/Sociology of Education
/content/84/4/299The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0038040711417013
2011 84: 299 originally published online 18 August 2011
Sociology of Education Josipa Roksa and Daniel Potter
Educational Advantage
Parenting and Academic Achievement : Intergenerational Transmission of
Published by:
On behalf of:
American Sociological Association can be found at:
Sociology of Education Additional rvices and information for
/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
/subscriptions Subscriptions: /journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
What is This?
- Aug 18, 2011opinion是什么意思
Proof
- Oct 4, 2011
Version of Record >>
Parenting and Academic
Achievement:
Intergenerational
flamingoT ransmission of Educational
Advantage英语听力学习网站
Josipa Roksa1and Daniel Potter1
Abstract
A growing body of rearch has examined how cultural capital,recently broadened to include not only high-status cultural activities but also a range of different parenting practices,influences children’s educa-tional success.Most of this rearch assumes that parents’current class location is the starting point of class transmission.However,does the ability of parents to pass advantages to their children,particularly through specific cultural practices,depend solely on their current class location or also on their class of origin?The authors address this question by defining social background as a combination of parents’cur-rent class location and their own family backgrounds.Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its Child Development Supplement,the authors examine how different categories of social back-ground are related to parenting practices and children’s academic achievement.The results offer novel insights into the transmission of class advantage across generations and inform debates about the complex process
bathe是什么意思es of cultural reproduction and cultural mobility.
Keywords
social class,cultural capital,parenting,academic achievement
Ample rearch has documented the importance of family background for children’s educational out-comes,but the process through which parents exert their influence continue to be debated. Cultural capital,which in recent decades has been broadened to include not only high-status cultural activities but also a range of different parenting practices,prents one avenue for understanding how parents transmit advantages to their children (for a recent review,e Lareau and Weininger 2003).Bourdieu propod that cultural capital is acquired primarily through childhood socialization and is a key factor in the reproduction of social class inequality(Bourdieu1973;Bourdieu and Pasron1977).Other scholars,however,have sug-gested that cultural capital may be acquired throughout the life cour and can play a role in social mobility(DiMaggio1982).
While a growing body of rearch has focud on adjudicating between cultural reproduction and cultural mobility arguments,the crucial question of the intergenerational transmission of class inequality has not been adequately addresd.In previous rearch,parents’current class location 1U
niversity of Virginia,Charlottesville,USA Corresponding Author:
Josipa Roksa,Department of Sociology,University of Virginia,2015Ivy Road#306,PO Box400766, Charlottesville,VA22904
Email:jroksa@virginia.edu
Sociology of Education
84(4)299–321frostmourne
ÓAmerican Sociological Association2011
DOI:10.1177/0038040711417013
is assumed to be the starting point of class trans-mission.If parents have a certain amount of edu-cation,income,and/or occupational status,they are considered to be middle class and are expected to engage in specific cultural practices that will facilitate their children’s educational success. Howev
er,not all parents who are currently middle class grew up middle class.The same holds for tho who are currently working class.Does the ability of parents to pass advantages to their chil-dren,particularly through specific cultural practi-ces,depend solely on their current class location or also on their class of origin?
To address this question,we define social back-ground to reflect parents’current class location as well as their class of origin,producing four social class categories:stable middle,new middle,new working,and stable working class.Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID)and its Child Development Supplement (CDS),we explore how the different categories of social background are related to parenting prac-tices and children’s academic achievement. Prented results offer novel insights into the trans-mission of class advantage across generations and inform debates about the complex process of cul-tural reproduction and cultural mobility. LITERATURE REVIEW
Cultural Reproduction and Cultural Mobility
Among the different strains of reproduction theory (e.g.,Bowles and Gintis1976;Collins1979),the work of Pierre Bourdieu has gained unique prom-inence in the sociology of education(Bourdieu 1973;
Bourdieu and Pasron1977).Bourdieu argued that cultural capital is acquired primarily at an early age within the family,where children develop specific‘‘linguistic and cultural compe-tencies’’and‘‘familiarity with culture’’(Bourdieu1973:494).Since cultural capital is ben-eficial(or perhaps even necessary)for school suc-cess,children from upper-class families who posss the appropriate cultural resources will per-form well and take advantage of educational opportunities.Working-class children,who lack cultural capital,on the other hand,will not be as successful.Since family is the key site of the transmission of cultural capital,this argument im-plies a strong relationship between cultural capital and the class of origin.communication
In contrast to the cultural reproduction argu-ment,DiMaggio(1982)propod a cultural mobility model.Drawing on Weber’s(1968) work on status cultures,DiMaggio shifted the lens from thinking about‘‘status group member-ship’’to focusing on‘‘status culture participation.’’This subtle but important shift reconceptualizes status‘‘as a cultural process rather than as an attri-bute of individuals’’(DiMaggio1982:190).An individual can acquire familiarity with the domi-nant culture in the home and will be rewarded for it.However,family upbringing is only one avenue,and perhaps not even the most important one,for acquiring cultural capital.Individuals can also acquire cultural capital throughout the life cour(e also Aschaffenburg and Maas 1997).This would suggest that one’s family back-ground is only partially related to cultural capital.
Cultural reproduction and cultural mobility ar-guments do not differ only with respect to where cultural capital is acquired(in the early childhood family context or throughout the life cour)but also in terms of who is likely to benefit from it. Bourdieu’s writings are commonly interpreted as arguing that children from more advantaged back-grounds will be the primary beneficiaries of spe-cific cultural ,Aschaffenburg and Maas1997;De Graaf,De Graaf,and Kraaykamp2000;DiMaggio1982).While work-ing class children may acquire some knowledge and skills necessary to do well in school,they are not likely to learn as quickly or acquire the ‘‘natural familiarity’’with schooling practices. Moreover,Bourdieu(1973:506)propod that ‘‘the value of depends on the eco-nomic and social values of the person who pos-ss it,’’implying that the rewards for specific actions depend on the social status of the actor. Some recent studies have provided support for this argument,showing,for example,that African American and less socioeconomically advantaged students receive lower educational re-turns for their cultural capital than do their more advantaged peers(Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell1999).
The cultural mobility argument,on the other hand,would propo that at the very least every-one will benefit equally from the posssion of cultural capital,and it is even possible that stu-dents from less advantaged families will benefit more.For instance,Aschaffenburg and Maas (1997)reported that cultural capital acquired at different points throughout the life cour is
300Sociology of Education84(4)
rourelated to educational success,suggesting that cul-tural capital is beneficial even when not transmit-ted in the home.Moreover,veral studies have reported significant interactions between cultural capital and family background,indicating that less advantaged children are more likely to benefit from the posssion of cultural capital(De Graaf et al.2000;DiMaggio1982;Dumais2006).This pattern may emerge becau working-class chil-dren with cultural capital‘‘stand out’’to teachers and are perceived as fitting well within the culture of the school(Dumais2006;Lareau1987).It is also possible that cultural capital rves as an ‘‘extra ast’’for less advantaged children that can narrow the gap between home environment and school and help children acquire competen-cies and skills that are rewarded by educational in-stitutions(De Graaf et al.2000).
Cultural Capital and Parenting
Bourdieu was vague in his original formulation of cultural capital,which has led to a proliferation of numerous,and sometimes contradictory,defini-tions(Lamont and Lareau1988).In educational rearch,the dominant conception of cultural cap-ital draws on Weber’s notion of‘‘elite status cultures’’and defines cultural capital in terms of ‘‘high-status’’cultural activities,such as theater and m
uum visits,and knowledge and apprecia-tion of arts and literature(for a recent review, e Lareau and Weininger2003).This definition has been critiqued on many grounds including its being too narrow,inaccurately translating Bourdieu’s arguments to the t,and omitting concerns about symbolic domination and cultural ,Kingston2001; Lamont and Lareau1988;Lareau and Weininger 2003).
A different interpretation of cultural capital has emerged from the work of George Farkas and his colleagues(1990).Drawing on Swidler’s(1986) conception of culture as a‘‘tool kit,’’the authors focud on specific ts of skills and habits,as oppod to tastes and preferences,and thus defined cultural capital in terms of‘‘informal aca-demic standards by which teachers reward more general skills,habits,and styles’’(Farkas et al. 1990:127).They measured cultural capital by in-dicators such as school behaviors and academic habits and showed that the teacher’s judgment of students’work habits is a crucial predictor of aca-demic success(even more so than cognitive performance on basic skills and cour work mas-tery).Following this effort to align the definition of cultural capital with cultural dispositions re-warded in the educational system,veral recent studies have examined the effects of parental read-ing on children’s academic success.They found that reading—not highbrow cultural tastes and ac-tivities—enhances students’educational outcomes (Crook1997;De Graaf et al.质子教授
2000;Sullivan 2001).1The findings support earlier arguments regarding the importance of creating a home envi-ronment that fosters academic motivation and ,Teachman1987).
Moreover,recent work by Lareau(2002,2003) has combined different aspects of parenting into coherent parenting styles.Lareau argued that working-class parents engage in an‘‘accomplish-ment of natural growth’’style of parenting,which allows children to grow up in a more spontaneous manner and gives schools the primary responsibil-ity for developing children’s cognitive skills. Middle-class parents,in contrast,engage in a‘‘concerted cultivation’’style of parenting,which involves a deliberate cultivation of children’s skills and talents.Parents accomplish this through practices such as enrolling children in multiple organized leisure activities,engaging them in dis-cussion,reasoning with them,and intervening in ,schools)on their behalf. Several studies aiming to quantitatively capture this complex t of process have reported a pos-itive relationship between concerted cultivation and children’s academic achievement(Bodovski and Farkas2008;Cheadle2008).
Although concerted cultivation broadens earlier definitions of cultural capital,it only implicitly considers parents’educational expectations. Middle-class parents presumably engage in con-certed cultivation becau they want and expect their children to do well in school and advance through the
educational system.Parents’educa-tional expectations are thus an integral,although implicit,part of parenting practices.When dis-cusd in the previous literature,educational ex-pectations are typically a part of the status attainment ,Morgan2005;Reynolds et al.2006),not the cultural capital tradition. However,Barone(2006)has recently argued for the inclusion of expectations in the studies of cul-tural capital,and a few studies in the cultural cap-ital tradition have considered educational and occupational expectations(Dumais2002,2006; McClelland1990).The studies have defined
Roksa and Potter301
expectations as an expression of habitus,following Bourdieu’s(1990:55)conception of habitus as deeply internalized dispositions that generate ‘‘thoughts,perceptions,expressions,and actions.’’Following this definition,habitus is related to cul-tural capital,and some have suggested that‘‘habitus lies beneath cultural capital generating its myriad manifestations’’(Reay2004:435-36).Considering parents’educational expectations should thus be as important as examining specific parenting prac-tices(such as concerted cultivation or taking chil-dren to concerts and muums)for understanding the transmission of class advantage across generations.
北京二级建造师报名时间Transmission of Advantage across Generations
Whether studies support cultural reproduction or cultural mobility arguments or employ broad or narrow definitions of cultural capital,they tend to begin with parents’current social class location as the starting point of class transmission.Parents are considered to be middle class or working class, or occupy a specific location in the socioeconomic status hierarchy,bad on their current occupa-tion,education,and/or income.However,as social mobility rearch has shown,a certain proportion of individuals move up or down the social class hierarchy(for a recent review,e Beller and Hout2006).Not all currently middle-class parents have grown up middle class.Thus,some middle-class parents have experienced a lifetime of socially valued cultural transmissions,while others have not.Does that have any conquences for their ability to facilitate their children’s aca-demic success,particularly through specific par-enting practices?
To address this question,we conceptualize pa-rents’social class location as a combination of their current class location and their class of ori-gin.This produces four social class categories: stable middle,new middle,new working,and sta-ble working class.We then examine whether the social class categories are related to parenting practices and children’s academic achievement. Growing up in a specific class context will not teach individuals particular parenting styles. Indeed,the‘‘cultural logics’’of child rearing are historically contingent.Middle-class parents who are practicing concerted c
ultivation today most likely did not grow up shuffled from activity to activity,as this intensive form of parenting is a relatively recent phenomenon.However,each time period has a‘‘dominant t of cultural reper-toires about how children should be raid,’’and middle-class parents are in a better position to shift their behaviors and adapt to new demands (Lareau2003:4-5).They have the necessary skills, habits,and dispositions that enable them to respond to the changes in expectations over time.The crucial question we are asking is whether that adaptability and responsiveness to changing definitions of parenting rests with their own location in the social structure or their social origins.
By exploring how this more complex defini-tion of social background is related to parenting practices and children’s outcomes,this study pro-vides insights into previously unexplored patterns of cultural reproduction and cultural mobility across generations.Furthermore,it provides an avenue for understanding variation among mid-dle-class and working-class parents.As Lareau (2003)described,some middle-class parents are not effective in their strategies;that is,they do not gain the expected advantages for their chil-dren.In addition,studying racial differences in pa-rents’abilities to comply with educators’requests, Lareau and Horvat(1999:39)propod that pos-ssing cultural capital is not enough;parents need to activate cultural capital and‘‘the way in which it
[cultural capital]is activated influences its value.’’When parents activate their cultural capital and whether they are effective in produc-ing desirable results may at least in part rest on where they come from.
tnfDATA AND METHOD
We rely on data from the PSID and its CDS.The PSID is a longitudinal panel study of a reprenta-tive sample of U.S.individuals and their families, originating in1968.The sample has been followed on an annual basis,and biannually since1997.In 1997,the PSID supplemented its standard data collection with additional information regarding 0-to12-year-old children and their parents,and it reported this information in the CDS.The CDS sample was reinterviewed in2002-2003 and again in2007-2008.Jointly,PSID and CDS allow rearchers to construct three-generation family histories,including children,their parents, and their grandparents.The data ts are partic-ularly conducive to our inquiry since PSID includes parents’and grandparents’social
302Sociology of Education84(4)
