points per
month.1 There is also a notable difference in the variance components associated
with the growth parameters. Variability in summer slopes is far larger than for
the other parameters, being (√
4.4 =) 2.1 standard deviations—which indicates
substantial gains for some children and losses for others, compared to (√
.17 =)
.41 standard deviations for the second and third grade slope, which has the small-
est variance. Both mean differences in the growth parameters and differences in
parameter variability were key reasons that led Downey and colleagues (2004) to
conclude that schools have an equalizing influence on children’s academic compe-
tencies.
The between-student correlations between the growth parameters and initial
status provide little evidence that children who begin school with differing math-
ematics knowledge learn at systematically different rates in subsequent periods
than periods in the same schools, although initially advantaged children appear to
learn more over the summertime than their peers. Children who learn more over
the summer, however, tend to have learned at lower rates over the kindergarten
year and also had lower learning rates in the first grade than children in the same
schools. In addition, children who learned faster during the first grade were likely
to have had reduced growth rates over the second and third grade period.
1Note that the second and third grade slope is not really directly comparable to the kinder-garten, summer, and first grade slopes because the second third grade slope is a composite oftwo summer and two school year trends.
124
Table 6.1. Null Growth Models for Math Achievement Scores (IRT) from KindergartenEntry Until Spring of Third Grade
Intercept Kindergarten Summer 1st 2nd − 3rd
Null Model (w/out Covariates)Growth Parameters 18.067 1.655 0.533 2.402 1.193
(0.153) (0.014) (0.055) (0.022) (0.007)
L-2 Random Effects1
Intercept 52.267Kindergarten 0.018 0.602Summer 0.194 −0.325 4.4141st 0.075 0.125 −0.345 1.0012nd − 3rd −0.021 0.058 0.022 −0.363 0.173
L-3 Random Effects1
Intercept 17.205Kindergarten 0.343 0.112Summer 0.142 −0.398 0.5231st 0.262 0.271 −0.346 0.1592nd − 3rd 0.192 −0.174 0.292 −0.286 0.025
Null Model (w/ Covariates)Growth Parameters 18.544 1.664 0.531 2.410 1.199
(0.149) (0.014) (0.056) (0.022) (0.007)Second Time K. −1.566 −0.183 −0.156 −0.203 −0.103
(0.377) (0.046) (0.208) (0.076) (0.024)Age at K. Entry 0.496
(0.017)Changed Schools −0.138 0.180 −0.137 −0.016
(0.075) (0.100) (0.083) (0.011)
L-2 Random Effects1
Intercept 49.070Kindergarten 0.009 0.601Summer 0.198 −0.327 4.4011st 0.083 0.124 −0.345 1.0012nd − 3rd 0.004 0.056 0.021 −0.364 0.172
L-3 Random Effects1
Intercept 15.655Kindergarten 0.270 0.111Summer 0.171 −0.400 0.5341st 0.223 0.264 −0.353 0.1572nd − 3rd 0.240 −0.180 0.279 −0.293 0.025
Note: Columns represent level-1 parameters in the growth models.1 Diagonals are variances and off diagonals correlations.
125
The results presented in table 6.1 also demonstrate significant between school
variability in the mean growth parameter levels. Although the correlations between
initial status and the other growth parameters in the between-student model were
low, average growth rates of schools with higher average initial achievement appear
are faster during all periods. Despite the fact that children from schools with higher
than average learning rates in the summer learned less over the kindergarten and
first grade years, these children learned at a faster rate over the second and third
grade years. Although the between-student correlations are not reflective of a
Matthew effect within school, the positive between-school correlations between
initial status and the slopes suggests that schools with higher average levels of
initial achievement have higher than average growth rates.
The results of the initial, baseline growth model highlight that:
1. There is substantial between-child variability both in children’s math skillswhen they enter school and in the temporal patterns of change.
2. Children learn more math skills within than outside of school, on average,although some of the highest period-specific growth rates (and correspond-ingly, some of the lowest) occur over the summertime.
3. Children’s initial skills are not strongly related to change in the within-schoolbetween-student model, although children in schools with higher averagelevels of achievement tend to have higher average growth rates.
6.1.1 Non-Centered Growth Models
Parameter estimates for descriptive and explanatory three-level growth models are
presented in table 6.2. In addition, coefficient reduction summaries and standard-
ized coefficients are available in Appendix tables A.5 and A.6. All coefficients for
equations A through F are reported in the table while the full model results for
model G are available in Appendix table A.8 (along with a series of intermediate
models)2. Models A through C are descriptive in nature, estimating what is essen-
tially the “bivariate” relationship between race (A), social class (B), and concerted
cultivation (C) on children’s general knowledge trajectories. The next model set
in the series, D and E, adjusts the race (D) and social class differences (E) for
2Non-focal parameters are not reported in the main table because the large number of para-meters results in excessive table length.
126
differences in concerted cultivation levels. Race, social class, and concerted culti-
vation are included simultaneously in model F, while the full control list is entered
into the equation in model G.3 All models adjust for whether or not the child is a
second time kindergartner, age at kindergarten entry, and whether or not the child
moved during any given period, per the second null model presented in table 6.1.
Initial Status
From columns A and B of table 6.2, it is clear that social group status is signif-
icantly related to children’s early math skills. Black children score, on average,
about 3.3 points or .45 standard deviations lower than white children at kinder-
garten entry, and the disparity is even larger for Hispanic children (4 points or .55
standard deviations). Asian children, however, are not statistically distinguishable
from white children. The social class difference is also large, 2.9 points which is
an effect size of .4. These disparities are large in magnitude and imply significant
mathematical skill disparities at kindergarten entry, long before the formal educa-
tional system becomes implicated in children’s general academic development.
The growth parameters are allowed to vary with concerted cultivation in model
C. The association between initial status and concerted cultivation is nearly as large
as that for social class, over 2.5 points, which is an effect size of .35. Depending
upon the parenting strategies employed, children begin school with clearly differ-
entiated mathematics skills. Two children differing by two standard deviations
of concerted cultivation are expected to begin kindergarten with a 5 point or .7
standard deviation disparity.
The black and Hispanic coefficients are attenuated when concerted cultivation is
added to model D by approximately 40%. Together social class and concerted cul-
tivation explain nearly 60% and 55% of the black and Hispanic gaps, respectively.
By model F the black deficit has decreased to 1.3 points (.18 standard deviations),
while the Hispanic decrement has fallen to 1.8 points (.25 standard deviations).
Given that concerted cultivation is a mediator of social class and sociodemographic
associations, it is safe to say that concerted cultivation is the largest mediator of
race differences included in the models. As noted previously, Asian children’s math
scores at kindergarten entry are not differentiable from whites’. When concerted
3Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix table A.8.
127
Table 6.2. Growth Models for Math Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry UntilSpring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, Concerted Cultivation, and Selected Covariates(ECLS-K)
Model
Variablesa,b A B C D E F G
Initial Status 19.833 ** 18.505 ** 18.504 ** 19.172 ** 18.476 ** 18.970 ** 18.065 **(0.153) (0.109) (0.118) (0.135) (0.100) (0.122) (0.275)
Black −3.281 ** −1.892 ** −1.320 ** −1.047 **(0.265) (0.259) (0.249) (0.256)
Hispanic −4.007 ** −2.443 ** −1.809 ** −1.554 **(0.225) (0.226) (0.218) (0.239)
Asian −0.041 1.808 ** 1.391 ** 1.659 **(0.347) (0.340) (0.333) (0.357)
Other Race −2.203 ** −1.544 ** −1.418 ** −1.175 **(0.351) (0.340) (0.328) (0.324)
Social class 2.913 ** 2.234 ** 2.069 ** 1.685 **(0.079) (0.086) (0.087) (0.092)
Concerted Cultivation 2.508 ** 2.344 ** 1.700 ** 1.604 ** 1.306 **(0.079) (0.084) (0.085) (0.089) (0.092)
Second K. −1.296 ** −1.025 ** −1.120 ** −0.947 ** −0.821 * −0.710 * −0.592(0.368) (0.363) (0.368) (0.360) (0.358) (0.353) (0.354)
Age at K. Entry 0.482 ** 0.506 ** 0.489 ** 0.479 ** 0.496 ** 0.486 ** 0.489 **(0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016)
Kindergarten Slope 1.751 ** 1.662 ** 1.664 ** 1.725 ** 1.662 ** 1.716 ** 1.784 **(0.016) (0.014) (0.014) (0.017) (0.014) (0.017) (0.023)
Black −0.329 ** −0.272 ** −0.249 ** −0.243 **(0.032) (0.033) (0.033) (0.034)
Hispanic −0.186 ** −0.122 ** −0.098 ** −0.078 *(0.027) (0.029) (0.029) (0.031)
Asian −0.069 0.011 −0.005 0.028(0.043) (0.044) (0.044) (0.047)
Other Race −0.126 ** −0.095 * −0.085 * −0.075(0.043) (0.043) (0.043) (0.043)
Social class 0.120 ** 0.091 ** 0.080 ** 0.064 **(0.010) (0.011) (0.011) (0.012)
Concerted Cultivation 0.111 ** 0.094 ** 0.076 ** 0.063 ** 0.058 **(0.010) (0.011) (0.011) (0.012) (0.012)
Second K. −0.173 ** −0.155 ** −0.167 ** −0.162 ** −0.151 ** −0.149 ** −0.145 **(0.046) (0.046) (0.046) (0.046) (0.046) (0.046) (0.046)
Changed School −0.125 −0.116 −0.082 −0.075 −0.080 −0.074 −0.060(0.074) (0.074) (0.074) (0.074) (0.073) (0.073) (0.073)
Summer Slope 0.531 ** 0.527 ** 0.529 ** 0.495 ** 0.525 ** 0.485 ** 0.397 **(0.069) (0.056) (0.056) (0.070) (0.056) (0.070) (0.095)
Black −0.091 −0.015 0.012 0.014(0.137) (0.141) (0.142) (0.146)
Hispanic −0.019 0.064 0.092 0.053(0.124) (0.130) (0.131) (0.143)
Asian 0.513 * 0.621 ** 0.611 ** 0.549 *(0.201) (0.205) (0.205) (0.218)
Other Race −0.064 −0.024 −0.034 −0.039(0.177) (0.179) (0.179) (0.180)
Social class 0.145 ** 0.110 * 0.097 0.099(0.045) (0.051) (0.051) (0.053)
Concerted Cultivation 0.096 * 0.115 * 0.063 0.085 0.090(0.044) (0.048) (0.050) (0.052) (0.055)
Second K. −0.152 −0.133 −0.138 −0.132 −0.123 −0.122 −0.138(0.208) (0.209) (0.208) (0.208) (0.208) (0.208) (0.208)
Changed School 0.183 0.147 0.191 0.194 * 0.157 0.159 0.180(0.099) (0.099) (0.099) (0.099) (0.099) (0.098) (0.098)
1st Grade Slope 2.521 ** 2.410 ** 2.409 ** 2.499 ** 2.409 ** 2.493 ** 2.598 **(0.026) (0.022) (0.021) (0.027) (0.021) (0.027) (0.034)
Black −0.341 ** −0.294 ** −0.275 ** −0.257 **(0.051) (0.052) (0.053) (0.054)
Hispanic −0.192 ** −0.140 ** −0.119 ** −0.131 *(0.045) (0.047) (0.047) (0.052)
Asian −0.351 ** −0.290 ** −0.306 ** −0.323 **(0.071) (0.073) (0.073) (0.078)
Other Race −0.242 ** −0.221 ** −0.208 ** −0.194 **(0.067) (0.068) (0.068) (0.068)
Social class 0.096 ** 0.070 ** 0.066 ** 0.043 *(0.016) (0.018) (0.019) (0.019)
Concerted Cultivation 0.102 ** 0.073 ** 0.072 ** 0.045 ** 0.044 *(0.016) (0.017) (0.018) (0.019) (0.020)
Second K. −0.195 * −0.182 * −0.188 * −0.186 * −0.177 * −0.177 * −0.171 *(0.076) (0.076) (0.076) (0.076) (0.076) (0.076) (0.076)
Changed School −0.137 −0.114 −0.132 −0.131 −0.112 −0.113 −0.088(0.083) (0.083) (0.083) (0.083) (0.083) (0.083) (0.082)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Table continued on next page.b Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix A.8.
128
Table 6.2 – Continued: Math AchievementModel
Variablesa A B C D E F G
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 1.213 ** 1.199 ** 1.199 ** 1.211 ** 1.199 ** 1.207 ** 1.251 **(0.008) (0.007) (0.007) (0.008) (0.007) (0.008) (0.011)
Black −0.123 ** −0.119 ** −0.108 ** −0.099 **(0.016) (0.016) (0.017) (0.017)
Hispanic −0.012 −0.007 0.004 −0.005(0.014) (0.014) (0.015) (0.016)
Asian 0.079 ** 0.086 ** 0.079 ** 0.074 **(0.021) (0.021) (0.021) (0.023)
Other Race −0.004 −0.003 −0.001 0.006(0.022) (0.022) (0.022) (0.022)
Social class 0.038 ** 0.040 ** 0.035 ** 0.027 **(0.005) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006)
Concerted Cultivation 0.010 * 0.009 −0.005 −0.004 −0.004(0.005) (0.005) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006)
Second K. −0.100 ** −0.095 ** −0.102 ** −0.099 ** −0.095 ** −0.094 ** −0.091 **(0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024)
Changed School −0.012 −0.016 −0.014 −0.011 −0.015 −0.012 −0.012(0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011)
Level-2 Variance ComponentsIntercept 48.053 ** 46.300 ** 46.797 ** 46.112 ** 45.212 ** 44.755 ** 44.003 **Kindergarten Slope 0.596 ** 0.593 ** 0.595 ** 0.591 ** 0.591 ** 0.588 ** 0.584 **Summer Slope 4.391 ** 4.418 ** 4.404 ** 4.390 ** 4.416 ** 4.401 ** 4.393 **
1st Grade Slope 0.995 ** 0.995 ** 0.998 ** 0.993 ** 0.994 ** 0.989 ** 0.982 **
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 0.171 ** 0.172 ** 0.172 ** 0.171 ** 0.172 ** 0.171 ** 0.169 **
Level-3 Variance ComponentsIntercept 11.541 ** 6.073 ** 7.800 ** 6.634 ** 4.448 ** 4.096 ** 3.330 **Kindergarten Slope 0.097 ** 0.099 ** 0.097 ** 0.092 ** 0.095 ** 0.091 ** 0.091 **Summer Slope 0.543 ** 0.506 ** 0.528 ** 0.538 ** 0.510 ** 0.522 ** 0.528 **
1st Grade Slope 0.138 ** 0.151 ** 0.144 ** 0.134 ** 0.146 ** 0.136 ** 0.137 **
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 0.023 ** 0.023 ** 0.024 ** 0.023 ** 0.023 ** 0.022 ** 0.022 **
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix A.8.
cultivation is added to the model, however, Asian children are significantly ad-
vantaged, over 1.8 points or .25 standard deviations. This finding indicates that
Asian children who come from homes with the same levels of concerted cultivation
as white children are doing significantly better.
The reduction in the social class coefficient is somewhat smaller than for black
and Hispanic children, even though it is over 20%. The full covariate list is added
in model G. Although the race, social class, and concerted cultivation coefficients
are further attenuated, they all remain statistically significant predictors. While
the magnitude of the concerted cultivation coefficient is smaller than that for social
class, they are of a similar magnitude, with social class implying an effect size over
.2 and concerted cultivation slightly below that, indicating meaningful residual
associations with children’s math skills at kindergarten entry. After adjusting for
the full covariate list, social class and concerted cultivation are more powerful
predictors of children’s mathematics school readiness than race.
129
The Kindergarten Slope
The next panel in table 6.2 reports how child characteristics relate to systematic
change in children’s general knowledge over the kindergarten year. Coefficients
are in math points per month. The null model presented in 6.1 suggests that
the between-child standard deviation in growth rates is about (√
.6 =) .77, sug-
gesting substantial heterogeneity in growth rates over this period. The results
for model A indicate that black children grow more slowly than white children
over the kindergarten year, acquiring .33 points per month fewer (about .42 stan-
dard deviations). Hispanic children also grow at a slower rate, nearly .19 points
per month, while Asian children grow at approximately the same rates as white
children. Although these associations are attenuated when concerted cultivation
is added to the model (model D), the black disadvantage remains large (a 17%
reduction), indicating that differences from white children’s mathematics learning
rates during kindergarten result from factors other than concerted cultivation. The
Hispanic difference, however, is reduced by nearly 34%. Unlike initial status, the
Asian coefficient does not become significant when concerted cultivation is added
to the model. Race thus remains an important predictor of children’s learning
rates across model specifications.
Social class in model B is significantly associated with children’s learning rates,
with children one standard deviation above the mean accruing, on average, an
additional .12 points per month. The modest social class coefficient is reduced by
approximately 25% when concerted cultivation is added to the equation (model
E), but remains a significant predictor (.09 points per month). Although the as-
sociation is small by model G, social class continues to systematically differentiate
children’s learning rates.
Concerted cultivation is a significant predictor of children’s growth as well, the
coefficient magnitude in equation C similar to that for social class (in model B).
Although concerted cultivation reduces in models D and E, it remains a significant
predictor of children’s learning rates over the kindergarten year, even when the full
covariate list is added in model G. Given Children’s large growth rate, nearly 1.8
points per month (model G), school related factors appear to be the most impor-
tant determinants of children’s growth, although it is worth noting that, with the
strong correlation between social class and concerted cultivation, children’s growth
130
rates are meaningfully differentiated by these two characteristics. The black-white
difference is also large, indicating a rapid divergence from white children in test
scores over the kindergarten year.
The Summer Slope
Although children continue learning over the summertime, the overall rate is much
smaller than over kindergarten and the other grades, but these rates are signifi-
cantly more variable. The only consistent effect across models is a large, significant
Asian advantage. For reasons that are not captured in the model, Asian children
grow over the summertime at rates over twice as large as those for children in other
social groups with comparable backgrounds.
Despite previous research which reports important race and class differences in
children’s summertime learning (e.g. Alexander et al. 2001; Cooper et al. 1996),
black and Hispanic children in this data set learn at the same rates as whites, and
the same holds true for children of different social classes once additional covariates
are added to the model. Furthermore, the covariates used in the analysis do not
explain the large variance associated with summertime slopes.
These results are somewhat surprising, particularly for the lack of consistent
association between growth rates and either social class or concerted cultivation.
Children at this age are still learning relatively simple mathematical operations,
such as counting and simple addition, so presumably there is a good deal to be
offered by the question-answer based practices of concerted cultivation and the life
experiences accrued by these children. However, it is important to note that the
conversational element of concerted cultivation is only captured indirectly with the
measure used. Yet, the lack of a systematic relationship is surprising, particularly
when children, on average, continue developing their early math skills over this
period.
The 1st Grade Slope
When children enter school again in the first grade, black (-.34 points per month)
and Hispanic (-.19 points per month) children resume learning at much slower
rates. Asian children also learn slower, at the lowest rate (-.36 points per month),
131
in fact. Given that the standard deviation of the first grade slope is approximately
one, these differences represent meaningful disparities in children’s first grade math
learning. These differences remain consistent across model specifications, although
concerted cultivation explains about 27% of the Hispanic disadvantage and approx-
imately 15% of the black and Asian associations reported in model A. Nonetheless,
whites remain significantly advantaged when to other groups over this period.
Although social class is a significant predictor across specifications, as a pre-
dictor the influence it exercises is relatively small, decreasing from .1 (model B) to
.04 (model G). Concerted cultivation individually contributes a 27% reduction to
the social class association. The story for concerted cultivation is essentially the
same. While these effects are small, particularly as a fraction of the overall growth
rate, it must be remembered that even small differences can become quite large
over time. Furthermore, the magnitude of the concerted cultivation effect is nearly
identical to that for social class. As with growth during the kindergarten year,
however, race is a more salient predictor of systematic learning differentials than
either social class or concerted cultivation, although concerted cultivation explains
modest proportions of the racial/ethnic differentials.
The 2nd − 3rd Grade Slope
Black children learn less over the course of the second and third grade than white
children, while Asian children learn at a faster rate than their peers. Neither
association is importantly mediated by concerted cultivation or social class. While
social class is a significant predictor, the effect size is small, although over time
even small influences can produce large differences. Concerted cultivation is not
associated with the math growth rates of children over this time period.
Summary
The results shown in the previous sections are graphically depicted in figures 6.1
to 6.6. Growth curves by race are presented in figure 6.1 and the differences from
whites are shown in figure 6.2. For race, the largest impacts of concerted cultivation
are on the initial differences when children enter kindergarten, which is most clearly
evident in figure 6.2, although small reductions in the differences in the growth
132
rates are evidenced in both figures. Without adjusting for concerted cultivation,
the difference between black and white children at the end of third grade is expected
to be 12.6 points or .8 standard deviations,4 a doubling of the standardized black-
white difference, but is reduced to 9.9 points or .63 standard deviations when
concerted cultivation is adjusted for (a 21% reduction). The Hispanic difference
drops from 7.8 to 4.8 points (a 38% reduction), and differences in growth stabilize
over the second and third grade years, while Asians score similarly to whites at
the end of the study period. Importantly, the figures show that black and white
children’s test scores diverge over time, with even larger differences between Asian
and black children, while there is less evidence for Hispanic-white divergence. If
the trends in the figures continue, Asian children are expected to diverge from
children of other race/ethnic groups as they age through the education system,
whereas black children will fall ever farther behind (e.g. Phillips et al. 1998b).
Growth and difference curves for social class plotted at the mean and ±1 stan-
dard deviation are presented in figures 6.3 and 6.4. As suggested by the coefficients
reported in table 6.2, social class differences in growth rates are small, although
there are large social class differences at kindergarten entry. Even though the so-
cial class differences persist, concerted cultivation explains nearly one-quarter of
the social class effect at kindergarten entry, but only about 20% at the end of
third grade (6.3 point difference versus 5.0 points) due to the temporal divergence
in growth shown in figure 6.3 and the differences shown in figure 6.4. Although
advantaged and disadvantaged children diverge over time, the magnitude of the
differences is not as large as that for black children, unless children in the far ends
of the tails are compared. Yet, at the rates estimated with these data, differences
will be substantial by the time these children reach high school.
The final figures, 6.5 and 6.6, plot the growth and difference curves for con-
certed cultivation, comparing children from average and ±1 standard deviation
families. Although there is evidence for divergence through the first grade, the
differences are markedly reduced with the inclusion of the full-covariate list. Dif-
ferences, however, remain meaningful and highlight the importance of parenting
strategies in children’s early academic processes. There is little change in achieve-
4Estimated from models with the time variables recoded so that the model intercept appliesto the end of third grade. The standard deviations of the intercept is 15.7. These results are notshown.
133
Figure 6.1. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Race from Table 6.2
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Unadjusted (Model A)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Adjusted (Model D)
134
Figure 6.2. Graphical Depictions of Race Differences from Whites’ in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 6.2
420
−2−4−6−8
−10−12−14A
chie
vem
ent D
iffer
ence
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Black−White Math Achievement Difference
420
−2−4−6−8
−10−12−14A
chie
vem
ent D
iffer
ence
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Hispanic−White Math Achievement Difference
420
−2−4−6−8
−10−12−14A
chie
vem
ent D
iffer
ence
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Asian−White Math Achievement Difference
135
Figure 6.3. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Social Class from Table 6.2
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Adjusted (Model E)
136
Figure 6.4. Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s Math Growthfrom Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 6.2
−8
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
8
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Low SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low SES Adjusted (Model E)
High SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
High SES Adjusted (Model E)
SES Math Achievement Difference
137
Figure 6.5. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 6.2
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model c)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
C. Cult.: Adjusted (Model G)
138
Figure 6.6. Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s Math Growth fromKindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 6.2
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Low C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low C. Cult. Adjusted (Model E)
High C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model B)
High C. Cult. Adjusted (Model E)
C. Cult. Math Achievement Difference
139
ment disparities after the first grade in either figure, however. These results are
consistent with previous research documenting that parenting practices are most
important when children are very young (see Farkas and Beron 2003 in the context
of oral language and vocabulary development).
6.1.2 Group-Mean Centered Models
Covariates are often correlated with the random effects in multilevel models, which
appears likely when considering how the level-3 variance components change across
the original model set in table 6.2. For example, adding concerted cultivation singly
in model C explains about 50% of the variance in the level-3 intercept, although
much smaller proportions of the variances in the between-child slopes are explained.
That the covariates might be correlated with the random effects is not surprising
when one considers the non-random distribution of children across schools (cite).
For this reason, the next series of models replicate those in table 6.2 but with
the covariates centered around their respective group-means. These models are,
in effect, growth models with school-level fixed effects, which means the between-
student parameters represent average expected math achievement scores between
children who attend the same school. In addition, this approach has the added
benefit of adjusting for constant school-level confounders. Results are presented in
table 6.35 and summarized in figures 6.7 to 6.12.
Initial Status
When children are compared to their peers in the same school, coefficient mag-
nitudes decrease substantially, indicating that the previous estimates were biased
bias by between-school compositional differences. Black and Hispanic children
remain significantly disadvantaged at kindergarten entry and their coefficients de-
crease by 38% and 34%, respectively, when concerted cultivation is added to the
models. This reduction is somewhat smaller than in the non-group-mean centered
models, but still represents significant attenuation in coefficient magnitude. The
Asian advantage when concerted cultivation is added to the model, however, is
5Partially-standardized regression slopes are reported in Appendix table A.7, coefficient mag-nitude reduction in A.5, and results for the full model are presented in table A.8.
140
Table 6.3. Group-Mean Centered Growth Models for Math Achievement Scores (IRT) fromKindergarten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, ‘Concerted Cultivation,’and Selected Covariates (ECLS-K)
Model
Variablesa,b A B C D E F G
Initial Status 18.081 ** 18.074 ** 18.087 ** 18.092 ** 18.081 ** 18.085 ** 18.083 **(0.153) (0.153) (0.153) (0.153) (0.153) (0.153) 0.153
Black −2.468 ** −1.550 ** −1.225 ** −1.034 **(0.312) (0.309) (0.306) 0.313
Hispanic −3.276 ** −2.179 ** −1.794 ** −1.518 **(0.257) (0.259) (0.256) 0.269
Asian 0.339 1.694 ** 1.309 ** 1.623 **(0.367) (0.363) (0.362) 0.384
Other Race −1.239 ** −0.664 −0.516 −0.364(0.381) (0.376) (0.371) 0.370
Social class 2.256 ** 1.776 ** 1.654 ** 1.386 **(0.089) (0.094) (0.095) 0.098
Concerted Cultivation 1.973 ** 1.880 ** 1.392 ** 1.354 ** 1.127 **(0.088) (0.090) (0.092) (0.094) 0.098
Second K. −1.404 ** −1.088 ** −1.261 ** −1.141 ** −0.958 * −0.879 * −0.728 *(0.381) (0.377) (0.382) (0.376) (0.375) (0.371) 0.372
Age at K. Entry 0.484 ** 0.493 ** 0.486 ** 0.482 ** 0.489 ** 0.485 ** 0.483 **(0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) 0.016
Kindergarten Slope 1.655 ** 1.655 ** 1.657 ** 1.656 ** 1.656 ** 1.656 ** 1.656 **(0.014) (0.014) (0.014) (0.014) (0.014) (0.014) 0.014
Black −0.281 ** −0.239 ** −0.222 ** −0.218 **(0.039) (0.040) (0.040) 0.041
Hispanic −0.142 ** −0.092 ** −0.072 * −0.060(0.033) (0.033) (0.033) 0.035
Asian −0.030 0.037 0.018 0.040(0.047) (0.048) (0.048) 0.050
Other Race −0.140 ** −0.112 * −0.104 * −0.096 *(0.049) (0.049) (0.049) 0.049
Social class 0.116 ** 0.094 ** 0.087 ** 0.072 **(0.011) (0.012) (0.012) 0.013
Concerted Cultivation 0.095 ** 0.087 ** 0.065 ** 0.060 ** 0.058 **(0.011) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) 0.013
Second K. −0.163 ** −0.140 ** −0.154 ** −0.152 ** −0.136 ** −0.136 ** −0.134 **(0.047) (0.047) (0.048) (0.048) (0.047) (0.047) 0.047
Changed School −0.098 −0.083 −0.059 −0.053 −0.052 −0.047 −0.033(0.074) (0.074) (0.074) (0.074) (0.074) (0.074) 0.073
Summer Slope 0.533 ** 0.532 ** 0.533 ** 0.534 ** 0.533 ** 0.534 ** 0.534 **(0.055) (0.055) (0.055) (0.055) (0.055) (0.055) 0.055
Black −0.097 −0.040 −0.035 −0.038(0.173) (0.174) (0.175) 0.178
Hispanic 0.033 0.095 0.102 0.088(0.153) (0.155) (0.155) 0.161
Asian 0.529 * 0.625 ** 0.625 ** 0.589 *(0.218) (0.222) (0.222) 0.234
Other Race −0.007 0.038 0.039 0.042(0.210) (0.211) (0.211) 0.212
Social class 0.069 0.039 0.029 0.035(0.054) (0.056) (0.057) 0.058
Concerted Cultivation 0.103 * 0.122 * 0.091 0.113 * 0.115 *(0.052) (0.053) (0.055) (0.056) 0.058
Second K. −0.117 −0.101 −0.102 −0.101 −0.095 −0.097 −0.108(0.219) (0.220) (0.219) (0.219) (0.220) (0.219) 0.220
Changed School 0.304 ** 0.288 * 0.310 ** 0.313 ** 0.296 * 0.300 ** 0.305 **(0.114) (0.114) (0.114) (0.114) (0.114) (0.114) 0.113
1st Grade Slope 2.400 ** 2.400 ** 2.401 ** 2.400 ** 2.401 ** 2.400 ** 2.401 **(0.022) (0.022) (0.022) (0.022) (0.022) (0.022) 0.022
Black −0.248 ** −0.221 ** −0.206 ** −0.189 *(0.063) (0.064) (0.064) 0.065
Hispanic −0.175 ** −0.140 * −0.121 * −0.124 *(0.054) (0.055) (0.055) 0.058
Asian −0.287 ** −0.246 ** −0.265 ** −0.273 **(0.078) (0.079) (0.079) 0.083
Other Race −0.158 * −0.143 −0.133 −0.122(0.077) (0.078) (0.078) 0.078
Social class 0.098 ** 0.082 ** 0.081 ** 0.061 **(0.019) (0.020) (0.020) 0.021
Concerted Cultivation 0.072 ** 0.054 ** 0.045 * 0.028 0.030(0.019) (0.019) (0.020) (0.020) 0.021
Second K. −0.167 * −0.153 * −0.165 * −0.161 * −0.150 m −0.148 m −0.145(0.078) (0.078) (0.078) (0.078) (0.078) (0.078) 0.078
Changed School −0.112 −0.086 −0.104 −0.109 −0.086 −0.092 −0.075(0.085) (0.085) (0.085) (0.085) (0.085) (0.085) 0.084
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Table continued on next page.b Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix A.8.
141
Table 6.3 – Continued: Math Achievement, Group-Mean CenteredModel
Variablesa A B C D E F G
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 1.193 ** 1.193 ** 1.193 ** 1.193 ** 1.193 ** 1.193 ** 1.193 **(0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) 0.007
Black −0.112 ** −0.110 ** −0.104 ** −0.096 **(0.020) (0.020) (0.020) 0.020
Hispanic −0.005 −0.003 0.005 −0.002(0.017) (0.017) (0.017) 0.018
Asian 0.076 ** 0.080 ** 0.073 ** 0.068 **(0.023) (0.023) (0.023) 0.025
Other Race 0.017 0.019 0.021 0.025(0.025) (0.025) (0.025) 0.025
Social class 0.031 ** 0.033 ** 0.030 ** 0.023 **(0.006) (0.006) (0.006) 0.006
Concerted Cultivation 0.005 0.005 −0.006 −0.005 −0.004(0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) 0.006
Second K. −0.106 ** −0.099 ** −0.106 ** −0.105 ** −0.100 ** −0.100 ** −0.098 **(0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.024) 0.024
Changed School −0.014 −0.015 −0.014 −0.013 −0.015 −0.014 −0.015(0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) 0.012
Level-2 Variance ComponentsIntercept 47.978 ** 46.010 ** 46.598 ** 45.904 ** 44.933 ** 44.492 ** 43.767 **Kindergarten Slope 0.596 ** 0.593 ** 0.595 ** 0.591 ** 0.590 ** 0.587 ** 0.583 **Summer Slope 4.381 ** 4.399 ** 4.393 ** 4.379 ** 4.399 ** 4.385 ** 4.378 **
1st Grade Slope 0.995 ** 0.995 ** 0.998 ** 0.993 ** 0.994 ** 0.989 ** 0.983 **
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 0.171 ** 0.172 ** 0.172 ** 0.171 ** 0.172 ** 0.171 ** 0.169 **
Level-3 Variance ComponentsIntercept 17.503 ** 17.606 ** 17.600 ** 17.618 ** 17.680 ** 17.688 ** 17.749 **Kindergarten Slope 0.113 ** 0.113 ** 0.113 ** 0.113 ** 0.113 ** 0.114 ** 0.114 **Summer Slope 0.528 ** 0.525 ** 0.525 ** 0.526 ** 0.524 ** 0.525 ** 0.526 **
1st Grade Slope 0.159 ** 0.159 ** 0.159 ** 0.159 ** 0.159 ** 0.160 ** 0.159 **
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 0.025 ** 0.025 ** 0.025 ** 0.025 ** 0.025 ** 0.025 ** 0.025 **
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix A.8.
even larger when children in the same classrooms are compared. The story is es-
sentially identical for social class, which is reduced by approximately 21% when
concerted cultivation is added to the model.
Although the initial differences are somewhat smaller in the fixed-effects models
(models A through E, in particular), by model G coefficient magnitudes are similar
to those reported in table 6.2, primarily by race, indicating that the non-random
distribution of children across schools is largely accounted for by the covariates
used in the analysis. The association of concerted cultivation with children’s math-
ematics skills at kindergarten entry, while smaller, is still a significant predictor
of children’s school readiness of a modest magnitude, similar in size albeit smaller
than social class. As with the non-centered models, the salience of social class
and concerted cultivation for predicting disparities at kindergarten entry are as
meaningful if not more so than racial categorization.
142
Figure 6.7. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Race from Table 6.2, Group-Mean Centered
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Unadjusted (Model A)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Adjusted (Model D)
143
Figure 6.8. Graphical Depictions of Race Differences from Whites’ in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 6.3, Group-Mean Cen-tered
420
−2−4−6−8
−10−12−14
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Black−White Math Achievement Difference
420
−2−4−6−8
−10−12−14
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Hispanic−White Math Achievement Difference
420
−2−4−6−8
−10−12−14
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Asian−White Math Achievement Difference
144
Figure 6.9. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Social Class from Table 6.3, Group-Mean Centered
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Adjusted (Model E)
145
Figure 6.10. Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 6.3, Group-Mean Cen-tered
4
2
0
−2
−4
−6
−8
−10
−12
−14
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Low SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low SES Adjusted (Model E)
High SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
High SES Adjusted (Model E)
SES Math Achievement Difference
146
Figure 6.11. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 6.3, Group-Mean Centered
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model c)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Mat
h A
chie
vem
ent
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
C. Cult.: Adjusted (Model G)
147
Figure 6.12. Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s Math Growth fromKindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 6.3, Group-Mean Centered
4
2
0
−2
−4
−6
−8
−10
−12
−14
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Low C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low C. Cult. Adjusted (Model G)
High C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model B)
High C. Cult. Adjusted (Model G)
C. Cult. Math Achievement Difference
The Slope Parameters
Although the results over the kindergarten year are similar in tables 6.3 and 6.2,
important differences surface over the summertime when concerted cultivation
emerges as an important predictor of children’s summer learning. Children from
families one standard deviation above the mean grow at rates approximately .12
points per month higher, a divergence which is readily witnessed in figures 6.11 and
6.12. This finding is consistent with expectations drawn from previous research on
summer learning.
Even when children in the same schools are compared, black and white chil-
dren’s test scores continue to diverge over time as depicted in figures 6.7 and
6.8, with persisting disparities after concerted cultivation is controlled. This is
not surprising, however, because concerted cultivation is not related to children’s
growth over the school year (with the exception of the kindergarten year). In ad-
dition, the evidence strongly suggests that Asian and white children’s math skills
diverge over time in a pattern favoring Asian children. While social class gaps in
growth rates are small, figure 6.10 illustrates that gaps between children in the
148
same schools grow steadily over time, accumulating as children age. Concerted
cultivation’s reduction in the social class gaps is principally through its influence
on the skills children enter school with, with few implications for the growth rates
over the early school years when average within-school associations are estimated
once compositional factors are accounted for.
Summary
In the centered models, concerted cultivation mediates approximately 35% of the
black and Hispanic mathematics disparity, and about 21% of that for social class
at kindergarten entry. Over time, social groups continue to diverge as shown in
the figures. The black-white difference for children in the same schools is expected
to be 10.2 points at the end of third grade, which is reduced to 8.4 points, a 21%
reduction, when concerted cultivation is included in the model, which is smaller
than the 37% reduction found at kindergarten entry. The large difference reflects
the unaccounted differences in children’s growth over the intervening years seen in
figures 6.7 and 6.8, and suggests either within-school processes or unaccounted-for
environmental influences. Although Hispanic and white children also diverge over
time, the differences are far smaller (6.2 versus 4.1 points, a 34% reduction), a
reduction identical to that found at kindergarten entry. Growth in the expected
difference between Hispanic and white children arises primarily over the kinder-
garten and first grade years. In addition, the pattern for Asian children is less
consistent, but implies a divergence over time favoring Asian children if trends
continue, as was found in the non-centered models
By the end of third grade the social class gradient is expected to be 5.2 points,
but is reduced to 4.3 points when concerted cultivation is included in the model.
This reduction is smaller than that for race, being less than 20%. Despite the
importance of concerted cultivation in mathematics development, primarily before
the first grade, strong residual social group disparities remain to be accounted
for and children of different social classes diverge over time, which is shown most
clearly in figure 6.10, although the trend is also readily apparent in figure 6.9.
Children by concerted cultivation diverge through the first grade, including over
the summer at rates larger than those during the school year (see figures 6.11 and
6.12), although disparities stabilize after the first grade.
149
6.2 Interactions with Concerted Cultivation
The previous models estimated race and social class effects descriptively and after
adjusting for concerted cultivation and other covariates. Important parameters
included the race and social class coefficients across model specifications, in ad-
dition to the concerted cultivation coefficients. These models are principally con-
cerned with the (1) the extent to which concerted cultivation mediates race and
class differences, and (2) the average relationship between concerted cultivation
and children’s growth trajectories across social groups. Does concerted cultivation
function equally for groups of differing social status and race/ethnic identification?
Results are reported in table 6.4 for race interactions, table 6.5 for the social class
models, and race by class by concerted cultivation interactions are presented in
table 6.6.
6.2.1 Race x Concerted Cultivation Interactions
Results for models interaction race and concerted cultivation are reported in ta-
ble 6.4. Model A estimates race and concerted cultivation interactions prior to
controlling for social class, and model B adds social class. Models C and D are
replicates of models A and B, using group-mean centering to eliminate unmeasured
contextual confounders. Consistent with the previous discussion, the coefficients
reported in models C and D are average effects based upon children who attend
the same schools.6
Because race categorization/identification is a nominal measure which has been
parsed into dichotomous indicator variables, the coefficients in table 6.4 have an
intuitive interpretation. The concerted cultivation main-effect represents the av-
erage expected difference in general knowledge test scores for white children who
differ by one standard deviation on the measure. The race interactions capture
the increments or decrements to the expected difference for the specific group from
whites. For example, the negative coefficient for black children represents a lower
return to concerted cultivation than white children experience. At kindergarten
6In addition to these models, I also estimated a series of equations where the sample wasrestricted to only those cases covered over the range of common support because of differencesin the distribution of concerted cultivation across race/ethnic groups. Findings are virtuallyidentical.
150
Table 6.4. Race Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for Math AchievementScores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade (ECLS-K)
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
Initial Status 19.073 ** 18.878 ** 18.090 ** 18.084 **(0.139) (0.126) (0.153) (0.153)
Black −2.232 ** −1.602 ** −1.778 ** −1.413 **(0.279) (0.269) (0.326) (0.322)
Hispanic −2.428 ** −1.827 ** −2.133 ** −1.761 **(0.232) (0.226) (0.262) (0.260)
Asian 2.095 ** 1.644 ** 1.927 ** 1.520 **(0.357) (0.351) (0.377) (0.376)
Other −1.454 ** −1.326 ** −0.562 −0.418(0.341) (0.329) (0.379) (0.374)
Social Class 2.059 ** 1.646 **(0.087) (0.095)
Concerted Cultivation 2.581 ** 1.827 ** 2.114 ** 1.579 **(0.116) (0.119) (0.122) (0.123)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −1.100 ** −0.939 ** −0.964 ** −0.852 **
(0.246) (0.240) (0.259) (0.255)Hispanic −0.371 −0.409 * −0.368 −0.378
(0.203) (0.198) (0.215) (0.212)Asian 0.263 0.208 0.115 0.075
(0.337) (0.333) (0.342) (0.341)Other −0.206 −0.110 −0.432 −0.406
(0.321) (0.316) (0.332) (0.329)Kindergarten Slope 1.727 ** 1.719 ** 1.656 ** 1.656 **
0.017 0.017 0.014 0.014Black −0.294 ** −0.268 ** −0.258 ** −0.239 **
(0.035) (0.035) (0.041) (0.041)Hispanic −0.113 ** −0.090 ** −0.091 ** −0.071 *
(0.030) (0.030) (0.034) (0.034)Asian 0.023 0.005 0.051 0.030
(0.046) (0.046) (0.049) (0.050)Other −0.098 * −0.088 * −0.114 * −0.106 *
(0.044) (0.044) (0.049) (0.049)Social Class 0.080 ** 0.087 **
(0.011) (0.012)Concerted Cultivation 0.089 ** 0.058 ** 0.088 ** 0.060 **
(0.015) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.034 −0.028 −0.040 −0.035
(0.031) (0.031) (0.033) (0.033)Hispanic 0.027 0.027 0.008 0.007
(0.026) (0.026) (0.027) (0.027)Asian 0.034 0.031 0.034 0.033
(0.042) (0.042) (0.042) (0.042)Other 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.011
(0.042) (0.042) (0.043) (0.043)Summer Slope 0.500 ** 0.491 ** 0.534 ** 0.534 **
(0.073) (0.073) (0.055) (0.055)Black 0.000 0.027 −0.047 −0.041
(0.149) (0.150) (0.182) (0.183)Hispanic 0.083 0.110 0.122 0.130
(0.135) (0.136) (0.157) (0.157)Asian 0.563 * 0.552 * 0.572 * 0.571 *
(0.217) (0.217) (0.232) (0.233)Other −0.031 −0.041 0.031 0.032
(0.181) (0.181) (0.212) (0.212)Social Class 0.098 0.030
(0.051) (0.057)Concerted Cultivation 0.101 0.069 0.104 0.095
(0.065) (0.069) (0.071) (0.073)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack 0.058 0.060 0.025 0.026
(0.142) (0.142) (0.150) (0.150)Hispanic 0.063 0.065 0.120 0.121
(0.119) (0.119) (0.128) (0.128)Asian −0.133 −0.130 −0.116 −0.119
(0.193) (0.193) (0.199) (0.199)Other −0.004 0.007 −0.049 −0.048
(0.169) (0.169) (0.175) (0.175)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
151
Table 6.4 – Continued: Math Achievement, Race Interactions.
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
1st Grade Slope 2.489 ** 2.483 ** 2.400 ** 2.400 **(0.027) (0.028) (0.022) (0.022)
Black −0.302 ** −0.279 ** −0.216 ** −0.199 **(0.056) (0.056) (0.067) (0.067)
Hispanic −0.150 ** −0.130 ** −0.144 * −0.126 *(0.049) (0.049) (0.056) (0.056)
Asian −0.277 ** −0.296 ** −0.241 ** −0.261 **(0.077) (0.077) (0.083) (0.083)
Other −0.209 ** −0.196 ** −0.129 −0.120(0.068) (0.068) (0.078) (0.078)
Social Class 0.066 ** 0.080 **(0.019) (0.020)
Concerted Cultivation 0.098 ** 0.070 ** 0.082 ** 0.056 *(0.024) (0.025) (0.026) (0.027)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.060 −0.053 −0.050 −0.044
(0.052) (0.052) (0.055) (0.055)Hispanic −0.063 −0.064 −0.078 −0.079
(0.042) (0.042) (0.045) (0.045)Asian −0.021 −0.024 −0.053 −0.053
(0.068) (0.068) (0.070) (0.070)Other −0.002 −0.002 −0.009 −0.008
(0.064) (0.064) (0.066) (0.066)2nd-3rd Grade Slope 1.215 ** 1.212 ** 1.193 ** 1.193 **
(0.009) (0.009) (0.007) (0.007)Black −0.118 ** −0.107 ** −0.113 ** −0.106 **
(0.018) (0.018) (0.021) (0.021)Hispanic −0.001 0.010 0.003 0.010
(0.015) (0.015) (0.017) (0.017)Asian 0.079 ** 0.071 ** 0.074 ** 0.067 *
(0.022) (0.022) (0.024) (0.024)Other −0.008 −0.005 0.016 0.018
(0.022) (0.022) (0.025) (0.025)Social Class 0.035 ** 0.030 **
(0.006) (0.006)Concerted Cultivation −0.002 −0.015 m −0.003 −0.013
(0.007) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack 0.021 0.023 0.011 0.012
(0.016) (0.016) (0.017) (0.017)Hispanic 0.032 * 0.031 * 0.031 * 0.031 *
(0.013) (0.013) (0.014) (0.014)Asian 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.004
(0.020) (0.020) (0.021) (0.021)Other −0.002 0.001 −0.016 −0.014
(0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.022)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
152
entry, black children gain only (2.1-1.0=) 1.1 points for each standard deviation
increase in concerted cultivation, compared to all other children who receive 2.1
points (model C), on average. This finding is contrary to expectations taken from
Lareau (2003), who found that concerted cultivation operated similarly for white
and black children, although Sun (1998) found that black children receive lower
returns to parental investments on math and science tests.7 This finding is similar
to that found previously for general knowledge, and it will be given more attention
in section 6.2.3. There are no other significant interactions in the model.
6.2.2 SES x Concerted Cultivation Interactions
In the previous section the question of whether or not concerted cultivation relates
to children’s general knowledge achievement differently by race/ethnic group. This
section is conceptually similar, although the question is posed for social class in-
stead. Although social class is used as a standardized, continuous covariate in
the preceding analyses, in the following section, social class is coded as a series of
dummy variables. By coding social class as a series of categorical indicators, the
interpretation of the interactions is similar to those in the race interaction models.
The first grouping, low social class, captures the bottom quartile of the distribu-
tion, average social class, the reference category, captures the middle 50% of the
distribution, and high social class is composed of the top quartile. The results
presented in table 6.5 follow a parallel progression to those presented in table 6.4.
There is little evidence of concerted cultivation interactions by social class. Al-
though children from lower social class families receive fewer returns to concerted
cultivation in the non-group-mean centered models (models A and B), the relation-
ship reduces to non-significance when children in the same schools are compared.
Surprisingly, however, there is evidence that higher social class children receive
fewer returns to concerted cultivation than middle-class children during the sec-
ond and third grade years.
7Farkas and Beron (2004) report similar findings by social class and the HOME inventorieswith the PPVT for social class, mother’s verbal AFQT, and cognitive stimulation (pg. 484, Table4).
153
Table 6.5. Social Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for MathAchievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade (ECLS-K)
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
Initial Status 18.204 ** 18.701 ** 18.099 ** 18.102 **(0.124) (0.141) (0.153) (0.153)
Black −1.445 ** −1.288 **(0.250) (0.306)
Hispanic −1.956 ** −1.862 **(0.221) (0.257)
Asian 1.539 ** 1.436 **(0.335) (0.362)
Other −1.412 ** −0.507(0.330) (0.372)
Low SES (< −25%) −2.459 ** −2.220 ** −1.944 ** −1.788 **(0.225) (0.224) (0.234) (0.233)
High SES (> +25%) 3.203 ** 2.954 ** 2.462 ** 2.276 **(0.210) (0.210) (0.219) (0.219)
Concerted Cultivation 1.949 ** 1.840 ** 1.529 ** 1.487 **(0.117) (0.119) (0.124) (0.124)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −25%) −0.436 * −0.497 * −0.246 −0.294
(0.202) (0.201) (0.209) (0.208)High SES (> +25%) −0.039 0.082 0.032 0.102
(0.212) (0.211) (0.215) (0.214)Kindergarten Slope 1.666 ** 1.719 ** 1.657 ** 1.657 **
(0.016) (0.019) (0.014) (0.014)Black −0.253 ** −0.228 **
(0.033) (0.040)Hispanic −0.095 ** −0.074 *
(0.029) (0.033)Asian −0.004 0.021
(0.044) (0.048)Other −0.089 * −0.106 *
(0.043) (0.049)Low SES (< −25%) −0.109 ** −0.089 ** −0.090 ** −0.077 *
(0.029) (0.029) (0.030) (0.030)High SES (> +25%) 0.123 ** 0.110 ** 0.133 ** 0.124 **
(0.027) (0.028) (0.029) (0.029)Concerted Cultivation 0.077 ** 0.061 ** 0.072 ** 0.064 **
(0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.017)Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −25%) 0.019 0.026 0.008 0.013
(0.026) (0.026) (0.027) (0.027)High SES (> +25%) −0.017 −0.011 −0.017 −0.014
(0.027) (0.027) (0.028) (0.028)Summer Slope 0.463 ** 0.426 ** 0.534 ** 0.534 **
(0.069) (0.080) (0.055) (0.055)Black 0.002 −0.039
(0.142) (0.175)Hispanic 0.074 0.101
(0.131) (0.155)Asian 0.611 ** 0.621 **
(0.205) (0.222)Other −0.031 0.034
(0.179) (0.211)Low SES (< −25%) 0.059 0.066 0.080 0.088
(0.129) (0.130) (0.135) (0.135)High SES (> +25%) 0.298 * 0.270 * 0.187 0.164
(0.123) (0.124) (0.131) (0.131)Concerted Cultivation 0.088 0.108 0.095 0.113
(0.069) (0.070) (0.073) (0.074)Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −25%) 0.045 0.035 0.087 0.087
(0.118) (0.118) (0.122) (0.122)High SES (> +25%D) −0.097 −0.076 −0.102 −0.084
(0.123) (0.123) (0.128) (0.128)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
154
Table 6.5 – Continued: Math Achievement, SES Interactions
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
1st Grade Slope 2.429 ** 2.510 ** 2.402 ** 2.401 **(0.026) (0.030) (0.022) (0.022)
Black −0.274 ** −0.206 **(0.053) (0.064)
Hispanic −0.112 * −0.118 *(0.047) (0.055)
Asian −0.303 ** −0.261 **(0.073) (0.079)
Other −0.210 ** −0.132(0.068) (0.078)
Low SES (< −1 SD) −0.163 ** −0.145 ** −0.166 ** −0.156 **(0.047) (0.047) (0.049) (0.049)
High SES (> +25%) 0.070 0.072 0.078 0.080(0.045) (0.046) (0.048) (0.048)
Concerted Cultivation 0.086 ** 0.057 * 0.058 * 0.041(0.025) (0.026) (0.027) (0.027)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −1 SD) −0.038 −0.022 −0.034 −0.027
(0.042) (0.042) (0.043) (0.043)High SES (> +25%) −0.029 −0.031 −0.022 −0.027
(0.045) (0.045) (0.047) (0.047)2nd-3rd Grade Slope 1.205 ** 1.213 ** 1.193 ** 1.193 **
(0.008) (0.009) (0.007) (0.007)Black −0.109 ** −0.105 **
(0.017) (0.020)Hispanic 0.009 0.008
(0.015) (0.017)Asian 0.078 ** 0.071 **
(0.021) (0.023)Other −0.001 0.021
(0.022) (0.025)Low SES (< −25%) −0.051 ** −0.045 ** −0.045 ** −0.042 **
(0.014) (0.014) (0.015) (0.015)High SES (> +25%) 0.070 ** 0.062 ** 0.063 ** 0.058 **
(0.014) (0.014) (0.014) (0.014)Concerted Cultivation −0.002 −0.003 −0.001 −0.001
(0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008)Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −25%) 0.019 0.022 0.012 0.014
(0.013) (0.013) (0.013) (0.013)High SES (> +25%) −0.040 ** −0.036 ** −0.043 ** −0.040 **
(0.013) (0.013) (0.014) (0.014)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
155
6.2.3 SES x Race x Concerted Cultivation
The next series of models, which are presented in table 6.6, estimate race by
concerted cultivation interaction models for the bottom quartile of the social class
distribution (‘A’ models), the middle-50% (‘B’ models), and the top quartile (‘C’
models) for (1) race and concerted cultivation and (2) the entire covariate list. The
previous finding that black children do not receive the same general knowledge
benefit from concerted cultivation at kindergarten entry are interesting, and a bit
perplexing too (e.g. Sun 1998; Farkas and Beron 2004). Results from table 6.6
illustrate which black children are benefitting, and which are not.
Lower social class black children, as with the general knowledge scores, do not
receive the same benefit from concerted cultivation as white children, and corre-
spondingly do not receive the same detriments. Because most of the lower-class
black children come from homes with negative values on the concerted cultivation
factor, the negative interaction implies that net of the black-white main effect,
black children are doing better than expected. Although the interaction terms
for middle- and upper-class black children are non-significant, they are negative
in value across specifications. Lower class Hispanic children follow a similar pat-
tern for the math test, although the non-significant interaction terms for the other
social classes tend to be positive.
6.3 Summary
In the foregoing analysis, concerted cultivation was shown to be an important pre-
dictor of children’s mathematics achievement at kindergarten entry. Although the
coefficient magnitude decreased as covariates were added to the model, concerted
cultivation persisted as an important predictor of children’s school readiness—of
similar magnitude to social class, in fact, even when children in the same schools
were compared. Given the high correlation between social class and concerted
cultivation, the social class effects, though large, are significantly larger via indi-
rect effects through concerted cultivation. In addition, concerted cultivation was
shown to be related to children’s mathematics growth over the summertime, al-
though inclusion of concerted cultivation did little to ameliorate the much larger
156
Table 6.6. Race & Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for Math-ematics Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade(ECLS-K)
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2
Initial Status 16.182 ** 16.352 ** 18.669 ** 18.259 ** 21.890 ** 17.915 **(0.240) (0.466) (0.148) (0.360) (0.321) (0.867)
Black −1.835 ** −1.625 ** −1.518 ** −1.167 ** −2.291 ** −1.148(0.437) (0.451) (0.327) (0.333) (0.832) (0.848)
Hispanic −2.283 ** −1.967 ** −1.776 ** −1.430 ** −2.956 ** −2.243 **(0.401) (0.451) (0.283) (0.299) (0.813) (0.821)
Asian 2.188 * 2.560 * 1.028 * 1.090 * 2.731 ** 3.123 **(1.015) (1.076) (0.510) (0.541) (0.721) (0.808)
Other −2.004 ** −1.663 ** −1.956 ** −1.589 ** 0.031 0.221(0.630) (0.625) (0.414) (0.406) (1.070) (1.051)
Social Class 0.465 * 1.899 ** 1.729 **(0.191) (0.262) (0.323)
Concerted Cultivation 2.271 ** 1.928 ** 1.856 ** 1.295 ** 1.990 ** 1.499 **(0.264) (0.270) (0.154) (0.159) (0.277) (0.286)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −1.374 ** −1.235 ** −0.659 −0.623 −0.361 −0.546
(0.385) (0.385) (0.356) (0.352) (0.876) (0.862)Hispanic −1.061 ** −1.002 ** 0.269 0.119 0.695 0.415
(0.345) (0.360) (0.312) (0.319) (0.876) (0.867)Asian −0.625 −0.396 0.607 0.446 0.020 0.207
(0.749) (0.735) (0.550) (0.543) (0.719) (0.721)Other −0.387 −0.303 0.029 −0.015 −0.418 −0.431
(0.609) (0.598) (0.440) (0.433) (0.978) (0.962)
Kindergarten Slope 1.654 ** 1.687 ** 1.715 ** 1.776 ** 1.885 ** 1.882 **(0.036) (0.054) (0.020) (0.029) (0.039) (0.068)
Black −0.288 ** −0.299 ** −0.267 ** −0.250 ** −0.461 ** −0.419 **(0.064) (0.066) (0.044) (0.046) (0.101) (0.105)
Hispanic −0.233 ** −0.239 ** −0.045 −0.024 −0.114 −0.080(0.060) (0.068) (0.038) (0.041) (0.097) (0.099)
Asian −0.024 −0.016 0.031 0.061 −0.103 −0.080(0.156) (0.159) (0.072) (0.075) (0.091) (0.099)
Other −0.152 −0.158 −0.057 −0.039 −0.159 −0.135(0.094) (0.095) (0.057) (0.057) (0.127) (0.127)
Social Class 0.004 0.073 * 0.096 **(0.029) (0.036) (0.038)
Concerted Cultivation 0.165 ** 0.149 ** 0.065 ** 0.052 * 0.001 0.020(0.040) (0.040) (0.021) (0.022) (0.033) (0.035)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.105 −0.101 −0.099 * −0.100 * 0.194 m 0.183
(0.058) (0.057) (0.048) (0.048) (0.103) (0.103)Hispanic −0.109 * −0.102 * 0.010 −0.002 0.040 0.030
(0.051) (0.052) (0.043) (0.044) (0.104) (0.104)Asian −0.125 −0.119 0.117 0.115 0.135 0.133
(0.107) (0.107) (0.079) (0.079) (0.088) (0.088)Other −0.138 −0.136 0.045 0.044 0.044 0.026
(0.089) (0.089) (0.060) (0.060) (0.116) (0.116)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.Note 1: Table continued on the following page.Note 2: ‘A’ models are for the lower quantile of the social class distribution, ‘B’ models are estimated from themiddle 50% of the distribution, and ‘C’ models use the top quantile of the social class distribution. For theconcerted cultivation distribution by race and social class, see figure 4Note 3: ‘-1’ models include second time kindergartner, age at kindergarten entry (-66 months), and whether ornot the child changed schools over the given period. ‘-2’ models include the full covariate list.
157
Table 6.6 – Continued: Mathematics Achievement, Race & Social Class Interactions
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2
Summer Slope 0.501 ** 0.623 ** 0.486 ** 0.343 * 0.570 ** 0.268(0.155) (0.230) (0.089) (0.121) (0.171) (0.302)
Black −0.102 −0.145 −0.115 −0.128 0.879 * 0.977 *(0.284) (0.287) (0.190) (0.196) (0.443) (0.451)
Hispanic 0.121 0.146 −0.024 −0.097 0.024 0.070(0.277) (0.298) (0.178) (0.188) (0.408) (0.423)
Asian 0.985 1.139 0.608 0.514 0.790 m 0.717(0.760) (0.806) (0.329) (0.344) (0.406) (0.447)
Other 0.242 0.221 −0.242 −0.272 −0.025 0.019(0.331) (0.335) (0.236) (0.238) (0.578) (0.581)
Social Class 0.032 −0.051 0.161(0.131) (0.159) (0.176)
Concerted Cultivation 0.249 0.229 −0.016 −0.016 0.132 0.061(0.166) (0.169) (0.093) (0.097) (0.150) (0.157)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.275 −0.272 0.464 * 0.514 * −0.784 −0.787
(0.258) (0.256) (0.213) (0.213) (0.466) (0.468)Hispanic −0.110 −0.096 0.181 0.286 0.365 0.363
(0.235) (0.236) (0.196) (0.200) (0.445) (0.452)Asian −0.080 0.012 0.208 0.312 −0.461 −0.432
(0.488) (0.498) (0.353) (0.354) (0.401) (0.408)Other −0.159 −0.131 0.128 0.159 0.075 0.009
(0.310) (0.316) (0.241) (0.240) (0.549) (0.550)1st Grade Slope 2.336 ** 2.440 ** 2.502 ** 2.631 ** 2.636 ** 2.707 **
(0.060) (0.086) (0.034) (0.045) (0.063) (0.109)Black −0.225 * −0.240 * −0.258 ** −0.238 ** −0.717 ** −0.657 **
(0.107) (0.111) (0.072) (0.073) (0.159) (0.163)Hispanic −0.096 −0.156 −0.110 −0.086 −0.019 −0.011
(0.098) (0.109) (0.065) (0.068) (0.143) (0.149)Asian −0.258 −0.367 −0.299 * −0.307 ** −0.390 ** −0.377 *
(0.265) (0.282) (0.120) (0.125) (0.141) (0.158)Other −0.286 * −0.275 * −0.180 * −0.162 −0.342 −0.314
(0.136) (0.137) (0.090) (0.091) (0.208) (0.209)Social Class 0.010 0.177 ** −0.053
(0.046) (0.060) (0.062)Concerted Cultivation 0.119 m 0.098 0.082 * 0.063 0.007 0.034
(0.063) (0.063) (0.035) (0.037) (0.054) (0.057)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.048 −0.049 −0.152 m −0.161 * 0.248 0.237
(0.098) (0.097) (0.079) (0.079) (0.164) (0.164)Hispanic −0.113 −0.090 −0.036 −0.052 −0.308 * −0.317 *
(0.082) (0.083) (0.071) (0.072) (0.154) (0.157)Asian −0.063 −0.075 0.004 −0.008 0.017 0.032
(0.174) (0.177) (0.122) (0.123) (0.140) (0.144)Other −0.070 −0.060 −0.027 −0.035 0.140 0.130
(0.131) (0.133) (0.093) (0.092) (0.199) (0.199)2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 1.148 ** 1.231 ** 1.215 ** 1.253 ** 1.274 ** 1.271 **
(0.021) (0.030) (0.011) (0.015) (0.017) (0.030)Black −0.111 ** −0.098 * −0.108 ** 0.101 ** −0.025 −0.010
(0.036) (0.037) (0.023) (0.023) (0.044) (0.046)Hispanic 0.079 * 0.069 0.008 0.008 −0.047 −0.037
(0.034) (0.038) (0.020) (0.021) (0.042) (0.043)Asian 0.185 * 0.167 * 0.051 0.019 0.058 0.079 m
(0.074) (0.078) (0.035) (0.037) (0.036) (0.042)Other 0.013 0.012 −0.031 0.025 0.020 0.024
(0.053) (0.055) (0.029) (0.029) (0.057) (0.057)Social Class 0.026 0.012 0.014
(0.015) (0.018) (0.017)Concerted Cultivation −0.008 −0.014 −0.002 0.001 −0.043 ** −0.043 **
(0.022) (0.022) (0.011) (0.011) (0.015) (0.015)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack 0.027 0.028 0.012 0.005 −0.065 −0.080
(0.032) (0.032) (0.025) (0.025) (0.046) (0.046)Hispanic 0.067 * 0.068 * −0.014 0.002 0.061 0.054
(0.029) (0.029) (0.022) (0.023) (0.046) (0.047)Asian 0.047 0.039 −0.011 0.005 0.018 0.016
(0.054) (0.056) (0.033) (0.034) (0.038) (0.038)Other 0.021 0.010 −0.023 −0.029 0.006 0.002
(0.054) (0.058) (0.031) (0.030) (0.052) (0.052)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.Note 1: ‘A’ models are for the lower quantile of the social class distribution, ‘B’ models are estimated from themiddle 50% of the distribution, and ‘C’ models use the top quantile of the social class distribution. For theconcerted cultivation distribution by race and social class, see figure 4Note 2: ‘-1’ models include second time kindergartner, age at kindergarten entry (-66 months), and whether ornot the child changed schools over the given period. ‘-2’ models include the full covariate list.
158
and significant Asian summer advantage. Given that Asian families are much less
likely to practice concerted cultivation than white families, the inability of this
measure to mediate the Asian summer advantage is not surprising.
Concerted cultivation was also demonstrated to be an important mediator of
race and class differences at kindergarten entry, although residual race and social
class effects remain to be explained. When comparing children in the general pop-
ulation, concerted cultivation explained approximately 40% of black and Hispanic
deficits at kindergarten entry, although this number dropped slightly when the
non-random distribution of children across schools and stable school characteris-
tics were accounted for. The proportion of the social class effect accounted for by
concerted cultivation was smaller, at 21%. Proportions of explained variance on
the temporal slopes, however, were less meaningful and often small in magnitude.
Indeed, other than the differential summer growth by concerted cultivation, con-
certed cultivation was not systematically associated with children’s growth during
the school year.
In fact, the impact of concerted cultivation appears to get smaller as time
goes on for mathematics, which may be a product of the increasing abstraction
of mathematics as children age, although children at these young ages are still
engaging in simple counting and addition tasks which could presumably benefit
from concerted cultivation. Unfortunately, black children continue to fall behind,
and by the end of third grade only about 21% of the black-white difference is
accounted for by concerted cultivation. Social class differences also continue to
increase with time.
As with the general knowledge models, concerted cultivation was found to func-
tion differently for black children at kindergarten entry. There was a similar finding
for Hispanic children, although the Hispanic-concerted cultivation interaction was
not significant for the general knowledge test. These effects, which mean that
concerted cultivation has a smaller effect for black and Hispanic children, indicate
that children from a disadvantaged part of the concerted cultivation distribution
are not doing as poorly as expected, although it must be noted that the black and
Hispanic main-effects are substantial.
CHAPTER
SEVEN
Reading Achievement
Reading skills, perhaps more than any other academic competency, encompass a
base of proficiencies which are implicated uniformly throughout the lives of people
living in the Western world. The ability to read intimately connects academic
subjects together, including mathematics and the sciences, and is correspondingly
tied to individuals’ economic potentialities. More generally, in democratic societies
where there is a certain expectation (or hope, at least) that individuals will be in-
formation consumers, literacy is a gateway to information and as such, a major
means through which the populace is expected to monitor their elected represen-
tatives. Indeed, reading skills are implicated from such base activities as ordering
a sandwich for lunch to a physicist’s ability to discuss quantum Hamiltonians with
peers.
At the most mundane, anybody who has ever traveled in a foreign country
while not being knowledgeable of the native language knows it is possible to get
by with very few literacy skills. Millions of immigrants further demonstrate this
fact every day in the U.S. However, the envelope of intellectual knowledge and
labor market success are severely limited for those people because reading skills
have become so implicit in the structuring of modern society and because, as a
result, reading skills must be highly developed in many circumstances. Although
most U.S. children learn to read, there are large, systematic inequalities in chil-
dren’s reading competencies by social group (Farkas and Beron 2004; Phillips et
al. 1998a,b; Lee and Burkam 2002). What role does concerted cultivation play
160
in the development of children’s reading skills, and what are the implications for
social group disparities?
7.1 Reading Achievement Growth
Results for two descriptive, baseline reading achievement growth models are pre-
sented in table 7.1 for baseline comparisons with later models. The growth parame-
ters are arrayed across the columns, rather than down the rows as is typical. The
first model includes no control variables, while the second model includes covariates
for age at kindergarten entry, whether the child is a second time kindergartner, and
whether the child changed schools over a given period—covariates which are in-
cluded in all subsequent models. Children begin school with broadly varying math
skills, with a mean of 23.2 points and a standard deviation of (√
71.5 =) 8.5 points.
Unlike the math test, children’s reading skills, surprisingly, do not increase over the
summertime—they decline.1 This is surprising since mathematics skills are typi-
cally considered less germane to development in out-of-school contexts. As with
the math test, however, there is significant heterogeneity in summertime learning
rates, particularly when considered against the general knowledge test. With a
between-child standard deviation (√
3.41 =) 1.8, some children learn at nearly the
same rates as the average kindergarten growth rate (1.9 points per month), while
other children lose very significant ground.
Children acquire reading skills most quickly during the first grade, but the
slope parameter also has the greatest school-time variance over this period (1.9 or
[√
1.9 =] 1.4 standard deviations).2 As with mathematics, both mean differences
in the growth parameters and differences in parameter variability were key reasons
that led Downey and colleagues (2004) to conclude that schools have an equalizing
influence on children’s academic competencies.
The correlations between growth parameters indicate that children who begin
school with more reading skills do not learn appreciable more over the kindergarten
1Cooper et al. 1996 found that summer was more detrimental for math than reading.2The second and third grade slope is not directly comparable to the kindergarten and first
grade slopes because it is a mixture of two summer slopes and two school year slopes. Never-theless, if the summer growth was 0 over this time period, and growth was equivalent over thesecond and third grade school years, the expected during-school growth rate would be 2.4 pointsper month.
161
Table 7.1. Null Growth Models for Reading Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kinder-garten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade
Intercept Kindergarten Summer 1st 2nd − 3rd
Null Model (w/out Covariates)Growth Parameters 23.220 1.860 −0.181 3.361 1.576
(0.162) (0.018) (0.056) (0.029) (0.009)
L-2 Random EffectsIntercept 71.494Kindergarten 0.052 0.876Summer 0.227 0.090 3.3941st 0.040 0.053 −0.219 1.8522nd − 3rd −0.250 −0.244 −0.214 −0.335 0.354
L-3 Random EffectsIntercept 17.767Kindergarten 0.298 0.193Summer 0.353 −0.201 0.4931st 0.411 0.188 −0.241 0.4342nd − 3rd −0.002 −0.478 0.041 −0.178 0.043
Null Model (w/ Covariates)Growth Parameters 23.412 1.877 −0.151 3.385 1.586
(0.162) (0.018) (0.058) (0.029) (0.009)Second Time K. 0.970 −0.343 −0.226 −0.528 −0.052
(0.441) (0.056) (0.225) (0.088) (0.032)Age at K. Entry 0.304
(0.020)Changed Schools −0.210 −0.118 −0.423 −0.044
(0.091) (0.118) (0.115) (0.015)
L-2 Random EffectsIntercept 69.622Kindergarten 0.056 0.871Summer 0.226 0.090 3.3931st 0.047 0.047 −0.220 1.8392nd − 3rd −0.245 −0.246 −0.215 −0.337 0.353
L-3 Random EffectsIntercept 17.169Kindergarten 0.277 0.191Summer 0.358 −0.212 0.5021st 0.392 0.181 −0.257 0.4282nd − 3rd 0.000 −0.476 0.037 −0.184 0.043
Note: Columns represent level-1 parameters in the growth models.1 Diagonals are variances and off diagonals correlations.
162
and first grade years than their schoolmates, although higher skilled children learn
less over the second and third grade and more over the summers than children in
the same schools. Surprisingly, children who had higher than average growth rates
over the kindergarten and first grade years tended to grow slower over the course
of the second and third grade.
Average growth rates were higher in schools with higher average achievement
at kindergarten entry. Children in schools with higher initial achievement tended
to be in schools with higher than average growth rates during kindergarten, the
summer, and first grade, while average second and third grade growth rates were
unrelated to initial status. Higher than average summer growth was associated
with slower average kindergarten and first grade growth, however. The average
kindergarten growth rate was strongly negatively associated with second and third
grade average growth (ρ = −.48). Although the between-student correlations
are not reflective of a Matthew effect within school, the positive between-school
correlations between initial status and the slopes prior to the second and third
grade years suggests that schools with higher average levels of initial achievement
have higher than average growth rates.
The results of the initial, baseline growth model highlight that:
1. There is substantial between-child variability both in children’s reading skillswhen they enter school and in the temporal patterns of change.
2. Children learn more reading skills within than outside of school, with chil-dren, on average, loosing ground over the summer. Even though averagegrowth is negative, however, many children accrue significant advantagesover the summer.
3. Children’s initial skills are not strongly related to growth during the kinder-garten and first grade years in the between-student model, although initialskills are negatively related to growth over the second and third grade. Higherskill levels at kindergarten entry are positively correlated with the summerlearning slope.
4. The average growth rate in schools with higher average levels of achievementat kindergarten entry tend to be higher, while the higher average growthrates over the kindergarten and first grade years are associated with loweraverage growth rates during the second and third grade.
163
7.1.1 Non-Centered Growth Models
Parameter estimates for descriptive and explanatory three-level growth models are
presented in table 7.2. In addition, coefficient reduction summaries and standard-
ized coefficients are available in Appendix tables A.9 and A.10. All coefficients
for equations A through F are reported in the table while the full model results
for model G are available in Appendix table A.12 (along with a series of interme-
diate models).3 Models A through C are descriptive in nature, estimating what
is essentially the “bivariate” relationship between race (A), social class (B), and
concerted cultivation (C) on children’s general knowledge trajectories. The next
model set in the series, D and E, adjusts the race (D) and social class differences
(E) for differences in concerted cultivation levels. Race, social class, and concerted
cultivation are included simultaneously in model F, while the full control list is
entered into the equation in model G.4 All models adjust for whether or not the
child is a second time kindergartner, age at kindergarten entry, and whether or
not the child moved during any given period, per the second null model presented
in table 7.1.
Initial Status
From columns A and B of table 7.2, it is clear that social group status is signifi-
cantly related to children’s early reading skills. The difference between black and
white students, 2 points or .24 standard deviations, is smaller than for math (the
difference is .4 standard deviations for math). Hispanic children face an even larger
disadvantage at kindergarten entry, -3.5 points or .41 standard deviations, which is
also smaller than for math (which is .55 standard deviations), while Asian children
have a 1 point or .11 standard deviation advantage. The social class disadvantage
is larger than those across race groups for the reading test, 3.2 points per standard
deviation of social class, which is an effect size of .37. Children differing by two
standard deviations are expected to begin school with a reading score difference of
.76 standard deviations or 6.5 points.
The measure of concerted cultivation is associated with children’s reading skills
3Non-focal parameters are not reported in the main table because the large number of para-meters results in excessive table length.
4Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix table A.12.
164
Table 7.2. Growth Models for Reading Achievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten EntryUntil Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, Concerted Cultivation, and Selected Covari-ates (ECLS-K)
Model
Variablesa,b A B C D E F G
Initial Status 24.299 ** 23.348 ** 23.323 ** 23.546 ** 23.281 ** 23.343 ** 21.686 **(0.173) (0.123) (0.133) (0.154) (0.116) (0.140) (0.319)
Black −2.025 ** −0.412 0.221 0.350(0.307) (0.302) (0.292) (0.301)
Hispanic −3.541 ** −1.997 ** −1.406 ** −1.131 **(0.274) (0.272) (0.265) (0.280)
Asian 0.994 * 3.083 ** 2.559 ** 2.929 **(0.403) (0.393) (0.387) (0.425)
Other Race −1.492 ** −0.802 * −0.738 m −0.509(0.403) (0.392) (0.380) (0.376)
Social class 3.152 ** 2.450 ** 2.337 ** 1.972 **(0.093) (0.101) (0.102) (0.108)
Concerted Cultivation 2.696 ** 2.727 ** 1.808 ** 1.898 ** 1.459 **(0.096) (0.102) (0.103) (0.107) (0.113)
Second K. 1.193 ** 1.563 ** 1.493 ** 1.632 ** 1.812 ** 1.900 ** 2.098 **(0.442) (0.431) (0.434) (0.432) (0.427) (0.426) (0.422)
Age at K. Entry 0.295 ** 0.319 ** 0.295 ** 0.291 ** 0.308 ** 0.304 ** 0.325 **(0.020) (0.019) (0.019) (0.019) (0.019) (0.019) (0.018)
Kindergarten Slope 1.931 ** 1.876 ** 1.880 ** 1.908 ** 1.879 ** 1.899 ** 1.889 **(0.020) (0.018) (0.018) (0.021) (0.018) (0.021) (0.028)
Black −0.258 ** −0.209 ** −0.181 ** −0.160 **(0.038) (0.039) (0.039) (0.040)
Hispanic −0.118 ** −0.051 −0.021 −0.023(0.034) (0.035) (0.035) (0.037)
Asian 0.119 * 0.194 ** 0.171 ** 0.166 **(0.049) (0.051) (0.051) (0.055)
Other Race −0.052 −0.023 −0.010 −0.001(0.050) (0.051) (0.051) (0.051)
Social class 0.137 ** 0.116 ** 0.103 ** 0.087 **(0.012) (0.013) (0.013) (0.014)
Concerted Cultivation 0.096 ** 0.089 ** 0.053 ** 0.051 ** 0.025(0.012) (0.013) (0.013) (0.014) (0.014)
Second K. −0.333 ** −0.309 ** −0.329 ** −0.323 ** −0.307 ** −0.306 ** −0.279 **(0.055) (0.056) (0.057) (0.056) (0.056) (0.055) (0.056)
Changed School −0.202 * −0.193 * −0.159 −0.153 −0.163 −0.155 −0.132(0.091) (0.090) (0.091) (0.091) (0.090) (0.090) (0.089)
Summer Slope −0.198 ** −0.150 ** −0.151 ** −0.242 ** −0.151 * −0.255 ** −0.338 **(0.069) (0.058) (0.058) (0.071) (0.058) (0.071) (0.099)
Black 0.048 0.147 0.201 0.212(0.138) (0.142) (0.143) (0.147)
Hispanic 0.112 0.205 0.251 0.268(0.134) (0.138) (0.138) (0.148)
Asian 0.685 ** 0.818 ** 0.772 ** 0.762 **(0.206) (0.210) (0.210) (0.226)
Other Race 0.020 0.057 0.059 0.048(0.178) (0.180) (0.180) (0.181)
Social class 0.227 ** 0.212 ** 0.208 ** 0.209 **(0.047) (0.052) (0.053) (0.055)
Concerted Cultivation 0.107 * 0.155 ** 0.026 0.076 0.043(0.046) (0.049) (0.052) (0.054) (0.056)
Second K. −0.239 −0.179 −0.213 −0.218 −0.181 −0.189 −0.164(0.225) (0.225) (0.225) (0.225) (0.225) (0.225) (0.226)
Changed School −0.100 −0.159 −0.099 −0.084 −0.144 −0.128 −0.103(0.118) (0.117) (0.118) (0.117) (0.117) (0.116) (0.116)
1st Grade Slope 3.527 ** 3.383 ** 3.385 ** 3.483 ** 3.383 ** 3.470 ** 3.520 **(0.033) (0.028) (0.028) (0.033) (0.028) (0.033) (0.042)
Black −0.423 ** −0.332 ** −0.294 ** −0.289 **(0.061) (0.062) (0.062) (0.064)
Hispanic −0.379 ** −0.270 ** −0.230 ** −0.231 **(0.056) (0.057) (0.057) (0.061)
Asian −0.193 * −0.060 −0.091 −0.082(0.083) (0.085) (0.085) (0.091)
Other Race −0.160 * −0.119 −0.108 −0.094(0.080) (0.080) (0.080) (0.080)
Social class 0.208 ** 0.158 ** 0.145 ** 0.115 **(0.020) (0.022) (0.022) (0.023)
Concerted Cultivation 0.198 ** 0.174 ** 0.145 ** 0.125 ** 0.092 **(0.020) (0.021) (0.022) (0.023) (0.023)
Second K. −0.506 ** −0.482 ** −0.498 ** −0.484 ** −0.471 ** −0.462 ** −0.414 **(0.088) (0.089) (0.089) (0.088) (0.089) (0.088) (0.088)
Changed School −0.420 ** −0.369 ** −0.423 ** −0.415 ** −0.376 ** −0.372 ** −0.321 **(0.115) (0.114) (0.114) (0.114) (0.113) (0.113) (0.112)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Table continued on next page.b Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix A.12.
165
Table 7.2 – Continued: Reading AchievementModel
Variablesa A B C D E F G
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 1.636 ** 1.586 ** 1.584 ** 1.631 ** 1.585 ** 1.632 ** 1.637 **(0.011) (0.009) (0.009) (0.011) (0.009) (0.011) (0.015)
Black −0.156 ** −0.148 ** −0.146 ** −0.153 **(0.021) (0.022) (0.022) (0.023)
Hispanic −0.048 * −0.038 * −0.037 m −0.047 *(0.019) (0.019) (0.019) (0.021)
Asian −0.238 ** −0.230 ** −0.229 ** −0.236 **(0.027) (0.028) (0.028) (0.031)
Other Race −0.130 ** −0.129 ** −0.130 ** −0.129 **(0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029)
Social class 0.008 −0.003 −0.002 −0.014(0.007) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008)
Concerted Cultivation 0.027 ** 0.008 0.027 ** 0.008 −0.001(0.007) (0.007) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008)
Second K. −0.047 −0.050 −0.046 −0.045 −0.047 −0.046 −0.040(0.032) (0.033) (0.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.033)
Changed School −0.031 * −0.044 ** −0.035 * −0.026 −0.036 * −0.028 m −0.021(0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.014) (0.015) (0.014) (0.014)
Level-2 Variance ComponentsIntercept 68.870 ** 66.080 ** 66.832 ** 66.233 ** 64.771 ** 64.422 ** 62.864 **Kindergarten Slope 0.865 ** 0.859 ** 0.864 ** 0.859 ** 0.857 ** 0.852 ** 0.845 **Summer Slope 3.371 ** 3.381 ** 3.387 ** 3.363 ** 3.375 ** 3.352 ** 3.345 **
1st Grade Slope 1.836 ** 1.824 ** 1.827 ** 1.825 ** 1.819 ** 1.817 ** 1.804 **
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 0.351 ** 0.353 ** 0.353 ** 0.351 ** 0.353 ** 0.351 ** 0.351 **
Level-3 Variance ComponentsIntercept 14.367 ** 6.902 ** 9.222 ** 8.219 ** 5.524 ** 5.087 ** 4.226 **Kindergarten Slope 0.182 ** 0.179 ** 0.181 ** 0.176 ** 0.178 ** 0.175 ** 0.174 **Summer Slope 0.499 ** 0.479 ** 0.494 ** 0.485 ** 0.479 ** 0.471 ** 0.472 **
1st Grade Slope 0.356 ** 0.359 ** 0.354 ** 0.320 ** 0.331 ** 0.306 ** 0.301 **
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 0.038 ** 0.043 ** 0.042 ** 0.038 ** 0.042 ** 0.038 ** 0.038 **
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix A.12.
at kindergarten entry as well. Although the coefficient is smaller than that for so-
cial class, the 2.7 points per standard deviation, implying an effect size of .32,
captures sizeable advantage/disadvantage. Children differing by two standard de-
viations are expected to begin school with a sizeable reading score difference of .64
standard deviations or 5.4 points.
Concerted cultivation is also an important mediator, reducing the black dis-
advantage (model D) by 80%, resulting in a non-significant race gap. Recently
Fryer and Levitt (2004) reported eliminating the black-white reading gap with
11 covariates; however, it appears that accounting for differing levels of concerted
cultivation is sufficient to explain the gap at kindergarten entry. The Hispanic-
white difference is reduced by nearly 44%, although the residual 2-point difference
remains statistically significant.5 In similar fashion to the mathematics models,
Asian children from families with the same level of concerted cultivation as white
children score significantly higher than white children from families with compara-
5Fryer and Levitt (2004) do not explain the Hispanic-white difference completely either, al-though they explain more of the difference with a much larger covariate list (in comparison tomodel G).
166
ble levels of concerted cultivation, the coefficient increases from an approximately
1-point advantage to over 3 points.
The social class association with initial status is mediated by concerted culti-
vation too, although the sizeable 22% reduction is smaller than the reduction for
either black or Hispanic children. Adjusting for concerted cultivation in model E
reduces the class effect from 3.2 points or .37 standard deviations to less than 2.5
points or .29 standard deviations. Even after adjusting for concerted cultivation,
the social class effect remains large. Concerted cultivation is reduced in model E
by about 33% when social class is added to the equation.
Over increasingly complex model specifications, the black coefficient remains
non-significant, although it becomes small and positive. The Hispanic-white dif-
ference is reduced to a little over a single point with the addition of social class
and whether or not a non-English language is spoken in the home, which means
the Hispanic-white difference decreases to below .15 standard deviations in magni-
tude. The Asian advantage, however, is impervious to the control list at 2.9 points
or .35 standard deviations in the most complex specification. In model G social
class persists as the strongest predictor of children’s reading skills, although the
concerted cultivation association remains sizeable as well, predicting that children
who differ by one standard deviation will have test scores that differ by 1.5 points
or .17 standard deviations while the comparable social class difference is over .23
standard deviations. Although the Asian-white disparity is large, social standing
and concerted cultivation are more powerful predictors of children’s reading skills
at kindergarten entry than racial/ethnic status.
The Kindergarten Slope
Black and Hispanic children grow slower than white children over the course of the
kindergarten year by .26 and .12 points, respectively (model A). Adding concerted
cultivation (model D) mediates the black-white difference in points acquired per
month by 19%, and reduces the Hispanic-white difference to non-significance (a
reduction of 57%). Asian children grow at a faster rate during kindergarten (model
A), and accrue even larger advantages when concerted cultivation is added to the
equation, the growth advantage increasing from .12 points per month to over .19,
a 60% increase.
167
Concerted cultivation is not strongly implicated in the .14 point per month
social class advantage (model B), reducing the class coefficient by only 15% (model
E). Higher social class and Asian children grow faster across model specifications,
while black children acquire reading skills at slower rates over the school year. The
concerted cultivation coefficient, while being associated with increased performance
in model C, does not persist as an important predictor across model specifications.
The Summer Slope
Although white, black, and Hispanic children on average lose the same amount of
ground over the summertime, between .15 and .34 points depending on the model
specification, Asian children’s reading achievement grows at a rate of (.69-.20=)
.49 points per month. This large Asian increment suggests important influences
which operate outside of the formal education system and are not explained by
social class and parenting strategies such as concerted cultivation, as evinced by
the increasing Asian advantage across model specifications, particularly when con-
certed cultivation is added, perhaps because Asian parents utilize different patterns
of investment in their children than other parents (Sun 1998). Social class is also
significantly associated with children’s summertime learning (model B), operating
independently of concerted cultivation (model E). Although concerted cultivation
is associated with children’s summertime growth in model C, it does not persist
as an important mediator in its own right across model specifications. Rather, it
appears that concerted cultivation proxies for social class during the summertime.
Although the social class advantage appears large in relative terms (+.21 points),
given the large standard deviation for the summer slope (about√
3.4 = 1.8), the
effect size is only .11, whereas the Asian-white difference in standard deviations is
over .4 standard deviations. Understanding this source of Asian advantage is an
important goal for future research.
The 1st Grade Slope
All race/ethnic groups have average first grade learning rates that are lower than
whites’ (model A). Black and Hispanic children both lose approximately .4 fewer
points per month. Including concerted cultivation (model D) reduces the black
168
coefficient by 22% and the Hispanic coefficient by 29%, and although both remain
statistically significant, the overall coefficient magnitude is sizeable, while reduc-
ing the Asian-white deficit to non-significance (70%). The fact that concerted
cultivation had a suppressor relationship with Asian advantage on the previous
growth parameters but now plays a mediating role is surprising, and it is not clear
why the relationship between these covariates would change over this particular
developmental period.
Children of different social classes acquire reading knowledge at disparate rates.
A two standard deviation difference between children is expected to result in
growth rates that are approximately the size of the black-white difference, both
before and after adjusting for concerted cultivation. Between models B and E
the social class coefficient is reduced by 24%, although the magnitude remains
sizeable, .16 additional points per month for each standard deviation difference in
social class.
Higher growth rates for children from advantaged concerted cultivation families
are persistent across models and of a similar magnitude to social class, although
slightly smaller, by model G. The black- and Hispanic-white differences continue
to be sizeable even after the full covariate list is included in model G, indicating
divergence in test scores by race, social class, and concerted cultivation during the
first grade even after adjusting for the full covariate list.
The 2nd − 3rd Grade Slope
White children grow faster than other children over the second and third grade
years (model A), with Asian children growing the slowest (.24 point decrement),
followed by black children (-.16 point decrement), and Hispanic children (.05 point
decrement). These disparities are persistent across model specifications and unre-
lated to concerted cultivation. Children over this time period are not differentiated
by social class nor consistently by concerted cultivation, although race/ethnic gaps
are large, particularly for Asian children, although Hispanic and black children fall
consistently behind over this period.
169
Summary
The results presented in the previous sections are depicted in figures 7.1 to 7.6.
Growth and difference-from-whites’ curves by race are presented in figures 7.1 and
7.2. The race figures illustrate the divergence of black and white children’s reading
skills over time. Although concerted cultivation completely mediates black chil-
dren’s differences in reading achievement scores at kindergarten entry and reduces
gaps in kindergarten and first grade learning rates, differences accumulate over the
school years, but not summer, as depicted in figures 7.1 and 7.2. The black-white
difference at the end of third grade is 11.1 points prior to adjusting for concerted
cultivation, and 8.4 afterwards, a 24% reduction.6 In standard deviations, the dif-
ference decreases from .66 to .4, which suggests that in the metric of the test, the
black-white gap increases significantly over the first years of school (from 0 to .4
standard deviations) which means that systematic black-white differences in test
scores once children enter school are not related to concerted cultivation.
There is also evidence for Hispanic-white divergence, which is most clear in
figure 7.2, although the difference is significantly less than for the black-white
case. Prior to adjusting for concerted cultivation, the expected Hispanic-white
difference is decreased from 8.9 points (.53 standard deviations) to 5.2 points (.31
standard deviations) afterwards, a 42% reduction in the absolute difference which
suggests that concerted cultivation plays an important role in Hispanic-white read-
ing disparities. The pattern of the Asian-white difference is complex, showing early
divergence and a marked tendency towards convergence beginning in first grade,
but more strongly over the second and third grade years. Over the second and
third grade periods, Asian children lose a good deal of ground relative to white
children.
Growth and difference curves for social class plotted at the mean and ±1 stan-
dard deviation are presented in figures 7.3 and 7.4. As suggested by the coefficients
reported in table 7.2 and both figures, social class differences in growth rates are
significant previous to the end of first grade, after which children no longer con-
tinue to diverge by social class. Prior to controlling for concerted cultivation, the
6Estimated from models with the time variables recoded so that the model intercept appliesto the end of third grade. The standard deviations of the intercept is 16.8. These results are notshown.
170
Figure 7.1. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Race from Table 7.2
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Unadjusted (Model A)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Adjusted (Model D)
171
Figure 7.2. Graphical Depictions of Race Differences from Whites’ in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 7.2
86420
−2−4−6−8
−10−12−14
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Black−White Reading Achievement Difference
86420
−2−4−6−8
−10−12−14
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Hispanic−White Reading Achievement Difference
86420
−2−4−6−8
−10−12−14
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Asian−White Reading Achievement Difference
172
Figure 7.3. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Social Class from Table 7.2
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Adjusted (Model E)
173
Figure 7.4. Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s Math Growthfrom Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 7.2
−8
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
8
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Low SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low SES Adjusted (Model E)
High SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
High SES Adjusted (Model E)
SES Reading Achievement Difference
174
Figure 7.5. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 7.2
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model c)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
C. Cult.: Adjusted (Model G)
175
Figure 7.6. Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s Math Growth fromKindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 7.2
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Low C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low C. Cult. Adjusted (Model G)
High C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model B)
High C. Cult. Adjusted (Model G)
C. Cult. Reading Achievement Difference
social class gradient is expected to be 7.2 points per standard deviation at the end
of third grade, and 5.5 points afterward, a difference reduction of approximately
25%. This reduction is visible in both figures, but is captured most dramatically
in figure 7.4.
Children from families with differing concerted cultivation levels also appear to
have growing test score gaps over time (see figure 7.5), although the divergence is
largely explained by compositional differences correlated with concerted cultivation
(see Appendix table A.12). The reduction in growth differences is captured in figure
7.6, which highlights the fact that although initial differences are not explained,
differences in growth over the kindergarten and second and third grade years are
explained. Children continue to diverge over the first grade year, however, and
concerted cultivation is notably unrelated to summertime growth.
7.1.2 Group-Mean Centered Models
Covariates are often correlated with the random effects in multilevel models, which
appears likely when considering how the level-3 variance components change across
the original model set in table 7.2. That the covariates might be correlated with
176
the random effects is not surprising when one considers unequal access to educa-
tional opportunities across social groups, which we have previously encountered in
the general knowledge and math models. For this reason, the next series of models
replicate those in table 7.2 but with the covariates centered around their respective
group-means. These models are, in affect, growth models with school-level fixed
effects, which means the between student parameters represent average expected
math achievement scores between children who attend the same school. In ad-
dition, this approach has the added benefit of adjusting for constant school-level
confounders. Results are presented in table 7.37 and summarized in figures 7.7 to
7.12.
Initial Status
As with the math models, the average within-school effects estimated via the
school-level “fixed-effects” models are smaller since the original estimates were
biased by unobserved between-school relationships between the regressors and out-
come. However, the black coefficient is again fully mediated with the inclusion of
concerted cultivation (models A and D, a reduction of 64%). The Hispanic coef-
ficient is also reduced by approximately 40%, whereas the Asian-white difference
becomes dramatically larger—increasing by a magnitude of nearly 2.7 times when
children in the same schools are compared.
The social class association is also smaller when the average within-school effect
is estimated, although children differing by one standard deviation are expected to
have score differences of 2.5 points or .29 standard deviations (model B). Including
concerted cultivation reduces the association to 2 points (model E), an attenua-
tion of 21%. Concerted cultivation persists as a significant predictor of children’s
reading skills at kindergarten entry across model specifications, albeit of a magni-
tude somewhat smaller than social class. Given the high correlation between social
class and concerted cultivation, these two variables combined imply significantly
different skills between children in the same schools at kindergarten entry.
7Partially-standardized regression slopes are reported in Appendix table A.7, coefficient mag-nitude reduction in A.5, and results for the full model are presented in table A.8.
177
Table 7.3. Group-Mean Centered Growth Models for Reading Achievement Scores (IRT) fromKindergarten Entry Until Spring of Third Grade by Race, Social Class, Concerted Cultivation,and Selected Covariates (ECLS-K)
Model
Variablesa,b A B C D E F G
Initial Status 23.217 ** 23.226 ** 23.236 ** 23.233 ** 23.234 ** 23.229 ** 23.220 **(0.162) (0.161) (0.162) (0.162) (0.161) (0.161) (0.162)
Black −1.724 ** −0.624 −0.254 −0.169(0.370) (0.368) (0.365) (0.373)
Hispanic −2.957 ** −1.774 ** −1.362 ** −1.113 **(0.308) (0.309) (0.306) (0.316)
Asian 1.099 * 2.707 ** 2.274 ** 2.625 **(0.434) (0.428) (0.425) (0.458)
Other Race −0.886 * −0.207 −0.039 0.091(0.444) (0.439) (0.434) (0.432)
Social class 2.506 ** 1.982 ** 1.875 ** 1.626 **(0.106) (0.111) (0.112) (0.116)
Concerted Cultivation 2.208 ** 2.216 ** 1.564 ** 1.620 ** 1.252 **(0.107) (0.110) (0.112) (0.114) (0.119)
Second K. 1.141 * 1.532 ** 1.360 ** 1.464 ** 1.690 ** 1.754 ** 2.015 **(0.452) (0.447) (0.450) (0.446) (0.444) (0.442) (0.440)
Age at K. Entry 0.303 ** 0.314 ** 0.301 ** 0.299 ** 0.307 ** 0.306 ** 0.319 **(0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020)
Kindergarten Slope 1.863 ** 1.863 ** 1.865 ** 1.866 ** 1.866 ** 1.867 ** 1.868 **(0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018)
Black −0.237 ** −0.195 ** −0.173 ** −0.155 **(0.045) (0.046) (0.046) (0.047)
Hispanic −0.107 ** −0.051 −0.025 −0.028(0.039) (0.039) (0.039) (0.041)
Asian 0.115 * 0.184 ** 0.159 ** 0.146 *(0.054) (0.055) (0.055) (0.059)
Other Race −0.071 −0.043 −0.033 −0.023(0.056) (0.056) (0.056) (0.056)
Social class 0.138 ** 0.119 ** 0.111 ** 0.095 **(0.014) (0.014) (0.014) (0.015)
Concerted Cultivation 0.091 ** 0.089 ** 0.052 ** 0.055 ** 0.030 *(0.013) (0.014) (0.014) (0.015) (0.015)
Second K. −0.335 ** −0.306 ** −0.327 ** −0.324 ** −0.303 ** −0.303 ** −0.275 **(0.058) (0.058) (0.059) (0.058) (0.058) (0.058) (0.058)
Changed School −0.168 −0.154 −0.127 −0.122 −0.126 −0.121 −0.099(0.091) (0.091) (0.091) (0.091) (0.091) (0.090) (0.090)
Summer Slope −0.180 ** −0.180 ** −0.180 ** −0.179 ** −0.180 ** −0.179 ** −0.180 **(0.056) (0.056) (0.056) (0.056) (0.056) (0.056) (0.056)
Black 0.199 0.267 0.305 0.285(0.175) (0.176) (0.177) (0.180)
Hispanic 0.166 0.236 0.270 0.292(0.159) (0.161) (0.161) (0.166)
Asian 0.721 ** 0.825 ** 0.792 ** 0.797 **(0.224) (0.227) (0.227) (0.241)
Other Race 0.333 0.374 0.388 0.373(0.212) (0.213) (0.213) (0.214)
Social class 0.200 ** 0.191 ** 0.187 ** 0.194 **(0.055) (0.058) (0.058) (0.060)
Concerted Cultivation 0.086 0.130 * 0.026 0.072 0.041(0.053) (0.055) (0.056) (0.057) (0.060)
Second K. −0.206 −0.152 −0.187 −0.191 −0.150 −0.156 −0.126(0.234) (0.233) (0.233) (0.234) (0.233) (0.234) (0.234)
Changed School 0.000 −0.019 0.014 0.014 −0.006 −0.004 −0.001(0.137) (0.137) (0.137) (0.137) (0.137) (0.136) (0.136)
1st Grade Slope 3.363 ** 3.364 ** 3.366 ** 3.366 ** 3.367 ** 3.367 ** 3.368 **(0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029)
Black −0.263 ** −0.198 ** −0.177 * −0.167 *(0.074) (0.074) (0.074) (0.075)
Hispanic −0.200 ** −0.117 −0.088 −0.108(0.065) (0.065) (0.065) (0.067)
Asian −0.055 0.046 0.016 −0.013(0.090) (0.091) (0.091) (0.096)
Other Race −0.061 −0.021 −0.006 0.004(0.090) (0.090) (0.090) (0.090)
Social class 0.161 ** 0.126 ** 0.119 ** 0.092 **(0.023) (0.024) (0.024) (0.025)
Concerted Cultivation 0.144 ** 0.136 ** 0.102 ** 0.098 ** 0.072 **(0.022) (0.023) (0.023) (0.024) (0.024)
Second K. −0.505 ** −0.479 ** −0.496 ** −0.491 ** −0.474 ** −0.471 ** −0.423 **(0.092) (0.092) (0.092) (0.092) (0.092) (0.092) (0.091)
Changed School −0.377 ** −0.326 ** −0.370 ** −0.372 ** −0.331 ** −0.336 ** −0.298 *(0.117) (0.116) (0.117) (0.116) (0.116) (0.116) (0.115)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Table continued on next page.b Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix A.12.
178
Table 7.3 – Continued: Reading Achievement, Group-Mean CenteredModel
Variablesa A B C D E F G
2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 1.577 ** 1.578 ** 1.578 ** 1.577 ** 1.578 ** 1.577 ** 1.577 **(0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009)
Black −0.115 ** −0.110 ** −0.111 ** −0.118 **(0.027) (0.027) (0.027) (0.027)
Hispanic −0.016 −0.011 −0.011 −0.015(0.022) (0.023) (0.023) (0.024)
Asian −0.206 ** −0.200 ** −0.198 ** −0.203 **(0.030) (0.031) (0.031) (0.033)
Other Race −0.076 * −0.075 * −0.076 * −0.077 *(0.033) (0.033) (0.033) (0.033)
Social class 0.000 −0.007 −0.004 −0.015(0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.009)
Concerted Cultivation 0.019 * 0.008 0.021 * 0.010 0.001(0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.008) (0.009)
Second K. −0.053 −0.054 −0.051 −0.052 −0.052 −0.052 −0.047(0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034)
Changed School −0.047 ** −0.052 ** −0.046 ** −0.042 * −0.046 ** −0.042 ** −0.037 *(0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016)
Level-2 Variance ComponentsIntercept 68.788 ** 65.889 ** 66.701 ** 66.036 ** 64.614 ** 64.198 ** 62.692 **Kindergarten Slope 0.866 ** 0.859 ** 0.865 ** 0.861 ** 0.857 ** 0.854 ** 0.846 **Summer Slope 3.368 ** 3.377 ** 3.388 ** 3.360 ** 3.374 ** 3.346 ** 3.336 **1st Grade Slope 1.832 ** 1.823 ** 1.826 ** 1.821 ** 1.818 ** 1.814 ** 1.800 **2nd-3rd Grade Slope 0.351 ** 0.353 ** 0.353 ** 0.351 ** 0.353 ** 0.351 ** 0.351 **
Level-3 Variance ComponentsIntercept 17.976 ** 18.010 ** 18.032 ** 18.077 ** 18.084 ** 18.131 ** 18.268 **Kindergarten Slope 0.192 ** 0.193 ** 0.193 ** 0.192 ** 0.193 ** 0.193 ** 0.193 **Summer Slope 0.496 ** 0.496 ** 0.493 ** 0.496 ** 0.495 ** 0.498 ** 0.497 **1st Grade Slope 0.434 ** 0.432 ** 0.431 ** 0.431 ** 0.430 ** 0.430 ** 0.430 **2nd-3rd Grade Slope 0.043 ** 0.043 ** 0.043 ** 0.043 ** 0.043 ** 0.043 ** 0.043 **
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.a Results and full covariate list for model G are displayed in Appendix A.12.
The Slope Parameters
Although coefficient magnitudes on the initial status decrease when adjusting for
differences in school means, the results for the kindergarten slope are remarkably
similar to the non-centered models, indicating that parameter estimates in table 7.2
are not significantly biased by between-school compositional relationships. During
the kindergarten year, the black coefficient is mediated by approximately 17%,
and the Hispanic coefficient is again reduced to non-significance when concerted
cultivation is adjusted for, while the Asian advantage increases (models A and
D). Again, social class is shown to be an influential predictor of children’s read-
ing growth over kindergarten, and in fact, has a slightly larger effect in model G.
In the non-group-mean centered models, concerted cultivation was not associated
with children’s growth in model G, while in the centered versions, concerted culti-
vation has a small, statistically significant relationship across model specifications,
suggesting a slight tendency for dispersion over this time period.
Concerted cultivation is not associated with summer learning, and as a result,
contributes little to our understanding of social class differences in learning rates
179
during this period. The Asian summer advantage is even larger in the centered
models. This finding is surprising at first; however, the Asian-white difference
favoring Asian children tends to increase as children’s backgrounds are equated to
those of white children, so increases resulting from contextual equating is not as
unexpected as it was with the data presented in earlier chapters.
Coefficient estimates are smaller during the first grade year in the centered
than non-centered models, and the reduction is larger for race than social class
and concerted cultivation, suggesting that between-school contextual factors are
related to average levels of achievement within schools. Average within-school
black-white differences in first grade learning rates are reduced by 22%, Hispanic-
white differences by 40%, and reduced to non-significance (models A and D). Unlike
the non-centered models, when children in the same schools are compared, there
is no Asian-white difference evinced. Concerted cultivation mediates over 24% of
the social class association, and remains a persistent predictor of children’s first
grade learning rates across model specifications.
In agreement with the previous results, black and Asian children’s lower learn-
ing rates during the second and third grade years persist across models and are
not related to either concerted cultivation or social class. When constant school
level factors are taken into account, however, Hispanic children are not statistically
differentiable from white children.
Summary
The fixed-effects models in table 7.3 are largely consistent with the population-
based analysis presented in table 7.2. At the end of third grade, the average
test-score difference between black and white children in the same schools is 8.4
points. After adjusting for differences in concerted cultivation, the difference is
approximately 6 points, a reduction of nearly 30%. Although the reduction is
clear in figures 7.7 and 7.8, it is also clear that white and black children’s test
scores rapidly diverge over time. This does not appear to be the case for Hispanic
children, whose trajectory is parallel to that of whites’ over the last two years
of the study. The reduction in the Hispanic-white difference at the end of third
grade is also apparent in the figures, and is about 49% (5.7 points versus 2.9 points
after adjusting for concerted cultivation). As previously noted, the Asian-white
180
Figure 7.7. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Race from Table 7.2
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Unadjusted (Model A)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
White Black
Hispanic Asian
Race: Adjusted (Model D)
181
Figure 7.8. Graphical Depictions of Race Differences from Whites’ in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 7.3
−14−12−10
−8−6−4−2
02468
10
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Black−White Reading Achievement Difference
−14−12−10
−8−6−4−2
02468
10
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Hispanic−White Reading Achievement Difference
−14−12−10
−8−6−4−2
02468
10
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Unadjusted (Model A)
Adjusted (Model D)
Asian−White Reading Achievement Difference
182
Figure 7.9. Graphical Depictions Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Social Class from Table 7.3
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High SES (+1 sd)
Middle SES
Low SES (−1 sd)
SES: Adjusted (Model E)
183
Figure 7.10. Graphical Depictions of Social Class Differences in Children’s MathGrowth from Kindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade from Table 7.3
−14
−12
−10
−8
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Low SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low SES Adjusted (Model E)
High SES: Unadjusted (Model B)
High SES Adjusted (Model E)
SES Reading Achievement Difference
184
Figure 7.11. Graphical Depictions of Children’s Math Growth from Kindergarten EntryThrough 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 7.3
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model c)
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
Rea
ding
Ach
ieve
men
t
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
High C. Cult. (+1 sd)
Middle C. Cult.
Low C. Cult. (−1 sd)
C. Cult.: Adjusted (Model G)
185
Figure 7.12. Graphical Depictions of Differences in Children’s Math Growth fromKindergarten Entry Through 3rd Grade by Concerted Cultivation from Table 7.3
−14
−12
−10
−8
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Ach
ieve
men
t Diff
eren
ce
Kindergarten Summer 1st Grade 2nd & 3rd Grade
Low C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model B)
Low C. Cult. Adjusted (Model G)
High C. Cult.: Unadjusted (Model B)
High C. Cult. Adjusted (Model G)
C. Cult. Reading Achievement Difference
difference follows a more complex pattern, rising through first grade, and is in fact
larger when concerted cultivation is controlled, but diminishes rapidly over the
course of the second and third grades. When concerted cultivation is adjusted for,
Asian children are expected to end the third grade with a 2.4 point advantage,
although if within-person trends continue, Asian children’s scores are expected to
drop below those for white children in subsequent grades.
Children’s reading skills by social class also diverge rapidly through the end of
first grade, but flatten out during the second and third grades. The social class
gradient at the end of third grade is approximately 5.6 points, which decreases
to 4.6 points when concerted cultivation is adjusted for (a reduction of less than
20%; see figures 7.9 and 7.10). The pattern in figures 7.11 and 7.12 is similar for
concerted cultivation, although the divergence is smaller. After adjusting for race
and social class, however, the divergence is greatly reduced, although the gradient
decreases from 5 points to 3.5 points, a difference which is still relatively large in
magnitude.
186
7.2 Interactions with Concerted Cultivation
The previous models estimated race and social class effects descriptively and after
adjusting for concerted cultivation and other covariates. Important parameters
included the race and social class coefficients across model specifications, in ad-
dition to the concerted cultivation coefficients. These models were principally
concerned with the (1) the extent to which concerted cultivation mediated race
and class differences, and (2) the average relationship between concerted culti-
vation and children’s growth trajectories across social groups. The next series of
models allow concerted cultivation to vary across racial and ethnic categorizations.
Does concerted cultivation function equally for groups of differing social status and
race/ethnic identification? Results are reported in table 7.4 for race interactions,
table 7.5 for the social class models, and race by class by concerted cultivation
interactions are presented in table 7.6.
7.2.1 Race x Concerted Cultivation Interactions
Results for models showing race and concerted cultivation interactions are reported
in table 7.4. Model A estimates race and concerted cultivation interactions prior
to controlling for social class, and model B adds social class. Models C and D
are replicates of models A and B, using group-mean centering to eliminate unmea-
sured contextual factors. Consistent with the previous discussion, the coefficients
reported in models C and D are average within-school effects based upon children
who attend the same schools.8
Because race categorization/identification is a nominal measure which has been
parsed into dichotomous indicator variables, the coefficients in table 6.4 have an
intuitive interpretation. The concerted cultivation main-effect represents the av-
erage expected difference in general knowledge test scores for white children who
differ by one standard deviation on the measure. The race interactions capture
the increments or decrements in the expected difference for the specific group from
whites. For example, the negative coefficient for black children represents a lower
8In addition to these models, I also estimated a series of equations where the sample wasrestricted to only those cases covered over the range of common support because of differencesin the distribution of concerted cultivation across race/ethnic groups. Findings are virtuallyidentical.
187
Table 7.4. Race Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for Reading Achieve-ment Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade (ECLS-K)
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
Initial Status 23.563 ** 23.370 ** 23.228 ** 23.224 **(0.158) (0.144) (0.162) (0.162)
Black −0.938 ** −0.242 −1.021 ** −0.605(0.325) (0.315) (0.387) (0.383)
Hispanic −2.007 ** −1.440 ** −1.827 ** −1.430 **(0.277) (0.270) (0.312) (0.309)
Asian 3.751 ** 3.197 ** 3.298 ** 2.840 **(0.408) (0.402) (0.441) (0.439)
Other −0.843 * −0.778 * −0.235 −0.073(0.393) (0.381) (0.441) (0.436)
Social Class 2.320 ** 1.861 **(0.102) (0.112)
Concerted Cultivation 2.722 ** 1.868 ** 2.217 ** 1.612 **(0.135) (0.138) (0.142) (0.144)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −1.002 ** −0.806 ** −0.813 ** −0.686 *
(0.290) (0.284) (0.307) (0.302)Hispanic 0.065 0.040 −0.011 −0.028
(0.267) (0.262) (0.279) (0.276)Asian 1.969 ** 1.925 ** 1.843 ** 1.793 **
(0.379) (0.374) (0.393) (0.391)Other 0.026 0.138 −0.171 −0.139
(0.378) (0.373) (0.393) (0.390)Kindergarten Slope 1.900 ** 1.891 ** 1.867 ** 1.868 **
(0.021) (0.021) (0.018) (0.018)Black −0.222 ** −0.192 ** −0.211 ** −0.187 **
(0.041) (0.041) (0.048) (0.048)Hispanic −0.045 −0.015 −0.043 −0.018
(0.036) (0.036) (0.040) (0.040)Asian 0.187 ** 0.164 ** 0.178 ** 0.151 **
(0.053) (0.053) (0.057) (0.057)Other −0.014 −0.001 −0.035 −0.026
(0.051) (0.051) (0.056) (0.056)Social Class 0.103 ** 0.110 **
(0.013) (0.014)Concerted Cultivation 0.106 ** 0.068 ** 0.108 ** 0.073 **
(0.017) (0.018) (0.018) (0.019)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.061 −0.055 −0.076 * −0.070
(0.037) (0.037) (0.038) (0.038)Hispanic −0.029 −0.030 −0.028 −0.028
(0.034) (0.034) (0.036) (0.036)Asian −0.087 −0.089 −0.087 −0.089
(0.048) (0.048) (0.049) (0.049)Other 0.007 0.010 0.025 0.027
(0.049) (0.048) (0.050) (0.050)Summer Slope −0.213 ** −0.226 ** −0.180 ** −0.180 **
(0.073) (0.074) (0.056) (0.056)Black 0.178 0.234 0.289 0.328
(0.149) (0.150) (0.184) (0.184)Hispanic 0.142 0.188 0.182 0.216
(0.141) (0.142) (0.162) (0.162)Asian 0.907 ** 0.857 ** 0.938 ** 0.902 **
(0.223) (0.223) (0.238) (0.239)Other 0.047 0.050 0.357 0.371
(0.181) (0.181) (0.214) (0.214)Social Class 0.208 ** 0.188 **
(0.053) (0.058)Concerted Cultivation 0.086 0.005 0.071 * 0.012
(0.066) (0.070) (0.072) (0.074)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack 0.212 0.220 0.162 0.165
(0.142) (0.142) (0.150) (0.150)Hispanic 0.007 0.010 −0.010 −0.008
(0.133) (0.133) (0.142) (0.142)Asian 0.332 0.329 0.381 0.378
(0.204) (0.204) (0.209) (0.209)Other 0.178 0.191 0.113 0.116
(0.170) (0.169) (0.176) (0.175)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
188
Table 7.4 – Continued: Reading Achievement, Race Interactions
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
1st Grade Slope 3.468 ** 3.456 ** 3.367 ** 3.367 **(0.034) (0.034) (0.029) (0.029)
Black −0.394 ** −0.353 ** −0.239 ** −0.214 **(0.066) (0.066) (0.077) (0.078)
Hispanic −0.225 ** −0.187 ** −0.080 −0.051(0.059) (0.059) (0.066) (0.067)
Asian −0.088 −0.121 0.009 −0.022(0.090) (0.090) (0.096) (0.095)
Other −0.111 −0.100 −0.001 0.014(0.081) (0.081) (0.090) (0.090)
Social Class 0.143 ** 0.118 **(0.022) (0.024)
Concerted Cultivation 0.213 ** 0.162 ** 0.185 ** 0.146 **(0.028) (0.030) (0.030) (0.031)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.202 ** −0.188 ** −0.184 ** −0.173 **
(0.060) (0.059) (0.062) (0.062)Hispanic 0.030 0.029 −0.008 −0.009
(0.053) (0.053) (0.056) (0.056)Asian −0.143 −0.143 −0.193 * −0.194 *
(0.079) (0.079) (0.082) (0.082)Other −0.079 −0.075 −0.100 −0.099
(0.076) (0.076) (0.079) (0.078)Additional ControlsSecond Time K. −0.485 ** −0.463 ** −0.491 ** −0.471 **
(0.088) (0.088) (0.092) (0.092)Changed Schools −0.416 ** −0.373 ** −0.368 ** −0.332 **
(0.114) (0.113) (0.116) (0.116)2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 1.635 ** 1.636 ** 1.577 ** 1.578 **
(0.011) (0.011) (0.009) (0.009)Black −0.149 ** −0.148 ** −0.114 ** −0.115 **
(0.023) (0.023) (0.028) (0.028)Hispanic −0.032 −0.031 −0.004 −0.005
(0.020) (0.020) (0.023) (0.023)Asian −0.249 ** −0.248 ** −0.216 ** −0.215 **
(0.029) (0.029) (0.032) (0.032)Other −0.131 ** −0.133 ** −0.077 * −0.077 *
(0.029) (0.029) (0.033) (0.033)Social Class −0.002 −0.004
(0.008) (0.008)Concerted Cultivation 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.006
(0.010) (0.010) (0.011) (0.011)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack 0.014 0.014 0.000 −0.001
(0.021) (0.021) (0.022) (0.022)Hispanic 0.030 0.030 0.026 0.026
(0.018) (0.018) (0.020) (0.020)Asian −0.023 −0.023 −0.029 −0.029
(0.026) (0.026) (0.027) (0.027)Other 0.030 0.032 0.011 0.012
(0.028) (0.028) (0.030) (0.030)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
189
return to concerted cultivation than white children experience. At kindergarten
entry, black children gain only (1.61-.69=) .9 points for each standard deviation
increase in concerted cultivation, compared to white and Hispanic children who, on
average, receive 1.6 points (model C). This finding is contrary to the expectations
drawn from Lareau (2003), who found that concerted cultivation operated simi-
larly for white and black children, although Farkas and Beron (2004) report similar
findings by social class and the HOME inventories9 (see also Sun 1998). This find-
ing is similar to that found previously for general knowledge and mathematics, and
it will receive more attention in section 7.2.3. Asian children, on the other hand,
receive over double the return from concerted cultivation as white and Hispanic
children, which is not surprising given the tendency of Asians to outperform white
children with similar levels of concerted cultivation found in earlier analyses.
There are no consistent interaction patterns during kindergarten or over the
summertime or second and third grade years, although the black by concerted
cultivation re-emerges during the first grade. During the first grade year, both
Asian and black children alike suffer decrements of similar magnitude. In fact, the
deficit is larger than the concerted cultivation main effect, implying a tendency
for children from higher concerted cultivation to grow more slowly during the
first grade while less advantaged children grow faster—pointing to a tendency
for advantaged and disadvantaged black and Asian children to converge over this
period.
7.2.2 SES x Concerted Cultivation Interactions
The previous section addressed the question of whether or not concerted cultiva-
tion relates to children’s general knowledge achievement differently by race/ethnic
group. This section is conceptually similar, although the question is posed for
social class instead. Although social class was used as a standardized, continuous
covariate in the preceding analyses, in the following section social class is coded
as a series of dummy variables. By coding social class as a series of categorical
indicators, the interpretation of the interactions is similar to those in the race in-
teraction models. The first grouping, low social class, captures the bottom quartile
9They show this relation with the PPVT for social class, mothers verbal AFQT, and cognitivestimulation (pg. 484, Table 4).
190
Table 7.5. Social Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for ReadingAchievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade (ECLS-K)
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
Initial Status 22.888 ** 23.004 ** 23.261 ** 23.256 **(0.143) (0.162) (0.161) (0.161)
Black −0.009 −0.363(0.293) (0.364)
Hispanic −1.541 ** −1.458 **(0.267) (0.307)
Asian 2.723 ** 2.419 **(0.389) (0.426)
Other −0.749 m −0.040(0.383) (0.435)
Low SES (< −25%) −2.431 ** −2.316 ** −1.953 ** −1.842 **(0.265) (0.266) (0.277) (0.277)
High SES (> +25%) 3.368 ** 3.136 ** 2.594 ** 2.403 **(0.248) (0.249) (0.260) (0.261)
Concerted Cultivation 2.015 ** 2.085 ** 1.691 ** 1.738 **(0.141) (0.143) (0.149) (0.150)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −25%) −0.593 * −0.625 * −0.488 m −0.531 *
(0.253) (0.253) (0.260) (0.259)High SES (> +25%) 0.379 0.465 0.415 0.486 m
(0.250) (0.250) (0.255) (0.255)Kindergarten Slope 1.890 ** 1.909 ** 1.866 ** 1.867 **
(0.020) (0.023) (0.018) (0.018)Black −0.184 ** −0.180 **
(0.039) (0.046)Hispanic −0.022 −0.026
(0.035) (0.039)Asian 0.174 ** 0.162 **
(0.051) (0.055)Other −0.014 −0.036
(0.051) (0.056)Low SES (< −25%) −0.121 ** −0.105 ** −0.100 ** −0.089 *
(0.035) (0.035) (0.036) (0.036)High SES (> +25%) 0.161 ** 0.144 ** 0.172 ** 0.158 **
(0.032) (0.032) (0.033) (0.033)Concerted Cultivation 0.071 ** 0.067 ** 0.067 ** 0.067 **
(0.018) (0.018) (0.019) (0.019)Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −25%) 0.043 0.041 0.051 0.051
(0.033) (0.033) (0.033) (0.033)High SES (> +25%) −0.083 ** −0.075 * −0.075 * −0.070 *
(0.032) (0.032) (0.033) (0.033)Summer Slope −0.161 * −0.260 ** −0.178 ** −0.177 **
(0.070) (0.081) (0.056) (0.056)Black 0.199 0.307
(0.143) (0.177)Hispanic 0.245 0.266
(0.139) (0.161)Asian 0.783 ** 0.801 **
(0.210) (0.227)Other 0.071 0.394
(0.180) (0.213)Low SES (< −25%) −0.263 * −0.279 * −0.263 m −0.277 *
(0.133) (0.134) (0.139) (0.140)High SES (> +25%) 0.362 ** 0.338 ** 0.300 * 0.284 *
(0.125) (0.126) (0.133) (0.133)Concerted Cultivation 0.115 0.161 * 0.087 0.131
(0.071) (0.072) (0.075) (0.076)Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −25%) −0.100 −0.107 −0.062 −0.073
(0.127) (0.127) (0.130) (0.130)High SES (> +25%) −0.214 −0.193 −0.168 −0.150
(0.126) (0.126) (0.131) (0.131)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
191
Table 7.5 – Continued: Reading Achievement, SES Interactions
Non-Centered Centered
Variables A B C D
1st Grade Slope 3.407 ** 3.492 ** 3.368 ** 3.368 **(0.032) (0.037) (0.029) (0.029)
Black −0.301 ** −0.184 *(0.062) (0.074)
Hispanic −0.223 ** −0.082(0.057) (0.065)
Asian −0.084 0.021(0.085) (0.091)
Other −0.117 −0.012(0.080) (0.090)
Low SES (< −25%) −0.228 ** −0.204 ** −0.157 ** −0.147 *(0.056) (0.056) (0.058) (0.058)
High SES (> +25%) 0.181 ** 0.167 ** 0.143 * 0.135 *(0.053) (0.053) (0.055) (0.056)
Concerted Cultivation 0.125 ** 0.105 ** 0.085 ** 0.081 *(0.030) (0.030) (0.031) (0.031)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −25%) 0.066 0.069 0.068 0.069
(0.052) (0.052) (0.053) (0.053)High SES (> +25%) 0.006 0.008 0.003 0.003
(0.053) (0.053) (0.055) (0.055)2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 1.590 ** 1.635 ** 1.578 ** 1.578 **
(0.011) (0.012) (0.009) (0.009)Black −0.143 ** −0.108 **
(0.022) (0.027)Hispanic −0.033 −0.008
(0.020) (0.023)Asian −0.231 ** −0.201 **
(0.028) (0.031)Other −0.128 ** −0.072 *
(0.029) (0.033)Low SES (< −25%) −0.033 −0.027 −0.028 −0.027
(0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.020)High SES (> +25%) 0.003 0.008 0.003 0.010
(0.018) (0.018) (0.019) (0.019)Concerted Cultivation 0.029 ** 0.008 0.023 * 0.011
(0.010) (0.010) (0.011) (0.011)Interactions W/ C. CultivationLow SES (< −25%) −0.016 −0.007 −0.021 −0.015
(0.018) (0.018) (0.019) (0.019)High SES (> +25%) −0.011 −0.011 −0.006 −0.010
(0.018) (0.018) (0.019) (0.019)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
of the distribution; average social class, the reference category, captures the middle
50% of the distribution, and high social class is composed of the top quartile. The
results presented in table 7.5 follow a parallel progression to those presented in
table 7.4.
Similar to the previous findings for black children, lower social class children
receive, on the one hand, lower returns on concerted cultivation, but on the other
hand, receive fewer detriments from concerted cultivation disadvantage. The lower
concerted cultivation slope of (1.74-.53=) 1.21 points suggests that lower social
192
class children still receive benefits. The only other significant interaction occurs
during the kindergarten year when higher social class children do not receive the
same benefit from concerted cultivation that other children do (.067− .07 ≈ 0).
7.2.3 SES x Race x Concerted Cultivation
The next series of models, which are presented in table 7.6, estimate race by
concerted cultivation interaction models for the bottom quartile of the social class
distribution (‘A’ models), the middle 50% (‘B’ models), and the top quartile (‘C’
models) for (1) race and concerted cultivation and (2) the entire covariate list. The
previous finding that black children do not receive the same general knowledge
benefit from concerted cultivation at kindergarten entry are interesting, and a bit
perplexing too (see also Farkas and Beron 2004). Results from table 7.6 illustrate
which black children are benefitting, and which are not.
The lower return to concerted cultivation for black children reported in table
7.4 is driven primarily by by the negative decrement for lower social class chil-
dren. Given the distribution of scores for this group reported in figure 4, most
of this group of children have negative values on the measure, which means that
many lower-class black children are doing better than expected compared to white
children of the same social class and concerted cultivation backgrounds. Although
not significant, the other black by concerted cultivation interactions are negative
in magnitude, which also mirrors the result for the general knowledge and math-
ematics achievement tests. The negative interactions with concerted cultivation
for lower and middle class black children are also significant over the first grade,
indicating a null concerted cultivation effect for lower class black children. For
middle class black children, the tendency is towards either a null or small nega-
tive concerted cultivation association, suggesting convergence across the concerted
cultivation distribution during the first grade.
Asian children were previously shown to be more responsive to concerted culti-
vation than other children. This relationship is due to the strong positive increment
experienced by high social class Asian children. The Asian advantage is very large
for higher class children, nearly 4.5 points, but given the range of values over
the distribution of concerted cultivation (see figure 4), approximately half of the
193
Table 7.6. Race & Class Interactions with Concerted Cultivation Growth Models for ReadingAchievement Scores (IRT) from Kindergarten Entry Until the Spring of Third Grade (ECLS-K)
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2
Initial Status 20.983 ** 20.719 ** 22.968 ** 21.819 ** 26.259 ** 21.886 **(0.259) (0.534) (0.170) (0.401) (0.378) (0.965)
Black −1.727 ** −1.593 ** 0.255 0.505 −0.568 0.449(0.467) (0.482) (0.373) (0.379) (0.987) (1.003)
Hispanic −2.441 ** −2.175 ** −1.267 ** −0.959 ** −1.679 −1.410(0.486) (0.520) (0.331) (0.344) (0.990) (0.995)
Asian 1.942 2.278 1.974 ** 1.997 ** 5.222 ** 4.472 **(1.197) (1.237) (0.594) (0.628) (0.864) (0.962)
Other −2.577 ** −2.326 ** −1.532 ** −1.126 * 0.000 −0.095(0.668) (0.662) (0.474) (0.465) (1.266) (1.241)
Social Class 0.464 * 2.045 ** 2.381 **(0.217) (0.300) (0.377)
Concerted Cultivation 1.747 ** 1.373 ** 2.093 ** 1.411 ** 2.471 ** 1.556 **(0.287) (0.290) (0.178) (0.184) (0.331) (0.339)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −1.092 ** −0.935 * −0.702 −0.640 0.004 −0.335
(0.416) (0.410) (0.408) (0.402) (1.021) (1.000)Hispanic −0.550 −0.500 0.288 0.171 0.586 0.535
(0.443) (0.442) (0.381) (0.382) (1.072) (1.057)Asian 0.931 1.096 1.165 0.884 1.997 * 2.492 **
(0.849) (0.851) (0.624) (0.619) (0.849) (0.842)Other −0.516 −0.480 −0.274 −0.343 1.602 1.667
(0.642) (0.634) (0.506) (0.496) (1.162) (1.141)
Kindergarten Slope 1.790 ** 1.778 ** 1.903 ** 1.894 ** 2.027 ** 1.846 **(0.042) (0.064) (0.025) (0.034) (0.046) (0.078)
Black −0.118 −0.089 −0.225 ** −0.193 ** −0.199 −0.164(0.074) (0.077) (0.053) (0.054) (0.117) (0.122)
Hispanic −0.101 −0.067 0.034 0.041 −0.073 −0.066(0.076) (0.084) (0.046) (0.048) (0.115) (0.117)
Asian −0.017 0.034 0.116 0.110 0.304 ** 0.237 *(0.188) (0.206) (0.083) (0.088) (0.099) (0.111)
Other −0.023 −0.008 0.005 0.022 0.091 0.084(0.108) (0.108) (0.067) (0.067) (0.146) (0.146)
Social Class 0.021 0.130 ** 0.163 **(0.034) (0.042) (0.045)
Concerted Cultivation 0.189 ** 0.157 ** 0.088 ** 0.039 0.014 −0.012(0.045) (0.046) (0.025) (0.026) (0.038) (0.040)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.075 −0.056 −0.140 * −0.128 * −0.050 −0.051
(0.067) (0.066) (0.056) (0.056) (0.118) (0.118)Hispanic −0.116 −0.103 −0.039 −0.044 −0.063 −0.051
(0.068) (0.069) (0.054) (0.054) (0.123) (0.123)Asian −0.319 * −0.301 * −0.010 0.002 −0.124 −0.100
(0.128) (0.130) (0.084) (0.085) (0.099) (0.100)Other −0.122 −0.106 0.024 0.026 −0.018 −0.018
(0.102) (0.101) (0.070) (0.070) (0.133) (0.133)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.Note 1: Table continued on the following page.Note 2: ‘-1’ models include second time kindergartner, age at kindergarten entry (-66 months), and whether ornot the child changed schools over the given period. ‘-2’ models include the full covariate list.
194
Table 7.6 – Continued: Reading Achievement, Race & Social Class Interactions
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2
Summer Slope −0.398 ** −0.436 m −0.230 * −0.271 * 0.016 −0.260(0.144) (0.225) (0.089) (0.123) (0.179) (0.317)
Black −0.168 −0.135 0.238 0.254 0.173 0.122(0.260) (0.265) (0.189) (0.195) (0.460) (0.467)
Hispanic −0.176 −0.198 0.152 0.182 0.105 0.105(0.270) (0.291) (0.182) (0.191) (0.426) (0.444)
Asian 1.502 1.369 0.427 0.429 1.712 ** 1.605 **(0.920) (0.946) (0.337) (0.350) (0.421) (0.460)
Other −0.331 −0.304 0.097 0.095 0.494 0.412(0.305) (0.306) (0.233) (0.235) (0.596) (0.597)
Social Class 0.167 0.200 0.150(0.133) (0.159) (0.181)
Concerted Cultivation 0.136 0.063 0.050 −0.014 0.005 −0.069(0.160) (0.162) (0.094) (0.098) (0.155) (0.162)
Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.204 −0.182 0.266 0.311 0.628 0.616
(0.240) (0.241) (0.213) (0.214) (0.477) (0.477)Hispanic −0.418 −0.336 0.030 0.008 0.467 0.453
(0.239) (0.243) (0.204) (0.208) (0.482) (0.489)Asian 0.592 0.644 0.567 0.545 −0.488 −0.483
(0.590) (0.585) (0.364) (0.371) (0.412) (0.418)Other −0.042 −0.022 0.290 0.282 −0.304 −0.256
(0.302) (0.301) (0.238) (0.239) (0.565) (0.565)1st Grade Slope 3.289 ** 3.458 ** 3.500 ** 3.517 ** 3.745 ** 3.702 **
(0.070) (0.104) (0.040) (0.053) (0.074) (0.126)Black −0.386 ** −0.375 ** −0.407 ** −0.382 ** −0.580 ** −0.515 **
(0.125) (0.127) (0.084) (0.085) (0.187) (0.190)Hispanic −0.329 ** −0.341 * −0.124 −0.137 −0.147 −0.082
(0.122) (0.131) (0.076) (0.080) (0.171) (0.176)Asian −0.141 −0.137 −0.049 −0.096 −0.349 * −0.252
(0.324) (0.335) (0.140) (0.146) (0.163) (0.179)Other −0.186 −0.163 −0.191 −0.183 −0.314 −0.249
(0.167) (0.167) (0.106) (0.106) (0.241) (0.241)Social Class 0.085 0.170 * 0.028
(0.055) (0.069) (0.072)Concerted Cultivation 0.320 ** 0.257 ** 0.154 ** 0.098 * 0.116 0.099
(0.074) (0.074) (0.041) (0.042) (0.062) (0.065)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack −0.292 * −0.268 * −0.229 * −0.211 * 0.001 0.018
(0.110) (0.110) (0.091) (0.091) (0.191) (0.191)Hispanic −0.052 −0.014 −0.014 0.011 −0.266 −0.281
(0.104) (0.105) (0.085) (0.086) (0.184) (0.186)Asian −0.242 −0.195 −0.102 −0.063 0.018 0.034
(0.214) (0.210) (0.145) (0.148) (0.157) (0.159)Other −0.210 −0.202 −0.037 −0.036 0.100 0.071
(0.162) (0.162) (0.107) (0.107) (0.229) (0.228)2nd − 3rd Grade Slope 1.607 ** 1.632 ** 1.637 ** 1.626 ** 1.662 ** 1.696 **
(0.026) (0.039) (0.014) (0.020) (0.024) (0.041)Black −0.175 ** −0.191 ** −0.140 ** −0.141 ** −0.132 * −0.145 *
(0.047) (0.048) (0.030) (0.031) (0.063) (0.064)Hispanic 0.012 0.018 −0.059 * −0.068 * 0.006 −0.012
(0.045) (0.049) (0.026) (0.028) (0.059) (0.061)Asian −0.121 −0.106 −0.176 ** −0.186 ** −0.397 ** −0.414 **
(0.095) (0.101) (0.046) (0.049) (0.051) (0.058)Other −0.185 ** −0.192 ** −0.109 ** −0.108 ** −0.123 −0.140
(0.068) (0.068) (0.039) (0.039) (0.080) (0.080)Social Class −0.018 −0.047 * −0.059 *
(0.020) (0.024) (0.024)Concerted Cultivation −0.018 −0.037 0.004 0.001 −0.021 −0.027
(0.028) (0.029) (0.014) (0.015) (0.020) (0.021)Interactions W/ C. CultivationBlack 0.000 0.009 0.018 0.020 0.008 −0.002
(0.041) (0.041) (0.033) (0.033) (0.066) (0.066)Hispanic 0.052 0.063 0.017 0.024 0.036 0.038
(0.039) (0.040) (0.030) (0.030) (0.064) (0.064)Asian 0.043 0.050 −0.004 −0.007 0.040 0.038
(0.067) (0.067) (0.044) (0.045) (0.052) (0.053)Other 0.055 0.056 −0.001 −0.005 0.025 0.039
(0.068) (0.067) (0.041) (0.041) (0.073) (0.073)
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.Note 1: ‘-1’ models include second time kindergartner, age at kindergarten entry (-66 months), and whether ornot the child changed schools over the given period. ‘-2’ models include the full covariate list.
195
distribution are facing significant disadvantages for lower values of concerted culti-
vation, substantially reducing the Asian-white gap for children in lower concerted
cultivation families that are socioeconomically advantaged.
7.3 Summary
Concerted cultivation is an important predictor of children’s reading skills at
kindergarten entry, whether or not the models are group-mean centered, signif-
icantly reducing Hispanic-white gaps and statistically eliminating the black-white
gap. This is, to my knowledge, the first time a single covariate has been used to
fully explain young black and white children’s skill differences. Black and white
children continue to diverge over time, however, even when they attend the same
schools and come from families that practice the same levels of concerted culti-
vation. By the end of third grade, concerted cultivation explains nearly 30% of
the black white difference, which is sizeable, but is also disappointing given the
full mediation found at kindergarten entry. Although Hispanic-white differences
at kindergarten entry are not fully accounted for, a larger proportion of the gap
is consistently explained. By the end of third grade, accounting for concerted
cultivation reduces the Hispanic-white disparity by 49%.
As with the previous achievement tests (see Chapters 5 and 6), the pattern
for Asian children is less consistent. While children, on average, lose ground over
the summertime—although the large summertime variance indicates a significant
number of children make considerable gains, Asian children on average acquire
reading skills at an impressively large rate. Concerted cultivation is not implicated
in this summer advantage.
Social class disparities are large at kindergarten entry and in the growth rates
until the end of first grade. Concerted cultivation consistently explains approxi-
mately 20% of this gap, indicating that sizeable residual differences persist after
accounting for parents’ underlying parenting strategies. Overall, the social class
contribution is large prior to the second grade, particularly when one considers the
indirect effects through concerted cultivation.
As with general knowledge and mathematics achievement, interactions indi-
cated that black children receive fewer returns to concerted cultivation than other
196
children. In looking more closely into this interaction, findings mirrored those
from the previous chapters. Lower-class black children do not receive the same
detriments associated with low levels of concerted cultivation as other children.
Although the other black by concerted cultivation were not significant for the other
social class categories, coefficients showed a marked tendency mirroring a smaller
effect size. Other researchers have reported similar findings (Farkas and Beron
2004; Sun 1998), and future research will hopefully shed more light on this partic-
ular quandary. Notably, concerted cultivation had a much stronger association for
higher social class Asian children and where the black interactions tended to be
negative in magnitude, they tended to be positive for Asian children. Sun (1998)
has previously noted a tendency toward higher returns on parental investments for
Asian children, which is consistent with these findings using the ECLS-K.
CHAPTER
EIGHT
Discussion & Conclusion
8.1 Re-Introduction
With widespread concern that the U.S. education system is underperforming in
its task to educate America’s youth, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities
and lower social class children, understanding the genesis of social group dispari-
ties is key if policy makers are to succeed in designing effective interventions. The
2001 landmark legislation commonly known as No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
aims to mitigate social group disparities by changing the award/reward structure
within which schools and teachers operate while increasing student-level knowl-
edge of academic failure and success through consistent, frequent assessments of
reading, mathematics, and science skills. Knowledge of student achievement is ex-
pected to provide schools and teachers with information to which they can adapt
their strategies, adjusting practices to improve efficiency and student outputs. Al-
though NCLB is a nationally mandated education policy, it allows local control.
If communities are to meet the mandates, they must be able to design educational
policies and interventions that are effective in raising student achievement.
The research presented in this dissertation is concerned with the way a series of
family practices, designated ‘concerted cultivation’ as derived from Lareau’s (2003)
Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life, affect student performance.
To some, the family-achievement connection may not be obvious if schooling and
family life are considered independent. For the development of children’s academic
198
competencies, however, they have been found to be related, as demonstrated in
earlier chapters of this dissertation and a large body of prior research (Farkas 1996;
Farkas and Beron 2004; Reardon 2003; Downey et al. 2004; Lee and Burkam 2002;
Hart and Risley 1995; Entwisle et al. 1997; Alexander et al. 2001; Phillips et al.
1998). Since at least the Coleman Report (Coleman et al. 1966; see also Coleman
1972), research has consistently demonstrated that family background is amongst
the most important, consistent predictors of student achievement. The evidence
demonstrating large skill differences between children prior to formal schooling
(Farkas and Beron 2004; see also Lee and Burkam 2003 for a discussion of skill
differences at kindergarten entry; Phillips et al. 1998b) has meaningful implications
for policy development, although these implications have a degree of uncertainty
proportional to the limitations in our understanding of the developmental processes
that give rise to these early disparities.
Yet there is always uncertainty; but while there may be ambiguity about details,
the fact that children enter school with large achievement discrepancies across a
broad range of skills is well established (e.g., Lee and Burkam 2002). Given NCLB’s
worthwhile mandate to not only improve student performance, but also attenuate
social group disparities, researchers and policy makers would be remiss to disregard
important sources of variation in children’s lives other than schools, particularly
during the often neglected early school years (Alexander and Entwistle 1989: 1)
and earlier (Farkas and Beron 2004). Results from research research utilizing
the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of a Kindergarten Class Cohort, 1998-
1999 (ECLS-K) suggest that schools equalize student performance in many regards
because growth rates are higher overall during the school year and variability in
growth rates over in-school periods are smaller than during the summertime, when
children are not in school (Downey et al. 2004). Disadvantaged children still grow
at slower rates during the school year; in some cases, however, these differences
persist even for children in the same schools (see Chapters 5-7; see also Reardon
2003), which implies processes leading to differentiation within schools, out-of-
school impacts, or genetic factors (e.g. Herrnstein and Murray 1994). Yet, even if
aggregate differences in growth rates between schools could be eliminated, along
with residual within-school disparities, social group discrepancies would still persist
over time due to the initial differences children enter school with.
199
Given large initial differences between social groups, how are test score gaps to
be eliminated without retarding the growth of the advantaged group? There is no
easy answer to this question; rather it may be more fruitful to look to eliminating
early childhood cognitive differentials that arise prior to schooling while equalizing
mean academic growth rates and minimizing variances in these rates across schools
by minimizing inequality between schools. By studying children’s skill levels at
kindergarten entry, the research reported herein addresses the development of pre-
kindergarten skill differences. But it is also a study of children’s academic growth
through the third grade since understanding how families influence growth during
school has important implications for the growth of achievement gaps that need to
be understood if we are to speak honestly and clearly about reducing social group
disparities in academic achievement.
8.2 Discussion
8.2.1 Concerted Cultivation & Cultural Capital
Drawing upon Lareau’s (2003) ethnographic study, I have attempted to oper-
ationalize the notion of ‘concerted cultivation,’ a concept embodying different
parental orientations toward child rearing. Lareau’s research is part of a longer
tradition which has noted meaningful variation in class-based orientations towards
parenting strategies (e.g. Kohn 1977). Being heavily influenced by Pierre Bourdieu
(1977a, 1977b, 1984, 1986; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977), this work on concerted
cultivation fits into a broader conceptual matrix seeking to both elaborate the no-
tion of capital (e.g. Farkas 1996) and relate the various dimensions of capital to
status attainment processes. The key idea upon which Lareau draws in framing
her discussion of parenting strategies is the notion of cultural capital, a resource
intermediate between human and social capital in many regards. In socialization
processes, cultural capital is, on the one hand, a means of transferring human
capital from parents to offspring, and, on the other, a means of generating social
capital, connecting children to a broader network of relationships. Cultural capital
both bridges the divide between human and social capital in childhood achieve-
ment processes and has important implications for the way individuals come to see
200
society and their place and roles within it.
Academic achievement is but one of many dimensions of children’s lives within
which, via parenting strategies, cultural capital is implicated. Yet the development
of cognitive skills inherent in academic achievement processes is an important di-
mension with consequences important in the development of individual biography
(Farkas 2003; Hurnstein and Murray 1994; Murnane et al. 2000; Kerckhoff et al.
2001; Raudenbush and Kasim 1998). The differing parental orientations Lareau
(2003) observed have far-reaching consequences for the organization of children’s
routines, which, in turn, have real consequences in children’s lives. These conse-
quences, which are products of parental cultural resources, have powerful impacts
on children’s life chances, setting them on paths to academic success in some cases,
and potential failure in others. Parental practices are the pathways through which
the social stratification of family life and childrearing coalesce to produce persistent
inequalities in educational experiences among and across diverse social groups.
Higher class parents, especially, engage in what Lareau termed ‘concerted cul-
tivation’ in deliberate attempts to foster their children’s cognitive and social skills.
Less advantaged parents, in contrast, engaged in a collection of practices she
termed ‘the accomplishment of natural growth.’ Both cultural repertoires rep-
resent parenting strategies that embody notions of cultural capital as reflected in
parents’ skills, habits, and styles (see Swidler 1986; Farkas 1990; 1996). Within
an intergenerational framework, it is through parenting behaviors that parents
transmit their human and social capital to their children, perpetuating advantages
and disadvantages across generations and preparing children for life as members
of particular social classes (Kohn 1977).
‘Concerted cultivation’ is a concept capturing a goal-oriented series of practices
parents adopt in order to prepare their children for immediate academic and long-
term occupational success. Higher social class parents in Lareau’s study viewed
concerted cultivation as their primary responsibility and, accordingly, these parents
structured their lives in efforts to directly stimulate their children’s development.
These families were characterized by parent-organized, multiple child leisure ac-
tivities, the use of reasoning and the elicitation of responses from children, and
interventions with institutions on their children’s behalf (Lareau 2003: 31).
Lower class parents, on the other hand, generally perceived themselves as care-
201
takers, providing material resources and comforts to their children, often in the
face of financial difficulties. These parents clearly delineated the world of adults
from the world of children, and where middle and upper middle class parents prac-
ticing concerted cultivation expended great effort to structure the lives of their
children, largely relying on formal activities such as sports teams or dance lessons
where children interact repeatedly with adults, lower social class parents gave
their children much greater freedom in structuring their own activities. Corre-
spondingly, lower social class parents were much less involved in structuring their
children’s lives and were far less oriented toward managing and encouraging their
children’s skill development. For lower class children, time was structured much
more losely, language use tended to use more directives and children’s responses
were less often elicited and parents were much more dependent on institutional
actors. Whereas higher class children developed an emerging sense of entitlement,
lower class children from non-concerted cultivation practicing families developed
an emerging sense of constraint (Lareau 2003; Kohn 1977).
Lareau’s (2003) work represents an important conceptual elaboration of cultural
capital (Lamont and Lareau 1988; Bourdieu 1977, 1984; Bourdieu and Passeron
1977) through the concrete details of her observations, which enables the opera-
tionalization of behaviors and actions using survey data. Numerous studies have
attempted to directly operationalize and test notions of cultural capital, often as
high-brow culture (Dumais 2002; Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997; DeGraaf 1986;
Di Maggio 1982; Downey 1995; Ganzeboom, DeGraaf, and Robert 1990), educa-
tional resources (Teachman 1987; Blake 1981; Downey 1995; Burkam, Ready, Lee,
and Logerfo 2004; Farkas and Beron 2004), and/or skills and habits (Farkas et al.
1990; Farkas 1996). Regarding recent work attempting to operationalize concerted
cultivation, Kingston (2001: 89) argues that “(1) defined in terms of exclusionary
class-related practices and dispositions, cultural capital does not substantially ac-
count for the relationship between social privilege and academic success and (2)
too many conceptually distinct variables have come to be placed under the big
umbrella of cultural capital, creating a distorted sense of what accounts for acad-
emic success.” As Dumais (2002: 49) further notes, “there is no consensus on what
cultural capital means, whether it has an effect, or what the effect is.”
As Lareau’s (2003) work is relatively recent, no quantitative studies have yet
202
attempted to operationalize cultural capital as a concept such as ‘concerted culti-
vation,’ although concerted cultivation is similar in many respects to the HOME
inventories that researchers have previously used (e.g. Farkas and Beron 2004; Guo
and Harris 200; Phillips et al. 1998a). Given the clarity of Lareau’s research, this
sort of conceptual reorientation represents a potentially important improvement
over previous research. Lareau’s (2003) work is observation-based and not simply
derived from the available covariate list in survey data. That is, there is nothing
ad hoc in the conceptualization of cultural capital as ‘concerted cultivation.’ Given
the broad range of measures researchers have utilized in attempting to operational-
ize cultural capital (e.g. Kingston 2001), concerted cultivation, with its basis in
direct observation, is a potentially unifying, theoretically justified construct. In
this vein, there is a large body of research on children’s achievement that provides
a significant amount of indirect evidence consistent with the concerted cultivation
paradigm.
8.2.2 Operationalizing ‘Concerted Cultivation’
Based on Lareau’s (2003) observations, concerted cultivation is identifiable through
a number of child-oriented activities and parental behaviors. In seeking to spon-
sor their children’s cognitive development, parents who identify with the cultural
logic of concerted cultivation expend great effort to structure their children’s time
through formal, structured leisure activities. By doing so, these parents acquire
experiences for their children that they hope will have lasting consequences for
their development through the accumulation of skills, habits, and styles, derived
from the broad experiential base to which they are exposed. Concerted cultivation
practicing parents also tend to be more comfortable and instrumentally engage
teachers and other professionals, rarely hesitating to intercede on their children’s
behalf (Lareau 2003, 1988). These parents actively search for new learning mate-
rials and speak differently to their children, engaging them in conversations and
encouraging them to rationalize and defend their own actions, sometimes to the
later irritation of parents who discover that they are raising little ‘lawyers’ who
are not always as obedient as their parents would prefer. Concerted cultivation is
a very child-oriented approach to raising children. While parents who follow the
203
forms associated with the accomplishment of natural growth no doubt care equally
for their children, they allow their children to develop in a more natural, relaxed
fashion, without the continuous drive towards the development of skills.
But is concerted cultivation really identifiable in the U.S. population using sur-
vey research methods, and if so, how does this construct relate to student achieve-
ment? Below I reproduce the initial questions that guided the earlier analytic
chapters:
1. Do the parental behaviors and child activities identified by Lareau (2003),such as child activities, parental involvement with the school, and learningmaterials, covary systematically in a way consistent with the concept of ‘con-certed cultivation’?
2. Is ‘concerted cultivation’ stable over childhood? Given that concerted cul-tivation represents an underlying, often implicit strategy, the expectation isthat families should rank consistently on this measure over time.
3. How does concerted cultivation vary across population subgroups? Lareau’s(2003) observations suggest that (1) the association of concerted cultiva-tion with social class should be large, and (2) social class should be a moreimportant predictor than race. How this parenting strategy varies acrosspopulation subgroups is a question of considerable interest.
Chapter 4 attempted to answer question 1 using nonlinear factor analysis tech-
niques (i.e., IRT modeling). Although the ECLS-K does not provide measures of
parental language use (for a detailed analysis of language use, see Hart and Risley
1995), numerous items regarding parental participation with the school and the
extra-curricular activities in which the child participates are included. In addition,
information on the number of books the child has were also provided.1 These three
groups of covariates were conceptualized as each being the product of latent fac-
tors reflecting the parents’ underlying propensity to intercede with the school, the
parents’ underlying propensity to structure their children’s time through formal
activities, and a latent resources measure which was fixed to the observed indicator
(the number of books) since no other measures were available (at all time points)
to identify this factor. These latent constructs were then thought to be produced
by a higher order factor designated ‘concerted cultivation.’
1This was the only measure of material academic resources available at all three waves whenthe other measures were collected.
204
With latent variable modeling, the researcher hypothesizes a covariance struc-
ture amongst measures, and then attempts to test whether or not the observed
covariance matrix fits those expectations. The approach used in this study is
analogous, although the complexity of the problem is increased because most mea-
sures used to construct the factor are binary, requiring non-linear factor analytic
techniques or IRT modeling. These methods demonstrated that the pattern of rela-
tionships was highly consistent with the expectations derived from Lareau (2003),
with the standardized loadings between the higher and lower order factors produc-
ing standardized loadings between .6 and .9, in addition to good overall model fit.2
Thus, the pattern of relationships found in the data are consistent with the notion
of ‘concerted cultivation.’
Yet one wonders if a cross-sectional covariance structure provides enough evi-
dence to justify the conclusion that concerted cultivation is a population-applicable
construct. The possibility that other processes could produce similar data struc-
tures, while not formally pursued in this work,3 at least supports the consideration
of further tests. Fortunately, the ECLS-K provides the items used to construct the
analysis three times between the kindergarten and the end of third grade. This abil-
ity to track the measurement model over time leads to question 2, which involves
the degree of temporal consistency between factor models across waves. Because
the higher-order factor thought to be concerted cultivation is expected to be a
relatively stable characteristic embodying the underlying strategies through which
parents approach child rearing, the within-period covariance structure should be
temporally consistent. This is exactly what was found, i.e., there is a high degree
of consistency between factor loadings and correlations between the higher-order
concerted cultivation constructs, which are .96 between adjacent waves and .94
between kindergarten and the end of third grade. Because different activities, for
example, may take different meanings as children age, there was a little expected
movement in the factor loadings, although this movement was generally quite small.
The high intercorrelations over a four-year span, with parents ranking consistently
2Ideally, one would like to assess model fit using the chi-squared exact-fit statistic; however,this sample—over 16,400 cases, is highly overpowered for this test—meaning that trivial differ-ences between the expected and observed covariance structures would lead to a rejection of thenull hypothesis of no difference.
3This would be a conceptual/theoretical exercise.
205
in the overall distribution and the relative factorial invariance over time, strongly
suggests that the observed covariance structure between the observed indicators is
derived from the concerted cultivation latent construct.
While it may be possible to conceive of a process that would produce a single
wave covariance structure consistent with concerted cultivation, but is in fact due
to some other process, a factor consistent with the static temporal trend that is not
concerted cultivation is more difficult to conceive. As a further test, but also for de-
scriptive purposes, question 3 asks the extent to which concerted cultivation varies
across population subgroups. This last question is important both as a further
validation of the construct and because the distribution of concerted cultivation
across population subgroups is an interesting question in its own right. Lareau’s
(2003) research most strongly implicates social class, and her small sample size
makes generalizing to race and other differentiating characteristics difficult. The
results of this dissertation, however, provide very strong evidence supporting the
hypothesis of differentiation by social class and its generalizeability to the popu-
lation. Social class singly explained 48% of the variance in concerted cultivation,
logging a bivariate standardized coefficient of .7. Thus, not only did the previously
presented analyses indicate a factor structure highly consistent with Lareau’s ob-
servations of concerted cultivation, but facets of its distribution also agree. Race
contributed an additional 11% of explained variance, with very large differences
between minority group status and whites.
Other important characteristics predicting concerted cultivation were whether
or not a non-English language is spoken in the home, which had the second largest
association in the model. This finding is not surprising since concerted cultiva-
tion is a U.S.-based parenting strategy and although other cultures (such as the
Chinese, for example) may have analogues, immigrant parents are less likely to be
knowledgeable of U.S.-based parenting practices that are highly differentiated by
class. These parents are likely to enact strategies whose underlying cultural logic
is based upon the cultural logic with which they are familiar. A more nuanced
approach to cultural differences in parenting strategies for immigrant groups is a
notable avenue for future research, one that is needed in the diversifying ethnic
context of the U.S (e.g. Sun 1998).
A number of other variables were included in the models. Both step parents
206
and single parents also practiced lower levels of concerted cultivation than two-
parent biological families, while part-time mothers practiced less of it than full-time
working mothers. Parents who had low educational expectations for their children,
also practiced far less than parents who expected their children to complete a high
school or college degree. Parents who enrolled their children in center-based care
prior to kindergarten also had higher concerted cultivation levels than parents who
acquired no such care for their children—although this difference is primarily the
result of different social class levels.
These findings, taken together, strongly support the generalization drawn from
Lareau (2003) that parents employ meaningfully different strategies in raising chil-
dren. What this data cannot offer is the depth that Lareau (2003) provides on the
details and meanings of these strategies. At the same time, ethnographic studies
are simply not capable of demonstrating that the phenomena under study are sim-
ply the result of a localized, non-random sample. In a recent ethnographic study,
for example, Chin and Phillips (2004) found less evidence that parents of different
social classes adopt disparate underlying cultural logics or parenting strategies. As
they note (Chin and Phillips 2004: 204):
Whether we judge parents’ values on the basis of their comments ininterviews or their behavior, most parents from all social classes be-lieved that they should actively nurture their children’s development,and most tried to do so. Yet, relative to the working-class and poorparents, the middle-class parents tended to be more successful in con-structing highly stimulating summers for their children because theytended to have greater financial resources, more-flexible jobs, and moreknowledge about how to match particular activities to their children’sskills and interests.
This argument challenges Lareau’s (2000, 2002, 2003) contentionthat middle-class families make “a deliberate and sustained effort tostimulate children’s development” (2003: 238), while working-class andpoor families view “a child’s development as unfolding spontaneously,as long as they were provided with comfort, food, shelter, and otherbasic support” (2003:238). Several explanations may account for ourdifferent results.
Chin and Phillips’ (2004) excellent study clearly documents the potential sources
of difference from Lareau’s (2003) work, noting that: (1) Lareau studied families
during the school year, whereas Chin and Phillips’ observations took place over
207
the summertime. Family processes could have seasonal dependencies; (2) that
there were meaningful regional and ethnic differences between the samples; (3)
that Lareau’s study was biased toward finding class differences, whereas theirs was
biased against finding class differences. As Chin and Phillips (2004: 205) suggest,
“Lareau’s sampling strategy maximized between-class differences by selecting ‘ob-
servation’ families on the basis of their social-class backgrounds and child-rearing
practices simultaneously.” Chin and Phillips’ sampling strategy, in contrast, min-
imized between-class differences in child-rearing because children were sampled
from a single school, while maximizing within-class differences (pg. 205) “because
we deliberately sampled a wide range of children, from various ethnic, academic,
and social-class backgrounds, without considering the students’ activities and home
environments or their parents’ child-rearing practices.”
The differences between these two studies are relevant to the current application
because Chin and Phillips’ (2004) discussion highlights how variability can be built
in to a study, or omitted, by the sampling design. Lareau (2003), for example, is
clear regarding her view of gradation, which is the continuous and generally normal-
type (read ‘distributional form/assumption’) of analysis such as that used here.4 In
fact, she explicitly recommends a categorical analysis, which would be a latent class
or latent profile type of approach. However, classification becomes easier when
within-group variability decreases and/or between-group variability increases, a
point suggested by Chin and Phillips’ (2004) thoughtful discussion, particularly
as concerted cultivation might be distributed or clustered in the population. The
heterogeneity observed by Chin and Phillips (2004) provides some support, from
an ethnographic context, that the approach utilized herein has points of validity.5
However one regards this issue, the close fit of the model and its conformity to
4Note that the output factor scores in figures to are all normal in shape. There is no formalconstraint that imposes this distributional shape—it is entirely data driven, suggesting thatconcerted cultivation is in fact distributed normally in the population.
5The differences in approaches between this study and the categorical approach endorsed byLareau (2003) are epistemological in nature. Although survey research is not strictly confinedto continuous types of analysis, continuous forms are generally more easily accomplished formathematical reasons, while ethnographic research is almost necessarily categorical in nature.The goal of the ethnographic research is fundamentally to identify and classify, to recognize andrelate patterns. Survey researchers have the same goals, but differences arise as a result of differ-ences in methodologies. The close conformity between these two methodologies, despite radicallydifferent approaches and philosophical rationalizations, in the study of concerted cultivation iscompelling.
208
Lareau’s (2003) expectations strongly suggests that it is reasonable at this stage
of analysis to rely on the normal-distribution approach.6 represents an interesting
avenue for future research, albeit one with perhaps less justification than is supplied
by Lareau (2003).
8.2.3 Academic Achievement
The identification of concerted cultivation using covariates available in nationally
representative data like the ECLS-K opens up the possibility for a second round
of questions—questions which provide the fundamental motivation for this disser-
tation. Concerted cultivation is a notion providing cultural insights of sociological
salience in its own right, but one of its principal uses is as a tool for understanding
sociological problems related to child development. Below are the three primary
questions motivating the analysis of children’s test scores over the early grades.
1. How is concerted cultivation related to children’s kindergarten readiness?Prior research suggest that children from families practicing concerted cul-tivation should have accrued significant advantages in school readiness bykindergarten entry.
2. Is concerted cultivation related to children’s growth over the summertime?Since schools are out of session, home environments are expected to be relatedto children’s growth over this period.
6I have attempted to estimate two different types of latent class analysis, although the resultsare preliminary (and will remain so for the time being). First, an unconstrained latent classanalysis suggests that there may be as many as seven latent classes, which is far more thanthe dichotomization Lareau (2003) suggests. The large number of classes could be a result ofincluding immigrant families in the analysis. However this remains speculative and an interestingavenue for future research. In addition, this approach is difficult to compare to the normalapproach, however, because as the number of classes increases, so does the dimensionality ofthe problem. A second approach allows a unidimensional non-parametric representation of afactor distribution to be estimated (see Aitkin 1999; Munthen and Munthen 2004). This hasthe advantage of generating a histogram which can then be compared to the results from thenormal-based analysis. However, convergence has proven to be difficult and computations timesare excessive, so I currently have no results to present even suggestively. Results are similar fora latent profile approach.
There are additional complications to the latent class approach. For one, the latent classesare not-deterministic, that is that each child belongs to all classes with some probability, so the“factor score” analogue such as that employed here in the achievement analyses is even moreproblematic (this factor score approach is less than optimal even for continuous latent variables).This would necessitate that the entire analysis be conducted in a program like Mplus, whichwould once again bring the problems discussed in section 3.2.1 to the fore, with the addition ofthe computational difficulties alluded to in the preceding paragraph.
209
3. Does concerted cultivation have an impact during the school year after ad-justing for stable school and parental characteristics? If so, how strong isthis association and does it account for race and social class differences ingrowth rates?
Social group differences across the three outcomes analyzed, general knowledge,
mathematics, and reading achievement are significant and large. Disparities at
kindergarten entry are largest on the general knowledge test, which is one reason
why some researchers have opted not to use it (e.g. Fryer and Levitt 2004).7
At kindergarten entry, black and Hispanic children are expected to have general
knowledge test scores that differ from whites in the same schools by over .6 standard
deviations, while Asian children score .8 standard deviations below whites. The
social class gradient is sizeable as well, over .35 standard deviations on the test for
a standard deviation difference in social class. Adjusting for concerted cultivation
reduces the social group coefficient magnitudes by approximately 30% in all cases,
suggesting that concerted cultivation plays a decisive role in children’s general
knowledge base at kindergarten entry. After adjusting for the full covariate list,
the standardized concerted cultivation coefficient is .25, which is somewhat larger
in magnitude than the social class association.8 Although the race and social
class coefficients remain statistically significant and capture large, non-trivial social
group differences in children’s school readiness, concerted cultivation clearly plays
an important role in mediating general knowledge gaps and in predicting children’s
scores as well.
Concerted cultivation is not significantly related to children’s general knowledge
growth over the kindergarten and summer years, although higher social class chil-
dren tend to grow at faster rates over the summertime and Asian children make
significant gains over the first grade, significantly reducing the Asian-white gap
over this period. In general, children grow at relatively uniform rates after they
enter kindergarten, the small variances on the growth parameters highlighting this
fact. From the large initial differences at kindergarten entry, however, it is clear
7Interestingly, as noted previously, differential item functioning showed that the items usedto construct the general knowledge test generally functioned better across social groups thanwas the case for either reading or math. Statistically, it appears that the general knowledge testcharacteristics are better behaved than the math and reading tests, despite the large differencesin predicted scores across social groups.
8Whether the difference is statistically significant was not assessed.
210
that there are large differences in growth rates prior to school, for which concerted
cultivation has strong implications.
The stories for math and reading are somewhat more complex, and to most
researchers, more meaningful since these tests comprise the main body of research
done on child achievement, and these two tests cover the fundamental and integral
components that open the doorways to higher learning. For mathematics achieve-
ment, after adjusting the equations to account for unobserved contextual varia-
tion, black children score about .34 standard deviations lower than white children
in the same schools, Hispanic children over .45 standard deviations lower, while
Asian children begin school with skills similar to whites’. Introducing concerted
cultivation reduces the black coefficient by 37% (to -.2 standard deviations) and
the Hispanic-white difference by 34% (-.3 standard deviations), indicating that a
sizeable proportion of the initial disadvantage for these two groups is the result of
differences in parenting strategies, as captured by the concerted cultivation mea-
sure. The social class gradient is also quite large, over .3 standard deviations prior
to controlling for concerted cultivation and .25 standard deviations afterwards, a
21% reduction. Concerted cultivation is an important predictor in its own right,
over .27 standard deviations initially, although the coefficient magnitude drops to
.16 standard deviations in the highly partiallized model with the full covariate list.
Results are even more dramatic for the reading achievement test. The initial
Hispanic-white within-school difference is .35 standard deviations, but is reduced
by to .21 standard deviations, a reduction of 40%, when concerted cultivation is
added to the equation. The initial difference between black and white children in
the same schools is over .2 standard deviations and is reduced to non-significance
(over 64% reduction; results are even more dramatic for the non-group-mean cen-
tered models) when concerted cultivation is added to the equation. This is the
shortest covariate list that eliminates the black-white gap that I am aware of.
The story for social class is essentially identical to that for mathematics, with
concerted cultivation implicated in an approximately 20% reduction in coefficient
magnitude. Concerted cultivation also has a sizeable relationship with children’s
reading achievement school readiness, which, in similar fashion to the mathematics
models, is slightly smaller than the social class relationship in magnitude, although
they are comparable.
211
Concerted cultivation is only modestly associated with growth after children en-
ter school, as small relationships to kindergarten and summer mathematics growth
were demonstrated, while consistent relationships with kindergarten and first grade
growth in reading were found. Despite the large adjustment to initial skills found
when controlling for concerted cultivation, reductions in growth rate differences for
math and reading were smaller, with the exception of the Hispanic-white reduc-
tions over the kindergarten and first grade years for reading, which were reduced
to nonsignificance. Overall, however, the black-white difference in both math and
reading achievement over time is dramatic. Adjusting for concerted cultivation
does have an impact, however, singly reducing the expected black-white within-
school difference at the end of third grade by 21% for mathematics and 30% for
reading. Though sizeable reductions, the black-white differences in growth are de-
rived from other sources of variation. Although the trend for the Hispanic-white
difference is to grow over the kindergarten and first grade years, concerted culti-
vation plays an important role in mediating these differences. At the end of third
grade, adjusting for concerted cultivation reduces the expected math difference by
34% and the reading disparity by nearly 50%. Although concerted cultivation does
not completely eliminate differences in growth during the kindergarten and first
grade years for mathematics, the differences in growth rates for reading reduce to
non-significance.
The patterns for Asian children are more complex. At kindergarten entry,
for both math and reading, Asian children within-schools overperform relative to
white children in families with the same levels of concerted cultivation. For reading
and mathematics, the Asian advantage grows dramatically over the summer, the
magnitude of the extra growth increasing as covariates are added to the equation.
The magnitude of these growth differences, which is approximately twice the rate
of those for other children on the math test, and are large and positive for the
reading test (nearly 4.5 times as large), during the summer when other children
lose ground, on average, are impressive and remain to be explained. Growth rates
during the school year are less consistent suggesting that more waves of data may
be needed to argue for a convincing trend, although the Asian advantage at later
ages is well documented (Sun 1998; Sue and Okazaki 1990). Over the second
and third grade, for example, Asian children grow significantly faster than white
212
children, but on average face an even larger disadvantage in reading growth rates
over this period. The frequent over-performance of Asian children when compared
with white children from families with the same levels of concerted and the ex-
treme magnitude of Asian children’s summertime advantage suggests a different
pattern of parental investment than employed by other parents (e.g. Sun 1998).
Indeed, the “Asian advantage” may, at least in part, result from differences in
social capital found in Asian communities, particularly the use of education-based
community programs (e.g. Zhou and Bankston 1998; Sun’s 1998 findings, however,
appear to contradict this). Given the imperviousness of the Asian-white differences
across model specifications, the reasons for Asian children’s advantages remain an
important area of research in need of explanation.
Another dramatic finding is a black by concerted cultivation interaction for all
three tests at kindergarten entry indicating that black children gain fewer returns
to concerted cultivation than other children. Similar findings have been reported by
Farkas and Beron (2004) and Sun (1998). This finding has important implications
since, on the one hand, the early black-white differentials are thought to be due to
environmental influences (for an alternative position, see Herrnstein and Murray
1994), yet in this case an important environmental predictor was shown to produce
a significantly smaller result for black than white children. However, a deeper
analysis highlights the point that the interactions are primarily driven by low class
black children, most of which are on the left or negative side of the concerted
cultivation distribution. The proper interpretation of this relationship is not that
black children are not benefitting as much from high levels of concerted cultivation
but that black children are not doing as poorly for low levels of concerted cultivation
as expected. This interpretation too must be handled with care, however, for
two reasons: (1) Middle-class black children showed significantly fewer returns
on concerted cultivation on the general knowledge test than other children; (2)
Although not statistically significant, middle and higher social class black children
show a marked tendency towards receiving lower returns on both the math and
reading tests.9
9Given this tendency, it is worth entertaining the notion that these effects nonsignificant as aresult of power.
213
8.3 Conclusion
Children do not begin school with equal skills, nor do they learn at the same rates
during the academic year, even when they attend the same schools (see Chap-
ters 6, and 7; see also Reardon 2003). Disparities in achievement growth rates by
race and social class categorizations appear to be a persistent feature in educa-
tional processes, beginning in early childhood and continuing through adolescence
(Phillips et al. 1998b). Differences in learning rates are expected, however, due
to the variability in genetic potentialities across individuals, although how much
strictly genetic variation is expected is difficult to determine, in part because there
is no “absolute” cognitive or achievement assessment. Children’s genetic poten-
tials are not expressed in a vacuum; they are part of complex genetic-environment
interactions and the nature of these interactions represents an important area of
research (Guo and Stearns 2002). Although the ECLS-K is not a genetically-
informed data source, growth modeling techniques allowing children to have their
own growth rates suggests that variability in these rates is smaller when children
are in school than when they are out of school (Downey et al. 2004),10 supporting
the interpretation that a large proportion of the variability in children’s growth
rates is due to environmental influences. The broader between-family variability—
the inequality in family life between social groups (Lareau 2003), means that even
if growth rates between children in the same schools and between schools could be
equalized, disparities would persist due to disparities which arise before children
ever enter the formal schooling system.
The growth models presented in earlier chapters illustrate that although chil-
dren who begin school with higher skill levels do not necessarily grow faster than
their peers in the same school over the course of the school year, average growth
rates are higher in schools with higher average levels of initial achievement. While
the between-student random effect covariance structure suggests few systematic
growth differences given children’s skills at kindergarten entry, the differences in
growth rates between schools illustrates that from kindergarten entry, schools have
very different resources to draw upon: the skill levels of the students which compose
them. While the descriptive evidence does not suggest a within-school Matthew ef-
10The extent to which this is at least partially an artifact derived from a decrease in precisionresulting from a reduced fall of first grade sample size is unknown, however.
214
fect, between schools, it appears that the rich are likely to get richer. Family-based
achievement disparities appear to have consequences that transcend individuals. In
many places, parents are resources whose influences resonate harmoniously with
educators’ goals, sponsoring children’s development beneficially, while in other,
generally less advantaged areas, there persists a disjuncture between schooling and
family that represents an important piece of the inequality puzzle (Lareau 2002,
2003; Horvat et al. 2003; Lareau and Horvat 1999; Lareau and Shumar 1996).
How policy makers and educators can manage to tap the family as a resource
sponsoring child development is a difficult question, one with important implica-
tions not only for the opportunities that will become open or closed to children
as they age, but also for the success or failure of large scale policies like NCLB
and its smaller, localized constituents. Since Coleman (1981, 1982, 1985; Cole-
man, Hoffer, and Kilgore 1981) first noted the “Catholic school effect,” researchers
have debated whether or not the Catholic advantage was due to real schooling
differences or family-based selection processes (Goldberger and Cain 1982; see also
the exchange between Morgan and Sorensen 1999a,b; Carbonaro 1999; Hallinan
and Kubitschek 1999).11 This debate has moved, in recent years, to discussions
of charter schools—many of which seek very actively to involve parents in the ed-
ucation process. As with Catholic schools, parents who pursue these schools are
probably more likely to already be involved in their children’s education. How
will the public school system adapt to this changing educational environment, par-
ticularly if the most involved parents tend to be the ones to move their children
to alternatives where, on average, parents are more likely to already be involved
and where the school administrators and teachers are more responsive? In many
respects, schools are already ameliorating social group disparities (Downey et al.
2004), although differences in growth between members of disparate social groups
within the same schools persist, particularly for black children, even after a large
number of covariates are incorporated into the models.
The measure of concerted cultivation used in the analysis illustrates the role
parenting strategies play in educational processes, particularly when children are
11Sean Reardon and I, in a developing project, have found compelling evidence using propensityscore matching (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983; Imbens 2004; Abadie, Drukker, Herr, and Imbens2004) with the ECLS-K sample that the Catholic school advantage is in fact the result of selectionprocesses, and not of schooling per se, from kindergarten through the third grade.
215
young. In fact, parental influences as captured by concerted cultivation decreased
in significance over time. Interestingly, however, there are reasons to suspect that
concerted cultivation will re-emerge as an important predictor of children’s acad-
emic achievement as they age and develop skills.12 Reading is age-graded in nature,
for example. Chall (1996 and the works cited therein; see also Chall, Jacobs, and
Baldwin 1990; Honig 1996) notes that reading proceeds in a number of stages.
Children, as the saying goes, learn to read during the kindergarten year, solidify
these skills over the second and third grade, taking the first steps in the process of
reading to learn (Snow, Burns, and Griffin 1998). Concerted cultivation is amongst
the most important predictors of children’s general knowledge achievement used
in this study with an effect size even larger than that for social class,13 suggest-
ing that after a lull in importance after the first grade, when children’s reading
skills solidify, concerted cultivation may re-emerge as the complexity of reading
tasks increases over time.14 Understanding how parenting strategies relate to chil-
dren’s changing skill-sets is an important avenue of research to be addressed in the
future.15
Concerted cultivation may also re-emerge through less directly cognitive mech-
anisms as children age. Children from concerted cultivation practicing families pre-
sumably learn self-discipline through participation in structured activities. Their
familiarity with routine, also, may have academic impacts as homework becomes
an increasingly important aspect of schooling. This does not mean that children
from concerted cultivation oriented families enjoy doing homework more than other
children, a point made by both Lareau (2003) and Chin and Phillips (2004), but
the routinization of their daily lives and focus on self-discipline could translate
into more efficient academic habits (e.g. Farkas 1996, 2003). The development of
such habits is clearly one of the primary goals of concerted cultivation. Children
from these families, Lareau (2003) noted, also demonstrate an emerging sense of
12The children of the ECLS-K will be followed through high school, so these hypotheses shouldbe be directly testable shortly.
13The statistical significance of the difference was not assessed.14My thanks to Steve Raudenbush who pointed this out in a personal communication.15The ECLS-K, in addition to the achievement assessments used for the analysis, provides
“proficiency” scores which reflect components of the tests. How concerted cultivation relates tothese dimensions will be included in future analyses. They have not been included here, however,due to the limited size of this project.
216
entitlement which could have important consequences for student-teacher interac-
tions. The notions of status socialization (Kohn 1977) captured by the concerted
cultivation paradigm suggest that these children are more likely to have a positive
self-concept, higher levels of efficacy, and a greater sense of mastery. Assessing
some of these questions will be possible in later waves of the ECLS-K when NCES
begins asking children perceptual questions that relate to these sorts of constructs.
However, by improving children’s study habits and helping them develop not only
the skills but confidence to interact with teachers and other professionals, concerted
cultivation may influence later childhood academic achievement through a diverse
set of pathways implicating processes and contexts both internal and external to
the school, along with psychological factors.
There has been some disagreement about the more general mechanisms through
which cultural capital improves student performance, with some preferring culture
‘as a signaling mechanism’ as an explanation for differences in academic compe-
tencies (Dumais 2002; Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997; DeGraaf 1986; Di Maggio
1982; Downey 1995; Ganzeboom, DeGraaf, and Robert 1990), and others pre-
ferring a more directly cognitive approach (Teachman 1987; Blake 1981; Downey
1995; Burkam, Ready, Lee, and Logerfo 2004; Farkas and Beron 2004; Farkas et al.
1990; Farkas 1996). Although the concepts alluded to in the above paragraph may
not apply directly to very young children,16 directly cognitive mechanisms appear
to play the primary role early on, although research suggests that children be-
gin forming learning-related skills prior to kindergarten (McClelland and Morrison
2002). Given that children over the initial grades are still forming and consolidat-
ing their sense of self, the role of concerted cultivation may diminish for a time
as the direct cognitive impacts that occur early in children’s lives fade into cul-
tural impacts that operate through habits and psychology. Early on, however, by
directly stimulating children through the use of learning materials, language use,
and the acquisition of stimulating experiences, cognitive stimulation is the likely
mechanism through which concerted cultivation influences children’s test scores.
Future research could address this issue by assessing the extent to which concerted
cultivation and home cognitive stimulation are related.17
16As I discuss below, however, they may—particularly for black children. See Davis (2003).17Supplementary analyses which were not shown suggest that the HOME inventory subscales
217
The possible re-emergence of concerted cultivation as an important predictor of
children’s academic competencies also suggests that race and social class disadvan-
tages may take on increased importance at later ages when children begin reading
to learn, for example. Given the very large social group differences in general
knowledge about the world demonstrated in the ECLS-K, there is little to suggest
a conclusion to the disturbing black-white test score divergence apparent at the
younger ages informing the analysis. Although black-white differences continue to
grow over time, even when models are estimated with a large covariate list, black
and white children from families with similar levels of concerted cultivation statis-
tically have the same reading scores at kindergarten entry. Though the black-white
math disparity is not fully accounted for, adjusting for parenting strategies on the
concerted cultivation continuum significantly reduces the gap. The relationship be-
tween black racial identification, concerted cultivation, and academic achievement
is complex, however, with a tendency toward lower returns to concerted cultivation
across the social class distribution, although the standard errors are generally very
large, indicating a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the mean parameter es-
timate. The only statistically consistent interaction indicated that that lower-class
black children do not have the same expected decrease in test scores that white
children do for lower levels of concerted cultivation—which is important because
many black children are disadvantaged regarding concerted cultivation. In fact,
there was little evidence in the lower social class distribution to support an in-
terpretation for expected returns to positive values of concerted cultivation being
lower; rather, the coefficient values and the distribution of concerted cultivation
distribution for this group of children suggests attenuated negative effects.
Why black by concerted cultivation interactions across social class categories
tend to be negative is difficult to answer. Future research might show, in fact, not
only statistical evidence of no differences but also 0-magnitude interaction coef-
ficients. If future research does indeed uncover significant associations, research
available in the ECLS-K load on the general concerted cultivation factor at kindergarten entry.The HOME subscales were not included in the analyses, however, for two reasons. First, thefactor loadings for the HOME subscales were not invariant over time (for the three periods used tostudy the ‘concerted cultivation’ factor), presumably because the items available in the ECLS-Kdecrease in importance as children age. Second, the measures of concerted cultivation with andwithout the HOME scale were so highly correlated that not including them had little impact onthe subsequent results. However, these results should not preclude a more systematic analysis.
218
into family influences on children’s initial scores is faced with a perplexing issue.
Why might black children across the social class distribution receive fewer acad-
emic benefits to concerted cultivation than other children? Differences may reside
in the mismatch between parents and schools if black parents are less able to trans-
late actions into knowledge identified with the testing apparatus. The measure of
concerted cultivation employed assumes that concerted cultivation has the same
relationship to the outcomes across all groups, and there may be subtle devia-
tions that turn out to be important, possibly attenuating the concerted cultivation
association. Perhaps even more importantly, differences in the unobserved com-
ponents, such as verbal scaffolding may also introduce measurement error since
indicators of language use are not available in the ECLS-K, reducing the impact
of concerted cultivation although many black parents are involved with children’s
schooling, structure their children’s time through formal activities, and purchase
books for their children. In addition, the environments through which parents prac-
ticing concerted cultivation move may not be equal for black and white children,
which could possibly produce lower returns. The networks of black parents may
not provide as much information on teachers’ goals and expectations, the guiding
force behind concerted cultivation, as for white parents (e.g. Lin 2001: 95-96).
Horvat, Weininger, and Lareau (2003) found that middle-class parents were able
to more effectively draw upon contacts to glean schooling information than lower
class parents, although race differences were smaller than those for social class.18
When dealing with black-white differences in the U.S., racism is often a viable
line of pursuit, at least conceptually. However, it is not clear how racism, at least
at the classroom and school levels, could produce differential concerted cultivation
impacts when the scores at kindergarten entry operate prior to school. While
within-school processes could be important sources of black-white differences in
growth rates, once again it is hard to see how bad teachers are implicated in
children’s school readiness. Race does appear, however, to add an additional layer
of complexity to parent- and student-teacher relationships. Lareau (2002, 2003),
for example, notes that many middle-class black parents take extra steps to help
their children develop a positive sense of racial identity while also being critical
of the education system as a result of being deeply concerned with the historical
18The observations were based on 88 third and fourth grade students in three schools.
219
legacy of racial discrimination in educational arenas (Lareau and Horvat 1999).
How the development of identity relates to young children’s academic trajectories
is an important area of concern (Davis 2003), particularly if these developments
lead to an alienated stance towards education (e.g. Ogbu 1978). 19
Concerted cultivation explains large proportions of Hispanic-white gaps in test
scores both at kindergarten entry and at the close of third grade. Why Hispanic
children tend to have the same returns to concerted cultivation as white children
when black children do not is also difficult to answer, particularly when many
Hispanic children are reared in homes with an even greater linguistic mismatch
than black children. Familiarity with school English has been shown to be related
to black children’s early reading achievement (Charity, Scarborough, and Griffin
2004); however, the linguistic disparity may be reduced for Hispanic children be-
cause, while disadvantaged in English, many Hispanic children have a fluent base
in Spanish from which to draw.20 Where a Hispanic child might not know an
English word, for example, they may know the word in Spanish. If this is the case,
it is possible that language use tends to bias the concerted cultivation association
for black children downward, while the attenuation is less for Hispanic children.
Lower-class Hispanic children, as with black children, do not suffer the same nega-
tive impacts from concerted cultivation as white children on the mathematics test.
From a policy perspective, however, increasing parental knowledge and facilitating
concerted cultivation for Hispanic children is expected to produce significant gains
in Hispanic children’s test scores. Given that many Mexican immigrants, the ma-
jority of the Hispanic sample in the ECLS-K, come to the U.S. for financial reasons
and with educational aspirations, many of these parents may be keen to adopt ed-
ucationally successful parenting strategies. Because of limited finances, however,
even knowledgeable parents may not be able to fully implement the cultural logic
19Another possibility resides in the functional form of concerted cultivation. If concerted cul-tivation has differential effects at different parts of the concerted cultivation distribution (asopposed to the social class distribution, for example), the linear results could be a weightedaverage of impacts across different segments of the distribution. Given the tendency towardsnegative (non-significant) values, and uncertainty about these estimates and potential mecha-nisms, more research is in order if the views on parenting strategies put forth by Lareau (2003)are to be translated into applicable, beneficial policies which ameliorate black-white academicachievement differentials.
20It should also be noted that Hispanic children who did not pass a fluency routing test werenot administered the reading test in the ECLS-K.
220
in practice (Chin and Phillips 2004).
Concerted cultivation is less strongly implicated in the achievement processes
of Asian children. There are indications of Asian by concerted cultivation by
social class interactions, although the results tend to be test-specific. That middle
and higher social class Asian children benefit disproportionately from concerted
cultivation is a double-edged sword, implying that Asian children from families
with below average levels of concerted cultivation are doing more poorly. Overall,
however, the pattern of results is not highly consistent, and these interactions might
be the result of mixing Asian sub-populations together. Not only is the ‘Asian’
classification heterogenous, Chinese (the largest group) and Vietnamese families
bring to the U.S. educational landscape a series of education-oriented practices
which have proven successful, which may mean that immigrant and second- or
higher-generation families tend to follow different parenting strategies while only
one of these, concerted cultivation, is captured in the model. Asian children’s
tremendous growth over the summertime represents an important area of study,
and may be the product of community-based education programs which are the
direct outgrowth of the social capital accruing through local networks (Zhou and
Bankston 1998), or differential effectiveness or quality of parental investments (Sun
1998).
Just as the underlying logic of child-rearing in Asian communities may produce
social capital (Zhou and Bankston 1998), concerted cultivation may also generate
social capital. Parents mingle when dropping their daughters off at dance lessons
or while watching soccer games from the sidelines. They exchange information
about teachers and schools and how to get their children into accelerated classes
(e.g. Lareau 2003; Horvat et al. 2003). If the Asian advantage, particularly
over the summer, is the result of differences in access to social networks, it is
of a fundamentally different kind than that generated through the processes of
concerted cultivation. The extent to which concerted cultivation is not only a
form of cultural capital but also plays a role in the development of social capital
is an important and interesting area of research.21
21I have taken a preliminary look at this possibility, although I did not pursue it extensivelybecause the analysis and use of concerted cultivation as strictly cultural capital was a largetask without need of additional complications. However, there is solid evidence, I believe, thatthere is a higher-level latent generalization of concerted cultivation, although not all of the items
221
As I implicated above, the tendency to lower returns to concerted cultivation
for black middle- and upper-class black children may be a result not of concerted
cultivation as cultural capital, per se, but because of inequalities along its (yet-to-
be explored) social dimensions (see, for example, Lareau and Horvat 1999). How
this will play out as children age and the cognitive stimulatory component decreases
in importance is an open question, yet there may be real cognitive consequences
for young children if the experiences children are exposed to across environments
are more disorganized (e.g. Sampson and Groves 1989) and stressful than children
from other groups’ experiences (Massey 2004; Charles, Dinwiddie, and Massey
2004; Massey and Fischer 2002). Black children who are more likely to experience
concerted cultivation in primarily white environments may also be more likely to
experience racism (see Lareau 2003, chapter 6), a factor whose impacts could be
diverse and negative. This could, for example, be at the root of the tendency
for the race by class by concerted cultivation interactions to be negative in value
although non-significant. If some advantaged black children cross through white
environments but receive differential treatment, the coefficient estimates could be
negatively biased but also uncertain, as captured by the standard errors, due to
heterogeneity in these experiences.22 Taken together, the results presented here
suggest that family investments may have different relationships to black children’s
outcomes within different levels of the social class distribution.
Of course, concerted cultivation does not completely explain social group dis-
parities at kindergarten entry, nor differences in school year or summer learning
growth rates. As a predictor, however, it is most clearly implicated in school
readiness. How concerted cultivation operates as children age and become more
involved in seeking out their own interests remains an open and important question.
Children, as they become more autonomous, can both encourage the practices of
concerted cultivation by requesting books and activities, while they can also resist
used to specify the latent factor at the individual level are implicated. In addition, because themultilevel factor analysis is a generalization of random effect models where a higher level latentvariable predicts the random effect covariance matrix, the specter of extremely long computationtimes again intrudes, in large measure because the binary items used for the analysis result inchallenging integration problems. Readers interested in pursuing multilevel factor analysis arereferred to Munthen and Munthen (2004).
22This, presumably, would be far less a problem for the most disadvantaged black children whorarely pass through white-dominated environments, e.g. Massey and Denton (1994).
222
parents at every turn, making the practice difficult to fully realize (Lareau 2003;
Chin and Phillips 2004). Lareau (2003) also considered other costs involved in
concerted cultivation, such as the frequent trips for soccer games and the stress
of constantly organizing children’s lives. A high degree of flexibility is required
with considerable temporal and financial costs by parents who practice the highest
levels of concerted cultivation. These costs can also translate across siblings since
brothers and sisters become constrained by each others’ schedules. Thus, there
are not only many more dimensions of family life that must be studied regarding
concerted cultivation, there are also reasons to think that, globally, too much of a
good thing like concerted cultivation is not always good.
There is the possibility that the relationship between concerted cultivation and
children’s test scores is spurious and is in fact due to the genetic relatedness of
parents and offspring. This could be the case if the behaviors embodied by con-
certed cultivation have a strong genetic component and children’s test scores do
too, for instance. The ECLS-K, unfortunately, cannot address this sort of hypoth-
esis. There are suggestions, however, that the role of genetics in the concerted
cultivation and academic achievement association is relatively complex and dif-
ficult to conceptualize, at least as a main-effect. As noted above, children and
parents often disagree quite strongly about the activities of concerted cultivation.
Although there may be psycho-developmental reasons to suspect a noncorrespon-
dence between parents and children, this merely highlights the complex nature of
the phenomenon and suggests, if anything, a very muddy genetic-environmental
interaction as compared to a main effect. Parents are entirely willing to override
their children’s proclivities for their own, while children often do not hesitate to
find points of challenge. How variable these patterns of relationships are remain an
important issue for future research. In addition, parenting strategies have changed
considerably over time (see Lareau’s [2003: 245-248] discussion and the works cited
therein). If the genetic component’s main effect was large, then parenting roles
would not appear to have such a large historical and cultural component. Yet,
a minimal genetic component in the relationship remains an assumption. The
ECLS-K is not a genetically informed data source, so assessing this alternative
explanation for the concerted cultivation association is not possible with these
223
data.23
By all indications, parenting strategies, then, clearly lead to important pre-
schooling differences in children’s competencies, and until future research is able
to clarify the relationship between concerted cultivation and later test scores, policy
makers should most profitably focus on the parent-schooling relation for younger
children. At the same time, given the difficulties involved in sponsoring family-
based educational interventions, improving the quality of pre-schooling programs
like Head Start is an obvious place to begin addressing early schooling disparities.
The School Readiness Act of 2003,24 which states that Head Start should be de-
signed to provide education-oriented training to prepare children for school appears
to be a move in the right direction. Although children’s preschooling experiences
were not discussed in the analytic chapters, covariates are included and results are
presented in the Appendix tables. The results suggest that prior to The School
Readiness Act, participation in Head Start was no more beneficial to children than
receiving no care, while children in other programs fared better net of the other
control variables. Hopefully the focus on using these early care arrangements to
promote school readiness will serve to ameliorate social group disparities in chil-
dren’s cognitive skills at school entry. In order to be effective, however, greater
care will need to be taken in assessing pre-schooling programs so that successful
interventions can be modeled effectively (Anderson et al. 2003; Gilliam and Zigler
2001; Barnet 1998). Implementation and use of effective interventions in these
contexts is of key importance and should not be taken for granted.
Returning to the family-schooling connection, concerted cultivation as it is
currently embodied in U.S. society, is defined largely by social class and race/ethnic
status. As such, in order to be useful for policies that extend beyond out-of-
home care arrangements, if Lareau (2003) is correct, not only must the underlying
cultural logic of child rearing be made more independent of these factors than it
currently is, the means of realizing this logic must also be made accessible (Chin
and Phillips 2004). Chin and Phillips’ (2004) study suggests that many lower-
23It may be possible to get a handle on the question by comparing biological to adoptedchildren. The adopted children sample size is small, however, which limits power for assessingthe degree to which concerted cultivation functions disparately for these two different groups ofchildren. Nonetheless, this remains a viable line of pursuit for future research.
24http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/pdf/hs reauthorization.pdf
224
class and minority parents are already familiar with the underlying cultural logic
of concerted cultivation, but lack the resources to fully implement that strategy for
their children, although they may want to. Given that one of the principal goals
of NCLB is to reduce social group achievement gaps, a quote drawn from Lee and
Burkam (2002: 81) is appropriate:
As a nation, we continue to support the role—even the obligation—ofschooling to close these gaps, but at the same time we create or magnifythe same gaps with other social policies. Except for continuing supportfor Head Start (actually a relatively inexpensive program), our publicpolicies do little to address the negative educational effects that incomedisparities have on young children. The U.S. should not use one handto blame the schools for inadequately serving disadvantaged childrenwhen its social policies have helped to create these disadvantages—especially income disadvantages—with the other hand.
A lack of resources and opportunities places constraints on the feasibility for the
underlying cultural logic of concerted cultivation to be leveraged as a means of
reducing achievement disparities. There is evidence that investments in the home
cognitive environment decrease with negative changes in income (Votruba-Drzal
2003), suggesting that interventions designed to buffer the home cognitive environ-
ment from resource fluctuations could be helpful. In this vein, it is also possible
that the global concerted cultivation construct does not need to be built in to pol-
icy. Future work will do well to explore how the various dimensions of concerted
cultivation relate to children’s achievement in order to paint a clearer picture of
which child-rearing dimensions are most important for children’s cognitive devel-
opment. The cognitive resources in the home, for example, have consistently been
shown to be related to children’s achievement, although policies aimed at helping
parents leverage or gain access to these resources should prove beneficial (Farkas
and Beron 2004; Guo and Harris 2000; Phillips et al. 1998a; Sun 1998).
As a meaningful component of achievement processes, concerted cultivation is
not only a source of differentiation for children’s academic competencies, it is also
a part of larger systemic patterns of inequality that persist across generations.
Unfortunately, concerted cultivation requires not only accurate knowledge of the
underlying cultural logic upon which it is based, parents must also have the skills
and resources to actuate this logic as an organizing strategy. Yet identification of
225
this concept with nationally representative survey data illustrates the importance
of parental orientations towards their children’s educations and highlights, in a
new way, both the important role parents play in childhood achievement processes
and also the importance of macro cultural ideals in shaping children’s achievement
trajectories and, consequently, the opportunities that will be available to them
later in life.
APPENDIX
A
Appendix
Supplementary tables are provided in this appendix for each of the three achieve-
ment outcomes. Decreases in coefficient magnitude for the non-centered and group-
mean centered models are presented in tables A.1 (general knowledge), A.5 (math-
ematics), and A.9 (reading). The next set of tables presents coefficients for the
non-centered and group-mean centered growth partially-standardized with respect
to the proper variance components from the baseline growth models (i.e., the co-
efficient divided by the between-student variance of the intercept for kindergarten
entry) in tables A.2, A.6, and A.10, which are general knowledge, math, and read-
ing, respectively.
Due to the large number of analyses conducted, a number of models including
more covariates were estimated. They have not been included in the analytic
chapters to keep the focus centered on race, class, and concerted cultivation—
topics which deserved and were accorded significant attention. Many researchers
have different interests, however, so I have included in the appendix long tables
with additional regressors for those whose interests are piqued by other covariates.
The final model (G) is alluded to superficially in the analytic chapters. However,
a number of intermediate models in both non-centered and centered forms are
presented in tables A.3, A.7, and A.11, for general knowledge, mathematics, and
reading achievement, respectively.
227
A.1 Supplementary General Knowledge Tables
Table A.1. Proportion Reduction in Coefficient Magnitude Between Models for GeneralKnowledge
Non-Centered Centered
A-D B-E C-F C-G A-D B-E C-F C-GInitial Status
Black 0.262 0.277Hispanic 0.283 0.323Asian 0.333 0.334Other Race 0.242 0.327Social class 0.321 0.323Concerted Cultivation 0.311 0.441 0.288 0.411Second K. 0.324 0.236 0.448 0.513 0.302 0.239 0.466 0.562Age at K. Entry -0.011 0.004 0.007 0.002 -0.008 0.006 0.002 0.005
Kindergarten SlopeBlack -0.040 0.026Hispanic 0.173 0.175Asian 0.579 0.322Other Race 0.049 0.046Social class 0.048 0.035Concerted Cultivation 0.511 0.384 1.062 0.961Second K. -0.004 -0.012 0.051 0.019 0.020 0.010 0.061 0.046Changed School -0.610 -0.423 -0.017 -0.031 -0.433 -0.313 -0.024 -0.047
Summer SlopeBlack -0.170 -0.087Hispanic -0.399 -0.840Asian 1.398 1.164Other Race 0.118 -0.153Social class 0.059 0.776Concerted Cultivation 1.128 0.835 0.313 0.273Second K. 0.034 0.010 0.048 0.089 0.030 1.337 0.073 0.085Changed School -0.053 -0.020 0.007 0.015 -0.041 1.000 -0.028 -0.017
1st Grade SlopeBlack 0.650 1.088Hispanic 0.404 0.323Asian 0.172 0.154Other Race 0.146 0.422Social class 0.342 0.380Concerted Cultivation 0.378 0.421 0.301 0.368Second K. -0.243 -0.083 -0.125 -0.012 -0.276 -0.110 -0.205 -0.079Changed School 0.031 0.007 0.107 0.443 0.041 0.019 0.077 0.403
Note: Column headings refer to the proportion change for coefficients between models for tables 5.2 and 5.3.
228
Table A.2. Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Coefficientsfor Table 5.2, General Knowledge
Model
A B C D E F G
Initial StatusBlack −0.780 ** −0.576 ** −0.533 ** −0.517 **Hispanic −0.732 ** −0.524 ** −0.475 ** −0.289 **Asian −0.885 ** −0.590 ** −0.675 ** −0.364 **Other Race −0.489 ** −0.371 ** −0.361 ** −0.314 **Social class 0.417 ** 0.283 ** 0.281 ** 0.222 **Concerted Cultivation 0.489 ** 0.435 ** 0.394 ** 0.337 ** 0.273 **Second K. −0.150 ** −0.104 * −0.119 * −0.101 * −0.080 −0.066 −0.058Age at K. Entry 0.060 ** 0.064 ** 0.062 ** 0.060 ** 0.064 ** 0.062 ** 0.062 **
Kindergarten SlopeBlack −0.161 * −0.167 * −0.157 * −0.171 *Hispanic −0.103 −0.085 −0.074 −0.092Asian −0.037 −0.016 −0.022 −0.074Other Race 0.036 0.034 0.038 0.031Social class 0.044 0.042 0.038 0.012Concerted Cultivation 0.036 0.028 0.024 0.018 0.022Second K. −0.282 * −0.270 * −0.286 * −0.283 * −0.273 * −0.271 * −0.280 *Changed School 0.200 0.235 0.325 * 0.322 * 0.334 * 0.330 * 0.335 *
Summer SlopeBlack 0.507 0.594 0.648 0.620Hispanic 0.221 0.310 0.325 0.441Asian −0.107 0.043 −0.055 0.133Other Race −0.649 −0.573 −0.550 −0.505Social class 0.337 * 0.317 0.346 * 0.445 *Concerted Cultivation 0.073 0.116 −0.040 −0.009 0.012Second K. −1.081 −0.948 −1.015 −1.045 −0.938 −0.966 −0.924Changed School 0.565 * 0.526 * 0.561 * 0.595 * 0.536 m 0.557 * 0.553 *
1st Grade SlopeBlack 0.143 0.050 0.030 0.061Hispanic 0.222 * 0.132 0.118 −0.008Asian 0.795 ** 0.658 ** 0.698 ** 0.493 *Other Race 0.413 ** 0.353 * 0.350 * 0.343 *Social class −0.192 ** −0.126 ** −0.143 ** −0.183 **Concerted Cultivation −0.202 ** −0.173 ** −0.162 ** −0.126 ** −0.117 *Second K. −0.125 −0.180 −0.166 −0.156 −0.195 −0.186 −0.168Changed School −0.233 −0.208 −0.230 −0.225 −0.207 −0.205 −0.128
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Partially-Standardized with respect to the outcome regression coefficients are calculatedfrom bsy = b
sψ, where b is the regression coefficient and sψ is the between-child variance compo-
nent for the growth parameter from the null model presented in table 5.1.
229
Table A.3. Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Coefficientsfor Table 5.3, General Knowledge, Group-Mean Centered
Model
A B C D E F GInitial Status
Black −0.635 ** −0.459 ** −0.422 ** −0.419 **Hispanic −0.587 ** −0.398 ** −0.351 ** −0.202 **Asian −0.800 ** −0.533 ** −0.589 ** −0.312 **Other Race −0.365 ** −0.246 ** −0.228 ** −0.196 **Social class 0.352 ** 0.238 ** 0.236 ** 0.189 **Concerted Cultivation 0.421 ** 0.375 ** 0.344 ** 0.300 ** 0.248 **Second K. −0.137 ** −0.087 −0.107 * −0.095 * −0.066 −0.057 −0.047Age at K. Entry 0.058 ** 0.061 ** 0.060 ** 0.059 ** 0.061 ** 0.060 ** 0.059 **
Kindergarten SlopeBlack −0.065 −0.063 −0.054 −0.056Hispanic −0.095 −0.078 −0.067 −0.085Asian −0.042 −0.029 −0.043 −0.099Other Race −0.076 −0.073 −0.071 −0.069Social class 0.053 0.051 0.049 0.022Concerted Cultivation 0.020 0.014 0.005 −0.001 0.001Second K. −0.265 * −0.251 * −0.262 * −0.259 * −0.248 * −0.246 * −0.250 *Changed School 0.246 0.277 m 0.354 * 0.353 * 0.364 * 0.363 * 0.371 *
Summer SlopeBlack 0.858 0.933 1.001 0.907Hispanic 0.111 0.205 0.226 0.361Asian −0.145 0.024 −0.017 0.248Other Race 0.614 0.708 0.733 0.730Social class 0.291 0.065 0.296 0.384 *Concerted Cultivation 0.140 0.179 −0.986 0.096 0.102Second K. −1.105 −1.000 −1.065 −1.072 0.337 −0.987 −0.974Changed School 0.335 0.332 0.337 0.349 0.000 0.347 0.343
1st Grade SlopeBlack 0.077 −0.007 −0.031 0.011Hispanic 0.272 * 0.184 0.169 0.051Asian 0.911 ** 0.771 ** 0.793 ** 0.578 **Other Race 0.159 0.092 0.087 0.082Social class −0.161 ** −0.100 * −0.116 * −0.152 **Concerted Cultivation −0.217 ** −0.185 ** −0.187 ** −0.151 ** −0.137 **Second K. −0.110 −0.153 −0.142 −0.141 −0.169 −0.171 −0.153Changed School −0.224 −0.195 −0.213 −0.215 −0.191 −0.197 −0.127
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Partially-Standardized with respect to the outcome regression coefficients are calculatedfrom bsy = b
sψ, where b is the regression coefficient and sψ is the between-child variance compo-
nent for the growth parameter from the null model presented in table 5.1.
230
Tab
leA
.4.
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rG
ener
alK
now
ledg
eA
chie
vem
ent
wit
hth
eFu
llC
ovar
iate
Lis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
Init
ialSta
tus
22.0
58
**
22.2
57
**
22.3
92
**
21.4
16
**
20.0
37
**
20.0
38
**
20.0
41
**
20.0
39
**
(0.1
10)
(0.1
15)
(0.1
14)
(0.1
93)
(0.1
56)
(0.1
56)
(0.1
56)
(0.1
56)
Bla
ck
−3.3
99
**
−3.2
19
**
−3.0
65
**
−3.0
94
**
−2.7
36
**
−2.5
98
**
−2.4
59
**
−2.5
06
**
(0.1
88)
(0.1
93)
(0.1
92)
(0.1
93)
(0.2
26)
(0.2
29)
(0.2
28)
(0.2
29)
His
panic
−1.7
53
**
−1.7
16
**
−1.6
67
**
−1.7
31
**
−1.2
50
**
−1.2
18
**
−1.1
50
**
−1.2
06
**
(0.1
88)
(0.1
89)
(0.1
88)
(0.1
88)
(0.2
06)
(0.2
07)
(0.2
06)
(0.2
06)
Asi
an
−2.1
07
**
−2.1
26
**
−2.1
57
**
−2.1
78
**
−1.8
22
**
−1.8
40
**
−1.8
36
**
−1.8
64
**
(0.2
83)
(0.2
83)
(0.2
81)
(0.2
81)
(0.2
99)
(0.2
99)
(0.2
98)
(0.2
98)
Oth
er
−2.0
70
**
−1.9
95
**
−1.8
85
**
−1.8
77
**
−1.3
02
**
−1.2
41
**
−1.1
36
**
−1.1
70
**
(0.2
54)
(0.2
54)
(0.2
52)
(0.2
51)
(0.2
82)
(0.2
82)
(0.2
81)
(0.2
80)
Socia
lC
lass
1.6
36
**
1.5
85
**
1.4
80
**
1.3
28
**
1.3
68
**
1.3
28
**
1.2
57
**
1.1
33
**
(0.0
67)
(0.0
68)
(0.0
69)
(0.0
71)
(0.0
72)
(0.0
73)
(0.0
74)
(0.0
75)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
1.8
77
**
1.8
30
**
1.7
87
**
1.6
35
**
1.6
78
**
1.6
41
**
1.6
16
**
1.4
85
**
(0.0
72)
(0.0
73)
(0.0
72)
(0.0
73)
(0.0
75)
(0.0
76)
(0.0
76)
(0.0
77)
Age
at
K.Entr
y0.3
63
**
0.3
64
**
0.3
72
**
0.3
73
**
0.3
51
**
0.3
52
**
0.3
56
**
0.3
56
**
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
Fem
ale
−0.5
18
**
−0.5
04
**
−0.4
95
**
−0.4
84
**
−0.5
08
**
−0.4
97
**
−0.4
92
**
−0.4
85
**
(0.1
05)
(0.1
05)
(0.1
05)
(0.1
05)
(0.1
07)
(0.1
07)
(0.1
07)
(0.1
06)
Second
K.
−0.4
23
−0.3
96
−0.4
70
−0.3
48
−0.3
87
−0.3
62
−0.4
09
−0.2
79
(0.2
75)
(0.2
76)
(0.2
76)
(0.2
75)
(0.2
86)
(0.2
87)
(0.2
88)
(0.2
88)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e−
3.7
65
**
−3.8
98
**
−3.9
59
**
−4.0
96
**
−3.6
09
**
−3.7
18
**
−3.7
56
**
−3.8
71
**
(0.2
28)
(0.2
29)
(0.2
28)
(0.2
29)
(0.2
39)
(0.2
40)
(0.2
39)
(0.2
40)
Ste
pPare
nt
−0.7
48
**
−0.5
69
**
−0.5
55
*−
0.6
22
**
−0.4
89
*−
0.4
85
*(0
.199)
(0.2
01)
(0.2
03)
(0.2
05)
(0.2
07)
(0.2
10)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.6
35
**
−0.0
88
−0.1
04
−0.5
45
**
−0.0
59
−0.0
83
(0.1
44)
(0.1
49)
(0.1
49)
(0.1
46)
(0.1
52)
(0.1
52)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.7
69
**
−1.4
29
**
−1.3
19
**
−0.6
75
*−
1.1
80
**
−1.1
02
**
(0.2
72)
(0.2
96)
(0.2
94)
(0.2
78)
(0.3
01)
(0.2
99)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.7
63
**
−0.7
14
**
−0.7
04
**
−0.6
63
**
(0.0
67)
(0.0
68)
(0.0
69)
(0.0
70)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
64
**
0.0
63
**
0.0
50
**
0.0
50
**
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.7
87
**
0.6
33
**
(0.1
46)
(0.1
50)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
0.5
73
**
0.4
57
**
(0.1
44)
(0.1
49)
Moth
er
Work
ed
Pri
or
toC
.B
irth
0.1
94
0.1
39
(0.1
14)
(0.1
18)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−1.4
41
**
−1.4
27
**
(0.2
05)
(0.2
06)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0.3
14
*0.3
03
*(0
.133)
(0.1
34)
Hom
eB
ase
dC
are
0.7
24
**
0.6
24
**
(0.1
46)
(0.1
46)
Head
Sta
rt−
0.3
00
−0.1
73
(0.1
95)
(0.2
02)
Cente
r-B
ase
dC
are
0.7
90
**
0.6
88
**
(0.1
24)
(0.1
27)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
231
Tab
leA
.4—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rG
ener
alK
now
ledg
eA
chie
vem
ent
wit
hth
eFu
llC
ovar
iate
Lis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
Kin
derg
art
en
Slo
pe
0.8
43
**
0.8
40
**
0.8
42
**
0.8
56
**
0.8
25
**
0.8
25
**
0.8
25
**
0.8
25
**
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
Bla
ck
−0.0
39
*−
0.0
39
*−
0.0
36
−0.0
43
*−
0.0
11
−0.0
11
−0.0
07
−0.0
14
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
His
panic
−0.0
19
−0.0
19
−0.0
18
−0.0
23
−0.0
19
−0.0
19
−0.0
17
−0.0
21
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
Asi
an
−0.0
16
−0.0
14
−0.0
14
−0.0
18
−0.0
23
−0.0
21
−0.0
21
−0.0
25
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
Oth
er
0.0
09
0.0
09
0.0
10
0.0
08
−0.0
17
−0.0
17
−0.0
15
−0.0
17
(0.0
26)
(0.0
26)
(0.0
26)
(0.0
26)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
Socia
lC
lass
0.0
08
0.0
09
0.0
07
0.0
03
0.0
12
0.0
12
0.0
10
0.0
06
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
0.0
06
0.0
07
0.0
06
0.0
06
0.0
02
0.0
02
0.0
02
0.0
00
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
Fem
ale
−0.0
18
−0.0
18
−0.0
17
−0.0
18
−0.0
17
−0.0
17
−0.0
17
−0.0
18
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
Second
K.
−0.0
72
*−
0.0
71
*−
0.0
71
*−
0.0
70
*−
0.0
64
*−
0.0
64
*−
0.0
64
*−
0.0
62
*(0
.028)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e0.0
31
0.0
32
0.0
31
0.0
26
0.0
39
0.0
39
0.0
38
0.0
33
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
Ste
pPare
nt
0.0
17
0.0
19
0.0
18
0.0
13
0.0
17
0.0
17
(0.0
20)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
0.0
05
0.0
12
0.0
06
0.0
04
0.0
13
0.0
09
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.0
04
−0.0
13
−0.0
13
−0.0
06
−0.0
20
−0.0
20
(0.0
28)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.0
12
−0.0
09
−0.0
13
−0.0
11
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
01
0.0
01
0.0
01
0.0
01
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
Changed
School
0.0
76
*0.0
78
*0.0
82
*0.0
84
*0.0
86
*0.0
88
*0.0
92
*0.0
93
*(0
.036)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e−
0.0
29
*−
0.0
20
(0.0
14)
(0.0
15)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
−0.0
19
−0.0
13
(0.0
13)
(0.0
13)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.0
34
−0.0
44
*(0
.021)
(0.0
21)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0. 0
19
0.0
18
(0.0
13)
(0.0
14)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
232
Tab
leA
.4—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rG
ener
alK
now
ledg
eA
chie
vem
ent
wit
hth
eFu
llC
ovar
iate
Lis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
Sum
mer
Slo
pe
0.4
04
**
0.3
86
*0.3
88
**
0.3
79
**
0.4
28
**
0.4
28
**
0.4
28
**
0.4
28
**
(0.0
43)
(0.0
45)
(0.0
45)
(0.0
50)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
Bla
ck
0.1
06
0.0
94
0.0
88
0.1
00
0.1
55
0.1
41
0.1
36
0.1
46
(0.0
76)
(0.0
77)
(0.0
77)
(0.0
78)
(0.0
93)
(0.0
94)
(0.0
94)
(0.0
94)
His
panic
0.0
64
0.0
63
0.0
59
0.0
71
0.0
53
0.0
51
0.0
49
0.0
58
(0.0
75)
(0.0
75)
(0.0
75)
(0.0
75)
(0.0
84)
(0.0
84)
(0.0
84)
(0.0
84)
Asi
an
0.0
12
0.0
14
0.0
14
0.0
21
0.0
34
0.0
38
0.0
38
0.0
40
(0.1
16)
(0.1
16)
(0.1
16)
(0.1
16)
(0.1
23)
(0.1
23)
(0.1
23)
(0.1
23)
Oth
er
−0.0
85
−0.0
87
−0.0
88
−0.0
81
0.1
18
0.1
13
0.1
13
0.1
18
(0.0
93)
(0.0
94)
(0.0
94)
(0.0
94)
(0.1
09)
(0.1
09)
(0.1
09)
(0.1
10)
Socia
lC
lass
0.0
53
m0.0
59
*0.0
63
*0.0
72
*0.0
45
0.0
51
0.0
55
0.0
62
*(0
.028)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
−0.0
05
0.0
00
0.0
01
0.0
02
0.0
12
0.0
17
0.0
17
0.0
16
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
32)
Fem
ale
0.0
14
0.0
12
0.0
14
0.0
16
0.0
11
0.0
09
0.0
10
0.0
12
(0.0
43)
(0.0
43)
(0.0
43)
(0.0
43)
(0.0
44)
(0.0
44)
(0.0
44)
(0.0
44)
Second
K.
−0.1
53
−0.1
52
−0.1
54
−0.1
49
−0.1
59
−0.1
59
−0.1
61
−0.1
57
(0.1
08)
(0.1
08)
(0.1
08)
(0.1
09)
(0.1
13)
(0.1
14)
(0.1
14)
(0.1
14)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e−
0.0
31
−0.0
17
−0.0
13
0.0
00
−0.0
77
−0.0
62
−0.0
58
−0.0
51
(0.0
90)
(0.0
90)
(0.0
90)
(0.0
91)
(0.0
95)
(0.0
95)
(0.0
95)
(0.0
96)
Ste
pPare
nt
0.0
73
0.0
53
0.0
55
0.0
71
0.0
54
0.0
55
(0.0
65)
(0.0
66)
(0.0
66)
(0.0
67)
(0.0
67)
(0.0
67)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
0.0
62
0.0
42
0.0
45
0.0
74
0.0
51
0.0
54
(0.0
47)
(0.0
50)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
49)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
52)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re0.0
08
0.0
45
0.0
54
0.0
40
0.0
70
0.0
78
(0.0
94)
(0.0
99)
(0.0
99)
(0.0
97)
(0.1
02)
(0.1
03)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
10.0
13
0.0
13
0.0
22
0.0
22
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
25)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
−0.0
03
−0.0
03
−0.0
02
−0.0
02
(0.0
04)
(0.0
04)
(0.0
04)
(0.0
04)
Changed
School
0.0
85
m0.0
90
*0.0
91
*0.0
89
*0.0
51
0.0
54
0.0
56
0.0
55
(0.0
45)
(0.0
45)
(0.0
45)
(0.0
44)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
51)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.0
43
0.0
44
(0.0
38)
(0.0
39)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
0.0
12
0.0
18
(0.0
36)
(0.0
37)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
0.0
34
0.0
38
(0.0
63)
(0.0
63)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
−0. 0
58
−0. 0
35
(0.0
38)
(0.0
39)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
233
Tab
leA
.4—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rG
ener
alK
now
ledg
eA
chie
vem
ent
wit
hth
eFu
llC
ovar
iate
Lis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
1s
tG
rade
Slo
pe
0.6
57
**
0.6
64
**
0.6
67
**
0.6
87
**
0.6
62
**
0.6
62
**
0.6
62
**
0.6
62
**
(0.0
14)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
Bla
ck
0.0
11
0.0
19
0.0
20
0.0
12
0.0
01
0.0
08
0.0
09
0.0
02
(0.0
24)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
His
panic
0.0
04
0.0
05
**
0.0
04
−0.0
02
0.0
15
0.0
16
0.0
14
0.0
10
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
27)
(0.0
27)
(0.0
27)
(0.0
27)
Asi
an
0.1
04
**
0.1
04
**
0.1
05
**
0.0
97
**
0.1
19
**
0.1
19
**
0.1
19
**
0.1
14
**
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
39)
(0.0
39)
(0.0
39)
(0.0
39)
Oth
er
0.0
67
*0.0
70
*0.0
70
*0.0
68
*0.0
17
0.0
19
0.0
19
0.0
16
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
Socia
lC
lass
−0.0
28
**
−0.0
30
**
−0.0
29
**
−0.0
36
**
−0.0
23
*−
0.0
25
*−
0.0
23
*−
0.0
30
**
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
−0.0
19
*−
0.0
20
*−
0.0
20
*−
0.0
23
*−
0.0
23
*−
0.0
25
*−
0.0
25
*−
0.0
27
**
(0.0
09)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
Fem
ale
−0.0
29
*−
0.0
28
*−
0.0
29
*−
0.0
30
*−
0.0
29
*−
0.0
28
*−
0.0
28
*−
0.0
30
*(0
.014)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
Second
K.
−0.0
41
−0.0
40
−0.0
36
−0.0
33
−0.0
37
−0.0
36
−0.0
33
−0.0
30
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e0.0
72
*0.0
66
**
0.0
67
*0.0
60
*0.0
88
0.0
82
**
0.0
83
**
0.0
77
*(0
.028)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
Ste
pPare
nt
−0.0
12
−0.0
15
−0.0
18
−0.0
12
−0.0
15
−0.0
17
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.0
29
**
−0.0
22
−0.0
28
−0.0
27
−0.0
20
−0.0
25
(0.0
14)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.0
29
−0.0
13
−0.0
08
−0.0
41
−0.0
26
−0.0
22
(0.0
30)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
32)
(0.0
32)
(0.0
33)
(0.0
33)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.0
13
−0.0
10
−0.0
12
−0.0
10
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
−0.0
02
−0.0
02
−0.0
02
−0.0
01
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
Changed
School
−0.0
39
−0.0
35
−0.0
32
−0.0
25
−0.0
37
−0.0
34
−0.0
31
−0.0
25
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e−
0.0
27
*−
0.0
23
*(0
.035)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
−0.0
31
**
−0.0
28
*(0
.011)
(0.0
11)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.0
64
**
−0.0
60
**
(0.0
14)
(0.0
15)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0.0
23
*0.0
24
*(0
.010)
(0.0
10)
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
234
A.2 Supplementary Math Achievement Tables
Table A.5. Proportion Reduction in Coefficient Magnitude Between Models for MathAchievement
Non-Centered Centered
A-D B-E C-F C-G A-D B-E C-F C-GInitial Status
Black 0.423 0.372Hispanic 0.390 0.335Asian 45.046 -3.996Other Race 0.299 0.464Social class 0.233 0.213Concerted Cultivation 0.361 0.480 0.314 0.428Second K. 0.269 0.200 0.366 0.472 0.187 0.119 0.303 0.423Age at K. Entry 0.007 0.019 0.006 -0.001 0.005 0.009 0.001 0.005
Kindergarten SlopeBlack 0.172 0.148Hispanic 0.342 0.354Asian 1.167 2.246Other Race 0.241 0.196Social class 0.237 0.191Concerted Cultivation 0.434 0.482 0.372 0.396Second K. 0.065 0.026 0.108 0.129 0.066 0.029 0.121 0.134Changed School 0.401 0.306 0.098 0.259 0.461 0.375 0.205 0.432
Summer SlopeBlack 0.832 0.586Hispanic 4.396 -1.882Asian -0.211 -0.181Other Race 0.616 6.405Social class 0.243 0.432Concerted Cultivation 0.110 0.064 -0.101 -0.119Second K. 0.127 0.070 0.115 -0.003 0.133 0.060 0.049 -0.067Changed School -0.059 -0.065 0.164 0.054 -0.029 -0.030 0.034 0.016
1st Grade SlopeBlack 0.136 0.109Hispanic 0.270 0.200Asian 0.173 0.144Other Race 0.086 0.094Social class 0.270 0.162Concerted Cultivation 0.554 0.566 0.606 0.590Second K. 0.045 0.026 0.057 0.092 0.036 0.019 0.103 0.123Changed School 0.043 0.015 0.149 0.335 0.028 0.005 0.114 0.282
2nd − 3rd Grade SlopeBlack 0.033 0.020Hispanic 0.393 0.504Asian -0.088 -0.046Other Race 0.268 -0.076Social class -0.059 -0.067Concerted Cultivation 1.443 1.411 2.058 1.854Second K. 0.010 -0.005 0.078 0.104 0.004 -0.006 0.062 0.075Changed School 0.075 0.025 0.154 0.184 0.061 0.009 0.046 -0.004
Note: Column headings refer to the proportion change for coefficients between models for tables 6.2 and 6.3.
235
Table A.6. Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Coefficientsfor Table 6.2, Mathematics Achievement
Model
A B C D E F G
Initial StatusBlack −0.454 ** −0.262 ** −0.183 ** −0.145 **Hispanic −0.554 ** −0.338 ** −0.250 ** −0.215 **Asian −0.006 0.250 ** 0.192 ** 0.229 **Other Race −0.305 ** −0.214 ** −0.196 ** −0.162 **Social class 0.403 ** 0.309 ** 0.286 ** 0.233 **Concerted Cultivation 0.347 ** 0.324 ** 0.235 ** 0.222 ** 0.181 **Second K. −0.179 ** −0.142 ** −0.155 ** −0.131 ** −0.114 * −0.098 * −0.082Age at K. Entry 0.067 ** 0.070 ** 0.068 ** 0.066 ** 0.069 ** 0.067 ** 0.068 **
Kindergarten SlopeBlack −0.424 ** −0.351 ** −0.320 ** −0.313 **Hispanic −0.239 ** −0.157 ** −0.126 ** −0.101 *Asian −0.088 0.015 −0.007 0.036Other Race −0.162 ** −0.123 * −0.110 * −0.097Social class 0.154 ** 0.118 ** 0.103 ** 0.083 **Concerted Cultivation 0.143 ** 0.121 ** 0.097 ** 0.081 ** 0.074 **Second K. −0.223 ** −0.200 ** −0.215 ** −0.208 ** −0.194 ** −0.192 ** −0.187 **Changed School −0.160 −0.149 −0.105 −0.096 −0.103 −0.095 −0.078
Summer SlopeBlack −0.044 −0.007 0.006 0.007Hispanic −0.009 0.030 0.044 0.025Asian 0.244 * 0.296 ** 0.291 ** 0.261 *Other Race −0.030 −0.012 −0.016 −0.019Social class 0.069 ** 0.052 * 0.046 0.047Concerted Cultivation 0.046 * 0.055 * 0.030 0.040 0.043Second K. −0.072 −0.063 −0.066 −0.063 −0.059 −0.058 −0.066Changed School 0.087 0.070 0.091 0.092 * 0.075 0.076 0.086
1st Grade SlopeBlack −0.341 ** −0.294 ** −0.275 ** −0.257 **Hispanic −0.192 ** −0.140 ** −0.119 ** −0.131 *Asian −0.350 ** −0.290 ** −0.306 ** −0.322 **Other Race −0.242 ** −0.221 ** −0.208 ** −0.194 **Social class 0.096 ** 0.070 ** 0.066 ** 0.043 *Concerted Cultivation 0.102 ** 0.073 ** 0.072 ** 0.045 ** 0.044 *Second K. −0.195 * −0.181 * −0.188 * −0.186 * −0.177 * −0.177 * −0.170 *Changed School −0.137 −0.114 −0.132 −0.131 −0.112 −0.112 −0.088
2nd − 3rd Grade SlopeBlack −0.296 ** −0.286 ** −0.261 ** −0.238 **Hispanic −0.029 −0.018 0.009 −0.013Asian 0.190 ** 0.207 ** 0.190 ** 0.178 **Other Race −0.009 −0.007 −0.001 0.014Social class 0.091 ** 0.097 ** 0.085 ** 0.064 **Concerted Cultivation 0.024 * 0.021 −0.011 −0.011 −0.010Second K. −0.241 ** −0.228 ** −0.246 ** −0.239 ** −0.230 ** −0.226 ** −0.220 **Changed School −0.029 −0.038 −0.035 −0.026 −0.037 −0.029 −0.028
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Partially-Standardized with respect to the outcome regression coefficients are calculatedfrom bsy = b
sψ, where b is the regression coefficient and sψ is the between-child variance
component for the growth parameter from the null model presented in table 6.1.
236
Table A.7. Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Coefficientsfor Table 6.3, Mathematics Achievement, Group-Mean Centered
Model
A B C D E F GInitial Status
Black −0.341 ** −0.214 ** −0.169 ** −0.143 **Hispanic −0.453 ** −0.301 ** −0.248 ** −0.210 **Asian 0.047 0.234 ** 0.181 ** 0.224 **Other Race −0.171 ** −0.092 −0.071 −0.050Social class 0.312 ** 0.246 ** 0.229 ** 0.192 **Concerted Cultivation 0.273 ** 0.260 ** 0.193 ** 0.187 ** 0.156 **Second K. −0.194 ** −0.150 ** −0.174 ** −0.158 ** −0.132 * −0.122 * −0.101 *Age at K. Entry 0.067 ** 0.068 ** 0.067 ** 0.067 ** 0.068 ** 0.067 ** 0.067 **
Kindergarten SlopeBlack −0.362 ** −0.309 ** −0.286 ** −0.281 **Hispanic −0.183 ** −0.118 ** −0.093 * −0.078Asian −0.039 0.048 0.023 0.051Other Race −0.180 ** −0.145 * −0.134 * −0.124 *Social class 0.150 ** 0.121 ** 0.112 ** 0.093 **Concerted Cultivation 0.123 ** 0.113 ** 0.084 ** 0.077 ** 0.074 **Second K. −0.210 ** −0.181 ** −0.199 ** −0.196 ** −0.175 ** −0.175 ** −0.172 **Changed School −0.127 −0.106 −0.076 −0.068 −0.066 −0.060 −0.043
Summer SlopeBlack −0.046 −0.019 −0.017 −0.018Hispanic 0.016 0.045 0.048 0.042Asian 0.252 * 0.297 ** 0.298 ** 0.280 *Other Race −0.003 0.018 0.018 0.020Social class 0.033 0.019 0.014 0.017Concerted Cultivation 0.049 * 0.058 * 0.043 0.054 * 0.055 *Second K. −0.056 −0.048 −0.048 −0.048 −0.045 −0.046 −0.052Changed School 0.145 ** 0.137 * 0.148 ** 0.149 ** 0.141 * 0.143 ** 0.145 **
1st Grade SlopeBlack −0.248 ** −0.221 ** −0.206 ** −0.189 *Hispanic −0.175 ** −0.140 * −0.121 * −0.124 *Asian −0.287 ** −0.245 ** −0.265 ** −0.272 **Other Race −0.157 * −0.143 −0.133 −0.122Social class 0.098 ** 0.082 ** 0.080 ** 0.061 **Concerted Cultivation 0.072 ** 0.054 ** 0.045 * 0.028 0.030Second K. −0.167 * −0.153 * −0.165 * −0.161 * −0.150 m −0.148 m −0.145Changed School −0.112 −0.086 −0.104 −0.109 −0.086 −0.092 −0.075
2nd − 3rd Grade SlopeBlack −0.269 ** −0.264 ** −0.250 ** −0.231 **Hispanic −0.012 −0.006 0.011 −0.005Asian 0.184 ** 0.192 ** 0.177 ** 0.164 **Other Race 0.042 0.045 0.052 0.061Social class 0.075 ** 0.080 ** 0.073 ** 0.055 **Concerted Cultivation 0.011 0.011 −0.015 −0.012 −0.009Second K. −0.255 ** −0.239 ** −0.256 ** −0.254 ** −0.240 ** −0.240 ** −0.237 **Changed School −0.034 −0.036 −0.035 −0.032 −0.036 −0.033 −0.035
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Partially-Standardized with respect to the outcome regression coefficients are calculatedfrom bsy = b
sψ, where b is the regression coefficient and sψ is the between-child variance
component for the growth parameter from the null model presented in table 6.1.
237
Tab
leA
.8.
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rM
athe
mat
ics
Ach
ieve
men
tw
ith
the
Full
Cov
aria
teLis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
Init
ialSta
tus
19.0
90
**
19.3
28
**
19.4
13
**
18.0
65
**
18.0
83
**
18.0
85
**
18.0
87
**
18.0
83
**
(0.1
38)
(0.1
45)
(0.1
44)
(0.2
75)
(0.1
53)
(0.1
53)
(0.1
53)
(0.1
53)
Bla
ck
−1.3
58
**
−1.0
64
**
−0.9
16
**
−1.0
47
**
−1.2
73
**
−1.0
39
**
−0.9
37
**
−1.0
34
**
(0.2
50)
(0.2
57)
(0.2
56)
(0.2
56)
(0.3
07)
(0.3
11)
(0.3
12)
(0.3
13)
His
panic
−1.5
71
**
−1.5
09
**
−1.4
43
**
−1.5
54
**
−1.5
79
**
−1.5
18
**
−1.4
53
**
−1.5
18
**
(0.2
40)
(0.2
39)
(0.2
39)
(0.2
39)
(0.2
69)
(0.2
69)
(0.2
69)
(0.2
69)
Asi
an
1.7
33
**
1.7
68
**
1.7
33
**
1.6
59
**
1.6
72
**
1.7
00
**
1.6
99
**
1.6
23
**
(0.3
58)
(0.3
57)
(0.3
57)
(0.3
57)
(0.3
84)
(0.3
83)
(0.3
83)
(0.3
84)
Oth
er
−1.4
01
**
−1.2
69
**
−1.1
67
**
−1.1
75
**
−0.5
07
−0.4
01
−0.3
20
−0.3
64
(0.3
28)
(0.3
28)
(0.3
27)
(0.3
24)
(0.3
71)
(0.3
71)
(0.3
71)
(0.3
70)
Socia
lC
lass
2.0
51
**
1.9
89
**
1.8
81
**
1.6
85
**
1.6
38
**
1.5
88
**
1.5
26
**
1.3
86
**
(0.0
87)
(0.0
88)
(0.0
90)
(0.0
92)
(0.0
95)
(0.0
96)
(0.0
96)
(0.0
98)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
1.5
77
**
1.5
22
**
1.4
83
**
1.3
06
**
1.3
30
**
1.2
87
**
1.2
69
**
1.1
27
**
(0.0
91)
(0.0
91)
(0.0
91)
(0.0
92)
(0.0
96)
(0.0
97)
(0.0
97)
(0.0
98)
Age
at
K.Entr
y0.4
84
**
0.4
86
**
0.4
92
**
0.4
89
**
0.4
83
**
0.4
85
**
0.4
87
**
0.4
83
**
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
17)
(0.0
17)
(0.0
17)
(0.0
16)
Fem
ale
−0.1
72
−0.1
51
−0.1
52
−0.1
37
−0.1
79
−0.1
62
−0.1
65
−0.1
57
(0.1
36)
(0.1
36)
(0.1
36)
(0.1
36)
(0.1
38)
(0.1
38)
(0.1
38)
(0.1
38)
Second
K.
−0.7
24
*−
0.6
65
−0.7
54
*−
0.5
92
−0.8
96
*−
0.8
38
*−
0.8
87
*−
0.7
28
*(0
.355)
(0.3
56)
(0.3
55)
(0.3
54)
(0.3
72)
(0.3
73)
(0.3
73)
(0.3
72)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e−
0.6
56
*−
0.8
41
**
−0.9
16
**
−1.1
54
**
−0.7
65
**
−0.9
16
**
−0.9
54
**
−1.1
08
**
(0.2
67)
(0.2
68)
(0.2
68)
(0.2
71)
(0.2
85)
(0.2
87)
(0.2
87)
(0.2
90)
Ste
pPare
nt
−0.7
98
**
−0.5
51
*−
0.5
49
*−
0.5
35
m−
0.3
84
−0.3
96
(0.2
73)
(0.2
76)
(0.2
75)
(0.2
77)
(0.2
80)
(0.2
79)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.8
17
**
−0.3
41
−0.3
66
−0.7
20
**
−0.3
54
−0.3
85
m(0
.186)
(0.1
94)
(0.1
96)
(0.1
91)
(0.1
98)
(0.2
02)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
1.5
76
**
−2.4
58
**
−2.3
98
**
−1.3
86
**
−1.9
42
**
−1.9
24
**
(0.3
67)
(0.3
99)
(0.3
99)
(0.3
73)
(0.4
05)
(0.4
05)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.5
97
**
−0.5
51
**
−0.4
90
**
−0.4
53
**
(0.0
89)
(0.0
91)
(0.0
92)
(0.0
94)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
77
**
0.0
74
**
0.0
50
**
0.0
49
**
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
13)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.7
04
**
0.5
54
**
(0.1
87)
(0.1
89)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
0.6
09
**
0.4
82
*(0
.195)
(0.1
99)
Moth
er
Work
ed
Pri
or
toC
.B
irth
−0.0
06
0.0
53
(0.1
73)
(0.1
76)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.9
90
**
−0.8
50
**
(0.2
56)
(0.2
58)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0.8
28
**
0.6
81
**
(0.1
58)
(0.1
63)
Hom
eB
ase
dC
are
0.7
04
**
0.5
82
**
(0.2
14)
(0.2
18)
Head
Sta
rt0.0
40
0.2
07
(0.2
74)
(0.2
88)
Cente
r-B
ase
dC
are
1.5
17
**
1.2
61
**
(0.1
84)
(0.1
90)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
238
Tab
leA
.8—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rM
athe
mat
ics
Ach
ieve
men
tw
ith
the
Full
Cov
aria
teLis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
Kin
derg
art
en
Slo
pe
1.7
57
**
1.7
66
**
1.7
64
**
1.7
84
**
1.6
56
**
1.6
56
**
1.6
56
**
1.6
56
**
(0.0
19)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
Bla
ck
−0.2
48
**
−0.2
31
**
−0.2
31
**
−0.2
43
**
−0.2
20
**
−0.2
06
**
−0.2
06
**
−0.2
18
**
(0.0
33)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
40)
(0.0
40)
(0.0
40)
(0.0
41)
His
panic
−0.0
75
*−
0.0
71
*−
0.0
69
*−
0.0
78
*−
0.0
60
−0.0
56
−0.0
53
−0.0
60
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
Asi
an
0.0
30
0.0
34
0.0
36
0.0
28
0.0
40
0.0
45
0.0
46
0.0
40
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
50)
(0.0
50)
(0.0
50)
(0.0
50)
Oth
er
−0.0
81
−0.0
73
−0.0
72
−0.0
75
−0.1
02
*−
0.0
94
m−
0.0
93
m−
0.0
96
*(0
.043)
(0.0
43)
(0.0
43)
(0.0
43)
(0.0
49)
(0.0
49)
(0.0
49)
(0.0
49)
Socia
lC
lass
0.0
77
**
0.0
75
**
0.0
74
**
0.0
64
**
0.0
85
**
0.0
83
**
0.0
81
**
0.0
72
**
(0.0
11)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
13)
(0.0
13)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
0.0
66
**
0.0
64
**
0.0
64
**
0.0
58
**
0.0
66
**
0.0
64
**
0.0
63
**
0.0
58
**
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
13)
(0.0
13)
(0.0
13)
(0.0
13)
Fem
ale
−0. 0
79
**
−0. 0
77
**
−0. 0
77
**
−0. 0
78
**
−0. 0
77
**
−0. 0
76
**
−0. 0
76
**
−0. 0
77
**
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
Second
K.
−0.1
59
**
−0.1
53
**
−0.1
54
**
−0.1
45
**
−0.1
47
**
−0.1
41
**
−0.1
43
**
−0.1
34
**
(0.0
46)
(0.0
46)
(0.0
46)
(0.0
46)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e−
0.0
53
−0.0
62
−0.0
61
−0.0
73
*−
0.0
28
−0.0
35
−0.0
35
−0.0
45
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
37)
(0.0
37)
(0.0
37)
(0.0
38)
Ste
pPare
nt
−0.0
22
−0.0
16
−0.0
17
−0.0
22
−0.0
13
−0.0
15
(0.0
34)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
36)
(0.0
36)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.0
29
−0.0
30
−0.0
35
−0.0
21
−0.0
21
−0.0
26
(0.0
24)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
26)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
26)
(0.0
26)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.1
36
**
−0.1
52
**
−0.1
44
**
−0.1
28
**
−0.1
54
**
−0.1
48
**
(0.0
47)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
48)
(0.0
52)
(0.0
52)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
10.0
06
0.0
10
0.0
06
0.0
10
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
01
0.0
01
0.0
02
0.0
02
(0.0
02)
(0.0
02)
(0.0
02)
(0.0
02)
Changed
School
−0.0
76
−0.0
69
−0.0
67
−0.0
60
−0.0
47
−0.0
42
−0.0
40
−0.0
33
(0.0
73)
(0.0
73)
(0.0
73)
(0.0
73)
(0.0
73)
(0.0
73)
(0.0
73)
(0.0
73)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e−
0.0
04
−0.0
02
(0.0
23)
(0.0
24)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
−0.0
22
−0.0
22
(0.0
21)
(0.0
22)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.1
41
**
−0.1
40
**
(0.0
34)
(0.0
35)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0.0
16
0.0
18
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
239
Tab
leA
.8—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rM
athe
mat
ics
Ach
ieve
men
tw
ith
the
Full
Cov
aria
teLis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
Sum
mer
Slo
pe
0.4
73
**
0.4
56
**
0.4
50
**
0.3
97
**
0.5
34
**
0.5
34
**
0.5
34
**
0.5
34
**
(0.0
81)
(0.0
85)
(0.0
85)
(0.0
95)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
55)
Bla
ck
0.0
19
−0.0
03
0.0
02
0.0
14
−0.0
28
−0.0
52
−0.0
49
−0.0
38
(0.1
42)
(0.1
45)
(0.1
45)
(0.1
46)
(0.1
75)
(0.1
77)
(0.1
77)
(0.1
78)
His
panic
0.0
47
0.0
45
0.0
48
0.0
53
0.0
81
0.0
77
0.0
82
0.0
88
(0.1
42)
(0.1
42)
(0.1
42)
(0.1
43)
(0.1
61)
(0.1
61)
(0.1
61)
(0.1
61)
Asi
an
0.5
43
*0.5
43
*0.5
44
*0.5
49
*0.5
81
*0.5
85
*0.5
90
*0.5
89
*(0
.218)
(0.2
18)
(0.2
18)
(0.2
18)
(0.2
33)
(0.2
33)
(0.2
33)
(0.2
34)
Oth
er
−0.0
38
−0.0
47
−0.0
43
−0.0
39
0.0
42
0.0
34
0.0
42
0.0
42
(0.1
79)
(0.1
79)
(0.1
80)
(0.1
80)
(0.2
11)
(0.2
11)
(0.2
11)
(0.2
12)
Socia
lC
lass
0.0
97
m0.1
03
*0.0
95
0.0
99
0.0
28
0.0
36
0.0
31
0.0
35
(0.0
51)
(0.0
52)
(0.0
53)
(0.0
53)
(0.0
57)
(0.0
57)
(0.0
58)
(0.0
58)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
0.0
94
0.0
99
0.0
97
0.0
90
0.1
17
*0.1
24
*0.1
23
*0.1
15
*(0
.054)
(0.0
54)
(0.0
54)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
57)
(0.0
58)
(0.0
58)
(0.0
58)
Fem
ale
0.0
07
0.0
04
0.0
03
0.0
07
0.0
27
0.0
24
0.0
22
0.0
27
(0.0
80)
(0.0
80)
(0.0
80)
(0.0
80)
(0.0
82)
(0.0
82)
(0.0
82)
(0.0
82)
Second
K.
−0.1
23
−0.1
31
−0.1
37
−0.1
38
−0.0
95
−0.1
02
−0.1
06
−0.1
08
(0.2
08)
(0.2
08)
(0.2
08)
(0.2
08)
(0.2
19)
(0.2
19)
(0.2
20)
(0.2
20)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e0.1
56
0.1
70
0.1
65
0.1
73
0.1
16
0.1
36
0.1
32
0.1
49
(0.1
61)
(0.1
63)
(0.1
63)
(0.1
63)
(0.1
73)
(0.1
74)
(0.1
74)
(0.1
75)
Ste
pPare
nt
0.0
18
0.0
48
0.0
45
0.0
83
0.1
06
0.1
01
(0.1
33)
(0.1
34)
(0.1
35)
(0.1
38)
(0.1
39)
(0.1
40)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
0.0
73
0.0
71
0.0
80
0.0
99
0.0
86
0.0
88
(0.0
96)
(0.1
01)
(0.1
02)
(0.0
99)
(0.1
04)
(0.1
05)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re0.0
98
0.0
13
0.0
38
0.1
09
0.0
36
0.0
59
(0.1
87)
(0.1
99)
(0.1
99)
(0.1
91)
(0.2
02)
(0.2
03)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
10.0
21
0.0
21
0.0
32
0.0
35
(0.0
46)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
48)
(0.0
48)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
07
0.0
07
0.0
06
0.0
05
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
Changed
School
0.1
61
0.1
72
0.1
75
0.1
80
0.2
98
*0.3
03
**
0.3
08
**
0.3
05
*(0
.098)
(0.0
98)
(0.0
98)
(0.0
98)
(0.1
13)
(0.1
13)
(0.1
13)
(0.1
13)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.1
68
*0.1
57
*(0
.077)
(0.0
78)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
0.0
27
−0.0
19
(0.0
75)
(0.0
77)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
0.0
12
0.0
34
(0.1
13)
(0.1
13)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
−0. 0
11
−0. 0
29
(0.0
66)
(0.0
67)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
240
Tab
leA
.8—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rM
athe
mat
ics
Ach
ieve
men
tw
ith
the
Full
Cov
aria
teLis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
1s
tG
rade
Slo
pe
2.5
48
**
2.5
65
**
2.5
65
**
2.5
98
**
2.4
00
**
2.4
00
**
2.4
00
**
2.4
01
**
(0.0
30)
(0.0
32)
(0.0
32)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
22)
(0.0
22)
(0.0
22)
(0.0
22)
Bla
ck
−0.2
63
**
−0.2
46
**
−0.2
45
**
−0.2
57
**
−0.1
96
**
−0.1
82
**
−0.1
81
**
−0.1
89
**
(0.0
53)
(0.0
54)
(0.0
54)
(0.0
54)
(0.0
64)
(0.0
65)
(0.0
65)
(0.0
65)
His
panic
−0.1
27
*−
0.1
22
*−
0.1
21
*−
0.1
31
*−
0.1
25
*−
0.1
20
*−
0.1
18
*−
0.1
24
*(0
.051)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
52)
(0.0
57)
(0.0
58)
(0.0
58)
(0.0
58)
Asi
an
−0.3
14
**
−0.3
10
**
−0.3
12
**
−0.3
23
**
−0.2
67
**
−0.2
64
**
−0.2
65
**
−0.2
73
**
(0.0
77)
(0.0
77)
(0.0
77)
(0.0
78)
(0.0
83)
(0.0
83)
(0.0
83)
(0.0
83)
Oth
er
−0.2
04
**
−0.1
93
**
−0.1
92
**
−0.1
94
*−
0.1
30
−0.1
21
−0.1
21
−0.1
22
(0.0
68)
(0.0
68)
(0.0
68)
(0.0
68)
(0.0
78)
(0.0
78)
(0.0
78)
(0.0
78)
Socia
lC
lass
0.0
63
**
0.0
59
**
0.0
57
**
0.0
43
*0.0
79
**
0.0
75
**
0.0
74
**
0.0
61
**
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
0.0
58
**
0.0
54
**
0.0
54
**
0.0
44
*0.0
42
*0.0
38
0.0
38
0.0
30
(0.0
19)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
Fem
ale
−0.1
22
**
−0.1
20
**
−0.1
19
**
−0.1
25
**
−0.1
25
**
−0.1
23
**
−0.1
22
**
−0.1
28
**
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
Second
K.
−0.1
93
*−
0.1
84
*−
0.1
86
*−
0.1
71
*−
0.1
65
*−
0.1
58
*−
0.1
59
*−
0.1
45
(0.0
76)
(0.0
76)
(0.0
76)
(0.0
76)
(0.0
78)
(0.0
78)
(0.0
78)
(0.0
78)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e0.0
38
0.0
22
0.0
21
0.0
00
0.0
29
0.0
14
0.0
14
−0.0
05
(0.0
56)
(0.0
57)
(0.0
57)
(0.0
57)
(0.0
61)
(0.0
61)
(0.0
61)
(0.0
61)
Ste
pPare
nt
−0.0
63
−0.0
61
−0.0
56
−0.0
74
−0.0
72
−0.0
69
(0.0
44)
(0.0
44)
(0.0
45)
(0.0
46)
(0.0
46)
(0.0
46)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.0
39
−0.0
33
−0.0
33
−0.0
34
−0.0
25
−0.0
24
(0.0
33)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
33)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
36)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.1
80
**
−0.1
87
**
−0.1
78
*−
0.1
65
*−
0.1
68
*−
0.1
62
*(0
.067)
(0.0
70)
(0.0
70)
(0.0
68)
(0.0
71)
(0.0
71)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.0
07
−0.0
03
−0.0
13
−0.0
10
(0.0
17)
(0.0
17)
(0.0
17)
(0.0
17)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
01
0.0
01
0.0
01
0.0
01
(0.0
02)
(0.0
02)
(0.0
02)
(0.0
02)
Changed
School
−0.1
07
−0.0
94
−0.0
97
−0.0
88
−0.0
88
−0.0
78
−0.0
81
−0.0
75
(0.0
82)
(0.0
82)
(0.0
82)
(0.0
82)
(0.0
84)
(0.0
84)
(0.0
84)
(0.0
84)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e−
0.0
25
−0.0
31
(0.0
25)
(0.0
26)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
−0.0
09
−0.0
03
(0.0
24)
(0.0
25)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.2
25
**
−0.2
14
**
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0.0
25
0.0
27
(0.0
22)
(0.0
23)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
241
Tab
leA
.8—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rM
athe
mat
ics
Ach
ieve
men
tw
ith
the
Full
Cov
aria
teLis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
2n
d−
3r
dG
rade
Slo
pe
1.2
36
**
1.2
41
**
1.2
44
**
1.2
51
**
1.1
93
**
1.1
93
**
1.1
93
**
1.1
93
**
(0.0
09)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
Bla
ck
−0.1
03
**
−0.0
93
**
−0.0
93
**
−0.0
99
**
−0.0
98
**
−0.0
91
**
−0.0
91
**
−0.0
96
**
(0.0
17)
(0.0
17)
(0.0
17)
(0.0
17)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
His
panic
0.0
02
0.0
04
0.0
02
−0.0
05
0.0
03
0.0
05
0.0
02
−0.0
02
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
Asi
an
0.0
78
**
0.0
80
**
0.0
80
**
0.0
74
**
0.0
72
*0.0
74
**
0.0
73
**
0.0
68
**
(0.0
23)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
Oth
er
0.0
02
0.0
05
0.0
05
0.0
06
0.0
24
0.0
26
0.0
26
0.0
25
(0.0
22)
(0.0
22)
(0.0
22)
(0.0
22)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
Socia
lC
lass
0.0
33
**
0.0
32
**
0.0
34
**
0.0
27
**
0.0
29
**
0.0
28
**
0.0
29
**
0.0
23
**
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
0.0
02
0.0
02
0.0
02
−0.0
04
0.0
02
0.0
02
0.0
02
−0.0
04
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
Fem
ale
−0.0
64
**
−0.0
63
**
−0.0
63
**
−0.0
66
**
−0.0
61
**
−0.0
60
**
−0.0
60
**
−0.0
63
**
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
Second
K.
−0.1
02
**
−0.1
01
**
−0.0
98
**
−0.0
91
**
−0.1
08
**
−0.1
07
**
−0.1
05
**
−0.0
98
**
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e0.0
17
0.0
12
0.0
14
0.0
03
0.0
18
0.0
15
0.0
16
0.0
07
(0.0
17)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
Ste
pPare
nt
0.0
12
0.0
07
0.0
08
0.0
13
0.0
08
0.0
08
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.0
29
*−
0.0
23
m−
0.0
21
−0.0
25
*−
0.0
21
−0.0
20
(0.0
11)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
13)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.0
41
−0.0
26
−0.0
13
−0.0
32
−0.0
16
−0.0
05
(0.0
23)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.0
12
−0.0
09
−0.0
09
−0.0
07
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
(0.0
06)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
−0.0
02
*−
0.0
02
*−
0.0
02
*−
0.0
02
*(0
.001)
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
Changed
School
−0.0
13
−0.0
13
−0.0
13
−0.0
12
−0.0
15
−0.0
15
−0.0
15
−0.0
15
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
11)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.0
11
0.0
10
(0.0
10)
(0.0
11)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
−0.0
03
−0.0
01
(0.0
10)
(0.0
10)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.1
16
**
−0.1
10
**
(0.0
15)
(0.0
16)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0.0
26
*0.0
27
*(0
.011)
(0.0
11)
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
242
A.3 Supplementary Reading Achievement Tables
Table A.9. Proportion Reduction in Coefficient Magnitude Between Models for ReadingAchievement
Non-Centered Centered
A-D B-E C-F C-G A-D B-E C-F C-GInitial Status
Black 0.796 0.638Hispanic 0.436 0.400Asian -2.102 -1.462Other Race 0.462 0.767Social class 0.223 0.209Concerted Cultivation 0.296 0.459 0.266 0.433Second K. -0.368 -0.159 -0.272 -0.405 -0.283 -0.103 -0.290 -0.481Age at K. Entry 0.013 0.037 -0.031 -0.101 0.012 0.021 -0.016 -0.062
Kindergarten SlopeBlack 0.190 0.178Hispanic 0.565 0.526Asian -0.632 -0.597Other Race 0.557 0.395Social class 0.157 0.133Concerted Cultivation 0.470 0.739 0.399 0.665Second K. 0.030 0.007 0.071 0.152 0.035 0.011 0.074 0.158Changed School 0.243 0.159 0.023 0.173 0.272 0.182 0.047 0.219
Summer SlopeBlack -2.047 -0.340Hispanic -0.823 -0.419Asian -0.196 -0.144Other Race -1.869 -0.124Social class 0.064 0.044Concerted Cultivation 0.289 0.601 0.164 0.525Second K. 0.086 -0.008 0.113 0.231 0.075 0.009 0.170 0.326Changed School 0.155 0.095 -0.293 -0.045 40.096 0.683 1.298 1.075
1st Grade SlopeBlack 0.217 0.245Hispanic 0.288 0.413Asian 0.691 1.831Other Race 0.261 0.661Social class 0.241 0.220Concerted Cultivation 0.370 0.535 0.317 0.502Second K. 0.042 0.023 0.073 0.169 0.029 0.011 0.052 0.147Changed School 0.011 -0.021 0.121 0.241 0.014 -0.013 0.093 0.195
2nd − 3rd Grade SlopeBlack 0.052 0.035Hispanic 0.197 0.323Asian 0.036 0.029Other Race 0.010 0.007Social class 1.303 -29.538Concerted Cultivation 0.693 1.050 0.473 0.924Second K. 0.039 0.066 -0.003 0.136 0.022 0.036 -0.036 0.066Changed School 0.154 0.171 0.205 0.399 0.110 0.120 0.068 0.193
Note: Column headings refer to the proportion change for coefficients between models for tables 7.2 and 7.3.
243
Table A.10. Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Coeffi-cients for Table 7.2, Reading Achievement
Model
A B C D E F G
Initial StatusBlack −0.239 ** −0.049 0.026 0.041Hispanic −0.419 ** −0.236 ** −0.166 ** −0.134 **Asian 0.118 * 0.365 ** 0.303 ** 0.346 **Other Race −0.176 ** −0.095 * −0.087 m −0.060Social class 0.373 ** 0.290 ** 0.276 ** 0.233 **Concerted Cultivation 0.319 ** 0.323 ** 0.214 ** 0.224 ** 0.173 **Second K. 0.141 ** 0.185 ** 0.177 ** 0.193 ** 0.214 ** 0.225 ** 0.248 **Age at K. Entry 0.035 ** 0.038 ** 0.035 ** 0.034 ** 0.036 ** 0.036 ** 0.038 **
Kindergarten SlopeBlack −0.275 ** −0.223 ** −0.194 ** −0.171 **Hispanic −0.126 ** −0.055 −0.022 −0.025Asian 0.127 * 0.207 ** 0.183 ** 0.177 **Other Race −0.056 −0.025 −0.011 −0.001Social class 0.147 ** 0.123 ** 0.110 ** 0.093 **Concerted Cultivation 0.103 ** 0.095 ** 0.057 ** 0.054 ** 0.027Second K. −0.356 ** −0.331 ** −0.352 ** −0.345 ** −0.328 ** −0.327 ** −0.298 **Changed School −0.215 * −0.207 * −0.170 −0.163 −0.174 −0.166 −0.141
Summer SlopeBlack 0.026 0.080 0.109 0.115Hispanic 0.061 0.111 0.136 0.145Asian 0.372 ** 0.444 ** 0.419 ** 0.414 **Other Race 0.011 0.031 0.032 0.026Social class 0.123 ** 0.115 ** 0.113 ** 0.113 **Concerted Cultivation 0.058 * 0.084 ** 0.014 0.041 0.023Second K. −0.130 −0.097 −0.116 −0.119 −0.098 −0.103 −0.089Changed School −0.054 −0.086 −0.054 −0.046 −0.078 −0.069 −0.056
1st Grade SlopeBlack −0.311 ** −0.244 ** −0.216 ** −0.213 **Hispanic −0.279 ** −0.198 ** −0.169 ** −0.170 **Asian −0.142 * −0.044 −0.067 −0.061Other Race −0.118 * −0.087 −0.079 −0.069Social class 0.153 ** 0.116 ** 0.106 ** 0.084 **Concerted Cultivation 0.145 ** 0.128 ** 0.106 ** 0.092 ** 0.068 **Second K. −0.372 ** −0.354 ** −0.366 ** −0.356 ** −0.346 ** −0.339 ** −0.304 **Changed School −0.308 ** −0.271 ** −0.311 ** −0.305 ** −0.277 ** −0.273 ** −0.236 **
2nd − 3rd Grade SlopeBlack −0.262 ** −0.248 ** −0.246 ** −0.257 **Hispanic −0.080 * −0.064 * −0.063 m −0.078 *Asian −0.401 ** −0.387 ** −0.385 ** −0.397 **Other Race −0.219 ** −0.217 ** −0.219 ** −0.218 **Social class 0.014 −0.004 −0.003 −0.024Concerted Cultivation 0.045 ** 0.014 0.046 ** 0.014 −0.002Second K. −0.079 −0.084 −0.077 −0.076 −0.078 −0.078 −0.067Changed School −0.052 * −0.073 ** −0.059 * −0.044 −0.061 * −0.047 m −0.035
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Partially-Standardized with respect to the outcome regression coefficients are calculatedfrom bsy = b
sψ, where b is the regression coefficient and sψ is the between-child variance compo-
nent for the growth parameter from the null model presented in table 7.1.
244
Table A.11. Partially-Standardized with Respect to the Outcome Regression Coeffi-cients for Table 7.3, Reading Achievement, Group-Mean Centered
Model
A B C D E F GInitial Status
Black −0.204 ** −0.074 −0.030 −0.020Hispanic −0.350 ** −0.210 ** −0.161 ** −0.132 **Asian 0.130 * 0.320 ** 0.269 ** 0.310 **Other Race −0.105 * −0.024 −0.005 0.011Social class 0.296 ** 0.234 ** 0.222 ** 0.192 **Concerted Cultivation 0.261 ** 0.262 ** 0.185 ** 0.192 ** 0.148 **Second K. 0.135 * 0.181 ** 0.161 ** 0.173 ** 0.200 ** 0.207 ** 0.238 **Age at K. Entry 0.036 ** 0.037 ** 0.036 ** 0.035 ** 0.036 ** 0.036 ** 0.038 **
Kindergarten SlopeBlack −0.253 ** −0.208 ** −0.185 ** −0.166 **Hispanic −0.114 ** −0.054 −0.026 −0.030Asian 0.123 * 0.197 ** 0.170 ** 0.156 *Other Race −0.075 −0.046 −0.035 −0.025Social class 0.147 ** 0.127 ** 0.118 ** 0.101 **Concerted Cultivation 0.097 ** 0.096 ** 0.056 ** 0.058 ** 0.032 *Second K. −0.358 ** −0.327 ** −0.349 ** −0.346 ** −0.324 ** −0.323 ** −0.294 **Changed School −0.180 −0.164 −0.136 −0.131 −0.134 −0.129 −0.106
Summer SlopeBlack 0.108 0.145 0.166 0.155Hispanic 0.090 0.128 0.147 0.159Asian 0.391 ** 0.448 ** 0.430 ** 0.433 **Other Race 0.181 0.203 0.211 0.203Social class 0.108 ** 0.104 ** 0.102 ** 0.105 **Concerted Cultivation 0.047 0.070 * 0.014 0.039 0.022Second K. −0.112 −0.082 −0.102 −0.104 −0.082 −0.084 −0.069Changed School 0.000 −0.011 0.008 0.008 −0.003 −0.002 −0.001
1st Grade SlopeBlack −0.193 ** −0.146 ** −0.130 * −0.123 *Hispanic −0.147 ** −0.086 −0.064 −0.079Asian −0.040 0.033 0.012 −0.010Other Race −0.045 −0.015 −0.004 0.003Social class 0.118 ** 0.092 ** 0.087 ** 0.068 **Concerted Cultivation 0.105 ** 0.100 ** 0.075 ** 0.072 ** 0.053 **Second K. −0.371 ** −0.352 ** −0.365 ** −0.360 ** −0.348 ** −0.346 ** −0.311 **Changed School −0.277 ** −0.240 ** −0.272 ** −0.273 ** −0.243 ** −0.247 ** −0.219 *
2nd − 3rd Grade SlopeBlack −0.193 ** −0.186 ** −0.187 ** −0.199 **Hispanic −0.027 −0.018 −0.019 −0.025Asian −0.346 ** −0.336 ** −0.334 ** −0.341 **Other Race −0.127 * −0.127 * −0.127 * −0.130 *Social class 0.000 −0.012 −0.007 −0.025Concerted Cultivation 0.031 * 0.014 0.036 * 0.016 0.002Second K. −0.089 −0.090 −0.085 −0.087 −0.087 −0.088 −0.079Changed School −0.079 ** −0.088 ** −0.077 ** −0.070 * −0.077 ** −0.071 ** −0.062 *
‘m’ p < .06, ‘*’ p < .05, ‘**’ p < .01Note: Partially-Standardized with respect to the outcome regression coefficients are calculatedfrom bsy = b
sψ, where b is the regression coefficient and sψ is the between-child variance compo-
nent for the growth parameter from the null model presented in table 7.1.
245
Tab
leA
.12.
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rR
eadi
ngA
chie
vem
ent
wit
hth
eFu
llC
ovar
iate
Lis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
Init
ialSta
tus
22.9
66
**
23.1
70
**
23.3
76
**
21.6
86
**
23.2
20
**
23.2
22
**
23.2
25
**
23.2
20
**
(0.1
60)
(0.1
68)
(0.1
68)
(0.3
19)
(0.1
62)
(0.1
62)
(0.1
62)
(0.1
62)
Bla
ck
0.0
91
0.2
70
0.4
86
0.3
50
−0.3
92
−0.2
40
−0.0
86
−0.1
69
(0.2
93)
(0.3
00)
(0.2
99)
(0.3
01)
(0.3
65)
(0.3
69)
(0.3
70)
(0.3
73)
His
panic
−1.1
13
**
−1.0
73
**
−1.0
39
**
−1.1
31
**
−1.1
46
**
−1.1
09
**
−1.0
70
**
−1.1
13
**
(0.2
82)
(0.2
82)
(0.2
81)
(0.2
80)
(0.3
16)
(0.3
16)
(0.3
16)
(0.3
16)
Asi
an
3.0
59
**
3.0
50
**
3.0
05
**
2.9
29
**
2.7
19
**
2.7
05
**
2.6
99
**
2.6
25
**
(0.4
26)
(0.4
26)
(0.4
25)
(0.4
25)
(0.4
58)
(0.4
58)
(0.4
57)
(0.4
58)
Oth
er
−0.7
25
m−
0.6
47
−0.5
08
−0.5
09
−0.0
49
0.0
18
0.1
27
0.0
91
(0.3
80)
(0.3
81)
(0.3
79)
(0.3
76)
(0.4
33)
(0.4
34)
(0.4
33)
(0.4
32)
Socia
lC
lass
2.3
48
**
2.2
93
**
2.1
90
**
1.9
72
**
1.8
86
**
1.8
38
**
1.7
84
**
1.6
26
**
(0.1
03)
(0.1
04)
(0.1
05)
(0.1
08)
(0.1
12)
(0.1
13)
(0.1
14)
(0.1
16)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
1.7
48
**
1.7
00
**
1.6
47
**
1.4
59
**
1.4
66
**
1.4
26
**
1.4
00
**
1.2
52
**
(0.1
10)
(0.1
11)
(0.1
11)
(0.1
13)
(0.1
17)
(0.1
18)
(0.1
18)
(0.1
19)
Age
at
K.Entr
y0.3
13
**
0.3
15
**
0.3
26
**
0.3
25
**
0.3
17
**
0.3
17
**
0.3
24
**
0.3
19
**
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
Fem
ale
0.9
43
**
0.9
60
**
0.9
64
**
0.9
84
**
1.0
09
**
1.0
24
**
1.0
25
**
1.0
39
**
(0.1
61)
(0.1
61)
(0.1
61)
(0.1
61)
(0.1
65)
(0.1
65)
(0.1
65)
(0.1
65)
Second
K.
1.9
82
**
2.0
09
**
1.9
26
**
2.0
98
**
1.8
39
**
1.8
69
**
1.8
29
**
2.0
15
**
(0.4
27)
(0.4
26)
(0.4
24)
(0.4
22)
(0.4
42)
(0.4
42)
(0.4
40)
(0.4
40)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e−
1.1
83
**
−1.3
25
**
−1.4
03
**
−1.6
65
**
−1.2
16
**
−1.3
40
**
−1.3
83
**
−1.5
63
**
(0.3
43)
(0.3
45)
(0.3
44)
(0.3
49)
(0.3
64)
(0.3
65)
(0.3
65)
(0.3
69)
Ste
pPare
nt
−0.9
25
**
−0.8
01
*−
0.7
73
*−
0.7
38
*−
0.7
05
*−
0.6
99
*(0
.317)
(0.3
20)
(0.3
20)
(0.3
25)
(0.3
29)
(0.3
29)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.6
37
**
0.0
80
0.0
47
−0.6
27
**
−0.0
25
−0.0
48
(0.2
21)
(0.2
31)
(0.2
37)
(0.2
29)
(0.2
38)
(0.2
43)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.7
65
−1.3
37
**
−1.3
26
**
−0.6
45
−0.8
73
−0.9
07
m(0
.428)
(0.4
64)
(0.4
62)
(0.4
38)
(0.4
76)
(0.4
74)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
1.1
22
**
−1.0
71
**
−1.0
01
**
−0.9
64
**
(0.1
08)
(0.1
11)
(0.1
11)
(0.1
13)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
56
**
0.0
53
**
0.0
28
0.0
27
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.4
53
*0.3
27
(0.2
25)
(0.2
30)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
0.8
62
**
0.7
79
**
(0.2
28)
(0.2
36)
Moth
er
Work
ed
Pri
or
toC
.B
irth
0.0
89
0.1
57
(0.2
03)
(0.2
09)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.7
06
*−
0.6
04
m(0
.297)
(0.3
10)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0.9
54
**
0.8
06
**
(0.1
87)
(0.1
94)
Hom
eB
ase
dC
are
0.7
21
**
0.6
38
*(0
.250)
(0.2
56)
Head
Sta
rt−
0.0
65
0.1
01
(0.3
28)
(0.3
47)
Cente
r-B
ase
dC
are
1.9
15
**
1.6
39
**
(0.2
25)
(0.2
39)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
246
Tab
leA
.12—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rR
eadi
ngA
chie
vem
ent
wit
hth
eFu
llC
ovar
iate
Lis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
Kin
derg
art
en
Slo
pe
1.8
49
**
1.8
72
**
1.8
80
**
1.8
89
**
1.8
68
**
1.8
68
**
1.8
69
**
1.8
68
**
(0.0
23)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
28)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
(0.0
18)
Bla
ck
−0.1
90
**
−0.1
61
**
−0.1
53
**
−0.1
60
**
−0.1
79
**
−0.1
53
**
−0.1
46
**
−0.1
55
**
(0.0
39)
(0.0
40)
(0.0
40)
(0.0
40)
(0.0
46)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
His
panic
−0.0
22
−0.0
16
−0.0
15
−0.0
23
−0.0
30
−0.0
25
−0.0
22
−0.0
28
(0.0
37)
(0.0
37)
(0.0
37)
(0.0
37)
(0.0
40)
(0.0
40)
(0.0
41)
(0.0
41)
Asi
an
0.1
64
**
0.1
65
**
0.1
69
**
0.1
66
**
0.1
44
*0.1
45
*0.1
48
*0.1
46
*(0
.055)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
59)
(0.0
59)
(0.0
59)
(0.0
59)
Oth
er
−0.0
15
−0.0
05
0.0
00
−0.0
01
−0.0
36
−0.0
27
−0.0
22
−0.0
23
(0.0
51)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
51)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
Socia
lC
lass
0.1
05
**
0.0
99
**
0.0
95
**
0.0
87
**
0.1
13
**
0.1
06
**
0.1
03
**
0.0
95
**
(0.0
13)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
0.0
40
**
0.0
35
*0.0
33
*0.0
25
0.0
44
**
0.0
39
**
0.0
38
*0.0
30
*(0
.014)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
15)
Fem
ale
0.1
09
**
0.1
11
**
0.1
12
**
0.1
11
**
0.1
05
**
0.1
07
**
0.1
07
**
0.1
06
**
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
Second
K.
−0.2
91
**
−0.2
86
**
−0.2
86
**
−0.2
79
**
−0.2
88
**
−0.2
81
**
−0.2
82
**
−0.2
75
**
(0.0
55)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
58)
(0.0
57)
(0.0
58)
(0.0
58)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e−
0.0
02
−0.0
18
−0.0
19
−0.0
28
0.0
15
−0.0
01
−0.0
02
−0.0
08
(0.0
45)
(0.0
45)
(0.0
45)
(0.0
45)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
47)
(0.0
48)
Ste
pPare
nt
−0.0
43
−0.0
42
−0.0
41
−0.0
47
−0.0
42
−0.0
42
(0.0
40)
(0.0
41)
(0.0
41)
(0.0
41)
(0.0
42)
(0.0
41)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.0
94
**
−0.0
70
*−
0.0
71
*−
0.0
89
**
−0.0
67
*−
0.0
69
*(0
.028)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
30)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.1
26
*−
0.1
41
*−
0.1
32
*−
0.1
29
*−
0.1
52
*−
0.1
44
*(0
.055)
(0.0
59)
(0.0
59)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
60)
(0.0
60)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.0
42
**
−0.0
39
**
−0.0
37
*−
0.0
34
*(0
.014)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
01
0.0
01
0.0
02
0.0
02
(0.0
02)
(0.0
02)
(0.0
02)
(0.0
02)
Changed
School
−0.1
60
−0.1
51
−0.1
39
−0.1
32
−0.1
25
−0.1
18
−0.1
07
−0.0
99
(0.0
90)
(0.0
89)
(0.0
89)
(0.0
89)
(0.0
90)
(0.0
90)
(0.0
90)
(0.0
90)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.0
39
0.0
42
(0.0
27)
(0.0
28)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
−0.0
15
−0.0
20
(0.0
25)
(0.0
25)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.1
42
**
−0.1
44
**
(0.0
40)
(0.0
40)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0. 0
07
0.0
03
(0.0
24)
(0.0
25)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
247
Tab
leA
.12—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rR
eadi
ngA
chie
vem
ent
wit
hth
eFu
llC
ovar
iate
Lis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
Sum
mer
Slo
pe
−0.3
11
**
−0.2
87
**
−0.2
66
**
−0.3
38
**
−0.1
79
**
−0.1
79
**
−0.1
79
**
−0.1
80
**
(0.0
82)
(0.0
87)
(0.0
87)
(0.0
99)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
Bla
ck
0.1
92
0.1
98
0.2
10
0.2
12
0.2
86
0.2
72
0.2
82
0.2
85
(0.1
43)
(0.1
46)
(0.1
46)
(0.1
47)
(0.1
77)
(0.1
79)
(0.1
80)
(0.1
80)
His
panic
0.2
70
0.2
72
0.2
73
0.2
68
0.2
91
0.2
90
0.2
93
0.2
92
(0.1
47)
(0.1
47)
(0.1
47)
(0.1
48)
(0.1
65)
(0.1
65)
(0.1
65)
(0.1
66)
Asi
an
0.7
99
**
0.7
90
**
0.7
81
**
0.7
62
**
0.8
30
**
0.8
24
**
0.8
19
**
0.7
97
**
(0.2
25)
(0.2
25)
(0.2
25)
(0.2
26)
(0.2
40)
(0.2
41)
(0.2
41)
(0.2
41)
Oth
er
0.0
60
0.0
63
0.0
63
0.0
48
0.3
83
0.3
82
0.3
82
0.3
73
(0.1
80)
(0.1
80)
(0.1
80)
(0.1
81)
(0.2
13)
(0.2
13)
(0.2
14)
(0.2
14)
Socia
lC
lass
0.2
13
**
0.2
09
**
0.2
08
**
0.2
09
**
0.1
92
**
0.1
93
**
0.1
93
**
0.1
94
**
(0.0
53)
(0.0
54)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
55)
(0.0
58)
(0.0
59)
(0.0
60)
(0.0
60)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
0.0
61
0.0
54
0.0
51
0.0
43
0.0
52
0.0
50
0.0
49
0.0
41
(0.0
55)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
59)
(0.0
59)
(0.0
59)
(0.0
60)
Fem
ale
0.1
27
0.1
29
0.1
32
0.1
33
0.1
42
0.1
41
0.1
44
0.1
46
(0.0
83)
(0.0
83)
(0.0
83)
(0.0
83)
(0.0
84)
(0.0
84)
(0.0
85)
(0.0
85)
Second
K.
−0.1
77
−0.1
77
−0.1
73
−0.1
64
−0.1
36
−0.1
40
−0.1
37
−0.1
26
(0.2
26)
(0.2
26)
(0.2
25)
(0.2
26)
(0.2
35)
(0.2
35)
(0.2
34)
(0.2
34)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e−
0.0
86
−0.1
00
−0.1
03
−0.1
29
−0.1
41
−0.1
42
−0.1
43
−0.1
60
(0.1
76)
(0.1
77)
(0.1
77)
(0.1
78)
(0.1
88)
(0.1
88)
(0.1
89)
(0.1
89)
Ste
pPare
nt
−0.1
82
−0.1
93
−0.1
91
−0.1
30
−0.1
45
−0.1
46
(0.1
43)
(0.1
45)
(0.1
46)
(0.1
48)
(0.1
50)
(0.1
52)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.0
35
0.0
14
0.0
28
0.0
43
0.0
88
0.0
99
(0.1
03)
(0.1
08)
(0.1
09)
(0.1
07)
(0.1
12)
(0.1
13)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.0
54
−0.0
35
−0.0
21
0.0
35
0.0
70
0.0
84
(0.1
95)
(0.2
09)
(0.2
10)
(0.1
99)
(0.2
13)
(0.2
15)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.0
93
−0.0
99
*−
0.0
87
−0.0
91
(0.0
50)
(0.0
50)
(0.0
52)
(0.0
52)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
−0.0
02
−0.0
02
−0.0
02
−0.0
03
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
(0.0
07)
Changed
School
−0.1
33
−0.1
14
−0.1
16
−0.1
03
−0.0
04
0.0
05
0.0
00
−0.0
01
(0.1
16)
(0.1
16)
(0.1
16)
(0.1
16)
(0.1
36)
(0.1
36)
(0.1
36)
(0.1
36)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.0
87
0.0
77
(0.0
87)
(0.0
91)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
0.1
62
m0.1
32
(0.0
84)
(0.0
86)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.0
51
−0.0
39
(0.1
23)
(0.1
25)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0. 0
54
0.0
64
(0.0
78)
(0.0
81)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
248
Tab
leA
.12—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rR
eadi
ngA
chie
vem
ent
wit
hth
eFu
llC
ovar
iate
Lis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
1s
tG
rade
Slo
pe
3.4
39
**
3.4
60
**
3.4
63
**
3.5
20
**
3.3
67
**
3.3
67
**
3.3
67
**
3.3
68
**
(0.0
37)
(0.0
38)
(0.0
39)
(0.0
42)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
Bla
ck
−0.3
04
**
−0.2
75
**
−0.2
72
**
−0.2
89
**
−0.1
77
*−
0.1
53
*−
0.1
52
*−
0.1
67
*(0
.063)
(0.0
64)
(0.0
64)
(0.0
64)
(0.0
74)
(0.0
75)
(0.0
75)
(0.0
75)
His
panic
−0.2
22
**
−0.2
15
**
−0.2
17
**
−0.2
31
**
−0.1
01
−0.0
94
−0.0
97
−0.1
08
(0.0
61)
(0.0
61)
(0.0
61)
(0.0
61)
(0.0
67)
(0.0
67)
(0.0
67)
(0.0
67)
Asi
an
−0.0
80
−0.0
74
−0.0
68
−0.0
82
−0.0
10
−0.0
04
0.0
00
−0.0
13
(0.0
91)
(0.0
91)
(0.0
91)
(0.0
91)
(0.0
96)
(0.0
96)
(0.0
96)
(0.0
96)
Oth
er
−0.1
11
−0.0
99
−0.0
94
−0.0
94
−0.0
08
0.0
04
0.0
06
0.0
04
(0.0
80)
(0.0
80)
(0.0
80)
(0.0
80)
(0.0
90)
(0.0
90)
(0.0
90)
(0.0
90)
Socia
lC
lass
0.1
45
**
0.1
39
**
0.1
38
**
0.1
15
**
0.1
20
**
0.1
15
**
0.1
16
**
0.0
92
**
(0.0
22)
(0.0
22)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
25)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
0.1
16
**
0.1
12
**
0.1
11
**
0.0
92
**
0.0
93
**
0.0
90
**
0.0
90
**
0.0
72
**
(0.0
23)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
Fem
ale
0.0
73
*0.0
74
*0.0
74
*0.0
64
0.0
67
m0.0
69
*0.0
69
*0.0
59
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
(0.0
35)
Second
K.
−0.4
52
**
−0.4
42
*−
0.4
41
**
−0.4
14
**
−0.4
61
**
−0.4
52
**
−0.4
50
**
−0.4
23
**
(0.0
88)
(0.0
88)
(0.0
88)
(0.0
88)
(0.0
92)
(0.0
92)
(0.0
92)
(0.0
91)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e−
0.0
35
−0.0
53
−0.0
52
−0.0
81
0.0
47
0.0
31
0.0
32
0.0
03
(0.0
70)
(0.0
70)
(0.0
70)
(0.0
70)
(0.0
74)
(0.0
74)
(0.0
74)
(0.0
74)
Ste
pPare
nt
−0.0
41
−0.0
40
−0.0
34
−0.0
31
−0.0
34
−0.0
30
(0.0
55)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
56)
(0.0
57)
(0.0
58)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.0
76
−0.0
66
−0.0
65
−0.0
64
−0.0
57
−0.0
56
(0.0
40)
(0.0
43)
(0.0
43)
(0.0
42)
(0.0
44)
(0.0
44)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re−
0.1
98
*−
0.2
06
*−
0.1
81
*−
0.1
82
*−
0.1
78
*−
0.1
59
(0.0
84)
(0.0
88)
(0.0
88)
(0.0
85)
(0.0
89)
(0.0
90)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.0
15
−0.0
09
−0.0
14
−0.0
08
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
00
0.0
00
−0.0
01
−0.0
01
(0.0
03)
(0.0
03)
(0.0
03)
(0.0
03)
Changed
School
−0.3
76
**
−0.3
59
*−
0.3
55
**
−0.3
21
**
−0.3
37
**
−0.3
28
**
−0.3
25
**
−0.2
98
*(0
.113)
(0.1
13)
(0.1
13)
(0.1
12)
(0.1
16)
(0.1
16)
(0.1
16)
(0.1
15)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.0
01
−0.0
20
(0.0
33)
(0.0
33)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
−0.0
43
−0.0
38
(0.0
32)
(0.0
34)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.4
10
**
−0.4
06
**
(0.0
44)
(0.0
44)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0.0
21
0.0
36
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
Note
:Table
conti
nued
on
nex
tpage.
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
249
Tab
leA
.12—
Con
tinu
ed:
Supp
lem
enta
ryM
odel
sfo
rR
eadi
ngA
chie
vem
ent
wit
hth
eFu
llC
ovar
iate
Lis
tN
on
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Gro
up-M
ean
Cente
red
Coeffi
cie
nts
HI
JK
(G)1
HI
JK
(G)1
2n
d−
3r
dG
rade
Slo
pe
1.6
32
**
1.6
26
**
1.6
28
**
1.6
37
**
1.5
77
**
1.5
77
**
1.5
77
**
1.5
77
**
(0.0
12)
(0.0
13)
(0.0
13)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
Bla
ck
−0.1
47
**
−0.1
46
**
−0.1
43
**
−0.1
53
**
−0.1
12
**
−0.1
14
**
−0.1
11
**
−0.1
18
**
(0.0
22)
(0.0
22)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
23)
(0.0
27)
(0.0
27)
(0.0
27)
(0.0
27)
His
panic
−0.0
35
−0.0
35
−0.0
35
−0.0
47
*−
0.0
09
−0.0
10
−0.0
08
−0.0
15
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
21)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
Asi
an
−0.2
27
**
−0.2
26
**
−0.2
27
**
−0.2
36
**
−0.1
95
**
−0.1
95
**
−0.1
95
**
−0.2
03
**
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
33)
(0.0
33)
(0.0
33)
(0.0
33)
Oth
er
−0.1
30
**
−0.1
32
**
−0.1
31
**
−0.1
29
**
−0.0
76
*−
0.0
78
*−
0.0
77
*−
0.0
77
*(0
.029)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
29)
(0.0
33)
(0.0
33)
(0.0
33)
(0.0
33)
Socia
lC
lass
−0.0
02
−0.0
01
−0.0
03
−0.0
14
−0.0
04
−0.0
03
−0.0
05
−0.0
15
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
09)
Concert
ed
Cult
ivati
on
0.0
08
0.0
09
0.0
08
−0.0
01
0.0
09
0.0
11
0.0
10
0.0
01
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
(0.0
09)
Fem
ale
0.0
00
−0.0
01
0.0
00
−0.0
05
0.0
02
0.0
02
0.0
02
−0.0
03
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
(0.0
12)
Second
K.
−0.0
47
−0.0
48
−0.0
49
−0.0
40
−0.0
52
−0.0
54
−0.0
56
−0.0
47
(0.0
32)
(0.0
32)
(0.0
32)
(0.0
33)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
(0.0
34)
Non-E
nglish
Lang.
at
Hom
e−
0.0
05
−0.0
01
−0.0
02
−0.0
19
−0.0
09
−0.0
03
−0.0
03
−0.0
17
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
24)
(0.0
25)
(0.0
26)
(0.0
26)
(0.0
26)
Ste
pPare
nt
0.0
49
*0.0
56
*0.0
60
**
0.0
51
*0.0
58
**
0.0
61
**
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
(0.0
20)
Sin
gle
Pare
nt
−0.0
06
0.0
11
0.0
15
0.0
04
0.0
20
0.0
24
(0.0
15)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
15)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
17)
Oth
er
Fam
ily
Str
uctu
re0.0
44
0.0
31
0.0
54
0.0
51
0.0
36
0.0
56
(0.0
30)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
32)
(0.0
31)
(0.0
32)
(0.0
33)
Child/A
dult
Rati
o-
1−
0.0
21
**
−0.0
18
*−
0.0
20
**
−0.0
18
*(0
.008)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
(0.0
08)
Moth
er’
sA
ge
(cente
red)
0.0
02
0.0
01
0.0
02
0.0
02
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
(0.0
01)
Changed
School
−0.0
28
m−
0.0
28
m−
0.0
24
−0.0
21
−0.0
42
**
−0.0
43
**
−0.0
38
*−
0.0
37
*(0
.014)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
14)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
(0.0
16)
Moth
er
Work
sPart
-Tim
e0.0
23
0.0
24
(0.0
13)
(0.0
14)
Moth
er
Doesn
’tW
ork
−0.0
04
0.0
04
(0.0
15)
(0.0
16)
Hig
hSchoolor
Less
Ed.
Expecta
tions
−0.1
87
**
−0.1
75
**
(0.0
19)
(0.0
19)
Gra
duate
SchoolEd.
Expecta
tions
0.0
39
**
0.0
43
*(0
.013)
(0.0
14)
‘m’p
<.0
6,‘*
’p
<.0
5,‘*
*’p
<.0
11
Model
’G’in
main
-chapte
ranaly
ses.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abadie, Alberto, David Drukker, Jane Leber Herr, and Guido W. Imbens. 2004. “Im-plementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects in Stata.” StataJournal 4:290–311.
Aitkin, Murray. 1999. “A General Maximum Likelihood Analysis of Variance Compo-nents in Generalized Linear Models.” Biometrics 55:117–128.
Alexander, Karl L. 1997. “Public Schools and the Public Good.” Social Forces 76:1–30.
Alexander, Karl L., Doris R. Entwisle, and Susan L. Dauber. 1993. “First Grade Class-room Behavior: Its Short and Long-Term Consequences for School Performance.”Child Development 64:801–814.
Alexander, Karl L., Doris R. Entwisle, and Carrie S. Horsey. 1997. “From First GradeForward: Early Foundations of High School Dropout.” Sociology of Education70:87–107.
Alexander, Karl L., Doris R. Entwisle, and S. Linda Olson. 2001. “Schools, Achieve-ment, and Inequality: A Seasonal Perspective.” Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis 23:171–191.
Allison, Paul D. 2001. Missing Data, volume 136 of Quantitative Applications in theSocial Sciences. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Alwin, Duane. 1984. “Trends in Parental Socialization Values.” American Journal ofSociology 90:359–382.
Anderson, Larui M. and Et Al. 2003. “The Effectiveness of Early Childhood DevelopmentPrograms.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 24:32–46.
Applebee, Arthur N., Judith A. Langer, and Ina V.S. Mullis. 1988. Who Reads Best?Factors Related to Reading Achievement in Grades 3, 7, and 11 . Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.
Aschaffenburg, Karen and Ineke Maas. 1997. “Cultural and Educational Careers: TheDynamics of Social Reproduction.” American Sociological Review 62:57387.
251
Barnett, W. Steven. 1998. “Long-Term Cognitive and Academic Effects of Early Child-hood Education on Children in Poverty.” Preventive Medicine 27:204–207.
Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital . New York: Columbia University Press for theNational Bureau of Economic Research, 1st ed. edition.
Boardman, Jason D., Daniel A. Powers, Yolanda C. Padilla, and Robert A. Hummer.2002. “Lower Birth Weight, Social Factors, and Developental Outcomes amongChildren in the United States.” Demography 39:353–368.
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley Series inProbability and Mathematical Statistics Applied Probability and Statistics. NewYork: Wiley.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977a. “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.” In Powerand Ideology in Education, edited by Jerome Karabel and A. H. Haley, pp. 487–511.New York: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977b. Outline of the Theory of Practice. Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Researchfor the Sociology of Culture, edited by John Richardson, pp. 241–258. New York:Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society,and Culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America: EducationalReform and Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books.
Bradley, Robert H. 1985. “The Home Inventory: Rational and Research.” In RecentResearch in Developmental Psychopathology, Book Supplement to the Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, edited by J. Lachenmeyer and M. Gibbs, pp.191–201. New York.
Bradley, Robert H. and Robert F. Corwyn. 2002. “Socioeconomic Status and ChildDevelopment.” Annual Review of Psychology 53:371–399.
Bradley, Robert H., Robert F. Corwyn, Harriette Pipes Mcadoo, and Cynthia Gar-cia Coll. 2001a. “The Home Environments of Children in the United States PartI: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status.” Child Development 72:1844–1867.
Bradley, Robert H., Robert F. Corwyn, Harriette Pipes Mcadoo, and Cynthia Gar-cia Coll. 2001b. “The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part Ii:Relations with Behavioal Development through Age Thirteen.” Child Development72:1868–1886.
252
Bradley, Robert H., Stephen L. Rock, and Bettye M. Caldwell. 1987. “Home Environmentand School Performance among Black Elementary School Children.” The Journalof Negro Education 56:499–509.
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne and Greg J. Duncan. 1997. “The Effects of Poverty on Children.”Future of Children 7:55–71.
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Pamela K. Klebanov, and Greg J. Duncan. 1996. “Ethnic Differ-ences in Children’s Intelligence Test Scores: Role of Economic Deprivation, HomeEnvironment, and Maternal Characteristics.” Child Development 67:396–408.
Bryk, Anthony S. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1988. “Toward a More AppropriateConceptualization of Reserach on School Effects: A Three-Level Hierarchical LinearModel.” American Journal of Education 97:65–108.
Burkam, David T, Douglas D Ready, Valerie E Lee, and Laura F Logerfo. 2004. “Social-Class Differences in Summer Learning between Kindergarten and First Grade:Model Specification and Estimation.” Sociology of Education 77:1–31.
Cain, Glen G. and Arthur S. Goldberger. 1983. “Public and Private Schools Revisited.”Sociology of Education 56:208–218.
Carbonaro, William J. 1999. “Opening the Debate on Closure and Schooling Outcomes:Comment on Morgan and Sorensen.” American Sociological Review 64:682–686.
Carlson, Marcia J. and Mary E. Corcoran. 2001. “Family Structure and Children’sBehavioral and Cognitive Outcomes.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 63:779–792.
Chall, Jeanne Sternlicht. 1996a. Learning to Read : The Great Debate. Fort Worth:Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 3rd edition.
Chall, Jeanne Sternlicht. 1996b. Stages of Reading Development . Fort Worth: HarcourtBrace College Publishers, 2nd edition.
Chall, Jeanne Sternlicht, Vicki A. Jacobs, and Luke E. Baldwin. 1990. The ReadingCrisis : Why Poor Children Fall Behind . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.
Charity, Anne H., Hollis S. Scarborough, and Darion M. Griffin. 2004. “Familiarity withSchool English in African American Children and Its Relation to Early ReadingAchievement.” Child Development 75:1340–1356.
Charles, Camille Z., Gniesha Dinwiddie, and Douglass S. Massey. 2004. “The ContinuingConsequences of Segregation: Family Stress and College Academic Performance.”Social Science Quarterly 85:1353–1373.
Chin, Tiffani and Meredith Phillips. 2004. “Social Reproduction and Child-Rearing Prac-tices: Social Class, Children’s Agency, and the Summer Activity Gap.” Sociologyof Education 77:185–210.
253
Coleman, James S. 1972. “The Evaluation of Equality of Educational Opportunity.” InOn Equality of Educational Opportunity, edited by Frederick Mosteller and Daniel P.Moynihan, pp. 116–167. New York: Vintage Books, [1st ]. edition.
Coleman, James S. 1981. “Private Schools, Public Schools and the Public Interest.” ThePublic Interest 64:19–30.
Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” TheAmerican Journal of Sociology 94:95–120.
Coleman, James S., Thomas Hoffer, and Henry S. Levine. 1981. “Public and PrivateSchools.” Technical report, Center for Education Statistics.
Coleman, James S., Thomas Hoffer, and Henry S. Levine. 1982. “Cognitive Outcomesin Public and Private Schools.” Sociology of Education pp. 65–76.
Coleman, James S., United States. Office of Education., and National Center for Ed-ucation Statistics. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington]: U.S.Dept. of Health Education and Welfare Office of Education; [for sale by the Super-intendent of Documents U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Condron, Dennis J. and Vincent J. Roscigno. 2003. “Disparities Within: SpendingInequality and Achievement in an Urban School District.” Sociology of Education76:18–36.
Congdon, Peter. 2003. Applied Bayesian Modelling . Hoboken: Wiley.
Cook, Michael D. and William N. Evans. 2000. “Families or Schools? Explaining theConvergence in White and Black Academic Performance.” Journal of Labor Eco-nomics 18:729–754.
Cooper, Harris, Barbara Nye, Kelly Charlton, James Lindsay, and Scott Greathouse.1996. “The Effects of Summer Vacation on Achievement Test Scores: A Narrativeand Meta-Analytic Review.” Review of Educational Research 66:227–268.
Davis, James Earl. 2003. “Early Schooling and Academic Achievement of African Amer-ican Males.” Urban Education 38:515–537.
De Boeck, Paul and Mark Wilson. 2004. Explanatory Item Response Models: A Gener-alized Linear and Nonlinear Approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.
De Graaf, Paul M. 1986. “The Impact of Financial and Cultural Resources on Educa-tional Attainment in the Netherlands.” Sociology of Education 59:237 246.
Degarmo, David S., Marion S. Forgatch, and Charles R. Martinez Jr. 1999. “Parenting ofDivorced Mothers as a Link between Social Status and Boys’ Academic Outcomes:Unpacking the Effects of Socioeconomic Status.” Child Development 70:1231–1245.
Dimaggio, Paul. 1982. “Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of StatusCulture Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School Students.” AmericanSociological Review 47:189201.
254
Dimaggio, Paul and John Mohr. 1985. “Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment, andMarital Selection.” American Journal of Sociology 90:12321261.
Downey, Douglas. 1995. “When Bigger Is Not Better: Family Size, Parental Resources,and Children’s Educational Performance.” American Sociological Review 60:746–761.
Downey, Douglas B., Paul T. Von Hippel, and Beckett Broh. 2004. “Are Schools theGreat Equalizer?” American Sociological Review 65:613–635.
Du Toit, M. (Ed.). 2003. Irt from Ssi: Bilog-Mg, Multilog, Parscale, Testfact . Lincol-nwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Dumais, Susan A. 2002. “Cultural Capital, Gender, and School Success: The Role ofHabitus.” Sociology of Education 75:44–68.
Duncan, Greg J. and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2000. “Family Poverty, Welfare Reform, andChild Development.” Child Development 71:188–196.
Duncan, Greg J., Jeanne Brooks Gunn, and Pamela Kato Klebanov. 1994. “EconomicDeprivation and Early Childhood Development.” Child Development 65:296–318.
Duvall, Evalyn M. 1946. “Conceptions of Parenthood.” American Journal of Sociology52:193–203.
Ensminger, Margaret E. and Anita L. Slusarcick. 1992. “Paths to High School Grad-uation or Dropout: A Longitudinal Study of a First-Grade Cohort.” Sociology ofEducation 65:95–113.
Entwisle, Doris R. and Karl L. Alexander. 1989. “Early Schooling as a ”Critical Period”Phenomenon.” In Sociology of Education and Socialization, edited by K. Nambood-iri and R. G. Corwin, volume 8. Greenwhich, Conn: JAI.
Entwisle, Doris R. and Karl L. Alexander. 1993. “Entry into School: The BeginningSchool Transition and Educational Stratification in the United States.” AnnualReview of Sociology 19:401–423.
Entwisle, Doris R., Karl L. Alexander, and Linda Steffel Olson. 1997. Children, Schools,and Inequality . Social Inequality Series. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Farkas, George. 1996. Human Capital or Cultural Capital? Ethnicity and Poverty Groupsin an Urban School District . Social Institutions and Social Change. New York: A.de Gruyter.
Farkas, George. 2003. “Cognitive Skills and Noncognitive Traits and Behaviors in Strat-ification Processes.” Annual Review of Sociology 29.
Farkas, George and Kurt Beron. 2001. “Family Linguistic Culture and Social Repro-duction: Verbal Skill from Parent to Child in the Preschool and School Years.”Paper Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America,Washington, D.C., March 31, 2001 .
255
Farkas, George and Kurt Beron. 2004. “The Detailed Age Trajectory of Oral VocabularyKnowledge: Differences by Class and Race.” Social Science Research 33:464–497.
Farkas, George, Daniel Sheenan, Robert P. Grobe, and Yuan Shuan. 1990. “CulturalResources and School Success: Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty Groups within anUrban School District.” American Sociological Review 55.
Fryer Jr., Roland G. and Steven D. Levitt. 2004. “Understanding the Black-WhiteTest Score Gap in the First Two Years of School.” The Review of Economics andStatistics 86:447–464.
Ganzeboom, Harry B.G., Paul M. De Graaf, and Peter Robert. 1990. “ReproductionTheory on Socialist Ground: Intergenerational Transmission of Inequalities in Hun-gary.” In Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, edited by Arne L. Kalleberg,pp. 3–84. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.
Gelman, Andrew, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, and Donald B. Rubin. 2003. BayesianData Analysis. London: Chapman & Hall, 2nd edition.
Gilliam, Walter S. and Edward F. Zigler. 2000. “A Critical Meta-Analysis of All Evalua-tions of State-Funded Preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for Policy, ServiceDelivery and Program Evaluation.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 15:441–473.
Goldberger, Arthur S. and Glen G. Cain. 1982. “The Causal Analysis of CognitiveOutcomes in the Coleman, Hoffer and Kilgore Report.” Sociology of Education55:103–122.
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem ofEmbeddedness.” The American Journal of Sociology 91:481–510.
Grissmer, David, Ann Flanagan, and Stephanie Williamson. 1998. “Why Did the Black-White Score Gap Narrow in the 1970s and 1980s?” In The Black-White Test ScoreGap, edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, pp. 182–228. Washington,D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Guo, Guang. 1998. “The Time of the Influences of Cumulative Poverty on ChildrensCognitive Ability and Achievement.” Socal Forces 71:257–288.
Guo, Guang and Kathleen Mullan Harris. 2000. “The Mechanisms Mediating the Effectsof Poverty on Children’s Intellectual Development.” Demography 37:431–447.
Guo, Guang and Elizabeth Stearns. 2002. “The Social Influences on the Realization ofGenetic Potential for Intellectual Development.” Social Forces 80:881–910.
Hallinan, Maureen T. and Warren N. Kubitschek. 1999. “Conceptualizing and MeasuringSchool Social Networks: Comment on Morgan and Sorensen.” American SociologicalReview 64:687–693.
256
Hart, Betty and Todd R. Risley. 1995. Meaningful Differences in Everyday Experienceof Young American Children. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.
Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hedges, Larry V. and Amy Nowell. 1998. “Black-White Test Score Convergence since1965.” In The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher Jencks andMeredith Phillips, pp. 149–181. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles A. Murray. 1994. The Bell Curve : Intelligence andClass Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
Hodson, Randy and Borbert L. Kaufman. 1982. “Economic Dualism: A Critical Review.”American Sociological Review 47:727–739.
Honig, Bill. 1996. Teaching Our Children to Read: The Role of Skills in a ComprehensiveReading Program. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Horvat, Erin M., Elliott B. Weininger, and Annette Lareau. 2003. “From Social Tiesto Social Capital: Class Differences in the Relations between Schools and ParentNetworks.” American Educational Research Journal 40:319351.
Imbens, Guido W. 2004. “Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects underExogeneity: A Review.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 86:4–29.
Jencks, Christoper. 1998. “Racial Bias in Testing.” In The Black-White Test Score Gap,edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, pp. 55–85. Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution Press.
Jencks, Christoper and Meredith Phillips. 1998. “The Black-White Test Score Gap: AnIntroduction.” In The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher Jencksand Meredith Phillips, pp. 1–44. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Jimerson, Shane, Byron Egeland, L. Alan Sroufe, and Betty Carlson. 2000. “A Prospec-tive Longitudinal Study of High School Dropouts Examining Multiple Predictorsacross Development.” Journal of School Psychology 38:525–549.
Kao, Grace and Jennifer S. Thompson. 2003. “Racial and Ethnic Stratification in Edu-cational Achievement and Attainment.” Annual Review of Sociology 49:417–442.
Kerckhoff, Alan C., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Elizabeth Glennie. 2001. “Education,Cognitive Skill, and Labor Force Outcomes.” Sociology of Education 74:1–24.
Kingston, Paul W. 2001. “The Unfulfilled Promise of Cultural Capital Theory.” Sociologyof Education Extra Issue 2001, Currents of Thought: Sociology of Education at theDawn of the 21st Century::88–99.
Kohn, Melvin L. 1959. “Social Class and Parental Values.” American Journal of Soci-ology 64:337–351.
257
Kohn, Melvin L. 1977. Class and Conformity : A Study in Values. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 2d edition.
Kohn, Melvin L. and Carmi Schooler. 1969. “Class, Occupation and Orientation.” Amer-ican Sociological Review 34:659–678.
Kohn, Melvin L. and Carmi Schooler (Eds). 1983. Work and Personality: An Inquiryinto the Impact of Social Stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kozol, Jonathan. 1991. Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown Publishers.
Lamont, Michle. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French andthe American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, Michle and Annette Lareau. 1988. “Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps andGlissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments.” Sociological Theory 6:153–168.
Landry, Susan H., Karen E. Smith, Cynthia L. Miller-Loncar, and Paul R. Swank. 1997.“Predicting Cognitive-Language and Social Growth Curves from Early MaternalBehaviors in Children at Varying Degrees of Biological Risk.” Developmental Psy-chology 33:1040–1053.
Lapp, M.S., W.S. Grigg, and B.S.-H. Tay-Lim. 2002. “The NationS Report Card: U.S.History 2001.” Technical Report 2001, NCES 2002483, U.S. Department of Educa-tion. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Educa-tion Statistics.
Lareau, Annette. 1989. Home Advantage : Social Class and Parental Intervention inElementary Education. Education Policy Perspectives Social Analysis Series. NewYork: Falmer Press.
Lareau, Annette. 2002. “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in BlackFamilies and White Families.” American Sociological Review 67:747–776.
Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkely:University of California Press.
Lin, Nan. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge:University Press.
Little, Roderick .J.A. and Donald B. Rubin. 1987. Statistical Analysis with MissingData. New York: John Wiley.
Lynd, Robert S. and Helen Merrell Lynd. 1929. Middletown: A Study in ContemporaryAmerican Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Macleod, Jay. 1995. Ain’t No Maken’ It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-IncomeNeighborhood . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Marsh, Lawrence C. and David R. Cormier. 2002. Spline Regression Models. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
258
Massey, Douglas S. 2004. “Segregation and Stratification: A Biosocial Perspective.”DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race 1:1–19.
Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation andthe Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Massey, Douglas S. and Mary J. Fischer. 2002. “The Long Term Consequences of Segre-gation.” In The Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Atlanta,GA.
Mayer, Susan. 1997. What Money Can’t Buy: Family Income and Children’s LifeChances. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mcclelland, Megan M. and Frederick J. Morrison. 2003. “The Emergence of Learning-Related Social Skills in Preschool Children.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly18:206–224.
Mcloyd, Vonnie C. 1998. “Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Child Development.” Amer-ican Psychologist 53:185–204.
Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York,: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, Stephen L. and Aage B. Sorensen. 1999a. “Parental Networks, Social Closure,and Mathematics Learning: A Test of Coleman’s Social Capital Explanation ofSchool Effects.” American Sociological Review 64:661–681.
Morgan, Stephen L. and Aage B. Sorensen. 1999b. “Theory, Measurement, and Speci-fication Issues in Models of Network Effects on Learning: Reply to Carbonaro andto Hallinan and Kubitschek.” American Sociological Review 64:694–700.
Mueller, Charles W. and Toby L. Parcel. 1981. “Measures of Socioeconomic Status:Alternatives and Recommendations.” Child Development 52:13–30.
MunthEN, Bengt O. and Linda K. MunthEN. 2004. Mplus Users Guide. Third Edition.Los Angeles: Munthen and Munthen.
Murnane, Richard J., John B. Willett, M. Jay Braatz, and Yves Duhaldeborde. 2001. “DoDifferent Dimensions of Male High School Students’ Skills Predict Labor MarketSuccess a Decade Later? Evidence from the Nlsy.” Economics of Education Review20:311–320.
Nces, the National Center for Education Statistics. 2000. “Ecls-K Base Year Data Filesand Electronic Codebook.” Technical report, U.S. Department of Education.
Nces, the National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. “Early Childhood Longitu-dinal Study - Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (Ecls-K), Psychometric Report forKindergarten through First Grade.” Technical Report 200205, U.S. Department ofEducation.
259
Nces, the National Center for Education Statistics. 2004. “User’s Manual for the Ecls-KThird Grade Public-Use Data Files and Electronic Code Book.” Technical Report2004001, U.S. Department of Education.
Ogbu, John. 1974. The Next Generation: An Ethnography of Education in an UrbanNeighborhood . New York: Academic Press.
Ogbu, John. 1978. Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Ogbu, John. 1986. “The Consequences of the American Caste System.” In The SchoolAchievement of Minority Children, edited by U. Neisser. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Parcel, Toby L. and Elizabeth G. Menaghan. 1990. “Maternal Working Conditions andChild Verbal Ability: Studying the Transmission of of Intergenerational Inequalityfrom Mothers to Young Children.” Social Psychology Quarterly 53:132–147.
Parcel, Toby L. and Elizabeth G. Menaghan. 1994a. “Early Parental Work, FamilySocial Capital, and Early Childhood Outcomes.” American Journal of Sociology99:972–1009.
Parcel, Toby L. and Elizabeth G. Menaghan. 1994b. Parents’ Jobs and Children’s Lives.Sociology and Economics. New York: A. de Gruyter.
Phillips, Meredith, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Greg J. Duncan, Pamela Klebanov, andJonathan Crane. 1998a. “Family Background, Parenting Practices, and the Black-White Test Score Gap.” In The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by ChristopherJencks and Meredith Phillips, pp. 103–148. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institu-tion Press.
Phillips, Meredith, Mames Crouse, and James Ralph. 1998b. “Does the Black-WhiteTestscore Gap Widen after Children Enter School?” In The Black-White Test ScoreGap, edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, pp. 229–272. Washington,D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Portes, Alejandro. 1988. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Soci-ology.” American Review of Sociology 24:1–24.
Portes, Alejandro. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Soci-ology.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:1–24.
Portes, Alejandro. 2000. “The Two Meanings of Social Capital.” Sociological Forum15:1–12.
Raudenbush, Stephen and Robert J. Sampson. 1999. “’Ecometrics’: Toward a Scienceof Assessing Ecological Settings, with Application to the Systematic Social Obser-vation of Neighborhoods.” Sociological Methodology 29:1–41.
260
Raudenbush, Stephen W. and Anthony S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Ap-plications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,Inc.
Raudenbush, Stephen W. and Rafa M. Kasim. 1998. “Cognitive Skill and Economic In-equality: Findings from the National Adult Literacy Survey.” Harvard EducationalReview 68:33–79.
Reardon, Sean F. 2003. “Sources of Educational Inequality: The Growth ofRacial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Test Score Gaps in Kindergarten and FirstGrade.” Under Review .
Reardon, Sean F., John T. Yun, and Tamela Mcnulty Eitle. 2000. “The Changing Struc-ture of School Segregation: Measurement and Evidence of Multiracial Metropolitan-Area School Segregation, 1989-1995.” Demography 37:351–364.
Roscigno, Vincent J. 1998. “Race and the Reproduction of Educational Disadvantage.”Social Forces 76:1033–61.
Rosenbaum, P. R. and D. B. Rubin. 1983. “The Central Role of the Propensity Score inObservational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika 70:41–55.
Royston, Patrick. 2004. “Multiple Imputation of Missing Values.” Stata Journal 4:227–241.
Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime:Testing Social-Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94:774–802.
Schultz, Theodore W. 1961. “Education and Economic Growth.” In Social Forces In-fluencing American Education, edited by N. B. Henry. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.
Schultz, Theodore W. 1963. The Economic Value of Education. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Senechal, Monique and Jo Anne Lefevre. 2002. “Parental Involvement in the Develop-ment of Children’s Reading Skill: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study.” Child Devel-opment 73:445–460.
Skrondal, Anders and Sophia Rabe-Hesketh. 2004. Generalized Latent Variable Modeling:Multilevel, Longitudinal, and Structural Equation Models. New York: Chapman &Hall/CRS.
Smith, Judith R., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Pamela Klebanov. 1997. “Consequencesof Living in Poverty for Young Children’s Cognitive and Verbal Ability and EarlySchool Achievement.” In Consequences of Growing up Poor , edited by Greg J. Dun-can and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, pp. 132–189. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
261
Smith, Karen E., Susan H. Landry, and Paul R. Swank. 2000. “Does the Contentof Mothers’ Verbal Stimulation Explain Differences in Children’s Development ofVerbal and Nonverbal Cognitive Skills?” Journal of School Psychology 38:27–49.
Snow, Catherine E., Susan M. Burns, and Peg Griffin. 1998. Preventing Reading Dif-ficulties in Young Children. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Stipek, D. J. and R.R. Ryan. 1997. “Economically Disadvantaged Preschoolers: Readyto Learn but Further to Go.” Developmental Psychology 33:711723.
Sue, Stanley and Sumie Okazaki. 1990. “Asian-American Educational Achievements: APhenomenon in Search of an Explanation.” The American Psychologist 45:913–921.
Sun, Yongmin. 1998. “The Academic Success of East-Asian-American Students–an In-vestment Model.” Social Science Research 27:432–456.
Swidler, Anne. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American SociologicalReview 51:237–286.
Teachman, Jay. 1997. “Gender of Siblings, Cognitive Achievement, and Academic Per-formance: Familial and Nonfamilial Influences on Children.” Journal of Marriageand the Family 59:363–374.
Teachman, Jay D. 1996. “Intellectual Skill and Academic Performance: Do Families Biasthe Relationship?” Sociology of Education 69:35–48.
Van Der Linden, Wim J. and Ronald K. Hambleton. 1997. “Item Response Theory: BriefHistory, Common Models, and Extensions.” In Handbook of Modern Item ResponseTheory , edited by Wim J. v. d. Linden and Ronald K. Hambleton, pp. 1–28. NewYork: Spring-Verlag.
Votruba-Drzal, Elizabeth. 2003. “Income Changes and Cognitive Stimulation in YoungChildren’s Home Learning Environments.” Journal of Marriage and the Family64:341–355.
Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New UrbanPoor . New York: Vintage Books.
Yinger, John. 1995. Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of HousingDiscrimination. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Zhou, Min and Carl L. Bankston Iii. 1998. Growing up American. New York: RussellSage Foundation.
Vita
Jacob E. Cheadle
Academic Positions
· Robert Wood Johnson Scholars in Health Policy Postdoctoral Researcher, Cohort II for2005-2007
Academic Qualifications· M.A., Sociology and Demography, Western Washington University, 2000.Thesis: Racial Differences in the Formation of Mobility Expectations.Committee: Kyle D. Crowder, Jay D. Teachman, & Lucky M. Tedrow. Summer Programin Quantitative Methods of Social Research, June – August 2002.· B.S., Sociology and Demography, Western Washington University, 1998Thesis: Ethnic Birthweight Differentials for Washington State, 1995-1997.Advisor: Lucky M. Tedrow.
Published Papers· Amato, Paul R., and Jacob E. Cheadle. 2005. “The Long Reach of Divorce: Implicationsof Marital Dissolution for Three Generations.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1):191-206.· Handcock, Mark S., Michael S. Rendall, and Jacob E. Cheadle. Forthcoming. “ImprovedRegression Estimation of a Multivariate Relationship with Population Data on the Bivari-ate Relationship.” Sociological Methodology.
Submitted Papers· Amato, Paul R., and Jacob E. Cheadle. Submitted. “The Impact of Marital Discord onBiological and Adopted Children’s Behavioral Outcomes.”· Stout, Michael S., and Jacob E. Cheadle. 2004. “Class-Size and Student AcademicAchievement Over the Early Grades.”
Conference Presentations· Cheadle, Jacob E., and Paul R. Amato. 2002. “The Transmission of Divorce Across ThreeGenerations: The Role of Interpersonal Behavior and Commitment to Marriage”, Posterpresented at the 2002 annual PAA meetings in Atlanta, May 9-11,· Rendall, Michael R., Mark S. Handcock, Mark S., and Jacob E. Cheadle. 2002. “Combin-ing Panel and Registration Data to Estimate Divorce Probabilities as part of Mens FamilyLife Course.” Course. Invited Paper, Workshop on the Analysis of Incomplete Data inMultistate Models, Johns Hopkins University.
Awards & Honors· Research and Graduate Studies Office Dissertation Support ($1300)· AERA Dissertation Grant ($15,000), 2004-2005· AERA Institute on Statistical Analysis for Education Policy, April 2004· Clogg Scholarship, ICPSR, Summer 2002· NICHD Demography Trainee through The Population Research Institute at the Pennsyl-vania State University in August, 2001 to August, 2003· Demographic Research Scholarship from the Demographic Research Lab at Western Wash-ington University for outstanding scholarship, 1999
Top Related