The Role of Parental Education, Household Income, and Race on Parents’ Academic Beliefs and the Provision of Home Learning Opportunities for 4- to 8-Year-Old Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has highlighted the importance of parents’ education, household income, and race for children’s academic achievement. In addition, these factors relate to their beliefs about their children’s academic achievement and their provision of opportunities to strengthen learning. However, direct comparisons of the unique roles of parents’ education, household income, and race are rare and the current study seeks to fill this gap. A heterogeneous sample of 398 parents of 4- to 8-year-old children in the US completed a survey assessing beliefs about the importance of math and reading/writing for their child, how frequently they provided learning opportunities in these skill sets at home, and demographic information. We found that parents’ education was significantly related to their beliefs about the school’s importance in teaching their child math, but when splitting our sample by race, this effect was only significant for White non-Hispanic parents. No significant effects were found for parents’ education on their beliefs about the importance of the school or home in teaching their child reading/writing. In addition, we found that household income was significantly related to parents’ beliefs about the school’s but not the home’s importance in teaching their child math. Finally, household income was found to be significantly related to parents’ beliefs about the home’s but not the school’s importance in teaching their child reading/writing, but this effect was only significant for African American parents. These results suggest that parents’ education and income play different roles in determining parents’ beliefs about the importance of the school or the home in teaching math and reading/writing to their child and these relations were modulated by race.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".