This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation. 6 Jump down to document THE ARTS CHILD POLICY CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore Pardee RAND Graduate School View document details For More Information Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution Support RAND This product is part of the Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS) dissertation series. PRGS dissertations are produced by graduate fellows of the Pardee RAND Graduate School, the world’s leading producer of Ph.D.’s in policy analysis. The dissertation has been supervised, reviewed, and approved by the graduate fellow’s faculty committee. PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL Family Factors and Student Outcomes Nailing Xia This document was submitted as a dissertation in December 2009 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of Richard Buddin (Chair), Sheila Nataraj Kirby, and Vi-Nhuan Le. To my father The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R ® is a registered trademark. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2010 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org The Pardee RAND Graduate School dissertation series reproduces dissertations that have been approved by the student’s dissertation committee. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  Thisworkwouldnothavebeenbroughttolifewithoutthegeneroussupportof myhardworkingdissertationcommittee:RichardBuddin,SheilaKirby,andVi‐ NhuanLe.Theirscholarship,expertiseandpatienceguidedmethroughseveral draftsofthisstudy.IamespeciallyindebtedtoDick,agraciousmentorwho demonstratesthatrigorousscholarshipcanbeaccessibletoeveryone.Iamalso gratefultoSheilaforherpersistentattention,gentleencouragement,and extensiveknowledgeinhelpingmenavigatethefieldofeducationpolicy. Withouttheopportunitiessheprovidedto“practice”thepolicyanalysistoolson RANDprojects,mytenureatRANDwouldneverhavebeenthedeeply influentialexperiencethatitbecame.AthankyoutooisextendedtoVi,whose insightfulcommentsarecriticaltoconstructingeffectivemeasuresandcrafting analyticmethods.  Iamthankfultomyexternalreader,JillCannon,forhergenerouscontributionof knowledgeandtime.AshleshaDatarandRolandSturmhavealsokindlygiven metimeandsuggestionsduringtheearlystageofthedissertationprocess.A thankyouisalsoowedtoYangLuandXiaoyanLi,myfriendsandcolleaguesat PardeeRANDGraduateSchoolwhoalwaysansweredmyquestions,nomatter howtrivialtheymightbe.  Tomyparents,LieqingXiaandRuifangLing,thankyouforyourlove,support andunderstandingduringmylongyearsofeducation.Iamalsothankfultomy husband,XiaoningHuang,whohasalwaysbeenthereformeingoodandbad times.Finally,tomynewbornson,Xiayang,forbringingjoyanddetermination inthelaststageof thisdissertation.   v TABLEOFCONTENTS  Acknowledgements iii ListofTables ix ListofFigures xi Abstract xiii ExecutiveSummary xv Chapter1.FamilyFactorsandStudentAchievement:TheCaseofU.S. 1 PreviousLiteratureonFamilyFactorsandStudentAchievement 2 TheoreticalFrameworksofFamilyProcessFactors 2 EmpiricalLiteratureonFamilyProcessFactorsandStudentAchievement 5 ConceptualModel 7 Data 9 SampleandWeights 9 Measures 10 DescriptiveStatistics 11 Racial/EthnicDifferences 17 DifferencesbySES 20 AnalyticMethods 25 MultipleImputation 25 EffectSizeCalculation 26 RegressionModels 26 MultipleTestingIssues 28 Results 29 BaselineandFamilyProcessModels 29 InteractionModels:BlackVs.Non‐Black 35 InteractionModels:SES 38 Discussion 41 Chapter2.FamilyFactorsandNonacademicOutcomes:ThecaseofU.S. 44 PreviousLiteratureonFamilyFactorsandNonacademicOutcomes 44 Data 49 Measures 49 DescriptiveStatistics 51 Racial/EthnicDifferences 57 DifferencesbySES 59 AnalyticMethods 64 MultipleImputation 64 EffectSizeCalculation 64 RegressionModels 65 vi MultipleTestingIssues 69 Results 69 BaselineandFamilyProcessModels 69 InteractionModels:BlackVs.Non‐BlackandSES 76 Discussion 80 Chapter3.FamilyFactorsandStudentAchievement:AnInternational Comparison 82 Data 85 SampleandWeights 86 Measures 88 AnalyticMethods 90 Imputation 90 EffectSizeCalculation 91 AnalysisofDatawithPlausibleValues 91 InternationalComparisonandRegressionModels 93 MultipleTestingIssues 94 Results 95 DescriptiveStatistics 95 DifferencesinAchievementandFamilyFactorsAcrossCountries 98 BaselineandFamilyProcessModels 102 InteractionModels 106 Discussion 109 References 112 Appendix1.A.VariablesMeasuringFamilyProcessFactorsinECLS‐K 132 Appendix1.B.ScaleItemsandReliabilityCoefficients 136 Appendix1.C.DescriptiveStatistics:Waves2‐5 138 Appendix1.D.FamilyProcessFactorsbyRace/Ethnicity:Waves2‐5 142 Appendix 1.E.CorrelationsBetweenSESandReading/MathematicsTestScores 146 Appendix1.F.CorrelationsBetweenSESandFamilyProcessFactors:Waves2‐5 147 Appendix1.G.SESbyFamilyProcessFactors:Waves2‐5 148 Appendix1.H.CoefficientsofUnconditionalModels 152 Appendix1.I.CoefficientsofInteractionModels 153 Appendix2.A.ScaleItemsandReliabilityCoefficients 159 Appendix2.B.CorrelationsBetweenSESandTeacherSRSScaleScores 161 Appendix2.C.CoefficientsofUnconditionalModels 162 Appendix2.D.EducationProductionFunctionandEconometricEstimation Strategies 163 Appendix2.E.SpecificationTests 173 vii Appendix2.F.OLSCoefficientsofBaselineandFamilyProcessModels 187 Appendix2.G.TobitCoefficientsofBaselineandFamilyProcessModels 192 Appendix2.H.TobitCoefficientsofInteractionModels 202 Appendix3.A.PISA2006CountriesandEconomies 218 Appendix3.B.VariablesMeasuringFamilyProcessFactorsinPISA2006 219 Appendix3.C.AchievementTestScoresbyCountry 220 Appendix3.D.CoefficientsofUnconditionalModels 221 Appendix3.E.CoefficientsofInteractionModels 222  [...]... and a description of the data and methodology.  It concludes with findings and discussion on policy implications.    Previous Literature on Family Factors and Student Achievement    Since the 1966 Coleman report, numerous studies have examined the influences  of family factors on educational outcomes.   However, only recently have  researchers started to distinguish two types of family factors: family status  factors and family process factors.   Family status factors are often referred to as ... The conceptual model hypothesizes that student outcomes are influenced,  directly or indirectly, by family process, family status, and school factors, and that the two types of student outcomes (i.e., academic achievement and nonacademic skills) are interrelated.  As depicted in Figure 1, family factors can  influence student outcomes through multiple mechanisms (Christenson, Rounds,  and Gorney, 1992; Henderson and Mapp, 2002; Epstein, 1995).  While family ... Figure 1.1.  Conceptual Model: How Family and School Factors Influence  Student Outcomes 8 Figure 3.1.  Mathematics and Science Test Scores by Country 98   xi ABSTRACT    There is considerable debate about the relative importance of family versus  school factors in producing academic and nonacademic student outcomes, and whether and how their impacts vary across different student groups.  In addition ...  While family status factors are correlated with school factors,  they are thought to influence  student outcomes primarily through family process factors (e.g., parental choices of schools).  4 8    Family Status Factors Race  Socio‐economic status  Family structure   Academic outcomes  Student achievement   School attendance   High school graduation  College enrollment  Family Process Factors ... involvement, among others (Christenson, Rounds, and Gorney, 1992; Henderson  and Mapp, 2002; Fan and Chen, 2001).  The following literature review examines  prior research on family process factors, and covers theories of family process  factors as well as empirical findings of their impacts on student achievement.    Theoretical Frameworks of Family Process Factors Empirical studies on academic impacts of family process factors typically ... and extracurricular activities) to facilitate their learning.  On the other hand,  family process factors may have an effect on student outcomes through parental  choices of schools, and the schools, in turn, can influence the family process  variables through school policies and practices aimed at raising the level of  parental involvement in school activities.  The model also assumes that the  effects of family and school factors on student outcomes are mediated through  students.  For example, few parents take a one‐size‐fits‐all approach for their ... reported that the correlation between authoritative and permissive parenting  styles and achievement was significant for female Hispanic students but  6 insignificant for all Asian students.  Schneider and Lee (1990) interviewed  students in sixth and seventh grades from 30 schools and found that Asian  students were less influenced by family school linkages than other students.  All  four studies focused on older students who were in grades six and above. ... There is a growing body of literature that distinguishes alterable family process  factors from unchangeable family status factors in terms of their influences over  academic outcomes (Christenson, 2002; Henderson and Berla, 1994; Fan and Chen, 2001).  Empirical findings on the relationship between family process  factors and student achievement are generally inconclusive.  While some studies  found positive evidence (Bradley and Caldwell, 1984; Cohen, 1987; Derrick‐... small sample sizes, potential omitted variable biases, and/ or the use of cross‐ sectional data for analysis.  Moreover, most studies only examine one or two  dimensions of family process factors such as parental involvement.  Very few  studies have assessed the effects of family status and family process factors in the  same models, and none was found to examine the differences in relationship  between family process factors and student achievement by different racial and ... between family process factors and student achievement by different racial and SES groups among young children.    Conceptual Model    The model, shown in Figure 1.1, conceptualizes relationships among three types  of variables – family process factors, family status factors, and school inputs –  and student outcomes.   Building on previous research, the conceptual model  defines six types of family process factors as follows:3   Parental expectations and beliefs – future aspirations for or current beliefs  . xiii ExecutiveSummary xv Chapter1. Family Factors and Student Achievement:TheCaseofU.S. 1 PreviousLiteratureon Family Factors and Student Achievement 2 TheoreticalFrameworksof Family Process Factors. xiii ABSTRACT  Thereisconsiderabledebateabouttherelativeimportanceof family versus school factors inproducingacademic and nonacademic student outcomes, and whether and howtheirimpactsvaryacrossdifferent student groups.Inaddition tocriticallyreviewing and synthesizingearlierwork,thisstudyextendsthe literatureby(a)usingtheECLS‐K,aU.S.longitudinaldatasetthatfollowsa nationallyrepresentativesampleofchildrenfromkindergartenthroughfifth gradetoexaminetheeffectsoftwotypesof family factors family process variables(specificthingsfamiliesdo) and family statusvariables(whofamilies are)—onstudents’academicachievement and nonacademic outcomes; and (b) usingthePISA2006,across‐countrycross‐se ctionaldatasetthatassesses academicachievementof15‐year‐oldstudentsinreading,mathematics, and scienceliteracytocompareU.S.studentswiththeirpeersin20othercountries and economiesintermsof family factors and academicachievement.Specifically, hierarchicalmodelsareestimatedtoaccountforthenestedstructureofthe ECLS‐K data, and interactionmodelsareusedtoexaminewhether and howthe relationshipsbetween family process factors and student outcomes differbyrace and socio‐economicstatus(SES).UsingPISA2006,hierarchicallinearmodels withcountryfixedeffectsareestimatedintheinternationalcomparativeanalysis ofacademiceffectsof family factors.   Findingsofthisstudysuggestthat family process factors canhavesignificant impactsonbothacademic and nonacademic outcomes. ResultsoftheU.S.data indicatethatevenaftercontrollingfordemographics and schoolinputs, student achievementwasassociatedwithmultipledimensionsof family process factors including parentalexpectations and beliefs,learningstructure,resources availability,homeaffectiveenvironment,parenting and disciplinarypractices, and parentalinvolvement.Furthermore,several family processvariables (includingdoinghomeworkmorefrequently,havinghomeInternetaccess, and owningacommunitylibrarycard)hadhigherreturnsintermsof student achievementforblackchildrenorchildrenfromlowsocio‐economicfamilies thanfortheircounterparts. Family process factors asawholeholdsomevaluein explainingnonacademic outcomes. Resultsoftheinternationalcomparative analysissuggestthatU.S.studentsdidnotfareaswellastheirpeersinother countries and economies, and that family processvariables,especially consideredcollectively,wereimportant factors inexplaining student achievementinaninternationalsetting.