FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES

THE USEFULNESS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY TO UNDERSTAND
ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT IN YOUNG CHILDREN: THE IMPACT OF FAMILY
STRUCTURE
BY:
MICHAEL SHRINER
A Dissertation submitted to the
Department of Family and Child Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Fall Semester, 2008

UM! Number: 3348544

INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

t
UMI Microform 3348544
Copyright2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Michael Shriner

defended on August 26th, 2008.

Ronald L. Mullis
Professor Directing Dissertation

Patrice latarola
Outside Committee Member

Thomas A. Cornille
Committee Member
Received by:
B. Kay Pasley, Chair, Department of Family and Child Sciences

Billie Collier, Dean, College of Human Sciences

The office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named
committee members.

ii

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the members of my dissertation committee
Drs. Ronald L. Mullis, Thomas A. Cornille, and Patrice latarola. Your
contributions to this project were greatly appreciated. I couldn't have asked for a
more responsive, understanding, and helpful major professor than you, Dr.
Mullis, and for that I thank you. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Ann Mullis.
You have been an extremely supportive presence in my life.
I will never be able to thank Bethanne enough. You are a gift. I love you.
Finally, I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to the people who
had an overwhelming personal impact on me during my time in Tallahassee
either through their entrance, exit, or ever-present existence in my lifeAdrian,
Afroman, Amy, Dad, Eileen, Heineken, Heidi, K.C., Karen, Jim, Jes, Joe, Maxine,
Michelle, Missy, Mom, Nana, Pat, R. J. Reynolds, Scott, Tara, and Wayne.

iii

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures .................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................viii
Abstract............................................................................................................... ix
1

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .........................................................................3
Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................5
Research Questions ...................................................................................5
Definitions of Terms .....................................................................................5
Abbreviations .............................................................................................6
Delimitations ...............................................................................................7

LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................8
Family Social Capital.....................................................................................8
Young Children's Academic Achievement in a Family/Social Context.......11
Family Structure and Academic Achievement
Single-Parent Families................................................................................16
Children Reared in Stepfamilies.................................................................19

METHODS...................................................................................................25
Conceptual Framework.............................................................................25
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey-Kindergarten Cohort........................27
Direct Cognitive Assessment Measures......................................................29
Reading Assessment.................................................................................30
Mathematics Assessment..........................................................................30
Reliabilities for Mathematics and Reading Assessment Scores.................30
Validity for Direct Cognitive Assessment in Mathematics and Reading ....31
Participant Characteristics of the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study-Kindergarten Cohort-Analytical Sample................................32
Analytical Sample: Family Structure Variable.............................................33
Participant Demographics...........................................................................33
v

Descriptives................................................................................................35
Math Change Score and Indicator Variables-Social Capital..............35

Reading Change Score and Indicator Variables-Social Capital..........35

Math Change Score and Indicator Variables-Resource Capital..........35
Reading Change Score and Indicator Variables-Resource Capital....36
Sample Weights.........................................................................................36
Missing Data..............................................................................................36
Data Analysis Plan.....................................................................................37
4. RESULTS.......................................................................................................38
Parent Social and Resource Capital and Children's Reading Change
Scores................................................................................................38
Parent Social Capital...................................................................................38
Parent Resource Capital.............................................................................39
Parent Education.......................................................................................39
Socioeconomic Status...............................................................................40
Gender.......................................................................................................40
Race...........................................................................................................40
Family Structure, Parent Social and Resource Capital and Children's
Reading Change Scores.........................................................................41
Parent Social and Resource Capital and Reading Change Scores:
Children in Stepfamilies .....................................................................41
Parent Social Capital..................................................................................41
Parent Resource Capital.............................................................................42
Socioeconomic Status...............................................................................42
Race...........................................................................................................42
5. DISCUSSION..................................................................................................43
Parent Social and Resource Capital ..........................................................43
Family Structure, Parent Social and Resource Capital, and Children's
Reading and Math Change Scores.........................................................48
Parent Social and Resource Capital and Reading Change Scores:
Children in Stepfamilies ......................................................................48
v

Implications................................................................................................51
Limitations..................................................................................................52

Future Research........................................................................................53
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................54
Appendix A
Figures................................................................................................56
Appendix B
Tables.................................................................................................59
Appendix C
IRB Approval Letter.............................................................................73
References.................................................................................................75
Biographical Sketch...................................................................................85

vi

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Social and Resource Capital as Predictors of Academic
Improvement...................................................................................57
Figure 2: Social Capital, Resource Capital, and Family Structure as
Predictors of Academic Improvement..............................................58

viii

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Correlation Matrix amongst Social and Resource Capital Predictor
Variables ..................................................................................................60
Table 2: Step-by-Step Process Leading to the Resultant Analytical Sample.......61
Table 3: Analytical Sample: Family Structure Variable..........................................62
Table 4: Demographic Characteristics for Children with Change Scores in Math
from the Spring of Kindergarten to the Spring of Fifth Grade....................63
Table 5: Demographic Characteristics for Children with Changes Scores in
Reading from the Spring of Kindergarten to the Spring of Fifth Grade......64
Table 6: Descriptives: Math Change Score and Indicator Variables: Social
Capital........................................................................................................65
Table 7: Descriptives: Math and Reading Change Score and Indicator
VariablesSocial Capital using Sample Weights.......................................66
Table 8: Descriptives: Reading Change Score and Indicator VariablesSocial
Capital........................................................................................................67
Table 9: Descriptives: Math Change Score and Indicator VariablesResource
Capital........................................................................................................68
Table 10: Descriptives: Reading Change Score and Indicator Variables
Resource Capital ......................................................................................69
Table 11: Regression of Parent Indicator VariablesSocial and Resource Capital
on Reading and Math Change Scores....................................................70
Table 12: Regression of Parent Indicator VariablesSocial and Resource Capital
and Family Structure on Reading and Math Change Scores................71
Table 13: Regression of Parent Indicator VariablesSocial and Resource Capital
on Reading Change ScoresStepfamilies ..........................................72

viii

ABSTRACT
This study explored the extent to which differences in social capital among
family structures predicted academic improvement in young children using data
from the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, (ECLS)
Kindergarten class of 1998-1999, which is administered by the National Center
for Educational Statistics (NCES). For all children included in the analyses,
parent social and resource capital explained 13% of the variance in reading
change scores from kindergarten to fifth grade and 15% of the variance in math
change scores from kindergarten to fifth grade. In addition, parent social and
resource capital explained 34% of children's reading change scores in stepparent
family structures. In light of these findings, implications for policymakers, parents,
and scholars are discussed.

ix

ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been a growing body of evidence that children in
alternative families (i.e., reside with a single parent or a stepparent) demonstrate less
academic achievement than those children residing in two-biological-parent families
(Abd-El-Fattah, 2006; Bjorklund, Ginther, & Sundstrom, 2006; Cavanagh, 2006; Heard,
2007; Jeynes, 2006; Tillman, 2007). For example, researchers have concluded that
stepchildren and children from single parent families are at somewhat greater risk for
academic difficulties than are children from two-biological families (Coleman, Ganong &
Fine, 2000; Majoribanks, 2002). Although research has demonstrated that children
reared in stepfamilies and single parent families achieve less well in school than
children reared in two-biological-parent families, research has also shown that children
in married or cohabiting stepfamilies have academic outcomes quite similar to those in
single-parent families (Biblarz & Raftery, 1999; Hofferth, 2006; Manning & Lamb, 2003;
McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994).
McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) argued that the similarities in academic
achievement of high school-aged children reared in single-parent and stepparent family
structures were due to variations in parent involvement. The authors noted that the
instability of family relationships (i.e., grandmothers and grandfathers, parents'
boyfriends and girlfriends, stepmothers and stepfathers) moving in and out of the singleparent and stepparent households created uncertainty about household rules and
responsibilities, which negatively impacted children's academic achievement. Manning
and Lamb (2003) have supported this finding with parents of adolescents. Although
similar to each other, adolescents in single mother and stepfather family structures had
lower grades and vocabulary scores compared to their two-biological-parent
counterparts. In these family structures, the academic outcomes were more likely
related to mothers' race, education, monitoring and attachment than family structure.
Other researchers (e. g., Biblarz &Raftery 1999; Hofferth, 2006) have supported these
findings. Biblarz and Raftery also suggested that variations in academic achievement
could be explained by demographic and economic factors. They concluded that while
demographic and economic factors impacting parent involvement were similar in single19

20

parent and stepparent family structures, they differed from two-biological-parent family
structures. They suggested a spurious relationship between academic achievement and
family structure as a result of parental investment (i.e. stepparents lack interest and
single-parents lack time; children in these family structures evidence less academic
achievement). Therefore, the negative consequences of living within a single-parent or
stepparent family structure for an older child's academic outcomes are typically
explained through either structural characteristics or family process characteristics
(Matjasko, Grunden, & Ernst, 2007; Park, 2007).
Matjasko, Grunden, and Ernst (2007) defined structural characteristics as various
socioeconomic qualities measured by such indicators as a parent's educational
background, employment status, and use of public assistance. Accordingly, children
residing in alternative family forms have families with less family income and parental
education and are more likely to be living in poverty (Amato, 1993; McLanahan &
Sandefur, 1994; Pong, 1997; Pong & Ju, 2000; Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan,
1994). So, children in these circumstances are subject to deprivations in economic,
parental, and community resources, which ultimately undermine their chances of future
academic success and achievement.
A number of authors have documented that biological parents are more likely to
invest their time, energy, money, and resources on their children than their single parent
and stepparent counterparts (Cooksey & Fondell, 1996; Daly & Wilson, 1980; Popenoe,
1994). According to this perspective, it is family processes, (the interactions or lack
thereof) within these alternative families that negatively impact academic achievement in
children residing with a single-parent or stepparent (i.e. children in stepfamilies and
single parent families receive less parental monitoring, interest, and interactions, which
subsequently leads to lower academic achievement). Adding to the complexity of this
issue, children from stepfamilies may be differentially impacted by their interaction with
parents based on select variables. For example, gender of the child and socioeconomic
status do not impact stepparent involvement (Hofferth & Anderson, 2003). However,
age of child and race do appear to impact involvement, particularly for stepfathers.
Accordingly, stepfathers spend more time with younger than older stepchildren (Dunn,
Davies, O'Connor, & Sturgess, 2000) and Black stepfathers spend significantly less
21

22

time with their stepchildren than White stepfathers (Hofferth & Anderson, 2003). A
possible alternative explanation combines both the structural characteristics and family
process explanations for lower academic improvement in children reared in singleparent and stepparent family structureslower levels of social and resource capital
(Smith, Beaulieu, & Seraphine, 1995).
The notion of social capital has been used in the literature to help explain
differences in families based on their access to resources (Majoribanks, 2002; Mullis,
Rathge, &, Mullis, 2003). Coleman (1987) viewed a family's social capital as a medium
through which a child could gain access to his/her parents' financial and human capital
(viewed as income and education, respectively) and not necessarily the result of a
child's own attempts at developing social capital independently. In addition, Coleman
(1990) stated that "the function identified by the concept 'social capital' is the value of
those aspects of social structure to actors, as resources that can be used by the actors
to realize their interests" (p.305). As a construct, social capital is measured by the
quality and quantity of networks connecting children to the resources of their parents.
Theoretically, children with high stocks of social capital are characterized as having
parents who spend considerable time and effort making connections with them, the
parents of their friends, the teachers and administrators of their schools, and various
other individuals within their communities (Majoribanks, 2002). Therefore, under the
guiding rubric of social capital theory espoused by Coleman (Coleman, 1987; 1988;
1990; 1997), in this study I explored the extent to which differences in social capital
amongst family structures predict academic improvement in young children using data
from the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, (ECLS)
Kindergarten class of 1998-1999, which is administered by the National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES).
Background of the Problem
Because of their emphasis on the early childhood period of development, the
advent of recent national policies such as President Bush's 2002 No Child Left Behind
Act (http://www.ed.gov/nclb) and the Good Start, Grow Smart initiative
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood) underscore the need to expand
empirical investigations of the academic improvement of young children. Focusing on
23

24

young children is particularly salient given the extent to which academic achievement in
early childhood can predict various long-term advantages including educational
attainment at age 22 (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2005), dropping out of high school
(Alexander, Entwisle, Dauber, 2002; Finn, Gerber, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2005), and
attending college (Garces, Thomas, & Currie, 2002). Further, because early childhood
offers an optimal period for intervention and represents the period when gaps in
academic achievement first emerge (Perez-Johnson & Maynard, 2007), the period of
early childhood deserves continued research-based study.
As the first national survey designed to follow a cohort of children from
kindergarten entry to middle school, the ECLS-K provides a wealth and breadth of
comprehensive and reliable data that scholars can use to better understand children's
development as they progress from kindergarten to the middle school grades. In
addition, The ECLS-K offers researchers the opportunity to investigate a multitude of
questions that are pertinent in today's society. Because of its depth of assessment,
researchers are able to tackle complex interactions between young children's academic
and cognitive performance and their school, community, and parental involvement
(Tourangeau, Nord, Le, Pollack, & Atkins-Burnett, 2006). Other studies have explored
these same interactions in older children using such nationally representative datasets
as the National Educational Longitudinal Study (Pong, 1997; Teachman, Paasch, &
Carver, 1996; 1997), the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(Hampden-Thompson & Pong, 2005), the International Social Science
Surveys/Australia (Evans, Kelley, & Wanner, 2001), the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth (Parcel & Dufur, 2001), and the High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study
(Smith, Beaulieu, & Seraphine, 1995). So, based on these studies with older children,
we know that variations in school, community, and parental involvement are associated
with dropping out of high school (Teachman, Paasch,& Carver, 1996; 1997) attending
college (Smith, Beaulieu, & Seraphine, 1995), completing college (Evans, Kelly, &
Wanner, 2001), and math and reading achievement (Hampden-Thompson & Pong,
2005; Parcel & Dufur, 2001; Pong, 1997).
Social capital theory has become an increasingly popular framework for
conceptualizing the consequences of interpersonal relationships, family structure, and
25

26

community attributes on children's academic performance (Mullis, Rathge, & Mullis,

2003). For example, Dika and Singh (2002) critically reviewed 35 primary empirical
articles appearing between 1986 and 2001 where social capital was used as a
framework to explore various educational outcomes. As an exemplar, Israel, Beaulieu,
and Hartless (2001) explored the influence of family and community on educational
achievement in adolescents from a social capital framework. They found that high
school students who lived in two-biological-parent family structures earned higher
grades and were more likely to stay in school than their counterparts in single-parent
family structures. Further, they suggested that policies be geared toward strengthening
family social capital. Although their sample included adolescents, they substantiated the
usefulness of social capital theory for conceptualizing and explaining why young
children in stepfamilies and single-parent family structures may be less successful
academically than their two-biological-parent counterparts.
Purpose of the Study
Although social capital theory has recently been applied to a variety of topics
including public health (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004), food consumption (Gertler, Levine, &
Moretti, 2006), and corporate organizational development (Adler & Kwon, 2002), here
social capital theory was used to explain academic improvement (as measured by
changes in standardized math and reading tests) in young children. Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to test the usefulness of social capital theory for
understanding the academic improvement of young children and to explore how
variations in social and resource capital among three family structures (single-parent,
two-parent-biological, and stepparent) predict academic improvement in young children
over two points in time.
Research Questions
Based on a family social capital perspective, the following research questions
were addressed:
1

Does social and resource capital have an impact on young children's

academic improvement, controlling for parent's education and
socioeconomic status?

Does family structure matter in terms of children's academic improvement?

27

28

Definitions of Terms

Based on previous empirical literature, the resultant definitions were used in this
study:
1

Social capital: resources that an individual can utilize emanating from the
interactions and relationships between and among actors (Coleman, 1988;
Leonard, 2005; Putnam, 1995).

Resource capital: Resources (e.g., having a computer available to the child in the
home) of an academically-oriented environment that is conducive to children's
learning (Coleman, 1988).
Operational Definitions

Hoyle, Harris, and Judd (2002) stated that "an operational definition specifies
how to measure a variable so that we can assign someone a score", further adding that
"the beauty of an operational definition is that it specifies precisely how to measure a
variable in such a concrete and specific manner that anyone else could repeat the steps
and obtain the same measurements" (p. 76). As such, indicators of social capital
included: (a) whether or not a parent contacted the school; (b) whether or not a parent
attended the school's open house; (c) whether or not a parent attended a parentteacher conference; (d) whether or not a parent acted as a school volunteer; and (e)
how many parents of their child's friends they talk to regularly. Indicators of resource
capital included: (a) how many times they visited the library; (b) whether or not they
have a home computer that their child uses; and (c) reports of cognitive stimulation in
the home (i.e., frequency of literacy activities). Each indicator of social and resource
capital was measured in the spring of kindergarten and fifth grade.
Abbreviations

ECLS-K: the abbreviation for the Early Childhood Longitudinal StudyKindergarten.

NCES: the abbreviation for the National Center for Educational Statistics,
sponsor of the ECLS.

29

Delimitations

The following delimitations, a function of secondary analysis on existing data, are

acknowledged:
1

The study will be limited to the sample recruited for the ECLS-K by the NCES
during all four time periods.

The measures that will be used in this study are contingent upon those used in the
original study conducted by the NCES.

30

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter social capital theory is presented as a theoretical framework for
examining the academic achievement of children. In addition, the empirical link between
children's academic outcomes and family/social contexts is discussed. Finally, the
empirical findings regarding academic achievement of children reared in single-parent
and stepparent families are summarized.

Theoretical Perspective
Family Social Capital
Leonard (2005) described the existing literature on social capital as burgeoning,
and the concept itself, as elusive. She summarized its current status as being
"generally imbued with positive connotations, in particular the importance of social
networks and trust in promoting a sense of belonging and well-being" (p. 605). Coleman
(1990) viewed social, human, and financial capital as three constituent concepts.
Though he attributed Loury (1987) with coining the term, Coleman argued that social
capital was "defined by its function" and that "social capital is productive, making
possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence" (p.
302). Recently, Widmer (2006) offered a definition of social capital as "the resources
stemming from the possession of a durable network of acquaintance or recognition"
(p.981). However, it was Coleman who put social capital within a family context.
Coleman (1988) argued that a family's background was analytically separable,
comprised by financial capital, human capital, and social capital. He argued that
financial and human capital could be adequately measured by certain indicators such as
the family's income and the parents' education, respectively. Meanwhile, family social
capital, being much less tangible, could be measured by an assortment of indicators
such as the ratio of adults to children, the number of siblings, the mother's expectation
of the child's going to college, the interests or even intrusiveness of one adult in the
activities of someone else's child, and the frequency of talking with parents about
personal experiences. For Coleman (1987), these types of indicators served as an
attempt to articulate, approximate, and measure the culmination of norms, values, and
expectations embedded within a child's social networks that are associated with his or
31

32

her growth, maturation, and overall well-being. However, as Morrow (1999) pointed out,
and Leonard (2005) agreed, current applications of social capital ignore a child's
immediate, peer-dominated, social networks consisting of his or her own personal
collection of friends and work-related or community-related acquaintances. Leonard
further argued that as it was currently conceptualized, social capital was something that a
child drew on in the future and not something of immediate benefit. Parenthetically,
Coleman (1987) viewed a family's social capital as a medium through which a child
could gain access to his/her parents' financial and human capital and not necessarily
the result of a child's own attempts at developing social capital independently.
Subsequently, Coleman (1988) identified four properties of social relations and
organizationsand specific to familiesthat facilitated increases in social capital: (1)
intergenerational closure; (2) stability; (3) dependence; and (4) shared ideology.
For Coleman (1988), intergenerational closure is marked by individuals "who see
each other daily, have expectations toward each other, and develop norms about each
other's behavior" (p.106). As a consequence, when families share a sense of
intergenerational closure, the result is an environment where one's behavior has
effective sanctions which serve to guide and monitor individual behavior. As a result,
children in well established inter-generationally closed families develop a strong sense
of trust, obligation, and expectations for themselves and other family members and
thus, act accordingly. For example, Pong (1998) described intergenerational closure as
a system of interconnected adults outside the immediate family who supported,
maintained, and conveyed various social norms that were significantly related to
children's academic development and achievement.
Stability within a social structure also serves as a means to develop sanctioned
group norms. However, "disruptions of social organization or of social relations can be
highly destructive to social capital" and "individual mobility constitutes a potential action
that will be destructive of the structure itselfand thus of the social capital dependent on
it" (Coleman, 1990, p. 320). Thus, as a family maintains stability, the more developed the
group norms, expectations, and obligations, and thus, the higher the level of social capital.
However, Coleman is also quick to point out that by their very nature, relationships
must be cultivated through continued and consistent communication
33

34

between its members if they are to be maintained over time. Therefore, families must
nurture their stability and subsequently, their social capital, to not only flourish, but
simply maintain. For example, parents who continuously communicate amongst
themselves and with others in the community in an effort to overcome a child's
academic difficulties foster the social capital that may be integral to resolving any
encountered problematic situation. However, sometimes familiesin their ultimately
self-defeating quest to maintain stabilityorganize around a child's academic
difficulties. By doing so, they effectively cut-off their supply of social capital by not
communicating with others outside their fragile family boundaries and are thus rendered
isolated and in a perpetual state of crisis (Cornille & Boroto, 1992; Cornille, Boroto,
Barnes, & Hall, 1996).
According to Coleman (1990), dependence on one another within a family
assumes that "the more extensively persons call on one another for aid, the greater will
be the quantity of social capital generated" (p.321). As family members develop a
shared sense of belonging and reliance on one another, their individual social capital
increases as a by-product of the established reciprocity of obligation. For example,
family members who share an inherent, valued, and mutually understood commitment
to each other are more likely to benefit from the social connections of their members
(greater social capital) which lead to greater financial gains than those family members
who lack a norm of reciprocity (Sanders & Nee, 1996).
Shared ideology "can create social capital by imposing on an individual who
holds it the demand that he act in the interests of something or someone other than
himself" (Coleman, 1990, p. 320). Under these circumstances, members of a family who
develop a common vision, sense of purpose, and implicit direction foster elevated levels
of social capital. However, because the degree to which intergenerational closure,
stability, dependence, and shared ideology varies amongst families, it is no surprise that
levels of social capital differ between families.
Coleman and Hoffer (1987) distinguished disadvantaged families from deficient
familiesboth of which appeared to be increasing in frequency. Disadvantaged families
are those families that come from ethnic or language minority backgrounds, include
parents who have limited educational backgrounds, and have few monetary resources.
35

36

Deficient families include those families consisting of either one parent or two parents
who are more involved with work activities than family activities. This is particularly
salient given Portes' (1998) assertion that lowered social capital in single-parent families
is primarily a function of the single parent's (and his or her child's) residential mobility
and lack of in-home support via an additional parent. For Portes, the lack of another
parent in the home and frequent relocations leads to inconsistent and weak ties to the
community-at-large which are associated with lowered educational performance.
However, before examining the educational outcomes of children reared in singleparent families, and later stepfamilies, young children's academic achievement in a
family/social context are discussed.
Young Children's Academic Achievement in a Family/Social Context

Hernandez, Denton, and Macartney (2007) argued that most children live in
families with two parents, and perhaps even extended family members, who offer
nurturance, support, and economic resources to children. However, they also
commented that during preschool and the early elementary school years, family income
is particularly salient with regard to its impact on a child's cognitive functioning and
school achievement. Consequently, the damaging effect of a family's low
socioeconomic status on young children's academic achievement and cognitive
functioning has been demonstrated repeatedly (Artis, 2007; Boardman, Powers, Padilla,
& Hummer, 2002; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; McLoyd, 1998). However, other
factors including parenting style (Duncan & Magnuson, 2005; Hirsh-Pasek & Burchinal,
2006; Merlo, Bowman, & Barnett, 2007), parent involvement (Alomar, 2006; Lee &
Bowen, 2006; Marchant, Paulson, & Rothlisberg, 2001), and the amount of a child's
cognitive stimulation in his or her home environment (Boardman, Powers, Padilla, &
Hummer, 2002; Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002; Downer & Pianta,
2006; Guo & Harris, 2000; Melhuish, Phan, Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, &
Taggart, 2008) are important factors in a child's academic achievement. In addition,
parents' education (and particularly, mother's education) has proven to be a robust
predictor of young children's academic achievement (Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg,
Pianta, & Howes, 2002; Downer & Pianta, 2006; Melhuish, Phan, Sylva, Sammons,
Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2008). These various other factors often undermine the role

37

poverty plays in its relation to a child's academic development and achievement. In fact,
Guo and Harris (2000), using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
involving approximately 2,000 children with a mean age of 71 months, found that the
association between poverty and cognitive functioning is completely mediated by such
family context variables as parenting style, cognitive stimulation in the home, and the
physical environment of the home. Specifically, through structural equation modeling,
the authors concluded that poverty itself offers no direct effect on a child's intellectual
development (measured by standardized reading and math achievement tests).
However, increases in poverty adversely affected cognitive stimulation (how often the
mother reads to a child, the number of books a child has, whether or not a child has a
record/tape player, how often a child is taken to a museum, and the number of
magazines a family receives), parenting style (how often a mother converses with her
child, whether a mother answered her child's questions verbally, whether the mother's
voice showed positive feelings toward her child, and whether the mother hugged and
kissed her child), and the physical environment of the home (i.e., how clean the home
is, how cluttered the home is, how safe the home is, and how bright and stimulating the
home is) which negatively impacted intellectual development.
Boardman, Powers, Padilla, and Hummer (2002), using data from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child Data (1986-1996) involving children ages 6 to 14,
examined the association between various familial social factorsmother's marital
status, poverty, mother's education, and the child's home environmentand children's
academic achievement (as measured by standardized reading and math achievement
tests). The authors revealed that children whose mothers did not complete high school
scored significantly lower on measures of math and reading than their counterparts
whose mother's did complete high school. In addition, children with higher levels of
cognitive stimulation present in their home environments such as whether or not a
mother spoke to her child, responded verbally to her child, hugged or kissed her child,
provided toys for her child, how many book's a child had, how often the mother read to
her child, and how often the child's parents taught their child new skills scored
significantly higher on measures of math and reading than those children with lower
levels of cognitive stimulation in the home. In a related study, Hirsh-Pasek and

38

39

Burchinal (2006), using longitudinal data from the National Institute for Child Health and
Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development examined the
association between mothers' sensitivity to their children and their children's academic
outcomes. The authors revealed that when children in first grade experienced more
sensitive caregiving as indicated by the number and quality of interactions purported to
enhance perceptual, cognitive, linguistic, and physical development from their mothers
over time (between the ages of 6 and 54 months), they scored significantly higher on
tests of academic achievement. In particular, when children received increasingly more
developmentally appropriate, responsive, and stimulating caregiving from their mother
between the ages of 6 to 54 months, their academic achievement was significantly
higher than those children who did not receive progressively more developmentally
appropriate, responsive, and stimulating caregiving. Similarly, Merlo, Bowman, and
Barnett (2007) studied only children from families with lower socioeconomic status who
were transitioning from preschool to elementary school. They revealed, after controlling
for such variables as prior reading ability, phonological awareness, verbal reasoning
ability, and home academic stimulation, a child's growth in reading achievement could
be accounted for by the unique contribution of parental nurturance (measured by selfreport and behavioral ratings regarding warmth, hostility, and to what extent the parent
is verbally and affectively positive).
Downer and Pianta (2006) examined the early family experiences of 832 children
enrolled in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development from birth to
54 months as predictors of academic achievement in first grade. Using the HOME
Inventory (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984; a measure of the stimulation and support available
to a child in the home), the authors reported that children scored higher on standardized
measures of reading and math when their mother was more educated and when they
experienced a rich home learning environment growing up. These findings were
consistent with Burchinal, Peisner,-Geinberg, Pianta, and Howes (2002) who also
reported that children's scores on standardized tests of math and reading were
positively associated with mothers' education and positive parenting practices (as
measured by the HOME inventory) using 511 elementary (between 1 st and 3rd grade)
children. Additionally, Mulhuish, Phan, Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford and Taggart

40

41

(2008) reported robust and powerful effects of children's home learning environment on
reading and math achievement over time. Using data involving 2,354 children followed
longitudinally from age 3 to 7, the authors found that over time, children who were
classified as underachieving at age 7(defined as scores 1 standard deviation below the
mean) had a higher likelihood of living in unsupportive home learning environment (as
indicated by children who were not frequently engaged in such activities as being
frequently read to, going to the library, playing with numbers, and being taught letters
and numbers in the home) at age three.
Duncan and Magnuson (2005) summarized the extent to which familial
environments impact children's academic achievement. Acknowledging the racial gaps
in both socioeconomic status and achievement scores in reading and math evidenced in
the data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, the authors commented on the
importance of parental human capital (defined as family income) and its implications for
children by concluding that its key advantage was in its ability to offer the opportunities
for a stimulating learning environment. Specifically, the authors commented that not
only did parents' education indirectly benefit children via a higher family income, it
impacted children's well-being via improved parenting skills as well. Relatedly, parent
involvementa salient component of any stimulating home environmenthas been
consistently linked to children's academic achievement (Alomar, 2006; Lee & Bowen,
2006; Marchant, Paulson, & Rothlisberg, 2001; Mulhuish, Phan, Sylva, Sammons, SirajBlatchford, & Taggart, 2008).
Marchant, Paulson, and Rothlisberg (2001) using multiple regression on data
involving 230 fifth- and sixth-grade students, reported that parenting style (as defined by
their level of demandingness, responsiveness, and imposed values), parental
involvement (as defined by their participation in activities as the child's school), teaching
style, and school atmosphere as an aggregate score predicted 13% of the explained
variance in students' grades. However, the authors further added that none of these
individual factors predicted any unique variance in the students' grades. Similarly,
Alomar (2006) used structural equation modeling on data from 751 eighth grade
students to examine the impact of personal and family factors on academic
achievement (as measured by an aggregate score of standardized math, science,
42

43

English, social science, language, and religion tests). The author found that parent
involvement (and indirectly, parent education) contributed a strong (.47) effect on
student's achievement.
McIntyre, Eckert, Fiese, DiGennaro, and Wildenger (2007) examined the
relationship between children's family experiences and their transition to kindergarten.
Families from a lower socioeconomic status (as indicated by receiving government
financial aid) were less likely to attend annual meetings at their child's preschool, have
monthly communication with their child's preschool, or visit a kindergarten classroom
than their higher socioeconomic status counterparts. Lacking what Coleman (1988)
referred to as intergenerational closure, The authors concluded that families with fewer
financial resources also found it more difficult to devote the time necessary to facilitate
the vital relationships between themselves and their child's preschool and kindergarten
teachersa situation that would likely lead to exacerbated risk for school problems later
in their children's academic careers. Finally, Lee and Bowen (2006) examined the
predictive impact of parent involvement on children's academic achievement using data
from 415 children in third through fifth grade. Using hierarchical regression analyses,
the authors found that parent involvement in the school (the frequency in which parents
attended parent-teacher conferences, volunteered at the school, and went to school for
fun events) contributed a unique 9% of the explained variance in academic achievement
(teacher-reported grades in math and reading and teacher reports of whether the
student was below, at, or above grade level in reading and math).
Although the damaging impact of poverty on academic achievement in young
children is well documented (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; McLoyd, 1998) several
contextual factors appear to undermine its overall effect on the academic achievement
of children. Specifically, parenting style (Duncan & Magnuson, 2005; Hirsh-Pasek &
Burchinal, 2006; Merlo, Bowman, & Barnett, 2007) and cognitive stimulation in the
home (Boardman, Powers, Padilla, & Hummer, 2002; Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg,
Pianta, & Howes, 2002; Downer & Pianta, 2006; Guo & Harris, 2000; Melhuish, Phan,
Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2008) have been shown to be powerful
and robust predictors of academic achievement. In fact, a combination of parenting
style, cognitive stimulation in the home, and the physical environment of the home has
44

45

been shown to entirely mediate the impact of poverty on young children's academic
achievement (Guo & Harris, 2000). In addition, parent involvement (and particularly,
parent involvement in their child's school) significantly contribute to a child's academic
achievement (Alomar, 2006; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Marchant, Paulson, & Rothlisberg,
2001; Mulhuish, Phan, Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2008). However,
for children who come from single-parent families, these factors are particularly salient
in terms of their impact on academic achievement.
Family Structure and Academic Achievement
Single-Parent Families
Kreider and Fields (2005) reported that 59% of all children in non-two biological
parent families lived with single mothers. Consequently, this is particularly alarming
given the findings by Carlson and Corcoran (2001) who, after controlling for mothers'
age at first birth, education, and aptitude, found that children who lived in a continuously
single-parent family had significantly lower cognitive test scores than their counterparts
in either continuous two-parent families, single-parent to two-parent families, two-parent
to single-parent families and those children who experienced multiple family structure
transitions. However, the authors also commented that any time spent in a single-parent
home placed a child at higher risk for poor behavioral and cognitive outcomes, but that
these risks could be minimized if parents provided greater emotional support and
cognitive stimulation toward their children.
Pong (1998) suggested two possible explanations for the detrimental impact of
single parenthood on children's academic achievement: (1) lack of economic resources;
and (2) lack of social capital. Reviewing the economic resources explanation, the author
concluded that income differences between children reared in single-parent versus twoparent families account for as much as half of the disparity in educational achievement,
tests scores, grades, college enrollment and college graduation. However, the author
commented that studies often control for economic resources (namely, SES) and
differences still exist. Because of this, she supported the separate, albeit related
explanation, lack of social capital in single-parent families. Favoring the social capital
explanation, she concluded that efforts to improve the academic achievement in
children reared in single-parent families would best be served by facilitating
46

47

communication between single-parents and other parents of children in the same

school. She offered that by doing so, parents benefit via increases in social capital
stemming from the on-ongoing dialogue regarding school policies and personnel, their
children and their children's peers, and various strategies that would likely enhance their
own parenting practices. She concluded that for single-parent families, improving social
capital was critical to the education of their children. Although conceptualized as social
capital, but measured differently, other scholars support the notion that social capital (or
more appropriately, the lack thereof) plays a vital role in the lowered academic
achievement of children reared in single-parent families (Downey, 1994; Lee, 1993).
Downey (1994) examined differences in school performance using data from the
National Longitudinal Study involving eight graders from 409 single-father families,
3,483 single-mother families, and 14,269 two biological-parent families. Using ordinary
least squares regression, the author found that although children from single-mother
and single-father families scored significantly less than their counterparts in twobiological parent families on tests of standardized math, reading, history, and science,
and reported grades, they also differed on the extent to which interpersonal parental
resources impacted their child's reported grades. Accordingly, variations in
interpersonal parental resources (as measured by such indicators as their involvement
in their child's school's PTA activities, how many of their child's friends they know by
name, how many of these friends' parents they know by name, and whether they attend
school meetings) accounted for more of the disparity in reported grades of children from
single-father families than single-mother families. Similarly, Lee (1993) using data from
the National Educational Longitudinal Study examined the extent to which social capital
(as measured by the number of parents of their child's friends they knew and the extent
to which children discussed school matter with their parents) explained the statistically
significant discrepancies in grades, student misbehavior, and standardized tests
between single-parent and two-biological-parent families. However, unlike Downey who
offered no suggestions to overcome discrepancies, Lee concluded that efforts to
improve the educational involvement of single-parents with their children (via more
effective communication networks amongst parents of school-going children and
increased discussion of school-related activities between single parents and their

48

49

children) would likely lead to a decrease in the discrepancies between children in singleparent and children in two-parent-biological families on measures of standardized tests,
student misbehavior, and reported grades.
Astone and McLanahan (1991) using data from the High School and Beyond
study involving 10,390 children from either two biological parent families (68.3%),
single-parent families (17.9%) stepparent families (10%) and other families (3.8%),
found that parenting practices (including measures of the extent to which parents
engage in day-to-day supervision of school work, overall parental supervision, and the
amount of time they spend talking to their child ) impacted the child's grades, school
attendance, and likelihood of dropping out more in single-parent families than twobiological parent families after controlling for gender, academic ability, race, and
socioeconomic status.
Tillman (2007) used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health study involving 13,988 adolescents, and found that in terms of grade point
average, children reared in single-parent families scored lower than their child
counterparts reared in two-original parent, married mother-stepfather, and married
father-stepmother families. Although children reared in single-parent families reported
higher grade point averages than their counterparts in cohabiting stepfamily
environments, the author suggested that the combination of experiencing the
divorce/separation of their parents coupled with the later transitioning into a stepfamily
(through cohabitation) may have accounted for the higher reported grade point
averages for children in single-parent families than children in cohabiting stepfamilies. In
addition, she suggested that the effects of family formations on academic outcomes be
approached from a longitudinal perspective. Heard (2007) also used data from the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health study and reported that in terms of
cognitive ability (measured by the Health Picture Vocabulary Test, an abridged version
of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test), adolescents in 7 th through 12 th grade who were
reared in single-mother families scored lower than their child counterparts reared in twooriginal parent, married mother-stepfather, and married father-stepmother families.
Calling for future research investigating parental investment, family resources, the quality
of parent-child relationships, the time parents spend with children, and the
50

51

educational resources provided by parents, the author commented that her findings
reinforced the empirical argument that residing with two biological parents facilitates the
educational socialization, appropriate behavior, and study habits of adolescents.
Given the magnitude in which children reside in single-parent families at any
given time (Kreider & Fields, 2005) and the extent that any time spent in these families is
deleterious for children's behavioral and academic outcomes (Carlson & Corcoran,
2001) the onus on scholars is to examine and articulate the various contributive factors
that affect the academic achievement of a child reared in this family structure. Some
scholars have suggested that future research focus on social capital theory and the way
in which it helps to explain and predict lowered academic achievement of children in
these families (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Downey, 1994; Lee, 1993; Pong, 1998).
Although Heard (2007) and Tillman (2007) both found that children from single-parent
families scored lower on measures of academic achievement than their counterparts in
married stepfamilies, both populations remain at a disadvantage compared to their twobiological parent counterparts. As such, even though there is another parentalbeit
stepparentin the home for children in stepfamilies, their academic achievement is still
lower than those children residing in two-biological-parent family structures.
Children Reared in Stepfamilies

An assortment of nationally representative datasets has been used within the

stepfamily literature to explore the academic achievement of older stepchildren. For
example, scholars have used data from the National Education Longitudinal Survey
(Jeynes, 1998; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; 2002), the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
(Carlson & Corcoran, 2001; Ginther & Pollak, 2004), the National Longitudinal Survey of
Children and Youth (Ram & Hou, 2003), the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health (Heard, 2007; Tillman, 2007) and the Early Childhood Longitudinal StudyKindergarten Cohort (Artis, 2007). The findings from these datasets offer a unique
opportunity to generalize to a much larger population because the data are
comprehensive and representative of the diversity of the population (Nelson & Allred,
2005).
Jeynes (1998) offered several findings derived from separate analyses of data
involving a total of 18,726 adolescents (10th-12th graders) from the National Education
52

53

Longitudinal Survey. Examining the extent to which divorce or remarriage had a greater
impact on academic achievement, he revealed that children residing in stepfamilies
scored significantly lower on standardized tests of math, reading, science, and social
studies and were more likely to have repeated a grade than their counterparts in
divorced (but not remarried) households, even after controlling for socioeconomic
status, race, and gender.
Jeynes (1999) revealed that after controlling for race, socioeconomic status, and
gender, children in stepfamilies scored somewhat lower than children of divorce from
single-parent families and significantly lower than children from intact biological families
on standardized tests related to reading, math, social studies, and science.
Subsequently, Jeynes (2000a), comparing data from 2,395 stepchildren from
reconstituted families as a result of divorce and 47 stepchildren from reconstituted
families as a result of parental death, examined the impact of family structure on
measures of academic performance. He found that even after controlling for
socioeconomic status, race, and gender, coming from a stepfamily as a result of divorce
significantly reduced children's achievement on standardized tests related to reading,
math, social studies, and science, lowered overall GPA, and increased the likelihood of
being held back a grade. In addition, Jeynes (2000b) compared the academic
achievement of children from remarried stepfamilies to children from divorced singleparent households. His results revealed that after controlling for socioeconomic status,
race, and gender, children from stepfamilies scored lower than their divorced singleparent household counterparts on standardized tests related to math and social studies.
The extent to which parental involvement of stepfamilies impacted academic
achievement was examined by Jeynes (2002). Jeynes reported that although parental
involvement (particularly students discussing school events with their stepparents)
positively influenced academic success, it did not compensate for the impact of residing
in stepfamily households. After controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and gender,
living in a stepfamily household was negatively related to standardized scores related to
math, reading, science, and social studies.
Using data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Children and Youth,
Carlson and Corcoran (2001) explored the impact of family structure on behavioral and
54

55

academic outcomes. The authors found that stepchildren's (between the ages of 7 and
10) standardized reading and math scores were lower than their counterparts in twoparent biological families. However, the test score differences became smaller and
insignificant after controlling for their mothers' age at first birth, education, and
scholastic aptitude. Ginther and Pollak (2004) used data from the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth involving over 10,000 children between the ages of 5 and 15 to
examine the effects of family structure on children's educational and cognitive
outcomes. The authors found that living in either a single parent or stepfamily negatively
affected school outcomes, especially reading and math, as evidenced by these children
scoring lower than children from two-biological-parent households. However, these
results were rendered insignificant after controlling for the number of siblings, birth
order, family income, religion, and parental schooling (defined as whether the child's
mother and father graduated high school or not and whether he or she had attended
some college).
Ram and Hou (2003) using data from three waves of the National Longitudinal
Survey of Children and Youth compared the effect of changes in family structure on
various child outcomes. They revealed that children (who were between the ages of 4
and 7 at first wave) who had transitioned from a single-parent to a stepparent family
scored statistically lower on tests of standardized math than those students who either
remained in a two-biological parent family or remained in a single-parent family. In
addition, children who transitioned from a two-parent family to a single-parent family
scored statistically lower on tests of standardized reading than their counterparts who
had always resided in a single-parent family. In terms of the findings related to reading
involving children transitioning to single-parent families, the authors speculated that
these results may be related to the newly divorced parent's inability to provide her child
with school materials, computers, and high-quality day care because of her significant
loss in income. In terms of the findings related to math involving children transitioning
from single-parent to stepparent families, the authors suggested that although they
offered economic benefits (with the addition of income), perhaps stepparents did not
grant as much access to material resources such as school materials or computers to
their stepchildren as they do their biological children.

56

57

Heard (2007) used data from Wavesl and 2 of the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health to examine the relationship between family structure and academic
behavior. Based on results from ordinary least squares regression and logistic
regression, she revealed that each year an adolescent lived with a cohabiting motherstepfather decreased their overall GPA even after controlling for unstable family
histories. Each year adolescents lived in a cohabiting mother-stepfather household
increased their odds of being suspended or expelled from school 12%, their odds of
receiving school discipline by 52%, and reduced their likelihood of having high
expectations for attending college by 7%.
Tillman (2007) also used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health to examine family structure and its effects on a child's grades, school-related
behavior, and expectations towards college. She revealed that children from married
stepfather families were more likely to have lower expectations toward college than their
cohabiting stepfather, single-father, cohabiting stepmother, and two-biological parent
counterparts. Children from either a married or cohabiting stepparent family evidenced
more school-related behavior problems than their consistently-married biological parent
counterparts.
In the only study involving young children, Artis (2007), using a subsample of
data involving 10,511 kindergarten children (593 from married stepfamilies and 379
from cohabiting stepfamilies) from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
Kindergarten Cohort examined the relationship between maternal cohabitation and child
well-being. Based on results from ANOVA, she revealed that children in cohabiting
stepfamilies scored significantly lower on measures of math, reading, and general
knowledge than their married stepfamily counterparts. However, children in both
cohabiting and married stepfamilies scored significantly lower on measures of math,
reading, and general knowledge than their counterparts in two-biological parent families.
After controlling for economic resources (as measured by education and income),
relationship stability (how long parents were together and how many times the family
had moved), and parenting practices (as measured by their involvement with the school
and how frequently they were involved with the school) only standardized reading

58

59

scores of children in cohabiting stepfamilies remained significantly lower than their

counterparts in two-biological-parent families.
Finally, Jeynes (2006) conducted a meta-analysis involving a total of 61 studies
published between 1963 and 2003 (over 80% of the participants in the primary studies
were between the ages of 13 and 18) to determine the overall impact of parental divorce
and remarriage on academic achievement and psychological well-being of children.
Based on his analysis of studies with sophisticated statistical controls for socioeconomic
status, race, and gender of its participants, he revealed that the overall effect size of
children from remarried families on standardized tests of academic achievement were .
12 standard deviations lower than their counterparts from divorced single-parent
families.
Collectively, scholars have documented the lowered academic achievement of
children reared in stepfamilies compared to their counterparts in two-biological parent
family structures (Artis, 2007; Carlson & Corcoran, 2001; Ginther & Pollak, 2004;
Jeynes, 1999; Ram & Hou, 2003; Tillman, 2007) and single-parent families (Jeynes,
1998; 1999; 2000b; 2006). Parent involvement does not compensate for the lowered
scores of children reared in stepfamilies on standardized measures of math, reading,
science, and social studies when compared to their counterparts in two-biologicalparent families (Jeynes, 2002). In addition, the amount of time spent in a stepfamily
residence is associated with decreases in GPA and increases in the odds of schoolrelated behavioral problems (Heard, 2007; Tillman, 2007) when compared to both
single-parent and two-biological-parent families. Given these findings, the academic
outlook for children reared in stepfamilies (and single-parent families) is bleak.
One possible reason for the lower academic achievement of children reared in
stepfamilies and single-parent families may be a relative lack in social capital. In fact,
several scholars have suggested further examination into the role social capital plays in
relation to the academic achievement of children reared in these family structures (Artis,
2007; Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Downey, 1994; Lee, 1993; Pong, 1998).
In terms of adolescents, Abd-El-Fattah (2006) and Cavanagh, Schiller, and
Riegle-Crumb (2006) argue that family structure impacts students' academic
achievement via parent involvement both directly with their (step) children and their

60

(step) children's school. However, as Cavanagh, Schiller, and Riegle-Crumb (2006)

stated "because of time constraints, lack of help, new obligations, and the possible
strain introduced to the parent-child relationship by divorce or the start of a parent's new
romantic relationships, single parents and those who are married or are cohabiting with
new partners may experience less closeness with their adolescents, and despite their
best efforts, may be less involved in their adolescents' educational careers (p. 332).
Although these authors suggest that the level of parent involvement experienced by
adolescents is a function of the inherent constraints of single-parent and stepfamily
structures, similar processes undoubtedly impact young children in these family
structures as well. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine how variations in
social and resource capital among three family types (single-parent, two-parentbiological, and stepparent) predict academic improvement in children over time.

61

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
This chapter provides a conceptual framework for examining how social and
resource capital (and subsequently family structure) impacts children's academic
improvement over time. In addition, a brief overview of the National Center for
Educational Statistics' purpose, methodology, and sample for the administration of the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey-Kindergarten Cohort is provided. Finally, an
overview of the statistical techniques, specific methodology, sample, and included
variables for use in these secondary analyses is also discussed.
Conceptual Framework
The associations between variations in social and resource capital and dropping
out of high school, attending college, completing college, and math and reading
achievement have been explored and subsequently established in adolescents (Evans,
Kelly, & Wanner, 2001; Hampden-Thompson & Pong, 2005; Mullis, Rathge, & Mullis,
2003; Parcel & Dufur, 2001; Pong, 1997; Smith, Beaulieu, & Seraphine, 1995;
Teachman, Paasch, & Carver, 1996; 1997). However, several scholars have suggested
further examination into the role that social and resource capital play in relation to the
academic achievement of children (Artis, 2007; Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Downey,
1994; Lee, 1993; Pong, 1998). This is particularly salient because early childhood offers
an optimal period for intervention and represents the period when gaps in academic
achievement first emerge (Perez-Johnson & Maynard, 2007). In addition, Abd-El-Fattah
(2006) and Cavanagh, Schiller, and Riegle-Crumb (2006) argue that family structure
impacts an adolescent's academic achievement via parent involvement both directly
with their (step) children and their (step) children's school. Similar processes
undoubtedly impact young children in these family structures as well. As a result, this
study examines two research questions:
1

Does social and resource capital have an impact on young children's academic
improvement, controlling for parent's education and socioeconomic status?

Does family structure matter in terms of children's academic improvement?

In an effort to answer these questions, a series of multiple regressions is used.

Including multiple independent variables in a regression model allows the use of
62

63

statistical control in estimating the unique effect of each independent variable on the
outcome (Meyers, Glenn, & Guarino, 2006; Tate, 1998). Further, multiple regression is
particularly useful when the researcher uses predictor (or independent) variables for
which there are sound theoretical reasons for expecting them to predict the outcome
(Field, 2005). As such, I used a series of multiple regressions to analyze the relationship
between social and resource capital (and subsequently, family structure) and children's
academic improvement while controlling for parent's education and socioeconomic
status. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of how multiple regressions were used to
address how social and resource capital impacts young children's academic
improvement controlling for parent education and socioeconomic status.
As can be seen from Figure 1, each of the independent variables (social and
resource capital) overlaps the dependent variable (academic improvement). The portion
of the dependent variable labeled b represents the proportion of variance in children's
academic improvement uniquely explained by the independent variable, social capital.
Similarly, the portion of the dependent variable labeled c represents the proportion of
variance in children's academic improvement uniquely explained by the independent
variable, resource capital. Finally, the portion of the dependent variable labeled a
represents the proportion of the variance in children's academic improvement explained
by both social and resource capital.
Given the extent to which multiple independent variables were used to predict the
dependent variable, a series of bivariate correlations were ran in an effort to examine
the potential multicolinearity amongst the predictor variables (see Table 1). Field (2005)
suggested that the presence of multicolinearity poses a threat to the validity of any
multiple regression analysis in that it limits the variance in the outcome for which the
predictors account, makes it difficult to assess the individual contribution of each
predictor variable, and increases the variances of regression coefficients which
produces unstable predictor equations. As can be from the corresponding correlation
matrix, all of the correlations between the predictor variables are well below .5, which
suggests the absence of multicolinearity amongst the independent variables.
Hoyle, Harris, and Judd (2002), stated that "an operational definition specifies
how to measure a variable so that we can assign someone a score", further adding that
64

65

"the beauty of an operational definition is that it specifies precisely how to measure a

variable in such a concrete and specific manner that anyone else could repeat the steps
and obtain the same measurements" (p. 76). As such, indicators of social capital
specifically included: (a) whether or not a parent contacted the school; (b) whether or
not a parent attended the school's open house; (c) whether or not a parent attended a
parent-teacher conference; (d) whether or not a parent acted as a school volunteer; and
(e) how many parents of their child's friends they talk to regularly. Indicators of resource
capital included: (a) how many times they visited the library; (b) whether or not they
have a home computer that their child uses; and (c) reports of cognitive stimulation in
the home (i.e., frequency of literacy activities). Each of these indicators of social and
resource capital was measured using the ECLS-K in the spring of kindergarten and fifth
grade. In addition, academic improvement was measured via the change from
kindergarten to fifth grade in children's IRT scaled scores on standardized reading and
math tests.
To answer question 2, an additional independent variable, family structure (twobiological parents, a single-parent, a stepparent, and other) was included in the model.
The addition of this variable is depicted in Figure 2. As can be seen from the figure, the
portion of the dependent variable labeled d represents the proportion of the variance in
children's academic improvement explained by the additional independent variable,
family structure. If significant, this would allow me to examine how the effect of social
and resource capital on student improvement differs based upon family structure by
running separate regressions for each family type.
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey-Kindergarten Cohort

Data for this study were drawn from the nationally representative Early Childhood
Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K). Sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), this
data base was designed to longitudinally assess various student, home, classroom,
school, and community factors related to the cognitive and social development of
children. As the first national study following a cohort of children from kindergarten entry
to middle school, the ECLS-K provides a wealth and breadth of comprehensive and

66

reliable data that scholars can use to better understand children's development as they
progress from kindergarten to the middle school grades.
The ECLS-K offers scholars the opportunity to investigate a multitude of
questions that are pertinent in today's society. Because of its depth of assessment,
researchers are able to tackle difficult areas of inquiry such as the diverse ways in
which classrooms and schools attend to the needs of children, the impact of children's,
teacher's, and administrator's backgrounds on children's academic performance, the
role parent's expectations about their children's skills, behaviors, and attributes play
with regard to their children's transition and success in an academic environment, and
the complex interactions between children's academic and cognitive performance and
their family, home environment, school, and community (Tourangeau, Nord, Le, Pollack,
& Atkins-Burnett, 2006).
As both a multi-source and multi-method study, children, their families, teachers,
and school administrators provide information related to children's home environment,
home educational activities, school and classroom environments, classroom curriculum,
teacher qualifications, and assessments of children's cognitive, social, emotional, and
physical development. As a longitudinal investigation, information has been collected in
the fall and spring of kindergarten (1998-1999), the fall and spring of first grade (1999 2000), and the spring of third grade (2002) and fifth grade (2004).
The administration of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey-Kindergarten
Cohort (ECLS-K) involves a diverse population of children who attended both full- and
half-day kindergarten programs in both public and private schools. Children (and their
parents, teachers, and schools) from a variety of socioeconomic and racial/ethnic
backgrounds are included in the study. Data collection for the ECLS-K was conducted in
the fall and spring of 1998-1999 (kindergarten), 1999-2000 (first grade), 2001-2002
(third grade) and 2003-2004 (fifth grade).
Authors have used the ECLS-K to investigate a variety of factors related to
children's academic improvement including income, maternal hardship, parenting, and
their school readiness (Raver, Gershoff, & Aber, 2007), levels of parent involvement
(Sy, Rowley, & Schulenberg, 2007), maternal cohabitation (Artis, 2007), various
socioeconomic resources (Chatterji, 2005; Denton & West, 2002; Duncan & Magnuson,

67

2005; West, Denton, & Germino-Hausken, 2000), and their prekindergarten program
involvement (Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007). However, this study represents the
first attempt to longitudinally examine the impact of family social and resource capital
(and subsequently, family structure) using assessment data from participants in
kindergarten through fifth grade.
Direct Cognitive Assessment Measures
"The direct cognitive assessments were individually administered at all six
time points. The kindergarten-first grade (K-1) cognitive assessment focused on
three general content areas: (1) reading; (2) mathematics; and (3) knowledge of
the social and physical world, referred to as "general knowledge." The K-1
assessment did not ask the children to write anything or to explain their
reasoning; rather, children pointed to their answers or
responded orally to complete the tasks. The assessment battery was
administered using small easels with the items printed on one side and
administration instructions for the assessor on the other side. Assessors
entered children's responses on a laptop computer.
The direct cognitive domains measured in kindergarten and first grade
included reading, mathematics, and general knowledge. In third and fifth grades,
the direct cognitive domains measured reading, mathematics, and science. In
third and fifth grades, general knowledge was replaced with science because the
curriculum at these grades is more differentiated and the amount of time
available to administer the assessments was limited. The fifth-grade
assessments also utilized a two-stage design. Easels were used to administer
items in reading, mathematics, and science. The students also completed
workbooks with open-ended mathematics questions. The reading passages were
in a booklet format to allow the student to refer back to the story when answering
the questions. All questions were read by the assessor. Although the child read
the response options to him/herself in the reading assessment, the assessor
read all the response options to the child in the mathematics and science
assessments." (Tourangeau, et al, 2006)
68

69

Reading Assessment
The kindergarten reading assessment (containing five proficiency levels)
included questions designed to measure various facets including basic skills (print
familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, and creating rhyming
works), receptive vocabulary, and comprehension (involving listening and words in
context).
The fifth grade reading assessment contained items designed to measure a
child's ability to make literal inferences, extrapolate, evaluate, and demonstrate his or
her ability to comprehend biographical and expository text (evaluating nonfiction).

Mathematics Assessment
The kindergarten mathematics assessment contained items designed to
measure skills in conceptual and procedural knowledge and problem solving. Items
related to number sense, properties, and operations comprised approximately 50%.
Remaining items tapped abilities in measurement, geometry and spatial ability, analysis,
statistics, probability, and algebra. These items could be grouped into five proficiency
clusters comprised of items requiring a child to: (a) identify some one-digit numerals and
geometric shapes; (b) read all one-digit numerals, count beyond ten, recognize a
sequence of patterns, and use nonstandard units of length to compare objects; (c) read
two-digit numbers, recognize numbers in sequential order, and solve a simple word
problem; (d) solve simple addition and subtraction problems; and (e) solve simple
multiplication and division problems
The fifth grade mathematics assessment contained items designed to measure
number sense, properties, operations, measurement, geometry and spatial sense,
analysis, statistics, probabilities, and algebra. These items could be grouped into five
proficiency clusters comprised of items requiring a child to: (a) solve simple
multiplication and division problems; (b) demonstrate his or her understanding of place
value; (c) use their knowledge of measurement to solve word problems; (d) solve
problems using fractions; and (e) solve word problems involving area and volume.

Reliabilities for Mathematics and Reading Assessment Scores

Reliabilities for the mathematics and reading assessment scores (derived from
item response theory-based scores) for data collection in the spring of kindergarten
70

71

were .91 and .93, respectively. The reliabilities for the mathematics and reading
assessments in fifth grade were.94 for mathematics and for reading, .93.
Validity for Direct Cognitive Assessment in Mathematics and Reading

"Evidence for the validity of the direct cognitive assessments was derived
from several sources. A review of national and state performance standards,
comparison with state and commercial assessments, the judgments of curriculum
experts and teachers all provided input to test specifications. In addition,
comparing the reading and mathematics field-test item pool scores with those
obtained from an established instrument provided validity information.
The ECLS-K test specifications were derived from a variety of sources.
For the third through fifth-grade assessments, national and state performance
standards in each of the domains were examined. The scope and sequence of
materials from state assessments, as well as from major publishers, were also
considered. The resulting ECLS-K fourth-grade frameworks are similar to the
NAEP fourth grade frameworks, with some differences due to ECLS-K formatting
and administration constraints. The fourth-grade frameworks were modified for
third and fifth grades (and for the earlier K-1 forms). An expert panel of early
elementary school educators, including curriculum specialists in the subject
areas and teachers at the targeted grade levels from different regions of the
country, examined the pool of items and the recommended allocations. The
assessment specifications indicated target percentages for content strands within
each of the subject areas. These percentages were matched as closely as
possible in developing the field-test assessment item pool as well as in selecting
items for the fifth-grade assessment forms. Some compromises in matching
target percentages were necessary to satisfy constraints related to other issues,
including linking to K-1 and third-grade scales, avoiding floor and ceiling effects,
and field test item performance. This was especially true for the reading
assessment, whose structure, i.e., several questions based on each reading
passage, placed an additional constraint on the selection of items to match
content strands. Experts in each of the subject areas then reviewed the proposed
72

fifth-grade forms for appropriateness of content and relevance to the assessment

framework.
An additional method of evaluating the construct validity of the reading
and mathematics assessments was addressed by the inclusion of the WoodcockMcGrew-Werder Mini-Battery of Achievement (MBA) in the spring 2002 field test
of fifth-grade items. Selected field-test forms that included reading sections also
included the MBA reading test, while the MBA mathematics test was
administered along with field-test mathematics forms. Correlations were
computed for the MBA scores with the theta estimates based on ECLS-K fieldtest responses. Test scores can be related to other measures only to the extent
that they are consistent within themselves. Generally, a correlation between two
variables cannot exceed the square root of the reliability of either variable.
Reliabilities for the MBA were computed both with not-administered and omitted
items treated as missing, and with these items treated as incorrect. The
correlations of MBA with ECLS-K measures were quite close to the square roots
of the reliabilities, indicating that the two assessments were measuring closely
related skills" (Tourangeau, et al, 2006).
Participant Characteristics of the Early Childhood Longitudinal StudyKindergarten Cohort-Analytical Sample

Table 2 provides a visual representation of the step-by-step process leading to

the resultant analytical sample. As can been seen from Table 2, although there were a
total of 22,813 children who were sampled in the spring of kindergarten, the number of
children with IRT scaled scores for reading and math was 16,228 and 16,846,
respectively. Similarly, although a total of 16,143 children were sampled in the spring of
fifth grade, the number of children with IRT scaled scores for reading and math was
11,262 and 11,271 respectively. However, to answer the proposed research questions,
only children with IRT scaled-scores for reading and math in the spring of kindergarten
and spring of fifth grade were used. As such, the number of children with IRT scaled

scores for reading and math in both the spring of kindergarten and spring of fifth grade
was 10,441 and 10,886, respectively. Subsequently, the number of children with IRT
scaled scores in both reading and math for both the spring of kindergarten and the

73

spring of fifth grade represent 46% and 48% of all the children who were sampled in the
spring of kindergarten, respectively.

Analytical Sample: Family Structure Variable

In an effort to answer the second research question, four separate family
structure variables were created. These variables consisted of children who had either
two married biological parents in their household during the spring of kindergarten, a
married stepparent in their household during the spring of kindergarten, or a single
parent in their household during the spring of kindergarten. The fourth family structure
variable consisted of all other types of family structures that children may have
experienced during the spring of kindergarten. The corresponding frequencies for each
family structure variable can be seen in Table 3.
As can be seen from Table 3, 65% of children with change scores from the
spring of kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade in reading and math had two married
biological parents in their households during the spring of kindergarten. The
corresponding figures for children with a married stepparent, and single parent, or
another family structure configuration who had change scores from the spring of
kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade in reading and math were 3%, 19%, and 8%,
respectively. Consequently, 5% of the children with change scores from the spring of
kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade were missing information pertaining to their
family structure during the spring of kindergarten.

Participant Demographics
Table 4 provides demographic characteristics for children with change scores in
math from the spring of kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade from the full analytical
sample and from households with two married biological parents, a married stepparent,
or a single parent. As such, the following descriptions of demographic characteristics
are for the full analytical sample only.
In terms of gender, 50.4% of the children were males, whereas 49.6% were
females. With regard to race, 58.3% were White, Non-Hispanic, 11.3% were Black or
African-American, 9.1% were Hispanic, race specified, 9.6% were Hispanic, race not
specified, 6.0% were Asian, 1.2% were Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander, 1.9%
were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 2.4% were more than one race. In terms of

74

their parents' highest educational level, 3.2% of children had a parent who reported a
highest educational level of 8th grade or below, whereas 4.7% of children had a parent
who reported a highest educational level of an earned doctorate or professional degree.
With regard to socioeconomic status, 14.5% of children were classified as being in the
1st quintile (the lowest classification), whereas 23.6% of children were classified as
being in the 5th quintile (the highest classification). Table 5 provides demographic
characteristics for children with change scores in reading from the spring of
kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade from the full analytical sample and from
households with two married biological parents, a married stepparent, or a single
parent.
In terms of demographic characteristics for children with change scores in math
from the spring of kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade, nonparametric analyses
based on chi-square distribution tests revealed several significant differences among
the family structure variables. With regard to gender, there were proportionally more
males in families with a married stepparent and more females in single parent
households (x2 = 8.82, degrees of freedom = 3, p <.05). In terms of race, proportionally
more children in two biological parent families were White, non-Hispanic, whereas
proportionally more children in single parent households were Black or AfricanAmerican (x2 = 1575.86, degrees of freedom = 21, p <.01). With regard to their parents'
education, proportionally more children from single parent families had a parent with the
educational equivalent of eighth grade or below, whereas proportionally more children in
two biological parent families had a parent with a doctorate or professional degree (x2 =
1322.38, degrees of freedom = 24, p <.01). In terms of socioeconomic status,
proportionally more children in single parent families were in the first quintile, whereas
proportionally more children in two biological parent families were in the fifth quintile (x2
= 1499.83, degrees of freedom = 12, p <.01).
In terms of demographic characteristics for children with change scores in
reading from the spring of kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade, the same pattern
emerged. As such, with regard to demographic characteristics, children in single parent
families were more likely to be Black or African-American, have parents with lower
educational attainment, and come from families in the lowest socioeconomic quintile,
75

76

whereas children in two biological parent families were more likely to be White, have
parents with higher educational attainment, and reside in households in the highest
socioeconomic quintile.

Descriptives: Math Change Score and Indicator Variables-Social Capital

As can be seen from Table 6, the average math change score from the spring of
kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade for the full analytical sample was 80.40. The
corresponding figures for children with two married biological parents, a married
stepparent, and a single parent were 82.56, 79.99, and 75.65, respectively. In terms of
the indicator variables for social capital, for the entire analytical sample, parents
reported talking to an average of 2.56 parents of their child's friends. The corresponding
figures for children with two married biological parents, a married stepparent, and a
single parent 2.89, 1.73, and 1.81, respectively. The remaining frequency distributions
for the social capital indicator variables can be seen in Table 6. In addition, Table 7
provides corresponding descriptive information using the appropriate sample weights.

Descriptives: Reading Change Score and Indicator Variables-Social Capital

As can been seen from Table 8, The average reading change score from the
spring of kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade for the entire sample was 99.41. The
corresponding figures for children with two married biological parents, a married
stepparent, and a single parent were 101.88, 99.89, and 94.07, respectively. In terms of
the indicator variables for social capital, for the entire analytical sample, parents
reported talking to an average of 2.56 parents of their child's friends. The corresponding
figures for children with two married biological parents, a married stepparent, and a
single parent 2.90, 1.69, and 1.79, respectively. Table 7 provides the associated
descriptive information using the appropriate sample weights. The remaining frequency
distributions for the social capital indicator variables can be seen in Table 8.

Descriptives: Math Change Score and Indicator Variables-Resource Capital

In terms of the indicator variables for resource capital, for the entire analytical
sample, 4,369 parents reported that their child had access to a home computer (see
Table 9). However, 5,923 parents reported that their child did not have access to a
home computer. For children with two married biological parents, these figures were
2,372 and 4,716, respectively. The numbers of children with access to a home
77

78

computer who resided in a household with a married stepparent or a single parent were
162 and 711, respectively. The remaining frequency distributions for the resource
capital indicator variables can be seen in Table 9.

Descriptives: Reading Change Score and Indicator Variables-Resource Capital

In terms of the indicator variables for resource capital, for the entire analytical
sample, 5,882 parents reported that their child had access to a home computer (see
Table 10). However, 3,998 parents reported that their child did not have access to a
home computer. For children with two married biological parents, these figures were
4,684 and 2,120, respectively. The numbers of children with access to a home
computer who resided in a household with a married stepparent or a single parent were
162 and 706, respectively. The remaining frequency distributions for the resource
capital indicator variables can be seen in Table 10.

Sample Weights
By design, the National Center of Educational Statistics chose to assign weights
to compensate for the higher sampling probabilities of certain children from various
races, schools, and communities and to adjust for school, child, teacher, and parent
nonresponse (Tourangeau, Nord, Le, Pollack, & Atkins-Burnett, 2006). Accordingly, the
NCES created numerous categorical variables to be used as weights depending upon
the selected sample. Therefore, as suggested by the National Center for Educational
Statistics (personal communication, 2008) the base weight variable appropriate for child
assessment data from the spring of kindergarten, first grade, third grade, and fifth grade
was selected, and subsequently used in all regression analyses.
Missing Data
Given the prevalence of missing data in social sciences (Juster & Smith, 1998),
the extent to which data are missing in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study comes
as no surprise. However, given the relatively low occurrence of missing data for the
analytical sample in this study (all but two independent variables have data from over
94% of the analytical samplethe other variables have data from over 87% of the
analytical sample) mean substitution was used. As outlined by Acock (2005), mean
substitution is especially problematic when there are many missing values (over 30% of
the population is missing data). As such, because of the relatively low occurrence of
79

80

missing data, the change in the variance brought on by mean substitution for any
variable will be minimal (Acock, 2005).

Data Analysis Plan

In an effort to answer the first research question-- does social and resource
capital have an impact on young children's academic improvement, controlling for
parent's education and socioeconomic statusmultiple regression was used.
Accordingly, indicators of parents' resource and social capital (measured in the spring of
kindergarten), while controlling for their educational level, socioeconomic status, and
their child's gender and race was used to predict the change in IRT scaled scores from
kindergarten to fifth grade in reading and math. Additionally, by using the specified
sample weights, any regression estimates in the statistical model will yield consistent
estimates for the entire population from which they were drawn (Winship & Radbill,
1994).
In an effort to answer the second research question-- does family structure
matter in terms of children's academic improvementadditional indicators consisting of
family structure variables were added to the regression model. If the family structure
coefficients are significant, I will examine whether or not the effect of social and
resource capital varies by family structure.

81

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter provides the results of statistical analyses using a series of multiple
regressions in an effort to answer two research questions:
1

Does social and resource capital have an impact on young children's academic
improvement, controlling for parent's education and socioeconomic status?

Does family structure matter in terms of young children's academic

improvement?
Including multiple independent variables in the regression models allowed the

use of statistical control in estimating the unique effect of each independent variable on
the outcome (Meyers, Glenn, & Guarino, 2006; Tate, 1998). Accordingly, in an effort to
answer the first research question, two multiple regressions were used to analyze the
relationship between social and resource capital and children's academic improvement
measured via the change from kindergarten to fifth grade in children's IRT scaled
scores on standardized reading and math testswhile controlling for parent's
education, socioeconomic status, children's gender, and children's race.

Parent Social and Resource Capital and Children's Reading Change Scores
Table 11 presents the regressions of parents' social and resource capital onto
children's reading and math change scores from kindergarten to fifth grade. In terms of
the reading change scores from kindergarten to fifth grade, the model explained 13% of
the variance. With regard to math change scores from kindergarten to fifth grade, 15%
of the variance was explained by the model. However, given the extent to which the
various indicators impacted reading and math improvement, only the individual
contributions of each statistically significant predictor variable in the model are
discussed.

Parent Social Capital

Children whose parent contacted the school scored lower by .022 standard
deviations on the change scores in reading and .038 standard deviations on the change
scores in math as compared to children whose parent did not contact the school.
Similarly, children whose parent attended a parent/teacher conference scored lower by .
021 standard deviations on the change scores in reading and .031 standard deviations

82

on the change score in math as compared to children whose parent did not attend
parent/teacher conferences. However, the magnitude of these contributions was less
than the contribution of parents acting as a school volunteer. Accordingly, children
whose parent acted as a school volunteer scored .041 standard deviations higher on
the change scores in reading and .070 standard deviations higher on the change scores
in math compared to their counterparts whose parent did not act as a school volunteer.

Parent Resource Capital

Children who visited the library with their parent scored .025 standard deviations
higher on math change scores than children who did not visit the library with their
parent. Additionally, compared to children who did not have a home computer, children
who had a home computer scored .045 and .046 standard deviations higher on reading
and math change scores, respectively. Although these variables had a statistically
significant affect, their impact on reading and math improvement was less than the
impact of a parent reading to the child. Compared to children whose parent did not read
to them, children whose parent read to them three to six times a week scored .144
standard deviation higher on reading change scores and .114 standard deviations
higher on math change scores. Regarding reading change scores, compared to children
who did not read picture books, children who read picture books once or twice a week
scored .051 standard deviations higher. Finally, compared to children who did not read
outside of school, children who read outside school once or twice a week or three to six
times a week scored .030 and .082 standard deviations higher on their math change
scores, respectively. However, compared to children who did not read outside school,
children who read outside school every day scored .069 standard deviations and .049
standard deviations higher on reading and math change scores, respectively.

Parent Education
The magnitude of impact of parent education on children's reading and math
improvement was directly proportional to the degree to which a parent obtained
additional schooling beyond a high school diploma. Children whose parent reported a
high school diploma scored .059 standard deviations higher on reading change scores
and .080 standard deviations higher on math change scores compared to their
counterparts whose parent did not complete high school. Similarly, compared to their
83

84

counterparts whose parent did not complete high school, children whose parent
reported some college scored .148 standard deviations and .168 standard deviations
higher on change scores for reading and math, respectively. Children whose parent
earned a bachelor's degree increased the disparity between their and their counterparts'
reading and math change scores by .182 standard deviations and .155 standard
deviations, respectively. Finally, compared to their fellow classmates whose parent did
not complete high school, children whose parent had an educational equivalent beyond
a bachelor's degree scored .173 standard deviations higher on reading change scores
and .179 standard deviations higher on math change scores.

Socioeconomic Status
Compared to children whose parent-reported socioeconomic status placed them
in the lowest quintile, children in the second quintile scored .069 standard deviations
higher on reading change scores and .068 standard deviations higher on math change
scores. For math change scores, the corresponding advantage of children in either the
third, fourth, or fifth quintiles compared to children in the lowest quintile were.085, .097,
and .126 standard deviations, respectively. Compared to children whose parentreported socioeconomic status placed them in the lowest quintile, children in the third
and fourth quintile scored .080 and .103 standard deviations higher on reading change
scores, respectively. However, for children in the fifth or highest quintile, the
corresponding reading change scores was .102 standard deviations higher than those
children in the lowest quintile with reading change scores.

Gender
Males scored .111 standard deviations higher than females on math change
scores. However, in terms of reading change scores, females scored .023 standard
deviations higher than males.

Race
Black children scored .142 standard deviations lower on reading change scores
and .153 standard deviations lower on math change scores than their White
classmates. Additionally, children from other races scored .036 standard deviations
lower on reading change scores than White children. However, in terms of math change

85

86

scores, compared to White children, Hispanic and Asian children scored .047 and .048
standard deviations higher, respectively.

Family Structure, Parent Social and Resource Capital and Children's Reading
Change Scores
The second regression questiondoes family structure matter in terms of
children academic improvementwas answered by including the family structure
variables in the initial model. Table 12 presents the regressions of parents' social and
resource capital onto children's reading and math change scores from kindergarten to
fifth grade with the additional family structure variables included in the model. In terms
of the reading change scores from kindergarten to fifth grade, the model explained 13%
of the variance. With regard to math change scores from kindergarten to fifth grade,
16% of the variance was explained by the model. Although the addition of the family
structure variables was associated with slight changes in the standardized betas of the
various resource and social capital variables, the results are quite similar to those
obtained in the model without the family structure variables. However, children with a
married stepparent scored .036 standard deviations higher on reading change scores
compared to children in households with two married biological parents. Accordingly,
given that the stepfamily coefficient was statistically significant in the model, I examined
the extent to which social and resource capital impacted children's reading change
scores in this family structure separately.

Parent Social and Resource Capital and Reading Change Scores: Children in
Stepfamilies
Table 13 presents the regression of parents' social and resource capital onto
children's reading change scores for only those children residing with a married
stepparent. The model explained 34% of the variance in reading change scores.
However, given the extent to which the various indicators impacted reading
improvement, only the individual contributions of each statistically significant predictor
variable in the model are discussed.

Parent Social Capital

Children whose parent contacted the school scored higher by .134 standard
deviations on the change scores in reading compared to children whose parent did not

87

contact the school. In contrast, compared to children whose parents did not attend a
parent/teacher conference, those children whose parents did attend a parent/teacher
conference scored .015 standard deviations lower on reading change scores. Finally, as
the number of parents of their friends that their parents talk to regularly increased by
one standard deviation, their reading change scores increased by .144 standard
deviations.

Parent Resource Capital

Compared to children whose parent did not read books to them, children whose
parent read books to them once or twice a week scored .457 standard deviations
higher. In addition, compared to children who did not read picture books, children who
read picture books three to six times a week scored .482 standard deviations higher on
reading change scores. Further, children who read outside school three to six times a
week scored .245 standard deviations higher and children who read outside school
everyday scored.334 standard deviations higher than their counterparts who did not
reading outside school.

Socioeconomic Status
Compared to children whose parent-reported socioeconomic status placed them
in the lowest quintile, children in the second quintile scored .328 standard deviations
higher on reading change scores. The corresponding advantage of children in either the
third, fourth, or fifth quintiles compared to children in the lowest quintile were.343, .333,
and .332 standard deviations, respectively.

Race
Black children scored .230 standard deviations lower on reading change scores
than White children. Additionally, children who represented other races scored .125
standard deviations lower than White children.

88

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
In light of evidence to suggest that children in alternative families (i.e., reside with
a single parent or a stepparent) demonstrate less academic achievement than those
children residing in two-biological-parent families (Abd-El-Fattah, 2006; Bjorklund,
Ginther, & Sundstrom, 2006; Cavanagh, 2006; Heard, 2007; Jeynes, 2006; Tillman,
2007), the purpose of this study was to examine the usefulness of social capital theory
as a basis for understanding the academic improvement of young children and to
explore how variations in social and resource capital among three family structures
(single-parent, two-parent-biological, and stepparent) predicted academic improvement
in young children over two points in time. Focusing on young children was particularly
salient given the extent to which scholars have shown that academic achievement in
early childhood can predict various long-term advantages/disadvantages including
educational attainment at age 22 (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2005), dropping out of
high school (Alexander, Entwisle, Dauber, 2002; Finn, Gerber, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2005),
and attending college (Garces, Thomas, & Currie, 2002). Further, because early
childhood offers an optimal period for intervention and represents the period when gaps
in academic achievement first emerge (Perez-Johnson & Maynard, 2007), the period of
early childhood deserved continued research-based study. Accordingly, from a family
social capital perspective, the following research questions were addressed:
1

Does social and resource capital have an impact on young children's

academic improvement, controlling for parent's education and income
level?

Does family structure matter in terms of children's academic improvement?

Parent Social and Resource Capital

Scholars previously established the associations between variations in social and
resource capital and dropping out of high school (Teachman, Paasch, & Carver, 1996;
1997), attending college (Smith, Beaulieu, & Seraphine, 1995), completing college
(Evans, Kelly, & Wanner, 2001), academic performance (Mullis, Rathge, & Mullis, 2003)
and math and reading achievement (Hampden-Thompson & Pong, 2005; Parcel &
Dufur, 2001; Pong, 1997) in older children. However, this study addressed the role of
89

90

social and resource capital in relation to the academic improvement of young children
an area of inquiry which has been repeatedly called to attention by scholars in the past
as needing further examination (Artis, 2007; Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Downey,
1994; Lee, 1993; Pong, 1998).
As a theoretical framework, social capital was useful in that it permitted the
measurement and articulation of the quality and quantity of networks connecting
children to the resources of their parents (Coleman, 1990)a construct that has helped
scholars explain differences among students in terms of their academic performance
based on the presence/absence of these resources (Majoribanks, 2002; Mullis, Rathge,
& Mullis, 2003). In this study, for all children included in the analyses, parent social and
resource capital explained 13% of the variance in reading change scores from
kindergarten to fifth grade and 15% of the variance in math change scores from
kindergarten to fifth grade. In addition, parent social and resource capital explained 34%
of children's reading improvement in stepparent family structures.
For the entire analytical sample of school-age children, having a parent who
acted as a school volunteer significantly increased their reading and math improvement
scores. However, other types of parent involvement including parents contacting the
school and parents attending parent teacher conferences were negatively related to
student achievement. Previous authors have linked parent involvement to students'
positive academic achievement (Alomar, 2006; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Marchant, Paulson,
& Rothlisberg, 2001). However, for children in this study, children whose parent
contacted the school or attended a parent/teacher conference had lower reading and
math improvement scores than their counterparts whose parent did not contact the
school or attend a parent teacher conference. One possible explanation for this finding
may be that children whose parent either contacted the school, attended a
parent/teacher conference, or both, were already performing poorly and thus
necessitated greater parent involvement via their teachers' requests for further meetings
and/or contact. In fact, Black (2005), Elmore (2008), and Potter (2008) suggested that
teachers primarily schedule conferences with parents in an effort to discuss problematic
situations such as declines in a child's academic performance, positive attitude, or
appropriate behavior. Further, Patrikakou and Weissberg (1999, 2000) suggested that
91

92

the quality of parent teacher conferences is more important that the quantity of parent
teacher contacts. It may also be that for the children in this study who were performing
poorly, their parents' contact with teachers via scheduled conferences may have been
rendered ineffective, given Swap's (1993) assertion that parent teacher conferences
tend to "smooth over problems, limit honest dialogue, and inhibit future connections (p.
21).
In terms of parent resource capital, children who visited the library with their
parent scored higher on math change scores that children who did not. Mulhuish, Phan,
Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford and Taggart (2008) reported similar findings for both
math and reading achievement. In addition, children in this study who had access to a
home computer scored significantly higher on reading and math improvement than
those children who did not have a home computer. This is consistent with findings of
other researchers who have documented the association between a rich learning
environment and children's standardized reading and math scores (Burchinal, PeisnerFeinberg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002; Downer and Pianta, 2006; Duncan & Magnuson,
2005). For children in this study, having a parent who read to them, and reading outside
school every day themselves, was associated with higher reading and math
improvement scores. These findings are similar to Boardman, Powers, Padilla, and
Hummer (2002) and Guo and Harris (2000). However, whereas Boardman, Powers,
Padilla and Hummer merely linked children's intellectual development to parenting style,
cognitive stimulation in the home, and the physical environment of the home, Guo and
Harris reported that a negative association between poverty and cognitive functioning
could be completely mediated by these same factors. However, unlike Guo and Harris,
even after controlling for the impact of parent education, socioeconomic status, and the
child's gender and race, parent social and resource capital variables associated with
higher math and reading improvement were still statistically significant.
The devastating impact of a family's low socioeconomic status on children's
cognitive functioning and academic achievement has been well documented (Artis,
2007; Boardman, Powers, Padilla, & Hummer, 2002; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997;
McLoyd, 1998). In this study, school age children whose parent-reported socioeconomic
status placed them in the lowest quintile scored significantly lower in both reading and
93

94

math improvement compared to children whose parent-reported socioeconomic status

placed them in all other quintiles. Hirsh-Pasek and Burchinal (2006) and Merlo,
Bowman, and Barnett (2007) reported that a child's reading achievement could be
accounted for by parent nurturance and involvement. Perhaps in this population, the
children in the lowest quintile (i.e. lowest 20% in terms of family socioeconomic status),
lacked sufficient parent involvement and nurturance, thereby reducing their academic
improvement compared to all other children in higher quintiles. However, the complexity
of this interpretation is further exacerbated by the fact that a number of other factors
have also been shown to be related to socioeconomic status which impact children's
academic achievement including lowered exposure to household literature (Evans,
2004; Vernon-Feagans, Hammer, Miccio, & Manlove, 2002), poorer quality
neighborhoods (Evans, 2004; Lee & Burkam, 2002), the extent and quality to which
teachers' interact with students during classroom instruction and activities (Entwisle &
Alexander, 1993; Pianta, LaParo, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002), decreased parental
involvement in their child's schooling (Evans, 2004), and decreased occurrences of
parents reading to children (Lee & Burkam, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). In fact,
at least in terms of reading improvement, Aikens and Barbarin (2008) offered
compelling evidence to suggest that the impact of SES could be systematically
mediated through efforts "that direct resources to strengthening family literacy
environments, encouraging parental involvement in schools, and reducing parental role
strain" (p. 248).
Parent education, and particularly maternal education, has repeatedly been
linked to children's academic achievement (Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, &
Howes, 2002; Downer & Pianta, 2006; Melhuish, Phan, Sylva, Sammons, SirajBlatchford, & Taggart, 2008). For children in this study, having a parent without a high
school diploma placed them well below their peersin reading and math improvement
scoreswhose parent had either a high school diploma, some college, a bachelor's
degree, or the educational equivalent beyond a bachelor's degree. Boardman, Powers,
Padilla, and Hummer (2002) reported similar results using data from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child Data involving children between the ages of six and
fourteen. They found that children whose mothers did not complete high school scored

95

96

significantly lower on measures of math and reading than their counterparts whose
mother's did complete high school. Magnuson (2007), using data from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child Data involving children similar in ages (between 6
and 12), revealed that the acquisition of additional schooling by young mothers
increased the academic skills in reading and math of their young children through
associated increases in the quality of their children's home environments.
Previous scholars have documented no gender differences in overall math and
reading achievement of children in kindergarten (West, Denton, & Germino-Hausken,
2002) and from kindergarten to first grade (Denton & West, 2002; Chatterji, 2005) using
the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999. However,
this study revealed gender differences in math and reading improvement from
kindergarten to fifth grade. Overall, males showed higher math improvement, whereas
females showed higher reading improvement. One potential explanation for these longterm gender improvement differences may be due to variations in sub-test performance,
which impacted overall improvement longitudinally. In fact, as Denton and West (2002)
stated, "differences (or lack of differences) in overall achievement scores only tell part of
the story. Another way to think about how certain child and family characteristics relate
to first-graders' spring achievement is in terms of children's acquisition of specific
reading and mathematics knowledge and skills. Whether or not certain groups of
children acquire certain skills or sets of skills may add meaning to an overall
achievement score difference" (p. 3). Perhaps this is exactly what happened for the
children in this investigation as they progressed from kindergarten to fifth grade. The
acquisition of certain skills or skill sets in reading may have been more pronounced in
females from kindergarten to fifth grade, whereas the acquisition of certain skills or skill
sets in math may have been more pronounced in males from kindergarten to fifth grade.
Future research should examine whether or not these gender differences in skills sets
do indeed exist, and if they do, whether or not they persist beyond this elementary
school period.
Racial disparities between White, Black, and Hispanic children on measures of
reading and math achievement using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,
Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 have been well articulated in the literature (Chatterji,
97

98

2005; Denton & West, 2002; Duncan & Magnuson, 2005; Raver, Gershoff, & Aber,
2007). Although the authors of these previous studies limited their analyses to include
only children in kindergarten and kindergarten through first grade, the results of this
investigation suggested that disparities remain well into fifth grade. Duncan and
Magnuson (2005) suggested that differences in parent education, family structure, and
neighborhood conditions should be targeted for intervention and that by focusing on
these three key components, policy makers could perhaps alleviate some of the
socioeconomic pressures directly impacting children's parents and indirectly impacting
children's academic improvement across racial categories. In fact, Raver, Gershoff, and
Aber (2007) reported clear evidence that lower income was associated with increased
economic hardships, higher parental stress, less positive parenting behaviors, and
lowered social skills amongst children from all three racial groups, all of which impacted
children's academic achievement. Further, Denton & West (2002) reported significant
racial differences among subtest performance related to math and reading achievement
in kindergartners and first graders using the ECLS-K. Additionally, West, Denton, &
Germino-Hausken (2000) used the ECLS-K to show that kindergartner's problem
behaviors varied by race. Perhaps further research could explore the potential link
between problem behaviors and subtest performance (in addition to parent education,
family structure, economic hardship, parenting stress, parenting practices and
neighborhood conditions), which may account for the some of the overall racial
disparities in the math and reading improvement scores.

Family Structure, Parent Social and Resource Capital, and Children's Reading
and Math Change Scores
A primary objective of this investigation was the examination of how family
structure mattered in terms of children's academic improvement from kindergarten to
fifth grade. Given that numerous scholars have documented the relative academic
disadvantages faced by children residing with a single parent (Astone & McLanahan,
1991; Carlson & Corcoran, 2001; Downey, 1994; Heard, 2007; Lee, 1993; Pong, 1998;
Tillman, 2007) the results of this study are quite unexpected. For children in this study,
there was no significant difference on reading or math improvement from kindergarten
to fifth grade between children residing with a single parent and children residing with
99

100

two married biological parents during kindergarten. Although, Astone and McLanahan
(1991), Carlson and Corcoran (2001), Downey (1994), Lee (1993), and Pong (1998) all
reported academic differences between children in single parent families and two
biological parent families from a static perspective (their respective analyses included
only assessments held during one point in time), Heard (2007) and Tillman (2007)
reported differences between children in single parent families and two biological parent
families using longitudinal analyses from children sampled over a period of time.
However, both of these researchers used samples with significantly older child
participants (in grades 7 through 12). In fact, all of the authors reporting differences
between children in single parent and two biological parent families used data drawn
from children who were at least middle school-aged. DeBell (2008) using data from a
nationally representative sample of children residing in single mother households
reported a positive relationship between parent involvement and children's age for
children in grades one through five, but a negative relationship between parent
involvement and children's age for children in grades six through eight and nine through
twelve. Given the relative absence of studies examining the effect of single parents'
school involvement on their young children's academic achievement (Lee, Kushner, &
Cho, 2007) and the results from this study involving children from single parent families,
future research could longitudinally explore the potential link between children's age,
their single parent's involvement with their school, and their overall academic
improvement.

Parent Social and Resource Capital and Reading Change Scores: Children in
Stepfamilies
One of the most surprising findings in this study was the extent to which children
living with a married stepparent in kindergarten scored significantly higher on their
reading change scores from kindergarten to fifth grade compared to their counterparts
who lived in two married biological parent families during kindergarten. There are a
number of studies that have documented the overall educational disadvantage of
children in stepfamilies compared to intact biological families (Artis, 2007; Carlson &
Corcoran, 2001; Ginther & Pollak, 2004; Jeynes, 1999), single parent families (Jeynes,
1998; Jeynes, 2000b; Jeynes, 2006; Ram & Hou, 2003; Tillman, 2007) and even
101

102

widowed-parent stepfamilies (Jeynes, 2000a). Therefore, the comparatively inconsistent

findings in this study deserve considerable attention.
One possible reason for these findings is the extent to which social capitalin
the form of the number of parents of their friends that their parent talked with regularly
impacted stepchildren. Through analysis of the population in its entirety, this indicator of
social capital offered no statistical significance with regard to children's math and
reading change scores. However, for children living with a stepparent during
kindergarten, this indicator of social capital suggested that as the number of parents of
their friends that their parent talked to regularly increased by one standard deviation,
their reading change score increased by .144 standard deviations. Abd-El-Fattah
(2006) and Cavanagh, Schiller, and Riegle-Crumb (2006) concluded that social capital
via parent involvementplayed a vital role in terms of the academic achievement of
adolescents in stepfamilies. Further, Artis (2007), Astone and McLanahan (1991),
Downey (1994), Lee (1993) and Pong (1998) recommended that scholars examine the
role social capital plays in relation to the academic achievement of children reared in
stepfamilies. Perhaps more so in young children, as opposed to adolescence, does social
capital (by way of parents speaking to the parents of their children's friends) impact
academic improvement.
A second possible explanation for these divergent findings may be related to a
combination of the specific population characteristics themselves, and family processes
including parent involvement. Perhaps as a subsample, the stepparents in this study
differentially impacted their stepchildren which subsequently affected their reading
change scores. Scholars have demonstrated that gender of the child does not impact
stepparent involvement (Hofferth & Anderson, 2003). Additionally, scholars have also
found that stepfathers spend more time with younger as opposed to older stepchildren
(Dunn, Davies, O'Connor, & Sturgess, 2000) and that Black stepfathers spend
significantly less time with their stepchildren than White stepfathers (Hofferth & Anderson,
2003). The fact that there was no difference on reading change scores between males
and females within the stepparent family structure subsample (but there was in the entire
analytic sample), and that there was a greater discrepancy between Black children
compared to White children in this subsample than there was in the
103

104

entire analytical sample, supports this assertion. Accordingly, in may be that the
stepparents in the population from which the data were analyzed interacted with their
stepchildren differently, thereby affecting their stepchild's reading improvement.
The differences in the proportion of explained variance in reading change scores
from kindergarten to fifth grade between the stepchildren subsample and the entire
analytical sample also supports the assertion that children in stepfamilies are uniquely
impacted by the population characteristics themselves, and family processesincluding
parent involvement. Based on these findings, it appears as though the indicators used to
measure social and resource capital were more salient for stepchildren's academic
improvement in reading and math than they were for children in single parent and twobiological parent families. Unlike Widmer (2006), who stated that "respondents in postdivorce families have a small number of ties embedded in long chains of connections",
the children in these stepfamilies appear to reside in families characterized as those
providing "bonding social capitaldensely connected family networks" (p. 995), which
may have positively impacted their overall longitudinal reading improvement compared to
children in other family structures.
Implications

The results of this study have implications for various groups of individuals
including (step)parents, scholars, and policymakers. The fact that parenting behaviors
are amenable to change and directly and indirectly associated with improved child
development, academic achievement, and scholastic performance (Mulhuish, Phan,
Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart (2008) provides a compelling argument for
parents and stepparents to examine, and perhaps modify, their own parenting practices.
Given the extent to which involvement in school functions impacted children's academic
improvement in this study and others (Alomar, 2006; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Marchant,
Paulson, & Rothlisberg, 2001) the parent/child/school connection appears to offer an
optimal avenue for parents to concentrate their focus in an effort to assist their children.
For stepparents (and parents as well), actively engaging in the social aspect of their
(step)children's lives also appears to provide a way in which they can assist their
stepchildren academically. By speaking to the parents of their stepchild's friends on a
regular basis, and actively engaging in the social web surrounding their stepchild, the
105

106

social capital generated will undoubtedly benefit their stepchild academically. Other
scholars have certainly supported this assumption (Coleman, 1990; Israel, Beaulieu, &
Hartless, 2001; Majoribanks, 2002; Widmer, 2006).
These findings suggest that social capitaleven with its purported overall decline
(Putnam, 1995) longitudinally impacts children's academic improvement from
kindergarten to fifth grade. For parents, this highlights the significance and importance
of becoming actively involved in the lives of their children at an early age. Active
parenting at an early age is especially vital considering the extent to which parent
involvement impacts early academic achievement (Alomar, 2006; Lee & Bowen, 2006;
Marchant, Paulson, & Rothlisberg, 2001; Mulhuish, Phan, Sylva, Sammons, SirajBlatchford, & Taggart, 2008), which subsequently has long-term implications for
educational attainment in young adulthood (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2005),
dropping out of high school (Alexander, Entwisle, Dauber, 2002; Finn, Gerber, & BoydZaharias, 2005) and attending college (Garces, Thomas, & Currie, 2002).
These findings also have implications in light of recent national policies such as
President Bush's 2002 No Child Left Behind Act and the Good Start, Grow Smart
initiative. Consequently, policymakers should continue to focus on building better
parent, child, and school connections that increase the level of academic and social
support children experience. By fostering stronger ties to schools, communities, and
fellow parents (i.e., increasing social capital), policymakers can directly and indirectly
assist parents in their effort to build a richer environment that is conducive to their
children's learning and academic improvement.
Limitations

Although a secondary analysis on the data drawn from the ECLS-K offered a low
cost, readily accessible, and nationally representative population from which to derive
information, the inability to determine which parent responded to questions pertaining to
(step)children is an obvious drawback. Because only one parent was interviewed, and
no information was obtained to distinguish that parent's exact relationship to the focus
child, it was impossible to determine whether the parent respondent was a step or
biological parentonly that the child lived in a stepparent household. (Tourangeau,
Nord, Le, Pollack, & Atkins-Burnett, 2006). This poses potential problems with respect
107

108

to the view that "studies have generally favored collecting data primarily from the
mother, who researchers believed was most knowledgeable about residential children
and their well-being" (Hofferth, 2005, p. 897). Further, because relationship quality data
between parent and child are not available in the ECLS-K, leaving this important factor
unmeasured provided no way of knowing how the participant's perceptions of the child
may have flavored responses to inquiry (Artis, 2007).
Hofferth (2005) stated that "the major reason for large sample size, of course, is to
obtain greater precision of estimates of subgroups of the U.S. population, given that the
population is diverse in ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family structure, and family
employment" (p. 893). Even thought the ECLS-K offers employable sample weights to
compensate for unequal probabilities of selection, participant or unit non-response, and to
conform to known population distributions, the weighted results stemming from these
analyses of the relatively small sample of stepparent family structures warrants caution.
This is particularly relevant given Cohen's (1988) assertion that as sample size
increases so does power and precision, while the chance of error decreases. However,
the ratio of participants to predictor variables in the stepparent family structure was
sufficient (at least 15 to 1, Field, 2005). Nonetheless, the resultant stepparent family
structure analyses and associated model were based on heavily weighted data in order
to adjust for the overall distribution of stepfamilies within the population as a whole, and
should be interpreted with this caveat.
Future Research
The findings of this study accentuate the impetus for scholars to continually
examine parent, child, and school interactions from a social capital perspective.
Although not explored in the present study directly, opportunities abound for the
examination of various teacher-related social capital indicators within the ECLS-K
dataset. Perhaps by including these additional variables related to teachers, the amount of
explained variance in children's reading and math improvement can be dramatically
improved. In fact, several scholars have documented the positive impact of teachers'
social and resource capital on children's academic achievement

(Parcel & Durfur,

2001; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). Future researchers could extend this study's

109

focus of parent resource and social capital to include teacher resource and social
capital using the ECLS-K dataset.
The magnitude in which social and resource capital indicators accounted for
stepchildren's reading improvement from kindergarten to fifth grade warrants additional
empirical focus. Given the longitudinal nature of the ECLS-K data, latent variable growth
curve modeling might be one way to specifically answer how changes in family social
and resource capital impact stepchildren's academic performance over time. In fact,
because "the primary goal of longitudinal analysis of repeated measures and growth
curve analyses in particular is to describe patterns of change over time" (McCartney,
Burchinal, & Bub, 2006, p. 66), latent variable growth modeling would represent the
optimal means by which to explore this phenomenon.
Finally, another potential avenue for academic exploration is the link between
computer usage, social capital, and children's academic improvement. In this study,
having a computer in the home was associated with increases in both reading and math
improvement. Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, and Gross (2000) reported that "much
of children's alone time on computers appears actually to be spent extending social
relationships by connecting with others through interpersonal communication
applications via the Internet" (p. 131). Accordingly, with the relatively recent rise of
social networking Internet sites geared toward keeping families connected (Gutner,
2006) and targeted toward elementary-aged children (Borja, 2006), children's social
capital acquisition may have, in fact, "gone digital". The potential that children's social
capital may be shifting toward cyberspace offers a compelling rebuttal to Putman's
(1995) assertion that social capital's decline stems from parents not having enough time
to spend with their children, the sociological shift of women working outside the home
with greater frequency, and the overall increase in marital disruptions.

Conclusions
An effort to build a model detailing the impact of family and school capital on
children's academic outcomes, Majoribanks (2002) succinctly summarized the extent to
which parental involvement benefitted children by stating, "it is generally agreed that if
parents are involved positively in activities associated with children's learning then the
school outcomes of those children are likely to be enhanced" (p.1). The results of this
110

111

study clearly elucidate the utility of family social capital theory (Coleman, 1987; 1988;
1990; 1997) for examining and explaining variations in children's academic
improvement. By using various indicators of both resource and social capital present in
the ECLS-K dataset as an attempt to articulate, approximate, and measure the
culmination of norms, values, and expectations embedded within a child's social
networks, a statistically significant proportion of the variation in children's reading and
math improvement has been explained. Further, the way in which family social and
resource capital impacts the academic improvement of children in stepfamilies has been
specifically modeled, and shown to account for a substantial amount of explained
variation.

112

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

113

Figure 1
Social and Resource Capital
as Predictors of Academic
Improvement

Unique Effect of Resource Capital on

Academic Improvement

Proportion of Variance in
Academic Improvement Explained by Social and Resource Capital

Unexplained Variance
Controls (Parental SES Education, Child's Race and Gender)
Unique Effect of Social Capital on Academic Improvement

114

Figure 2

Social Capital, Resource Capital, and Family Structure as Predictors of Academic

Improvement.

Unique effect of Family Structure on Academic Improvement

Controls (Parental SES Education, Child's Race
and Gender)

115

Unexplained Variance
Unique Effect of Resource Capital on
Academic Improvement

Family Structure
Academic Improvement
Social Capital
Unique Effect of Social Capital on Academic Improvement
Resource Capital

Proportion of Variance in Academic Improvement Explained by Social and Resource Capital

116

APPENDIX B
TABLES

117

Table 118

Correlation Matrix amongst Social and Resource Capital Predictor Variables

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
064
148
105
215
154
214
185
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
1
064
076
067
098
014 041
063
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
1
148 076
172
266
153
141
208
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
1
105 067
172
160
089
086
132
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
1
215 098
266
160
292
178
247
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
1
154 014
153
089
292
151
159
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
1
214 041
141
086
178
151
141
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
1
185 063
208
132
247
159
141
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
390 072
108
066
143
093
135
130
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
282 029
049
015
055
053
083
039

9
.
390
.
072
.
108
.
066
.
143
.
093
.
135
.
130
1
.
427

*p < .001

Variable Numbers for Appendix A

1

How often you read to child

2
3

Parent contacted school

Attended open house

Attended parent/teacher conference

5
6

Parent acted as a school volunteer

Number of parents of child's friends parent talks to regularly

Visited the library

Have home computer child uses

How often child reads picture books

How frequently child reads books outside school

10
.
282
.
029
.
049
.015
.
055
.
053
.
083
.
039
.
427
1

Table 2

Step-by-Step Process Leading to the Resultant Analytical Sample

Population
Frequency Percentage
Full Sample: Spring of Kindergarten
Number of Children in Spring of
Kindergarten with IRT Scaled-

22,813

100%

16,228

71.1%

16,846

73.8%

16,143

100%

11,262

70%

11,271

70%

Scores for Reading

Number of Children in Spring of Kindergarten
with IRT Scaled-Scores for Math
Full Sample: Spring of Fifth Grade
Number of Children in Spring of Fifth
Grade with IRT Scaled-Scores for
Reading
Number of Children in Spring of Fifth
Grade with IRT Scaled-Scores for
Math
Number of Children with change scores for
Reading

Number of Children with change scores for

10441

10886

93%*

97%*

Math
*This percentage represents the proportion of children in fifth grade with IRT ScaledScores who also have IRT Scaled-Scores from when they were in Kindergarten.

119

Table 120

Analytical Sample: Family Structure Variable

Population
Number of Children

With Change Scores in Math

Full Analytical Sample

10,886

100%

Two Married Biological Parents

7,091

65%

A Married Stepparent

317

3%

A Single Parent

2040

19%

Other

852

8%

Missing

586

5%

With Change Scores in

Reading

Full Analytical Sample

10,441

100%

Two Married Biological Parents

6,807

65%

A Married Stepparent

313

3%

A Single Parent

1977

19%

Other

791

8%

Missing

553

5%

62

Table 121

Demographic Characteristics for Children with Change Scores in Math from the Spring of
Kindergarten to the Spring of Fifth Grade
Full Analytical
Sample (n =
10,886)
Gender
Males
Females
Race
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or AfricanAmerican
Hispanic, Race
Specified
Hispanic, Race not
Specified
Asian
Native Hawaiian,
Other Pacific
Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
More than One
Non-Hispanic
Parent Highest
Educational Level
8th Grade or Below
12`" Grade
High School
Diploma/Equivale
Voc/Tech Program
Some College
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate/Profession
al School-No
Master's Degree
Doctorate or
Professional
Degree
SES
1s` Quintile
2nd Quintile
3ts Quintile
4ts Quintile
5th Quintile

Two Married
Biological
Parents (n =
7091)

A
Married
Steppar
ent (n
= 317)

A Single
Parent (n =
2040)

Other (n =
852)

Missing (n
=586)

5482 (50.4%)
5404 (49.6%)

3600 (50.8%)
3491 (49.2%)

172 (54.3%)
145 (45.7%)

974 (47.7%)
1066 (52.3%)

441 (51.8%)
411 (48.2%)

295 (50.3%)
291 (49.7%)

6349 (58.3%)
1234 (11.3%)

4781 (67.4%)
314 (4.4%)

215 (67.8%)
28 (8.8%)

791 (38.8%)
657 (32.2%)

376 (44.1%)
120 (14.1%)

186 (31.7%)
115 (19.6%)

991 (9.1%)

602 (8.5%)

25 (7.9%)

204 (10%)

114 (13.4%)

46 (7.8%)

1050 (9.6%)

625 (8.8%)

19 (6.0%)

202 (9.9%)

117 (13.7%)

87 (14.8%)

648 (6.0%)
133 (1.2%)

459 (6.5%)
80 (1.1%)

4 (1.3%)
3 (.9%)

47 (2.3%)
26 (1.3%)

39 (4.6%)
16 (1.9%)

99 (16.9%)
8 (1.4%)

11 (3.5%)

55 (2.7%)

39 (4.6%)

27 (4.6%)

203 (1.9%)

71 (.1.0%)

266 (2.4%)

155 (2.2%)

12 (3.8%)

57 (2.8%)

30 (3.5%)

12 (2%)

350 (3.2%)
619 (5.7%)
2600 (23.9%)

190 (2.7%)
234 (3.3%)
1333 (18.8%)

1 (.3%)
11 (3.5%)
101 (31.9%)

108 (5.3%)
275 (13.5%)
762 (37.4%)

33 (3.9%)
62 (7.3%)
316 (37.1%)

18 (3.1%)
37 (6.3%)
88 (15%)

560 (5.1%)
2831 (26.0%)
2006 (18.4%)
264 (2.4%)

366 (5.2%)
1869 (26.4%)
1675 (23.6%)
215 (3%)

22 (6.9%)
120 (37.9%)
42 (13.2%)
7 (2.2%)

118 (5.8%)
543 (26.6%)
156 (7.6%)
27 (1.3%)

41 (4.8%)
227 (26.6%)
102 (12%)
11 (1.3%)

13 (2.2%)
72 (12.3%)
31 (5.3%)
4 (.7%)

826 (7.6%)
517 (4.7%)

732 (10.3%)
477 (6.7%)

8 (2.5%)
5 (1.6%)

39 (1.9%)
12 (.6%)

41 (4.8%)
19 (2.2%)

6 (1%)
4 (.7%)

1581 (14.5%)
1844 (16.9%)
2035 (18.7%)
2115 (19.4%)
2570 (23.6%)

604 (8.5%)
1011 (14.3%)
1369 (19.3%)
1649 (23.3%)
2216 (31.3%)

29 (9.1%)
76 (24.0%)
94 (29.7%)
68 (21.5%)
31 (9.8%)

646 (31.7%)
453 (22.2%)
364 (17.8%)
234 (11.5%)
188 (9.2%)

194 (22.8%)
219 (25.7%)
161 (18.9%)
120 (14.1%)
104 (12.2%)

108 (18.4%)
85 (14.5%)
47 (8%)
44 (7.5%)
31 (5.3%)

Table 122

Demographic Characteristics for Children with Change Scores in Reading from the Spring of
Kindergarten to the Spring of Fifth Grade
Full Analytical
Sample (n =
10441)
Gender
Males
Females
Race
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or AfricanHispanic, Race
Specified Race not
Hispanic,
Specified
Asian
Native Hawaiian, Other
Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
More than One Race,
Non-Hispanic
Parent Highest
Educational
Level
8th Grade or Below
9th-12th Grade
High School
Diploma/Equivalent
Voc/Tech Program
Some College
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate/Professional
School-No Degree
Master's Degree
Doctorate or
Degree
SES
1s` Quintile
2ns Quintile
3`s Quintile
4th Quintile
5th Quintile

Two Married
Biological
Parents (n =
6807)

A
Married
Steppar
ent (n
= 313)

A Single
Parent (n =
1977)

Other ( n =
791)

Missing (n
=553)

5256 (50.3%)
5185 (49.7%)

3449 (50.7%)
3358 (49.3%)

171 (54.6%)
142 (45.4%)

943 (47.7%)
1034 (52.3%)

410 (51.8%)
381 (48.2%)

283 (51.2%)
270 (48.8%)

6348 (60.8%)
1236 (11.8%)
795 (7.6%)
802 (7.7%)

4783 (70.3%)
315 (4.6%)
478 (7.0%)
462 (6.8%)

215 (68.7%)
28 (8.9%)
23 (7.3%)
17 (5.4%)

790 (40.0%)
658 (33.3%)
174 (8.8%)
171 (8.6%)

374 (47.3%)
120 (15.2%)
85 (10.7%)
88 (11.1%)

186 (33.6%)
115 (20.8%)
35 (6.3%)
64 (11.6%)

648 (6.2%)
133 (1.3%)

459 (6.7%)
80 (1.2%)

4 (1.3%)
3 (1.0%)

47 (2.4%)
26 (1.3%)

39 (4.9%)
16 (2%)

99 (17.9%)
8 (1.4%)

11 (3.5%)

53 (2.7%)

38 (4.8%)

28 (5.1%)

201 (1.9%)

71 (.1.0%)

266 (2.5%)

155 (2.3%)

12 (3.8%)

57 (2.9%)

30 (3.8%)

12 (2.2%)

200 (1.9%)
539 (5.2%)
2475 (23.7%)

92 (1.4%)
177 (2.6%)
1252 (18.4%)

0 (0.0%)
10 (3.2%)
99 (31.6%)

80 (4.0%)
265 (13.4%)
747 (37.8%)

15 (1.9%)
52 (6.6%)
290 (36.7%)

13 (2.4%)
35 (6.3%)
87 (15.7%)

541 (5.2%)
2795 (26.8%)
2002 (19.2%)
263 (2.5%)

349 (5.1%)
1846 (27.1%)
1673 (24.6%)
215 (3.2%)

22 (7.0%)
119 (38.0%)
42 (13.4%)
7 (2.2%)

118 (6.0%)
536 (27.1%)
156 (7.9%)
26 (1.3%)

40 (5.1%)
223 (28.2%)
100 (12.6%)
11 (1.4%)

12 (2.2%)
71 (12.8%)
31 (5.6%)
4 (.7%)

823 (7.9%)
513 (4.9%)

729 (10.7%)
474 (7.0%)

9 (2.9%)
5 (1.6%)

38 (1.9%)
11 (.6%)

41 (5.2%)
19 (2.4%)

6 (1.1%)
4 (.7%)

1283 (12.3%)
1778 (17.0%)
2008 (19.2%)
2108 (20.2%)
2568 (24.6%)

408 (6.0%)
960 (14.1%)
1352 (19.9%)
1645 (24.2%)
2214 (32.5%)

26 (8.3%)
75 (24.0%)
94 (30.0%)
68 (21.7%)
32 (10.2%)

601 (30.4%)
447 (22.6%)
358 (18.1%)
231 (11.7%)
187 (9.5%)

152 (19.2%)
212 (26.8%)
158 (20%)
120 (15.2%)
104 (13.1%)

96 (17.4%)
84 (15.2%)
46 (8.3%)
44 (8%)
31 (5.6%)

64

Table 123

Descriptives: Math Change Score and Indicator Variables-Social Capital

Math Change

Entire
Analyti
cal
Sampl

M = 80.40
(SD

Marrie
d
Biologi
cal

M = 82.56
(SD =14.69)

=15.83)

Indicator Variables: Social

Capital

Parent
Contacted
School
No
Yes
Parent Attended
Open House
No
Yes
Parent Attended
ParentConference
No
Yes
Parent
Volunteered at
School
No
Yes
Number of
Parents of
Child's Friend
Parent Talks to
Regularly

A
Married
Steppar
ent
M= 79.99

A
Singl
e
Pare
M= 75.65

Other

(SD
=14.95)

(SD
=17.12)

(SD =

M= 76.16

17.38)

4803
(44.1%)
5494
(50.5%)

3285 (46.3%)
3804 (53.6%)

141
(44.5%)
176
(55.5%)

984 (48.2%)
1055
(51.7%)

393
(46.1%)
459
(53.9%)

2439
(22.4%)
7846
(72.1%)

1310 (18.5%)
5771 (81.4%)

96 (30.3%)
221
(69.7%)

749 (36.7%)
1287
(63.1%)

284
(33.3%)
567
(66.5%)

1397
(12.8%)
8899
(81.7%)

794 (11.2%)
6295 (88.8%)

48 (15.1%)
269
(84.9%)

427 (20.9%)
1611 (79%)

128
(15%)
724
(85%)

4937
(45.4%)
5358
(49.2%)
M = 2.56
(SD = 3.19)

2844 (40.1%)
4244 (59.9%)

170
(53.6%)
147
(46.4%)
M= 1.73
(SD = 2.45)

1389
(68.1%)
649
(31.8%)

534
(62.7%)
318
(37.3%)
M= 1.95

M = 2.89
(SD = 3.32)

65

M= 1.81
(SD = 2.80)

(SD =

Table 124

Descriptives: Math and Reading Change Score and Indicator Variable-Social Capital
using Sample Weights
Entire

Married

A Married

A Single

Analytical

Biological

Stepparent

Parent

Sample

Math Change

Reading
Change

Other

Parents

M = 79.03

M = 81.74

M = 80.87

M = 74.87

M = 74.62

(SD
=16.62)

(SD =15.81)

(SD
=14.59)

(SD
=17.12)

(SD =17.12)

M = 97.78

M = 100.82

M = 101.47

M = 92.72

M = 94.17

(SD
=19.59)

(SD
=18.94)

(SD
=17.83)

(SD
=19.69)

(SD =19.68)

M = 2.14

M = 2.46

M= 1.63

M= 1.60

M= 1.61

(SD =
2.89)

(SD =2.92)

(SD
=2.32)

(SD
=2.98)

(SD =2.36)

M = 2.13

M = 2.47

M =1.60

M = 1.58

M = 1.58

(SD
=2.89)

(SD =2.90)

(SD
=2.29)

(SD
=2.96)

(SD =2.38)

Indicator Variable: Social Capital

Math Change

Number of
Parents of
Child's Friend
Parent Talks to
Regularly
Reading
Change
Number of
Parents of
Child's Friend
Parent Talks to
Regularly

66

Table 125

Descriptives: Reading Change Score and Indicator Variables-Social Capital

Reading
Change

Entire
Analyti
cal
Sampl

Marrie
d
Biologi
cal

A
Married
Steppar
ent

A
Singl
e
Pare

(SD
=18.04)

(SD
=18.30)

(SD
=19.69)

4545
(43.5%)
5340
(51.1%)

3107
(45.6%)
3698
(54.3%)

138
(44.1%)
175
(55.9%)

944 (47.7%)
1032
(52.2%)

356 (45%)
435 (55%)

2255
7619 (73%)

1190
5608
(82.4%)

93 (29.7%)
220
(70.3%)

720 (36.4%)
1253
(63.4%)

252 (31.9%)
538 (68%)

1312
(12.6%)
8573
(82.1%)

737 (10.8%)
6069
(89.2%)

46 (14.7%)
267
(85.3%)

412 (20.8%)
1563
(79.1%)

117 (14.8%)
674 (85.2%)

4614
5269 (50.5%

2625
4179
(61.4%)
M = 2.90
(SD = 3.32)

167
146
(46.6%)
M= 1.69

1335
640 (32.4%)

487 (61.6%)
304 (38.4%)

M= 1.79
(SD = 2.78)

M= 1.95
(SD = 2.73)

M = 99.41
(SD =18.83)

Indicator Variables: Social

Capital

Parent
Contacted
School
No
Yes
Parent Attended
Open House
No
Yes
Parent Attended
ParentConference
No
Yes
Parent
Volunteered at
School
No
Yes
Number of
Parents of
Child's Friend
Parent Talks
Regularly

M = 2.56
(SD = 3.19)

M = 101.88

M = 99.89

(SD =

M = 94.07

Other

M = 95.14
(SD = 19.03)

Table 126

Descriptives: Math Change Score and Indicator Variables: Resource Capital

Entire

Married

A Married

Analytical

Biological

Stepparent

Sample

A Single

Other

Parent

Parents

Visited Library in Past Month

No
Yes

4655
(42.8%)
5635
(51.8%)

2976 (42%)
4109
(57.9%)

173
(54.6%)
144

1079
(52.9%)
958 (47%)

427 (50.1%)
424 (49.8%)

2372
(33.5%)
4716
(66.5%)

154
(48.6%)
162
(51.1%)

1328
(65.1%)
711 (34.9%)

515 (60.4%)
334 (39.2%)

5 (1.6%)
45 (14.2%)

41 (2%)
391
(19.2%)
533
(26.1%)
845
(41.4%)

26 (3.1%)
160 (18.8%)

83 (9.7%)
203 (23.8%)

95 (30%)
124
(39.1%)

205 (10%)
463
(22.7%)
535
(26.2%)
832
(40.8%)

3 (.9%)
48(15.1%)
115
(36.3%)
116
(36.6%)

33 (1.6%)
4 (22.9
6
%)
5 (29.1
9
%)
7 (35.2
1
%)

13 (1.5%)
1 (20.7%)
7
2 (28.6%)
4
3 (37.2%)
1

(45.4%)

Child has Home Computer

No
Yes

4369
(40.1%)
5923
(54.4%)

Child Looked at Picture Books in the Past Week

Never
Once or Twice
3-6 Times
Every Day

203 (2.1%)
1529
(16.0%)
3019
(31.6%)
4791
(50.2%)

120 (1.7%)
874 (12.3%)
2114
(29.8%)
3323
(46.9%)

95 (30%)
137
(43.2%)

205 (24.1%)
358 (42%)

Child Read or Pretended to Read in the Past Week

Never
Once or Twice
3-6 Times
Every Day

982 (9.5%)
2151
(20.9%)
3039
(29.6%)
4106
(39.9%)

666 (9.4%)
1417 (20%)
2177
(30.7%)
2819
(39.8%)

28 (8.8%)
68 (21.5%)

232 (27.2%)
331 (38.8%)

Parent Read Books to Child in the Past Week

Never
Once or Twice
3-6 Times
Every Day

108 (1.1%)
16 (17.0%
27
)
34 (36.0%
40
)
43 (45.9%
83
)

51 (.7%)
867 (12.2%)
2393
(33.7%)
3130
(44.1%)

68

Table 127

Descriptives: Reading Change Score and Indicator Variables-Resource Capital

Entire

Married

A Married

A Single

Analytical

Biological

Stepparent

Parent

170
(54.3%)
143

1036
(52.4%)
938

(45.7%)

(47.4%)

150
(47.9%)
162
(51.8%)

1270
(64.2%)
706
(35.7%)

458 (57.9%)
330 (41.7%)

4 (1.3%)
44(14.1%)

39 (2%)
373
(18.9%)
520
(26.3%)
827
(41.8%)

18 (2.3%)
143 (18.1%)

198 (10%)
447
(22.6%)
518
(26.2%)
809
(40.9%)

73 (9.2%)
184 (23.3%)

29 (1.5%)
449
(22.7%)
581
(29.4%)
702
(35.5%)

7 (.9%)
154 (19.5%)

Sample

Other

Parents

Visited Library in Past Month

No
Yes

4386
(42%)
5492

2786
(40.9%)
4015 (59%)

(52.6%)

394 (49.8%)
396 (50.1%)

Child has Home Computer

No
Yes

3998
(38.3%)
5882
(56.3%)

2120
(31.1%)
4684
(68.8%)

Child Looked at Picture Books in the Past Week

Never
Once or Twice
3-6 Times
Every Day

171 (1.9%)
1404
(15.3%)
2927
(31.9%)
4675
(50.9%)

102 (1.5%)
785 (11.5%)
2049
(30.1%)
3247
(47.7%)

95 (30.4%)
135
(43.1%)

195 (24.7%)
340 (43%)

Child Read or Pretended to Read in the Past

Week

Never
Once or Twice
3-6 Times
Every Day

926 (9.4%)
2053
(20.8%)
2930
(29.7%)
3957
(40.1%)

628 (9.2%)
1355
(19.9%)
2098
(30.8%)
2714
(39.9%)

27 (8.6%)
67 (21.4%)
95 (30.4%)
122 (39%)

219 (27.7%)
312 (39.4%)

Parent Read Books to Child in the Past Week

Never
Once or Twice
3-6 Times
Every Day

82 (1%)
1494
(16.3%)
3343
(36.4%)
4273
(46.5%)

37 (.5%)
777 (11.4%)
2322
(34.1%)
3057
(44.9%)

2 (.6%)
47 (15%)
114
(36.4%)
115
(36.7%)

69

236 (29.8%)
300 (37.9%)

Table 128

69

Table 129

Regression of Parent Indicator Variables-Social and Resource Capital-on Reading and

Math Change Scores
Indicator Variables
Standardized r3
Standardized 13
on Children's
on Children's
Math
Reading
Change
Change
Social Capital
Scores
Scores
Contacted School
-.022*
-.038*
Attended Open House
-.001
-.001
Attended a Parent/Teacher Conference
-.021*
-.031*
Acted as a School Volunteer
.041*
.070*
How many parents of their child's friends they talk to
.019
.006
regularly
Resource Capital
Parent and Child Visited the Library
Child has a Home Computer
Reads to Child Once or Twice a Week
Reads to Child 3 to 6 Times a Week
Reads to Child Everyday
Reads Picture Books Once or Twice a Week
Reads Picture Books 3 to 6 Times a Week
Reads Picture Books Everyday
Reads Outside of School Once or Twice a Week
Reads Outside of School 3 to 6 Times a Week
Reads Outside of School Everyday
Parent Education
Has a High School Diploma
Has Some College
Has a Bachelor's Degree
Has an Educational Equivalent Beyond a
Bachelor's Degree
Socioeconomic Status
Second Quintile
Third Quintile
Fourth Quintile
Fifth Quintile
Gender
Males
Race
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other Race

W = .129, Adjusted W = .126, F Value . 51.123, N .

2

.012
.045*
.068
.144*
.093
.051*
.009
.009
.017
.029
.069*

.025*
.046*
.054
.114*
.104*
.007
.045
.041
.030*
.082*
.049*

.059*
.148*
.182*
.173*

.080*
.168*
.155*
.179*

.069*
.080*
.103*
.102*

.068*
.085*
.097*
.126*

-.023*

.111*

-.142*
-.015
-.008
-.036*

-.153*
.047*
.048*
-.034

10441 for Reading Change Scores

W = .155, Adjusted R = .153, FValue = 66.267, N. 10886 for Math Change Scores
*Significant at p < .05

70

Table 130

Table12
Regression of Parent Indicator Variables-Social
and Structure on Reading and Math Change
Scores
Indicator Variables

Resource Capital-and
Family
Standardized r3
on Children's
Reading
Change Scores

Standardized
on Children's
Math Change
Scores

-.022*
.000

-.037*
-.001

Social Capital

Contacted School
Attended Open House

70

Table 131

Attended a Parent/Teacher Conference

Acted as a School Volunteer
How many parents of their child's friends they talk to
regularlyCapital
Resource
Parent and Child Visited the Library
Child has a Home Computer
Reads to Child Once or Twice a Week
Reads to Child 3 to 6 Times a Week
Reads to Child Everyday
Reads Picture Books Once or Twice a Week
Reads Picture Books 3 to 6 Times a Week
Reads Picture Books Everyday
Reads Outside of School Once or Twice a Week
Reads Outside of School 3 to 6 Times a Week
Reads Outside of School Everyday
Family Structure

A Married Stepparent in the Household

A Single Parent in the Household
Other Family Type
Parent Education

Has a High School Diploma

Has Some College
Has a Bachelor's Degree
Has an Educational Equivalent Beyond a Bachelor's Degree

-.021*
.038*
.020*

-.030*
.066*
.005

.011
.044*
.070
.148*
.098
.054*
.013
.014
.014
.027
.069*

.025*
.043*
.060
.123*
.113*
.012
.036
.032
.027
.081*
.048*

.036*
-.008
-.019

.014
-.003
-.044

.056*
.146*
.180*
.171*

.081*
.170*
.157*
.180*

.065*
.075*
.099*
.099*

.065*
.082*
.092*
.122*

-.024*

.110*

-.137*
-.013
-.007
-.037*

-.151*
.048*
.048*
-.033*

Socioeconomic Status

Second Quintile
Third Quintile
Fourth Quintile
Fifth Quintile
Gen
de
Race

Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other Race

W = .131, Adjusted W = .128, F Value = 47.056, N . 10441for Reading Change Scores

W = .157, Adjusted W = .155, F Value = 61.014, N = 10886 for Math Change Scores
*Significant at p < .05

70

Regression of Parent Indicator VariablesSocial and Resource Capitalon Reading

Change ScoresStepfamilies
Indicator Variables
Standardized r3 on
Children's Reading
Change Scores
Social Capital
Contacted School
Attended Open House
Attended a Parent/Teacher Conference
Acted as a School Volunteer
How many parents of their child's friends they talk to
Resource Capital
Parent and Child Visited the Library
Child has a Home Computer
Reads to Child Once or Twice a Week
Reads to Child 3 to 6 Times a Week
Reads to Child Everyday
Reads Picture Books Once or Twice a Week
Reads Picture Books 3 to 6 Times a Week
Reads Picture Books Everyday
Reads Outside of School Once or Twice a Week
Reads Outside of School 3 to 6 Times a Week
Reads Outside of School Everyday
Parent Education
Has a High School Diploma
Has Some College
Has a Bachelor's Degree
Has an Educational Equivalent Beyond a Bachelor's Degree
Socioeconomic
Status Second
Quintile
Third
Quintile
Fourth Quintile
Fifth Quintile
Gen
der
Mal
Race
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other Race

.134*
-.013
-.015*
.007
.144*
.020
-.017
.457*
.329
.364
.098
.482*
.275
.133
.245*
.334*
-.214
-.090
-.027
-.102
.328*
.343*
.333*
.332*
-

.023

-.230*
-.045
.021
-.125*

R2 = .404, Adjusted R2 = .340, F Value = 6.304, N . 313 for Reading Change Scores
*Significant at p < .05

72

APENDIX C
IRB APPROVAL

133

4 0
17 7,7 I ".5.7 8 FILS8 tLaTt I C

omo crf tho vice President For Research

Human subjects Committee

Tallahassee, Florida 32349-2742

p5D) 644- B2 FAX IWO) 644-4852

APPROVAL mqN19RANDUNI
Dale: 1/15.12436
To-.
Nichanl Shrinor

MC 14901
Dept.; FAMLY & CHILD SCIENCE

From Thorsen L. Jacobson, ChM'.

Re:

Use of Human Subjects in Research

Academic Achievertant in Early
Child-rood: A Growth Curve Analysis

The forms that you submitted to this office in regard to the uSe of human subjects in the proposal
rererenced above have been reviewed by the Human Subjects Committee et its melding on
1t9ir2008. Your project was approved by the Committee,
The Human Subjects CA:immittee has not evaluated your proposal rorscleniltic merit, except to weigh
the risk to the human participants end the aspects of the proposal related to potential Flak and benefit.
This approval Ekes not replace any departmental or other approvals which may be required.
If the project has not been completed by 10/920641 you must request renewed approval for
continuation of the project,
You are advised that any crave In protaoal in this proleci muet be approved by resubmission of the
picioct to the Committee for approved. The principal Investigator ntuat promptly report, in writing, any
unexpected problems causing risks to research subjects or others,
By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department andfor your major profeseor is
reminded that heishe is responsible for hein9 informed concerning research projects ilvolvIng
human subjects in ihedepartment and should review protocols of such investigations as often es
needed to Insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our iistitution and with DHHS
regulaiione
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Protection from Raaaerch Risks. The
Assuranoe Number is IRIXIDIXID4.1.6.
cc: Ronald Mullis
HSC
2007.1020

134

REFERENCES
Abd-El-Fattah, S. M. (2006). Effects of family background and parental involvement on
Egyptian adolescents' academic achievement and school disengagement: A
structural equation modeling analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 139157.
Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67,
1012-1028.
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept.
Academy of Management Review, 27, 17-40.
Aikens, N. L., & Barbarin, 0. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories:
The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 235-251.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (2002). On the success of failure: A
reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary school grades (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, MA: University Press.
Alomar, B. 0. (2006). Personal and family paths to pupil achievement. Social Behavior
and Personality, 34, 907-922.
Amato, P. R. (1993). Children's adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, and
empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23-28.
Artis, J. E. (2007). Maternal cohabitation and child well-being among kindergarten
children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 222-236.
Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices, and
high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309-320.
Biblarz, T. J., & Raftery, A. E. (1999). Family structure, educational attainment, and
socioeconomic success: Rethinking the pathology of matriarchy. American
Journal of Sociology, 105, 321-365.
Bjorklund, A, Ginther, D. K., & Sundstrom, M. (2006). Family structure and child
outcomes in the USA and Sweden. Journal of Population Economics, 20, 183201
Black, S. (2005). Rethinking parent conferences. American School Board Journal, 192,
46-48.

135

136

Boardman, J. D., Powers, D. A., Padilla, Y. C., & Hummer, R. A. (2002). Low birth
weight, social factors, and developmental outcomes among children in the United
States. Demography, 39, 353-368
Borja, R. R. (2006). Social-networking sites for schools promote safety: Education
Benefits. Education Week, 26, 7.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future
of Children, 7, 55-71.
Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Pianta, R., & Howes, C. (2002). Development of
academic skills from preschool through second grade: Family and classroom
predictors of developmental trajectories. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 415436.
Caldwell, B., & Bradely, B. (1984). Home Observation for Measurement of the
Environment. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Carlson, M. J., & Corcoran, M. E. (2001). Family structure and children's behavioral and
cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 779-792.
Cavanagh, S. E. (2006). Marital transition, parenting, and schooling: Exploring the link
between family-structure history and adolescents' academic status. Sociology of
Education, 79, 329-354.
Chatterji, M. (2005). Achievement gaps and correlates of early mathematics
achievement: Evidence from the ECLS-K-first grade sample. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 13, 1-35.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families in schools. Educational Researcher, 16, 32.38.
Coleman, J. S. & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private schools: The impact of
communities. New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1997). Family, school, and social capital. In L. J. Saha (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of the sociology of education (pp. 623-625). Oxford,
UK: Pergamon.
137

138

Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another
decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1288-1307.
Cooksey, E. & Fondell, M. (1996). Spending time with his kids: Effects of family
structure on fathers' and children's lives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58,
693-707.
Cornille, T. & Boroto, D. (1992). The family distress model: A theoretical and clinical
application of Reiss' close families findings. Contemporary Family Therapy,
14(3), 181-198.
Cornille, T., Boroto, D., Barnes, M., & Hall, P. (1996). Dealing with family distress in
schools. Families in Society, 71, 435-445.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1980). Discriminative parental solicitude: A biological
perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 277-288.
DeBell, M. (2008). Children living without their fathers: Population estimates and
indicators of educational well-being. Social Indicators Research, 87, 427-443.
Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children's reading and mathematics achievement in
kindergarten and first grade. Education Statistics Quarterly, 4, 1-8.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A
critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72, 31-60.
Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Academic and cognitive functioning in first grade:
Associations with earlier home and child care predictors and with concurrent
home and classroom experiences. School Psychology Review, 35, 11-30.
Downey, D. B. (1994). The school performance of children from single-mother and
single-father families. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 129-147.
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2005). Can family socioeconomic resources account
for racial and ethnic test score gaps? Future of Children, 15, 35-54.
Dunn, J., Davies, L., O'Connor, T., & Sturgess, W. (2000). Parents' and partners' life
course and family experiences: Links with parent-child relationships in different
family settings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 955-968.
Elmore, M. (2008). Effective parent conferences. Principal Leadership, 8, 6-8.
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1993). Entry into school: The beginning school
transition and educational stratification in the United States. Annual Review of
Sociology, 19, 401-423.

139

140

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (2005). First grade and educational
attainment by age 22: A new story. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 14581502.
Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59,
77-92.
Evans, M. D. R., Kelley, J., & Wanner, R. A. (2001). Educational attainment of the
children of divorce: Australia, 1940-1990. Journal of Sociology, 37, 275-297.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
publications.
Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2005). Small classes in the early grades,
academic achievement, and graduating from high school. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 214-223.
Gertler, P., Levine, D. I., & Moretti, E. (2006). Is social capital the capital of the poor?
The role of family and community in helping insure living standards against
health shocks. Economic Studies, 52, 455-499.
Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie, J. (2002). Longer-term effects of head start. The
American Economic Review, 92, 999-1012.
Ginther, D.K., & Pollak, R. A. (2004). Family structure and children's educational
outcomes: Blended families, stylized facts, and descriptive regressions.
Demography, 41, 671-696.
Gutner, T. (2006). MySpace for the sandlot set. Business Week, 82.
Guo, G., & Harris, K. M. (2000). The mechanisms mediating the effects of poverty on
children's intellectual development. Demography, 37, 431-447.
Hampden-Thompson, G., & Pong, S.-L. (2005). Does family policy environment
moderate the effect of single-parenthood on children's academic achievement? A
study of 14 European countries. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36, 227248.
Heard, H. E. (2007). Fathers, mothers, and family structure: Family trajectories, parent
gender, and adolescent schooling. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 435-450.
Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2007). Demographic trends and
the transition years. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School
readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 217283). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

141

142

Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Burchinal, M. (2006). Mother and caregiver sensitivity over time:
Predicting language and academic outcomes with variable- and person-centered
approaches. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 449-485.
Hofferth, S. L., & Anderson, K. G. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage
as a basis for paternal investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 213-232.
Hofferth, S. L. (2005). Secondary data analysis in family research. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 67, 891-907.
Hofferth, S. L. (2006). Residential father type and child well-being: Investment versus
selection. Demography, 43, 53-77.
Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J., & Judd, C. M. (2002). Research methods in social relations
(7th ed.). New York: Wadsworth.
Israel, G. D., Beaulieu, L. J., & Hartless, G. (2001). The influence of family and
community social capital on educational achievement. Rural Sociology, 66, 4368.
Kreider, R.M., & Fields, J. (2005). Living arrangements of Children: 2001.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
Jeynes, W. H. (1998). Does divorce or remarriage have the greater impact on the
academic achievement of children? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 29, 79101
Jeynes, W. H. (1999). Effects of remarriage following divorce on the academic
achievement of children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 385-393.
Jeynes, W. H. (2000a). The effects of several of the most common family structures on
the academic achievement of eighth graders. Marriage and Family Review, 30,
73-97.
Jeynes, W. H. (2000b). A longitudinal analysis on the effects of remarriage following
divorce on the academic achievement of adolescents. Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, 33, 131-148.
Jeynes, W. H. (2002). Does parental involvement eliminate the effects of parental
divorce on the academic achievement of adolescents? Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, 37, 101-115.
Jeynes, W. H. (2006). The impact of parental remarriage on children: A meta-analysis.
Marriage and Family Review, 40, 75-102.

143

144

Juster, F. T., & Smith, J. P. (1998). Improving the quality of economic data: Lessons
from the HRS and AHEAD. Journal of American Statistical Association, 92, 27.
Lee, S.-A. (1993). Family structure effects on student outcomes. In B Schneider & J. S.
Coleman (Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools. San Francisco: Westview
press.
Lee, J.-S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the
achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational
Research Journal, 43, 193-218.
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background
differences in achievement as children enter school. Washington, DC: Economic
Policy Institute.
Lee, M. L., Kushner, J., & Cho, S. H. (2007). Effects of parent's gender, child's gender,
and parental involvement on the academic achievement of adolescents in single
parent families. Sex Roles, 56, 149-157.
Leonard, M. (2005). Children, childhood and social capital: Exploring the links.
Sociology, 39, 605-622.
Loury, G. (1987). Why should we care about group inequality? Social Philosophy and
Policy, 5, 249-271.
Magnuson, K. (2007). Maternal education and children's academic achievement during
middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1497-1512.
Magnuson, K. A., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Does prekindergarten improve
school preparation and performance? Economics of Education Review, 26, 3351
Majoribanks, K. (2002). Family and school capital: Towards a context theory of
students' school outcomes. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married,
and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 876-893.
Marchant, G. J., Paulson, S. E., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (2001). Relations of middle school
students' perceptions of family and school contexts with academic achievement.
Psychology in the Schools, 38, 505-519.
Matjasko, J. L., Grunden, L. N., & Ernst, J. L. (2007). Structural and dynamic process
family risk factors: Consequences for holistic adolescent functioning. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 69, 654-674.

145

146

McCartney, K., Burchinal, M. R., & Bub, K. (2006).Growth curve analysis: An

introduction to various methods for analyzing longitudinal data. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 71, 65-87.
McIntyre, L. L., Eckert, T. L., Fiese, B. H., DiGennaro, F. D., & Wildenger, L. K. (2007).
Transition to kindergarten: Family experiences and involvement. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 35, 83-88.
McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American
Psychologist, 53, 185-204.
Melhuish, E. C., Phan, M. B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B.
(2008). Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center
experience upon literacy and numeracy development in early primary school.
Journal of Social Issues, 64, 95-114.
Merlo, L. J., Bowman, M., Barnett, D. (2007). Parental nurturance promotes reading
acquisition in low socioeconomic status children. Early Education and
Development, 18, 51-69.
Meyers, L. S., Glenn, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Chapter 5a multiple
regression. In Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Implementation, (pp.
147-196). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Morrow, V. (1999). Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of children
and young people: A critical review. The Sociological Review, 47, 744-765.
Mullis, R. L., Rathge, R., & Mullis, A. K. (2003). Predictors of academic performance
during early adolescence: A contextual view. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 27, 541-548.
Nelson, T. S., & Allred, D. D. (2005). Survey research in marriage and family therapy. In
D. H. Sprenkle & F. P. Piercy (Eds.), Research methods in family therapy (2nd ed.)
(pp. 211-237). New York: Guilford Press.
Painter, G., & Levine, D. I. (2004). Daddies, devotion, and dollars: How do they matter
for youth? The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 63, 813-850.
Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on student
achievement. Social Forces, 79, 881-912.

147

148

Park, H. (2007). Inequality of educational opportunity in Korea by gender, socioeconomic background, and family structure. The International Journal of Human
Rights, 11, 179-197.
Patrikakou, E., & Weissberg, R. (1999). The seen p's of school-family partnerships.
Education Week, 21, 34-36.
Patrikakou, E., & Weissberg, R. (2000). Parents' perceptions of teacher outreach and
parent involvement in children's education. Journal of Prevention and
Intervention in the Community, 20, 103-119.
Pianta, R. C., LaParo, K. M., Payne, C. C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. H. (2002). The
relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school
characteristics and child outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 102, 225-238.
Perez-Johnson, I., & Maynard, R. (2007). The case for early, targeted interventions to
prevent academic failure. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 587-616.
Pong, S.-L. (1997). Family structure, school context, and eighth grade math and reading
achievement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 734-746.
Pong, S.-L. (1998). The school compositional effects of single parenthood on 10th grade
achievement. Sociology of Education, 71, 24-43.
Pong, S.-L., & Ju, D.-B. (2000). The effects of change in family structure and income on
dropping out of middle and high school. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 147-169.
Popenoe, D. (1994). The evolution of marriage and the problem of stepfamilies: A
biosocial perspective. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who
benefits? Who does not? (pp.3-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associations.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.
Potter, L. (2008). Difficult conversations: Parent-teacher conferences. Principal
Leadership, 8, 32-35.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6, 64-78.
Ram, B., & Hou, F. (2003). Changes in family structure and child outcomes: Roles of
economic and familial resources. The Policy Studies Journal, 31, 309-330.

149

150

Raver, C. C., Gershoff, E. T., & Aber, J. L. (2007). Testing equivalence of mediating
models of income, parenting, and school readiness for White, Black, and
Hispanic children in a national sample. Child Development, 78, 96-115.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica: The Journal of the Econometric Society, 73, 417439.
Sanders, J. M., & Nee, V. (1996). Immigrant self-employment: The family as social
capital and the value of human capital. American Sociological Review, 61, 231249.
Schiller, K., Khmelkov, V. T., & Wang, X.-Q. (2002). Economic development and the
effects of family characteristics on mathematics achievement. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 64, 730-742.
Smith, M. H., Beaulieu, L. J., & Seraphine, A. (1995). Social capital, place of residence,
and college attendance. Rural Sociology, 60, 363-380.
Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R. E., Greenfield, P. M., & Gross, E. F. (2000). The impact of
home computer use on children's activities and development. The Future of
Children, 10, 123-144.
Swap, S. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships: From concepts to practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Sy, S. R., Rowley, S. J., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2007). Predictors of parent involvement
across contexts in Asian American and European American families. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies, 38, 1-29.
Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory,
and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology,
33, 650-667.
Tate, R. (1998). An introduction to modeling outcomes in the behavioral and social
sciences. Edina, MN: Burgess International.
Teachman, J. D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. (1996). Social capital and dropping out of
school early. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 773-783.
Teachman, J. D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. (1997). Social capital and the generation of
human capital. Social Forces, 75, 1343-1359.
Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child
well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73, 221242.
151

152

Tillman, K. H. (2007). Family structure pathways and academic disadvantage among

adolescents in stepfamilies. Sociological Inquiry, 77, 383-425.
Tourangeau, K., Nord, C., Le, T., Pollack, J. M., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2006). Early
childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K),
combined user's manual for the ECLS-K fifth-grade data files and electronic
codebooks (NCES 2006-032.). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Vernon-Feagans, L., Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A., & Manlove, E. (2002). Early language
and literacy skills in low-income African American and Hispanic children. In S. B.
Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 192210.). New York: Guilford Press.
West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (2000). America's kindergartners:
Findings from the early childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 199899: Fall 1998. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2, 1-8.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy.
Child Development, 69, 848-872.
Widmer, E. D. (2006). Who are my family members? Bridging and binding social capital
in family configurations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 979998.
Winship, C., & Radbill, L. (1994). Sampling weights and regression analysis.
Sociological Methods and Research, 23, 230-257.

153

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Michael Shriner
Education
2008 (December)

Ph.D. Human Sciences: Family Relations

Florida State University (FSU), Tallahassee, FL
Dissertation (Defended: 8/26/08): The usefulness of social capital theory to
understand academic improvement in young children: The impact
of family structure
(Major Professor, Dr. Ronald L. Mullis)
2006

Graduate Certificate Measurement and Statistics

FSU, Tallahassee, FL
Completed Coursework in: General Linear Modeling; Multivariate
Modeling; Nonparametric Analysis; Research Methods I & II;
Measurement Theory; Advanced Topics: Analysis of Variance;
Causal Modeling; Meta-Analytical Techniques; Supervised
Research

2003

M.S. Clinical Psychology

Francis Marion University, Florence, SC

1999

B.A. Psychology
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Professional Experience
2007
(October-present)

Director of Evaluation, (Project PRE), ISU

Duties: Providing leadership in the ongoing development and
improvement of the assessment and evaluation system for the ISU Professional
Development School Teacher Quality Partnership Enhancement Grant (TQE), US DOE,
Title II. Responsible for coordinating the work of the project with the Teacher Education
Program Unit Assessment System and all aspects of the evaluation of the TQE grant,
including: preparation of accurate, systematic, and thorough evaluation and research reports,
designing, implementing, and overseeing periodic surveys, assisting in the dissemination of
evaluation and research reports to all partners, conducting technical assistance and training for
partnership members as needed, and working as a member of the leadership team charged to
administer the grant.

2007 (summer, fall) Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Distance Learning, FSU Duties: Assisted
with online instruction, maintained electronic office hours, and assisted in evaluating
assignments of approximately 60

154

undergraduate students, in FAD 3432 an online course in Stress and Resilience in Families and
Children
Supervisor: Dr. Thomas Corinne
2007 (spring)
20042007
(summers only)
20042007
20042005
2002-2003

Graduate Teaching Assistant, Depart of Family and Child Sciences, FSU

Duties: Assisting with the laboratory instruction, maintaining office hours, and evaluating lab assignments of approximately 10
graduate students, in CHD 5915, a graduate course in Methods of Research I.
Supervisor: Dr. Ming Cui

Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Family and Child Sciences, FSU

Duties: Gathering, annotating, and disseminating empirical literature for the general population pertaining to stepfamilies,
divorce, and remarriage. Supervisor: Dr. Kay Pasley

Graduate Research Assistant, FSU Family Institute-Policy Evaluation Unit

Duties: Served on research team as data management specialist (collecting data, supervising data entry, cleaning, and analyzing;
merging multiple waves and matching responses for dyadic analysis); identifying funding sources and assisting with
preparation of grant applications; developing educational training manuals and materials; preparing manuscripts for publication.
Supervisors: Drs. Ann Mullis, Ron Mullis, Tom Corinne

Graduate Teaching Assistant, FSU, Department of Family and Child Sciences

Duties: Independently instructed approximately 60 undergraduate students in FAD 2230, Family Relationships: A Life-Span
Developmental Approach. Maintained office hours, evaluated student assignments, prepared and delivered course lectures.
Supervisor: Dr. Carol Darling

Graduate Teaching Assistant, Francis Marion University, Department of Psychology

Duties: Independently instructed four sections of 20 undergraduate students per semester in PSY 216: Introductory
Psychology Laboratory. Conducted five experiments and instructed students on project development, experimental procedure,
data analysis, and final write-up of APA-style research papers. Maintained statistics computer lab, office hours and
evaluated all assignments.
Supervisor: Dr. Laurie Sullivan Hunter
2001-2004

Volunteer Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Psychology,

Francis Marion University

155

2000-2001

Duties: Proposed and conducted two studies "Parent and student perception of student
transition to college" and "The effects of diabetes on men's sexual health"; developed
instruments, collected data, including entry, cleaning and analysis; prepared manuscript and
papers for presentation at national and regional conferences; Analyzed and interpreted data on
parenting processes; prepared papers for presentation at regional conference; Entered data
related to relationship dissolution, assisted in manuscript preparation, and presented paper at
national conference. Supervisors: Drs. Leslie Barnes-Young, Kenneth Walters, and Mike
Jordan
Volunteer Research Assistant, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State
University
Duties: Administered Q-sort task, entered and cleaned data on jealousy project; built
participant base for study on children's friendship Supervisor: Dr. Jeffery Parker

Publications
Shriner, M., Schlee, B., & Libler, R. (Under review). Social studies instruction: Changing teacher confidence
in classrooms enhanced by technology. The Social Studies.
Schlee, B., Mullis, A., & Shriner, M. (Under review). Predictors of academic achievement during early
childhood: A social capital perspective of teachers and schools. Learning Environments Research.

Shriner, M., Mullis, R., & Schlee, B. (Under review). The usefulness of social capital theory for understanding the
academic improvement of young children in stepfamilies over two points in time. Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage.

Shriner, M., Schlee, B., & Libler, R. (Under review). Teachers' perceptions, attitudes, and
beliefs regarding curriculum integration. The Australian Educational Researcher.
Mullis, R., Byno, L., Mullis, A., & Shriner, M. (Revised and Resubmitted). Reckless behavior
and sexual practices of emerging adult women. Australian Journal of Educational
Developmental Psychology.

Shriner, M., Schlee, B., Hamil, M., & Libler, R. (Revised and Resubmitted). Creating teachers' perceptual, behavioral,
and attitudinal change using professional development workshops. Teacher Development.

Shriner, M. (In press). Marital quality in remarriages: A review of methods and results. Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage.
Schlee, B., Mullis, A., & Shriner, M. (In press). Parents' social and resource capital: Predictors of academic
achievement during early childhood. Children and Youth Services Review.

156

Shriner, M., Schlee, B., Mullis, R., Mullis, A., & Corinne, T. (2008). Family home childcare providers: A
comparison of subsidized and nonsubsidized working environments and employee issues. Early Child
Development and Care, 178, 165-176.
Pasley, K., & Shriner, M. (2007). Annotation of the recent research literature: Remarriage and
stepfamilies, 2006-2007. Auburn, AL: National Stepfamily Resource Center.
Mullis, A., Mullis, R., Schwartz, S., Pease, J., & Shriner, M. (2007). Relations among parental divorce, identity status,
and coping strategies of college age women. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and
Research, 7, 137-154.
Pasley, K., & Shriner, M. (2006). Annotated bibliography on remarriage and stepfamilies, 20052006. Auburn, AL: National Stepfamily Resource Center.
Corinne, T., Mullis, R., Mullis, A., & Shriner, M. (2006). An examination of childcare teachers in for-profit and
non-profit childcare centers. Early Child Development and Care, 176, 631-641.
Pasley, K., & Shriner, M. (2005). Annotated bibliography on remarriage and stepfamilies, 20042005 Lincoln, NB: Stepfamily Association of America.

Professional Presentations
Shriner, M., & Libler, R. (Under review). PDS summer teaching academy: Changing confidence
in the classroom. Workshop submitted for presentation at the Professional Development Schools National
Conference, Daytona, FL
Kiger, S., Quatroche, D., Libler, R., Balch, B., Gatrell, J., & Shriner, M. (2009, in February). Making initiatives
work: What to do when leadership changes. Workshop presentation at the annual preconference of
the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.
Hinshaw, R., Burden, R., & Shriner, M. (2009, in January). Do as I do: Meeting the needs of
practicing teachers using differentiated instructional techniques. Panel discussion submitted
for presentation at the annual meeting of the Hawaii International Conference on Education.
Mullis, R., Byno, L., Mullis, A., & Shriner, M. (2008, November). Reckless behavior and sexual
practices of emerging adult women. Paper presentation at the annual conference of the National council
on Family Relations, Little Rock, AR.
Schlee, B., Mullis, A., & Shriner, M. (2008, November). Parents social/resource capital: Predictors
of early academic achievement. Poster presentation at the annual conference of the National Council
on Family Relations, Little Rock, AR.

157

Shriner, M., & Libler, R. (2008, April). Behavior management in the classroom. Workshop presented
at the Professional Development Schools National Conference, Orlando, FL

Shriner, M. (2007, May). Engaging and helping reluctant and hard-to-reach families:
Intervention strategies for engaging and working with families with female offenders.
Workshop presented at the Faces of Courage: Charting New Directions for Girls Entering the Justice System with a
Special Focus on Women of Color Conference, Daytona Beach, FL.
Mullis, A., Mullis, R., Corinne, T. Schlee, B., Shriner, M., & Berarducci, N. (2006, November). Are parent
involvement interventions related to early literacy influences and child early literacy
outcomes? Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations,
Minneapolis, MN.
Cornille, T, Mullis, R., Mullis, A., Berarducci, N, Shriner, M., & Byno, L. (2005, November). Engaging
Reluctant Families in Family Services. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National
Council on Family Relations, Phoenix, AZ
Mullis, R., Mullis, A., Corinne, T., Schlee, B., Byno, L., Shriner, M., & Berarducci, N. (2005, November).
Congruence of parental and teacher perceptions of early literacy behavior. Paper presented at
the annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Phoenix, AZ
Barlow, L., Lee, R., McWey, L., Koshy, M., Chand, M., & Shriner, M. (2005, October). Technology in
MFT Track: Training with the newest technology, Landro play analyzer. Symposia presented at
the national conference of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, Kansas City, MI
Schlee, B., Shriner, M., Byno, L., Berarducci, N, & Mullis, A. (2005, July) Early reading skills for
preschoolers: How can parents and teachers make a difference? Workshop presented at the One
Goal: Building the Future Together "Putting Families and Children First" Summer Conference, Tampa, FL

Shriner, M. (2004, March). Intervention programs: Session completions: A function of victim and
perspective. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association,
Atlanta, GA

Shriner, M. (2004, March). Domestic violence: Substance abuse, referral incidents, and
perceptions of violence. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological
Association, Atlanta, GA

Shriner, M., & Barnes-Young, L. (2003, March) Transition to adulthood: Perceptions of adjustment
among parents and adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological
Association, New Orleans, LA

158

Barnes-Young, L., Willis, J. R., & Shriner, M. (2003, March). Diabetes and sexual health:
Assessment/intervention in the rural South. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern
Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA
Barnes-Young, L. & Shriner, M. (2003, February). Will I get there from here? Students' and
their parents' perceptions of the transition to college. Paper presented at the annual conference
on The First-Year Experience, Atlanta, GA
Jordan, J. J., Shriner, M., Proot, C., Bledsoe, K., & Mahoney, D. (2002, June). Six dimensions of breakups of
romantic relationships. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society,
New Orleans, LA

Shriner, M., Walters, K. S., & Proot, C. (2002, March). Parental behavior and relationship satisfaction
among adult children. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological
Association, Orlando, FL
Walters, K. S., Proot, C., & Shriner, M. (2002, March). Differential emotional responses as a function of
parental interpersonal behavior. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological
Association, Orlando, FL

Clinical Experience
Student Therapist, Center for Marriage and Family Therapy, Florida State University. Part-time position (August,
2004-March, 2006).
Duties: Maintaining an active caseload (6-8 clients a week) of individuals engaged in individual, couples, and/or
family therapy. Clients present with varying levels of functioning and difficulties. Supervisors: Drs. Larry Barlow
and Tom Corinne

Graduate Clinical Intern, Alternatives to Violence, Florence, SC. Full-time position (June 2003-December 2003).
Duties: Conducted all assessments, co-facilitated men's group, women's group, and incarcerated women's group.
Individual and group counseling with women in emergency shelter. Consulted with advocates, coordinators, and
referral sources. Performed monthly statistical procedures, admission, completion, and discharge summaries. Provided
group and individual notation. Researched program effectiveness and characteristics of domestic violence offenders.
Supervisor: Dr. John P. Muldoon

Therapeutic Staff Support, Northwestern Human Services, State College, PA. Full-time position (March 2000-April
2001).
Duties: Active member of therapeutic team, assisting younger individuals with Axis I and Axis II comorbidity.
Implemented behavioral modification treatment program and documented ongoing status and progress. Maintained
training in restraint and crisis intervention techniques. Supervisor: Dr. Michael Wolff

159

Live-in and Residential Counselor, Strawberry Fields, Inc., State College, PA. Full-time position (July
1999-March 2000).
Duties: Provided necessary care, consultation, and daily living assistance for a mentally disabled adult with
additionally diagnosed mental health disorders; consulted mentally disabled clients with dual diagnoses to facilitate
progress; provided case management.
Supervisor: Alan Cameron, M.S.

Professional Associations:
American Evaluation Association (member since 2007)
National Council on Family Relations (student member since 2005)
AmericanAssociation of Marriage and Family Therapy (student member 2004-2007) American Psychological
Association (student member 2001-2004)
American Psychological Society (student member 2001-2003)
Southeastern Psychological Association (student member 2001-2004)

Honors and Awards:

Florida State University Academic Grant, 2005-2006, 2007-2008
Golden Key International Honor Society, International Honor Society for Graduate Studies, 2007, (invited)
Kappa Omicron Nu, National Honor Society for Human Sciences, 2005 (invited)
Douglas A. Mandra Memorial Award in Applied Psychology for Graduate Student of the Year, Francis Marion University,
2003
Psi Chi, National Honor Society in Psychology, 2002
Leslie Coker Memorial Scholarship for Academic Achievement, Francis Marion University, 2002

Additional Skills:
SPSS, AMOS, Lisrel, HLM, MPlus (working knowledge); SAS (knowledge)

References:
Dr. Rebecca Libler
Associate Dean
College of Education

812-237-2899
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, IN 47809

Dr. Jay Gatrell

Dean, School of Graduate Studies
Associate Professor of Geography and Women's Studies

812-237-2256
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, IN 47809

Dr. Ronald L. Mullis

Professor (FSU)
Department of Family and Child Sciences

850-644-6021
238 Sandels Building
Tallahassee, FL 32306

160