Up to Age 7: Family Background and Child Development Up to Age 7 in the Avon Longitudinal ...

98 Pages·2006·0.44 MB·English

R
ESEARCH
Up to Age 7:
Family Background and Child Development
Up to Age 7 in the Avon Longitudinal Survey
of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)
Non-technical Summary
CPMO Research Team
University of Bristol
Research Report RR808B
Research Report
No 808B

Up to Age 7:
Family Background and Child Development
Up to Age 7 in the Avon Longitudinal Survey
of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)
Non-technical Summary

CPMO Research Team
University of Bristol

The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and
Skills.

© University of Bristol 2006
ISBN 978 1 84478 859 0
1
Up To 7:
Family Background and Child Development Up to Age 7
in the Avon Longitudinal Survey of Parents and Children
(ALSPAC)
Non-technical Summary
CMPO Research Team, University of Bristol

We would like to thank the Department for Education and Skills for financial support on this
project. We are extremely grateful to all the mothers who took part and to the midwives for their
cooperation and help in recruitment. The whole ALSPAC Study Team comprises interviewers,
computer technicians, laboratory technicians, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers and
managers who continue to make the study possible. The ALSPAC could not have been undertaken
without the financial support of the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, UK
government departments, medical charities and others. The ALSPAC study is part of the WHO
initiated European Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy & Childhood. The CMPO research team on
this project is Simon Burgess, Paul Gregg, Emma Hall, Sara Meadows, Carol Propper, Stephen
Proud and Liz Washbrook. Usual disclaimers apply.

Leverhulme Centre for Market and Public Organisation
University of Bristol
8 Woodland Rd.
Bristol BS8 1TN
e-mail – [email protected]
Tel: [phone]
2
3
Executive Summary and Conclusions

The Research Methodology
We use the rich information in the ALSPAC data set to identify child outcomes at age 5 and age 7,
their relationship with family background, and a set of mediating influences (details of our precise
methodology are given in section 3.2 of Part I of the main report). In summary, we begin by
examining the relationship between each of these groups of mediating influences and the two child
outcomes (educational and behavioural development) at age 5 in order to determine which factors
are significantly associated with the outcomes of interest. In this examination, our focus is on the
pathways by which parental education and income affect child outcomes on school entry.
However, we also explore whether age of mother at birth, numbers of siblings, ethnicity and lone
parenthood influence attainment and their relationship with our mediating factors. Having
established the patterns of association at age 5 for cognitive and behavioural outcomes, we then
examine (in Part 2 of the report) the persistence of the associations through the first two years of
schooling. In this part, we examine only cognitive outcomes. We aim to assess whether the first
two years of education in school changes the key influences on child development at age 7
compared with what these had been prior to school entry. In particular, we assess whether the early
learning deficits based on family background persist and the role played in these deficits by the
factors identified in Part 1 in this persistence. In addition to these factors, we also examine the
effect of the school attended by the child.

Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a cohort study of around 13
000 children born in the Avon area of the UK in 1991 and 1992. Hence, the survey is after the bulk
of the large expansion of early return to work by mothers that occurred in the mid-late 1980s (see
Burgess et al. 2003) but before the guaranteed half day places at pre-school for four and most
recently 3 year olds. Mothers complete up to three surveys a year, one relating to the
characteristics of herself and the household in general and two relating to the child1. In addition,
mothers answered four questionnaires during their pregnancies. The ALSPAC survey also contains
data from sources other than self-completion questionnaires. The ALSPAC team have run a
number of clinics for children from the age of seven. Here the child attends an assessment centre
(with a parent or guardian) run by ALSPAC at which tests are undertaken to assess various aspects

1 The mother’s partner also received annual questionnaires but the response here is patchy.
4
of the children’s development. Records from schools can also be matched, with a parent’s
permission, to the individual child records, so data is available on school-based assessments at ages
4 to 5 and again for ages 6 to 7. By the time the children had reached age 7 just under 10,000 were
still actively engaged in the study. Attrition was not strongly related to mothers characteristics
except among never married lone parents who were disproportionately lost from the study.

The Outcome Measures Used
The data contains two school-based measures of educational learning development. As a short
hand we describe these as measures of cognitive development. These are the Entry Assessment
(EA) test taken at age 4 or 5 and the Key Stage 1 (KS1) assessment, administered in Year 2 at age
6 or 7. Each test is composed of four sub-scores that capture ability in reading, writing,
mathematics and language skills (EA only) or spelling (KS1 only). The data also contains an
assessment of similar cognitive ability administered by the ALSPAC team to children at the age of
7 (Focus at 7 Test). Attrition and the fact that not all permissions to use tests taken in school have
been given to ALSPAC, mean the sample size for the EA test score is around 5,000. At age 7, the
availability of the two scores (one from the Key Stage test and the other from the Focus at 7 test)
allows us to construct a composite score, which will be more accurate than a single measure alone.
This composite score covers some 7,500 children.

The measure of behavioural problems is derived from mother-reported data at age 4. The measure
contains five sub-components relating to hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, conduct problems,
peer problems and a pro-social score (which is reversed as unlike for the other measures a higher
score is a positive outcome). The sample size for this measure is around 9500. More details of the
construction of the measures used and the ALSPAC study are contained in the main report.

Understanding the Findings
The approach of this research is to explore how the association between distal factors such as
family income and parental education impact on children’s early development. This is undertaken
in two steps, first we condition on other distal factors such as mothers age, family structure. This
enables us to’ suggest that the association of child outcomes and family income does not stem from
income per se but because it is also associated with teen pregnancy, larger families etc. In the

second step we introduce groupings of proximal influences; Parenting Behaviour and the Home
Environment, Maternal Employment, Childcare, Maternal Health, Social Support and
Background, Neighbourhood and Peer Groups. It is possible through this approach to also look
at other background factors, other than income or parental educations and to explore how
5
important the proximal influences are to child development (not just to the achievement gaps
across income or parental education groups). In what follows we define a modest effect equates to
a n effect of up to 1/10 of a standard deviation, a moderate effect to between 1/10 and 2/10 of a
standard deviation and a Large effect to above 2/10 of a standard deviation. 1/10 of a standard
deviation would move a child from the middle of the distribution of attainment (the median) by
just under 4 percentage points.

Summary of Findings

Educational Learning Development Up to Age 5
• Even by age 5 substantial variations in educational attainment are apparent across
children from different family backgrounds. Large early learning variations are associated with
parental education, family income, age of mother and numbers of siblings and gender of the
child. Children from poorest fifth of families (based on an average of incomes measured at
ages 3 and 4) have lower cognitive attainment than children from richest fifth of families by
nearly 7 percentage points in the raw data (around 10 months behind) and those with less
educated parents (no A-C grade GCSEs or higher level qualifications) are 9 points (or about a
year) behind those with degree holding parents. However, these raw results capture many
combined aspects of family background, in that for example the lower income families tend
also to be less educated. Once we draw out the separate effects of education and income, those
from less educated mothers (no A-C grade GCSEs or higher level qualifications) are 5 points
behind those with degree educated mothers and those from the poorest fifth of homes are just
over 3 points behind those from the most affluent fifth. Boys also have lower attainment than
girls, those with younger mothers are behind those with older mothers and those with more
older siblings are also behind the first born children.
• Parents’ teaching (e.g. teaching children a number of items such as shapes, colours and
numbers) and reading to children during the pre-school period are the largest single influence
on children’s early learning. After controlling for other influences children who are rarely read
(never or once a week) to before school entry are 1.6 points behind children in households
where reading occurs everyday and those whose mothers rarely actively teach their children are
3.6 points behind. However, differences in teaching and reading do not explain very much of
the early learning deficits of children from poorer and less educated families. For instance,
parenting behaviours are the mediating influence for just 10% of the gap between children with
the highest and lowest educated groups of mothers. There is no evidence that better educated
parents teach and read to young children more effectively; they just do these things somewhat
6
more often. There is evidence, however, that teenage mothers engage in reading to and
teaching their children less often and these are key reasons why children of teenage mothers are
underachieving at age 7.
• Exposure to pre-school childcare is modestly beneficial to early learning (attending
Nursery schools or classes advances child test scores at age 5 by one tenth of a standard
deviation or about 4 percentage points in the ranking of children’s attainment) but it is a minor
factor in explaining the early learning deficits observed. Full-time childcare prior to school
entry is no more beneficial than part-time but attending a pre-school containing high achieving
children is beneficial.
• Centre based care at or before age 2 is as beneficial to children’s learning (again this
advances child test scores by one tenth of a standard deviation or about 4 percentage points in
the ranking of children’s attainment). Long hours of care up to the age of 2 by unpaid carers,
such as friends and relatives, are associated with lower attainment, whilst father’s involvement
in child care before age 2 is modestly beneficial
• The home environment - in terms of books and toys and the attainment of the peer
group attending the same pre-school setting both explain around 10% of the early learning
deficits of children from poorer and less educated families. The home environment and the
social background of those attending the same pre-school provider are both strongly related to
family income levels.
• Mother’s mental and physical health and her own childhood experiences are not major
influences on children’s early leaning.

Behaviour at age 5
• Differences in the raw behaviour scores across children from families with different
levels of income and education are relatively small compared to those observed in cognitive
development. Children for the poorest fifth of families have Entry Assessment test scores some
7 points lower (equivalent to being 25 percentage points lower in the rankings of child
attainment) than those from the most affluent fifth of the population. Whereas for the behaviour
scores they are 5 points behind).
• Mother’s mental and physical health, especially stress, anxiety and self-esteem, and low
quality relationships between parents are strongly related to poor behavioural outcomes among
children. In turn these indicators of poor mental health and lack of belief that their own actions
can alter their circumstances, are strongly correlated with low income and low educational
attainment. Hence mothers mental health explains around 25 to 30% of the difference in
7
behavioural scores between those from less or more affluent households or high or low parental
education.
• Parental teaching and reading also have marked influences on later behavioural
outcomes (as for learning outcomes). But, in addition, parental behaviours including a lack of
early maternal bonding, smoking in pregnancy, talking to children whilst engaged in other
activities and the child watching 6+ hours of TV a week at 18 months are also associated with
worse behaviour.
• Centre based care at or before age 2 is associated with worse behaviours relative to
parental carers or child minders. Long hours of care by unpaid carers, such as friends and
relatives are also associated with worse behaviour.
• The raw differences in behaviour scores between the highest and lowest education and
income groups are around 5 points different (or ½ a standard deviation) and explained mainly
by the correlations between parenting behaviour and mother’s mental and physical health and
income or education. Parenting patterns are more important in driving the differences in
behavioural outcomes, between the most or least affluent children, than they are for early
educational attainment.

Persistence of Early Learning From Age 5 to 7
• Family Background. In general most dimensions of family background have slightly weaker
influences at age 7, after two years of schooling, than at age 5. This is most marked for age of
mother, low birth weight children and boys (as the gender gap diminishes but far from
disappears). This decline is fairly marginal, however, for income, parental education and
sibling numbers. This pattern of effects is not influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of
known mediating influences.
• Parenting patterns. Most effects (reading, activities, teaching and breast feeding) remain
highly persistent, that is. they are still important at age 7. There is a weakening of the impact of
early TV watching on a child’s educational development.
• The home learning environment and outings. There is evidence of a minor reduction in the
impact of the home learning environment on children’s attainment between ages 5 and 7. The
toy score, having few toys in the home, becomes indistinguishable from having no effect at age
7, whereas there was a significant relationship at age 5.
• Childcare. The report covers usage, types and extent of care up to age 24 months plus a more
detailed study of child care exposure and limited measures of quality prior to school entry at
age 4. The reliance on friends and relatives for early care (up to age 2) has persistently adverse
8