Family structure and the intergenerational transmission of educational advantage
Highlights
► Does the intergenerational association of education vary by family structure? ► Do differences in parenting practices explain this moderation? ► Uses the National Education Longitudinal Study: 1988–2000. ► The intergenerational association of education is lower in single mother families. ► Key are differences in parent’s educational expectations, intergenerational closure and children’s leisure activities.
Introduction
Over the last half-century, children’s family structures have dramatically transformed as marriage rates have declined and nonmarital fertility, cohabitation, and divorce rates have risen (Bumpass and Lu, 2000; Teachman et al., 2000). Under this new family regime, fewer children are raised by both biological parents in continuously married families. Approximately one-half of children in recent birth cohorts are expected to live in a single parent family at some point during their childhood (Bumpass and Lu, 2000).
These important changes in children’s family structure could alter other family functions, such as the transmission of socioeconomic status across generations. Some scholars predict that there will be shifts in social mobility because, they argue, two biological parent families are more effective in transmitting their socioeconomic resources to their children (Biblarz and Raftery, 1993, Biblarz and Raftery, 1999, Coleman, 1988). Most of what we know about social mobility derives from children raised in two biological parent families. For recent cohorts, however, it is important to query whether social mobility has changed under this new family regime.
These significant family structure changes offer an opportunity to investigate the intersection of economic and social capital for the production of children’s educational attainment. Coleman (1988) proffered that family structure is an indicator of social capital and that social capital is essential for the transmission of economic capital from parents to children. To be clear, his theoretical argument and the current study’s focus is whether family structure moderates the association between parents’ socioeconomic status (SES) and children’s educational attainment. Coleman (1988) predicts less mobility among children raised in two biological parent families relative to children raised in single parent families. Coleman’s theoretical discussion, however, only briefly alludes to possible mechanisms. To understand how this moderation operates, I provide additional theoretical development and incorporate scholarship about parenting practices (Bodviski and Farkas, 2008, Lareau, 2003).
Most prior research focus on differences in children’s educational attainment across family structures, finding that children raised in single father and stepparent families have lower educational attainments even after accounting for their lower SES and higher unemployment rates (e.g., Amato and Booth, 1997, McLanahan, 1985, McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). Only three studies have examined the question studied here: whether the association between parents’ SES and children’s education differs across family structures (Battle, 1997, Battle, 1998, Teachman et al., 1996 Further, no studies have examined whether this moderation occurs for children’s educational attainment after the 10th grade and no study explores the mechanisms by which this moderation unfolds.
This study examines differences in educational mobility for birth cohorts exposed to the first wave of modern family structure change. Born in the mid-1970s, they were primarily at risk for experiencing parental divorce. Relatively few were born to unmarried women (13%; Ventura and Bachrach, 2000) and even fewer lived with cohabitating parents (Casper and Bianchi, 2002). These cohorts are now sufficiently old enough to have completed their educations and, thus, offer the first opportunity to examine this research question.
Children’s educational attainment is important because it strongly predicts later occupational status and income (Featherman and Hauser, 1978). Today, there is a greater premium for post-secondary education given declines in manufacturing, globalization, and the addition of computers in the workplace (Mare, 1995). Education also plays a key, though seemingly contradictory, role in intergenerational social mobility. On the one hand, educational attainment facilitates upward mobility, while on the other hand it helps reproduce social classes across generations (Hout and DiPrete, 2006). Thus, children’s educational attainment is a linchpin in intergenerational mobility processes.
In sum, this article examines whether the educational mobility differs by family structure using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS). The research questions are (1) does family structure moderate the association between parents’ socioeconomic status and children’s education? (2) how does that moderation operate? and (3) do family structure differences in parenting practices explain the differential patterns?
Section snippets
How the transmission of SES could vary across family structures
The transmission of resources from parents to children has often been framed in investment terms, whereby parents’ efforts to socialize, nurture, and financially provide for their children are characterized as investments that are made within a set of opportunities and constraints (Becker and Tomes, 1986). Economists, who most frequently use this investment language, assert that the effectiveness of one parental investment depends on the quantity of other investments (Foster, 2002, Haveman and
Why family structure may moderate the influence of parents’ socioeconomic status for children’s education
A simple explanation for these observed differences could be social selection, particularly concerning factors characterizing single parent families at the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy and two-parent families at the bottom. Unobserved characteristics of these parents could explain both their non-normative socioeconomic status and their children’s educational attainment. For example, two biological parent and step-parent families could have low socioeconomic status because of a (typically
Data and methods
Data for this analysis derive from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), a nationally representative, two-stage stratified cluster sample representative of 1988 U.S. 8th graders. Children, including those who drop out or stop out of school, were resurveyed in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 2000, when most were 26 years old. Parents were surveyed in 1988 and 1992. The analysis utilizes data from all waves for the longitudinal cohort. The data’s key assets are the follow-up of
Results
Table 1 provides the basic descriptive statistics for the analytic sample. In the 8th grade, the children’s average GPA is a 2.9, the average mathematics IRT test score is 34.7, and most students are in the “average” mathematics/science track. Approximately 92% of the sample completed high school, 67% received their high school diploma, 82% attended any college, 54% attended a 4-year college, and 25% received their bachelor’s degree by 2000. Taken together, this cohort has, on average, 14.0
Discussion
Together, the results largely support Coleman’s hypothesis that the number of co-residential parents is important for the transmission of parents’ socioeconomic resources for children’s human capital development. The lower returns children receive for having a highly educated single mother occur across the child’s educational career: beginning with their 8th grade mathematics test scores, grades and track placement and continue by independently influencing their likelihood of attending college
Conclusion
The primary goal of this manuscript is to fully test Coleman’s (1988) hypothesis that, as a measure of social capital, family structure moderates the effect of SES for the development of children’s human capital. Recent shifts in family structure allow us to examine the status transmission process better, but Coleman left many of the possible mechanisms unclear. By amending Coleman’s theory to investigate key dimensions of parenting practices, the current study bridges several theoretical and
Acknowledgments
I thank Gary Sandefur, Michelle Frisco, Julien Teitler, Peter Bearman, David Johnson, Rebekah Young, R. Salvador Oropesa, Donald Treiman, Larry Bumpass, Bob Hauser, Betty Thomson, the participants of the Family Demography and Public Policy Seminar at Columbia University, the Sociology of Education brownbag at Pennsylvania State University, and the “Economic and Social Mobility” conference at University California-Davis, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. I also thank Jason
References (67)
- et al.
What we have learned: RC28’s contributions to knowledge about social stratification
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility
(2006) - et al.
Does family structure really influence educational attainment?
Social Science Research
(1999) Family processes in one-parent, stepparent, and intact families: the child’s point of view
Journal of Marriage and the Family
(1987)Children of divorce in the 1990s: an update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis
Journal of Family Psychology
(2001)- et al.
A Generation at Risk: Growing up in an Era of Family Upheaval
(1997) - et al.
Parental divorce and adult well-being: a meta-analysis
Journal of Marriage and the Family
(1991) - et al.
Family structure, parental practices and high school completion
American Sociological Review
(1991) The relative effects of married versus divorced family configuration and socioeconomic status on the educational achievement of African American middle-grade students
Journal of Negro Education
(1997)What beats having two parents? Educational outcomes for African American students in single-versus dual-parent families
Journal of Black Studies
(1998)- et al.
Human capital and the rise and fall of families
Journal of Labor Economics
(1986)
The effects of family disruption on social mobility
American Sociological Review
Family structure, educational attainment, and socioeconomic success: rethinking the “Pathology of Matriarchy”
American Journal of Sociology
Family structure and social mobility
Social Forces
“Concerted cultivation” and unequal achievement in elementary school
Social Science Research
Family structure, economic status, and educational attainment
Journal of Population Economics
Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste
The forms of capital
Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States
Population Studies
Life cycle schooling and dynamic selection bias: models and evidence for five cohorts of American males
Journal of Political Economy
A little help from my friend’s parents: intergenerational closure and educational outcomes
Sociology of Education
Continuity and Change in the American Family
Remarriage as an incomplete institution
American Journal of Sociology
Social capital in the creation of human capital
American Journal of Sociology
Parental Involvement in Education
Research on household labor: modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work
Journal of Marriage and Family
Inheritance of poverty or inheritance of race?
A reconsideration of the economic consequences of marital dissolution
Demography
Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification processes
Annual Review of Sociology
Opportunity and Change
Family instability and child well-being
American Sociological Review
How economists think about family resources and child development
Child Development
Cited by (80)
Family structure transitions and educational outcomes: Explaining heterogeneity by parental education in Germany
2024, Advances in Life Course ResearchHousehold dysfunction and child development: Do financial resources matter?
2022, Advances in Life Course ResearchThe intergenerational impact of house prices on education: evidence from China
2021, Journal of Housing EconomicsCitation Excerpt :Second, children's unobserved and observed characteristics determine what they can develop or inherit from their parents, such as genes (Ayorech et al., 2017), demographics such as gender (Emran and Shilpi, 2015), age at enrolment (Bauer and Riphahn, 2013), infant or childhood health and nutrition (Currie and Moretti, 2003; Carvalho, 2012), children's cognitive and non-cognitive skills (Lundborg et al., 2018), innate ability and heritability (Dardanoni et al., 2008; Han and Mulligan, 2001). Third, the family's resources help shaping the intergenerational linkage such as household assets (Huang, 2016), credit constraints (Grawe, 2004), family structure (Martin, 2012), paternal and maternal presence (Kalil et al., 2016; Amin et al., 2015), social networks or capital (Heath et al., 2010), and neighbourhood (Patacchini and Zenou, 2011). There have been few studies on mechanisms in transition economies and in which shape of intergenerational relationship they would result.
Children of high conflict divorce: Exploring the experiences of primary school teachers
2021, Children and Youth Services ReviewCitation Excerpt :In addition to problems with adjustment and wellbeing, other adverse outcomes for children have been negatively associated with parental divorce/separation (Martin, 2012). These include, long term impact on an individual child’s educational attainment (Bernardi & Boertien, 2017) which may in turn restrict vocational opportunities throughout the child’s lifespan (Martin, 2012). Collectively these findings highlighted the importance of the school environment for these emotionally distressed children.
Youth adversity, parental resources and educational attainment: Contrasting a resilience and a reproduction perspective
2020, Research in Social Stratification and MobilityShadow education in shadow: parental education and children’s shadow education participation before and during COVID-19
2024, British Journal of Sociology of Education