Poor Students With Poorly Educated Parents More Disadvantaged In U.S. Than Other Countries

Intuitively, a child's academic performance is likely higher if he or she has highly educated parents, and lower if the child has less educated parents. A new report confirms that's true, but reveals that American children of poorly educated parents do a lot worse than their counterparts in other countries.

Income mobility just within the U.S. has significantly declined since the mid-90s, according to a report this month by the Boston Federal Reserve. In recent years, families were more likely to stay within their income class than before -- the rich are staying rich, and the poor and middle-class are struggling to move up the economic ladder.

But the Pew Economic Mobility Project takes it a step further by asking the question, "Does America promote mobility as well as other nations?" Researchers in 10 countries took to analyzing socioeconomic advantage as a function of parental education.

Researchers found that a child's economic and educational status is more affected by parental education than in any other country studied.

Using a basic metric, researchers studied performance gaps on vocabulary tests among five-year-olds with highly educated parents, moderately educated parents and poorly educated parents. Among the English-speaking countries studied, the American gap between children with highly educated parents and poorly educated parents was the widest, while the Canadian gap proved to be the most narrow.

(See Figure 2 Note)

That disparity carries on to later years as well. The difference between the academic achievement advantage for adolescents with highly educated parents and the academic achievement disadvantage for adolescents with poorly educated parents is a staggering 85 percentage points. This is second only to Germany's advantage-disadvantage gap of 86.9 percentage points.

(See Figure 4 Note)

A report out last month by the National Center for Education Statistics provide more context for EMP's findings. In 2009, the most recent year for which data is available, the dropout rate for low-income students was five times greater than their high-income counterparts -- 7.4 percent compared with 1.4 percent.

FIGURE 2 NOTE: Scores were standardized so that comparisons could be made across countries where children with middle-educated parents were considered to be average. The scores were then converted from standard deviation differences to percentiles using a z table. The gap in children's percentile scores between those with high- and low-educated parents is statistically significantly larger in the United States than in each of the other countries, and it is statistically significantly smaller in Canada than in the UK.
SOURCE: The Economic Mobility Project analysis of data from Chapter 4 (Bruce Bradbury, Miles Corak, Jane Waldfogel, and Elizabeth Washbrook). "Inequality during the Early Years: Child Outcomes and Readiness to Learn in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States" in From Parents to Children: The Intergenerational Transmission of Advantage, forthcoming from Russell Sage Foundation Publications.

FIGURE 4 NOTE: Achievement is defined as the difference between the percentage of children in the top quartile of school or test score results and the percentage in the bottom quartile. The gap in achievement is the difference between children of parents with high or low education relative to those with mid-educated parents.
SOURCE: Figure created with data from multiple chapters, as summarized in Chapter 19 (John Ermisch, Markus Jantti, Timothy Smeeding, and James A. Wilson): "The Comparative Life-Course Framework: What Did We Learn About The Intergenerational Transmission of Advantage?" In Inequality from Childhood to Adulthood: A Cross-National Perspective on the Transmission of Advantage, forthcoming from Russell Sage Foundation Publications.

Comments

[ttsgw]

01:25 AM on 11/23/2011

Children's welfare is not an issue in the US. Except between conception and birth.

[berrycuda]

04:21 PM on 11/21/2011

hrmmm

Why did you only pick wealthy nations for this study?

It's completely useless they way this study was conducted. But nice try using false/incomplete information/data to build a case for your personal cause...

[moonlightesq]

08:04 PM on 11/21/2011

My thoguhts exactly. I think the result would differ greatly if immigrant children from many Asian countries were used in comparison (India, Korea, China, Taiwan and Vietnam - just to name a few). Those children of Asian descents tend to exceed in our U.S. education system, they are by far more educated than their parents, and would not have the opportunities to study if they were poor in their ancestrial countries.

[ttsgw]

01:36 AM on 11/23/2011

They probably forgot that America is the greatest country on earth where everyone has the same opportunity to become a part of the 1%. No matter income or education of their parents.

[Hlynn]

10:09 AM on 11/21/2011

This is why we not only need changes in our educational system, we need changes in our communities and in our government. Expecting schools to overcome all the problems in society, including poverty, is foolish and has never worked.

We need more programs like this one: http://www.hippyusa.org/ that Hillary Clinton helped bring to the U.S. from Israel. When I did a study on this in college, not only did the program help get young children off to a good educational start, it also inspired their parents to get more education which increased the family income.

Of course, there need to be jobs for the parents so they can get out of poverty and I don't see anyone in politics or in business with an answer for that one.

[Badgolfer1974]

03:45 PM on 11/21/2011

I agree that schools have only a limited effect on student learning and outcome, and that parents, the home envronment, and culture maximize this. We are allocating so much money on teacher accountability that everything else is being neglected. I would advocate for more parent involvement and in fact, go beyond HIPPY (a solid concept, if somewhat goofy-sounding), and into prenatal parent education, where potential parents can learn and set up their home environment before the child is even born. How many [disadvantaged] parents can be helped by this? Read my post below yours for more on parent education.

http://TheEducatedSociety.com/

[Hlynn]

09:41 AM on 11/22/2011

Thank you for the link. I like Thomas Friedman's writings in that they make me think about issues in the world in ways I hadn't thought of before. I agree with his article that how parents interact with their children is the most important determinant of their intellectual and emotional development at any age, which is my restatement of what he wrote. But I was disappointed to see at the end that he wrote there is nothing more important than a good teacher for a child's education because with that statement he erased what he had previously written.

For example, we have a situation at the middle school where I work (I'm a traveling special ed teacher between an elementary school and a middle school) where a student on my caseload missed nearly four months of school last year. He lives out of district and his mother has to bring him to school, but she's not consistent about it. He has told us he will be up, dressed, and ready to go and she'll tell him she's "too tired" to take him to school. Truancy court does nothing because the budget has been cut and legal court dates take forever to come up,,There are so many similar cases all over the city that his doesn't stand out as urgent, even though it is.

[Badgolfer1974]

09:19 AM on 11/21/2011

The problem is of course poverty, which require a lot of social support. From an education standpoint, we need to change the environment of parents when the child is young, perhaps even before he or she is born. This means training parents on how to be good parents. Despite their financial struggles and other problems associated with poverty, a parent can still provide a good learning environment for a child to grow up in. It's not easy, but being an educated parent (which has less to do with economics) goes a long way. Reading to a child every night, immersing them in constructive activities, less TV, etc. -- these things need to be taught. These are the mechanics of parenting. Society will forever struggle with eradicating poverty, but can we at least start a systemized parent education program?

http://TheEducatedSociety.com/addressing-poverty-through-parent-education/
http://TheEducatedSociety.com/parenting-tv/

[OldSchool4942]

01:19 PM on 11/22/2011

No it's not only poverty. It is a good part of parenting. I have had parents at parent teacher conferences tell me they didn't understand the math science or whatever when they went to school and the student is sitting right there. What do you think the student is going to do when they get this kind of reinforcement?
Parents need to know there are resources for them and their kids. Then the important part, they have to use them.

[Badgolfer1974]

05:39 PM on 11/25/2011

Isn't that why I suggested a parent education program above?

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

02:51 AM on 11/21/2011

The problem here is that children are the leading cause of poverty. The simple fact is that in this country they will a be a financial burden for at least 18 years. Now if you are wealthy, have financial security, you can have as many children as you want with no worries.

However, most people are not financially secure. People who live paycheck to paycheck cannot put money aside to cover future emergencies. This means that if something does happen, if they lose a job, or suffer an illness or accident, or even just lose a car, they will lose what little margin they have between them and disaster.

A man or women with no dependents can recover from a financial bust more easily than someone with children. They can get temp jobs or seasonal jobs. But a man or woman who is burdened with children doesn't have it that easy. A parent has to have a safe place for his/her children to sleep. They must get food, good wholesome food, every day. They need warm clothes, shoes that fit, school supplies. Being a parent is the hardest job in the world, and it is ten times harder if you are poor.

[J R M]

12:02 AM on 11/21/2011

You can be poor and still raise your children well. But there is a lot of data on the impact of maternal education on educational readiness and advancement. Children of college educated mothers are 1 standard deviation above norm by age 3. Children of high school dropouts are .5 standard deviation below norm by age 3. Mothers with some college have children who are a bit below norm at age 3. High school mother's children do a bit worse than the children of mothers with some college. And the relative ranking doesn't change in the next 15 years.

If you are going do something about this, I suspect you need to impact the early childhood environment significantly. I suspect that the other contributing factor is the socio-economic stratification of neighborhoods so that children of less educated families do not see alternative ways of approaching things.

The superficial and destructive popular culture with its anti-education and anti-studying message does not help.

[J R M]

12:55 AM on 11/21/2011

Sorry. One error. Children of mothers with some college are about .5 standard deviations above norm, not just below norm. The data comes from James Hechman.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/11/two-year-window

[Ima Beggar]

11:57 PM on 11/20/2011

In short, it's hard out there for a beggar.

[TimTim17]

03:34 AM on 11/21/2011

Not if that beggar is on Wall Street or an auto company exec.

[Ima Beggar]

07:58 AM on 11/21/2011

You mean that I've been in the wrong beggar line all this time?
Thanks buddy with a f/f.

[MobahoJoe]

11:02 PM on 11/20/2011

Really, they are finally figuring this one out.

[VoteThemAllOut]

10:31 PM on 11/20/2011

Is this the result of three generations of wellfare? I think so. Why work or why try to better yourself when you can rely on somebody else paying for my TV, my cell phone, my room, my food, etc. when I can sit on my lazy back side and get the gov. doll.

[MobahoJoe]

10:51 PM on 11/20/2011

This is the result of being pushed into neighborhoods where nobody has connections to a middle class job or lifestyle. It is excluding people (who are not like us). It is the result of turning your back on your neighbor. People in the third world have tvs, cell phones, cable, etc., this is not a valid point you are trying to make. These people are not lazy, the work, probably mowing your lawn because you are too lazy and too self righteous to do it yourself. That would probably be one of his or her several jobs.

[Ima Beggar]

11:52 PM on 11/20/2011

Great comment and so true. Accept my humble fan/fave.

[Peace Walker]

06:05 AM on 11/21/2011

fanned

[TimTim17]

03:17 AM on 11/21/2011

Poverty levels were even higher BEFORE welfare, so what you have written makes absolutely no sense.

In addition, America is not the only place that provides social welfare. It is though the only place with so many people who think like you. Shameful.

[dbishop76]

07:54 PM on 11/20/2011

Okay, first, I have a four-year degree and in recent years, I have used food stamps. So lay off the notion that only the uneducated use social services.

Second, both of my parents have advanced degrees- my father is a professor and my mother is a principal, thus I was raised in a culture where education was a coveted value. It's also a value that I have passed along to my kids, no matter WHAT our financial situation was.

This is a no-win situation for many parents. I have scarified dearly to make sure that I am I home every afternoon, sitting at the table and doing homework with my kids. I get assailed for only work part-time and relying on social services, so I CAN be home every afternoon at the table with my kids making sure their homework is done and done properly. The result is that all three of my kids routinely make the honor roll.

Alternatively, the single mother of two who lives down the street from me and works two jobs to support her kids and IS not on any assistance gets equal amounts of vitriol thrown her way because she is NEVER home and her kids are failing.

There is no win. Period.

[Ima Beggar]

11:56 PM on 11/20/2011

What a wonderful comment. Thanks for sharing your personal story
that is, quite honestly, very common in 2011 USA. I'm going to
assume that the vitriol and ridicule that you may receive comes
from the Right Wing, a segment of our society that never met a
social program that they like--even though many, many of them
avail themselves of the "Big Government Helping Hand" (e.g. Social
Security and Medicare which they love). The hypocrisy on the right
is astounding.

I applaud your microbio for it gives us hope that your state has many
fine left-leaning Dems. Best to you with a fan and fave.

[erie]

03:46 PM on 11/21/2011

Beautifully stated. Good job for sticking with it through the hurricane of bad attitude folk out there, who love to spread their "black and white" rhetoric. Cheers! Fanned & fav'd.

[JOHN SERINO]

07:39 PM on 11/20/2011

This is the best country to be poor in, the average poor person in
this country has two TV's, a cell phone, air conditioning and food
stamps.

[dbishop76]

07:42 PM on 11/20/2011

And if they sold the TVs and cell phone, they still wouldn't be able to feed their family.

[VoteThemAllOut]

10:28 PM on 11/20/2011

Is thet you rationalization as to why the poor cannot feed themselves - maybe if they were actually made to choose between multiple TVs, X-Boxes, etc and food they would choose food.. Guess the next step is to have a new car in every driveway.

[TimTim17]

03:18 AM on 11/21/2011

Please read the article. It says America is not the best place to be poor.

[JOHN SERINO]

07:34 PM on 11/20/2011

Is this a joke? I hope they didn't waste any money on the
study, I would try to explain the reasons for the results, but I keep
laughing so much I can't type.

[Ima Beggar]

11:58 PM on 11/20/2011

Very doubtful with your condition (laughamania) that you're able
to explain anything, let alone the study in this article.

[Allthosewhowander]

03:10 PM on 11/20/2011

What?! Poverty and environmental factors influence students and what they do in school? Who knew? Oh, thats right...People who have been working with children have been trying to educate the public on these issues for years. It has and will continue to be, the elephant in the room, until the education establishment decides to take credit for recognizing these things as true issues that have adverse effects on students and learning.

[Ima Beggar]

11:59 PM on 11/20/2011

Very true. I fan and fave, then hold out my tin cup in hopes
that you'll fill it with the same. ;-)

[MexiChick67]

12:09 PM on 11/20/2011

There is a huge difference between being impoverished and being broke. Let's get that clear. Being impoverished means that you lack education, are under employment, have no connections, etc. There is a mentality that people take on when impoverished. There is a sense of hopelessness that keeps people in the endless cycle. It affects people physically and mentally. Some will escape it and others will linger in it, as will their children. I have personally experienced it as a child and got out of it via higher education. This is not a race issue.

[stopnlisten]

02:14 PM on 11/20/2011

Unfortunately in some places it still is....

[MexiChick67]

02:24 AM on 11/21/2011

For some reason people see poverty as an issue that only affects Blacks and Latinos. There are so many people out there that are going through really hard times. Third-world grinding poverty.

[Ima Beggar]

12:01 AM on 11/21/2011

Wonderful, inspiring comment full of wisdom. Fan/fave.

I, too, have experienced the hopelessness and apathy of
disenfranchisement as a result of my pathetic status. But,
as I keep reminding myself every day when I start out the
door with my tin cup, "Beggars can't be choosers."

[MexiChick67]

02:23 AM on 11/21/2011

I even have a snappy come-back to the 'beggars can't be choosers" saying. I reply, "yes, but we can be selective". It's all how you view it.

[SoCalifTeacher]

09:36 AM on 11/20/2011

As long as welfare is considered an acceptable, alternative lifestyle...why bother with an education? Or a job.

[stopnlisten]

02:13 PM on 11/20/2011

That's right. Let em' starve? By your thinking they will wake up and say "Hey! I better go to school and get a job because I finally figured it out!" You are so naive and so sheltered.

[Peace Walker]

06:08 AM on 11/21/2011

fanned

[TimTim17]

03:23 AM on 11/21/2011

Except all of the places were there is more social mobility have more social welfare programs for the poor than the U.S.

You have been programmed. It's time to reboot! People on welfare are not your enemies. Crazy that so many middle class people were trained to focus on social welfare while all the manufacturing jobs were being sent abroad. Strange and sad that so many people let themselves fall for this.

[Peace Walker]

06:08 AM on 11/21/2011

fanned