The socio-economic gradient in early child outcomes: Evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study

(2011) - Lorraine Dearden, Luke Sibieta, Kathy Sylva

Journal:
Link::
DOI::
Links::
Tags:: #paper #MCS #SocialClass #Attainment #Education
Cite Key:: [@deardenSocioeconomicGradientEarly2011]

Abstract

This paper shows that there are large differences in cognitive and socio-emotional development between children from rich and poor backgrounds at the age of 3, and that this gap widens by the age of 5. Children from poor backgrounds also face much less advantageous “early childhood caring environments” than children from better off families. For example we identify differences in poor children‟s and their mothers‟ health and well-being (e.g. birth-weight, breast-feeding, and maternal depression); family interactions (e.g. mother child closeness); the home learning environment (e.g. reading regularly to the child); parenting styles and rules (e.g. regular bed-times and meal-times), and experiences of childcare by ages 3 and 5. Differences in the home learning environment, particularly at the age of 3 have an important role to play in explaining why children from poorer backgrounds experience lower levels of cognitive development than children from better off families. However, a much larger proportion of the gap remains unexplained, or appears directly related to other aspects of family background (such as mothers‟ age, and family size) that are not mediated through the early childhood caring environment. When it comes to socioemotional development, a greater proportion of the socio-economic gap does appear to be related to differences in the early childhood caring environment.

Notes

“This paper shows that there are large differences in cognitive and socio-emotional development between children from rich and poor backgrounds at the age of 3, and that this gap widens by the age of 5” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 1)

“Differences in the home learning environment, particularly at the age of 3 have an important role to play in explaining why children from poorer backgrounds experience lower levels of cognitive development than children from better off families. However, a much larger proportion of the gap remains unexplained, or appears directly related to other aspects of family background (such as mothers‟ age, and family size) that are not mediated through the early childhood caring environment.” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 1)

“There is a wealth of empirical research to suggest that family income and poverty have strong consequences for child development, though to varying degrees and across different contexts (Blow et al, 2006; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Duncan & BrooksGunn, 2000; Gregg and Machin, 1998; Haverman and Wolfe, 1995; Mayer, 1997; Sylva et al, 2008).” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 2)

“The economics literature has generally focused on theories of parental investment. For instance, in the Becker-Tomes model parents invest in their children‟s education because they care about their children‟s future well-being, investing up until the point that marginal benefit equals marginal cost (Becker and Tomes, 1986). Under this simple optimising theory, parental income should not influence child outcomes under the assumption that there are no credit constraints. Given that it seems unlikely that all families will be able to borrow against future earnings, poorer families may well not be able to invest optimal amounts (for more information on credit constraints see Carneiro and Heckman, 2002).” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 3)

“The developmental psychology literature provides a detailed conceptual framework for studying the effects of parental beliefs, attitudes and practices on children‟s cognitive and social emotional development. Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998 (p.996) state that, “Throughout the life course, human development takes place through processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving bio-psychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment. To be effective, the interaction must occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time. Such enduring forms of interaction in the immediate environment are referred to as proximal processes.”” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 3)

“The sociological literature examines how family beliefs, attitudes and practices can be construed as social and cultural capital. For example, Bourdieu‟s work examines the role played by social and cultural capital in reproducing patterns of social and economic advantage and disadvantage (Bourdieu 1977a, 1977b; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). Under the social capital theory, social relationships and networks create a resource which families can draw upon (Croll, 2004). Cultural capital reflects the idea that “cultural experiences in the home facilitate children's adjustment to school and academic achievement, thereby transforming cultural resources into what [Bourdieu] calls cultural capital (Lareau, 1987, p 74).”” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 3)

“Several studies have found that differences in the home environment, as measured by the HOME scale (which includes items on household resources, such as reading materials and toys, an” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 3)

“4 parental practices, such as discipline methods), account for a substantial portion of the effect of income on the cognitive development of preschool children and on the achievement scores of elementary school children” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 4)

“Another important pathway involves the health and well-being of the child and parents (e.g. birthweight, gestation, breast-feeding patterns and indicators of post-natal depression).” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 4)

“A third possible pathway is through the care young children receive outside the home, as much research has shown that high-quality, developmentally appropriate child care in the pre-school years is associated with enhanced social, emotional, and linguistic competence” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 4)

“Figure 1 Simple model linking financial position to early education outcomes” (Dearden et al., 2011, p. 5)