family and educational background essay

• The Journal
• Vol. 16, No. 2

How Family Background Influences Student Achievement

Anna J. Egalite

This article is part of a new Education Next series commemorating the 50th anniversary of James S. Coleman’s groundbreaking report , “Equality of Educational Opportunity.” The full series will appear in the Spring 2016 issue of Education Next .

To the dismay of federal officials, the Coleman Report had concluded that “schools are remarkably similar in the effect they have on the achievement of their pupils when the socio-economic background of the students is taken into account.” Or, as one sociologist supposedly put it to the scholar-politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Have you heard what Coleman is finding? It’s all family.”

The Coleman Report’s conclusions concerning the influences of home and family were at odds with the paradigm of the day. The politically inconvenient conclusion that family background explained more about a child’s achievement than did school resources ran contrary to contemporary priorities, which were focused on improving educational inputs such as school expenditure levels, class size, and teacher quality. Indeed, less than a year before the Coleman Report’s release, President Lyndon Johnson had signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act into law, dedicating federal funds to disadvantaged students through a Title 1 program that still remains the single largest investment in K–12 education, currently reaching approximately 21 million students at an annual cost of about $14.4 billion.

So what exactly had Coleman uncovered? Differences among schools in their facilities and staffing “are so little related to achievement levels of students that, with few exceptions, their effect fails to appear even in a survey of this magnitude,” the authors concluded.

Zeroing In on Family Background

Coleman’s advisory panel refused to sign off on the report, citing “methodological concerns” that continue to reverberate. Subsequent research has corroborated the finding that family background is strongly correlated with student performance in school. A correlation between family background and educational and economic success, however, does not tell us whether the relationship between the two is independent of any school impacts. The associations between home life and school performance that Coleman documented may actually be driven by disparities in school or neighborhood quality rather than family influences. Often, families choose their children’s schools by selecting their community or neighborhood, and children whose parents select good schools may benefit as a consequence. In the elusive quest to uncover the determinants of students’ academic success, therefore, it is important to rely on experimental or quasi-experimental research that identifies effects of family background that operate separately and apart from any school effects.

In this essay I look at four family variables that may influence student achievement: family education, family income, parents’ criminal activity, and family structure. I then consider the ways in which schools can offset the effects of these factors.

Parental Education. Better-educated parents are more likely to consider the quality of the local schools when selecting a neighborhood in which to live. Once their children enter a school, educated parents are also more likely to pay attention to the quality of their children’s teachers and may attempt to ensure that their children are adequately served. By participating in parent-teacher conferences and volunteering at school, they may encourage staff to attend to their children’s individual needs.

In addition, highly educated parents are more likely than their less-educated counterparts to read to their children. Educated parents enhance their children’s development and human capital by drawing on their own advanced language skills in communicating with their children. They are more likely to pose questions instead of directives and employ a broader and more complex vocabulary. Estimates suggest that, by age 3, children whose parents receive public assistance hear less than a third of the words encountered by their higher-income peers. As a result, the children of highly educated parents are capable of more complex speech and have more extensive vocabularies before they even start school.

Highly educated parents can also use their social capital to promote their children’s development. A cohesive social network of well-educated individuals socializes children to expect that they too will attain high levels of academic success. It can also transmit cultural capital by teaching children the specific behaviors, patterns of speech, and cultural references that are valued by the educational and professional elite.

In most studies, parental education has been identified as the single strongest correlate of children’s success in school, the number of years they attend school, and their success later in life. Because parental education influences children’s learning both directly and through the choice of a school, we do not know how much of the correlation can be attributed to direct impact and how much to school-related factors. Teasing out the distinct causal impact of parental education is tricky, but given the strong association between parental education and student achievement in every industrialized society, the direct impact is undoubtedly substantial. Furthermore, quasi-experimental strategies have found positive effects of parental education on children’s outcomes. For instance, one study of Korean children adopted into American families shows that the adoptive mother’s education level is significantly associated with the child’s educational attainment.

Family Income. As with parental education, family income may have a direct impact on a child’s academic outcomes, or variations in achievement could simply be a function of the school the child attends: parents with greater financial resources can identify communities with higher-quality schools and choose more-expensive neighborhoods—the very places where good schools are likely to be. More-affluent parents can also use their resources to ensure that their children have access to a full range of extracurricular activities at school and in the community.

But it’s not hard to imagine direct effects of income on student achievement. Parents who are struggling economically simply don’t have the time or the wherewithal to check homework, drive children to summer camp, organize museum trips, or help their kids plan for college. Working multiple jobs or inconvenient shifts makes it hard to dedicate time for family dinners, enforce a consistent bedtime, read to infants and toddlers, or invest in music lessons or sports clubs. Even small differences in access to the activities and experiences that are known to promote brain development can accumulate, resulting in a sizable gap between two groups of children defined by family circumstances.

It is challenging to find rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental evidence to disentangle the direct effects of home life from the effects of the school a family selects. While Coleman claimed that family and peers had an effect on student achievement that was distinct from the influence of schools or neighborhoods, his research design was inadequate to support this conclusion. All he was able to show was that family characteristics had a strong correlation with student achievement.

Separating out the independent effects of family education and family income is also difficult. We do not know if low income and financial instability alone can adversely affect children’s behavior, emotional stability, and educational outcomes. Evidence from the negative-income-tax experiments carried out by the federal government between 1968 and 1982 showed only mixed effects of income on children’s outcomes, and subsequent work by the University of Chicago’s Susan Mayer cast doubt on any causal relationship between parental income and child well-being. However, a recent study by Gordon Dahl and Lance Lochner, exploiting quasi-experimental variation in the Earned Income Tax Credit, provides convincing evidence that increases in family income can lift the achievement levels of students raised in low-income working families, even holding other factors constant.

Parental Incarceration. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 2.3 percent of U.S. children have a parent in federal or state prison. Black children are 7.5 times more likely and Hispanic children 2.5 times more likely than white children to have an incarcerated parent. Incarceration removes a wage earner from the home, lowering household income. One estimate suggests that two-thirds of incarcerated fathers had provided the primary source of family income before their imprisonment. As a result, children with a parent in prison are at greater risk of homelessness, which in turn can have grave consequences: the receipt of social and medical services and assignment to a traditional public school all require a stable home address. The emotional strain of a parent’s incarceration can also take its toll on a child’s achievement in school.

Quantifying the causal effects of parental incarceration has proven challenging, however. While correlational research finds that the odds of finishing high school are 50 percent lower for children with an incarcerated parent, parents who are in prison may have less education, lower income, more limited access to quality schools, and other attributes that adversely affect their children’s success in school. A recent review of 22 studies of the effect of parental incarceration on child well-being concludes that, to date, no research in this area has been able to leverage a natural experiment to produce quasi-experimental estimates. Just how large a causal impact parental incarceration has on children remains an important but largely uncharted topic for future research.

Family Structure. While most American children still live with both of their biological or adoptive parents, family structures have become more diverse in recent years, and living arrangements have grown increasingly complex. In particular, the two-parent family is vanishing among the poor.

Recent research by MIT economist David Autor and colleagues generates quasi-experimental estimates of family background by simultaneously accounting for the impact of neighborhood environment and school quality to investigate why boys fare worse than girls in disadvantaged families. Comparing boys to their sisters in a data set that includes more than 1 million children born in Florida between 1992 and 2002, the authors demonstrate a persistent gender gap in graduation and truancy rates, incidence of behavioral and cognitive disabilities, and standardized test scores.

Policies to Counter Family Disadvantage

Policymakers who are weighing competing approaches to countering the influence of family disadvantage face a tough choice: Should they try to improve schools (to overcome the effects of family background) or directly address the effects of family background?

The question is critical. If family background is decisive regardless of the quality of the school, then the road to equal opportunity will be long and hard. Increasing the level of parental education is a multigenerational challenge, while reducing the rising disparities in family income would require massive changes in public policy, and reversing the growth in the prevalence of single-parent families would also prove challenging. And, while efforts to reduce incarceration rates are afoot, U.S. crime rates remain among the highest in the world. Given these obstacles, if schools themselves can offset differences in family background, the chances of achieving a more egalitarian society greatly improve.

For these reasons, scholars need to continue to tackle the causality question raised by Coleman’s pathbreaking study. Although the obstacles to causal inference are steep, education researchers should focus on quasi-experimental approaches relying on sibling comparisons, changes in state laws over time, or policy quirks—such as policy implementation timelines that vary across municipalities—that facilitate research opportunities.

Given what is currently known, a holistic approach that simultaneously attempts to strengthen both home and school influences in disadvantaged communities is worthy of further exploration. A number of contemporary and past initiatives point to the potential of this comprehensive approach.

Promise Neighborhoods

“Promise Neighborhoods,” which are funded by a grant program of the U.S. Department of Education, serve distressed communities by delivering a continuum of services through multiple government agencies, nonprofit organizations, churches, and agencies of civil society. These neighborhood initiatives use “wraparound” programs that take a holistic approach to improving the educational achievement of low-income students. The template for the approach is the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), a 97-block neighborhood in New York City that combines charter schooling with a full package of social, medical, and community support services. The programs and resources are available to the families at no cost.

Services available in the HCZ include a Baby College, where expectant parents can learn about child development and gain parenting skills; two charter schools and a college success office, which provides individualized counseling and guidance to graduates on university campuses across the country; free legal services, tax preparation, and financial counseling; employment workshops and job fairs; a 50,000-square-foot facility that offers recreational and nutrition classes; and a food services team that provides breakfast, lunch, and a snack every school day to more than 2,000 students.

Research by Will Dobbie and Roland Fryer demonstrates that the impact of attending an HCZ charter middle school on students’ test scores is comparable to the impressive effects seen at  high-performing charter schools such as the Knowledge Is Power Program (known as KIPP schools). Students who win admission by lottery and attend an HCZ school also have higher on-time graduation rates than their peers and are less likely to become teen parents or land in prison. Although some community services are available to HCZ residents only, results show that students who live outside the HCZ experience similar benefits simply from attending the Promise Academy. That is, Dobbie and Fryer do not find any additional benefits associated with the resident-only supplementary services that distinguish the Promise Neighborhoods approach.   (In many instances, the mean scores for children who live within the zone are higher than those for nonresidents, but these differences are not statistically significant.)

There are two caveats to keep in mind in regard to this finding that support the case for continued experimentation with and evaluation of Promise Neighborhoods. First, many of the wraparound services offered in the HCZ are provided through the school and are thus available to HCZ residents and nonresidents alike. For instance, all Promise Academy students receive free nutritious meals; medical, dental, and mental health services; and food baskets for their parents. The services that nonresidents cannot access are things such as tax preparation and financial advising, parenting classes through the Baby College, and job fairs. It may be that both groups of students are accessing the most beneficial supplementary services.

The second caveat is that the HCZ is a “pipeline” model that aims to transform an entire community by targeting services across many different domains. Therefore, we may have to wait until a cohort of students has progressed through that pipeline before we can get a full picture of how these comprehensive services have benefited them. The first cohort to complete the entire HCZ program is expected to graduate from high school in 2020.

The main drawback of the Promise Neighborhoods model is its high cost. To cover the expenses of running the Promise Academy Charter School and the afterschool and wraparound programs, the HCZ spends about $19,272 per pupil. While this price tag is about $3,100 higher than the median per-pupil cost in New York State, it is still about $14,000 lower than what is spent by a district at the 95th percentile. If future research can demonstrate that the HCZ positively influences longer-term outcomes such as college graduation rates, income, and mortality, the model will hold tremendous potential that may well justify its costs.

Early Childhood Education

Early childhood programs can provide a source of enrichment for needy children, ensuring them a solid start in a world where those with inadequate education are increasingly marginalized. Neuroscientists estimate that about 90 percent of the brain develops between birth and age 5, supporting the case for expanded access to early childhood programs. While the United States spends abundantly on elementary and secondary schoolchildren ($12,401 per student per year in 2013–14 dollars), it devotes dramatically less than other wealthy countries to children in their first few years of life.

Four years before James Coleman released his report, a group of underprivileged, at-risk toddlers at the Perry Preschool in Ypsilanti, Michigan, were randomly selected for a preschool intervention that consisted of daily coaching from highly trained teachers as well as visits to their homes. After just one year, those in the experimental treatment group were registering IQ scores 10 points higher than their peers in the control group. The test-score effects had disappeared by age 10, but follow-up analyses of the Perry Preschool treatment group revealed impressive longer-term outcomes that included a significant increase in their high-school graduation rate and the probability of earning at least $20,000 a year as adults, as well as a 19 percent decrease in their probability of being arrested five or more times. Similar small-scale, “hothouse” preschool experiments in Chicago, upstate New York, and North Carolina have all shown comparable benefits.

Unfortunately, attempts to scale up such programs have proved challenging. Studies of the Head Start program, for instance, have uncovered mixed evidence of its effectiveness. Modest impacts on students’ cognitive skills mostly fade out by the end of 1st grade. Such results have led many to question whether quality can be consistently maintained when a program such as Head Start is implemented broadly. Indeed, recent research has revealed considerable differences in Head Start’s effectiveness from site to site. Variation in inputs and practices among Head Start centers explains about a third of these differences, a finding that may offer clues as to the contextual factors that influence the program’s varying levels of success.

Although the policymaker’s challenge is to figure out how to expand access to such programs  while preserving quality, evidence suggests that investment in early childhood education has the potential to significantly address disparities that arise from family disadvantage.

Small Schools of Choice 

Traditional public schools assign a child to a given school based exclusively on his family’s place of residence. As Coleman pointed out, residential assignment promotes stratification between schools by family background, because it creates incentives for families of means to move to the “good” school districts. Under this system, schools cannot serve as the equal-opportunity engines of our society. Instead, residential assignment often replicates within the school system the same family advantages and disadvantages that exist in the community.

The most promising social policy for combating the effects of family background, then, could well be the expansion of programs that  allow families to choose schools without regard to their neighborhood of residence.  An analysis of more than 100 small schools of choice in New York City between 2002 and 2008 revealed a 9.5 percent increase in the graduation rate of a group of educationally and economically disadvantaged students, at no extra cost to the city. Positive results have also been observed with respect to student test scores for charter schools in New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, and New Orleans.

Small schools of choice might also build the social capital that Coleman considered crucial for student success. First, small schools are well positioned to build a strong sense of community through the development of robust student-teacher, parent-teacher, and student-student relationships. Helping students to cultivate dense networks of social relationships better equips them to handle life’s challenges and is particularly vital given the disintegration of many social structures today. While schools may not be able to compensate fully for the disruptive effects of a dysfunctional or unstable family, a robust school culture can transform the “social ecology” of a disadvantaged child.

A small school of choice also engenders a voluntary community that comes together over strong ties and shared values. Typically, schools of choice feature a clearly defined mission and set of core values, which may derive from religious traditions and beliefs. The Notre Dame ACE Academy schools, for instance, strive for the twin goals of preparing students for college and for heaven. By explicitly defining their mission, schools can appeal to families who share their values and are eager to contribute to the growth of the community. A focused mission also helps school administrators attract like-minded teachers and thus promotes staff collegiality. A warm and cohesive teaching staff can be particularly beneficial for children from unstable homes, whose parents may not regularly express emotional closeness or who fail to communicate effectively. Exposure to well-functioning adult role models at school might compensate for such deficits, promoting well-being and positive emotional development.

Implications for Policy

Determining the causal relationships between family background and child well-being has posed a daunting challenge. Family characteristics are often tightly correlated with features of the neighborhood environment, making it difficult to determine the independent influences of each. But getting a solid understanding of causality is critical to the debate over whether to intervene inside or outside of school.

The results of quasi-experimental research, as well as common sense, tell us that children who grow up in stable, well-resourced families have significant advantages over their peers who do not—including access to better schools and other educational services. Policies that place schools at center stage have the potential to disrupt the cycle of economic disadvantage to ensure that children born into poverty aren’t excluded from the American dream.

In opening our eyes to the role of family background in the creation of inequality, Coleman wasn’t suggesting that we shrug our shoulders and learn to live with it. But in attacking the achievement gap, as his research would imply, we need to mobilize not only our schools but also other institutions. Promise Neighborhoods offer cradle-to-career supports to help children successfully navigate the challenges of growing up. Early childhood programs provide intervention at a critical time, when children’s brains take huge leaps in development. Finally, small schools of choice can help to build a strong sense of community, which could particularly benefit inner-city neighborhoods where traditional institutions have been disintegrating.

Schools alone can’t level the vast inequalities that students bring to the schoolhouse door, but a combination of school programs, social services, community organizations, and civil society could make a major difference. Ensuring that all kids, regardless of family background, have a decent chance of doing better than their parents is an important societal and policy goal. Innovative approaches such as those outlined here could help us achieve it.

Anna J. Egalite is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Human Development at the College of Education, North Carolina State University. 

For more, please see “ The Top 20 Education Next Articles of 2023 .”

This article appeared in the Spring 2016 issue of Education Next . Suggested citation format:

Egalite, A.J. (2016). How Family Background Influences Student Achievement: Can schools narrow the gap? Education Next , 16(2), 70-78.

Last Updated

License this Content

Latest Issue

Vol. 24, No. 4

Calculate for all schools

Your chance of acceptance, your chancing factors, extracurriculars, personal background essay examples.

Hey everyone! I'm working on my college applications, and part of it requires a personal background essay. I'm a little stuck, so if you guys could share some examples or tips, that'd be great! Please help me out, thanks!

Hello! It's understandable that writing a personal background essay can be challenging. Here are some tips to get you started and an example of how you might approach this essay:

1. Reflect on what makes your background unique. Consider your family's history, culture, traditions, values, and how these have shaped your experiences.

2. Delve into the details. Discuss specific experiences, anecdotes, or events that have had a significant impact on your life and highlight the lessons you've gained from your background.

3. Be authentic. Write from the heart and let your personality shine through. This essay is your opportunity to help the admissions officers get to know you beyond your stats and accomplishments.

4. Avoid clichés. Personal background essays are quite common, so if you're writing about a widely-covered topic (moving, learning a new language, etc.), try to find a unique angle or aspect that will set your essay apart.

Growing up in a multigenerational household, I've had the rare privilege of experiencing diverse perspectives on life from my grandparents, parents, and siblings. My grandparents, who emigrated from Vietnam, taught me the importance of staying true to our cultural heritage and maintaining strong connections with family. Daily rituals like preparing and enjoying traditional Vietnamese meals, participating in Lunar New Year celebrations, and listening to stories about my grandparents' journey to the United States helped me appreciate the strength and resilience of my ancestors.

However, this cultural pride was not always something I cherished. As a child, I was bullied for my Banh Khot and Banh Mi lunches, and I'd often ask my parents to pack more generic-looking sandwiches to avoid feeling like an outsider at school. It wasn't until my grandmother shared her own story of assimilation and how she strived to maintain her cultural identity in a new country that I realized the value of embracing my heritage. Inspired by her courage, I decided to educate my peers about Vietnamese traditions and founded a cultural exchange club at school. Together, we explored our heritages, organizing potlucks, cultural presentations, and language exchange sessions.

Through this experience, I've learned that embracing who I am and the unique background I come from has made me a stronger person. My personal background has taught me to be open to learning about other cultures, which I look forward to bringing to my future college community.

About CollegeVine’s Expert FAQ

CollegeVine’s Q&A seeks to offer informed perspectives on commonly asked admissions questions. Every answer is refined and validated by our team of admissions experts to ensure it resonates with trusted knowledge in the field.

Genius High

Impact of Family Background on Educational Achievement

To what extent does family background influence educational achievement.

**Introduction** Educational achievement is a complex and multifaceted outcome that is influenced by a myriad of factors, with family background being a significant determinant. In this essay, we will explore the extent to which family background influences educational achievement, considering various factors such as ethnicity, social class, cultural influences, and other relevant aspects. We will examine both the supportive arguments for the influence of family background on educational achievement as well as the opposing viewpoints that suggest other factors such as peer groups and school policies may be more influential. **Factors Influencing Educational Achievement** *Material Factors*: It is widely acknowledged that children from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as those living in poverty, face numerous challenges that can impede their educational success. Issues such as overcrowded living conditions, the necessity of part-time jobs to support the family, and limited access to educational resources at home can all negatively impact a student's academic performance. *Cultural Factors*: Family background can also play a role in shaping attitudes towards education. Working-class parents, for example, may prioritize immediate financial stability over long-term educational attainment, leading to a devaluation of academic achievement within the household. Moreover, a lack of successful role models within the family who have pursued higher education can limit a child's aspirations and motivation. *Role Models and Cultural Capital*: Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital highlights how familiarity with intellectual pursuits, exposure to cultural activities, and knowledge of the education system can confer advantages to some students. Families with higher cultural capital are better equipped to support their children's educational endeavors, leading to differential educational outcomes based on family background. *Gender Roles*: Traditional gender roles can also influence educational achievement, with girls sometimes being discouraged from pursuing academic success due to societal expectations related to marriage and family responsibilities. Conversely, boys may face pressures to conform to masculine norms that prioritize other forms of success over academic achievement. *Language and Minority Students*: For minority students, language barriers and cultural differences can pose significant challenges to educational achievement. Students who are not taught in their home language may struggle to comprehend coursework and effectively communicate their knowledge, resulting in academic underperformance. **Arguments Against the Influence of Family Background on Educational Achievement** *Peer Influence and Sub-Cultures*: While family background plays a role, peer groups and student sub-cultures can also significantly impact educational achievement. Students who belong to academic-oriented peer groups may be more likely to excel in school, while those influenced by anti-school sub-cultures may underperform academically. *Teacher Expectations and School Policies*: The expectations of teachers, the presence of streaming practices, and the influence of school policies can all shape educational outcomes. The phenomenon of the self-fulfilling prophecy, where students fulfill the expectations placed upon them, highlights how external factors can impact academic success. *Private vs. State Schools*: Disparities between private and state schools, such as smaller class sizes, better resources, and more experienced teachers, can lead to differences in educational achievement. The systemic advantages present in private schools may outweigh the influence of family background on academic success. **Conclusion** In conclusion, while family background certainly plays a vital role in shaping educational achievement through various material, cultural, and social influences, it is important to recognize that other factors such as peer groups, teacher expectations, and school policies also significantly impact academic outcomes. A comprehensive understanding of the interplay between family background and these external influences is essential for devising effective strategies to promote educational equity and success for all students.

O level and GCSE

To what extent does family background influence educational achievement? In interpreting 'family background', candidates may discuss factors such as ethnicity, religion, social class, locality, culture, etc. Candidates should show awareness of the ways that family background may influence educational achievement. This influence could be cultural and/or material. In evaluation, they should consider how these family factors may not influence educational achievement and discuss how other factors such as school/peer group can be influential instead. Possible answers: For: - Material factors – children living in poverty are likely to be educationally disadvantaged i.e. over-crowded accommodation, part-time jobs, few resources to support education at home, etc. - Cultural factors – members of the working class are thought to want immediate rather than deferred gratification and therefore value education less than middle-class parents. - There may be an absence of successful role models in the family who have done well in education, and therefore this route is not seen as an option for many children. - Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital – familiarity with literature, visits to museums and galleries, and knowledge of how the education system works are seen to advantage some children in education. - Gender roles – girls may be socialised to see their future roles in terms of marriage and children and not in terms of educational success. - Bernstein's theory – believes the working class use a restricted code and the higher classes use an elaborated code at home, which makes the 'world' of education far easier to access and be successful in. - Minority students may be taught in a language that is not their home language and so may face problems of understanding and of written/verbal expression. - Other reasonable responses. Against: - Pupil sub-cultures may be influential over educational achievement (pro or anti-school sub-cultures); the set/stream a pupil is in may be a very important factor in determining educational achievement. - Teacher expectations may affect educational achievement through labeling and the self-fulfilling prophecy or the halo effect. - Students in private schools typically achieve better educational qualifications than those in state schools, perhaps due to smaller class sizes, better resources, and better teachers. - The ethnocentric curriculum may be a reason why ethnic minority students do less well in education than others. - Schools can be seen as institutions that reinforce traditional gender roles through careers advice, subject choice, etc., and this can affect educational achievement. - A culture of masculinity is encouraged in many peer groups, making it very difficult for males to be hardworking and studious in school. - Government/school policy may influence educational achievement more than family background (e.g., girls aren't always sent to school/compensatory education, etc.). - Other reasonable responses. (15 Marks) 0495/22 Cambridge IGCSE – Mark Scheme PUBLISHED May/June 2019 © UCLES 2019 Page 13 of 27 Question Answer Marks 2(e)

Essay on Effect Of Family Background To Students Academic Achievement

Students are often asked to write an essay on Effect Of Family Background To Students Academic Achievement in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Effect Of Family Background To Students Academic Achievement

Introduction.

Family background plays a crucial role in a student’s academic achievement. It can shape the way students view education, their attitude toward learning, and their academic success.

The Role of Parents

Parents are the first teachers. They can influence their children’s academic performance through their attitudes towards education, their support, and their involvement in their children’s schooling.

Economic Status

The economic status of a family can also affect a student’s academic performance. Families with more resources can provide better educational materials and opportunities, which can lead to better academic outcomes.

Home Environment

A supportive and stable home environment can foster a love for learning. This can motivate students to perform better academically.

In conclusion, family background can significantly influence a student’s academic achievement. It is important for families to provide a supportive and conducive environment for learning.

250 Words Essay on Effect Of Family Background To Students Academic Achievement

The family is the first school for any child. It plays a significant role in shaping a child’s academic journey. This essay explores how a student’s family background can influence their academic achievement.

Family’s Financial Status

The financial condition of a family can directly affect a student’s academic performance. Families with good financial health can provide resources like books, computers, and private tutors to help their children excel. On the other hand, students from families struggling financially may not have access to such resources, which can limit their academic progress.

Educational Background of Parents

Parents’ education level also impacts a student’s academic achievement. Parents who are well-educated can guide their children in their studies. They understand the importance of education and encourage their children to focus on their academics.

Family Environment

The environment at home is another key factor. A peaceful and supportive environment helps students focus on their studies. In contrast, a stressful or disturbed family environment can distract students and hinder their academic performance.

Parental Involvement

Parents actively involved in their children’s education can boost their academic success. They can monitor their children’s progress, help with homework, and motivate them to do better.

In conclusion, a student’s family background plays a crucial role in their academic achievement. The financial status, parents’ education level, family environment, and parental involvement can all influence a student’s academic performance. Therefore, it’s important for all families to provide a supportive environment for their children’s academic growth.

500 Words Essay on Effect Of Family Background To Students Academic Achievement

Family background plays a vital role in shaping a student’s academic success. It’s like a foundation that supports the growth of a student’s learning. This essay will discuss how family background impacts a student’s academic achievement.

Parental Education

Parents’ level of education is a key part of a family background. If parents are well-educated, they can guide their children in their studies. They can help with homework and explain complex topics. This support can boost a student’s performance in school. On the other hand, parents with less education may find it hard to assist their children acadically.

A family’s economic status can also affect a student’s academic achievement. Families with higher income can afford resources like books, computers, and private tutors. These resources can help students learn better. But families with lower income might struggle to provide these resources.

Family Structure

The structure of a family, whether it’s a single-parent or two-parent family, can impact a student’s academic success too. In a two-parent family, responsibilities like helping with homework can be shared. This can result in better academic support for the student. In single-parent families, the parent might be too busy to provide the same level of support.

Parents who are involved in their child’s education often have a positive impact on their academic achievement. When parents show interest in their child’s schoolwork, the child feels encouraged to perform better. If parents are not involved, the child might feel less motivated to excel acadically.

A peaceful and supportive home environment can help a student focus on their studies. If a home is noisy or stressful, it can be hard for a student to concentrate on their schoolwork. This can lead to poor academic performance.

In conclusion, family background can significantly affect a student’s academic achievement. Factors like parental education, economic status, family structure, parental involvement, and home environment all play a part. Therefore, it’s important for families to provide a supportive environment for their children’s academic success. This includes helping with schoolwork, providing resources, and showing interest in their child’s education.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Effect Of Drug Abuse
• Essay on Effect Of Cryptocurrency On Economy
• Essay on Educational Tour

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Which program are you applying to?

Accepted Admissions Blog

Everything you need to know to get Accepted

July 10, 2022

Stanford University School of Medicine Secondary Application Essay Tips & Deadlines [2022 – 2023]

Ranked #8 for research by U.S. News , Stanford University SOM provides a strong foundation in the basic sciences and the opportunity to select a scholarly concentration—to pursue topics of individual interest. Students are provided with a mentor, coursework and research opportunities in the topic of their choice. This medical school strongly prefers an extensive background in research and leadership experience. 

Stanford University School of Medicine 2022-2023 secondary application essay questions

Stanford medical school essay #1: practice setting.

What do you see as the most likely practice scenario for your future medical career? Choose the single answer that best describes your career goals and clinical practice setting:

• Academic Medicine (Clinical)
• Academic Medicine (Physician Scientist)
• Non-Academic Clinical Practice
• Health Policy
• Health Administration
• Primary Care
• Public Health/Community Health
• Global Health

Why do you feel you are particularly suited for this practice scenario? What knowledge, skills and attitudes have you developed that have prepared you for this career path? (1000 characters)

In asking this question, the school wants to determine how extensive your clinical experience is and how knowledgeable you are about the different methods of medical care delivery. Be honest in selecting the area of your interest. By describing the experience you have in this area to explain why you prefer it over others, you will convince the adcom of your realistic understanding of the practice of medicine. Create a list of “knowledge, skills and attitudes” to explain as support for your interest in this field. Your conclusion could provide an explanation for how and why their program would be the best to support your pursuit of a career in this arena.

Stanford Medical School essay #2: Curricular Interests

How will you take advantage of the Stanford Medicine Discovery Curriculum and scholarly concentration requirement to achieve your personal career goals? (1000 characters)

Given the unique feature of their curriculum, the scholarly concentration , review the possibilities and select those that reflect your research background and interests. How extensive is your research experience in this area? Do you have training in special techniques or laboratory methods in this area? How will the mentorship, coursework and research experience available at Stanford University SOM assist you in meeting your academic and professional goals? If your prior research experience has allowed you to impact the delivery of medical care, how will further expertise and experience enhance your contribution to patient care?

Stanford Medical School essay #3: Background

Describe in a short paragraph your educational and family background. (E.g., I grew up in New York City, as the 3rd child of a supermarket cashier and a high school principal. I attended Mann High School where my major interests were boxing and drama.) (600 characters)

So often education and family go together. How does your family value education? Do you come from a family of doctors, or are you a first generation college graduate? A family is a legacy, in a way. So often how we were raised influences our path – sometimes congruently – “as my parents did, and as I will do too.” Sometimes an ambitious educational journey happens as a rebound – “my father worked two jobs with very little fulfillment, and I loved school, was good at it, and wanted to change our lives.” How did you come to value education, envision yourself as a doctor, in light of how you grew up? 

Stanford Medical School essay #4: Contribution to Learning Environment

The Committee on Admissions regards the diversity (broadly defined) of an entering class as an important factor in serving the educational mission of the school. You are strongly encouraged to share unique attributes of your personal identity, and/ or personally important or challenging factors in your background. Such discussions may include the quality of your early education, gender identity, sexual orientation, any physical challenges, or any other life or work experiences. (2000 characters)

Using the list provided above, “ unique attributes of your personal identity, and/ or personally important or challenging factors in your background. Such discussions may include the quality of your early education, gender identity, sexual orientation, any physical challenges, or any other life or work experiences,” free write a response to each item. To free write, simply give yourself five minutes or longer to jot down any experiences you have had that fit the description given. Try not to use examples that you have already used in your primary application essays or in other Stanford essays. Using those descriptions, select the most relevant for this response—those that may also fit the mission and goals of the school’s curriculum . Create an outline and use this to stay on topic. What transitions will you use to connect the experiences? What did you gain, from a bigger picture perspective, from those experiences and how will they benefit your classmates? This essay is pretty broad, but it’s also longer than the others, so you should strive in the final draft to be organized with what you present.

What is distinct about you that makes you stand out from a “traditional” applicant?

Stanford Medical School essay #5

Please describe how you have uniquely contributed to a community with which you identify. ( 1,000 characters )

Prompt #4 is about who you are, and prompt #5 is about action in relation to who you are. It is important to Stanford that you are a do-er. Are you active in community service at a mosque in your community? If you identify with the LGBTQ community, do you volunteer for a crisis hotline (considering the higher rates of self-harm and suicidality in this community)? Do you teach second language classes or participate in an after school program to help high school children in poor communities have a safe place to interact and get help with homework? Did you participate in a march for Black Lives Matter or the overturning of Roe vs. Wade? What is the significance of this contribution? How is this action a contribution to a community with which you identify? What is the purpose of this activity; to what ends does it support the community?

Stanford Medical School essay #6

Please describe an experience/situation when you advocated for someone else. (1000 characters)

We have the responsibility to speak up, support, intervene, or effect change, when we observe a situation that’s not right, observe discrimination, understand someone’s struggle that could be lessened or alleviated with assistance or solidarity. When did you help someone because it was the right thing to do? When did you help someone because they were disadvantaged and you had ability, in whatever capacity this is true. This prompt is asking you for an action, not just an observation, about social justice.

Stanford Medical School essay #7: Special Insights (Optional) 

Please describe any lessons, hardships, challenges or opportunities that resulted from the global COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, describe how these insights have informed your motivations and preparation for medical school in areas of academics, research, employment, volunteer service and/or clinical experiences. (1000 characters)

It’s likely this prompt is a place for Stanford to easily and uniformly locate information on how applicants were affected by COVID-19, across applications. That’s practical. So, stay clear and categorize your response in the manner they ask: academic, research, employment, volunteer service, and clinical experience. Be concise and direct. You don’t have a lot of room to respond, so stay factual.

Also, consider the “lesson” for this prompt. You have a brief opportunity to place in context the effect of a public health crisis that no one could foresee. How do you, a future doctor, foresee the direction of patient care in light of this pandemic? How did COVID give you an opportunity to ease the burden of the pandemic on others, especially the vulnerable? Did you take the initiative to help them? What did you do and learn? How did the pandemic motivate you in your pursuit of medicine?

Stanford Medical School essay #8 (Optional)

Please include anything else that will help us understand better how you may uniquely contribute to Stanford Medicine? (1000 characters)

This is an optional essay that gives you space to discuss anything else relevant to your application to Stanford. You should not repeat earlier material. This can include specific experiences that you would like to explain or a specific connection to Stanford on which you want to elaborate for the admissions committee.

While the prompt says the essay is optional, it is also an opportunity for any applicant to think about ways they will add to the class that they haven’t already covered. If there are additional ways that you can contribute, you definitely want to share them with Stanford’s admissions committee. This may be a moment to solidify your suitability for research and leadership since Stanford clearly seeks out applicants who have strong experience in either of these two areas, or both. What have you done, and what you will do – told with a point of view that does not replicate an activity description or MME.

Applying to Stanford University School of Medicine? Here are some stats:

Stanford SOM median MCAT score: 517

Stanford SOM median GPA: 3.89

Stanford SOM acceptance rate: 1.4%

U.S. News  ranks Stanford #8 for research and #30 for primary care.

Check out the Med School Selectivity Index for more stats.

You’ve worked so hard to get to where you are in life. Now that you’re ready for your next achievement, make sure you know how to present yourself to maximum advantage in your medical school applications. In a hotly competitive season, you’ll want a member of Team Accepted in your corner, guiding you with expertise tailored specifically for you. Check out our flexible consulting packages today!

Stanford University School of Medicine 2022-2023 application timeline

Source: Stanford University School of Medicine website

Related Resources:

• 5 Fatal Flaws to Avoid in Your Med School Essays , a free guide
• Secondary Strategy: Why Do You Want To Go Here?
• Applying to the Stanford Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program: Everything You Need to Know

About Us Press Room Contact Us Podcast Accepted Blog Privacy Policy Website Terms of Use Disclaimer Client Terms of Service

Accepted 1171 S. Robertson Blvd. #140 Los Angeles CA 90035 +1 (310) 815-9553 © 2022 Accepted

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Adolescent Family Experiences and Educational Attainment during Early Adulthood

Janet n melby, rand d conger, shu-ann fang, k a s wickrama, katherine j conger.

• Author information
• Copyright and License information

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Janet N. Melby, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, Iowa State University, 2625 North Loop Drive, Suite 500, Ames, IA 50010-8615. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to [email protected]

This study investigated the degree to which a family investment model would help account for the association between family of origin socioeconomic characteristics and the later educational attainment of 451 young adults (age 26) from two-parent families. Parents’ educational level, occupational prestige, and family income in 1989 each had a statistically significant direct relationship with youths’ educational attainment in 2002. Consistent with the theoretical model guiding the study, parents’ educational level and family income also demonstrated statistically significant indirect effects on later educational attainment through their associations with growth trajectories for supportive parenting, sibling relations, and adolescent academic engagement. Supportive parenting and sibling relations were linked to later educational attainment through their association with adolescent academic engagement. Academic engagement during adolescence was associated with educational attainment in young adulthood. These basic processes operated similarly regardless of youths’ gender, target youths’ age relative to a near-age sibling, gender composition of the sibling dyad, or gender of parent.

Keywords: educational attainment, academic engagement, parenting, sibling relations, SES

Substantial evidence indicates that the number of years of formal schooling completed by early adulthood is associated with young adults’ initial labor market status and income ( Bjarnason, 2000 ), later occupational success ( Blau & O. D. Duncan, 1967 ; Chand, Crider, & Willits, 1983 ), and life satisfaction and healthy aging in general ( Meeks & Murrell, 2001 ). Prior research identifies relationships between youth educational outcomes and family of origin characteristics such as parental support and family income (e.g., Best, Hauser, & Allen, 1997 ; Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & Aber, 1997 ; Furstenberg, Eccles, Elder, Cook, & Sameroff, 1999 ; Melby & R. D. Conger, 1996 ; Sieben & DeGraaf, 2003 ). Recent literature also suggests that siblings may be associated with youth educational outcomes ( G. J. Duncan, Boisjoly, & Harris, 2001 ). Less is known, however, about the combined effects of these family factors on educational attainment ( Connell & Halpern-Felsher, 1997 ). Moreover, despite considerable evidence for the effects of socioeconomic factors on parenting and child development (e.g., see Bornstein & Bradley, 2003 ; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997 ; R. D. Conger & Dogan, 2007 ; McLoyd, 1998 ; White, 1982 ), there is increasing awareness of the need to identify possible family pathways through which specific indicators of socioeconomic status (SES) are related to eventual academic and occupational success ( Bradley & Corwyn, 2002 ; Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ; Lerner, 2003 ; McLoyd, 1998 ). We address these issues and extend the existing literature by evaluating a conceptual model which proposes that family SES will be associated both directly and indirectly with adult educational attainment.

The Conceptual Model

We draw on what Conger and his colleagues have called the family investment model to develop the conceptual framework for the present study ( R. D. Conger & Dogan, 2007 ; R. D. Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ). According to the investment model, family SES in the form of parental income, education, and occupational status is positively related to parental investments in children. These investments can take many forms but center especially on parental support for creating a family environment that fosters the development of human capital for children. Although there is growing recognition of the dynamic nature of the relationships among family characteristics and educational outcomes (e.g., Crosnoe, 2004 ; Crosnoe, Mistry, & Elder, 2002 ), ours is the first known application of the investment model to the issue of early adult educational attainment, as illustrated in Figure 1 . Specifically, we propose that family socioeconomic characteristics will affect later educational attainment both directly and indirectly through their influence on interpersonal relationships in the family and adolescent engagement in academic pursuits. Supportive parenting and positive sibling relationships, which constitute direct investments in a family environment that fosters the academic success of children, are hypothesized to influence academic engagement during early and mid adolescence prior to the transition to adulthood. Adolescent academic engagement is proposed to be the primary pathway through which these family characteristics affect eventual educational attainment. We next describe the theoretical and empirical underpinnings for each path in the conceptual model.

Proposed model for the influence of family interpersonal relationships and adolescent academic engagement on linkages between family socioeconomic characteristics and educational attainment in early adulthood.

Socioeconomic Characteristics and Educational Attainment

Extensive previous research across a range of studies has shown that family socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with child outcomes. In our model, family socioeconomic characteristics are proposed to have statistically significant direct relationships with educational attainment in young adulthood (Path a in Figure 1 ; e.g., Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003 ; Hill & G. J. Duncan, 1987 ; Hollingshead, 1975 ; Travis & Kohli, 1995 ). The support for this path derives from the accumulating evidence that access to “capital” in the form of more highly educated parents in higher status occupations with above average incomes facilitates subsequent pursuit of advanced education (e.g., see Coleman, 1988 ; Lin, 2001 ; McLoyd, 1998 ). These effects are believed to result from the initial and cumulative opportunities associated with greater economic resources (e.g., G. J. Duncan & Magnuson, 2003 ; Mayer, 1997 ). Although we propose that SES will be indirectly related to educational attainment through family and academic experiences during adolescence, we also include the direct path from SES to attainment because parents serve as role models for pursuing advanced education and also provide access to interpersonal and economic resources that facilitate the acquisition of additional years of schooling. That is, the interpersonal processes proposed in the model in Figure 1 only are concerned with the relationship aspects of the family investments. SES also increases monetary investments in children that facilitate continued education and these unmeasured resources are captured by path a in the model.

There is considerable evidence of the effects of SES on educational outcomes. For example, in a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies, White (1982) identified an average correlation between family SES and youth academic achievement of .22. A more recent meta-analysis of this relationship by Sirin (2004) using over 50 studies published between 1999 and 2000 found an average correlation of .29. As noted by Oakes and Rossi (2003) , however, the interpretation of SES effects is complicated by the disparate ways in which SES has been assessed. We are especially interested in the direct effects of three frequently used markers of SES on educational outcomes. There is ample support that parents’ education (amount of formal education) is associated with greater educational attainment by children (e.g., Blau & O. D. Duncan, 1967 ; Haveman, Sandefur, Wolfe, & Voyer, 2004 ). Although the extent of the association varies, several studies suggest a positive relationship between parents’ education and youths’ years of schooling completed ( G. J. Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998 ; McLoyd, 1998 ; Tomlinson-Keasey, & Little, 1990 ). For example, using data from the Children of the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth data set, mother educational attainment and youth college enrollment at age 20-22 years correlated .21 ( McLeod & Kaiser, 2004 ). In other research, educational attainment for parents and youth age 28-29 years correlated .44 ( Benin & Johnson, 1984 ). In terms of family income , evidence suggests that family income has a modest relationship with academic achievement during childhood but has a more robust relationship with academic attainment in adulthood ( G. J. Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997 ). The connection between poverty and lower educational attainment among children and adolescents has been well documented (e.g., Crosnoe, Mistry, & Elder, 2002 ; McLanahan, 1985 ; McLeod & Kaiser, 2004 ; McLoyd, 1998 ; Sewell & Hauser, 1980 ). Parents’ occupational status has long been associated with variation in children’s educational assessments ( Biblarz & Raftery, 1999 ; Korupp, Ganzeboon, & Van Der Lippe, 2002 ). Occupational status for both mothers and fathers is related to children’s eventual educational attainment. For example, fathers’ occupational status measured using Duncan’s Socioeconomic Index and youths’ educational attainment at age 28-29 years correlated .47 ( Benin & Johnson, 1984 ). Moreover, mother’s occupational status has been shown to have a strong effect on children’s schooling, independent of father’s education and occupation ( Kalmijn, 1994 ). Finally, in terms of the relative strength of the relationship of the three SES indictors with academic achievement, White’s (1982) meta-analyses identified family income as the highest correlate, followed by parental occupation and parental education. In the next section we consider the hypothesized indirect pathways through which SES is associated with educational attainment.

Mechanisms of SES Influence

As previously noted, in addition to proposing direct effects of SES on educational attainment, we draw upon the family investment model ( R. D. Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ) to predict that the effects of SES on educational attainment will operate indirectly through several mediating variables. This prediction is consistent with McLoyd’s (1998) extensive review of the literature which shows that the link between socioeconomic disadvantage and child outcomes appears to be mediated partially by harsh, inconsistent parenting. Our model also is consistent with work by Schoon et al. (2002) and by Crosnoe and associates (2002 , 2004 ) which examine processes through which social inequalities experienced during childhood are associated with adult achievements. We next discuss the effects of SES on each mediator of the relationship between SES and educational attainment as proposed in our theoretical model.

SES effects on supportive parenting and positive sibling relationships

According to the family investment model , higher compared to lower SES parents are more likely to commit time, energy and support in raising their children. Moreover, they are especially likely to place an emphasis on academic success and to create a richer learning environment for their children ( R. D. Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ). Consistent with this perspective, in our model family socioeconomic characteristics are expected to have a statistically significant direct effect on both the initial level and changes in supportive parenting behaviors (Path b in Figure 1 ). This theoretical prediction is consistent with a multitude of empirical findings demonstrating a positive association between family SES and specific qualities of parenting behaviors that foster learning and academic success (for recent reviews see R. D. Conger & Dogan, 2007 and R. D. Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ). For example, family resources such as higher parental income, education, and occupational status are associated with the quality of parenting ( Bornstein & Bradley, 2003 ). Such advantages appear to promote supportive and inhibit hostile parental behaviors toward an adolescent child ( Cui, Conger, Bryant, & Elder, 2002 ). In the current model, however, we extend the usual investment perspective by proposing that SES affects not only parents but also siblings and the degree to which they promote one another’s academic involvements.

In the model, SES is proposed to be directly related to both the initial level and change in the quality of sibling relations (Path c in Figure 1 ; e.g., Dunn, 2007 ; Dunn, Slomkowski & Bearsall, 1994 ; Hao & Matsueda, 2006 ; MacKinnon, 1988 ). Compared with those from lower SES families, 12-13 year old siblings from higher SES families reported more warmth and intimacy in relationships with siblings ( Dunn, 1996 ). Research with youth ages 19-33 years demonstrated that stressful family economic conditions are associated with less overall sibling communication and more sibling conflict ( Milevsky, Smoot, Leh, & Ruppe, 2005 ). We propose that SES leads to a family environment that is generally more positive with regard to academic efforts, and for that reason add sibling relationships to the investment model.

SES effects on adolescent academic engagement

We also predict a direct relationship between SES and adolescent academic engagement (Path d, Figure 1 ; e.g., Ensminger & Slusarcick, 1992 ; Rabusicova, 1995 ). Academic engagement in our model is defined as a youth’s positive attitude toward school, confidence in own ability to do well in school, and perception of and actual success in school ( Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004 ; Connell, Spencer, & Aber, 1994 ). Research by Schoon et al. (2002) using data from two national birth cohorts in Britain found lower family of origin SES (assessed by occupational status) was related to lower academic adjustment and performance in childhood and adolescence, which in turn was associated with lower SES when these youth were in their 30s. Other support for this prediction comes from evidence previously cited for the effects of SES on educational outcomes. As with the direct path from SES to later educational attainment, we include the direct path to academic engagement to accommodate the expected influence of unmeasured investments related to SES, such as funds for extracurricular educational experiences such as tutoring and enrollment in special educational programs beyond normal schooling ( R. D. Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ).

Effects of Family Interpersonal Relationships

The next step in the proposed model involves the role of family relationships in promoting academic engagement. Because earlier research suggests that parents and siblings have unique effects on many domains of adolescent development ( Bank et al., 2004 ; K. J. Conger, R. D. Conger, & Scaramella, 1997 ; Crosnoe & Elder, 2004 ; Moser & Jacob, 2002 ), we propose additive influences on engagement for parenting behaviors and sibling relations.

Supportive parenting behaviors

Much previous research has demonstrated an association between type of parenting and adolescents’ school-related success (Path f in Figure 1 ; e.g., Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992 ). Parents affect youths’ academic confidence ( Rodgers & Rose, 2001 ) and school adjustment ( Ingoldsby, Shaw, & Garcia, 2001 ). Authoritarian parents tend to have adolescent children with a lower grade-point-average (GPA), whereas authoritative parenting is positively associated with school performance ( Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987 ; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991 ). Authoritative parenting positively relates to adolescents’ better peer relationships ( Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1997 ) and adolescents’ greater engagement in school ( Steinberg et al., 1992 ). The primary conclusion from research in this area is that parents who are supportive and communicate well with their children, are involved in their children’s lives, and who refrain from harsh and angry exchanges with their children will have offspring who tend to be more engaged and successful in academic pursuits ( Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ; Melby & Conger, 1996 ; Crosnoe, 2004 ).

Positive sibling relations

Although there has been little research on the possible effect of siblings on academic outcomes, there is growing recognition of the importance of siblings and sibling relationships for child and adolescent development. Siblings often provide advice and guidance about competent behaviors ( Bryant, 1989 ; Dunn, 1996 ), as well as support and companionship ( Cicirelli, 1980 ; K. J. Conger, R. D. Conger, & Elder, 1994 ; Goetting, 1986 ; Tucker, McHale, & Crouter, 2001 ). Recent evidence suggests that sibling influences may extend to school-related success, as hypothesized in Path g in Figure 1 (e.g., G. J. Duncan et al., 2001 ). For example, Amato (1989) found that positive qualities of sibling relations, as well as parenting, were associated with adolescent school-related competencies in several areas that could influence academic performance. His study showed that adolescents who interact positively with siblings at home are more likely to enjoy aspects of school life such as positive peer interactions and learning. In addition, Brody, Stoneman, Smith, and Gibson (1999) found that self-regulated children tend to have lower conflict with siblings, which may indirectly impact success in school. Thus, we suggest that the quality of both parenting and sibling relationships will be associated with adolescent academic engagement. That is, positive and supportive parental and sibling relations are expected to be related to youth’s positive attitude toward school, confidence in own ability to do well in school, and perception of and actual school success.

Joint effects of family relationships

Parent and sibling relationships are intertwined, however, and evidence from multiple investigations suggests that parenting is associated with the quality of sibling relations (Path h in Figure 1 ; e.g., MacKinnon-Lewis, Starnes, Volling, & Johnson, 1997 ; McHale, Updegraff, Tucker, & Crouter, 2000 ; Volling & Belsky, 1992 ). Compared with mothers who were less rejecting, middle-childhood sibling dyads whose mothers were more rejecting were more aggressive in their interactions ( MacKinnon-Lewis et al., 1997 ). Additionally, parental hostility increased conflict between siblings which, in turn, was associated with emotional and behavioral problems for a target adolescent ( K. J. Conger, R. D. Conger, & Elder, 1994 ).

Other evidence points to both unique and cumulative effects of negative relationships with parents and siblings on school adjustment ( Brown, 2004 ; R. D. Duncan, 1999 ). For example, negative parent and sibling relations were independently associated with poor relationships with teachers and peers for preschoolers ( Ingoldsby et al., 2001 ; Vondra, Shaw, Swearingen, Cohen, & Owens, 1999 ). If similar processes occur during adolescence, the effects of multiple negative family relationships could impact later academic outcomes. Amato (1989) found that as children enter adolescence, their general competency becomes more closely associated with the degree of parental control and the quality of sibling relations. Thus, there is reason to believe that in addition to the unique effects of parenting and siblings on adolescent outcomes, parenting behavior is related to the quality of sibling relations in a manner that may have important implications for adolescent development, including academic engagement. In the model we hypothesize that the effects of family interpersonal relationships on educational attainment at young adulthood will operate through academic engagement during adolescence.

Direct effects of Academic Engagement

As a final step in the hypothesized causal processes, our model proposes a statistically significant direct association between adolescent academic engagement and educational attainment (Path e in Figure 1 ; Wang, Kick, Fraser, & Burns, 1999 ). Previous research demonstrates an association between attachment to school and school performance (e.g., Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992 ; Juang & Silbereisen, 2002 ; Wade & Brannigan, 1998 ) and between school motivation and academic achievement ( Guo, 1998 ; Pintrich, 2000 ; Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 1998 ; Wentzel & Feldman, 1993 ). Recently, Marjoribanks (2006) found that adolescent cognitive habitus, conjointly defined by adolescent academic achievement and attitudes about school, was related to their educational attainment as young adults. The previously cited study by Schoon et al. (2002) also found lower academic adjustment and performance in childhood and adolescence to be associated with lower SES when youth reached adulthood. Overall, these earlier research findings are consistent with path e in the conceptual model. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the empirical credibility of the proposed conceptual framework by using data from an ongoing cohort study of youth from early adolescence to the early adult years.

Addressing Limitations in Earlier Research

In addition to being the first to test a specific form of the family investment model as it relates to educational attainment, the current study also addresses several limitations in the research literature. Despite considerable past research suggesting that parent socioeconomic status, parenting, and sibling relationships influence adolescent academic outcomes, there are several limitations in most of this work. First , few studies have examined, in the same analysis, the joint effects of parent-child and sibling relationships on educational attainment. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by including both parents and siblings in the proposed model. Second , much previous research examining family processes and developmental outcomes has used retrospective data that are affected by recall bias resulting from memory failure and the subjectivity of the issue in question (e.g., Aquilino, 1997 ; Barber, 1994 ; Henry, Moffitt, Caspi, Langley, & Silva, 1994 ; Rueter, Chao, & R. D. Conger, 2000 ). We use a prospective longitudinal research design that allows us to examine predictor and outcome variables in the correct temporal order without retrospective reports.

Third , in contrast to investigations that use a single measure of socioeconomic status, we examine three separate components—parent education, occupation, and income. Although frequently combined into a single measure of SES, recent evidence suggests that the extent of influence by individual markers of SES may shift over the course of the lifespan (see Warren, Hauser, & Sheridan, 2002 ), vary according to the outcome assessed (e.g., see G. J. Duncan, Yeung, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998 ), and operate somewhat differently depending on culture and ethnicity ( Bradley & Corwyn, 2003 ; McLoyd, 1998 ). Furthermore, given the lack of uniformity in measurement of SES ( Oakes & Rossi, 2003 ), a number of scholars suggest separating SES into these three frequently used quantitative indicators in order to help understand the independent effects of each of them ( R. D. Conger & Dogan, 2007 ; Corwyn & Bradley, 2005 ; G. J. Duncan & Magnuson, 2003 ; Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003 ). Assessing their unique effects is particularly warranted when evaluating change over time ( Bornstein, Hahn, Suwalsky, & Haynes, 2003 ; Warren et al., 2002 ). This allows us to assess differential associations of these exogenous variables with our endogenous variables.

Fourth , many past investigations of sibling effects have primarily focused on structural factors (e.g., birth order, number of siblings, etc.) and achievement factors (e.g., siblings’ GPA) as opposed to relationship dimensions (e.g., see Hauser, Sheridan, & Warren, 1999 ; Sandefur & Wells, 1999 ; Sieben & DeGraaf, 2003 ). While structural factors are important considerations, there is reason to focus on the quality of the sibling dyad’s interpersonal relations as a potential influence on educational attainment ( K. Conger, Bryant, & Brennom, 2004 ). Fifth , earlier longitudinal analyses typically used traditional regression, including auto-regressive techniques (e.g., Melby & R. D. Conger, 1996 ; Rodgers & Rose, 2001 ; Steinberg et al., 1992 ), which are insensitive to intra-individual differences in change over time. A proper analysis of change requires the examination of specific changes within individuals over time ( Rogosa, Brand, & Zimowski, 1982 ). Therefore, we use growth curve analysis to examine both the absolute levels and individual changes in attributes over time ( T. Duncan, S. Duncan, Stryker, Fuzhong, & Alpert, 1999 ; Willett & Sayer, 1994 ). Sixth , we used multiple informants in the present investigation to improve on past research into family process effects on educational attainment that used single reporters (e.g., Bean, Barber, & Crane, 2006 ; Bowen, Bowen, & Ware, 2002 ), thereby reducing bias by using different reporters for adjacent constructs ( Bank, Dishion, Skinner, & Patterson, 1990 ; Lorenz, Conger, Simons, Whitbeck, & Elder, 1991 ).

Participants and Procedures

Data for these analyses come from a longitudinal study of 451 two-biological-parent intact families in North Central Iowa that began in 1989 when the youth who are the focus of the study (“targets”) were in the 7 th grade; 52.3% (236) of the targets were female ( R. D. Conger & K. J. Conger, 2002 ; R. D. Conger, & Elder, 1994 ). Participants were primarily white, lower middle and middle class who resided on farms (34%), non-farm rural areas (12%) or towns under 6,500. The median ages of the fathers, mothers, and target adolescents in 1989 were 39, 37, and 13 years. The study included a near-age sibling, either older (220) or younger (231) than the target adolescent by within four years. Median family size and annual income at the first year of data collection were 4.95 and $33,000, respectively. We use data collected across a fourteen-year period (1989-2002). Of the original sample, 422 targets (93.6%) remained in the study in 2002. The 422 target youth in the final sample included 193 boys and 229 girls; of the siblings, 205 were older and 217 were younger than the target. In order to maximize analytic power and to avoid biased findings caused by listwise or pairwise deletion or by mean imputation ( Vargas-Chanes, 2000 ), we employed Expectation Maximization imputation methods (SPSS) to impute data for the explanatory variables.

To evaluate the effects of sample attrition, we compared the means of all first year (1989) study variables for participants who remained in the study with the 29 who were no longer in the sample in 2002. Statistically significant differences were evident for one variable: adolescent gender. In terms of adolescent gender (coded so that male = 1 , female = 0 ), girls were more likely to remain in the study than boys ( t = -3.17). None of the other study variables showed statistically significant mean differences.

During the initial four years of the study (1989-1992), when youth were on average 13-16 years of age, interviews took place each year in participants’ homes; family members were visited twice by trained interviewers with each visit lasting approximately two hours. Each participating family member independently filled out questionnaires that asked for detailed information about family life, work, school, finances, friends, and physical and mental health.

During the second visit, usually within 2 weeks of the first, the four participating family members were videotaped while engaged in a parent-child discussion task, which lasted about 30 minutes. After completing the instructions for the task, the interviewer and any family members not involved in the task left the room in order to allow the participating family members privacy during their video recorded interaction. Each family member was paid about $10 per hour for participation. Trained observers scored videotapes using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales ( Melby & R. D. Conger, 2001 ). Approximately 25% of the tasks were independently rated by a second observer to assess interrater reliability. Additional details regarding study procedures are available in R. D. Conger and Elder (1994) .

In the fourteenth year of the study (2002), when the target youth averaged age 26 years, telephone interviews were conducted with the target youth to obtain information about their current demographic characteristics, including level of educational attainment, using procedures similar to those used in previous years of data collection when no home visits were scheduled (see also R. D. Conger & K. J. Conger, 2002 ).

To maintain the correct temporal order for variables indicated in the conceptual model ( Figure 1 ), socioeconomic characteristics assessed in 1989 constituted the exogenous variables in the analyses. Measures of family relationships were used from 1989, 1990, and 1991; and measures of academic engagement came from interviews conducted in 1990, 1991, and 1992. Finally, the criterion measure of educational attainment was obtained in 2002, when target young adults averaged 26 years of age.

Socioeconomic status measures

We identify three separate components of socioeconomic status. To evaluate parents’ education , we asked parents to report their years of formal education. Father and mother reports correlated r = .46 and the average of the two scores was taken as the measure of parental education (X̄ = 13.38, SD = 1.62).

To obtain a measure of family per capita income in these two-parent households, parents’ self report in 1989 of income received from all sources during the preceding year was divided by the number of members living in the household. To be eligible to participate in the study, all families had a minimum of two biological children. Family size ranged from 4 to 14, with mean of 4.95 members; family income ranged from a net loss to over $100,000. For the per capita income measure, X̄ = $7,990 and SD = $5,654. Because the per capita income measure was highly skewed, the natural log-transform of this variable was used in these analyses (X̄ = 11.38, SD = 0.06); use of the natural log of income is supported by past research ( Mayer, 1997 ). Using a per capita income measure rather than total household income helps account for possible effects of number of siblings on the relationship between family economic resources and youth educational attainment (see Haverman, et al., 2004 ; Marks, 2006 ; Schoon & Parsons, 2002 ).

The fathers’ and mothers’ self-reports of occupational title and activities in 1989 were used to classify their occupational prestige following procedures by Nakao and Treas (1990) in which a prestige score is derived from a particular occupational title based on education and income typically associated with a given occupational title. Although father’s occupational prestige traditionally has been used as a predictor of child outcomes (e.g., see Blau & O. D. Duncan, 1967 ), researchers also note the importance of mother’s occupational status in predicting children’s educational attainment ( Khazzoom, 1997 ; Korupp et al., 2002 ). Following from Erikson (1984) and Kalmijn (1994) , for the present analyses we used the higher of the two parents’ prestige scores to indicate occupational prestige (X̄ = 47.37, SD = 11.99). This measure has a possible range of 1 to 99 with 99 indicating the highest possible score on occupational prestige; for fathers X̄ = 41.83, SD = 11.87 and for mothers X̄ = 38.42, SD = 14.41. The zero-order correlation between fathers’ and mothers’ occupational prestige score was r = .08 (not statistically significant).

Supportive parenting

Observer ratings of parental behaviors displayed toward the adolescent during the video recorded parent-child discussion tasks in 1989, 1990, and 1991 were used to measure parenting. At each year, parents were rated on eleven different behaviors using a scale from 1 = not at all characteristic , to 9 = mainly characteristic . Some ratings were reverse coded so that a higher score indicated more supportive parenting. Across the three years, the means were 5.97, 5.56, and 5.20, respectively.

The behavioral ratings included in the supportive parenting construct were: communication, assertiveness, prosocial, warmth/support, listener responsiveness, inductive reasoning, encourages independence, and reverse-coded hostility, antisocial, angry coercion, and indulgent/permissive. Each parent’s behavior in the parent-child discussion task was rated and the scores summed to create separate father-parenting and mother-parenting scores; the internal consistencies among items for mothers were .85, .88, and .87 and for fathers were .85, .87, and .84, respectively, at each of the three time-points The correlations between summed parenting scores for father and mother were .50, .63, and .61, respectively, at the three time-points. Because of our interest in assessing family processes, the means from each parent were averaged to create an observed parenting measure for the family at each time-point. Thus, on balance, parents who are supportive in interactions with their child display high levels of nurturance and low levels of denigration. By including positive and reverse-coded negative parenting behaviors, as well as behaviors of both fathers and mothers, we more broadly characterize the parenting environment experienced by the adolescent. The internal consistencies among the scales measuring supportive parenting at each of the three years, respectively, were 66, .77, and .76.

By testing the hypothesized model using observer ratings as an independent source of information on supportive parenting, we eliminate a potential source of error variance. We used separate reporters to reduce possible rater-bias caused when the same reporters are used to assess measures of adjacent constructs (i.e., supportive parenting and academic engagement; see Bank et al., 1990 ; Lorenz & Melby, 1994 ; Pelegrina, Garcia-Linares, & Casanova, 2003 ). Although adolescent reports on parental supportiveness were not included as part of the present analyses, the zero-order correlations between adolescent report and observer rating of supportive parenting across the three years were .25, .29, and .32, consistent with evidence from other research ( Feinberg, Neiderhiser, Howe, & Hetherington, 2001 ). Parent self-report measures for these constructs were not available at each of the three years included in these analyses.

Sibling relations

At each of the first three years (1989, 1990, and 1991), siblings responded to 23 questionnaire items regarding their interaction with the target adolescent (e.g., “Do you two insult or call each other names?”, “Do you two try to out-do or beat each other at things?”, “Do you two share things with each other?” etc.). These items were adapted from the Sibling Relationship Questionnaire ( Furman & Buhrmester, 1985 ). Each item was measured on a scale from 1 = often , to 4 = never ; all items were coded such that a higher mean score indicates more positive sibling relations. The internal consistencies for the three years were .88, .90, and .90 respectively. Again, the use of multiple informants, for example sibling report for the quality of sibling relations and target report for academic engagement, assures that any observed association between the two constructs is unlikely to reflect a method bias.

Academic engagement

Building upon approaches to defining role engagement (e.g., see Reitzes, 2003 ) and cognitive habitus ( Nash, 2005 ; Marjoribanks, 2001 , 2006 ), our measure of academic engagement assesses the extent to which youth perceive themselves to be invested and integrated into an educational environment; it incorporates self-reported attitudes and performance at Years 2, 3 and 4 (1990, 1991, and 1992). In constructing this measure we drew upon prior research that assessed school engagement using self-report ( Connell et al., 1994 ), parent-report ( Brown, 2004 ) and teacher-report ( Anderson et al., 2004 ), as well as upon evidence of a strong link between school-related attitudes and performance among upper elementary and secondary students (see Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998 ; Plank & MacIver, 2003 ).

The attitude component of our academic engagement measure included six items: “In general, I like school a lot,” “school bores me,” “I don’t feel like I really belong at school,” “homework is a waste of time,” “grades are very important to me,” and “I try hard at school”. Youth responded to each item using a 5-point scale ( strongly agree to strongly disagree ); items were coded such that higher scores indicated higher engagement; the means were 22.9, 22.4, and 21.8, and the internal consistencies were .79, .80, and .80, respectively, at each of the three years. The performance component was assessed using youth’s report of own actual school grades, scored on a 12-point scale ( A = 12, F = 1 ); the means were 9.1, 8.9, and 8.7, respectively across the three years. The internal consistencies based on the complete set of seven standardized items were .79, .80, and .82.

Each component (attitude and performance) was next converted to the same scale so that each contributed equally to the over-all measure of academic engagement. Analyzed separately, the two components correlated with each other .39, .41, and .49 (all p < .01) and the internal consistencies of the two components were .55, .57, and .65, respectively, at Years 2, 3, and 4. This construct provides a single comprehensive measure of youth’s self-reported academic engagement for use in evaluating the overall conceptual model.

Educational attainment

We used target youth’s self-report of the number of years of formal education completed by 2002, when these youth averaged 26 years of age. Educational attainment ranged from 10 to 20 years of formal education with a mean of 14.9 years and a standard deviation of 1.92 years. Attainment by this period of the life course should clearly indicate which participants completed high school, completed two to four years of college, or did not pursue post high-school educational training. The data also identify respondents who chose to pursue postgraduate or professional training.

Table 1 reports descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, skewness, minimum, and maximum) for each variable used in the analyses. We report results for imputed data; these data produce descriptive statistics very similar to the non-imputed data. As previously noted, we use imputed data in order to maximize power and avoid biased findings.

Means, standard deviation, skewness, minimum, and maximum for imputed date (n = 451).

NOTE . Results were nearly identical for raw and imputed parameters.

Analytic Approach

To evaluate the conceptual model ( Figure 1 ), we begin by examining the zero-order correlations among the study constructs. We then evaluate direct associations between the three SES variables and educational attainment using Structural Equation Models (SEM; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993 ), which allows us to control for the relationships among the SES variables in a test of the most parsimonious model.

In order to evaluate possible linking mechanisms between the SES variables and youth educational attainment, we next use Latent Growth Curve (LGC) Modeling to evaluate the conceptual model. Growth curve estimation begins by describing change over time for each individual in the study ( Lorenz et al., 1997 ; Rogosa et al., 1982 ; Wickrama, Lorenz, & R. D. Conger, 1997 ; Willett & Sayer, 1994 ). Conceptually, this is done by fitting a regression line (a growth curve) linking a specific variable to time for each individual in the study. The individual regression prediction equations can then be summarized to obtain an average intercept and average slope for all individuals, each with a variance. The goal is then to use theoretically-driven covariates to explain why some individuals have higher initial levels (intercepts) than others, and why some have greater rates of change (steeper slopes). Especially important, explanatory covariates also can be growth curve parameters. For example, the level or slope of one variable can be used to predict the level or slope of a second variable as in the present analyses (for details see Wickrama et al., 1997 and Willett & Sayer, 1994 ). Univariate growth curves for parenting and sibling relations in 1989, 1990 and 1991 and for academic engagement in 1990, 1991 and 1992 were evaluated prior to use in the analytical model.

To evaluate the conceptual model shown in Figure 1 , we introduce both sets of mediating variables (family relationships and adolescent academic engagement) as possible channels through which SES characteristics are associated with educational attainment (Paths b-h). All of the linking variables are assessed using growth curves in order to evaluate the family processes ( R. D. Conger & K. J. Conger, 2002 ) and developmental systems (see Lerner, 2002 ) through which family and individual factors are associated with youth educational attainment.

Correlations among Constructs and Direct Effects of SES on Educational Attainment Zero-order Correlations among Study Constructs

Table 2 presents the zero order correlations among study constructs for the imputed data ( n = 451), which were used to evaluate the relationship among SES components, the proposed mediating variables, and educational attainment. The results were consistent with our expectations: all three family of origin SES variables were significantly correlated with youths’ educational attainment in 2002, ranging from r = .26, p < .01 (family per capita income) to r = .43, p < .01 (parents’ education). Correlations among the three SES variables range from r = .24 ( p < .01) for occupational prestige and family per capita income to r = .56 ( p < .01) for occupational prestige and parents’ education. Other correlations in Table 2 also were consistent with many of the associations predicted in the conceptual model. For example, the level of academic engagement was strongly correlated with later educational attainment ( r = .57) and with level of supportive parenting was significantly correlated with parents’ education ( r = .40) and the level of academic engagement ( r = .39). Taken together, the pattern and strengths of the correlations among the study constructs provide a good basis for conducting additional tests related to the theoretical model.

Zero-Order Correlations among Constructs (n = 451)

p < .10 if 1.64 < t < 1.96;

p < .05 if 1.96 < t < 2.32;

p < .01 if 2.32 < t < 2.58;

p < .001 if t > 2.58 (two-tailed).

Structural Equation Modeling for the Direct Effects of SES

As the first step in our model testing, we used SEM to evaluate the direct association between each of the SES variables and educational attainment, thereby controlling for correlations among the SES variables. In this initial model , the associations between educational attainment and parents’ education level (standardized path coefficients, ß = .31, t = 5.89), family per capita income (ß = .12, t = 2.68) and occupational prestige (ß = .14, t = 2.72) were all statistically significant and explained 21% of the variance in educational attainment. These results indicate that each separate marker of SES has a unique and additive effect on later educational attainment and are consistent with the current emphasis in the literature that their effects should be considered separately rather than as a combined SES construct ( R. D. Conger & Dogan, 2007 ).

Evaluating Individual Trajectories

Having verified direct relationships between each SES component and educational attainment, we next evaluate the three linking variables proposed in the conceptual model—supportive parenting, positive sibling relations, and academic engagement—using zero order correlations and individual growth curve trajectories. Growth curves are well-suited to provide insights into the course of individual development over time, with the initial levels of variables yielding information about significant variations across individuals at the start (absolute differences) and the slopes of variables yielding information about significant variations across individuals in change over time (i.e., cumulative effects; see Lorenz, Wickrama, & R. D. Conger, 2004 ).

To evaluate the individual trajectories, three univariate growth curves—for supportive parenting, sibling relations, and academic engagement—were estimated by methods of maximum likelihood ( Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993 ). Covariances were used for these estimates. Table 3 presents the parameters of growth curves using imputed data. All of the univariate growth curves with three consecutive measurements show a good fit with the data as indicated by nonsignificant chi-squares and AGFI = 1.00. These results indicate linear change over time for all study variables. The variances for the intercepts (initial levels) and slopes (rates of change) for the study variables were statistically significant, indicating that there were significant inter-individual differences in initial levels and rates of change over time. The variance for the slope for parenting, however, was only marginally significantly across subjects. Two covariances between intercept and slope (i.e., for sibling relations and academic engagement) are significant and negative, which reflects the previously noted ceiling effect.

Estimates for univariate growth curves for supportive parenting, sibling relations, and academic engagement (unstandardized coefficients) (n = 451).

p < .10 (two-tailed).

p < .05 (two-tailed).

p < .01 (two-tailed).

p < .001 (two –tailed).

Evaluating the Conceptual Model

Latent growth curve analyses.

Prior to evaluating the complete conceptual model shown in Figure 1 , we separately evaluated the effects of the proposed mediating variables on the associations between socioeconomic factors and educational attainment. That is, we first evaluated the mediating role of the parent-child and sibling-sibling interpersonal relationships in relation to the association between SES and educational attainment. We then evaluated the mediating role of adolescent academic engagement on this same relationship. These intermediary models explained 24% and 43% of the variance in educational attainment, respectively. Although support was found for several pathways in these models, no statistically significant direct effects on educational attainment were found for change in supportive parenting or for either the level or change in sibling relations. We next evaluated the complete conceptual model, including hypothesized direct and indirect effects ( Figure 2 ).

The effects of family interpersonal relationships and adolescent academic engagement on linkages between family socioeconomic characteristics and educational attainment in early adulthood.

The results for the complete model ( Figure 2 ) provide support for several of the hypothesized linking mechanisms from SES through family relationships and academic engagement to educational attainment. The results for the complete model also show a good fit to the data [ X 2 (52) = 44.61] and explains 42% of the variance in educational attainment. As proposed, the direct effect of parents’ education on youth educational attainment in the complete model (ß = .14) is reduced by about 50% compared to the initial direct effects model (ß = .31). Parents’ education was also positively associated with the level but not the slope for supportive parenting and adolescents’ level of academic engagement. Parents’ education was not related to positive sibling relations. With the mediating variables in the analysis, the direct association between per capita income and educational attainment declined by about 30%, from .12 to .08. Per capita income also had a direct association with supportive parenting, but not with sibling relations. Occupational prestige did not directly relate to any of the mediating variables and its direct association with educational attainment was essentially unchanged, going from .14 in the direct effects model to .12 in the mediating model.

These results regarding the SES variables suggest that the magnitude of the association of educational attainment with parental education and family income declines when the hypothesized mediating variables are added to the model. This finding is consistent with the idea that the mediating variables do account for some of the connection between these markers of SES and educational attainment. Additional evidence for these mediating pathways is provided in Table 4 . For example, the findings in Table 4 demonstrate that parents’ education has a significant direct effect of .14 on educational attainment in the final model plus a significant indirect effect of .19. That is, most of the association between parental education and educational attainment is indirect through supportive parenting, sibling relations and academic engagement. Notice also that parents’ education has a statistically indirect effect on sibling relations through supportive parenting and on academic engagement through these relationship variables. Similar but less statistically robust indirect effects also were found for per capita income. As noted, there was no indirect effect of occupational prestige on educational attainment, indicating that none of the proposed mediators accounted for any part of the association between this dimension of SES and later attainment. In general, these standardized coefficients can be interpreted as the change in standard deviation in the outcome variable for each additional standard deviation of the predictor variable after controlling for other predictors.

Decomposition of effects for Latent Variables Structural Equation Model of variables associated with educational attainment in early adulthood (t-values listed in parentheses.)

Furthermore, although the zero-order correlations shown in Table 2 for the initial levels of supportive parenting and sibling relations were directly related with the initial level of academic engagement (i.e., r = .39 and r = .23, respectively), the parent-adolescent and sibling-adolescent subsystems operate somewhat distinctly in the complete model. The direct effects of the initial level of supportive parenting on level of academic engagement was ß = .21, t = 3.58. Change in supportive parenting was directly associated with only change in sibling relations whereas level of supportive parenting was associated with level of positive sibling relations. Initial level of sibling relations is related to initial level of academic engagement (ß = .10, t = 1.89). Both the initial level and change in sibling relations are related to change in adolescent academic engagement (ß = .16, t = 2.24, ß = .25, t = 2.65, respectively). Finally, both the initial level and slope of adolescent academic engagement are directly associated with educational attainment at 26 years of age.

As for the SES variables, several important indirect effects were also found for supportive parenting and sibling relationships, consistent with the conceptual model. The results in Table 4 show that the level of supportive parenting had a significant indirect effect on academic engagement through its association with positive sibling relationships (e.g., the indirect effect for the slope of academic engagement was .05, t = 2.13). Moreover, the level of supportive parenting also had a significant indirect effect on educational attainment. Similarly, the effects of both the level and slope of supportive sibling relations operated indirectly on educational attainment (.04, t = 2.88 and .05, t = 2.25, respectively).

Post-Hoc Analyses

Analyses for differential effects of performance and attitudes.

To assess whether results would differ if the academic engagement construct consisted of only the performance component versus only the attitudinal component, post-hoc analyses examined the basic empirical model separately for each component.

Compared with the original complete model, in the re-analysis the path from parenting (level) to academic engagement (level) remained similar when using only performance (ß = .23, t = 3.93) but declined in significance when using only attitudes (ß = .11, t = 1.71); the association between level and slope of academic engagement was similar when using only performance ( r = -.17, t = -2.10) but stronger when using only attitudes ( r = -.31, t = -3.02). In the re-analysis, the fit indices using only performance or only attitudes were comparable [ X 2 (52) = 47.15, p = .66; AGFI = .97; CN = 751.38] and [ X 2 (52) = 49.37, p = .58; AGFI = .97; CN = 717.57], respectively. The amount of variance in educational attainment explained was R 2 = .45 and R 2 = .30, respectively (compared with R 2 = .42 for the original model).

Although the magnitude of coefficients of the level and slope differ for performance and attitudes in the re-analysis, all are statistically significant. Of interest is that for performance, initial level is a stronger predictor of educational attainment whereas for attitudes, both level and slope are moderate predictors of subsequent educational attainment. At each of the three time-points, the bivariate correlation between performance and attitudes are .38, .40, and .49, respectively. This provides evidence that these are two similar but not identical components of academic engagement, and that their correlation increases over time. Taken together these post-hoc results suggest that the linking processes in the empirical model operate similarly whether using academic engagement as measured by only attitudes, only performance, or their composite. Thus, the subsequent post-hoc analyses for this study employed the composite measure of adolescent academic engagement.

Analyses for effects of adolescent gender and age

Post-hoc analyses examined whether the basic empirical model operates similarly for boys and girls or for youth’s age relative to the sibling (i.e., older or younger than the sibling). For both sets of Latent Growth Curve (LGC) analyses, we compared the 14 corresponding paths of the models using stacking procedures ( Wickrama, R. D. Conger, Lorenz, & Matthews, 1995 ). Although the mean levels of academic engagement was significantly lower at each of the waves for boys vs. girls (i.e., 1990, 44.31 vs. 46.94, t = -3.69; 1991, 43.48 vs. 45.98, t = -3.50; 1992, 42.34 vs. 44.71 t = -3.15) there were no significant differences in any paths in the LGC models for boys compared to girls. No other statistically significant mean differences by adolescent gender were evident.

In the models comparing results based on youth’s age relative to sibling’s age (i.e., older versus younger), two of the 14 paths were significantly different. For the relationship between parents’ education and academic engagement level, the path for youth who were older than the sibling showed ß = .39, t = 6.21; for youth who were younger than the sibling, ß = .16, t = 2.18; change in chi-square was 5.04 with 1 degree of freedom. A possible explanation is that parents’ education has a larger direct effect on older siblings whereas for younger siblings the effects of parents’ education operate through sibling relations. For the association between sibling relations level and academic engagement level, the path for youth with an older sibling showed ß = .22, t = 2.96; for youth with a younger sibling, ß = .02, t = .20; change in chi-square was 3.86 with 1 degree of freedom. It is possible that target adolescents are more strongly influenced by relations with an older sibling who also would have preceded them in school, than are those with a younger sibling in the study. With the exception of these two paths, none of the other paths produced a statistically significant change in chi-square. Thus, given the small number of statistically significant path differences for model comparisons that examined youth gender and age relative to the sibling, we conclude that the basic model is appropriate for all adolescents, for males and females and for those with younger and older siblings.

Analyses for effects of parent gender

Because we were interested in testing family-level processes with these two-biological-parent families, we did not initially test for differences between the 14 corresponding paths across models for fathers and mothers; we also felt the high collinearity between the father and mother measures precluded using both as separate indicators in the model we tested. In our post-hoc analyses, however, we examined whether the basic empirical model operates similarly using data specific to each parent gender group (i.e., occupation, educational level, and parenting). In models comparing mothers with fathers there was one statistically significant difference: the path between youth educational attainment and parent educational level. The path for models with mothers showed, ß = .18, t = 4.07; for models with fathers, ß = .08, t = 1.78; change in chi-square was 4.03 with 1 degree of freedom. We performed additional analyses to compare models for fathers of girls and fathers of boys, as well as for mothers of girls and mothers of boys. For fathers, no paths differed significantly by child gender. For comparisons involving the mothers by child gender, the path from sibling relations level to academic engagement level for mothers of girls showed ß = .22, t = 2.85; for mother of boys, ß = .05, t = .69; change in chi-square was 3.84 with 1 degree of freedom. This finding may be somewhat biased due to the greater attrition of boys than girls over the course of the study. Given the relatively few differences related to parent gender across the three model comparisons (i.e., 2 of 42 paths), we conclude that the basic model is appropriate for each parent gender and parent-child gender combination.

Effects of sibling gender combinations

A final set of comparisons evaluated models for three types of sibling gender combinations (i.e., brothers pairs, n = 112; sister pairs, n = 131; and mixed-gender pairs, n = 208). None of the path comparisons was significantly different. Thus, we conclude that for these two-biological-parent families, the basic model is appropriate for families with each type of sibling gender combination.

This study addressed a gap in the literature regarding the mechanisms by which specific components of SES are related to educational attainment (e.g., see Bornstein & Bradley, 2003 ; Bradley & Corwyn, 2002 ). Drawing upon a family investment model ( R. D. Conger & Dogan, 2007 ; R. D. Conger & Donnellan, 2007 ) to develop the conceptual framework for the present study, our theoretical model specified pathways by which specific family socioeconomic characteristics are associated with youth educational attainment directly and indirectly through family relationships and adolescent academic engagement. We examined the manner in which family and adolescent factors assessed during an initial four year period from early to mid-adolescence are linked to the number of years of education completed by the time of early adulthood—a period that spanned fourteen years. One of the strengths of this research is our use of longitudinal data collected from two generations and multiple sources over a period from early adolescence at age 13 years through early adulthood at 26 years of age. While other researchers have noted the effects of family on children’s achievement (e.g., Coleman, 1990 ), using growth curves to assess these processes allows us to examine both the absolute levels of variables and also individual changes associated with children’s achievement ( T. Duncan et al., 1999 ; Willett & Sayer, 1994 ).

The results indicate a dynamic process that, across time, links both socioeconomic characteristics and family processes to educational attainment, but in somewhat different ways, consistent with a family investment model and with suggestions in recent literature ( Bornstein et al., 2003 ; G. J. Duncan, & Magnuson, 2003 ; McLoyd, 1998 ). By including parents’ education, family per capita income, and occupational prestige as three separate exogenous variables, we could evaluate the contributions of each SES component. Earlier research by Crosnoe, Mistry, and Elder (2002) found that economic disadvantage (a comprehensive scale formed from five items, including parental education and poverty status) assessed seven years earlier significantly predicted youths’ enrollment in higher education at age 18-20 years ( b = -.33, p < .01). In our analyses, which focused on three specific components of SES , the total effects on educational attainment of the components were ß = .33, p < .001 (parent education), ß = .09 p < .01 (income), and ß = .12, p < .001 (occupation). Furthermore, we found that the number of years of formal schooling completed by parents was associated with their child’s educational attainment both directly and indirectly through supportive parenting; level of education completed by parents was also directly related to adolescent academic engagement. Family per capita income had both a direct and an indirect effect on educational attainment through supportive parenting, whereas parent occupational prestige continued to have only a direct effect. Although parents’ education and occupational prestige are collinear, the portion of variance in one that can be explained by the other suggests that the constructs have adequate unique variance to make independent contributions to our model linking socioeconomic characteristics to educational attainment through family interpersonal relationships and adolescent academic engagement.

Furthermore, except for the association between family income and occupational prestige, the correlations among our SES measures are consistent with those for the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH). That is, parents’ education and family income correlated .34 and .37, parents’ education and occupational prestige correlated .56 and .54, and family income and occupational prestige correlated .24 and .37, respectively, for our sample and the NSFH sample ( Oakes & Rossi, 2003 ). Also, in our sample the correlation of each SES component with the initial level of adolescent’s academic engagement was .37 (parent education), .22 (income), and .24 (occupational prestige). In White’s (1980) meta-analysis the average correlation of each SES component with academic achievement was .19 (education), .32 (income), and .20 (occupation).

In addition, in our sample the effects of family interpersonal relationships on academic engagement followed two pathways, one through the parent-child relationship and the other through the sibling relationship, each illustrating family investment processes. Supportive parenting mainly was directly associated with the initial levels of sibling relations and academic engagement, but not change. In contrast, both the initial level and rate of change in sibling relations were associated with the rate of change in adolescent academic engagement. In other words, although supportive parenting had a strong relationship with adolescent academic engagement during early adolescence, the slight decline in overall level of parental support over time did not have an effect. Conversely, sibling relations started to show a strong and continual association with the academic engagement of their brothers or sisters in the study during this period of time, and poorer relationships improved across time. These results underscore the importance of the parent-child relationship during early adolescence ( Scaramella & R. D. Conger, 2004 ). These results also support other findings that during adolescence, except for peer groups outside the home, similar-aged siblings have increasing influence on adolescents, compared with the influence of parents (e.g., Tucker et al., 2001 ).

Contrary to our initial expectations, none of the socioeconomic variables had a direct effect on change across time in parenting or sibling relations. This suggests that socioeconomic characteristics exert their most powerful effects by setting the process into motion at an earlier time. Additionally, none of the family socioeconomic variables had a direct association with initial level of sibling relations. This latter unexpected result highlights the unique effects of sibling relations on adolescent academic engagement and subsequent educational attainment. For example, based on findings by Dunn and associates (1994 , 1996 ) that family SES (assessed by father’s occupational status) was associated with sibling relations for middle-school youth, we expected that our SES components would be associated with sibling relations. Zero-order correlations with sibling relations supported this expectation for parent education level ( r = .21, p < .001) and parent occupation ( r = .12, p < .01), but not for family income ( r = .07, n.s .). Our test of the model which simultaneously included the three separate components of SES, however, revealed no statistically significant direct relationships between SES and sibling relations, perhaps due to their influence operating through supportive parenting.

While the mean level of supportive parenting decreased over the three data-collection points—suggesting that as these adolescents became older the extent of praise and affirmation parents were observed to show toward their children declined—change in parenting was not related to change in academic engagement. (See also Scaramella & R. D. Conger, 2004 , for a discussion of changes in the parent-child relationship from early to later adolescence.) It was change in sibling relations, however, that was related to change in academic engagement. We found that siblings exerted a strong and continual influence on their brothers or sisters in the study during this period of time; this influence appeared to change with time. As other research has begun to demonstrate, our results provide additional support for the important role of sibling relationships in terms of youth outcomes ( G. J. Duncan et al., 2001 ; Dunn, 1996 , 2007 ). These results are consistent with earlier findings which show that during adolescence similar-aged siblings have increasing influences on adolescents, compared with parents (e.g., Tucker et al., 2001 ).

In support of the proposed model, academic engagement is related to educational attainment. These results are consistent with findings in a longitudinal study of Australian youth which showed that measures of family background and academic achievement (a proxy for our academic engagement measure), both assessed at age 14 years, had medium associations with educational attainment at age 20 years ( Marjoribanks, 2005 ). In terms of the mechanisms of influence, our results suggest that academic engagement is an important link through which parents and siblings influence educational attainment. Important to our understanding of the effects of parenting on academic outcomes is the indirect effect of initial parenting on youth educational attainment through sibling relations and through adolescent academic engagement. From a family investment perspective, this illustrates the contributions of the parent-adolescent subsystem and the adolescent-sibling subsystem, as well as the relationship between these two subsystems, to individual outcomes. The direct effects of siblings on academic engagement are consistent with analyses by Crosnoe and Elder (2004) using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health which found that non-parental relationships (including sibling relationships) were directly associated with adolescent academic behavior. As previously suggested by Crosnoe, Mistry and Elder (2002) , siblings—and in our analyses relations with siblings—may be an important source of social support that promotes engagement in academic pursuits. In general, the multi-faceted processes associated with youth educational attainment we describe here are also consonant with findings in the body of work by Sewell, Hauser, and associates, as well as with recent work on the probability of attending various types of post secondary education using four waves of the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS) by Sandefur, Meier, and Campbell (2006) . We extend their work by including family interpersonal processes in our model. Our results highlight the linkages by which educational, economic and interpersonal resources in the family of origin contributes to academic engagement in mid-adolescence and educational attainment at early adulthood. It also is important to note that more than half of the SES effect on educational attainment operates through a measure of supportive parenting that does not measure cognitive stimulation or support for learning.

These results also illustrate the importance of separating the components of SES in research that examines factors associated with educational attainment, as noted by Warren et al. (2002) . While occupational prestige had a direct effect on educational attainment by early adulthood, parents’ educational attainment and family per capita income had both direct and indirect effects. The lack of indirect effects for the occupational prestige construct may be due to the manner in which the prestige construct was measured (i.e., we used the higher of the parents’ occupation) or due to its collinearity with parent education ( r = .56, t = 10.41). As is usual with occupational prestige measures, the classification system we used to categorize prestige ( Nakao & Treas, 1990 ) relies on income and education typical for a given profession.

Finally, the post-hoc results revealed some interesting trends. The basic processes operated similarly for male and female adolescents, as well as for adolescents with younger versus older siblings. In terms of separately predicting educational attainment from the two components of our academic engagement construct, initial level of performance (measured by grades) was more strongly related to educational attainment than was initial level of attitudes (measured by school liking and engagement). Of interest, however, is that both initial level and change in attitudes are moderately associated with educational attainment. Also, compared with change in performance, change in attitudes was more strongly related to educational attainment. (See Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdke, Köller, & Baumert, 2007 , for a discussion showing the effects of academic self-concept on subsequent school grades.) Furthermore, although the general model held across potential structural moderators (i.e., gender, birth order), the slight differences that were revealed are consistent with existing literature. For example, literature supports the significance of sibling relationship experiences for older versus younger siblings ( K. J. Conger et al., 2004 ; Marjoribanks, 2002 ) and the stronger link between maternal than paternal education and youth educational attainment ( Bornstein et al., 2003 ).

Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. It is important to note that the associations we found are not necessarily causal and they may contain biases due to omitted variables. For instance, the cognitive ability of students, which is not included in these analyses, was a powerful predictor for school-related outcomes in research by Martens (1984) . Likewise, there may be other variables, such as negative peer influences, that could be associated with both sibling relations and academic engagement Furthermore, because our sample included only youth from households with two biological-parents and at least one near-age sibling, the results may not generalize to households with other family structures, as suggested in research by Brown (2004) ; on the other hand, the results are noteworthy because the lack of variation in family structure in our sample provides a conservative test of the conceptual model.

We acknowledge that some of the sibling effects on academic engagement and educational attainment may be due to genetic similarities between the two youth, or due to other shared associations (e.g., neighborhood or peer effects), that might influence academic abilities (see Johnson, McGue, & Iacono, 2007 ; McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson, 2000 ). However, translating genetic similarities into behavioral outcome, and examining other shared associations when predicting sibling effects, both involve complex processes that are beyond the scope of the present report (e.g., Feinberg, Neiderhiser, Howe, & Hetherington, 2001 ). Nevertheless, the fact that our data came from different reporters serves to support the importance of supportive sibling interpersonal relationship for adolescent academic engagement and subsequent educational attainment.

The model should be tested using participants from other racial groups ( McLoyd et al., 2000 ), especially given some evidence of differential effects of academic engagement for African American and white students ( Smerdon, 1999 ) and of specific socioeconomic factors on child outcomes ( Bradley & Corwyn, 2003 ; McLoyd, 1998 ; Sirin, 2004 ). Future research should also consider the potential effects of community and neighborhood on young adult educational attainment ( Ainsworth, 2002 ; Coleman, 1988 ; McLoyd, 1998 ). Moreover, we did not examine the impact of fluctuations in income, later family income, or the extent to which family wealth in the form of accumulated assets and net worth affects educational attainment in this sample. In other research net worth has been shown to explain a portion of the racial achievement gap ( R. D. Conger & Dogan, 2007 ; Orr, 2003 ), which may explain variations within racial groups as well as across racial groups. Furthermore, while we focused on more distal factors associated with educational attainment, it could be informative to examine the effects of more proximal factors such as the young adults’ marital and child-rearing situation, access to financial resources, and health status. In addition, more work is needed on understanding conditions under which the expected relationships do not occur; for example, youth who succeed despite socially disadvantaged backgrounds, and vice versa (e.g., see Schoon & Parsons, 2002 ). Finally, we note that although most young adults will have completed high school and two or four years of college by age 26 years, our cutoff, some young adults have not yet finished their education by this age. Thus, the results might look different if a later assessment was used.

Despite these limitations, the results of this test of a family investment model detail some of the processes through which family of origin socioeconomic characteristics and interpersonal relationships are linked to educational attainment. Of particular importance are the findings regarding the contributions of supportive sibling relations. We find that: (1) each SES component—parents’ education, per capita family income, and parent occupational prestige—operates in a somewhat unique manner in relation to educational attainment, (2) across adolescence, parents and siblings are associated with different aspects of the adolescent’s academic engagement trajectories—parenting is associated with initial level of academic engagement, whereas sibling relations is associated with both initial level and change over time in academic engagement, (3) supportive parenting has a direct effect on sibling relations, (4) adolescent academic engagement is a key variable that links supportive parenting and sibling relations to educational attainment, (5) both the initial level of and change in academic engagement are related to educational attainment by the time of early adulthood, and (6) post-hoc results illustrate both initial attitudes and initial performance predict educational attainment; however, it is change in attitudes, not change in performance, that is associated with educational attainment.

In addition to increasing understanding of processes by which the family investment model operates in regard to educational attainment in early adulthood, these results have several practical implications. Because the effects of supportive parenting are relatively stable across adolescence, and because supportive parenting is associated with both the level and rate of change in the sibling relationship, establishing supportive parenting relationships during early adolescence is of key importance. Siblings have an initial and continuing effect on academic engagement during adolescence, so it would be useful to identify positive ways to enhance sibling relationships throughout adolescence (e.g., Kramer, 2004 ). Given the strong association between academic engagement and educational attainment, parents and educators also should identify ways to promote academic engagement. This could take the form of encouraging participation in academic clubs and extracurricular activities, as well as promoting good study skills. Future research should examine additional family and individual characteristics associated with later educational attainment. Furthermore, given the potential link between early family and individual characteristics and youths’ educational attainment and later occupational success (e.g., Dubow, Huesmann, Boxer, Pulkkinen, & Kokko, 2006 ; Schoon et al., 2002 ), future research should extend these analyses to look at processes by which the family investment model operates in regard to occupational attainment.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute of Mental Health (HD047573, HD051746, and MH051361). Support for earlier years of the study also came from multiple sources, including the National Institute of Mental Health (MH00567, MH19734, MH43270, MH59355, MH62989, and MH48165), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA05347), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD027724), the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (MCJ-109572), and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development Among Youth in High-Risk Settings.

Publisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at www.apa.org/journals/dev .

Contributor Information

Janet N. Melby, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, Iowa State University

Rand D. Conger, Human and Community Development, University of California-Davis

Shu-Ann Fang, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, Iowa State University.

K. A. S. Wickrama, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research and the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University

Katherine J. Conger, Human and Community Development, University of Californai-Davis

• Ainsworth JW. Why does it take a village? The mediation of neighborhood effects on educational attainment. Social Forces. 2002;81:117–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR. Family processes and the competence of adolescents and primary school children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1989;18:39–53. doi: 10.1007/BF02139245. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson AR, Christenson SL, Sinclair MG, Lehr CA. Check and connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology. 2004;42:95–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aquilino WS. From adolescent to young adult: A prospective study of parent-child relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1997;59:670–686. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bank L, Burraston B, Snyder J. Sibling conflict and ineffective parenting as predictors of adolescent boys’ antisocial behavior and peer difficulties: Additive and interactional effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2004;14:99–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bank L, Dishion T, Skinner M, Patterson GR. Method variance in structural equation modeling: Living with “glop”. In: Patterson GR, editor. Depression and aggression in family interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1990. pp. 247–279. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber BK. Cultural, family, and personal contexts of parent-adolescent conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1994;56:375–386. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bean RA, Barber BK, Crane DR. Parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control among African American Youth: The relationships to academic grades, delinquency, and depression. Journal of Family Issues. 2006;27:1335–355. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benin MH, Johnson DR. Sibling similarities in educational attainment: A comparison of like-sex and cross-sex sibling pairs. Sociology of Education. 1984;57:11–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Best KM, Hauser ST, Allen JP. Predicting young adult competencies: Adolescent era parent and individual influences. Journal of Adolescent Research. 1997;12:90–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz TJ, Raftery AE. Family structure, educational attainment, and socioeconomic success: Rethinking the “Pathology of Matriarchy”. American Journal of Sociology. 1999;105:321–365. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bjarnason T. Grooming for success? The impact of adolescent society on early intergenerational social mobility. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2000;21:319–342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau P, Duncan OD. The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bornstein MH, Bradley RH. Monographs in Parenting Series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bornstein MH, Hahn CS, Suwalsky JTD, Haynes OM. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development: The Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status and The Socioeconomic Index of Occupations. In: Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, editors. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Monographs in Parenting Series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. pp. 29–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowen NK, Bowen GL, Ware WB. Neighborhood social disorganization, families, and educational behavior of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2002;15:468–490. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradley RH, Corwyn RE. Age and ethnic variations in family process mediators of SES. In: Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, editors. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Monographs in Parenting Series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. pp. 161–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradley RH, Corwyn RE. Socioeconomic status and child development. In: Fiske ST, Schacter DL, Zahn-Waxler C, editors. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 53. 2002. pp. 371–399. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brody GH, Stoneman Z, McCoy JK. Contributions of family relationships and child temperaments to longitudinal variations in sibling relationship quality and sibling relationship styles. Journal of Family Psychology. 1994;8:274–286. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brody GH, Stoneman Z, Smith T, Gibson NM. Sibling relationships in rural African American families. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1999;61:1046–1057. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ. The effects of poverty on children. Future Child. 1997;7:55–71. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ, Aber L. Neighborhood poverty, Volume I: Context and consequences for children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryant BK. The child’s perspective of sibling caretaking and its relevance to understanding social-emotional functioning and development. In: Zukow P, editor. Sibling interaction across cultures. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1989. pp. 143–164. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown SL. Family structure and child well-being: The significance of parental cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004;66:351–367. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cernkovich SA, Giordano PC. School bonding, race, and delinquency. Criminology. 1992;30:261–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chand IP, Crider DM, Willits FK. Ascribed and achieved antecedents of occupational attainment: A panel study. Personnel & Guidance Journal. 1983;61:547–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X, Dong Q, Zhou H. Authoritative and authoritarian parenting practices and social and school performance in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 1997;21:855–873. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cicirelli VG. A comparison of college women’s feelings toward their siblings and parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1980;42:95–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman JS. Equality and achievement in education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology. 1988;94:95–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger K, Bryant C, Brennom J. Change and continuity in adolescent sibling relationships. In: Conger RD, Lorenz FO, Wickrama KAS, editors. Continuity and change in family relations: Theory, methods, and empirical findings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 319–344. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger KJ, Conger RD, Elder GH., Jr . Sibling relations in hard times. In: Conger RD, Elder GH Jr, editors. Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. NY: Aldine; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger KJ, Conger RD, Scaramella LV. Parents, siblings, psychological control, and adolescent adjustments. Journal of Adolescent Research. 1997;12:113–138. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger RD, Conger KJ. Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002;64:361–373. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger RD, Dogan SJ. Social class and socialization in families. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD, editors. Handbook of socialization theory and research. New York: Guilford Press; 2007. pp. 433–460. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger RD, Donnellan MB. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:175–199. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger RD, Elder GH., Jr . Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. NY: Aldine; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger RD, Ge X, Elder GH, Jr, Lorenz FO, Simons RL. Economic stress, coercive family process and developmental problems of adolescents (Special issue on children and poverty) Child Development. 1994;65:541–561. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connell JP, Halpern-Felsher BL. How neighborhoods affect educational outcomes. In: Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ, Aber L, editors. Neighborhood poverty: Vol I Context and consequences for children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1997. pp. 174–199. [ Google Scholar ]
• Connell JP, Spencer MB, Aber JL. Educational risk and resilience in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development. 1994;95:493–506. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corwyn RF, Bradley RH. Socioeconomic status and childhood externalizing behaviors: A structural equation framework. In: Bengston VL, Acock AC, Allen KR, Dilworth-Anderson P, Klein DM, editors. Sourcebook of family theory and research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2005. pp. 469–483. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosnoe R. Social capital and the interplay of families and schools. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004;66:267–279. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosnoe R, Elder GH., Jr Family dynamics, supportive relationships, and educational resilience during adolescence. Journal of Family Issues. 2004;25:571–602. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosnoe R, Mistry RS, Elder GH., Jr Economic disadvantage, family dynamics, and adolescent enrollment in higher education. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002;64:690–702. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cui M, Conger RD, Bryant CM, Elder GH., Jr Parental behavior and the quality of adolescent friendships: A social-contextual perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002;64:676–689. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dornbusch SM, Ritter PL, Leiderman PH, Roberts DF, Fraleigh MJ. The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development. 1987;58:1244–1257. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb01455.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dubow EF, Huesmann LR, Boxer P, Pulkkinen L, Kokko K. Middle childhood and adolescent contextual and personal predictors of adult educational and occupational outcomes: A mediational model in two countries. Developmental Psychology. 2006;42:937–949. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.937. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, Boisjoly J, Harris KM. Peer, neighborhood, and schoolmate correlations as indicators of the importance of context for adolescent development. Demography. 2001;38:437–337. doi: 10.1353/dem.2001.0026. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J. Income effects across the life span: Integration and interpretation. In: Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J, editors. Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage; 1997. pp. 596–610. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, Magnuson KA. Off with Hollingshead: Socioeconomic resources, parenting, and child development. In: Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, editors. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Monographs in Parenting Series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. pp. 83–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, Yeung WJ, Brooks-Gunn J, Smith JR. How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological Review. 1998;63:406–423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan RD. Peer and sibling aggression: An investigation of intra- and extra-familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1999;14:871–886. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan T, Duncan S, Stryker LA, Fuzhong L, Alpert A. An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: Concept, issues, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunn J. Siblings and socialization. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD, editors. Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York: Gilford; 2007. pp. 309–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunn J. Brothers and sisters in middle childhood and early adolescence: Continuity and change in individual differences. In: Brody GH, editor. Sibling relationships: Their causes and consequences. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1996. pp. 31–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunn J, Slomkowski C, Beardsall L. Sibling relationships from preschool period through middle childhood and early adolescence. Developmental Psychology. 1994;30:315–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01736.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles JS, Wigfield A, Schiefele U. Motivation to succeed. In: Eisenberg N, editor. Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3. New York: Wiley; 1998. pp. 1017–1095. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ensminger ME, Fothergill K. A decade of measuring SES: What it tells us and where to go from here. In: Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, editors. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Monographs in Parenting Series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. pp. 13–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ensminger ME, Slusarcick AL. Paths to high school graduation or dropout: A longitudinal study of a first-grade cohort. Sociology of Education. 1992;65:95–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erikson R. Social class of men, women, and families. Sociology. 1984;18:500–514. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feinberg M, Neiderhiser J, Howe G, Hetherington EM. Adolescent, parent, and observer perceptions of parenting: Genetic and environmental influences on shared and distinct perceptions. Child Development. 2001;72:1266–1284. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00346. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Furman W, Buhrmester D. Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology. 1985;21:1016–1024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Furstenberg FF, Jr, Eccles J, Elder GH, Cook TD, Sameroff A. Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goetting A. The developmental tasks of siblings over the life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1986;48:703–714. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo G. The timing of the influences of cumulative poverty on children’s cognitive ability and achievement. Social Forces. 1998;77:257–288. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauser RM, Sheridan JT, Warren JR. Socioeconomic achievements of siblings in the life course: New findings from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. Research on Aging. 1999;21:338–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haveman R, Sandefur G, Wolfe B, Voyer A. Trends in children’s attainments and their determinants as family income inequality has increased. In: Neckerman KM, editor. Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage; 2004. pp. 149–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henry B, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Langley J, Silva P. On the “Remembrance of Things Past”: A longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective method. Psychological Assessment. 1994;6:92–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill MS, Duncan GJ. Parental family income and the socioeconomic attainment of children. Social Science Research. 1987;16:39–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hao L, Matsueda RL. Family dynamics through childhood: A sibling model of behavior problems. Social Science Research. 2006;35:500–524. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollingshead AB. The four-factor index of social status. Yale University; New Haven, CT: 1975. Unpublished manuscript. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ingoldsby EM, Shaw DS, Garcia MM. Intrafamily conflict in relation to boys’ adjustment in school. Development and Psychopathology. 2001;13:35–52. doi: 10.1017/s0954579401001031. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson W, McGue M, Iacono WG. Socioeconomic status and school grades: Placing their association in broader context in a sample of biological and adoptive families. Intelligence. 2007;35:526–541. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.006. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Juang LP, Silbereisen RK. The relationship between adolescent academic capability beliefs, parenting and school grades. Journal of Adolescence. 2002;25:3–18. doi: 10.1006/jado.2001.0445. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalmijn M. Mother’s occupational status and children’s schooling. American Sociological Review. 1994;59:257–275. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khazzoom A. The impact of mothers’ occupations on children’s occupational destinations. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. 1997;15:57–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Korupp SE, Ganzeboon HBG, Van Der Lippe T. Do mothers matter? A comparison of models of the influence of mothers’ and fathers’ educational and occupational status on children’s educational attainment. Quality and Quantity. 2002;36:17–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kramer L. Experimental interventions in sibling relationships. In: Conger RD, Lorenz FO, Wickrama KAS, editors. Continuity and change in family relations: Theory, methods, and empirical findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 345–380. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerner RM. What are SES effects of? A developmental systems perspective. In: Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, editors. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Monographs in Parenting Series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. pp. 231–255. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerner RM. Concepts and theories of human development. 3. Mahwah, NH: Erlbaum; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin N. Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorenz FO, Conger RD, Simons RL, Whitbeck LB, Elder GH., Jr Economic pressure and marital quality: An illustration of the method variance problem in the causal model of family process. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991;53:375–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorenz FO, Melby JN. Analyzing family stress and adaptation: methods of study. In: Conger RD, Elder GH Jr, editors. Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. NY: Aldine; 1994. pp. 21–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorenz FO, Simons RL, Conger RD, Elder GH, Jr, Johnson C, Chao W. Married and recently divorced mothers’ stressful events and distress: Tracing change across time. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1997;59:219–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorenz FO, Wickrama KAS, Conger RD. Modeling continuity and change in family relationships with panel data. In: Conger RD, Lorenz FO, Wickrama KAS, editors. Continuity and change in family relations: Theory, methods, and empirical findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 345–380. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKinnon CE. Sibling interactions in married and divorced families: Influences of ordinal position, socioeconomic status, and play context. Journal of Divorce. 1988;2:221–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKinnon-Lewis C, Starnes R, Volling B, Johnson S. Perceptions of parenting as predictors of boys’ sibling and peer relations. Developmental Psychology. 1997;33:1024–1031. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.33.6.1024. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magnuson KA, Stattin H. Person-context interaction theories. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development. New York: Wiley; 1998. pp. 685–759. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marjoribanks K. Adolescents’ cognitive habitus, learning environments, affective outcomes of schooling, and young adults’ educational attainment. Educational Psychology. 2006;26:229–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marjoribanks K. Family background, academic achievement, and educational aspirations as predictors of Australian young adults’ educational attainment. Psychological Reports. 2005;96:751–754. doi: 10.2466/pr0.96.3.751-754. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marjoribanks K. Sibling effects, environmental influences, and school dropout. Psychological Reports. 2002;91:1276–1278. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2002.91.3f.1276. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marjoribanks K. Family capital and cognitive performance. In: Grigorenko EL, Sternberg RJ, editors. Family environment and intellectual functioning: A life-span perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. pp. 49–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks GN. Family size, family type and student achievement: cross-national differences in socioeconomic and school factors. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 2006;37:1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh HW, Trautwein U, Lüdke O, Köller O, Baumert J. Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development. 2007;76:397–416. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martens PL. School related behavior of early adolescents: In search of determining factors. Youth and Society. 1984;15:353–384. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer SE. What money can’t buy: Family income and children’s life chances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• McHale SM, Updegraff KA, Tucker CJ, Crouter AC. Step in or stay out? Parents’ roles in adolescent siblings’ relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000;62:746–760. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLanahan S. Family structure and the reproduction of poverty. American Journal of Sociology. 1985;90:873–901. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeod JD, Kaiser K. Child emotional and behavioral problems and educational attainment. American Sociological Review. 2004;69(5):636–658. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLoyd VC. Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist. 1998;53:185–204. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.53.2.185. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLoyd VC, Cauce AM, Takeuchi D, Wilson L. Marital processes and parental sociaolzation in families of color: A decade review of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000;62:1070–1093. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meeks S, Murrell SA. Contribution of education to health and life satisfaction in older adults mediated by negative affect. Journal of Aging and Health. 2001;13:92–119. doi: 10.1177/089826430101300105. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melby JN, Conger RD. The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales: Instrument summary. In: Kerig P, Lindahl K, editors. Family observational coding systems: Resources for systematic research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. pp. 33–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Melby JN, Conger RD. Parental behaviors and adolescent academic performance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 1996;6:113–137. [ Google Scholar ]
• Milevsky A, Smoot K, Leh M, Ruppe A. Family and contextual variables in the nature of sibling relationships in emerging adulthood. Marriage and Family Review. 2005;37:123–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moser RP, Jacob T. Parental and sibling effects in adolescent outcomes. Psychological Reports. 2002;91:463–479. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2002.91.2.463. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakao K, Treas J. Computing 1989 occupational prestige scores (General survey methodological report No 70) Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nash R. The cognitive habitus: Its place in a realist account of inequality/difference. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2005;26:599–612. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oakes JM, Rossi PH. The measurement of SES in health research: Current practice and steps toward a new approach. Social Science and Medicine. 2003;56:769–784. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00073-4. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orr AJ. Black-white differences in achievement: The importance of wealth. Sociology of Education. 2003;76:281–304. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelegrina S, Garcia-Linares MC, Casanova PF. Adolescents and their parents’ perceptions about parenting characteristics. Who can better predict the adolescent’s academic competence? Journal of Adolescence. 2003;26:651–665. doi: 10.1016/s0140-1971(03)00062-9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pintrich PR. An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000;25:92–104. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1017. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plank SB, MacIver DJ. Educational achievement. In: Bornstein MH, Davidson L, Keyes CLM, Moore KA, editors. Well-being: Positive development across the life course. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2003. pp. 341–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rabusicova M. Influence of the family on educational achievement. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education. 1995;5:125–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reitzes DC. Social and emotional engagement in adulthood. In: Bornstein MH, Davidson L, Keyes CLM, Moore KA, editors. Well-being: Positive development across the life course. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2003. pp. 425–447. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodgers KB, Rose HA. Personal, family, and school factors related to adolescent academic performance: A comparison by family structure. Marriage and Family Review. 2001;33:47–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roeser RW, Eccles JS, Sameroff AJ. Academic and emotional functioning in early adolescence: Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school. Development and Psychopathology. 1998;10:321–352. doi: 10.1017/s0954579498001631. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogosa DR, Brand D, Zimowski M. A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin. 1982;90:726–748. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rueter MA, Chao W, Conger RD. The effect of systematic variation in retrospective conduct disorder reports on antisocial personality disorder diagnoses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2000;68:307–312. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandefur GD, Meier AM, Campbell ME. Family resources, social capital, and college attendance. Social Science Research. 2006;35:525–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandefur GD, Wells T. Does family structure really influence educational attainment? Social Science Research. 1999;28:331–357. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scaramella LV, Conger RD. Continuity versus discontinuity in parent and adolescent negative affect. In: Conger RD, Lorenz FO, Wickrama KAS, editors. Continuity and change in family relations: Theory, methods, and empirical findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 345–380. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoon I, Bynner J, Joshi H, Parsons S, Wiggins RD, Sacker A. The influence of context, timing, and duration of risk experiences for the passage from childhood to midadulthood. Child Development. 2002;73:1486–1504. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00485. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoon I, Parsons S. Competence in the face of adversity: The influence of early family environment and long-term consequences. Children and Society. 2002;16:260–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Haller AO, Ohlendorf GW. The educational and early occupational status attainment process: Replication and revision. American Sociological Review. 1970;35:1014–1027. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Hauser RM. The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study of Social and Psychological Factors in Aspirations and Achievements. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization. 1980;1:59–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Hauser RM. Education, occupation, and earnings: Achievements in the early career. New York: Academic Press; 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sewell WH, Hauser RM. Causes and consequences of higher education: Models of the status attainment process. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1972;54:851–861. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sieben I, DeGraaf PM. The total impact of the family on educational attainment: A comparative sibling analysis. European Societies. 2003;5:33–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sirin SR. The relationship between socioeconomic status and school outcomes: Meta analytic review of research, 1990—2000 (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 2004) Dissertation Abstractions International: Section B: Sciences and Engineering. 2004;64:4088. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smerdon BA. Engagement and achievement: Differences between African-American and white high school students. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization. 1999;12:103–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L, Lamborn SD, Dornbusch SM, Darling N. Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development. 1992;63:1266–1281. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01694.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg L, Mounts NS, Lamborn SD, Dornbusch SM. Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 1991;1:19–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomlinson-Keasey C, Little TD. Predicting educational attainment, occupational achievement, intellectual skill, and personal adjustment among gifted men and women. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1990;92:442–455. [ Google Scholar ]
• Travis R, Kohli V. The birth order factor: Ordinal position, social strata, and educational achievement. Journal of Social Psychology. 1995;135:499–507. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1995.9712218. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tucker CJ, McHale SM, Crouter AC. Conditions of sibling support in adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001;15:254–271. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vargas-Chanes D. Imputation methods for incomplete panel data with applications to latent growth curves. Iowa State University; Ames: 2000. Unpublished Dissertation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Volling BL, Belsky J. The contribution of mother-child and father-child relationships to the quality of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study. Child Development. 1992;63:1209–1222. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01690.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vondra JI, Shaw DS, Swearingen L, Cohen M, Owens EB. Early relationship quality from home to school: A longitudinal study. Early Education and Development. 1999;10:163–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade TJ, Brannigan A. The genesis of adolescent risk-taking: Pathways through family, school, and peers. Canadian Journal of Sociology. 1998;23:1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang LY, Kick E, Fraser J, Burns TJ. Status attainment in America: The roles of locus of control and self-esteem in educational and occupational outcomes. Sociological Spectrum. 1999;19:281–298. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warren JR, Hauser RM, Sheridan JT. Occupational stratification across the life course: Evidence from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. American Sociological Review. 2002;6:432–455. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wentzel KR, Feldman SS. Parental predictors of boys’ self-restraint and motivation to achieve at school: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence. 1993;13:183–203. [ Google Scholar ]
• White KR. The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin. 1982;91:461–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wickrama KAS, Lorenz FO, Conger RD. Parental support and adolescent health: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1997;38:149–163. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wickrama KAS, Conger RD, Lorenz FO, Matthews L. Role identity, role satisfaction, and perceived physical health. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1995;58:270–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willett JB, Sayer A. Using covariance structure analyses to detect correlates and predictors of individual change over time. Psychological Bulletin. 1994;116:363–381. [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (478.1 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Essay about Family: What It Is and How to Nail It

Humans naturally seek belonging within families, finding comfort in knowing someone always cares. Yet, families can also stir up insecurities and mental health struggles.

Family dynamics continue to intrigue researchers across different fields. Every year, new studies explore how these relationships shape our minds and emotions.

In this article, our dissertation service will guide you through writing a family essay. You can also dive into our list of topics for inspiration and explore some standout examples to spark your creativity.

What is Family Essay

A family essay takes a close look at the bonds and experiences within families. It's a common academic assignment, especially in subjects like sociology, psychology, and literature.

So, what's involved exactly? Simply put, it's an exploration of what family signifies to you. You might reflect on cherished family memories or contemplate the portrayal of families in various media.

What sets a family essay apart is its personal touch. It allows you to express your own thoughts and experiences. Moreover, it's versatile – you can analyze family dynamics, reminisce about family customs, or explore other facets of familial life.

If you're feeling uncertain about how to write an essay about family, don't worry; you can explore different perspectives and select topics that resonate with various aspects of family life.

Tips For Writing An Essay On Family Topics

A family essay typically follows a free-form style, unless specified otherwise, and adheres to the classic 5-paragraph structure. As you jot down your thoughts, aim to infuse your essay with inspiration and the essence of creative writing, unless your family essay topics lean towards complexity or science.

Here are some easy-to-follow tips from our essay service experts:

• Focus on a Specific Aspect: Instead of a broad overview, delve into a specific angle that piques your interest, such as exploring how birth order influences sibling dynamics or examining the evolving role of grandparents in modern families.
• Share Personal Anecdotes: Start your family essay introduction with a personal touch by sharing stories from your own experiences. Whether it's about a favorite tradition, a special trip, or a tough time, these stories make your writing more interesting.
• Use Real-life Examples: Illustrate your points with concrete examples or anecdotes. Draw from sources like movies, books, historical events, or personal interviews to bring your ideas to life.
• Explore Cultural Diversity: Consider the diverse array of family structures across different cultures. Compare traditional values, extended family systems, or the unique hurdles faced by multicultural families.
• Take a Stance: Engage with contentious topics such as homeschooling, reproductive technologies, or governmental policies impacting families. Ensure your arguments are supported by solid evidence.
• Delve into Psychology: Explore the psychological underpinnings of family dynamics, touching on concepts like attachment theory, childhood trauma, or patterns of dysfunction within families.
• Emphasize Positivity: Share uplifting stories of families overcoming adversity or discuss strategies for nurturing strong, supportive family bonds.
• Offer Practical Solutions: Wrap up your essay by proposing actionable solutions to common family challenges, such as fostering better communication, achieving work-life balance, or advocating for family-friendly policies.

Family Essay Topics

When it comes to writing, essay topics about family are often considered easier because we're intimately familiar with our own families. The more you understand about your family dynamics, traditions, and experiences, the clearer your ideas become.

If you're feeling uninspired or unsure of where to start, don't worry! Below, we have compiled a list of good family essay topics to help get your creative juices flowing. Whether you're assigned this type of essay or simply want to explore the topic, these suggestions from our history essay writer are tailored to spark your imagination and prompt meaningful reflection on different aspects of family life.

So, take a moment to peruse the list. Choose the essay topics about family that resonate most with you. Then, dive in and start exploring your family's stories, traditions, and connections through your writing.

• Supporting Family Through Tough Times
• Staying Connected with Relatives
• Empathy and Compassion in Family Life
• Strengthening Bonds Through Family Gatherings
• Quality Time with Family: How Vital Is It?
• Navigating Family Relationships Across Generations
• Learning Kindness and Generosity in a Large Family
• Communication in Healthy Family Dynamics
• Forgiveness in Family Conflict Resolution
• Building Trust Among Extended Family
• Defining Family in Today's World
• Understanding Nuclear Family: Various Views and Cultural Differences
• Understanding Family Dynamics: Relationships Within the Family Unit
• What Defines a Family Member?
• Modernizing the Nuclear Family Concept
• Exploring Shared Beliefs Among Family Members
• Evolution of the Concept of Family Love Over Time
• Examining Family Expectations
• Modern Standards and the Idea of an Ideal Family
• Life Experiences and Perceptions of Family Life
• Genetics and Extended Family Connections
• Utilizing Family Trees for Ancestral Links
• The Role of Younger Siblings in Family Dynamics
• Tracing Family History Through Oral Tradition and Genealogy
• Tracing Family Values Through Your Family Tree
• Exploring Your Elder Sister's Legacy in the Family Tree
• Connecting Daily Habits to Family History
• Documenting and Preserving Your Family's Legacy
• Navigating Online Records and DNA Testing for Family History
• Tradition as a Tool for Family Resilience
• Involving Family in Daily Life to Maintain Traditions
• Creating New Traditions for a Small Family
• The Role of Traditions in Family Happiness
• Family Recipes and Bonding at House Parties
• Quality Time: The Secret Tradition for Family Happiness
• The Joy of Cousins Visiting for Christmas
• Including Family in Birthday Celebrations
• Balancing Traditions and Unconditional Love
• Building Family Bonds Through Traditions

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Wednesday Addams

Mysterious, dark, and sarcastic

You’re the master of dark humor and love standing out with your unconventional style. Your perfect costume? A modern twist on Wednesday Addams’ gothic look. You’ll own Halloween with your unapologetically eerie vibe. 🖤🕸️

Looking for Speedy Assistance With Your College Essays?

Reach out to our skilled writers, and they'll provide you with a top-notch paper that's sure to earn an A+ grade in record time!

Family Essay Example

For a better grasp of the essay on family, our team of skilled writers has crafted a great example. It looks into the subject matter, allowing you to explore and understand the intricacies involved in creating compelling family essays. So, check out our meticulously crafted sample to discover how to craft essays that are not only well-written but also thought-provoking and impactful.

Final Outlook

In wrapping up, let's remember: a family essay gives students a chance to showcase their academic skills and creativity by sharing personal stories. However, it's important to stick to academic standards when writing about these topics. We hope our list of topics sparked your creativity and got you on your way to a reflective journey. And if you hit a rough patch, you can just ask us to ' do my essay for me ' for top-notch results!

Having Trouble with Your Essay on the Family?

Our expert writers are committed to providing you with the best service possible in no time!

FAQs on Writing an Essay about Family

Family essays seem like something school children could be assigned at elementary schools, but family is no less important than climate change for our society today, and therefore it is one of the most central research themes.

Below you will find a list of frequently asked questions on family-related topics. Before you conduct research, scroll through them and find out how to write an essay about your family.

How to Write an Essay About Your Family History?

How to write an essay about a family member, how to write an essay about family and roots, how to write an essay about the importance of family.

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Essay on My Family for School Students and Children

500+ words essay on my family.

Families are an integral part of one’s life. It does not matter if you have a small or big family, as long as you have one. A family serves as the first school to the child where one learns about various things. The basic knowledge about one’s culture and identity comes from their family only. In other words, you are a reflection of your family. All the good habits and manners one has incorporated are from their family only. I feel very lucky to be born in a family which has made me a better person. In my opinion, families are an essential part of one’s being. In this essay on my family, I will tell you why family is important.

Why Families are Important?

Families are a blessing not everyone is fortunate enough to have. However, those who do, sometimes do not value this blessing. Some people spend time away from the family in order to become independent.

However, they do not realize its importance. Families are essential as they help in our growth. They develop us into becoming a complete person with an individual identity. Moreover, they give us a sense of security and a safe environment to flourish in.

You can read essay on my mother here .

We learn to socialize through our families only and develop our intellect. Studies show that people who live with their families tend to be happier than ones living alone. They act as your rock in times of trouble.

Families are the only ones who believe in you when the whole world doubts you. Similarly, when you are down and out, they are the first ones to cheer you up. Certainly, it is a true blessing to have a positive family by your side.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Pillars of Strength

My family has been always by my side in ups and downs. They have taught me how to be a better person. My family consists of four siblings and my parents. We also have a pet dog that is no less than our family.

Within each family member, lies my strength. My mother is my strength as I can always count on her when I need a shoulder to cry on. She believes in me more than any other person. She is the backbone of our family. My father is someone who will always hide away his troubles for the sake of his family.

In short, I will forever be indebted to my family for all they have done for me. I cannot imagine my life without them. They are my first teachers and my first friends.

They are responsible for creating a safe and secure environment for me at home. I can share everything with my family as they never judge one another. We believe in the power of love above everything and that drives us to help each other to become better human beings.

FAQs on Family

Q.1 Why are families important?

A.1 Families are important because they nurture and develop us. They make us happy and give us the chance to become better human beings. Families enhance your confidence and make you believe in yourself.

Q.2 How do families act as pillars of strength?

A.2 Families are the pillars of strength because they give us the courage to face the world. They are always there when we need them. Even in the loneliest of times, families make us feel better.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Family

My Family Background Essay

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Family , Life , United States , University , Students , Middle East , People , Saudi Arabia

Published: 12/17/2021

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

As you have requested, I have written a short self-introduction and my family background. This is precisely my story of life in the past, now, and in the future.

I was born and raised in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. These words might sound strange and inconsequential to you, but memories of that place give me true energy and motivation. My mother, a native of Turkey, is a homemaker. My father, whose mother was also Turkish, lived all his life on the territory of Saudi Arabia. He used to work for Saudi Arabia Airlines. There are five children in our family: one boy and four girls. I know, it’s a rare case for an average American family – 5 children. And some people might think it was hard to grow up in such a populous family, but for Saudi Arabia – it’s normal. Each child got all the attention and love they needed, and, in general, it was fun having a big family. Sometimes I miss our crowded home much. Bet you also sometimes family backgrounds such things.

How Background Family Influenced My Interests

My hobbies include cooking, scuba diving and spearfishing. You might thing that all of my hobbies are somewhat interconnected Well, yes. Sometimes. Being underwater gives me an unbearable feeling of freedom, something similar to Alice’s Wonderland – the world there is completely different. Just image the coral riffs and all kinds of fish, shimmering with rainbow colors in the mysterious underwater sunlight. Don’t you think it’s amazing? When I graduated from high school, I got my scuba diving license and decided to enroll to Faculty of Marine Sciences. Unfortunately, my parents made me change my mind.

My Past and Current Achievements Thanks to Family Background

My background family has influenced my past achievements and future goals. My first achievement for now, I am a 3rd year student at University of Michigan, and my major is Healthcare Management. This phrase seems so easy, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it cannot describe to you all the difficulties I went through to get to where I am now.

Secondly, the hardest part of my education in the U.S. were first two years of learning English in Eastern Washington University. I started studying Mechanical Engineering at first, but this major was hard for me, because of lots of math. And that’s why I’ve transferred to University of Michigan to study Healthcare.

Thirdly, I am truly proud of myself for leaving my country and finding my American Dream. I have heard people saying that there’s no American Dream anymore, but I still believe in this concept: there is an aim, and everything is achievable. American dream in action! Living and studying is also some kind of a Wonderland: everything is so different, especially people and relationships between them.

Fourthly, my university sent me a letter to congratulate me on my outstanding achievements of making the Dean's List for my first semester. This is truly exceptional, since English language is my third Language and it was hard for me to successfully finish that semester.

Fifthly, when I got my acceptance letter from Eastern Washington University to University of Michigan, I drove my car from Washington State to Michigan State on my own and I couldn't believe that everything was possible without any help.

Impacts of Family Backgrounds to My Life Goals

Thanks to my backgrounds family, I really enjoy life in the U.S. and my current life goals now is, first of all, graduating from University and finding a job here for gaining some experience. Then, I am planning to come back to my native country and continue practicing there. And, finally, when I make a career, I’ll get married and lead a happy life in Saudi Arabia. My mind is currently busy with my education. I want to become a good professional who will help people, ordinary men and women, lead their lives. I like my specialization and already have good life plan, which is the most important thing.

I hope you were entertained with this short self-introduction. It is always interesting and offsetting to speak to people who pay attention to the things you tell them. So, If you have any kind of question, feel free to ask me, I will be happy to answer questions regarding daily life in Arabic countries, religion, family relations and etc.

Thank you for your attention to Backgrounds for Family!

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2020

This paper is created by writer with

ID 268038909

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Cardiology personal statements, firefighter case studies, sacrifices case studies, comparative analysis case studies, mentorship case studies, homeschooling case studies, fantasy case studies, zombie case studies, racing case studies, blood donation case studies, quarantine case studies, horses case studies, biphosphate essays, bisphosphoglycerate essays, dubowitz essays, bair essays, frontotemporal essays, convatec essays, caat essays, derrico essays, contra essays, kindred healthcare essays, bete essays, free essay on patient safety outcomes, free report on focus group, lab number and title report examples 2, economics essay 4, learning experiences course work example, sample literature review on what is the extent of the effect between recession and vacancy problem in phoenix, good talent shortage in the gold mining industry of canada research paper example, example of charlie chaplin movie review, westerbeck night light brassai and weegee essay samples, free stereotypes of asian americans essay example, calculation assignment case study examples, justification essay, emotional appeal in on dumpster diving by lars eighner book review samples, oroonoko the modern slave of capitalism creative writing samples, book review on timothy henderson a glorious defeat, free team work report sample, critical analysis of paper critical thinking example, example of course work on airline airport services, free airplane cargo drop essay sample, the decline of rural america course works examples.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home — Essay Samples — Arts & Culture — Heritage — My Family Cultural Background

My Family Cultural Background

• Categories: Family History Heritage

About this sample

Words: 762 |

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Words: 762 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, cultural heritage, language and communication, religious traditions, cuisine and culinary traditions, values and beliefs, challenges and adaptation.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life Arts & Culture

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 544 words

5 pages / 2265 words

2 pages / 738 words

1 pages / 538 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Heritage

The cultural landscape of Guatemala is a mesmerizing blend of ancient traditions, diverse indigenous heritage, and colonial influences, creating a tapestry that captivates the senses and tells a story of resilience and [...]

The importance of customs and traditions lies in their ability to bind generations, communities, and societies through shared practices and beliefs. This essay delves into the profound role that customs and traditions play in [...]

In Alice Walker's short story "Everyday Use," the author explores the complex themes of heritage, identity, and the clash between traditional and modern values. Through the experiences of a rural African-American family, Walker [...]

Guillermo Bonfil Batalla's "Mexico Profundo: Reclaiming a Civilization" serves as a thought-provoking exploration of Mexico's deep-rooted indigenous culture and civilization. The book delves into the historical, cultural, and [...]

So, you’re thinking about Nepal? Let me tell you, it’s a place of wild contrasts and beauty that’ll take your breath away. Nestled right there between the mighty Himalayas and the lush plains of India, it's like [...]

Nowadays there are huge arguments between city development and conserving the past: some say old buildings should be replaced with modern buildings and shopping malls, because more money can be made from these developments. Some [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free