Socioeconomic gaps in science achievement

In contrast to the extensive research on socioeconomic gaps in reading and math achievement, little attention has been given to socioeconomic disparities in science skills, particularly during the early years of schooling. This emphasis on later years may be problematic because large socioeconomic disparities emerge in the early years, thus it is crucial to document the size of disparities in science achievement and begin unpacking the range of factors that contribute to these disparities. Additionally, it is crucial to know which components of socioeconomic status are more strongly linked to children’s science skills so that resources can be more effectively targeted to address disparities. Using nationally representative data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (N = 9250), this study examines disparities in science achievement across elementary and middle school related to parental income and parental education separating their effects from each other and from a range of confounding factors. Additionally, it considers whether characteristics of children, families, and schools are pathways through which socioeconomic disparities emerge. Results Results show moderate gaps in science achievement related to both household income and parental education. The primary pathways through which parental education and family income influenced science achievement was through mathematics and reading achievement. For parental education gaps, smaller indirect effects also operated through access to informal science learning opportunities both inside and outside of the home environment. Conclusion First, this study highlights the importance of considering the contributions of multiple measures of socioeconomic status, instead of a composite. Second, it shows that socioeconomic disparities in science achievement emerge early and that programs and policies aimed at addressing these gaps may need to target children during the early elementary and preschool years. Third, our findings suggest that elementary instructional approaches that simultaneously address science instruction with reading and/or mathematics instruction will likely be especially important for improving overall science outcomes

Moving Beyond Correlations in Assessing the Consequences of Poverty.

In the United States, does growing up in a poor household cause negative developmental outcomes for children? Hundreds of studies have documented statistical associations between family income in childhood and a host of outcomes in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Many of these studies have used correlational evidence to draw policy conclusions regarding the benefits of added family income for children, in particular children in families with incomes below the poverty line. Are these conclusions warranted? After a review of possible mechanisms linking poverty to negative childhood outcomes, we summarize the evidence for income's effects on children, paying particular attention to the strength of the evidence and the timing of economic deprivation. We demonstrate that, in contrast to the nearly universal associations between poverty and children's outcomes in the correlational literature, impacts estimated from social experiments and quasi-experiments are more selective. In particular, these stronger studies have linked increases in family income to increased school achievement in middle childhood and to greater educational attainment in adolescence and early adulthood. There is no experimental or quasi-experimental evidence in the United States that links child outcomes to economic deprivation in the first several years of life. Understanding the nature of socioeconomic influences, as well as their potential use in evidence-based policy recommendations, requires greater attention to identifying causal effects

Poverty and Academic Achievement Across the Urban to Rural Landscape: Associations with Community Resources and Stressors

Poor children begin school with fewer academic skills than their nonpoor peers, and these disparities translate into lower achievement, educational attainment, and economic stability in adulthood. Child poverty research traditionally focuses on urban or rural poor, but a shifting spatial orientation of poverty necessitates a richer examination of how urbanicity intersects with economic disadvantage. Combining geospatial administrative data with longitudinal survey data on poor children from kindergarten through second grade (N ≈ 2,950), this project explored how differences in community-level resources and stressors across urbanicity explain variation in achievement. Resources and stressors increased in more urbanized communities and were associated with academic achievement. Both mediated differences in poor children’s achievement. Mediation was both direct and indirect, operating through cognitive stimulation and parental warmth

Moving Beyond Correlations in Assessing the Consequences of Poverty.

In the United States, does growing up in a poor household cause negative developmental outcomes for children? Hundreds of studies have documented statistical associations between family income in childhood and a host of outcomes in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Many of these studies have used correlational evidence to draw policy conclusions regarding the benefits of added family income for children, in particular children in families with incomes below the poverty line. Are these conclusions warranted? After a review of possible mechanisms linking poverty to negative childhood outcomes, we summarize the evidence for income's effects on children, paying particular attention to the strength of the evidence and the timing of economic deprivation. We demonstrate that, in contrast to the nearly universal associations between poverty and children's outcomes in the correlational literature, impacts estimated from social experiments and quasi-experiments are more selective. In particular, these stronger studies have linked increases in family income to increased school achievement in middle childhood and to greater educational attainment in adolescence and early adulthood. There is no experimental or quasi-experimental evidence in the United States that links child outcomes to economic deprivation in the first several years of life. Understanding the nature of socioeconomic influences, as well as their potential use in evidence-based policy recommendations, requires greater attention to identifying causal effects

Boosting Family Income to Promote Child Development

Families who live in poverty face disadvantages that can hinder their children's development in many ways, write Greg Duncan, Katherine Magnuson, and Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal. As they struggle to get by economically, and as they cope with substandard housing, unsafe neighborhoods, and inadequate schools, poor families experience more stress in their daily lives than more affluent families do, with a host of psychological and developmental consequences. Poor families also lack the resources to invest in things like high-quality child care and enriched learning experiences that give more affluent children a leg up. Often, poor parents also lack the time that wealthier parents have to invest in their children, because poor parents are more likely to be raising children alone or to work nonstandard hours and have inflexible work schedules. Can increasing poor parents' incomes, independent of any other sort of assistance, help their children succeed in school and in life? The theoretical case is strong, and Duncan, Magnuson, and Votruba-Drzal find solid evidence that the answer is yes-children from poor families that see a boost in income do better in school and complete more years of schooling, for example. But if boosting poor parents' incomes can help their children, a crucial question remains: Does it matter when in a child's life the additional income appears? Developmental neurobiology strongly suggests that increased income should have the greatest effect during children's early years, when their brains and other systems are developing rapidly, though we need more evidence to prove this conclusively. The authors offer examples of how policy makers could incorporate the findings they present to create more effective programs for families living in poverty. And they conclude with a warning: if a boost in income can help poor children, then a drop in income-for example, through cuts to social safety net programs like food stamps-can surely harm them

Linking university-community initiatives to promote a children’s thriving pipeline across early developmental stages

Supporting child thriving is most effective when prevention programs are delivered at sequential developmental periods and evaluated for long-term impacts, using a sustained, cohesive, and community-engaged approach. In the proposed study, we aim to link three distinct – yet aligned- programs that support child thriving (0-4; 5-8; 9–11-year-olds) to place us in an advantageous position to apply for federal/national funding that links these programs. All three are part of The Pittsburgh Study, a community-partnered and anti-racist initiative, for the past 3 years. This scaling grant will support interdisciplinary staff, students, and expert consultants to (1) design an overarching theory of change across all three programs; (2) track current and future participants to assess sample and demographic characteristics for children that pass through one, two, or all three programs; and (3) create systems for integrated measure and data analytics to assess the interplay between multi-program enrollment and child outcomes. These deliverables will prepare us to present a cohesive conceptualization for scholarly and public dissemination, and to present persuasively to national and federal follow-on funding officers. Ultimately, such large external funding will situate Pitt as a national leader in university-community partnerships for child thriving