Jonathan A Jarvis

Although gender ideologies influence many outcomes, research shows they often fluctuate across the life course. Family structure transitions are one mechanism through which gender ideologies change. Divorced and single adults report more egalitarian ideologies than stably married adults. Little research has examined whether children in these families experience similar gender ideologies. Based on parental role modeling, we would expect children in non-traditional families to exhibit more egalitarian gender ideologies. We examine family structure and youth gender ideologies in two contexts, essentially two case studies: Germany and South Korea. Using Starting Cohort 3-Grade 5 (N = 4,021) and Starting Cohort 4-Grade 9 (N = 9,913) of the Germany National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) and Cohorts 1 (N = 2,844) and 2 (N = 3,449) of the Korea Youth Panel Survey (KYPS), we uncover counterintuitive findings that youth gender ideologies do not vary across family structures. Child gender is the most salient predictor of gender ideologies across contexts.

A large body of literature suggests that children living with two married, biological parents on average have fewer behavior problems than those who do not. What is less clear is why this occurs. Competing theories suggest that resource deficiencies and parental selectivity play a part. We suggest
that examining different contexts can help adjudicate among different theoretical explanations as to how family structure relates to child behavior problems. In this paper, we use data from the Growing Up in Australia: Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), the UK Millennium Cohort
Study (MCS), and the US Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K) to examine the relationship between family structure and child behavior problems. Specifically, we look at how living in several configurations of biological and social parents may relate to child behavior problems. Findings
suggest both similarities and differences across the three settings, with explanations in the UK results favoring selectivity theories, US patterns suggesting that there is a unique quality to family structure that can explain outcomes, and the Australian results favoring resource theories.

Research shows negative associations between living in single-parent or stepparent families and average academic outcomes. But some children from non-traditional family structures are successful, such as those who enroll in college. Such students may be well suited to handle transitions to college because of their experience handling family transitions. By contrast, characteristics of non-traditional family structures generally associated with lower academic performance may persist into the collegiate context. We use the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-1997 Cohort to compare first-term college GPA for students from two-biological-parent, single-parent, and stepparent families. We employ data from the NLSY97 Post-Secondary Transcript Data (NLSY97-PST) (N = 3346) and regression analyses to test the degree to which three competing theoretical perspectives-resources, family structure selectivity processes, or student resilience factors-might explain potential differences in college performance. Students from single-parent and stepparent families perform worse in their first collegiate semester than their peers from two-biological-parent families. Resources and selectivity factors explain differences for students from single-parent families, but explaining differences for students from stepparent families requires accounting for resilience factors as well.

The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between family structure
and maternal depressive symptoms (MDS) in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Family structures that involve transitions across life’s course, such as divorce, can alter access to resources and introduce new stressors into family systems. Using the stress process model, we examine the links between family structure, stress, resources, and MDS. Using nationally representative data from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States and cross-sectional models for each country, we find that family structure may influence MDS differently in the UK than it does in Australia or, especially, the US. Specifically, mothers in the UK who either enter or leave a marriage after the birth of their child experience increased levels of MDS compared with mothers who do not experience a similar transition. These findings demonstrate that the effects of family structure transitions across life’s course may vary according to the country context as well as to the mother’s access to resources and exposure to stress. Considering that the effects of family structure transitions are not universal, this indicates that greater attention should be paid to the country contexts families exist in and the effects that public policies and social safety nets can have on MDS

Child behavior problems are associated with an array of negative outcomes that can continue into adulthood. Because much of the social development and adjustment for children in early to middle childhood takes place in the home, families are of special interest in understanding child behavioral problems. Past research suggests an association between more stable family structures and healthier child behavioral outcomes. However, much of the research assessing behavioral outcomes has overlooked more complex family structure types and trajectories or has not considered how finer measures of family structure may clarify the connection between family structure and child behavior. Using the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS), a longitudinal study of children in the United Kingdom, we examine the relationships between various types of family structure stability and instability on child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Our results suggest that internalizing behavioral problems differ only slightly across all eight family structure trajectories and are instead explained by differences in other family characteristics such as stress and parental selectivity. Conversely, we find that family structure and trajectories of family structure change are associated with child externalizing problems, independent of other family characteristics. Despite the increase in frequency and normalization of non-traditional family structures in the UK, such as cohabitation, single parent and stepparent families, we find that children in stable married families experience fewer externalizing behavior problems compared to children in other family structures.

In intense academic environments such as in South Korea, students experience extreme levels of academic stress. This stress peaks as students prepare for the college entrance exam in the final year of high school. Stress is associated with a host of negative outcomes, and academic stress is the leading cause of suicidal ideation among youth in South Korea. Research suggests that in high-stress contexts such as this, social capital can improve academic success and mental health, while reducing risky or deviant behaviors. However, this research has predominantly focused on Western contexts. Because of the unique intensity of educational pursuits and intense investment in education by parents, South Korea provides a compelling case for research on the effects of family and school social capital on youth academic stress. Using data from the Korea Youth Panel Survey (N = 2753), we find that particular components of family and school social capital can both reduce and exacerbate academic stress. While measures of closeness and connection to parents reduced academic stress, school social capital had a limited impact on academic stress. Furthermore, there may be a limit to the effectiveness of social capital to help with academic stress before it becomes too much of a good thing.

International students studying at foreign universities believe this experience will translate to occupational opportunities in their home countries. Although the motives for global education have been considered, we know less about the conversion process upon return. Using 66 in-depth interviews (20 evaluators, 20 locally-educated Koreans, 26 foreign-educated Koreans), I examine how global cultural capital can be both deeply meaningful and an obstacle to organizational fit and reintegration. When Koreans leave Korea before attending a local university, the acquisition of global institutional, embodied, and objectified cultural capital may come at the expense of how they activate or portray embodied local cultural capital. Koreans with more balanced global and local cultural capital—those leaving after graduating from a Korean university—were able to navigate the work context with greater ease, choosing when and how to signal both their global knowledge and understanding of the rules of the Korean work world.

Many countries attempt to increase their Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings and scores over time. However, despite providing a more accurate assessment of the achievement-based improvements across countries, few studies have systematically examined growth in PISA scores over multiple assessments. Using data from the 2006, the 2009, and the 2012 PISA, we analyzed which countries experienced significant increases in their country-level average PISA scores between 2006 and 2012. To facilitate improved policy decisions, we also examined what country-level conditions were associated with such increases. Contrary to expectations, we found that few countries significantly increased their PISA scores over time. Countries that did experience meaningful improvements in PISA scores were more likely to have had lower PISA scores in 2006 and experienced country-level foundational advancements more recently, such as advancing to a more democratic form of government and/or a higher income classification.

Background/Context: Scholars have attributed the underperformance of U.S. students relative to students in other high-income countries to unequal access to high-quality educational environments. Poor students are presumed to do disproportionately worse on international achievement tests and, consequently, to pull down the U.S. average. Conversely, high-socioeconomic-status (SES) students in the United States, who are among the wealthiest in the world, are presumed to outperform other rich students. Purpose/Objective/Research Question: Despite these common assumptions regarding the performance of different SES groups in the United States, little research has empirically examined the extent to which these assumptions are correct. As such, we seek to benchmark low-, middle-, and high-SES students in the United States relative to comparable groups in other countries in order to contextualize U.S. performance. Data Analysis: We analyze 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) mathematics achievement for 42 high-income countries. We average scores for low-, middle-, and high-SES groups within each country, using PISA’s index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) index to generate categories. We then generate grand means for all countries in our sample to have an overall benchmark for each group. To calculate overall country scores and SES group scores, we use PISA-specific plausible values techniques. We use 12 points to identify meaningful achievement differences. Findings/Results: Contrary to conventional wisdom regarding the performance of students in the United States on PISA, poor students do not disproportionately pull down U.S. scores; relative to poor students around the world, poor students in the U.S. are average, despite being among the most socioeconomically disadvantaged. Moreover, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the richest students in the United States do not exhibit stellar performance and are average compared with other rich students globally, despite being among the richest in the world. Middle-SES students in the United States, however, perform 17 points below the average for all middle-SES students in the 42 countries we examined, suggesting that they are nearly half a school year behind middle-SES students around the world. Conclusions/Recommendations: Although common explanations for U.S. PISA achievement may seem logical, they are not always correct. Such incorrect assumptions overlook significant educational concerns that could be shaping educational policies. Considering our findings, the United States needs to address the within-country SES-based achievement gap, but it also needs to address the gap between the United States and other countries. While policy makers should continue to focus on economically disadvantaged students, there are systemic concerns with the U.S. education system that prevent the academic success of students across the class spectrum.