# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Growing up in today's world can be complicated. Parents are often worried about how their children will navigate the social, behavioral, and developmental challenges of life, especially during adolescence, which can be a particularly difficult time. Our research, which was recently published out of Harvard's Chan School of Public Health and co-authored by Ying Chen at the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard, suggests that a religious upbringing can profoundly help adolescents navigate the challenges of these years. We also found that a religious upbringing contributes to a wide range of health and well-being outcomes later in life.

Our study used a large sample of over 5,000 adolescents, followed them up for more than eight years, and controlled for many other variables to try to isolate the effect of religious upbringing. We found that children who were raised in a religious or spiritual environment were subsequently better protected from the "big three" dangers of adolescence.

For example, those who attended religious services regularly were subsequently:

12% less likely to have high depressive symptoms

33% less likely to use illicit drugs

Those who prayed or meditated frequently were:

30% less likely to start having sex at a young age

40% less likely to subsequently have a sexually transmitted infection

Moreover, a religious upbringing also contributed towards to a number of positive outcomes as well, such greater happiness, more volunteering in the community, a greater sense of mission and purpose, and higher levels of forgiveness. For example, those who attended religious services were subsequently:

18% more likely to report high levels of happiness

87% more likely to have high levels of forgiveness

Those who prayed or meditated frequently were subsequently:

38% more likely to volunteer in their community

47% more likely to have a high sense of mission and purpose

These are relatively large effects across a variety of health and well-being outcomes. Religious practice and prayer or meditation can be important resources for adolescents navigating the challenges of life.

Some might wonder if these associations truly imply that religious and spiritual practices really cause the health and well-being outcomes. Could it be that those who are already happier or who refrain from drug use, are those who are naturally drawn to religion? Might this explain the associations, rather than a causal effect of religious and spiritual practices on subsequent health and well-being?

We attempted to deal with this issue in several ways. First, the religious upbringing variables were measured 8-14 years before the health and psychological well-being outcomes were evaluated. This more rigorous longitudinal design helps establish the temporal ordering of the relationships, and in this way is superior to most prior studies on this topic, which used cross-sectional data (where everything is measured at the same time). Second, wherever possible, we controlled also for the health and psychological characteristics of the adolescents at the time that the service attendance and prayer/meditation was assessed to try to rule out that it was just positive health or psychological states that was leading to greater religious practice. Third, we controlled for numerous other social, demographic and health characteristics at the time of adolescence to try to rule out that these might explain the relationship. Finally, for each and every outcome examined, we reported a new measure, called the E-value, that assesses how robust or sensitive results are to potential unmeasured variables, and thereby helps evaluate the evidence for causality (see endnote below for examples). ¹ Although it is difficult to prove "causality," with the sort of observational data we used, the evidence for the effects of a religious upbringing on some of the health and well-being outcomes is, in fact, here quite strong.

But what are the implications of this research? Here, some additional nuance is probably needed. People generally do not make decisions about religious involvement based on health, but rather on beliefs, values, truth claims, relationships, experiences, and so forth. However, for parents and children who already hold religious beliefs, such religious and spiritual practices could be encouraged both for their own sake, as well as to promote health and well-being.

Modern life is very busy, and it can take a strong commitment to participate in a community, or to set time aside for prayer or meditation, and to encourage children in these practices. Our study suggests that for those who already hold these beliefs, setting such time aside in parenting, and for adolescents to engage in these practices, is worthwhile.

Although it is difficult to prove "causality," with the sort of observational data we used, the evidence for the effects of a religious upbringing on some of the health and well-being outcomes is, in fact, quite strong in our study.

There has also been some concern expressed in various settings about whether being raised religiously might be harmful. The sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church have led some parents to question whether their children should be present in such settings at all. Certainly, these instances of sexual abuse need to be addressed, and some progress has already been made in that regard, though more work still needs to be done. Those who covered up the abuse cases need to be held accountable; and for the victims of abuse, their harmful and horrifying experiences need to be acknowledged and addressed.

Our own research is based on averages: the statistics average over all of the positive experiences and also all of the negative experiences, too. The research indicates that, on average, the effects of a religious community are profoundly positive. This does not in any way excuse the incidents of harm by religious leaders or institutions, but it does make clear the substantial benefits of religious practice overall. Ceasing those practices will, on average, likely lead to worse health and well-being outcomes.

Some have gone even further in expressing concern that a religious upbringing may be harmful. Recently, the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins likened a religious upbringing to child abuse, going so far as to claim in a lecture that, "Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." The point was reiterated in his book The God Delusion (p. 356), and he has even gone on to write another book on Atheism for Children, which he plans to publish this fall.

Our study shows that on a number of important health and well-being outcomes, Dawkin's claim just isn't true. It is disrespectful of those who have experienced sexual abuse, and it is just plain wrong with regard to the average effects on health and well-being that religious practice brings. Religious upbringing is of positive benefit for many health behaviors and psychological well-being outcomes. Before making his claims, it would have been good if Dawkins, the scientist, had actually looked at the science. At the very least, parents who bring up their children religiously can be reassured that, on average at least, they are creating important psychological and behavioral health benefits that their children will carry with them into adulthood.

Questions are sometimes raised as to why these positive effects are present and why they are so substantial. This is a more difficult question and goes beyond what we have in the data. My own speculation would be that, for religious service attendance, we observe these effects, in part, because of the benefits of a shared set of beliefs, and practices, and values; and also, because the adolescents have other adult members of their community, beyond their parents, who can serve as mentors and role models. As for the positive effects of prayer and meditation, as I recently shared with IFS, my speculation would be that an integrated spirituality gives rise to an experience of God or of transcendence so that an adolescent need not turn to drugs or risky sexual behaviors in their search for something more. Moreover, that experience of God may fundamentally make a person more other-oriented, leading to greater volunteering, forgiveness, and a sense of mission, and these things ultimately make one happier and protect against depression. Adolescence is a particularly critical time of development and self-understanding, and the establishing of these practices may shape health and well-being throughout life.

Too often in public health, we do not think very much about religious community or parenting practices. However, the results of our new study suggest fairly substantial positive effects on a number of different health and well-being outcomes. Religious practices, such as attending religious services and engaging in prayer, do shape the health of populations and need to be discussed and considered more frequently. Religion and spirituality are important resources for parents and adolescents alike.
Tyler J. VanderWeele, Ph.D., is Professor of Epidemiology in the Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Harvard School of Public Health, a faculty affiliate of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science, and Director of the Program on Integrative Knowledge and Human Flourishing at Harvard University.
1. For example, we reported in our study that for an unmeasured variable to explain away the association between religious service attendance and subsequent volunteering, that unmeasured variable would have to be associated with 1.9-fold higher service attendance, and 1.9-fold higher volunteering, above and beyond everything we already controlled for (which was already a lot). It would thus take quite a lot of confounding to explain away that result. Similarly, to explain away the association between prayer/meditation and the much lower likelihood of subsequently have a sexually transmitted infection, an unmeasured variable would have to be associated both with a 2.7-fold higher likelihood of prayer and a 2.7-fold lower likelihood of a sexually transmitted infection to explain away the results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Growing up in today's world can be complicated. Parents are often worried about how their children will navigate the social, behavioral, and developmental challenges of life, especially during adolescence, which can be a particularly difficult time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By: Jason Rafferty MD, MPH, EdM, FAAP

There are many ways parents can promote healthy gender development in children. It helps to understand gender identity and how it forms.

What's the difference between gender and sex?

Being a boy or a girl, for most children, is something that feels very natural. At birth, babies are assigned male or female based on physical characteristics. This refers to the or "assigned gender" of the child.

Meanwhile, "gender identity" refers to an internal sense people have of who they are that comes from an interaction of biological traits, developmental influences and environmental conditions. This may be male, female, somewhere in between, a combination of both or neither.

Self-recognition of gender identity develops over time, much the same way a child's physical body does. Most children's asserted gender identity aligns with their assigned gender (sex). However, for some children, the match between their assigned gender and gender identity is not so clear.

How does gender identity develop in children?

Gender identity typically develops in stages:

Around age two: Children become conscious of the physical differences between boys and girls.

Before their third birthday: Most children can easily label themselves as either a boy or a girl.

By age four: Most children have a stable sense of their gender identity.

During this same time of life, children learn gender role behavior-that is, doing "things that boys do" or"things that girls do." However, cross-gender preferences and play are a normal part of gender development and exploration regardless of their future gender identity

The point is that all children tend to develop a clearer view of themselves and their gender over time. At any point, research suggests that children who assert a gender-diverse identity know their gender as clearly and consistently as their developmentally matched peers and benefit from the same level of support, love and social acceptance.

What parents can do:

All children need the opportunity to explore different gender roles and different styles of play. Parents can make sure their young child's environment reflects diversity in gender roles and encourages opportunities for everyone. Some ideas would be to offer:

Children's books or puzzles showing men and women in non-stereotypical and diverse gender roles (stay-at-home dads, working moms, male nurses and female police officers, for example).

A wide range of toys for your child to choose from, including baby dolls, toy vehicles, action figures, blocks, etc.

By age 6, most children spend most of their playtime with members of their own sex. They may also gravitate towards sports and other activities that are associated with their gender. It is important to allow children to make choices regarding friend groups, sports and other activities they get involved in. It is also a good idea to check in with your child to learn about their preferences and to make sure they feel included without teasing or bullying.

How do children typically express their gender identity?

In addition to their choices of toys, games, and sports, children typically express their gender identity in the following ways:

Clothing or hairstyle

Preferred name or nickname

Social behavior that reflects varying degrees of aggression, dominance, dependency and gentleness.

Manner and style of behavior and physical gestures and other nonverbal actions identified as masculine or feminine.

Social relationships, including the gender of friends, and the people they decide to imitate.

Gender expression & gender identity

A child's gender-specific behavior (gender expression) at any time seems to be influenced by exposure to stereotypes and their identification with the people in their lives. However, the internal sense of being a girl, boy, in between or something else (gender identity) cannot be changed.

How have gender stereotypes changed over time?

Our expectations of "what girls do" and"what boys do" have changed. Many female athletes excel at their sports. Girls increasingly pursue subjects traditionally thought of as"masculine." There are many famous male chefs, artists, and musicians―fields traditionally thought of as"feminine."

Over time, society has recognized that stereotypes of "masculine" and"feminine" activities and behaviors are inaccurate and limiting to a child's development. Such interests also do not determine or influence one's gender identity. Plus, our ability to predict who a child is based on early preferences is not very accurate-and may be harmful if it leads to shame or attempts to suppress their skills, talents and genuine self.

Still, when a child's interests and abilities are different from what society expects, they may face discrimination and bullying. It is natural for parents to have gender-based expectations for their children and to want to protect them from criticism and exclusion. Instead of pushing children to conform to these pressures and to limit themselves, parents can play an important role in advocating for safe spaces where their children can feel comfortable and good about themselves.

If your child doesn't excel in sports or even have an interest in them, for example, there will still be many other opportunities and areas in which they can thrive. Regardless of gender identity, each child has their own strengths that may not always conform to society's or your own expectations, but they will still be a source of current and future success.

Gender development is a normal process for all children. Some children will exhibit variations―similar to all areas of human health and behavior. However, all children need support, love and care from family, school and society, which fosters growth into happy and healthy adults.

More information

About Dr. Rafferty

Jason Rafferty, MD, MPH, EdM, FAAP, is pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Thundermist Health Centers, a Patient-Centered Medical Home in Rhode Island. He specializes in adolescent substance use disorders and gender and sexual development, and also practices in related specialty clinics at Hasbro Children's Hospital and Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital. Dr. Rafferty is an advocate in his local community and on a national level through work with the American Academy of Pediatrics on issues including the emotional health of young men, access to care for LGBTQ youth, and prevention of childhood homelessness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many ways parents can promote healthy gender development in children. It helps to understand gender identity and how it forms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The APA and the other 12 organizations that comprise the Just the Facts Coalition have just published a new edition of Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel. (PDF, 254 KB) This group of national education, health, mental health, and religious organizations believe that all students should have an opportunity to learn and develop in a safe and supportive environment. Just the Facts provides information and resources for principals, educators, and school personnel who confront sensitive issues involving gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.
Sólo los hechos sobre la orientación sexual y la Juventud en Español
The information in this booklet has been developed by a coalition of education, health, mental health, and religious organizations that share a concern for the health and education of all students in schools, including lesbian, gay and bisexual students.* We know you also share this concern - that all students have an opportunity to learn and develop in a safe and supportive environment.

The reason for publishing this booklet now is to provide you, as principals, educators, and school personnel, with accurate information that will help you respond to a recent upsurge in promotion of efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy and religious ministries. This upsurge has been coupled with a demand that these perspectives on homosexuality be given equal time in schools.

Sexual orientation conversion therapy refers to counseling and psychotherapy to attempt to eliminate individuals' sexual desires for members of their own sex. Ex-gay ministry refers to the religious groups that use religion to attempt to eliminate those desires. Typically, sexual orientation conversion therapy is promoted by providers who have close ties to religious institutions and organizations. Some religion-based organizations such as Focus on the Family have invested significant resources in the promotion of sexual orientation conversion therapy and ex-gay ministries to educators and young people in conferences, in advertising and in the media.

This booklet provides information from physicians, counselors, social workers, psychologists, legal experts, and educators who are knowledgeable about the development of sexual orientation in youth and the issues raised by sexual orientation conversion therapy and ex-gay ministry. We hope that you and others who care about and work with youth will review the factual and scientific information provided here and weigh it carefully in responding to controversies about sexual orientation when they arise in your school.

* The coalition is aware that it is becoming common to include "transgender" when one refers to "lesbian, gay, and bisexual." However, the coalition decided that it was not accurate in this instance to make that addition, because the subject is the promotion of therapies and ministries to change sexual orientation (attraction to the other sex, to one's own sex or to both), not gender identity (psychological experience of being male or female). The coalition notes that the two populations of youths are not mutually exclusive. Some lesbian, gay and bisexual youth are transgender. Furthermore, those whose appearance and behavior are perceived as inconsistent with gender norms and roles are often targeted for sexual orientation discrimination and violence. By not including transgender in this booklet, the coalition in no way intends to minimize the real concerns for the safety and well-being of transgender adolescents in schools. We have tried to include resources relevant to transgender youth in the Resources section (pp. 17-19).

Sexual Orientation Development

Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction that one feels toward men, toward women or toward both. Although sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, it is generally discussed in terms of heterosexual - attraction to the other sex - homosexual -attraction to the same sex - and bisexual -attraction to both sexes. Sexual orientation has not been conclusively found to be determined by any particular factor or factors, and the timing of the emergence, recognition, and expression of one's sexual orientation varies among individuals.

Sexual orientation is not synonymous with sexual activity. Many adolescents as well as adults may identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual without having had any sexual experience with persons of the same sex. Other young people have had sexual experiences with a person of the same sex but do not consider themselves lesbian, gay, or bisexual. This is particularly relevant during adolescence because experimentation and discovery are normal and common during this developmental period.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents follow developmental pathways that are both similar to and different from those of heterosexual adolescents. All teenagers face certain developmental challenges, such as developing social skills, thinking about career choices and fitting into a peer group. Like most heterosexual youths, most lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths are healthy individuals who have significant attachments to and make contributions to their families, peers, schools, and religious institutions.

However, lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth must also cope with the prejudice, discrimination, and violence in society and, in some cases, in their own families, schools, and communities. Such marginalization negatively affects the health, mental health, and education of those lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people who experience it. For example, in one study, these students were more likely than heterosexual students to report missing school due to fear, being threatened by other students, and having their property damaged at school. ¹ The promotion in schools of efforts to change sexual orientation by therapy or through religious ministries seems likely to exacerbate the risk of harassment, harm, and fear for these youth.

One result of the isolation and lack of support experienced by some lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is higher rates of emotional distress, ² suicide attempts ³, and risky sexual behavior and substance use. ⁴ Because their legitimate fear of being harassed or hurt may reduce the willingness of lesbian, gay and bisexual youths to ask for help, it is important that their school environments be open and accepting so these young people will feel comfortable sharing their thoughts and concerns, including the option of disclosing their sexual orientation to others. Such disclosure is an expression of a normal tendency to want to share personal information about oneself with important others and should be respected as such. It is healthy for teenagers to share with friends and families their "latest crush" or how they spent their weekend. To be able to provide an accepting environment, school personnel need to understand the nature of sexual orientation development and be supportive of healthy development for all youth. If school environments become more positive for lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, it is likely that their differences in health, mental health, and substance abuse risks will decrease. ⁵

Efforts to Change Sexual Orientation Through Therapy

The terms reparative therapy and sexual orientation conversion therapy refer to counseling and psychotherapy aimed at eliminating or suppressing homosexuality. The most important fact about these "therapies" is that they are based on a view of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major mental health professions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, six published by the American Psychiatric Association, which defines the standards of the field, does not include homosexuality. All other major health professional organizations have supported the American Psychiatric Association in its declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. Thus, the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations.

Despite the general consensus of major medical, health, and mental health professions that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality, efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy have been adopted by some political and religious organizations and aggressively promoted to the public. However, such efforts have serious potential to harm young people because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, and they often frame the inability to change one's sexual orientation as a personal and moral failure. ⁷

Because of the aggressive promotion of efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy, a number of medical, health, and mental health professional organizations have issued public statements about the dangers of this approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists and the National Association of Social Workers together, representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be "cured."

The American Academy of Pediatrics advises youth that counseling may be helpful for you if you feel confused about your sexual identity. Avoid any treatments that claim to be able to change a person's sexual orientation, or treatment ideas that see homosexuality as a sickness. ⁸

The American Counseling Association adopted a resolution in 1998 stating that it opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs about same-gender sexual orientation.⁹ Further, in April 1999, the ACA Governing Council adopted a position opposing the promotion of "reparative therapy" as a "cure" for individuals who are homosexual. ¹⁰

In addition, ACA's Code of Ethics states:
Counselors use techniques/procedures/modalities that are grounded in theory and/or have an empirical or scientific foundation. Counselors who do not must define the techniques/procedures as "unproven" or "developing" and explain the potential risks and ethical considerations of using such techniques/procedures and take steps to protect clients from possible harm. ¹¹

The American Psychiatric Association, in its 2000 position statement on "reparative" therapy, states:
Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or "repair" homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.
The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.
Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation. ¹²

The American Psychological Association, in its 1997 Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, which is also endorsed by the National Association of School Psychologists, states:
That the American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation and mental health and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation. ¹³

The American School Counselor Association, in its position statement on professional school counselors and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning youth, states: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning (LGBTQ) youth often begin to experience self-identification during their pre-adolescent or adolescent years, as do heterosexual youth. These developmental processes are essential cognitive, emotional and social activities, and although they may have an impact on student development and achievement, they are not a sign of illness, mental disorder or emotional problems nor do they necessarily signify sexual activity. . . .
It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student's sexual orientation/gender identity but instead to provide support to LGBTQ students to promote student achievement and personal well-being. . . .
Recognizing that sexual orientation is not an illness and does not require treatment, professional school counselors may provide individual student planning or responsive services to LGBTQ students to promote self-acceptance, deal with social acceptance, understand issues related to "coming out," including issues that families may face when a student goes through this process, and identify appropriate community resources. ¹⁴

The National Association of Social Workers, in its policy statement on lesbian, gay and bisexual issues, states that it endorses policies in both the public and private sectors that ensure nondiscrimination; that are sensitive to the health and mental health needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual people; and that promote an understanding of lesbian, gay and bisexual cultures. Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. ¹⁵ Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. ¹⁶ NASW believes social workers have the responsibility to clients to explain the prevailing knowledge concerning sexual orientation and the lack of data reporting positive outcomes with reparative therapy. NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so. ¹⁷ NASW reaffirms its stance against reparative therapies and treatments designed to change sexual orientation or to refer practitioners or programs that claim to do so. ¹⁸

As these statements make clear, the nation's leading professional medical, health and mental health organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through therapy and have raised serious concerns about the potential harm from such efforts. Many of the professional associations listed in the Resources section (pp. 17-19) can provide helpful information and local contacts to assist school administrators, health, and mental health professionals, educators, teachers, and parents in dealing with school controversies in their communities.

Efforts to Change Sexual Orientation Through Religious Ministries

Ex-gay ministry and transformational ministry are terms used to describe efforts by some religious individuals and organizations to change sexual orientation through religious ministries. These individuals and organizations tend to have negative attitudes toward homosexuality that are based in their particular religious perspectives. In general, efforts to change sexual orientation through religious ministries take the approach that sexual orientation can be changed through repentance and faith. In addition, some individuals and groups who promote efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy are also associated with religious perspectives that take a negative attitude toward homosexuality.

Because ex-gay and transformational ministries usually characterize homosexuality as sinful or evil, promotion in schools of such ministries or of therapies associated with such ministries would likely exacerbate the risk of marginalization, harassment, harm, and fear experienced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. In addition, the religious content of ministries and related therapies also raise legal issues, which are addressed in the next section.

Relevant Legal Principles

Public school officials are the targets of those who want to include information about efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy and religious ministry in the schools. In order to respond, public school officials should be aware of general legal principles concerning the rights of their lesbian, gay and bisexual students. This awareness is important because of the risk that these "treatments" may cause harm to young people and of the potential legal liability for school districts and officials. A number of federal, state and local laws and school district policies protect lesbian, gay and bisexual students from discrimination, harassment, and similar harms.

Two important principles from the U.S. Constitution apply to every public school in the country. They are:

(a) The First Amendment, which includes the separation of church and state and the protection of freedom of speech.

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment, which includes the guarantee of equal treatment under the law for all people.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from promoting, endorsing or inhibiting religion or attempting to impose particular religious beliefs on students. ¹⁹ For this reason, a public school counselor or teacher cannot proselytize to students or attempt to impose his or her religious beliefs about whether or not homosexuality is sinful. ²⁰ Because of the religious nature of ex-gay or transformational ministry, endorsement, or promotion of such ministry by officials or employees of a public school district in a school-related context would likely arise constitutional questions. Thus, schools should be careful to avoid discussions of transformational ministry in their curriculum.

Apart from their obligation to avoid religious advocacy, public schools have considerable leeway in developing their curriculum. As long as the school's instructional activity does not inculcate a religious view about homosexuality, the choice of instructional materials about homosexuality does not infringe on freedom of religion. ²¹ Public schools may determine, as part of their instructional activity, not to disseminate information to students when that information is not well-founded or is inadequately researched, scientifically unsound, or biased in some way. ²² As the foregoing discussion of the concerns and policies of health and mental health professionals clearly illustrates, school officials should be deeply concerned about the validity and bias of materials or presentations that promote a change to a person's sexual orientation as a "cure" or suggest that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is a sickness or a mental illness. School officials routinely consider the views of professional experts in determining which educational and instructional materials to use in their schools, and in this case those views strongly advise against any curriculum that suggests that therapy to change sexual orientation has scientific validity or that homosexuality is a disorder that should be "cured."

It is also important to note that a school's legal obligations under the Establishment Clause may be different when it creates a forum for outside speakers to present to students, or when it invites students to speak about topics on their own. In those cases, depending on the individual context, school districts may not be able to forbid certain speakers who wish to express their viewpoints at such events. ²³

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, like all other students, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and statutory requirements of equal treatment under the law. The Supreme Court has made clear that under the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law, public officials may not impose discriminatory burdens or unequal treatment on lesbians and gays because of public animosity toward them. ²⁴ In the public school setting, this means, among other things, that a school district must protect students from anti-gay harassment just as it protects students from other kinds of harassment. ²⁵ In 2003, a California school district paid $1.1 million to six students who alleged their classmates repeatedly harassed them because of their sexual orientation and the school administration did not adequately address the harassment. ²⁶

Consistent with this mandate of equal treatment, schools should be careful to avoid curriculum choices that may single out and stigmatize lesbian, gay and bisexual students and foster a disapproving attitude toward them. The legal mandate of equality for gay and non-gay students alike is not limited to circumstances of harassment - it applies to all decisions a public school official might make that would treat lesbian, gay, and bisexual students differently based on their sexual orientation. School officials should follow the law by ensuring that the factor of real or perceived sexual orientation does not result in a decision that treats these students differently from other students. As an example, even outside the curricular setting, students have formed over 3,000 gay-straight alliances in schools. ²⁷ The federal Equal Access Act ²⁸ requires secondary schools to treat the gay-straight alliance the same as any other "non-curriculum-related" student club allowed to meet on campus. ²⁹

These general legal principles, supplemented by consultation with the school's legal counsel, should be helpful in the important and sometimes difficult decisions that educators must make in order to serve all students-including those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Endnotes

¹ Garofalo, R., Wolf, R. C., Kessel, S., Palfrey, J., & Du Rant, R. H. (1998). The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents. Pediatrics, 101, 895-902.

² Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R.W., Bauman, K. E.,Harris,K. S., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823-832.

³ Garofalo et al. (1998); Remafedi, G., Frendh, S., Story, M., Resnick, M. D., & Blum, R. (1998). The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 57-60.

⁴ Garofalo et al. (1998); Resnick et al. (1997).

⁵ Blake, S.M., Ledsky, R., Lehman, T., Goodenow, C., Sawyer, R., & Hack, T. (2001). Preventing sexual risk behaviors among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: The benefits of gay-sensitive HIV instruction in schools. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 940-946; Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573-589; Safren, S. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1999). Depression, hopelessness, suicidality, and related factors in sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology®, 67, 859-866.

⁶ American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, text revision (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.

⁷ Schroeder, M., & Shidlo, A. (2001). Ethical issues in sexual orientation conversion therapies: An empirical study of consumers. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5, 131-166; Shidlo, A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumer's report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice®, 33, 249-259.

⁸ American Academy of Pediatrics. (2001). Gay, lesbian and bisexual teens: Facts for teens and their parents [Pamphlet]. Elk Grove, IL: Author.

⁹ Resolution adopted by American Counseling Association Governing Council, March 1998.

¹⁰ Action by American Counseling Association Governing Council, April 1999.

¹¹ American Counseling Association. (2005). Code of ethics (pp. 11-12). Alexandria, VA: Author. See www.counseling.org/Resources/CodeOfEthics/TP/Home/CT2.aspx

¹² American Psychiatric Association. (1998). "Reparative" therapy [Position statement]. Washington, D.C.: Author.

¹³ DeLeon, P. H. (1998). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Inc., for the legislative year 1997,minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives August 14 and 17, 1997, Chicago, IL, and minutes of the June, August, and December 1997 meetings of the Board of Directors. American Psychologist®, 53, 882-939.

¹⁴ American School Counselor Association. (2007). Position statement: Gay, lesbian, transgendered, and questioning youth [Adopted 1995, revised 2000, 2005, 2007]. See www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=217

¹⁵ Haldeman, D.C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 62, 221-227.

¹⁶ Davison, G. C. (1991). Constructionism and morality in therapy for homosexuality. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D.Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Gonsiorek, J. C., & Weinrich, J. D. (Eds.). (1991). Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Haldeman (1994).

¹⁷ National Association of Social Workers. (1997). Policy statement: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues [approved by NASW Delegate Assembly, August 1996]. In Social work speaks: NASW policy (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.

¹⁸ National Association of Social Workers. (2006). Social work speaks: NASW policy statements 2006-2009 (7th ed., p. 248). Washington, D.C.: Author.

¹⁹ Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

²⁰ See Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 522 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that "[t]o permit [a public high school teacher] to discuss his religious beliefs with students during school time on school grounds would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment").

²¹ See Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, Ky., 419 F. Supp. 2d 937, 942-46 (E.D. Ky. 2006); Parker v. Hurley, No. 06-10751-MLW- F. Supp. 2d -, 2007WL 543017 (D. Mass. Feb. 23, 2007).

²² See Edwards v. California Univ. of Pa., 156 F.3d 488, 491 (3d Cir. 1998) (public schools generally have right to determine own curriculum); see also Downs v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 228 F.3d 1003, 1014-16 (9th Cir. 2000) (same).

²³ See Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

²⁴ Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, 324 F.3d 1130, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2003); Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996).

²⁵ See Flores v. Morgan Hill, 324 F.3d at 1037-38 (holding that school may be liable).

²⁶ Pogash, C. (2004, Jan. 7). California school district settles harassment suit by gay students. The New York Times, p. A19.

²⁷ See GLSEN'sWeb site at www.glsen.org/cgibin/iowa/student/student/index.html

²⁸ 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071-4074 (2007). The act mandates that whenever a public secondary school "grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time," then the school may not "deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings" (§ 4071[a], [b]).

²⁹ For example, Straights and Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schools - District No. 279, 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006); Boyd County High School Gay Straight Alliance v. Board of Education of Boyd County, Ky., 258 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Ky. 2003).

Resources

This booklet provides some basic information that will help you prepare for controversies that your school may experience in the future. You may, however, want to go beyond the information provided here. Many schools have begun to work to improve counseling, health, mental health, and psychological services, curricula, and climate so that the educational and health needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youths are better served. The following resources will be helpful if you or your staff undertake such efforts.

Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights
Customer Service Team
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202-1100
Office: 1-800-421-3481
Fax: 202-245-6840
TDD: 877-521-2172
Email

This office's mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation through vigorous enforcement of civil rights. They have an extensive list of publications at their website and offer other technical assistance through the contact information listed above.

Safe and Drug Free Schools Program Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
400 Maryland Avenue, SW,
Rm 3E300
Washington, DC 20202-6450
Office: 202-260-3954
Fax: 202-260-7767
Email

This office is charged with assisting the Department of Education in reaching the seventh national education goal-that schools will be free of drugs and violence and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment that is conducive to learning. It has several publications available through the contact information cited above,
including through the website

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Bureau of Primary Health Care
Division of Programs for Special
Populations
4350 East-West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
Office: 301-594-4100

In 1994, the HRSA Division of Programs for Special Populations convened a conference on the primary health care and prevention needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Out of that
conference evolved a health and mental health provider guide that educators and parents can also use:

Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (1998). Lesbian and gay youth: Care and counseling. New York: Columbia University Press.

Non-Governmental Organizations

American Psychiatric Association 1000 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1825
Arlington, VA 22209-3901
Phone: 703-907-7300
Fax: 703-907-1085

Mental Health America (MHA)
(formerly the National Mental Health Association)
2000 N. Beauregard Street, 6th Fl.
Alexandria, VA 22311
Office: 703-684-7722
Toll free: 800-969-6642
TTY: 800-433-5959
Fax: 703-684-5968

MHA Resources:

What Does Gay Mean? is an anti-bullying program designed to improve understanding and respect for youth who are gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender. Centered on an educational booklet called What Does Gay Mean? How to Talk With Kids About Sexual Orientation and Prejudice, the program encourages parents and others to communicate and share values of respect with their children.

Medical/Health Organizations

AAP Resources:

National Association of School Nurses, Inc.
8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 420
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Office: 240-821-1130
Toll free: 866-627-6767
Fax: 301-585-1791
Email

Education Organizations

National Association of Secondary School Principals
1904 Association Drive
Reston,VA 20191-1537
Office: 703-860-0200

NSBA Resource:

Faith Organizations

Other National Organizations Serving Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth

Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-3278
Office: 202-628-4160
Toll free: 1-800-727-4723
Fax: 202-347-5323
Email

Task Force Resource:

What Is the Just the Facts Coalition?

In November 1998, Focus on the Family sponsored a conference near Columbus, Ohio, with the goal of encouraging the promotion of "reparative therapy" programs in public schools. Staff from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) attended this event and were concerned about the false and misleading information that had been presented. In December 1998, Kate Frankfurt, GLSEN's director of advocacy, shared the content of this initiative and discussed the November conference with a number of national education, health, and mental health organizations at a meeting in Washington, DC. These organizations, recognizing the negative implications of this initiative and the potential threat it posed to the health and well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, began meeting regularly to develop a resource to aid school officials in sorting through the information and misinformation on sexual orientation development and on "reparative therapy."

The first edition of this publication was the result of the work of the groups who participated in those meetings during the spring and summer of 1999 and was published in November 1999.

In June 2006, in the wake of a renewed effort that targeted schools for "equal time" for "reparative therapy" and "ex-gay ministries," the Just the Facts Coalition, with several new members, decided to revise, update, and republish Just the Facts. The current edition is the result of their efforts. Among the groups that have participated in this work and have officially endorsed this publication are:

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Association of School Administrators

American Counseling Association

American Federation of Teachers

American Psychological Association

American School Counselor Association

American School Health Association

Interfaith Alliance

National Association of School Psychologists

National Association of Secondary School Principals

National Association of Social Workers

National Education Association

School Social Work Association of America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth: A primer for school personnel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The APA and the other 12 organizations that comprise the Just the Facts Coalition have just published a new edition of Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Child Development: A Cultural Approach - 3rd Edition

# data[].attributes.headline
Family Structure in Childhood Development

# data[].attributes.subject
Family Structure in Childhood Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jun 18.

Published in final edited form as: Soc Serv Rev. 2011 Sep 1;85(3):323-357. doi: 10.1086/661922

Abstract

This study uses data from the Child Development Supplement of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to examine family structure's associations with adolescent physical health, behavior, and emotional well-being. Findings suggest that adolescents in most other family types tend to have poorer outcomes than those in two-biological-parent families. Adolescents living with their biological father but not their mother have similar outcomes to those living with their single, biological mother. Although transitioning to a single-parent family is adversely associated with multiple outcomes, few associations are found for other types of transitions, and there are few differences in adolescent outcomes by parental marital status. Estimates from models utilizing adolescent- and caregiver-reported outcome measures, though similar with regard to behavior problems, differ considerably with regard to physical health and emotional well-being such that those using adolescent reports suggest a stronger relation between family structure and adolescent well-being than those using caregiver reports.

More than half of all U.S. children spend a portion of their childhood in a single-parent family and approximately one-third spend time living with a social parent ( Bumpass and Lu 2000; Manning and Smock 2000). Research suggests that children and adolescents who spend time in these nontraditional family types exhibit lower average levels of well-being during both childhood and adulthood than do those who spend their entire childhood living with both of their biological parents ( Amato 2005). Recent investigations examine whether well-being also differs by parental marital status for children living in two-parent families as well as by children's experience of family structure transitions. Findings suggest that children tend to fare better in married families than in cohabiting families ( Nelson, Clark, and Acs 2001; Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones 2002; Manning and Lamb 2003; Brown 2004) and that exposure to family structure transitions explains a considerable portion of the adverse child outcomes associated with residence in a single- or social-parent family ( Cavanagh and Huston 2006; Magnuson and Berger 2009).

Yet, several limitations are evident in the extensive literature linking family structure to child and adolescent well-being. First, although there are a multitude of studies on cognitive, educational, behavioral, and socioemotional well-being, relatively few focus on children's physical health (for exceptions, see Angel and Worobey 1988; Dawson 1991; O'Connor, et al. 2000; Harknett 2005; Bramlett and Blumberg 2007; Liu and Heiland 2007). Second, most studies utilize samples of children who reside with their biological mother; these samples allow for comparisons of children living with both biological parents, those living with their biological single mother, and those living with their biological mother and a social father, but such studies are unable to examine outcomes and characteristics of those living with their biological father but not their biological mother (for exceptions, see Brown 2004; Hofferth 2006; Manning and Brown 2006; Bramlett and Bloomberg 2007). For example, analyses of data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth are limited to such samples, although both data sets are widely used to study family structure's associations with child outcomes. Third, most studies of family structure's associations with child outcomes only examine outcomes reported by parents, teachers, or adolescents; the authors are aware of no studies that utilize both parent and adolescent reports on similar outcomes. It may be informative to compare outcome data from adolescents with those from their parents, because parents' perceptions of adolescent well-being may differ from adolescents' own perceptions.

This study uses data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), including the 1997 and 2002 Child Development Supplements (CDS), to examine family structure's associations with physical health, behavior, and emotional well-being among adolescents ages 12-19. Analyses first examine family structure and specifically the type of family in which an adolescent resides. Family structure is defined by whether the family includes a single parent or two parents and, among two-parent families, whether the adolescent is biologically related to each parent. These analyses consider family structure's associations with both caregiver and adolescent reports of the adolescent's concurrent physical health, behavior, and emotional well-being. The primary analyses then explore whether these associations differ by parental marital status as well as by whether the adolescent experienced a family structure transition over the (approximately) 5 years prior to the assessment.

Although the PSID data offer a large, nationally representative sample of American families and include a wide range of physical health, behavior, and emotional well-being measures, these data are underutilized in studies of associations between family structure and child well-being, most likely because the CDS was not introduced until 1997. This current study takes advantage of these rich data; extending Sandra Hofferth's (2006) analyses of associations between family structure and child well-being in the 1997 CDS, the study examines such associations when the children are approximately 5 years older. It also investigates the ways in which adolescent well-being is influenced by changes in family structure during the 5-year interval.

This study builds upon existing research in three additional ways. First, it adds three measures of physical health to the list of commonly studied behavioral and emotional outcomes. Second, the sample includes adolescents who live with their biological father but not with their biological mother. As the discussion notes, most studies focus only on children or adolescents living with their biological mother; yet, families that include children's biological fathers but not their biological mothers are increasingly common ( Brown 2000; Kreider 2008). Thus, there is a need for additional investigation into the well-being of adolescents in these families. Finally, this study analyzes both adolescent- and caregiver-reported measures of adolescent functioning. The authors caution that only one of the adolescent-reported measures (that for overall health) is identical to the caregiver-reported measure for that outcome. Because the other adolescent- and caregiver-reported measures are not identical, they are not directly comparable; nonetheless, these analyses may have implications for whether family structure's associations with adolescent well-being are likely to vary by reporter type.

Background

Conceptual Framework

Parents make direct and indirect investments in their children by providing material resources, engaging in caregiving activities, transferring knowledge, maintaining the home environment, and supplying other social and economic supports ( Hewlett 2000). Family structure's links to child and adolescent well-being are thought to operate through three primary mechanisms: the family's access to resources, the quality of parenting and the home environments to which children are exposed, and family stress and parental psychological well-being ( Amato 1993, 2005; Carlson and Corcoran 2001). On average, children who grow up in stable two-parent families benefit from greater economic resources, higher quality parenting, closer emotional ties to parents, and fewer stressful events than do children exposed to other family structures or to family structure transitions ( Amato 2005). Of course, social selection is also an important consideration in attempting to estimate family structure's associations with child and adolescent well-being. Each of these factors is discussed below.

Two-biological-parent families, particularly those in which the parents are married, tend to have greater access to economic resources than have all other family types ( Manning and Lichter 1996; Manning and Brown 2006). In addition to income and assets, these families also have greater resources in such areas as access to health care ( Simpson et al. 1997) and the ability to meet children's health-related needs ( Heck and Parker 2002). Access to economic resources is associated not only with parents' ability to purchase goods and services for their children but also with parents' psychological well-being as well as the quality of parenting and the home environments that parents provide ( McLoyd 1998; Votruba-Drzal 2003).

Differences in the quality of parenting and the home environment may be both indirectly and directly influenced by family structure. For example, the constraints on the time and effort that single mothers can invest in parenting are likely to be more stringent than those faced by two-parent families ( Carlson and Corcoran 2001). Social parents may have fewer incentives to invest in children than biological parents do and also may have less parental authority in children's care ( Cherlin 1978; Hofferth and Anderson 2003). Each of these factors suggests that the quality of parenting and home environments may be lower for children in single- and social-parent families than for those residing with both of their biological parents. Indeed, the empirical evidence suggests that children in single- and social-parent families receive lower quality parenting and fewer parental investments ( Case, Lin, and McLanahan 2000; Case and Paxson 2001; Sandberg and Hofferth 2001; Hofferth and Anderson 2003; Berger 2007).

The children and adults in single- and social-parent families are also likely to face greater levels of stress and parental conflict, as well as lower levels of parental psychological well-being, than those faced in two-biological-parent families. Among single-parent families, these factors may reflect limited access to resources and social support, greater demands on parental time, restricted parental authority, and experience of family structure instability ( Heck and Parker 2002; Amato 2005; Cooper et al. 2009; Osborne, Berger, and Magnuson, forthcoming). Furthermore, they are linked with lower levels of parental support, engagement, and warmth ( Thomson, Hanson, and McLanahan 1994; Cavanagh 2008), as well as with limited parental attention to children's health and emotional needs ( Heck and Parker 2002).

In addition, social selection is an important consideration in attempting to estimate family structure's associations with child outcomes ( Foster and Kalil 2007); that is, an individual's traits are likely to influence whether he or she will engage in stable, ongoing relationships. One's traits thereby affect the type (or types) of family structures his or her children experience as well as the children's subsequent development and well-being. This study adjusts for observable selection factors by controlling for sociodemographic characteristics that are associated with both family structure and child outcomes. Research suggests that adjusting for such factors considerably reduces, but does not fully explain, family structure's associations with child outcomes ( Ginther and Pollak 2004; Amato 2005; Aughinbaugh, Pierret, and Rothstein 2005).

Prior Research on Family Structure and Adolescent Outcomes

Differences in adolescent well-being by family structure are widely documented. On the whole, research suggests that adolescents experiencing single- and social-parent families fare worse on a wide range of developmental outcomes than their counterparts in two-biological-parent families ( Amato 2005; Wood, Goesling, and Avellar 2007). Recent analyses of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health find that single- and social-parent family structure is adversely associated with adolescent delinquency ( Manning and Lamb 2003; Brown 2006), depression ( Brown 2006; Cavanagh 2008), cognitive skills ( Manning and Lamb 2003), school engagement ( Brown 2006), school problems ( Manning and Lamb 2003), emotional adjustment ( Chase-Lansdale, Cherlin, and Kiernan 1995), grade point average ( Manning and Lamb 2003), and marijuana use ( Cavanagh 2008).

Although research examines most other domains of well-being, few studies of family structure focus on physical health, and the authors know of no study that specifically focuses on adolescent physical health. Results from a handful of studies suggest that, compared to young children living with both of their biological parents, young children living in other family types tend to fare worse on a range of health-related measures ( Dawson 1991; O'Connor et al. 2000; Bramlett and Blumberg 2007; Liu and Heiland 2007). Gaining specific knowledge about associations between family structure and adolescent health is important, because many of adolescents' key developmental milestones are assessed in terms of physical activity, physical abilities, and limitations that may substantially affect health-related quality of life ( Ness et al. 2008). It is also possible that family structure affects adolescent health differently than it affects the health of young children.

There are several reasons why an adolescent's time in a single- or social-parent family may be adversely associated with his or her physical health. First, economic resources are positively associated with physical health and, as noted above, it is well established that single- and social-parent families are less economically advantaged than two-biological-parent families. Furthermore, analyses by Anne Case, Darren Lubotsky, and Christina Paxson (2002) identify a distinct relationship between household income and child health; they find that this relationship becomes increasingly pronounced as children age. Second, adolescents in single- and social-parent families may also receive fewer health-related investments and potentially less parental supervision than their counterparts in two-biological-parent families. As such, they may have greater exposure to health-related risk factors; so too, they may be more susceptible to illness, accidents, and injury ( Angel and Worobey 1988; Case et al. 2000; Case and Paxson 2001). The current analyses add to the existing literature by estimating family structure's associations with concurrent levels of adolescent physical health (as reported by both parents and adolescents). The analyses also consider a wider range of family structures than was possible in many prior studies.

Marriage

In addition to analyzing differences by family structure (as defined by biological relationships), researchers focus on differences by marriage and cohabitation among two-parent families. Some evidence suggests that parental cohabitation is less advantageous to children than parental marriage. Cohabiting families typically have fewer economic resources ( Manning and Lichter 1996) and receive less social support ( Eggebeen 2005) than married ones, perhaps because cohabiting partnerships are considerably less stable than marriages ( Manning, Smock, and Majumdar 2004; Osborne and McLanahan 2007). So too, cohabiting parents, and particularly cohabiting social parents ( Hofferth and Anderson 2003; Hofferth et al. 2007), face greater role ambiguity within the family than married parents do ( Brown 2006). Consistent with these expectations, empirical evidence generally suggests that children and adolescents fare better in married two-biological-parent families than they do in cohabiting-parent families. However, findings are less conclusive concerning social-parent families and tend to differ across outcome measures ( Thomson et al. 1994; Manning and Lamb 2003; Brown 2004, 2006; Hofferth 2006; Artis 2007). Studies that focus solely on adolescents generate mixed findings ( Manning and Lamb 2003; Brown 2004, 2006). The current analyses add to the empirical research in this area by also estimating models that test whether children's physical health, behavior, and emotional well-being differ by parental marital status among children living in (biological and social) two-parent families.

Family Structure Transitions

Single- and social-parent families may result from processes of parental break-up and repartnering that occur over time. These processes are likely to engender considerable reorganization of family roles, relationships, and functioning ( Hetherington 1992; Hetherington 1999). Such reorganization may cause stress for both children and parents ( Cavanagh and Huston 2006; Fomby and Cherlin 2007). It also may diminish the quality of parenting that children and adolescents receive ( McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Cavanagh 2008) as well as the resources available for their care ( McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Hanson, McLanahan, and Thomson 1998). As such, family structure transitions may adversely influence child and adolescent well-being ( Hanson et al. 1998; DeLeire and Kalil 2002; Cavanagh 2008). Further, the adverse effects of family structure transitions may be cumulative in nature, such that adverse outcomes may compound with the transitions a child or adolescent experiences over time ( Cavanagh and Huston 2006; Fomby and Cherlin 2007; Osborne and McLanahan 2007).

Recent research on family structure transitions and adolescent well-being suggests that adolescents who experience transitions exhibit a range of poorer cognitive, behavioral, and socioemotional outcomes than adolescents who consistently reside in stable two-biological-parent families ( Manning and Lamb 2003; Brown 2006; Cavanagh 2008). The authors are aware of no studies that directly assess the influence of family structure transitions on adolescent physical health, but studies of both young children and children of all ages find adverse associations ( Mauldon 1990; Dawson 1991; Harknett 2005; Liu and Heiland 2007).

Adolescent and Caregiver Reports of Adolescent Health and Well-Being

One advantage of this study is that it is able to estimate family structure's associations with adolescent health and well-being by using outcome measures reported by primary caregivers and those reported by adolescents themselves. This is particularly salient for understanding adolescents' overall physical health, as the adolescent-reported item is identical to the item reported by the primary caregiver. There is considerable debate as to whether youth's self-reports or parental proxy reports are the more valid means by which to assess child health. In the measurement of relatively objective aspects of children's health, such as diagnoses, hospital stays, and physical activity, parent reports are found to achieve adequate validity ( Canino et al. 2002; Bussing et al. 2003). This is also true of parental recall concerning their children's medical conditions ( Daly, Lindgren, and Giebink 1994; Pless and Pless 1995). However, parent reports of adolescent health and well-being, more generally, often differ considerably from adolescents' own reports; these differences call into question the validity of parental proxy reports ( Eiser and Morse 2001; Chang and Yeh 2005).

A potential explanation for such differences is that parents have incomplete knowledge of how an adolescent feels, both emotionally and physically, unless the adolescent chooses to communicate this information directly. Likewise, parents may be unable to observe the full range of behaviors in which adolescents engage. Consistent with this proposition, research suggests that parent reports of relatively subjective or internally oriented aspects of adolescent health and well-being, such as anxiety, somatic symptoms, and behavior problems, diverge considerably from adolescent reports on the same aspects ( Edelbrock et al. 1986; Achenbach et al. 1987; Tamin, McCusker, and Dendukuri 2002). As such, there is ambiguity about the extent to which parent reports accurately reflect adolescent health and well-being across various domains of assessment. It may therefore be important to assess adolescent well-being via a combination of reporters, particularly if differences between parent and adolescent reports vary systematically by family structure.

Although relatively little research compares parent reports on the health and well-being of their adolescents with reports by those adolescents (for exceptions, see Theunissen et al. 1998; Ravens-Sieberer 1999; Sawyer et al. 1999; Jokovic, Locker, and Guyatt 2004), results from a handful of studies suggest that the level of agreement differs by domain of functioning ( Sweeting and West 1998; Jokovic et al. 2004) as well as by adolescent, parent, and family characteristics ( Goodman, Hinden, and Khandelwal 2000). Thus, it is unclear whether parental reports are valid indicators through which to assess the true effect of life events or circumstances, including family structure experiences, on adolescent functioning ( Sawyer et al. 1999). In particular, it is unclear whether parents' reports can be used to measure internally oriented or subjective aspects of their adolescent's health and well-being. Furthermore, the authors are aware of no studies that examine whether parent and adolescent reports differ by family structure. Yet, the potential for such differences has important implications for the interpretation of family structure's associations with adolescent health and well-being. Although most family structure research utilizes parent reports, self-reported data may be crucial for monitoring adolescents' own perceptions of their subjective experiences over time, as such perceptions are linked to future health trajectories and to the development of illness ( Riley 2004). By comparing findings from parent and adolescent reports on multiple domains of adolescent functioning, the current study may provide some (albeit limited) insight into whether such associations differ by reporter and, if so, how.

Method

Data

Data for the current analyses come from the PSID, a longitudinal study that began with a nationally representative sample of 4,800 U.S. families in 1968. Since its inception, the PSID has collected a wide range of data in such areas as employment, income, wealth, housing and food expenditures, family composition, marriage, fertility, and program participation. In 1997 and 2002, the PSID expanded its core survey to include the CDS. Through the CDS, additional data were collected on parenting, family functioning, and time use. It also collected data on the physical health, emotional well-being, and academic achievement of adolescents, as well as on their social relationships with family and peers. Interviews were conducted with children's primary and secondary caregivers, and their teachers. Children age 8 and older were also interviewed directly. The original CDS sample from 1997 includes 3,563 children between the ages of 0 and 12; the 2002 CDS sample includes 2,907 of the original CDS sample members, who were ages 5-19 in 2002. When weighted, the 2002 CDS sample is nationally representative of children and their families in the United States; the current study applies the sampling weights to all of the analyses ( Institute for Social Research 2010).

This study's analytic sample consists of children who were included in both the 1997 and 2002 waves of the CDS, were age 12 or older at the time of their 2002 CDS interview, and lived in the same household with at least one of their biological parents. Data come from interviews with the primary caregivers (PCGs) and the adolescents themselves. The adolescent's biological mother is identified as the PCG in 92 percent of the cases. The PCG in the remaining 8 percent of cases is identified as someone other than the biological mother; in most of those cases, the PCG is the adolescent's biological father or the married or cohabiting partner of the biological father.

Because the sample is limited to adolescents age 12 and older, the analyses are able to consider a wide range of self-reported adolescent outcomes that were not assessed among children younger than age 12. This allows an examination of potential differences between results from adolescents' own reports and those from their PCGs.

Multiple imputation techniques are employed to impute values for all variables with missing data for the full 2002 CDS sample ( N = 2,907). Specifically, Stata's ICE (Imputation by Chained Equations) program is used to impute 10 complete data sets. From the fully imputed sample of 2,907 are excluded 1,449 children (50 percent) who were under age 12. Also excluded are an additional 697 cases (5 percent) across the 10 imputed data sets (the number of exclusions ranges from 67 to 73 cases per data set). In these cases, the adolescent did not live with either biological parent. The resulting sample includes 13,883 observations across the 10 imputed data sets (the number of observations ranges from 1,385 to 1,391 per data set). Following the strategy outlined by Paul von Hippel (2007), regressions in this study are estimated using only those cases for which no data are missing on the relevant outcome. As such, sample sizes for the empirical models range from 1,137 to 1,391. This variation reflects missing item-level data (ranging from 0 to 18 percent) for the outcome variables.

Measures

Physical health

The analyses utilize one PCG- and two adolescent-reported measures of adolescent physical health. Both the PCG and adolescent are asked to indicate whether the adolescent's overall health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor. Responses are dichotomized to indicate whether the adolescent is reported to have good, fair, or poor health (1 = yes); that is, the adolescent is considered to be in low overall health if he or she is reported to have good, fair, or poor health. Such dichotomization is common in the health literature on populations (such as children and adolescents) characterized by relatively little variation in health status. The measure of physical health symptoms asks adolescents to report how often they experienced each of seven physical problems in the month prior to the interview: feeling sick, tired, and dizzy, and having chest pain, a headache, muscle or joint pain, and a stomach ache. Each item is scored on a six-point scale; possible responses range from "never" (coded as 1) to "every day" (coded as 6). A composite measure ( α = .65) represents the mean score across the seven items.

Behavior problems

One PCG- and one adolescent-reported measure are used to examine adolescent behavior problems. Adolescent behavior problems reported by PCGs are assessed by the externalizing behavior problems subscale of the Behavioral Problems Index (BPI; Peterson and Zill 1986). For this measure, PCGs report whether adolescents engage in a series of 17 aggressive behaviors often, sometimes, or never. Responses are dichotomized to indicate whether the adolescent ever engaged in the behavior (1 = yes) and summed to create a total score that ranges from 0 to 17 ( α = .86). Adolescent-reported behavior problems are assessed by a composite measure that captures youth reports concerning 10 antisocial behaviors: staying out past curfew, physically hurting someone, lying to parents about something important, shoplifting, purposely damaging school property, having parents summoned to school because of inappropriate behavior, skipping school without permission, staying out at night without permission, being stopped and questioned by the police, and being arrested. The composite measure ( α = .74) is created by summing the number of activities (0-10) in which an adolescent reported engaging one or more times during the 6 months prior to the interview.

Emotional well-being

This study examines adolescent emotional well-being with one measure reported by PCGs and another reported by the adolescents. The PCG-reported measure consists of the internalizing behavior problems subscale of the BPI ( Peterson and Zill 1986) and asks PCGs to report on adolescent engagement in 14 withdrawn, anxious, or depressive behaviors. Responses are dichotomized to indicate the presence (1 = yes) or absence of each behavior, and the number of reported behaviors is summed to create a total score that ranges from 0 to 14 points ( α = .83). This measure technically captures behavior problems, but because it is focused on withdrawn, anxious, and depressive behaviors, this study conceptualizes it as an indicator of adolescent emotional well-being. The adolescent-reported measure of emotional well-being is assessed by the Global Self-Concept subscale ( Marsh 1990), which is comprised of six items. These items examine whether the adolescent believes that he or she has a lot to be proud of, is able to do things as well as most people, has a lot of good characteristics, is as good as most people, is perceived as a good person by others, and generally does things well ( α = .82). Responses to items are scored on a five-point scale and reverse coded, such that higher scores represent a lower self-concept. Scores are used to create a composite measure (1-5 points) that consists of the mean of the six items. To ease the interpretation of the results, the analyses standardize all continuous outcome variables to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.

Family structure

The primary analyses code family structure in four distinct categories. These categories indicate whether, at the time of the 2002 CDS assessment, the adolescent is reported by the primary caregiver to live in a two-biological-parent family, a biological-mother and social-father family, a biological-single-mother family, or a biological-father family that does not include the youth's biological mother. Ideally, the last group would be further divided to indicate whether the family includes a single father or whether a social-mother is present. Due to small sample sizes for these family types (single-father families comprise 2.1 percent of the sample; biological-father and social-mother families comprise 1.4 percent), however, the two are combined into a single category.

Extensions to the primary analyses consider parental marital status within these family types as well as family structure transitions between the 1997 and 2002 CDS assessments. These analyses model three types of stable family structures between the 1997 and 2002 assessments: two-biological-parent families, social-parent families (consisting of either a biological mother and a social father or a biological father and a social mother), and single-parent families (consisting of either a single mother or a single father). They also model four types of transitions: (1) the adolescent is observed in a single-parent family in 2002 but in a two-biological-parent family in 1997; (2) the youth is reported to live in a single-parent family in 2002 but in a social-parent family in 1997; (3) he or she is observed in a two-biological-parent family in 2002 but in some other family type in 1997; and (4) the adolescent is reported to live in a social-parent family in 2002 but in some other family type in 1997.

Covariates

The study adjusts for two types of covariates. The first type is comprised of antecedent characteristics. These consist of (exogenous) selection factors that may be correlated with both family type and adolescent outcomes. They include a series of dichotomous indicators of whether the adolescent is black or Hispanic (white or other race or ethnicity serves as the reference category) and male, as well as whether the adolescent's birth weight was low and the PCG has less or more than a high school education (those with a high school education serve as the reference category). The antecedent characteristics also include continuous measures of adolescent age and PCG age.

The second type of covariate is comprised of potentially endogenous intervening factors. These covariates include the logarithm of mean family income during the adolescent's lifetime (i.e., from the year of his or her birth through 2001), presented in 2002 dollars; the logarithm of the PCG's average weekly work hours in 2001; the number of children in the household; the proportion of the adolescent's life spent in the same household as his or her biological father; the proportion of the adolescent's life spent in the same household as his or her biological mother; the number of family structure transitions the adolescent experienced between the 1997 and 2002 CDS interviews; an indicator for low PCG health in 2002 (reports of good, fair, or poor health are considered to indicate low overall health); and a continuous measure of PCG psychological distress. Psychological distress among PCGs is measured by the K6 scale of Nonspecific Psychological Distress ( Kessler et al. 2003), which is comprised of six items assessing how often the PCG reportedly felt nervous, hopeless, restless, that everything was an effort, so sad that nothing could cheer him or her up, and worthless during the 30 days prior to the interview. Responses are scored on a five-point scale and range from "none of the time" (coded as 0) to "all of the time" (coded as 4). Scores are summed across the six items to create a composite measure ( α = .82); scores range from 0 to 24, and higher scores indicating greater psychological distress. This measure is standardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.

Analytic Strategy

The primary analyses consist of a series of three regression models that estimate family structure's associations with PCG and adolescent reports of adolescent physical health, behavior, and emotional well-being. Probit regressions are employed to estimate these associations for the dichotomous measures of low overall health, and ordinary least squares regressions are used to estimate these associations for all of the other outcomes. For each outcome, this study estimates three models. Model 1 includes only the family structure indicators as predictors. In model 2, the antecedent characteristics are added. Model 3 includes the family structure predictors, antecedent characteristics, and intervening factors. This strategy allows the authors to assess the influences of an increasingly detailed set of selection factors and potential mediators on the family structure coefficients.

Estimates also consider two extensions to the primary analyses. The first of these reestimates model 3, which includes the full set of covariates. The reestimate uses family structure categories that are further defined by marital status both for two-biological-parent families and for biological-mother and social-father families. These analyses enable an explicit assessment of whether two-parent family structure's associations with each outcome differ by parental marital status. The second of these extensions estimates models that separately examine family structure's associations with the measured outcomes for children who transitioned into particular family structures during the (approximately) 5 years prior to the assessment and those who were in the same family structure at the 1997 and 2002 interviews.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics reported for the family structure categories. Approximately 66 percent of the families in the sample include both of the adolescent's biological parents; just over 62 percent include both of the adolescent's married biological parents, and slightly more than 3 percent of the families include his or her cohabiting biological parents. Biological-mother and social-father families account for about 8 percent of the sample (7 percent are married, and 1 percent are cohabiting). Single-mother families represent approximately 23 percent of the sample, and about 4 percent of sampled families are said to include the adolescent's biological father but not his or her biological mother.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Family Structure.

Family structure in 2002:

Two-biological-parent family

65.65

Mother and social-father family

7.98

Single-mother family

22.85

Father but not mother present

3.51

Father and social-mother family

1.39

Single-father family

2.12

Family structure stability and transitions between 1997 and 2002:

Stable family structure between 1997 and 2002

82.89

Two-biological-parent family in both 1997 and 2002

62.90

Social-parent family in both 1997 and 2002

3.96

Single-parent family in both 1997 and 2002

16.21

Family structure transition between 1997 and 2002

16.91

To single-parent family between 1997 and 2002

8.76

Two-biological-parent family in 1997, single-parent family in 2002

6.21

Social-parent family in 1997, single-parent family in 2002

1.99

Adoptive parent or no parent family in 1997, single-parent family in 2002

.56

To two-biological parent family between 1997 and 2002

2.74

Single-parent family in 1997, two-biological-parent family in 2002

2.09

Social-parent family in 1997, two-biological-parent family in 2002

.54

Adoptive parent or no parent family in 1997, two-biological-parent family in 2002

.11

To social-parent family between 1997 and 2002

5.41

Single-parent family in 1997, social-parent family in 2002

3.92

Two-biological-parent family in 1997, social-parent family in 2002

1.46

Adoptive parent or no parent family in 1997, social-parent family in 2002

.03

The bottom panel of the table 1 focuses on family structure stability and change between the 1997 and 2002 waves of the CDS. The vast majority of adolescents (83 percent) are observed in the same family structure at both time points, and this consistency is particularly prevalent among those who lived with both of their biological parents. However, some family transition is reported across the two time points for approximately 17 percent of sampled adolescents; between the 1997 and 2002 interviews, about 9 percent transitioned into a single-parent family, 3 percent transitioned into a two-biological-parent family, and 5 percent transitioned into a social-parent family.

Table 2 presents mean statistics for the PCG- and adolescent-reported outcome variables by family structure in 2002. As the raw data suggest, PCGs across all family types are considerably less likely to report that adolescents have low overall health than are the adolescents themselves. So too, scrutiny of patterns by family type reveals additional differences between reports by PCGs and those by adolescents. Specifically, the results from the PCG-reported measure suggest that low overall health is more likely among adolescents in single-mother families than among those in two-biological-parent families or among those in families that include a biological father but not a biological mother. By contrast, adolescents in two-biological-parent families are estimated to be in better overall health than are those in all other family types; those adolescents are statistically significantly less likely to report low overall health than are their counterparts in the other family types. In addition, adolescents in both single-mother families and families with the biological father but not biological mother present report experiencing the measured physical health symptoms much more frequently than do those in two-biological-parent families.

The analysis of behavior problems identifies similar differences. Estimates from PCG reports suggest that adolescents in all other family types exhibit more externalizing behavior problems than do youth in two-biological-parent families. So too, the estimates indicate that adolescents in single-mother families and those in families with both a biological-mother and a social-father report more antisocial behaviors than do youth in two-biological-parent families. Finally, analysis of data from the emotional well-being measures suggests that the number of PCG-reported internalizing behavior problems is higher among adolescents in all other family types than among those in two-biological-parent families; the estimates also suggest that adolescent-reported self-concept is lower among youth in single-mother families and in families with the biological father but not biological mother present than among those in two-biological-parent families. In short, the raw data suggest that adolescents in other family types fare worse than those in two-biological-parent families on most outcomes, although these differences are not always statistically significant and there are a few exceptions.

As described above, the various family types are also likely to differ systematically in terms of their antecedent characteristics (selection factors) as well as a range of intervening factors. Indeed, descriptive statistics (see Appendix table A1) suggest that black youth are more likely to live in other family types than in families with both of their biological parents. Youth in the other family types are estimated to experience lower levels of family income and to be in the care of PCGs who work a greater numbers of hours. The estimates also identify differences across family types in terms of PCG age, education, health, and psychological distress, as well as in the number of children in the household. Finally, the family types are estimated to differ in the average proportion of the adolescent's life spent with each parent and in the number of family structure transitions experienced. The models for which results are presented below estimate a series of regressions that take such differences into account.

Regression Results

Primary models

Table 3 presents the primary regression results for this study. Model 1 regresses the measured outcomes on the full set of family structure indicators but does not include any control variables. Model 2 adds the antecedent characteristics to these analyses, and model 3 includes the antecedent characteristics as well as the intervening factors. The reference category in all models is the two-biological-parent family.

Consistent with estimates from the raw data, results from model 1 generally suggest that, across the full range of PCG- and adolescent-reported outcomes, adolescents in all other family types tend to fair worse than those in two-biological-parent families, although a few of these estimates, most typically those for the mother and social-father family type, produce results that are statistically nonsignificant or only marginally significant. Results from model 2 are highly consistent with those from model 1 across the full range of outcomes. This consistency suggests that the antecedent characteristics explain few of the differences in health, behavior, and emotional well-being among adolescents in the various family types. The inclusion of intervening factors in model 3 has a limited influence on the family structure estimates for the health outcomes. The extent of that influence differs somewhat in results for the PCG- and adolescent-reported measures; however, their inclusion exerts a considerable influence on the family type estimates for behavior problems (externalizing problems and antisocial behaviors) and emotional well-being (internalizing problems and low self-concept); that influence operates relatively consistently regardless of whether the PCG or the adolescent reports the outcome.

The estimates for PCG-reported low overall health suggest that the coefficients for biological-mother and social-father families and those for single-mother families are attenuated considerably and reduced to statistical nonsignificance if the intervening factors are added, but their influence increases the magnitude of the coefficient for low overall health among adolescents in families that include a biological father but no mother, and that coefficient becomes significant. These results suggest that, if intervening factors are considered, PCGs are 9 percentage points less likely to report low overall health among youth in this family type than among those in a two-biological-parent family. The results for the adolescent-reported version of this outcome are strikingly different; adding the intervening factors increases the size of the coefficient for each of the family types, and each coefficient is estimated to be statistically significant. Results from this full model (model 3) suggest that the likelihood of reporting low overall health is 33 percentage points higher among adolescents in biological mother and social-father families, 21 points higher among youth in single-mother families, and 30 points higher among those in families with the biological father but not the biological mother present, than among adolescents in two-biological-parent families. Moreover, estimates for the measure of physical health symptoms indicate that these symptoms occur .30 standard deviation units more frequently among adolescents in single-mother families and .57 standard deviation units more frequently among those in families with the biological father but not biological mother than among youth in two-biological-parent families.

Model 3's estimates for behavior problems reveal that most differences by family type are explained by intervening factors. This is true of estimates for both the PCG- and adolescent-reported measure. Indeed, the behavior problems coefficients (externalizing and antisocial behaviors) for each of the family types in model 2 are quite large (ranging from .26 to .52 SDs) and statistically significant. In model 3, however, each of these coefficients is reduced to statistical nonsignificance. The exception is the estimate for PCG-reported externalizing behavior problems among youth in biological mother and social-father families. Externalizing behavior problems are .38 standard deviation units higher among adolescents in this family type than among those in two-biological-parent families.

Finally, estimates for the measure of emotional well-being suggest that the inclusion of the intervening factors fully explains associations between family type and the PCG reported internalizing behavior problems measure, but the inclusion of the factors does little to explain these associations for the adolescent-reported measure of low self-concept. As in model 2, the model 3 estimates suggest that self-concept is .51 standard deviation units lower among adolescents in single-mother families and .67 standard deviation units lower among adolescents in families with the biological father but not biological mother present (than among youth in two-parent-biological families.

Extension 1: marriage

The top panel of table 4 presents results from analyses that estimate the full model (model 3) and define family structure to include parental marital status. The results suggest that most of the outcomes do not differ to a statistically significant degree by marital status, but there is one exception; the measure of PCG-reported internalizing behavior problems is .36 standard deviation units higher among adolescents living with their cohabiting biological parents than among those living with their married biological parents. Caution is warranted, however, because small cell sizes likely limit the precision of the estimates for this set of analyses (cohabiting-biological-parent families make up only 3.4 percent of the sample; cohabiting biological-mother and social-father families only represent 1.2 percent). Also, the magnitude of the coefficients for the married and cohabiting groups differs for several outcomes, and some of those differences are considerable. As such, the authors read these results as inconclusive.

Extension 2: stability and transitions

The bottom panel of table 4 presents results from an examination of family structure stability (the youth's family type remains the same in both waves) and transitions (the youth's family type differs at the two waves). The estimates suggest that, on all but one measure, adolescents in a stable social-parent family at both the 1997 and 2002 waves fare relatively similarly to adolescents in a stable two-biological-parent family during that time period; the exception is the result for the measure of adolescent-reported self-concept among youth in a stable social-parent family structure. Self-concept is estimated to be .61 SDs lower among these youth than among their counterparts in the reference group. Results from the PCG-reported measure of overall health suggest that adolescents in a stable single-parent family are 10 percentage points less likely than those in the reference group to be in low overall health, but results from the adolescent-reported measure indicate that youth in stable single-parent families are 28 percentage points more likely to be in low overall health. Youth in those families also are estimated to have more frequent self-reported physical health symptoms (SD = .52) than their counterparts in stable two-biological-parent families. With regard to the other outcomes, adolescents in stable single-mother families are estimated to have more PCG-reported externalizing behavior problems (SD = .52) than youth in the reference group, but they do not differ from those in the reference group on any other measure.

The results for the family structure transitions identify consistent evidence of adverse outcomes for adolescents transitioning from a two-biological-parent family to a single-parent family. This is the case on all measures except those for PCG-reported low overall health and adolescent-reported antisocial behaviors. There is little consistent evidence concerning other types of transitions. For example, transitioning to a social-parent family is estimated to be positively associated with adolescent-reported low overall health and with PCG-reported externalizing behavior problems. Transitioning from a social-parent family to a single-parent family and transitioning into a two-biological-parent family are estimated to be negatively associated with PCG reports that an adolescent is in low overall health. However, the estimates identify no other statistically significant associations of family structure transitions with the outcomes.

One concern about these analyses is that small cell sizes for many of the transition categories may not provide the statistical power needed to detect effects. Therefore, an alternative set of models was estimated in which family structure transitions were defined simply by whether a parent (biological or social) entered or exited the household. These alternative estimates (results not shown) suggest that gaining a parent is positively associated with levels of adolescent-reported low overall health as well as with PCG-reported internalizing and externalizing behavior problems; losing a parent is positively associated with adolescent-reported low overall health, physical health symptoms, and low self-concept, as well as with PCG-reported internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Thus, the alternative models' results for losing a parent mirror perfectly those for the transition to a single-parent family, and the alternative estimates for gaining a parent largely mirror those for the transition into a social-parent family (the exception to this trend is the finding that, in the alternative estimates, the transition to a social-parent family is not statistically significantly associated with internalizing behavior problems).

Discussion

This study's analyses take advantage of the rich PSID-CDS data, which have been underutilized in the study of family structure's associations with adolescent outcomes. Prior work repeatedly finds that single-mother as well as biological-mother and social-father family types are associated with adverse outcomes for youth. Such findings also show that these associations can be substantially, but not fully, explained by antecedent characteristics and intervening factors ( Amato 2005); the current study's findings are consistent with previous research in this regard. On the whole, this study finds that adolescents in most other family types have poorer outcomes than those living with both of their biological parents. Notably, however, the results suggest that there is considerable variation in the size and statistical significance of these associations by particular family type and by reporter (adolescents or PCGs).

Extensions to the primary analyses focus on marriage and family structure transitions. Few studies consider the ways in which parental marital status influences the well-being of both adolescents living in two-biological-parent families and of those living with a social parent; the findings of those studies are inconsistent ( Manning and Lamb 2003; Brown 2004, 2006). The current study's results provide little evidence that adolescent well-being differs by parental marital status for either biological- or social-parent families. The authors caution, however, that these results are best interpreted as inconclusive, because the sample is small and there are substantial differences in the magnitude of the coefficients for married and cohabiting families. The results for family structure transitions are generally consistent with prior work ( Manning and Lamb 2003; Brown 2006; Cavanagh 2008); transitioning from a two-biological-parent family to a single-parent family is found to be associated with adverse outcomes in most domains. However, there is little evidence of adverse associations for other types of transitions.

An important contribution of this work is that it estimates associations between family structure and adolescent physical health, which has received considerably less attention than the behavioral and emotional outcomes. The authors know of no study that focuses specifically on adolescent physical health, and only a handful of studies focus generally on child physical health. The current study's findings are consistent with those for children ( Dawson 1991; O'Connor et al. 2000; Bramlett and Blumberg 2007; Liu and Heiland 2007). This analysis of adolescent-reported measures of physical health finds that the health outcomes of adolescents residing with both of their biological parents are better than those for adolescents in all other family types (differences between adolescent and PCG reports are discussed below).

Specifically, adolescents in biological-mother and social-father families, single-mother families, and families that include the biological father but not the biological mother are found to be more likely to report low overall health than are those in two-biological-parent families, even after the model adjusts for the full set of antecedent and intervening factors. So too, the number of reported physical health problems is found to be greater among adolescents in single-parent families and those that include the biological father but not the mother than among youth in two-biological-parent families. Additionally, both transitioning from a two-biological-parent family to a single-parent family and transitioning into a social-parent family are found to be associated with a decline in overall health, and the former transition is also associated with an increase in the measured physical health symptoms. These findings may reflect that adolescents experiencing such family structures or transitions receive fewer health-related investments, are monitored and supervised less by parents, or experience greater exposure to health-related risk factors relative to adolescents who consistently live with their biological parents ( Angel and Worobey 1988; Case et al. 2000; Case and Paxson 2001). Each of these possibilities may leave youth more susceptible to illness, accidents, and injury than their counterparts in two-biological-parent families. Testing these mechanisms, however, is beyond the scope of this study and should be the subject of future research.

A second advantage of this study is that the sample includes adolescents living with their biological father but not their biological mother. Few studies examine this increasingly common living arrangement. Results from models that adjust only for antecedent characteristics suggest that this family type is adversely associated with all of the outcomes except PCG-reported low overall health. Indeed, the adverse associations for adolescents living in this family type are quite similar to those for children living with their single mother; however, families of this type are likely to represent a select group. The findings of statistically significant associations with adolescent-reported low overall health, physical health symptoms, and low self-concept, even in models that adjust for the intervening factors, suggests that at least some of these adverse associations cannot be fully explained by such factors as income and prior family instability. Similar findings emerge from the few existing studies that include children living with their biological father but not biological mother. Susan Brown (2004) and Hofferth (2006) find that such children have more behavioral and emotional problems than those living with both of their biological parents; Matthew Bramlett and Stephen Blumberg (2007) find poorer physical and mental health among children in families that include the biological father but not the mother (only Brown [2004] provides estimates specific to adolescents). Additional research in this area is also warranted because very little is known about father-only families and how that family type influences child development.

A third contribution of this study is that it provides estimates for both PCG- and adolescent-reported outcomes in multiple domains of well-being. The results for overall physical health, the only measure assessed identically across reporters, provide consistent evidence that associations between family structure and adolescent well-being are sensitive to whether the report comes from the adolescent or the PCG. For example, results from the model adjusted for the full set of antecedent characteristics and intervening factors suggest that PCG-reported overall health is not adversely associated with any of the family types. Conversely, families with the father but not the mother present are found to be positively associated with overall health. Yet, results from the model using the adolescent-reported measure suggest that overall health is poorer among youth in all other family types than among those in two-biological-parent families. This finding is reinforced by the results for the adolescent-reported measure of physical health symptoms. With regard to the other domains of well-being, the findings suggest that results for the PCG-reported measure of externalizing behavior problems are relatively consistent with those for the adolescent-reported measure of antisocial behaviors, but results for the PCG-reported measure of internalizing behavior problems are less consistent with those for adolescent-reported low self-concept. This study finds that adolescents in other family types are considerably more likely to report low self-concept than are those in two-biological-parent families, whereas PCG-reported internalizing behavior problems do not differ by family type.

That results based on adolescent and PCG reports diverge with regard to physical health and emotional well-being implies that caregiver perceptions in these domains differ from those of adolescents. A potential explanation may be that caregivers lack the information needed to accurately make such assessments in these areas. It is possible that PCG and adolescent reports differ more in these domains than in externalizing or antisocial behavior problems because measures of physical health and emotional well-being are more subjective in nature and, potentially, more difficult for PCGs to observe. Prior research documents that parent and adolescent reports of adolescent well-being often differ for such outcomes ( Edelbrock et al. 1986; Achenbach et al. 1987; Sawyer et al. 1999; Chang and Yeh 2005). Nonetheless, PCG- and adolescent-reported measures for problem behavior and emotional well-being, though assessing well-being within the same domains, are not identical; similarities or differences by reporter may simply reflect similarities or differences in the measures themselves. At the very least, however, these findings suggest the need for future research with large-scale survey data that include identical measures of multiple domains of health and well-being. Those data should capture reports from both adolescents and their caregivers.

This study has several limitations that merit consideration. First, the PCG- and adolescent-reported measures are not identical, except for those on overall health. The use of dissimilar measures preludes direct comparison. Second, the analyses control for a range of antecedent characteristics and intervening factors, but omitted variable bias is always a concern in observational studies. Unfortunately, the study is unable to take full advantage of the longitudinal nature of the PSID, because the 1997 and 2002 waves of the CDS were conducted 5 years apart and relatively few of this study's outcome measures utilize data collected in 1997. However, the analyses do control for the proportion of an adolescent's life spent with each parent and for the extent of his or her exposure to family instability. Nonetheless, these results are like those of all existing family structure studies, in that they identify associations but do not lend themselves to causal interpretation.

Third, the extensions to the primary analyses investigate the role of marriage and family structure transitions, but small cell sizes may limit the precision of the estimates. An attempt is made to address this problem in the transitions models by estimating supplemental analyses that combine the full set of transitions into two categories (gain a parent or lose a parent); results largely mimic those produced by the primary transitions model.

Fourth, there is likely to be considerable heterogeneity in associations between family structure and adolescent well-being, but this heterogeneity may be masked in the current analyses. Indeed, prior work finds that these associations sometimes differ by race, ethnicity, child age, child gender, whether children coreside with grandparents, and levels of family conflict ( Hetherington 1992; Hill, Yeung, and Duncan 2001; DeLeire and Kalil 2002; Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones 2002; Foster and Kalil 2007). The already limited sizes of cells for many of the analyses prevent exploration of these possibilities with these data, but the authors recognize that they will be important in future work.

Finally, like most studies in this area, this investigation uses two-biological-parent families as the reference group, but family demography has changed over the past half century, and children are increasingly less likely to experience this family type throughout their entire childhood. The authors also conducted tests of the equality of the coefficients across the other family types and found very few differences. Thus, although the outcomes of adolescents in stable (married) two-biological-parent families differ from the outcomes of youth in most other family types, the authors emphasize that adolescents appear to fare similarly well across the other family types.

Conclusion

The findings highlight important differences in adolescent health and well-being by family structure. They add to the existing literature by including families in which adolescents reside with their biological father but not their biological mother. This family type is found to be adversely associated with child health and well-being, and such associations are quite similar to those found for single-mother families. The findings also suggest that estimates of family structure's associations with physical health (and, potentially, with emotional well-being) differ by whether the adolescent or the PCG reports the outcome. This insight highlights the importance of also collecting data on perceived well-being from adolescents themselves, rather than relying solely on caregiver reports. Future research could benefit from additional comparisons of caregiver and adolescent reports. By using identical well-being measures and longitudinal data, such comparisons could provide insight into whether a particular type of report better predicts adolescents' future functioning.

On the whole, these findings concur with prior research in suggesting that adolescents in two-biological-parent families tend to fare better than those in other family types. They also suggest that these associations cannot be fully explained by antecedent characteristics or intervening factors. Therefore, it may be possible to help promote adolescent well-being by adopting policies to support and preserve families in which adolescents live with both of their biological parents. The findings do not easily lend themselves to a discussion of implications for policies with regard to other family types. However, the study does not fully explore the potential mechanisms through which family structure and adolescent well-being are thought to be linked. The success of policies intended to promote well-being for adolescents in single- and social-parent families may depend on whether and how the efforts are related to such mechanisms, which likely include access to resources, the quality of parenting and the home environments to which children are exposed, family stress, and the psychological well-being of parents ( McLanahan and Bumpass 1988; Amato 1993, 2005; Aquilino 1996; Carlson and Corcoran 2001; Thomson et al. 2001). Future work would benefit greatly from an exploration of these mechanisms.

Footnotes

For the purposes of this study, a social parent is defined as a partner who marries or cohabits with the adolescent's biological parent but who is not biologically related to the youth.

Studies comparing caregiver and child or adolescent reports of child or adolescent well-being (e.g., Achenbach, McConaughy, and Howell 1987; De Los Reyes and Kazdin 2005) do not examine whether differences in reports vary by family structure.

There are exceptions to this general pattern of association, however. Most notably, parental divorce may have a neutral or even positive influence on the well-being of children and adolescents who were exposed to high levels of parental conflict prior to the parents' break up ( Amato and Booth 1997; Hanson 1999; Amato 2000; Booth and Amato 2001; Strohschein 2005).

In addition, couples may be more likely to cohabit than to marry if they view their relationship as unlikely to last (i.e., if the relationship is of a low quality). In the case of social-parent families, couples may be more likely to cohabit if the social parent is less invested in his or her partner's children or less supportive of the partner's own investments in them ( Brown 2006; Berger et al. 2008).

On the whole, 42 percent of cases in the sample are missing data on at least one outcome measure or covariate. The regression models include imputed values for one or more covariates in 29-31 percent of observations (depending on the outcome of interest).

In the health literature it is standard to group reports of excellent, very good, and good health together, because those who rate themselves in these categories generally experience better long-term health outcomes than do those who rate their health as fair or poor ( Sudano and Baker 2006). However, this study combines reports of good, fair, and poor health into a single category, because only 3 percent of PCGs rate adolescents as having fair or poor health, but 16 percent of PCGs rate adolescents as having good, fair, or poor health. Very little variation is observed if analyses use the standard method of dichotomization. Adolescents are considerably more likely to report their own health as good, fair, or poor (32 percent) than are their PCGs.

For the purposes of this analysis, a stable family is one in which the child experiences the same family structure at both time points. This does not necessarily indicate same family composition at both points in time.

It is also possible that reports may differ by PCG gender.

Contributor Information

Callie E. Langton, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Lawrence M. Berger, University of Wisconsin-Madison

References

1. Amato PR. Children's Adjustment to Divorce: Theories, Hypotheses, and Empirical Support. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1993;55(1):23-38. [Google Scholar]

2. Amato Paul R, Booth Alan. A Generation at Risk: Growing up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]

3. Aquilino William S. The Life Course of Children Born to Unmarried Mothers: Childhood Living Arrangements and Young Adult Outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1996;58(2):293-310. [Google Scholar]

4. Artis Julie. Maternal Cohabitation and Child Well-Being among Kindergarten Children. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007;69(1):222-36. [Google Scholar]

5. Berger Lawrence M. Socioeconomic Factors and Substandard Parenting. Social Service Review. 2007;81(3):485-522. [Google Scholar]

6. Brown Brett V. The Single-Father Family: Demographic, Economic, and Public Transfer Use Characteristics. Marriage and Family Review. 2000;29(2-3):203-220. [Google Scholar]

7. Brown Susan L. Family Structure and Child Well-Being: The Significance of Parental Cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004;66(2):351-67. [Google Scholar]

8. Carlson Marcia J, Corcoran Mary E. Family Structure and Children's Behavioral and Cognitive Outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2001;63(3):779-92. [Google Scholar]

9. Case Anne, Lin I Fen, McLanahan Sara S. How Hungry is the Selfish Gene? Economic Journal. 2000 Oct;110(no. 446):781-804. [Google Scholar]

10. Cavanagh Shannon E. Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment. Journal of Family Issues. 2008;29(7):944-80. [Google Scholar]

11. Cavanagh Shannon E, Huston Aletha C. Family Instability and Children's Early Problem Behavior. Social Forces. 2006;85(1):551-81. [Google Scholar]

12. Cherlin Andrew J. Remarriage as an Incomplete Institution. American Journal of Sociology. 1978;84(3):634-50. [Google Scholar]

13. Dawson Deborah A. Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991;53(3):573-84. [Google Scholar]

14. Eggebeen David J. Cohabitation and Exchanges of Support. Social Forces. 2005;83(3):1097-1110. [Google Scholar]

15. Hanson Thomas L. Does Parental Conflict Explain Why Divorce Is Negatively Associated with Child Welfare? Social Forces. 1999;77(4):1283-1316. [Google Scholar]

16. Hanson Thomas L, McLanahan Sara S, Thomson Elizabeth. Windows on Divorce: Before and After. Social Science Research. 1998;27(3):329-49. [Google Scholar]

17. Harknett Kristen. Asthma Management among Very Young Children: Are Two Parents Better Than One?. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America; Philadelphia. April 2.2005. [Google Scholar]

18. Hetherington E Mavis. Coping with Marital Transitions: A Family Systems Perspective. In: Hetherington E Mavis, Clingempeel W Glenn., editors. Coping with Marital Transitions: A Family Systems Perspective. nos. 2-3. Vol. 57. Oxford: Blackwell; 1992. pp. 1-14. (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development). [Google Scholar]

19. Hetherington E Mavis. Should We Stay together for the Sake of the Children? In: Hetherington E Mavis., editor. Coping with Divorce, Single Parenting, and Remarriage: A Risk and Resiliency Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999. pp. 93-116. [Google Scholar]

20. Hewlett Barry S. Culture, History, and Sex: Anthropological Contributions to Conceptualizing Father Involvement. Marriage and Family Review. 2000;29(2-3):59-73. [Google Scholar]

21. Hill Martha S, Yeung Wei Jun J, Duncan Greg J. Childhood Family Structure and Young Adult Behaviors. Journal of Population Economics. 2001;14(2):271-99. [Google Scholar]

22. Hofferth Sandra L, Anderson Kermyt G. Are All Dads Equal? Biology versus Marriage as a Basis for Parental Investment. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65(1):213-32. [Google Scholar]

23. Hofferth Sandra L, Cabrera Natasha, Carlson Marcia J, Coley Rebekah Levine, Day Randal, Schindler Holly. Resident Father Involvement and Social Fathering. In: Hofferth Sandra L, Casper Lynne M., editors. Handbook of Measurement Issues in Family Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2007. pp. 335-74. [Google Scholar]

24. Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement User Guide Supplement for CDS-II. 2010 Created 7/30/10. Internet document: http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/CDS/cdsii_userGd.pdf.

25. Kreider Rose M. Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2008. Feb, Living Arrangements of Children: 2004; pp. P70-114. [Google Scholar]

26. Liu Shirley H, Heiland Frank. Fragile Families Working Paper 2007-14-FF. Princeton University, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing; Princeton, NJ: 2007. Jun 19, New Estimates on the Effect of Parental Separation on Child Health. [Google Scholar]

27. Manning Wendy D, Brown Susan. Children's Economic Well-Being in Married and Cohabiting Parent Families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006;68(2):345-62. [Google Scholar]

28. Manning Wendy D, Lamb Kathleen A. Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married, and Single-Parent Families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65(4):876-93. [Google Scholar]

29. Manning Wendy D, Lichter Daniel T. Parental Cohabitation and Children's Economic Well-Being. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1996;58(4):998-1010. [Google Scholar]

30. Manning Wendy D, Smock Pamela J. 'Swapping' Families: Serial Parenting and Economic Support for Children. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000;62(1):111-22. [Google Scholar]

31. Manning Wendy D, Smock Pamela J, Majumdar Debarun. The Relative Stability of Cohabitating and Marital Unions for Children. Population Research and Policy Review. 2004;23(2):135-59. [Google Scholar]

32. Marsh Herbert W. Self-Description Questionnaire Manual. Macarthur, Australia: University of Western Sydney; 1990. [Google Scholar]

33. McLanahan Sara S, Bumpass Larry L. Intergenerational Consequences of Family Disruption. American Journal of Sociology. 1988;94(1):130-52. [Google Scholar]

34. McLanahan Sara S, Sandefur Gary. Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]

35. Nelson Sandi, Clark Rebecca L, Acs Gregory. Report B-31 in the series New Federalism. National Survey of America's Families. Urban Institute; Washington, DC: 2001. Beyond the Two-Parent Family: How Teenagers Fare in Cohabiting Couple and Blended Families. [Google Scholar]

36. Osborne Cynthia, McLanahan Sara S. Partnership Instability and Child Well-Being. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007;69(4):1065-83. [Google Scholar]

37. Peterson James L, Zill Nicholas. Marital Disruption, Parent-Child Relationships, and Behavior Problems in Children. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1986;48(2):295-307. [Google Scholar]

38. Ravens-Sieberer Ulrike, Theiling Stephan, Bullinger Monika. Assessing Quality of Life in Chronically Ill Children - The Patients and the Parents View. Paper presented at the eleventh international congress of the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Hamburg, Germany. September 15.1999. [Google Scholar]

39. Simpson Gloria, Bloom Barbara, Cohen Robin A, Parsons P Ellen. Access to Health Care; Part 1: Children. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 1997. Jul, Vital Health Statistics, series 10, survey 196. [Google Scholar]

40. Strohschein Lisa A. Parental Divorce and Child Mental Health Trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005;67(5):1286-1300. [Google Scholar]

41. Von Hippel Paul T. Regression with Missing Ys: An Improved Strategy for Analyzing Multiply Imputed Data. Sociological Methodology. 2007;37:83-117. [Google Scholar]

42. Votruba-Drzal Elizabeth. Income Changes and Cognitive Stimulation in Young Children's Home Learning Environments. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65(2):341-55. [Google Scholar]

43. Wood Robert G, Goesling Brian, Avellar Sarah. Report to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, June 19 (Reference no 6306-033) Mathematica Policy Research; Princeton, NJ: 2007. The Effects of Marriage on Health: A Synthesis of Recent Research Evidence. [Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Family Structure and Adolescent Physical Health, Behavior, and Emotional Well-Being

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study uses data from the Child Development Supplement of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to examine family structure's associations with adolescent physical health, behavior, and emotional well-being. Findings suggest that adolescents in ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Socioeconomic Status in Early Childhood Development

# data[].attributes.subject
Socioeconomic Status in Early Childhood Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Socioeconomic Status Impacts Early Childhood Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cultural Competency: Why It’s Important for ECEs | ECEHRC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cultural Competency: Why It’s Important for ECEs - Jan 27, 2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
India is a country that is well known for its diversity. We have a huge range of landforms and climatic conditions, numerous religions, countless deities, several festivals, innumerable languages, varying cuisines and so much more. As countries go, no other can match the beauty and diversity we have in our very own country.

With increasing globalization, our children are getting a lot of exposure to other cultures. In today's world, it is necessary to have a global mindset to become global citizens. At the same time, it is equally important for children to fully appreciate our country, culture, and heritage. As parents and teachers, we need to nurture cultural awareness for kids and this can begin right from the early childhood years. Participating in a cultural awareness program is also essential for various areas of development like cognitive, language, social, emotional, communication, and fine and gross motor skills in early childhood education.

What is cultural awareness?

We know that each person is different depending on their upbringing and background. Putting this concept on a larger scale, we also see people from different states, communities, or countries also differ from each other. It may be in the festivals they celebrate, their religious beliefs, the type of foods eaten, how they dress, the language spoken, and so on. Amidst these differences there are also many similarities for example Hindi is spoken all over India, Christmas is celebrated in many countries all over the world, and each community has its version of a harvest festival. Other examples are Lohri, Makar Sankranti, Baisakhi, Onam, and Pongal are celebrated around the same time in different parts of India.

So, to better understand what is cultural awareness and how to teach the same to our children, we need to first answer the question:

How do we become more culturally aware?

The communication gap and lack of cultural awareness are some of the factors that contribute to misunderstanding on both sides. We can all improve our communication skills and cultural awareness by being respectful of other cultures when working with and connecting with others. Everyone forms stereotypes, whether based on specific experiences or their own set of views, identifying those stereotypes and addressing any subconscious or explicit bias is essential for becoming a stronger and more inclusive person.

Being culturally aware improves our interpersonal abilities, as we become more sensitive to other people's feelings, making communication more successful. Finding common ground and getting to know people on a personal level is essential.

Learning as much as possible about different cultures

We naturally perceive the world through a distorted filter generated by our subconscious and strongly held values and beliefs. This results in insensitivity and, potentially, inadvertent blindness to the values that individuals of other cultures hold important.

This is why we need to expose ourselves, observe, and interact with the cultures around us. Participating in cultural festivals and events is one of the most authentic methods to learn about foreign cultures. Here, you may observe how various people express themselves through music, food, and art.

Cultural awareness is the knowledge, understanding, and respecting the differences and similarities between two or more cultures, especially when interacting and communicating with each other.

Being mindful is the key to cultural awareness. Here are a few ways to foster cultural sensitivity in your child.

1. Learning other languages -

there are lots of different Indian languages and young children can learn new languages very quickly and easily. Whether you choose to send your child for language classes or to a neighbour next door is your choice. In their quest to learn a new language, your child will also get to learn about that particular culture and how they live their lives. This will give your child some insight and a better understanding of that culture. Learning other languages increases the child's language development.

2. Sharing stories -

Stories are fun to listen to and are packed with useful information. When children share stories with their friends or listen to different stories at a family gathering, they get to hear things from a different perspective, they even begin to see the differences in villages and cities. One major eye-opener is the differences across generations, especially when they hear about the pre-computer era of grandparents, the life of parents when simple computers were first introduced, and now in the computer era wherein computers are a vital part of our lives. Exposing our children to such stories leads to empathy and helps break down barriers. Listening and talking help build the child's communication skills as well.

3. Try out different cuisines at home

- food is the gateway to any culture. The traditional thalies from different regions come with an array of dishes, many of which are fairly simple to make. Getting the children to help is a wonderful way to make them feel involved and connected and they may even be open to trying unfamiliar foods. Whether you make it at home or order in, trying authentic food from different places in India will get your child out of their food-based comfort zone and will widen their culinary horizons. Doing things together as a family helps build and strengthen bonds and enhances your child's emotional development.

4. Participate in festivals other than your own

- Festivals are filled with meaning, vibrancy, and sentiments. There are lots of traditions and customs followed by various communities and each has a meaning and reason behind it. Participating in a festival is the quickest and the most fun way to learn about it, for example Makar Sankranti is a festival in which you eat laddoos made out of sesame seeds rich in calcium while flying kites in the sun to get a good dose of vitamin D which is in turn is good for the absorption of calcium and development of bones. Celebrating festivals as a community also helps in the social development of the child.

5. Actively celebrate and embrace your own culture -

while it is necessary to understand and be sensitive to the other cultures around us it is equally important for us to understand our own culture. In doing so makes us more aware of who we are and where we come from. It keeps us connected to our families and gives us some meaningful traditions and memories to pass on from generation to generation. So, whether you're in your own country or somewhere abroad, our culture helps us stay connected to our roots and gives meaning to who we are and where we have come from apart from assisting in your child's cognitive development.

Final Thoughts

The next time you're planning a trip in India or abroad, do read up on that place, make yourself culturally aware, and if possible look for opportunities to participate in or observe certain events, and try out the local cuisine or delicacies. It will make your holiday more meaningful and special while providing you with lots of memories.

At Eurokids, we embrace cultural diversity and look for opportunities to bring about cultural awareness in preschool children. Our centers promote a culturally rich and diverse environment where children can freely talk about their cultures and traditions. Eurokids also celebrate many festivals and children are told about the importance and significance of each.

For informative and accurate articles on all things related to your new born-toddler's development, growth, health and nutrition, follow EuroKids Blogs and do check out our nationally recognized preschools - EuroKids for the first step in your kid's educational journey! - after references, in the bottom of the article

About Us

EuroKids is recognized as India's most respected early childhood education brand, with over 21 years of experience, and has a presence in 350+ cities & 3 countries. The journey began in 2001 with 2 preschools and since then the group has consistently raised the bar for preschool education through its innovative and mindful curriculum - EUNOIA, which helps children grow holistically in a home-like environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cultural Awareness in Early Childhood Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore how to nurture cultural awareness in early childhood education. Learn why it's important and discover practical tips for teaching cultural sensitivity.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Implicit Bias Impacts our Children in Education

# data[].attributes.subject
How Implicit Bias Impacts our Children in Education

# data[].attributes.headline
Implicit Bias Shapes Teacher Expectations

# data[].attributes.subject
Implicit Bias Shapes Teacher Expectations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether or not a teacher "believes in" her students and expects them to succeed has been shown to affect how well that student does in school, particularly among disadvantaged students. But educators should be aware that those expectations can be influenced by their own implicit racial biases.

In a recent study that looked at interviews involving 16,000 U.S. teachers, Black and non-Black teachers were asked to predict their 10th-graders' future educational attainment. Would she graduate from high school? How about college? When asked about any specific Black student, White teachers were about 30 percent less likely than Black teachers to predict he or she would someday earn a college degree. For White students, the teachers' predictions, or expectations, were about the same.

"We cannot determine whether the black teachers are too optimistic, the non-black teachers are too pessimistic, or some combination of the two," wrote one of the study's authors, American University's Seth Gershenson, in an an August blog post. But, he noted, it is worrisome nonetheless, "as systematic biases in teachers' expectations for student success might contribute to persistent socio-demographic gaps in educational achievement and attainment."

The study also found that the racial mismatch of expectations was stronger for boys, and that the most optimistic group about Black male students was Black female teachers (even more so than Black male teachers.)

"These results are not meant to, nor should they, demonize or implicate teachers," wrote Gershenson. "Biases in expectations are generally unintentional and are an artifact of how humans categorize complex information." Hopefully, the authors suggest, the study's findings will lead to helpful discussions.

Although the U.S. public school system now has more non-White students than White students, White teachers still account for 84 percent of the teaching force.
What is Implicit Bias and Can it Be Fixed?
Implicit biases are defined by the Kirwin Institute as attitudes or stereotypes that are activated unconsciously and involuntarily. They are not the same as biases that a person might try to hide because they're unpopular or socially incorrect. Social scientists believe that implicit biases are learned as young as age 3, and may be fueled by stereotypes perpetrated in the media, or beliefs passed along by parents, peers, and other community members.

"Our belief here is that we all have implicit biases," said Maureen Costello, director of Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center working toward equity in schools. And it's not just teachers, she points out. Recent studies, prompted by police shootings in Ferguson and elsewhere, have looked at implicit biases among law enforcement officers and found that both White and Black officers often have implicit biases about Black community members.

The consequences for Black communities policed by biased officers has been tragic, but it can be equally consequential in schools, points out Becki Cohn-Vargas, the co-author of Identity Safe Classrooms: Places to Belong and Learn. "This is not about blaming or pointing fingers," she said, but it clear that the decisions made by teachers also do affect children's life trajectories. Unequal discipline, for example, may fuel the school-to-prison pipeline that has disproportionately affected students of color.

But what's important to know about implicit biases is that, once people are made aware of them, those biases can be successfully addressed. "We can mitigate them. We can interrupt them. You can train your mind to catch yourself," said Costello. "It's like breaking a habit, but the first thing you have to do is become aware of the habit."

Awareness is the first, foundational step. (To take an Implicit Assessment Test (IAT) online, visit Teaching Tolerance's Test Yourself webpage.) The second step, suggests Costello, is developing a sense of reflectiveness. Ask yourself, "Is the way I'm approaching this student affecting outcomes?" And consider the data available in your classroom: Who do you call on, and how often? (Do you need to switch to a randomized technique, like pulling popsicle sticks?) How do you seat students, or group them? Are you treating everybody the same when it comes to homework, or are you giving a break to the kid you think has a bad home life or little chance of getting to college?

Researchers also suggest it's helpful to "refute" and "counter" the negative stereotypes that fuel biases, said Cohn-Vargas. That means recognizing these stereotypes really aren't true, and opposing them with ideas that are: for example, it's not true that all Black boys are loud and disruptive; it is true that students who talk a lot often are enthusiastic.

Cohn-Vargas suggests it's also important for educators to recognize their students as people who are individuals.

Much of this kind of work is done by culturally competent NEA members, trained by NEA trainers, through NEA's National Diversity Training Program. Additional resources to help NEA members work with students who may not look like them are available online, including NEA's Diversity Toolkit and Teaching Tolerance's "Culture in the Classroom" project.

"I'm actually encouraged by some of the things happening in positive psychology," said Costello. "If you end every day by journaling or writing down three things that were great in your class, and give yourself a little time for mindfulness and meditation, you can help retrain your mind to see the positive rather than the negative."
Photo: Associated Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Implicit Bias Shapes Teacher Expectations | NEA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"It's like breaking a habit, but the first thing you have to do is become aware of the habit," says expert.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Everything we think, say, and do is processed through our own cultural backgrounds. But because culture is absorbed and passed down from generation to generation rather than explicitly taught, we're seldom aware of it.

Culture shapes not only our values and beliefs, but also our gender roles, family structures, languages, dress, food, etiquette, approaches to disabilities, child-rearing practices, and even our expectations for children's behavior. In this way, culture creates diversity.

Cultural diversity and teachers

For teachers, it is essential to see and understand your own culture in order to see and understand how the cultures of children and their families influence children's behavior. Only then can you give every child a fair chance to succeed.

Think about your own upbringing. How did your family's expectations affect what you did? Were your parents, siblings, and other relatives close or distant? Were they strict, lenient, or somewhere in between? Were your school's expectations any different? All of this, and more, plays a part in how you view the behavior of the children you teach.

These ideas lie at the heart of NAEYC's position statement Advancing Equity in Early Childhood Education. Its guiding principles include

Recognizing that "self-awareness, humility, respect, and a willingness to learn are key to becoming a teacher who equitably and effectively supports all children and families"

Developing a strong understanding of culture and diversity

Understanding that "families are the primary context for children's development and learning"

One major takeaway from the position statement is that early childhood educators must support consistently warm and caring relationships between families and their children, respect families' languages and cultures, and incorporate those languages and cultures into the curriculum, their teaching practices, and the learning environment.

Cultural diversity and young children

Children bring their own set of culturally based expectations, skills, talents, abilities, and values with them into the classroom. And they begin to develop their self-concept (at least in part) from how others see them. To form positive self-concepts, children must honor and respect their own families and cultures and have others honor and respect these key facets of their identities too. If the classroom doesn't reflect and validate their families and cultures, children may feel invisible, unimportant, incompetent, and ashamed of who they are.

Many people, including educators, have long believed it is better to act colorblind and/or "cultureblind"-that is, to not acknowledge color or culture. But research has shown that this artificial blindness keeps us from recognizing, acknowledging, and appreciating important differences. Worse, it may lead to unintentional bias toward or disrespect for those who are different from us.

We know now that acknowledgments of color and culture are essential for legitimizing differences. Color and culture make each one of us special and enable us to offer unique gifts and opportunities to groups we are part of. At the same time, color and culture help children learn about each other and the world. In short, color and culture enrich classrooms.

To appreciate what each child can contribute to the class, teachers need to learn about each family's cultural values. Helping children to see themselves in your pedagogy, curriculum, environment, and materials enables them (and their families) to feel welcomed and valued.

Take a look around your classroom.

Does the artwork on the walls accurately reflect the children's lives, or are the walls covered with store-bought, stereotypical images?
Why not have the children create their own posters with their own artwork, things from home, and photos families can supply?

Are labels (and other child-focused texts) repeated in each child's home language, or are they in English only?
Why not forge connections and support children's learning by asking family members to help children use their home languages throughout the room?

It's important to see cultural and linguistic differences as resources, not as deficits. As NAEYC's equity position statement puts it, "Children's learning is facilitated when teaching practices, curricula, and learning environments build on children's strengths and are developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate for each child."

The difference between equitable and equal

Equal is not the same as equitable. Every child in your group has different needs, skills, interests, and abilities. Equal would mean giving all children the same activities, materials, and books. Equitable means ensuring that you consider each child's strengths, context, and needs and provide all children with the opportunities that will support them in reaching their potential.

It's crucial to recognize the inequities that children and their families face-in school and out. The position statement reminds us that "dominant social biases are rooted in the social, political, and economic structures of the United States. Powerful messages-conveyed through the media, symbols, attitudes, and actions-continue to reflect and promote both explicit and implicit bias." For example, research conducted by Yale University professor Walter Gilliam clearly shows that young African American boys are subject to higher rates of suspension and expulsion than their White European American peers.

How cultural diversity shapes behavior

Your culture and the children's cultures aren't the only cultures at work in your classroom. Every school and early childhood education program has a culture too. The cultures of most American schools are based on White European American values. As the makeup of the US population becomes more diverse, there is more cultural dissonance-which impacts children's behavior.

White European American culture has an individual orientation that teaches children to function independently, stand out, talk about themselves, and view property as personal. In contrast, many other cultures value interdependence, fitting in, helping others and being helped, being modest, and sharing property. In fact, some languages have no words for I, me, or mine.

Children who find themselves in an unfamiliar environment-such as a classroom that reflects a culture different from their home culture-are likely to feel confused, isolated, alienated, conflicted, and less competent because what they've learned so far in their home culture simply doesn't apply. They may not understand the rules, or they may be unable to communicate their needs in the school's language.

Rethinking challenging behavior

Because your responses to children's conflicts and challenging behavior are culture bound, it is all too easy to misinterpret children's words or actions. The next time a child seems defiant, ask yourself, Is that behavior culturally influenced? Could I be misunderstanding the child's words or actions?

For example, White European Americans tend to use implicit commands, such as, "Johnny, can you please put the blocks away?" Children raised in the White European American culture understand that they are being told to put away the blocks. But children raised in the African American culture may interpret this utterance differently. In their culture, adult commands are usually explicit: "DuShane, put away the blocks." To African American children, an implicit command in the form of a question may seem to offer a choice about how to behave.

Culture also defines personal space, including how much space feels appropriate in the block area, at circle/meeting time, and in the dramatic play area. In some cultures, children feel comfortable playing close to one another; in others, the same space may feel claustrophobic and lead children to hit or shove a playmate who seems too near. Similarly, you may stand too close or too far away, depending on children's cultures. For example, if Cadence doesn't pay attention to your request to keep the sand in the sandbox, you may be too far away to connect with her.

In White European American culture, teachers expect children to sit still and maintain eye contact to show that they're paying attention. But in other cultures, children might show their interest by joining in; they may learn through hearing or telling a story, watching others, or using trial and error. If they don't understand the lesson, they might have a hard time paying attention. Or they may be paying attention in a different way.

Culture counts

There are many rewards for teachers who take culture into account. You can form authentic, caring relationships with children and families; build connections between what children already know and what they need to know; select activities, materials, and instructional strategies that honor children's cultures and life experiences; and teach children the skills they need to succeed in a global society.

From the Pages of Young Children: Research on How Culture Affects Learning

For more examples of how culture affects learning, check out " Diverse Children, Uniform Standards: Using Early Learning and Development Standards in Multicultural Classrooms" in the November 2019 issue of Young Children. The authors, Jeanne L. Reid, Catherine Scott-Little, and Sharon Lynn Kagan, provide several examples of culturally influenced differences in how children pay attention, approach learning, seek guidance, and express their knowledge and skills. They also offer tips to help teachers address standards for early learning that are not sensitive to these cultural differences.

This article supports the following NAEYC Early Learning Program Accreditation standards and topic areas

STANDARDS 7: FAMILIES; 1: RELATIONSHIPS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Valuing Diversity: Developing a Deeper Understanding of All Young Children's Behavior

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For teachers, it is essential to see and understand your own culture in order to see and understand how the cultures of children and their families influence children's behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Self-Assessment: Building on Strengths and Improving Systems | HeadStart.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the standards, expectations, and best practices that guide the annual self-assessment, an integral step in improving responsive programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Importance of Cultural Awareness for Educators

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cultural awareness is fundamental to providing an equitable learning environment for all students…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There can be no recipe or script for culturally responsive teaching because every group of families and children has differing backgrounds and their own unique needs, capabilities and interests. Early childhood teachers need to know about this diversity in order to adapt their practice to suit the cultural practices, beliefs and values of the child and their family, and to support all children to participate fully and maintain their cultural identities. This guide offers some general, research-based principles and suggestions to empower teachers, in concert with families, to discover different ways of dealing with issues of diversity.

Reflecting on oneself and one's own culture

It is not possible to be sensitive to someone else's ways of being and doing until you are sensitive to the impact of your cultural values, beliefs and practices on your own behaviour with children. Exploration of your own cultural and ethnic identity should be an ongoing and evolving process in which you reflect upon your upbringing and family values, your cultural beliefs and biases, and the assumptions around learning and childhood to which they lead. These assumptions and beliefs will influence your perceptions (for example, of children's competency or agency), as well as your practices (such as soliciting children's opinions). Be aware that the practices and principles that are currently valid according to mainstream culture are not universally true, but also the product of a cultural context.

Reflect on particular decision points or teaching practices and interactions with diverse families that you find challenging or uncomfortable, in order to uncover hidden values and beliefs.

Consider in what ways your practices and routines are influenced by dominant cultural practices, particularly in regard to eating, sleeping, toileting, communication, reading and play.

Notice how pedagogical and bureaucratic practices, for example, valuing children's independence (which marks some children as needy or deficient), or notions of parent partnership (which is not appropriate or easy for some families), privilege some families over others, and critically examine whether your perspective on 'quality' early childhood education needs to be adapted to incorporate diverse perspectives.

Reflecting on other cultures

While ethnicity and culture must be recognised as important in the identity of children and families, stereotypes must be avoided. Gain some knowledge about the cultures of the children and families that attend your setting as a starting point for understanding children and families, but be aware that there are many differences between and within cultural groups, and that cultural identities are complex, fluid and multiple.

Develop your cross-cultural competency by immersing yourself in real life experiences in order to develop connections and deep understanding, and take every opportunity to become involved in family and community events.

Find out about the specific practices, perspectives and beliefs of families, and aim to understand.

Appreciate different ways of viewing children's development, which doesn't mean discarding your own beliefs and practices, but instead stretching your knowledge and thinking to be open to possibilities that are not necessarily incompatible.

Use minority families' multiple meanings and perspectives to help you deconstruct practice and critically challenge the status quo and longstanding pedagogical practices and beliefs.

Developing positive attitudes towards diversity

Attitudes related to being comfortable and supportive of diversity are more important to developing cross-cultural competencies than becoming an expert on every possible kind of cultural practice and belief. Research finds that culturally responsive early childhood settings in New Zealand have high levels of respect for culture. Positive attitudes involve commitment to culturally responsive practices and to social justice, genuine interest and curiosity to learn about families' cultures and lifestyles, flexibility and openness to change, humility, empathy and sensitivity.

Develop positive environments which are inclusive, safe, caring and respectful, where difference is seen as normal and there is unconditional acceptance for all children and families.

Enact values such as welcoming, kindness, hospitality, taking care of and responsibility for others, and respect, and reinforce them daily: for example, you might have a teacher stand at the door as families arrive and as they leave, to secure an interaction with each family for welcome and farewell.

Share a belief that all children can succeed and see success as complex in regard to children and families' diversity.

Working with families as a valuable resource

Genuine and heartfelt, long-term relationships are a key priority for bridging cultural distance and disconnect, and for learning about home practices and beliefs. Research shows that teachers find it difficult to build appropriate knowledge of children from minority backgrounds without parental input. Use strategies such as appropriate verbal and non-verbal communication, attentiveness, respect, sincerity, home visits and invitations for genuine collaboration, and allow lengthy periods for getting to know each other. Be careful that surface appearances do not influence your behaviours, interactions or perspectives, and try to suspend judgement and accept what families tell you as valuable information.

Promote conversation and dialogue through careful use of time and space, and lots of cups of tea or coffee. Convey to families that you really want to understand, and focus on receiving and acknowledging families' perspectives rather than on projecting your own ideas, or trying to interpret the situation from your own cultural, philosophical and pedagogical standpoint.

Engage in discussions about values, sharing your own experiences, beliefs and values, and encouraging families to talk about their own values, perhaps using general knowledge about a family's culture as a basis for conversation. Weave families' values into the curriculum and negotiate goals, pedagogies and programmes. Aim for a paralleling of different perspectives that grants value to each, rather than attempting to merge minority views into the dominant culture or picking the 'best' way.

Acknowledge and address cultural inequities and disadvantage. Be aware of common areas of disconnect and try to be proactive in identifying the critical issues for families. Create opportunities to discuss these in ways that are respectful, non-judgemental and participatory.

Encourage families to play active roles in the setting. Don't pressure families to share or perform aspects of their culture, but focus on valuing the cultural practices of minority families and building confidence in families to share their practices with the setting's community.

Encourage families to participate in constructing knowledge about children, and in decision-making about children's learning and development through conversations or e-portfolio annotations.

Observing and analysing

Analytical approaches which incorporate both observation of children and dialogue with families can be useful to help guide the construction of a culturally responsive curriculum. Theoretical frameworks such as 'funds of knowledge' (which focus on practices that are passed on through families over generations and adapted to new situations) can support you to recognise, value and explore children's interests, skills, knowledge and learning embedded in their everyday practices, routines and activities at home.

Spend time observing what families do and how they talk about what they do, as well as who children are, how they think, what they value and everything they can do.

Respond to conversations initiated by children and ask children about their families, what they did over the weekend, and what they are interested in. Notice the ways children communicate: consider how they do or do not use humour, relate to other people, approach new tasks and react to praise.

Look out for children expressing their working theories about their culture, identity and language, and intentionally plan conversations and provocations to encourage children to share their thinking.

Consider themes of power and inequity when observing children. For example, note patterns in interactions which indicate social exclusion, and ways in which children are using culturally diverse materials.

Responding

Cultural responsiveness involves interpreting and delivering the curriculum in a way that is effective for each child and appropriate to their social and cultural context. This will involve applying deep and critical thinking, and adapting and modifying your approach to teaching and learning as your understanding of the unique and diverse needs of children grows. Recognising all children are different doesn't mean they need the provision of different experiences but rather that you understand the diverse ways they respond to shared experiences. However, basing curriculum on children's lives and building on the social and cultural capital of children, families and teachers will allow for greater multicultural significance in the programme.

Design learning experiences that position children as experts in relation to their particular interests and funds of knowledge from home, and enable them to utilise familiar learning strategies. Make pedagogical decisions that suit children's particular characteristics and learning preferences rather than a generic ideal.

Value playful ways of knowing and being to empower children's language, play and ideas, and to create space for them to explore their home and community funds of knowledge.

Offer various opportunities to learn, including learning through observation, trying things on their own, or with a partner or group. Support children's own strategies for managing interactions and activities in the setting, and encourage the use of cultural strategies (such as home language, social choices such as high respect for teachers, parental practices, and attitudes to learning such as persistence and commitment) as well as interactions and relationships with peers and teachers of a similar cultural and language background.

Negotiate caregiving routines sensitively and use culturally familiar language and cultural norms in interactions with children, for example, using humour, or using direct requests ('put on your coat') rather than indirect requests ('do you think you could put on your coat?').

See all aspects of the curriculum, including ideas of child-centred play and exploration, as open to challenge and reworking, and find relevant, local concepts for responsive curriculum and assessment.

Explicitly interrogate incidents of racism and cultural stereotyping, and engage children's curiosity regarding social and cultural differences and similarities through group dialogue, problem solving and inquiry.

Resourcing

Resources can be found in staff, management committees, children, and families. Teachers and families may have skills that they have not shared, and children too have a high capacity to direct their own learning and play and to support each other. Research shows that, while children's learning experiences depends on the use of the cultural tools of the family, these cultural tools are only employed if the early childhood setting environment is receptive to them. When children can find their family culture in the setting and apply their cultural tools, they are able to mix, transfer and borrow skills, values and knowledges in order to have their needs met and experience success.

Physical resources should be responsive and sensitive to families' cultures and heritages, and embedded into the daily programme, rather than relegated to a wall display that is rarely referred to, or an occasional celebration of a cultural festival. Books, images and posters show children what and whom is valued, so these should reflect and validate children's cultural identities to help children feel emotionally secure, as well as offer them a range of positive identities and possible futures. Be aware that children who are unfamiliar with any of the practices or activities of the setting may be marginalised as they don't know what they are supposed to do. Activities such as hand painting and sand play, or questioning and verbalising opinions, may be unfamiliar to children of particular cultural backgrounds, or children might have difficulty adapting to a self-directed play environment. Providing dress up costumes or food props related to different cultures will do little to mitigate this.

Invite families into the setting and personalise opportunities for them to get involved. Seek people in the community to teach children about a different culture or language, but don't place boundaries around what might be contributed by a visitor, and try to build sustained and reciprocal relationships rather than one-off events.

If you have a minority cultural background, implement your own cultural resources within the setting's programme.

Be careful not to celebrate superficial differences (such as food choices) and dig deeper to identify resources that support children's and families' funds of knowledge.

Employ staff from different cultural backgrounds, and particularly staff who share similar cultural backgrounds to the families that attend your setting. While encouraging children to use their home languages with teachers and each other, also intentionally learn phrases from children so that you can build on their linguistic skills during learning and teaching. Encourage children to teach each other their home languages.

Offer open-ended and manipulative materials for children to construct and express meaning in their own way.

Further Reading

Cooper, M., & Hedges, H. (2014). Beyond participation: What we learned from Hunter about collaboration with Pasifika children and families. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(2), 165-75.

Durand, T. M. (2010). Celebrating diversity in early care and education settings: Moving beyond the margins. Early Child Development and Care, 180 (7), 835-48. doi: 10.1080/03004430802466226

Mitchell, L., Bateman, A., & Ouko, A. (2015). Teaching and learning in culturally diverse early childhood settings. Hamilton, NZ: Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research.

Understanding the families you work with: Reflective questions to uncover cultural differences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Principles for culturally responsive teaching in early childhood education - THE EDUCATION HUB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There can be no recipe or script for culturally responsive teaching because every group of families and children has differing backgrounds and their own unique needs, capabilities and interests. Early childhood teachers need to know about this diversity in order to adapt their practice to suit the cultural practices, beliefs and values of the child and their family, and to support all children to participate fully and maintain their cultural identities.