Nonparental Caregivers,Parents,and Early Academic Achievement Among Children from Latino/a Immigrant Households

Abstract

Drawing on ecological systems and social capital perspectives, this study uses the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort to investigate links between early nonparental caregiver beliefs about early academic skills and children’s math and reading achievement in kindergarten with special attention to the children from Latino/a immigrant households. Regression analyses revealed that nonparental caregiver beliefs were associated with academic achievement at kindergarten entry and that types of alignment or misalignment between nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs were differentially associated with math achievement but not reading. Notably, the association between nonparental caregiver beliefs and children’s academic achievement was more consequential for children from Latino/a immigrant households. Results suggest that having nonparental caregivers with low early academic skills beliefs may be especially detrimental for children from Latino/a immigrant households.

Keywords

children and youth Latina/o sociology education

The development of early school skills—the academic and socioemotional competencies with which children enter kindergarten—has been a priority for early childhood researchers and policy makers since the 1990s, when the National Education Goals Panel proclaimed that “by the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn” (National Education Goals Panel 1997). This goal was, and continues to be, informed by research that early school skills predict trajectories of academic achievement over time (Duncan et al. 2007). Since then, great strides have been made to expand access to early childcare and education (ECE) that helps children develop the skills they need to be successful in kindergarten and beyond.

Today, decades after the National Education Goals Panel convened, 60 percent of U.S. children under age six attend some form of formal (e.g., Head Start) or informal (e.g., relative care) ECE arrangement in which they are in the care of someone other than a parent (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] 2017). These arrangements, however, vary to the extent to which they prepare children for kindergarten. Some are closely linked to what kindergarten teachers will expect, while others are less structured, with nonparental caregivers choosing which skills to nurture but at the risk of being less aligned with kindergarten expectations.

Although recent reports suggest that the largest groups in the United States with young children—namely, U.S.-born non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and Latino/as, and foreign-born Latino/as—use ECE at increasingly similar rates (Crosby et al. 2016), gaps in early achievement nevertheless persist. One such gap is between children from Latino/a immigrant households and their peers. Children from Latino/a immigrant households have greater socioemotional skills than their peers (Crosnoe 2007), but they are less likely to enter kindergarten with the academic skills that teachers expect (Murphey, Madill, and Guzman 2017). Thus, despite efforts to expand ECE access, not all U.S. children start school at the same skill level. Investigating aspects of ECE that hinder academic skill development among children from Latino/a immigrant households is an important step toward ensuring that all children are ready on the first day of school.

Researchers have explored how quality, as opposed to type, of ECE arrangement may explain racial/ethnic gaps in early academic skills (Magnuson and Waldfogel 2005). After all, ECE quality—including, but not limited to, child-to-teacher ratios, curricula, and caregiver credentials—has been linked to children having greater early academic skills at kindergarten entry (Mashburn et al. 2008; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD] Early Child Care Research Network [ECCRN] 2002).

Less attention has been paid to another potentially important element of ECE quality, namely, the beliefs of nonparental caregivers directing children’s learning (Lara-Cinisomo et al. 2009). Nonparental caregivers in these ECE arrangements—which include teachers, nannies, relatives, and family care providers—structure learning opportunities that directly influence the development of early academic skills (Guzman et al. 2018). They also indirectly influence skill development through their interactions with schools that set academic expectations and families in which children are embedded (Sameroff 2009). Specifically, nonparental caregivers are links between families and schools, providing parents with school-related social capital—or access to advantageous information regarding what schools will expect that may otherwise be inaccessible to them (Woolcock and Narayan 2001). To assess whether nonparental caregivers strengthen early academic skills by providing families with school-related information that they did not have before, we must also examine the relationship between nonparental caregiver beliefs and the early school skills beliefs parents already hold.

Nonparental caregivers may, for example, relay to parents that kindergarten teachers will expect their children to be able to recognize colors. If parents already believe that knowledge of colors is important for school, nonparental caregiver beliefs reinforce parental beliefs. If parents are unaware that teachers expect children to know their colors on the first day of school, nonparental caregivers can fill this gap by sharing these expectations with families and strategies (e.g., listing fruits that are purple) for helping parents meet them. If neither nonparental caregivers nor parents know that children should be able to recognize colors prior to kindergarten, then children in their care may enter school without having developed these skills. Thus, considering how nonparental caregiver beliefs about early skills align with or deviate from parent beliefs is important for understanding the usefulness of the social capital nonparental caregivers provide.

Moreover, nonparental caregivers, parents, and schools are embedded in larger social structures, including systems of stratification related to race/ethnicity and macro-level migration streams (Crosnoe 2007). Although nonparental caregivers play important roles in promoting early academic skills for all children, they may be especially consequential for children from Latino/a immigrant households (Rutherford and Kao 2007). In addition to being overrepresented among students who enter school with fewer of the academic skills schools expect, children from Latino/a immigrant households may also be more likely than their peers to have parents who have had limited contact with U.S. schools. The ability of nonparental caregivers to bridge gaps between families and schools may, thus, be more valuable for immigrant families that may be less familiar with U.S. schools than their U.S.-born counterparts (Garcia and Jensen 2009).

In this spirit, I use the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey–Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) to investigate associations between nonparental caregiver beliefs about early academic skills and children’s early achievement for the four largest demographic groups within U.S. schools, paying special attention to children from Latino/a immigrant families. Recognizing that children’s development is a function of both nonparental and parental contexts—and the interplay between the two—I further examine how types of alignment or misalignment in nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs regarding what early academic skills are necessary for success in kindergarten shape early achievement for all children, and particularly children from Latino/a immigrant families.

Literature Review

Early Academic Skills in the Context of ECE

Children who enter kindergarten with early school skills better engage with the curriculum and develop new competencies which lay the foundation for later academic success (Duncan et al. 2007). Because trajectories of school performance are highly cumulative, children who experience success early on have competitive advantages over their peers, with small initial differences growing into large disparities in end-of-school outcomes like graduation (Ladd, Muschkin, and Dodge 2014). Ensuring that students enter kindergarten with the appropriate skills is, thus, a potential way to reduce other persistent educational disparities.

One set of early school skills is academic in nature. Early academic skills—including, but not limited to knowledge of the alphabet, colors, and shapes—are consistently predictive of higher levels of achievement in later grades (Claessens, Duncan, and Engel 2009). Although research has also linked the development of children’s socioemotional skills with later achievement (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000), kindergarten classrooms have prioritized academic over socioemotional skill building, partly in response to school accountability reforms like the No Child Left Behind Act (Bassok, Latham, and Rorem 2016). Daphna Bassok and colleagues (2016) found that, between 1998 and 2010, the percentage of kindergarten teachers indicating that knowing the alphabet was very important or essential for kindergarten success more than doubled from 19 to 48 percent, while the percentage that rated socioemotional skills as similarly important increased at a slower rate. Understanding how early academic skills translate into school success is an important aim in the current educational policy climate and, thus, the focus of this study.

ECE arrangements—preschool settings in which adults other than parents provide child care—play an important role in developing early academic skills prior to kindergarten (Sylva 2014). These arrangements, which serve growing numbers of children in the context of higher levels of maternal employment and single parent families, can take many forms (Fuller et al. 2004). Some are formal (e.g., center-based preschool, Head Start) with trained teachers, while others are informal (i.e., home-based) with care provided by relatives, nannies, or family daycare providers. ECE arrangements differ in the degree to which they help children develop the skills that schools will expect, with implications for their early achievement (Burchinal et al. 2008; Magnuson and Waldfogel 2005). Although evidence is mixed, children in formal ECE arrangements generally have higher early achievement than otherwise similar children in informal arrangements (Garces, Thomas, and Currie 2002; Rathbun and Zhang 2016).

Being in formal versus informal care, however, does not necessarily translate into better outcomes. Instead, the link between ECE arrangements and early achievement depends on the quality of care provided in these settings (hereafter referred to as ECE quality), which varies widely between formal and informal settings and among specific arrangements within these categories (e.g., center-based Head Start vs. center-based preschool; Magnuson and Waldfogel 2005; NICHD ECCRN 2002). Specifically, children in higher quality ECE arrangements have higher early achievement than do children in lower quality settings (Burchinal, Howes, and Kontos 2002).

ECE quality, however, is a broad term representing many features of the ECE environment linked to healthy development and achievement (i.e., curriculum, credentials, adult-child ratios, adult-child and peer-to-peer interactions; Cassidy et al. 2005; La Paro et al. 2012). The multifaceted nature of ECE has led to many definitions as to what ECE quality means and an equally diverse set of assessments used to quantify it. By trying to distill ECE quality into one concept, however, ECE scholars run the risk of prioritizing or excluding components of ECE arrangements that are important for children’s development (La Paro et al. 2012).

Components of ECE quality that have been less studied are nonparental caregiver characteristics (La Paro et al. 2012). Although ECE quality assessments often include measures of nonparental caregiver credentials (Burchinal et al. 2002), they often overlook other characteristics, including nonparental caregiver beliefs about what skills constitute a school-ready child (Lara-Cinisomo et al. 2009). After all, nonparental caregiver beliefs shape how they structure learning opportunities for children (Vartuli 1999) that set them up for school success.

Nonparental caregiver beliefs are influenced by many factors. In general, nonparental caregivers with ECE training (i.e., degree or certification in ECE) hold beliefs about early school skills that are more in line with what schools expect (File and Gullo 2002; McMullen and Alat 2002). Sue Vartuli (1999) found, however, that nonparental caregivers who attended ECE training programs experienced little change in beliefs across the course of the program, suggesting that nonparental caregivers held sets of beliefs that developed apart from formal training. Other studies have found that—even after adjusting for ECE arrangement and nonparental caregiver credentials—there was variation in nonparental caregiver beliefs (McCarty, Abbott-Shim, and Lambert 2001). Given that nonparental caregiver beliefs differ, even after controlling for factors associated with ECE quality, examining how these beliefs may influence early achievement is important.

The first aim of this study investigates the association between nonparental caregiver beliefs and children’s early achievement. I hypothesize that

Hypothesis 1 (H1): An increase in nonparental caregiver beliefs will be associated with higher academic achievement at kindergarten entry.

Variation in the Link between Nonparental Caregiver Beliefs and Early Academic Skills

Parental beliefs about what early academic skills a child should have at kindergarten entry are also important components of the early childhood ecology that help shape children’s early experiences and achievement. Specifically, parent beliefs influence which early skills they cultivate in their children (Barbarin et al. 2008; Puccioni 2015). There is, however, great variation in parental beliefs, stemming in part from uncertainty surrounding kindergarten expectations (McIntyre et al. 2007). Oscar Barbarin and colleagues (2008) found that many parents considered nominal knowledge (i.e., knowledge of letters and numbers) and early literacy to be important academic skills that should be developed prior to kindergarten entry; fewer parents thought inferential reasoning or general knowledge were particularly important for school readiness, despite the importance kindergarten teachers place on these skills. Despite differences in the types of skills parents believed children should have, parents’ early academic skills beliefs are generally and positively associated with children’s early achievement (Barbarin et al. 2008; Joe and Davis 2009).

Parents rely, in part, on nonparental caregivers to translate their beliefs into practice (Ansari et al. 2018). Whether nonparental caregivers help parents foster the skills they consider important for kindergarten depends on nonparental caregivers and parents sharing the same early school skill beliefs. Nonparental caregivers and parents, however, often differ in this respect, with Chaya Piotrkowski, Michael Botsko, and Eunice Matthews (2000) finding that parents believed that children should have a greater number of early school skills to be school-ready compared with nonparental caregivers. How nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs compare with one another is important because together, they may boost (e.g., both having high beliefs), counterbalance (e.g., one having higher beliefs than the other), or hinder (e.g., both having low beliefs) children’s skill development with implications for their early academic achievement. Unfortunately, this interplay of nonparental caregiver and corresponding parental beliefs is not well-studied.

Prior work suggests that, to promote academic success, parents and nonparental caregivers should have aligned beliefs about what early skills constitute a school-ready child (Abry et al. 2015; Jigjidsuren 2013). After all, nonparental caregivers and parents with similarly high beliefs would be well equipped to prepare children for school. Having similar beliefs may not, however, always be ideal. Specifically, children with nonparental caregivers and parents that believe children need a limited set of skills to be ready for school may experience lower achievement than their peers.

Misalignment in nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs may also matter. Tashia Abry and colleagues (2015) found that misalignment in preschool and kindergarten teacher beliefs about early school skills was negatively associated with children’s achievement. Dari Jigjidsuren (2013) examined misalignment between nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs but could not substantiate the link between early school skills beliefs and achievement. Neither study, however, examined types of misalignment. Perhaps misalignment does not confer the same advantages as having caregivers with aligned high beliefs, but it also may not be as detrimental as having caregivers with aligned low beliefs. Misalignment in which nonparental caregivers have higher beliefs than parents may also be more advantageous than the opposite form of misalignment. After all, nonparental caregivers communicate school expectations to parents who otherwise may not know them and structure learning opportunities for achieving them.

The second aim of this study is to test whether different types of alignment (i.e., aligned low, average, or high beliefs) and misalignment (i.e., nonparental caregivers having higher beliefs than parents and vice versa) in early academic skills beliefs are associated with children’s early achievement. Specifically, I hypothesize,

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Children who experience aligned high beliefs will have the highest achievement at kindergarten entry.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Children who experience aligned low beliefs will experience the lowest achievement at kindergarten entry.

Hypothesis 2c (H2c): Children experiencing aligned average beliefs will fall in the middle of these two categories in terms of achievement.

Hypothesis 2d (H2d): Children whose nonparental caregivers and parents have misaligned early academic skill beliefs—regardless of type—will experience higher achievement than those with aligned low beliefs, but lower achievement than those with aligned high beliefs.

Hypothesis 2e (H2e): Children with misaligned nonparental caregiver and parent beliefs in which nonparental caregiver beliefs are higher will have higher achievement than children whose parents have higher beliefs than their nonparental caregivers.

Although nonparental caregiver beliefs are important for all children, they may matter more for groups that have historically been underserved by U.S. schools. One such group are children from Latino/a immigrant households, who have some of the lowest levels of early achievement (Crosnoe, Bonazzo, and Wu 2015; Magnuson, Lahaie, and Waldfogel 2006). As with other vulnerable groups within U.S. schools—including children from U.S.-born black and Latino/a families—children from Latino/a immigrant households experience disproportionately high rates of poverty, segregation, and ethnic-based discrimination, all of which undermine the early skill development (Koury and Votruba-Drzal 2014).

Children from Latino/a immigrant households may face additional challenges to school success, such as their parents’ potential unfamiliarity with the U.S. educational system, linguistic barriers, and lower exposure to formal ECE arrangements (Crosnoe and López-Turley 2011). Although Latino/a immigrant families enjoy as much or more social support and pro-school values as other families, they may also have less access to information about what U.S. schools expect from their children to be academically successful (Suárez-Orosco, Suárez-Orosco, and Doucet 2003). In other words, the strong lines of social capital in Latino/a immigrant communities may not extend to meeting the expectations of U.S. schools.

Increasing forms of social capital that link schools to families may help to reduce disparities in academic achievement (Gamoran et al. 2012), especially for young children from Latino/a immigrant households (Rutherford and Kao 2007). Children from Latino/a immigrant households may derive heightened benefits from having nonparental caregivers with high early academic skills beliefs, especially when their parents share them (Crosnoe et al. 2015). In other words, if nonparental caregivers have beliefs that are a better match with what U.S. schools expect, they may help socialize Latino/a immigrant parents into those expectations and help children develop the skills that schools expect even if parents may be unsure of what those skills are. The third and fourth aims of this study, thus, test whether the hypotheses laid out above garner more evidence among children from Latino/a immigrant households than other groups of children. Specifically, I hypothesize that

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Children from Latino/a immigrant households will experience additional boosts in early achievement compared with peers when their nonparental caregivers believe a greater number of academic skills are needed to be prepared for school.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Types of early academic skills belief alignment or misalignment will be especially consequential for the academic achievement of children from Latino/a immigrant families than for other groups of children.

Method

Data and Sample

Hypothesis testing drew on data from the nine-month, four-year, and kindergarten waves of the ECLS-B, a nationally representative sample of children born in the United States in 2001 and their parents, nonparental caregivers, teachers, and school administrators. This sample was constructed with a complex, multistage probability design that excluded children born to mothers under 15 years of age, those adopted before the first assessment, or those who had died after birth. The initial sample consisted of 10,700 cases, of which about 6,900 were followed through kindergarten. All sample sizes have been rounded to the nearest 50 to comply with restricted-use data regulations.

Trained assessors conducted interviews with study children’s primary caregivers—most frequently, mothers—through which information about the study children, themselves, and their families were collected. In the wave of data collection occurring the year prior to kindergarten, primary caregivers were asked whether their children were in some form of regular nonparental ECE arrangement. Regular care was defined as arrangements that occurred on a routine schedule (at least weekly or on some other schedule), excluding occasional babysitting or “back up” arrangements (Chernoff et al. 2007). In cases where a parent indicated that their child had multiple ECE arrangements, they were asked to identify the arrangement in which the child spent most of his or her time. With parents’ permission, nonparental caregivers in these ECE arrangements also participated in an interview in which they were asked about the caregiving environment and their own backgrounds.

Because of the focus on types of belief alignment or misalignment between nonparental caregivers and parents, the analytical sample was restricted to children whose parents indicated that they were in nonparental ECE arrangements in the year prior to kindergarten. Children were included in the sample if they had responses from both nonparental caregivers and parents on the independent variables of interest and math and reading kindergarten achievement scores. The sample was further restricted to the four largest groups within U.S. schools, namely, children from U.S.-born Latino/a, non-Hispanic black (hereafter referred to as black), non-Hispanic white (hereafter referred to as white), and Latino/a immigrant households (Crosby et al. 2016; National Center for Education Statistics 2017). The resulting analytic sample included approximately 3,350 students with both nonparental caregiver and parental responses, including approximately 600 Latino/a children, half of which were from immigrant households. The remaining sample included 2,100 children from white and about 600 from black households.

Measurement

Academic achievement at kindergarten entry

Direct assessments of children’s math and reading achievement were developed specifically for use in ECLS-B and drew from standardized instruments and assessments developed for other studies of young children (i.e., the Test of Early Mathematics Ability [TEMA-3], Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing [CTOPPP], Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test [PPVT], and PreLas® 2000). These assessments were administered in the beginning of the children’s kindergarten year, with more than 80 percent of interviews taking place in the fall. The math assessment included questions about number sense, measurement, geometry, data analysis, statistics, and algebra, and the reading assessment included questions on emergent literacy and language. Testing took place in two stages, with students first assessed on general ability and then using a leveled assessment (i.e., easy, medium, or hard) to better measure their academic abilities. ECLS-B utilized item response theory to estimate responses on items not administered based on their patterns of correct and incorrect responses. Resulting math and reading achievement scores represent probability estimates of the number of questions a student would have correctly answered if administered the full set of items.

Nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs about early academic skills

Both nonparental caregivers and parents rated, on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (essential), the importance of 15 early school skills for kindergarten preparedness. For both nonparental caregivers and parents, exploratory factor analyses of these skills revealed an academic skills factor and a socioemotional skills factor.

For this study, I focused only on early academic skills to reflect the increased importance of academic skills in kindergarten today (Bassok et al. 2016). The early academic skills factor consisted of six skills for both nonparental caregivers (α = .851) and parents (α = .868), namely, ability to count to 20 or more, knowledge of most letters of the alphabet, recognition of colors and shapes, correct usage of a pencil or paintbrush, ability to write his or her name, and ability to read or pretend to read. Nonparental caregiver and parental responses to these six items were averaged to generate a mean early academic skills belief score for each. For example, a nonparental caregiver’s beliefs were defined as the average of his or her ratings for the six items categorized as early academic skills. Higher scores indicated believing that a broader set of academic skills were needed for a child to be considered “school-ready.”

I then separated nonparental caregiver mean beliefs into quartiles, with those in the lowest 25 percent of the distribution classified as having low beliefs; those in the highest 25 percent of the distribution classified as having high beliefs; and the 50 percent between them classified as having average beliefs. This process was repeated for parental mean beliefs. Using quartiles—as opposed to standard deviation cut-offs—addressed skewness toward higher beliefs among both nonparental caregivers and parents.

Types of alignment or misalignment in nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs

With these typologies, I classified children as having nonparental caregivers and parents with one of five types of belief alignment or misalignment: (1) aligned high beliefs (i.e., both nonparental caregivers and parents in top 25 percent of beliefs); (2) aligned average beliefs (i.e., both nonparental caregivers and parents in middle 50 percent); (3) aligned low beliefs (i.e., both nonparental caregivers and parents in bottom 25 percent); (4) misaligned beliefs in which parent beliefs were higher; and (5) misaligned beliefs in which nonparental caregiver beliefs were higher.

Household race/ethnicity and nativity

In line with prior work with ECLS-B (Mollborn, Fomby, and Dennis 2011), mother’s self-reported race/ethnicity and nativity was a proxy for household race/ethnicity and nativity. Study children were classified as coming from Latino/a immigrant, U.S.-born Latino/a, black, or white households.

Child, family, and nonparental caregiver covariates

All models controlled for covariates that may have been confounded with nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs and children’s early reading and math achievement. Covariates included children’s birth weight, sex/gender, age in months, whether they began kindergarten late, a baseline measure of mental scores at age 2, and whether they had any exposure to Head Start or center care prior to kindergarten. Household covariates included mother’s age at childbirth, English proficiency, work status, self-rated health, and family socioeconomic status (composite indicator of parental education, occupation, and income) and family structure. Nonparental caregiver covariates included the type of ECE arrangement in which they provided care (i.e., home-based relative care or nonrelative care, public or private prekindergarten, childcare center, Head Start, preschool or nursery school, or other nonparental care) and the number of hours children spent in these arrangements per week. The covariates tapping nonparental caregiver characteristics also included the caregiver’s sex/gender, length of experience working with children, ethnicity, and highest level of educational attainment. Other covariates were the number of early academic skill questions that nonparental caregivers and parents answered to account for any questions that they may have skipped.

Plan of Analyses

A four-step multivariate analysis addressed the research aims and hypotheses. First, I investigated the association between nonparental caregiver beliefs and early achievement by regressing early math and reading achievement on nonparental caregiver beliefs (i.e., low, average, high), controlling for a full set of covariates, parental beliefs, and household race/ethnicity and nativity to isolate the independent contribution of nonparental caregiver beliefs to achievement. This strategy tested H1.

Second, I explored associations between types of alignment or misalignment in nonparental and parental beliefs and early achievement by regressing math and reading achievement on a five-category measure of belief alignment or misalignment, controlling for a full set of covariates and household race/ethnicity and nativity. I performed pairwise comparisons that tested differences in children’s predicted math and reading achievement $(△ \hat{M})$ by type of alignment or misalignment, comparing children’s scores in each type of alignment or misalignment with all other types, testing H2a through H2e.

Third, I investigated the moderation of the association between nonparental caregiver beliefs and early achievement by race/ethnicity and nativity by examining both the main and interaction effects of nonparental caregiver beliefs and household race/ethnicity and nativity on math and reading achievement. I then performed pairwise comparisons of the differences in predicted math and reading achievement for all possible combinations of nonparental caregiver beliefs and household race/ethnicity and nativity. This strategy tested H3.

Fourth, I considered the moderation between types of belief alignment or misalignment and early achievement by household race/ethnicity and nativity. To do so, I interacted the five alignment or misalignment categories with race/ethnicity and nativity to determine main effects of both and interaction effects between the two on math and reading achievement. I conducted pairwise comparisons of differences in predicted math and reading achievement for all possible combinations of alignment or misalignment and household race/ethnicity and nativity. This step tested H4.

These analyses were conducted in Stata 14.0 (StataCorp 2015) and incorporated person and stratification weights to account for ECLS-B survey design, nonresponse, and differential attrition across waves. Weights took into account both the primary sampling unit (W54RPS), person weight (W54R0), and stratification identifier (W54RST)¹ to adjust standard errors for geographic nonindependence of observations associated with the sampling design.

For descriptive analyses, 200 out of 3,350 cases had missing values on at least one variable. Because the sample was restricted to children in nonparental ECE arrangements prior to kindergarten who also had early achievement scores, these focal independent and dependent variables did not include any missingness. All missing data in the sample were among covariates. Missing data were sequentially imputed using chained equations within the MI IMPUTE suite of commands in Stata with 50 imputed data sets (Enders 2010). All models were then estimated with the resulting imputed data.

Results

Overview of Early Achievement and Early Academic Skills Beliefs across Diverse Groups

Mean math and reading achievement scores for the sample were 40.39 (SE = 0.30) and 38.36 (SE = 0.49), respectively. Children from Latino/a immigrant households had the lowest math (M = 35.81, SE = 0.70) and reading (M = 33.00, SE = 1.10) achievement in the sample, echoing prior findings that suggest these children enter school with fewer of the early academic skills that schools expect at kindergarten entry (Table 1).

Table 1.

Mean Dependent and Independent Variables for Full Sample, ECLS-B.

	Full sample		Children from Latino/a immigrant households		Children from U.S.-born Latino/a households		Children from white households		Children from black households
Variables	M	(SE)	M	(SE)	M	(SE)	M	(SE)	M	(SE)
Early school achievement
Math scores	40.39	(0.30)	35.81	(0.70)	37.85	(1.05)	42.51	(0.33)	36.56	(0.62)
Reading scores	38.36	(0.49)	33.00	(1.10)	36.09	(1.53)	40.52	(0.55)	34.88	(0.91)
Early academic skills beliefs
Nonparental caregiver mean beliefs	3.72	(0.02)	3.80	(0.04)	3.78	(0.06)	3.66	(0.02)	3.86	(0.04)
Nonparental caregiver beliefs (proportion)
Low	0.32		0.25		0.27		0.36		0.22
Average	0.42		0.45		0.47		0.40		0.47
High	0.27		0.31		0.26		0.25		0.31
Parental mean beliefs	3.89	(0.02)	4.08	(0.04)	3.94	(0.04)	3.80	(0.02)	4.09	(0.04)
Parental beliefs (proportion)
Low	0.31		0.17		0.28		0.37		0.20
Average	0.47		0.56		0.47		0.46		0.48
High	0.22		0.27		0.26		0.18		0.32
Type of alignment or misalignment (proportion)
Misaligned: Parent higher	0.29		0.31		0.28		0.28		0.33
Misaligned: Nonparental caregiver higher	0.32		0.30		0.31		0.33		0.29
Aligned: high	0.07		0.09		0.07		0.05		0.11
Aligned: average	0.20		0.25		0.24		0.19		0.22
Aligned: low	0.12		0.06		0.10		0.15		0.05
Child characteristics
Birth weight (proportion)
Healthy birth weight	0.92		0.92		0.93		0.94		0.87
Low birth weight	0.06		0.07		0.06		0.06		0.10
Extremely low birth weight	0.01		0.01		0.02		0.01		0.02
Female (proportion)	0.48		0.43		0.46		0.49		0.52
Child age in months	51.95	(0.09)	52.67	(0.29)	52.05	(0.34)	51.89	(0.10)	51.59	(0.17)
Began kindergarten late (proportion)	0.32		0.26		0.33		0.33		0.33
Mental score at age two	117.47	(1.01)	110.73	(2.55)	115.31	(2.47)	118.84	(1.35)	118.440	(1.61)
Head Start/Center Care exposure (proportion)	0.82		0.76		0.76		0.84		0.81
Household characteristics
Mother’s age at birth	27.38	(0.16)	26.69	(0.43)	24.84	(0.50)	28.47	(0.26)	24.83	(0.28)
Mother’s English proficiency at childbirth	3.81	(0.02)	2.88	(0.07)	3.43	(0.08)	4.00	(0.00)	4.00	(0.00)
Mother’s work status (proportion)
Employed: 35+ hr/week	0.44		0.39		0.51		0.44		0.48
Employed: <35 hours/week	0.21		0.12		0.17		0.24		0.17
Unemployed or out of labor force	0.35		0.49		0.32		0.32		0.35
Mother’s self-rated health (proportion)
Poor	0.01		0.00		0.03		0.01		0.02
Fair	0.07		0.17		0.07		0.04		0.14
Good	0.26		0.34		0.35		0.22		0.30
Very Good	0.37		0.28		0.34		0.40		0.31
Excellent	0.29		0.21		0.22		0.33		0.24
Family socioeconomic status	−0.03	(0.03)	−0.66	(0.03)	−0.23	(0.06)	0.24	(0.03)	−0.52	(0.04)
Family status (proportion)
Both biological parents	0.68		0.80		0.59		0.76		0.31
One bio, one nonbio parent	0.06		0.03		0.05		0.07		0.06
Biological mother only	0.22		0.16		0.30		0.14		0.60
Biological father only	0.01		0.01		0.00		0.01		0.01
Adoptive parent only	0.00		0.00		0.03		0.00		0.00
Guardian only	0.02		0.00		0.03		0.02		0.02
Nonparental caregiver characteristics
Type of childcare provided (proportion)
Relative at home	0.13		0.16		0.21		0.11		0.13
Nonrelative at home	0.08		0.04		0.06		0.10		0.04
Public prekindergarten	0.15		0.24		0.16		0.11		0.22
Private prekindergarten	0.17		0.08		0.10		0.21		0.11
Childcare center	0.08		0.06		0.10		0.09		0.09
Head start	0.14		0.28		0.16		0.08		0.26
Preschool or nursery school	0.23		0.12		0.20		0.28		0.12
Other program	0.03		0.03		0.02		0.03		0.03
Nonparental caregiver length in industry	12.40	(0.25)	11.72	(0.63)	10.94	(0.62)	12.52	(0.31)	13.38	(0.45)
Nonparental caregiver is female (proportion)	0.97		0.99		0.97		0.97		0.97
Nonparental caregiver is Latino/a (proportion)	0.14		0.53		0.44		0.05		0.03
Nonparental caregiver education (proportion)
Eighth grade or below	0.03		0.14		0.06		0.01		0.02
Ninth to 12th grade	0.06		0.04		0.08		0.06		0.08
High school diploma/equivalent	0.11		0.05		0.13		0.13		0.08
Vo tech or some college	0.36		0.29		0.38		0.36		0.40
Bachelor’s degree	0.30		0.29		0.24		0.31		0.29
More than bachelor’s degree	0.14		0.19		0.10		0.14		0.14
Number of hours per week child spent in care	28.15	(0.44)	26.40	(1.21)	29.67	(1.20)	25.92	(0.54)	38.45	(1.03)
Questions answered by parent	6.00	(0.00)	6.00	(0.00)	6.00	(0.00)	6.00	(0.00)	6.00	(0.00)
Questions answered by nonparental caregiver	6.00	(0.00)	5.99	(0.00)	6.00	(0.00)	6.00	(0.00)	6.00	(0.01)
N	3,350		300		300		2,100		600

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. ECLS-B = Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey–Birth Cohort.

Nonparental caregivers and parents had mean early academic skills beliefs of 3.72 (SE = 0.02) and 3.89 (SE = 0.02), respectively. When categorized by level of beliefs, 32 percent of nonparental caregivers had low beliefs, 42 percent had average beliefs, and 27 percent had high beliefs; 31 percent of parents had low, 47 percent had average, and 22 percent had high beliefs. Of note, children from black and Latino/a immigrant households—although having the lowest achievement scores—had the highest proportions of nonparental caregivers and parents with high beliefs in the sample.

Misalignment in nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs was more prevalent than alignment. The most common situation across the sample and for each subgroup was having experienced misaligned beliefs or aligned average beliefs. Having aligned high beliefs was the least common, with less than 12 percent of children in each subgroup having had nonparental caregivers and parents with similarly high beliefs. Children from black and Latino/a immigrant families, again, were the most likely groups to have had nonparental caregivers and parents with aligned high beliefs.

Nonparental Caregiver Beliefs and Early Achievement

The first aim of the study investigated the association between nonparental caregivers’ early academic skills beliefs and children’s early achievement. Table 2 presents results from multivariate regressions exploring the associations between early math (Model 1) and reading (Model 3) achievement and nonparental caregiver beliefs, controlling for parental beliefs, household race/ethnicity and nativity, and a full set of covariates to isolate the contribution of nonparental caregiver beliefs on achievement.

Table 2.

Results for Math and Reading Achievement by Early Academic Skills Beliefs and Household Race/Ethnicity/Nativity.

	b coefficient (SE)
	Math achievement				Reading achievement
	Nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs		Type of alignment or misalignment		Nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs		Type of alignment or misalignment
Variables	(1)		(2)		(3)		(4)
Nonparental caregiver beliefs
Low	−1.76	(0.46)***			−2.58	(0.82)**
Average	−0.42	(0.57)			−0.83	(0.75)
(Ref. High)
Parental beliefs
Low	−1.80	(0.59)**			−2.42	(0.83)**
Average	−1.23	(0.38)**			−1.59	(0.61)*
(Ref. High)
Type of alignment or misalignment
Misaligned, parental higher			−1.25	(0.67)			−2.16	(1.24)
Misaligned, nonparental caregiver higher			−1.05	(0.72)			−1.62	(1.29)
Aligned average			−0.80	(0.80)			−1.65	(1.23)
Aligned low			−3.07	(0.86)***			−4.24	(1.53)**
(Ref. Aligned high)
Household race/ethnicity/nativity
Latino/a immigrant	−4.12	(0.84)***	−3.86	(0.86)***	−3.70	(1.35)**	−3.33	(1.35)*
U.S.-born Latino/a	−2.49	(0.89)**	−2.31	(0.89)*	−1.07	(1.42)	−0.82	(1.42)
Black	−2.59	(0.62)***	−2.32	(0.64)***	−1.38	(0.80)	−1.01	(0.82)
(Ref. white)
Constant	39.21	(43.11)	35.60	(42.69)	54.66	(23.99)*	47.84	(23.91)*

Note. n = 3,350; all models included a full set of covariates.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed tests.

Models 1 and 3 in Table 2 show that having nonparental caregivers with low beliefs was associated with more than a 1.5 point lower math (b = −1.76, SE = 0.47, p < .001) and a more than 2.5 lower reading (b = −2.58, SE = 0.82, p = < .01) achievement score compared with having nonparental caregivers with high beliefs. Pairwise comparisons (see Online Appendix A) revealed that children with low nonparental caregiver beliefs also had significantly worse math ( $Δ \hat{M} = 1.34$ , p < .01) and reading ( $△ \hat{M} = 1.76$ , p < .01) achievement than their peers with average nonparental caregiver beliefs. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in early achievement between children with high versus average nonparental caregiver beliefs.

The first hypothesis (H1) that nonparental caregiver beliefs would be positively associated with achievement, thus, receives mixed support. In other words, having nonparental caregivers who believed fewer academic skills were important for kindergarten readiness was negatively associated with early achievement, but having nonparental caregivers with average as opposed to high beliefs did not confer any disadvantage.

Types of Alignment or Misalignment in Academic Skills Beliefs and Early Achievement

The second aim was to test whether different types of alignment or misalignment in early academic skills beliefs were associated with children’s early achievement. Table 2 presents results for math (Model 2) and reading (Model 4) achievement. Pairwise comparisons evaluating differences in both math and reading achievement between each type of alignment or misalignment are included in Online Appendix B.

I hypothesized (H2a) that children with aligned high beliefs would have the highest early achievement, to which I found mixed support. Children with aligned high beliefs scored 3 points higher on math (b = −3.07, SE = 0.86, p < .001) and more than 4 points higher on reading (b = −4.24, SE = 1.53, p < .01) achievement than did peers with aligned low beliefs, but did not score significantly higher on either form of achievement than children with other sets of nonparental caregiver and parent beliefs.

Next, I hypothesized (H2b) that children with aligned low beliefs would have the lowest early achievement. This hypothesis was supported, with children experiencing other types of alignment or misalignment having significantly higher early achievement than this group. Pairwise comparisons were used to evaluate differences in achievement between children with aligned low beliefs and all other groups of children. These comparisons suggest that children with aligned low beliefs scored between 1.82 and 3.07 points below their peers in math and between 2.08 and 4.24 points below their peers in reading achievement.

I further hypothesized (H2c) that children with aligned average beliefs would perform better than those with aligned low beliefs but lower than those with aligned high beliefs. Pairwise comparisons suggest that the only group that performed significantly differently from children with aligned average beliefs were children with aligned low beliefs. Children with aligned average beliefs performed 2.27 (p < .01) points above their aligned low peers. Thus, I only found support for the first part of H2c.

In addition, I hypothesized (H2d) that children whose nonparental caregivers and parents had misaligned beliefs—regardless of type—would experience higher early achievement than those with aligned low beliefs, but lower achievement than those with aligned high beliefs. Children with both types of misalignment, indeed, performed better in both math and reading than those with aligned low beliefs. Children that had nonparental caregivers with higher beliefs than parents scored more than 2 points higher on math ( $△ \hat{M} = - 2.02$ , p < .01) and reading ( $△ \hat{M} = - 2.62$ , p < .05) than those with aligned low beliefs. Similarly, children whose parents had higher beliefs scored 1.82 (p < .05) and 2.08 (p < .05) higher on math and reading achievement, respectively, than their aligned low peers. Thus, having at least one nonparental caregiver or parent with average or high early academic skills beliefs seemed to confer advantage.

Children with either form of misaligned beliefs had similar reading and math achievement compared with peers with aligned high beliefs. This pattern lends support to the idea that nonparental caregivers with higher beliefs provide families with social capital that can boost children’s achievement, even if parents are unsure what skills constitute a school-ready child.

Last, I hypothesized (H2e) that children with misaligned beliefs in which nonparental caregiver beliefs were higher than parents would have higher academic achievement than children whose parents had higher beliefs. Pairwise comparisons testing the significance of differences in math and reading achievement between both types of misalignment suggest that children in these types did not have significantly different levels of math and reading achievement.

Nonparental Caregiver Beliefs and Early Achievement by Race/Ethnicity and Nativity

The third study aim investigated the moderating effect of race/ethnicity and nativity on the association between nonparental caregiver beliefs and early achievement, with special attention to children from Latino/a immigrant families. Table 3 includes the main and interaction effects of nonparental caregiver beliefs and household race/ethnicity and nativity on early math (Model 1) and reading (Model 2) achievement. Pairwise comparisons (Online Appendix C) test whether differences in math and reading achievement between each combination of nonparental caregiver beliefs and household race/ethnicity and nativity are significant. Of note, Online Appendix C includes only those pairwise comparisons that were significant (p < .05).

Table 3.

Moderation of Association between Nonparental Caregiver Beliefs and Math and Reading Achievement by Race/Ethnicity/Nativity, Controlling for Parental Beliefs.

	Math achievement		Reading achievement
	Nonparental caregiver beliefs × race/ethnicity and nativity (controlling for parental beliefs)		Nonparental caregiver beliefs × race/ethnicity and nativity (controlling for parental beliefs)
Variables	(1)		(2)
Nonparental caregiver beliefs
Low	−1.10	(0.58)	−2.21	(1.01)*
Average	−0.37	(0.69)	−0.91	(0.92)
(Ref. High)
Household race/ethnicity/nativity
Latino/a immigrant	−2.72	(1.25)*	−0.79	(2.06)
U.S.-born Latino/a	−3.05	(1.56)	−2.80	(2.37)
Black	−2.05	(0.86)*	−2.25	(0.96)*
(Ref. white)
Nonparental Caregiver Beliefs × Race/Ethnicity/Nativity
Latino/a Immigrant × Low	−3.61	(1.59)*	−5.53	(2.24)*
Latino/a Immigrant × Average	−1.11	(1.57)	−3.51	(2.13)
U.S.-Born Latino/a × Low	−0.92	(1.79)	0.39	(2.79)
U.S.-Born Latino/a × Average	1.71	(1.82)	3.38	(2.85)
Black × Low	−1.45	(1.10)	1.50	(1.25)
Black × Average	−0.30	(1.10)	1.40	(1.37)
(Ref. white × High)
Constant	39.02	(42.61)	55.29	(23.56)*

Note. n = 3,350; All models included a full set of covariates.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed tests.

I hypothesized that (H3) having high nonparental caregiver beliefs would be associated with greater early achievement for children from Latino/a immigrant families than for other U.S. children. I found a significant interaction for children that had low nonparental caregiver beliefs and lived in a Latino/a immigrant household for both math and reading achievement (see Table 3). In other words, above and beyond academic disadvantages associated with having nonparental caregivers with low early school skill beliefs and coming from a historically underserved population, children from Latino/a immigrants families that had nonparental caregivers with low beliefs experienced an additional 3.61 point (SE = 1.59, p < .05) drop in math and a 5.53 point (SE = 2.24, p < .05) drop in reading achievement compared with the highest performing children in the sample, namely, children from white households with high nonparental caregiver beliefs. This interaction effect was quite sizable, considering math and reading achievement ranged from 30 to 45 points. To further contextualize these results, Figures 1 and 2 present predicted math and reading achievement scores, respectively, that take into account main effects of nonparental caregiver beliefs and race/ethnicity and nativity and the interaction between them. Error bars represent one standard error unit above and below the predicted means for each group.

Figure 1.

Predicted math test scores by interaction between nonparental caregiver beliefs and household race/ethnicity and nativity.

Figure 2.

Predicted reading test scores by interaction between nonparental caregiver beliefs and household race/ethnicity and nativity.

Pairwise comparisons of predicted math achievement means suggest that children from Latino/a immigrant families with low nonparental caregiver beliefs performed significantly worse on math achievement than all but two groups (i.e., children from U.S.-born Latino/a and black households with low nonparental caregiver beliefs). Children from Latino/a immigrant families with low nonparental caregiver beliefs, similarly, had significantly lower reading achievement than all but two groups (i.e., children from Latino/a immigrant households with average nonparental caregiver beliefs and children from U.S.-born Latino/a households with low nonparental caregiver beliefs). These results translate into point differentials reaching as high as 7 points for math and 8 points for reading achievement and represent unsettling achievement gaps. Although there were significant differences in early achievement between other demographic groups, these differences were products of the main effects of nonparental caregiver beliefs and race/ethnicity and nativity and not interactions.

I hypothesized (H3) that having high nonparental caregiver beliefs would be associated with greater early achievement for children from Latino/a immigrant families than for other children, but I find that children from Latino/a immigrant households are harmed by having nonparental caregivers with low beliefs compared with their peers.

Types of Alignment or Misalignment and Early Achievement by Race/Ethnicity and Nativity

Last, I considered moderation of the association between types of belief alignment or misalignment and early achievement by household race/ethnicity and nativity, paying special attention to children from Latino/a immigrant households. Table 4 presents main and interaction effects for type of alignment or misalignment and household race/ethnicity and nativity. Pairwise comparisons contrasting predicted achievement mean scores for all groups of children can be found in Online Appendix D, although only significant (p < .05) comparisons are shown.

Table 4.

Moderation of Association between Type of Belief Alignment or Misalignment and Math Achievement by Race/Ethnicity and Nativity.

	b coefficient (SE)
	Math achievement
	Type of Alignment or Misalignment × Race/Ethnicity/Nativity
Variables	(1)
Type of alignment or misalignment in parents and caregiver beliefs
Misaligned, parent higher	−0.07	(0.98)
Misaligned, nonparental caregiver higher	0.04	(0.88)
Aligned average	0.59	(1.10)
Aligned low	−1.54	(0.96)
(Ref. Aligned high)
Household race/ethnicity and nativity
Latino/a immigrant	−1.24	(2.35)
U.S.-born Latino/a	−1.57	(2.52)
Black	0.45	(1.55)
(Ref. white)
Type of Alignment or Misalignment × Race/Ethnicity and Nativity
Latino/a Immigrant × Misaligned, Parent Higher	−2.93	(2.56)
Latino/a Immigrant × Misaligned, Nonparental Caregiver Higher	−0.92	(2.24)
Latino/a Immigrant × Aligned Average	−4.39	(2.46)
Latino/a Immigrant × Aligned Low	−5.72	(3.28)
U.S.-born Latino/a × Misaligned, Parent Higher	0.34	(2.66)
U.S.-born Latino/a × Misaligned, Nonparental Caregiver Higher	−1.30	(2.65)
U.S.-Born Latino/a × Aligned Average	−0.49	(2.81)
U.S.-Born Latino/a × Aligned Low	−3.07	(2.77)
Black × Misaligned, Parent Higher	−3.15	(1.58)*
Black × Misaligned, Nonparental Caregiver Higher	−3.21	(1.83)
Black × Aligned Average	−2.65	(1.77)
Black × Aligned Low	−2.58	(2.56)
(Ref. Aligned high, white)
Constant	34.63	(42.98)

Note. n = 3,350; All models included a full set of covariates.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed tests.

For math achievement (Model 1), there was only a significant interaction (b = −3.15, SE = 1.58, p < .05) for children from black households with misaligned beliefs in which parents had higher beliefs than nonparental caregivers. Figure 3 graphically depicts predicted math achievement for each group. Interestingly, for reading achievement, there were no interactions between type of alignment or misalignment and household race/ethnicity and nativity. I, therefore, do not present results or predicted means for reading achievement.

Figure 3.

Predicted math test scores by interaction between type of alignment or misalignment in beliefs and race/ethnicity and nativity.

I hypothesized (H4) that early academic skills belief alignment or misalignment would be more consequential for Latino/a immigrant families than for other children. Although there were no interactions for reading achievement by type of alignment or misalignment and household race/ethnicity and nativity, there were interactions in math achievement for children from black households. Despite no significant interactions for children from Latino/a immigrant households, patterns of results justified probing pairwise contrasts between groups.

Pairwise comparisons of predicted math achievement means reveal that children from Latino/a immigrant households with aligned low or average beliefs were at an even greater disadvantage than their peers. Specifically, children from Latino/a immigrant families with aligned low beliefs had significantly lower math achievement—between 5 and 10 points—than all but five groups of children (i.e., children from black households with aligned low beliefs; children from U.S.-born Latino/a households with aligned low beliefs; children from Latino/a immigrant households with aligned average, aligned low, and misaligned beliefs where parents had higher beliefs).

Children from Latino/a immigrant households with aligned average beliefs performed worse than other groups, although to a lesser extent than those with aligned low beliefs. Specifically, children from Latino/a immigrant households with aligned average beliefs scored 2 to 6 points lower on math achievement than did children from white households regardless of type of alignment or misalignment, children from black households with aligned high or average beliefs, children from U.S.-born Latino/a households in which parents had higher beliefs, and children from Latino/a immigrant households that had nonparental caregivers with higher beliefs.

Children from Latino/a immigrant households with misaligned beliefs in which parent beliefs were higher performed 4 points lower on math achievement than children from white households with aligned high, aligned average, and both types of misaligned beliefs. Last, children from Latino/a immigrant households with misaligned beliefs where nonparental caregiver beliefs were higher performed 2 points lower than their white counterparts with aligned average beliefs, white peers with misaligned beliefs where the nonparental caregiver beliefs were higher, and those from black households with aligned high beliefs.

To summarize, children from Latino/a immigrant families did not benefit more than other children from having aligned high beliefs. They were, however, more at risk than their peers of underperforming on measures of math achievement. Thus, types of belief alignment or misalignment were more academically consequential for Latino/a immigrant families than for other children in that they seemed to be hurt more by experiencing aligned low beliefs than other groups.

Discussion

This study examined whether nonparental caregiver beliefs about early academic skills predicted children’s early achievement and whether type of alignment or misalignment in nonparental caregiver and parental early academic skills beliefs was associated with early achievement. This study, further, investigated whether nonparental caregiver beliefs and the type of alignment or misalignment were more consequential for children from Latino/a immigrant households, given the social capital that nonparental caregivers provide families in the form of knowledge about what U.S. schools expect. I summarize the main findings before discussing what these results mean, how the limitations of this study should be corrected, and where to go next.

First, nonparental caregiver beliefs about early academic skills matter for children’s early achievement. More specifically, having a caregiver who believes that fewer early academic skills are necessary for kindergarten appeared to be detrimental for all children, but especially children from Latino/a immigrant families.

Second, having parents and nonparental caregivers who have aligned low beliefs seems to be particularly disadvantageous for children’s early academic achievement. All children benefit from having nonparental caregivers with at least some knowledge of what schools expect (having either average or high beliefs), but this benefit appears to be especially important for children from Latino/a immigrant households. That children from Latino/a immigrant families also seem to have less developed skills when they have caregivers with aligned low or aligned average beliefs suggests that the interplay of nonparental caregiver and parent beliefs is particularly critical in readying these children.

Several interesting patterns also emerged. For example, the only group for which I found a significant interaction by type of alignment or misalignment and race/ethnicity and nativity was for children from black households with misaligned beliefs in which parents had higher beliefs. In other words, children from black households with this form of misalignment experienced an additional disadvantage in math achievement at kindergarten entry. Prior research may help explain these findings. For instance, Piotrkowski and colleagues (2000) found that children from black (and Latino/a) households generally had parents with higher beliefs than nonparental caregivers regarding the skills children need to be prepared for school, which I also found in this study. Perhaps black parents depend more on nonparental caregivers than others to translate their beliefs into reality. However, more research is needed to illuminate the mechanism behind this finding.

Piotrkowski and colleagues (2000) additionally found that black and Latino/a parents believed that being able to communicate—and communicate in English—was especially important for children’s school readiness. This may, in part, explain why there were no interactions between the type of belief alignment or misalignment children experienced and household race/ethnicity and nativity on early reading achievement. Perhaps parents and nonparental caregivers of children from black and Latino/a immigrant families believe that developing children’s early literacy and language skills is more of a priority than fostering early math skills—anticipating that these are areas in which these particular children will struggle when they reach kindergarten. Thus, which skills—either early literacy or math skills—nonparental caregivers and parents believe constitute a school-ready child may also be linked to their achievement in specific domains and should be explored in future work.

Also noteworthy is that, for the most part, children whose nonparental caregivers held average beliefs did not have lower achievement scores than those with nonparental caregivers with high beliefs. Similarly, having nonparental caregivers and parents with average aligned or either form of misaligned beliefs did not confer disadvantage. These results are reassuring given the large number of children whose nonparental caregivers and parents hold these beliefs. Thus, future investment and efforts in increasing awareness around the early school skills children need for school should primarily be geared toward those nonparental caregivers and parents with the lowest beliefs.

These results bring up three themes for discussion: (1) the interplay of expectations among nonparental caregivers, parents, and kindergarten teachers; (2) different beliefs and tools for preparing children among ECE arrangements; and (3) access to high-quality ECE opportunities for Latino/a immigrant families.

First, because transactions between nonparental caregivers and parents are crucial components of the ECE ecology, understanding nonparental caregiver beliefs about early school skills requires attention to their interplay with both parent and kindergarten teacher beliefs. Whether a child is considered prepared for school is influenced by interactions within a wide array of contexts—namely, the ECE setting, the home, and the school (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006; Rimm-Kaufman and Pianta 2000). Greater coordination between actors within these ecological settings can benefit children’s early achievement. After all, nonparental caregivers may benefit from being in contact with the schools that the children in their care will soon attend. Similarly, if parents are in contact with both nonparental caregivers within ECE arrangements and their children’s future schools, they may also gain knowledge of school expectations and tools for augmenting their children’s learning at home (Hill and Taylor 2004).

This suggests future avenues of research. The present study considered only nonparental caregiver and parental beliefs in the year before kindergarten, leaving out the influence of kindergarten teachers on school preparation. Future work should explore the interplay of nonparental caregiver, parent, and kindergarten teacher beliefs and how alignment between these domains can predict later achievement. Doing so would address the fact that the measures of academic achievement used in this study were taken during the fall of the kindergarten year after children have already been in the care of a kindergarten teacher for several months. Tashia Abry and colleagues (2015) have investigated alignment in early school skills beliefs between preschool and kindergarten teachers, but more work is needed linking beliefs among different caregivers over time.

Second, nonparental caregivers bridge family and school contexts by communicating and acting upon their own beliefs about what skills constitute a school-ready child, which may or may not be informed by what schools expect children to know. Nonparental caregivers, however, are diverse, with some more in tune with what schools expect than others. For example, a preschool teacher may have more aligned standards and curricula when preparing children, while a grandmother providing care may act more on her personal beliefs about what children should know to be “school-ready.”

In addition to having different early school skills beliefs, nonparental caregivers vary in the resources they have to act on these beliefs. Some nonparental caregivers, such as teachers in Head Start, may have tools such as curricula and benchmark assessments for meeting kindergarten expectations; others, however, do not. Nonparental caregivers—regardless of ECE arrangement—should have access to similar tools that promote and measure the early academic skills that kindergarten teachers will expect.

One policy agenda that aims to provide parents, nonparental caregivers, and elementary teachers with tools for meeting school expectations is PK-3—an effort to create a master plan from preschool to third grade that lays out clear expectations for children at each grade level, aligns expectations across grades so that skills obtained in the prior grade lay the foundation for the next, and provides assessments for measuring student progress toward meeting these expectations (Bogard and Takanishi 2005; Reynolds, Magnuson, and Ou 2010). These efforts should be tailored to reach nonparental caregivers across a variety of ECE arrangements, such as in relative or nonrelative informal care settings, where many children—particularly children from Latino/a immigrant households—may disproportionately receive care prior to kindergarten entry.

Policy efforts like PK-3 should also provide nonparental caregivers and parents with instructions on how to teach the skills that schools expect. After all, nonparental caregivers and parents may have strong beliefs about what skills children should have at kindergarten entry, and these beliefs may be in line with what kindergarten teachers expect. Nonparental caregivers and parents may, however, not know the best ways to foster these skills (Sandvik, van Daal, and Ader 2014). Although this study was limited by its focus on beliefs as opposed to practice, programs that promote early school skills should also provide nonparental caregivers and parents with low-cost teaching strategies for fostering these skills.

Third, because children from Latino/a immigrant households often face heightened challenges in their early paths to school, they may especially benefit from social capital in the form of informed, coordinated, and reinforcing supports for early skill development across different components of the early ecology (Rutherford and Kao 2007). Thus, future research should investigate the mechanisms behind selecting high-quality ECE arrangements among at-risk populations, such as children from Latino/a immigrant households. While this study included covariates associated with selecting a particular type of ECE arrangement, it did not address decision processes parents face when navigating the ECE landscape or the unique challenges Latino/a immigrant parents encounter when searching for quality care. Although children from Latino/a immigrant households are overrepresented among students who enter school with fewer of the academic skills kindergarten teachers expect (Crosnoe et al. 2015; Magnuson et al. 2006), results from this study suggest that having nonparental caregivers who believe greater numbers of skills are necessary for school success might provide greater benefits to such children. Thus, understanding the barriers that Latino/a immigrant parents face in finding nonparental caregivers with such beliefs is a worthy and timely endeavor.

In sum, children having nonparental caregivers who believe that fewer early academic skills constitute a school-ready child perform worse on measures of academic achievement than do their peers. Similarly, children whose nonparental caregivers and parents have aligned low beliefs perform worse than their peers. These disparities are especially worrisome for children from Latino/a immigrant households, who experience additional disadvantages from having low nonparental caregiver beliefs and from having aligned low or average nonparental and parental beliefs. Understanding the interplay of caregiver beliefs within the home, ECE setting, and school not only sheds light on the dynamic processes and flow of social capital among and between different actors during the early school years but also has the potential to assist policy makers and caregivers in deciding how to best promote crucial early school skills so that all children enter school ready to learn.

Supplemental Material

Appendix_A-F – Supplemental material for Nonparental Caregivers, Parents, and Early Academic Achievement Among Children from Latino/a Immigrant Households

Supplemental material, Appendix_A-F for Nonparental Caregivers, Parents, and Early Academic Achievement Among Children from Latino/a Immigrant Households by Lilla K. Pivnick in Sociological Perspectives

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author acknowledges the support of grants from the Institute of Education Sciences, Award R305A150027 (PI: Robert Crosnoe) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24 HD42849, PI: Mark Hayward; T32 HD007081-35, PI: R. Kelly Raley) to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin.

Notes

ORCID iD

Lilla K. Pivnick

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biography

Lilla K. Pivnick is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and a Population Research Center Trainee.

References

Abry

Tashia

Lantham

Scott

Bassok

Daphna

LoCasale-Crouch

Jennifer

. 2015. “Preschool and Kindergarten Teachers’ Beliefs about Early School Competencies: Misalignment Matters for Kindergarten Adjustment.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 31:78–88.

Ansari

Arya

Pivnick

Lilla

Gershoff

Elizabeth

Crosnoe

Robert

Orozco-Lapray.

Diana

2018. “What do Parents Want from Preschool? Perspectives of Low-income Latino/a Immigrant Families.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Published electronically October 2. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.08.007.

Barbarin

Oscar

Early

Diane

Clifford

Richard

Bryant

Donna

Frome

Pamela

Burchinal

Margaret

Howes

Carollee

Pianta

Robert

. 2008. “Parental Conceptions of School Readiness: Relation to Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Children’s Skills.” Early Education and Development 19(5):671–701.

Bassok

Daphna

Latham

Scott

Rorem

Anna

. 2016. “Is Kindergarten the New First Grade?” AERA Open 1(4):1–31.

Bogard

Kimber

Takanishi

Ruby

. 2005. “PK-3: An Aligned and Coordinated Approach to Education for Children 3 to 8 Years Old.” Social Policy Report 19(3):1–23.

Bronfenbrenner

Urie

Morris

Pamela

. 2006. “The Bioecological Model of Human Development.” Pp. 993–1028 in Handbook of Child Psychology, edited by Damon

Lerner

, Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley.

Burchinal

Margaret

Howes

Carollee

Kontos

Susan

. 2002. “Structural Predictors of Child Care Quality in Child Care Homes.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 17(1):87–105.

Burchinal

Margaret

Howes

Carollee

Pianta

Robert

Bryant

Donna

Early

Diane

Clifford

Richard

Barbarin

Oscar

. 2008. “Predicting Child Outcomes at the End of Kindergarten from the Quality of Pre-kindergarten Teacher–Child Interactions and Instruction.” Applied Developmental Science 12(3):140–53.

Cassidy

Deborah

Hestenes

Linda

Hegde

Archana

Hestenes

Stephen

Mims

Sharon

. 2005. “Measurement of Quality in Preschool Child Care Classrooms: An Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-revised.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 20(3):345–60.

10.

Chernoff

Jodi Jacobson

Kristin

Denton Flanagan

McPhee

Cameron

Park

Jennifer

. 2007. “Preschool: First Findings from the Preschool Follow-up of the ECLS-B.” Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

11.

Claessens

Amy

Duncan

Greg

Engel

Mimi

. 2009. “Kindergarten Skills and Fifth-grade Achievement: Evidence from the ECLS-K.” Economics of Education Review 28(4):415–27.

12.

Crosby

Danielle

Mendez

Julia

Guzman

Lina

López

Michael

. 2016. “Hispanic Children’s Participation in Early Care and Education: Type of Care by Household Nativity Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Child Age.” Bethesda, MD: National Research Center on Hispanic Children & Families.

13.

Crosnoe

Robert

. 2007. “Early Child Care and the School Readiness of Children from Mexican Immigrant Families.” International Migration Review 41(1):152–81.

14.

Crosnoe

Robert

Bonazzo

Claude

Nina

. 2015. Healthy Learners: A Whole Child Approach to Reducing Disparities in Early Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

15.

Crosnoe

Robert

López-Turley

Ruth

. 2011. “K-12 Educational Outcomes of Immigrant Youth.” The Future of Children 21(1):129–52.

16.

Duncan

Greg

Dowsett

Chantelle

Claessens

Amy

Magnuson

Katherine

Huston

Aletha

Klebanov

Pamela

Pagani

Linda S.

Feinstein

Leon

Engel

Mimi

Brooks-Gunn

Jeanne

Sexton

Holly

Duckworth

Kathryn

. 2007. “School Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology 43(6):1428–46.

17.

Enders

Craig

. 2010. Applied Missing Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

18.

File

Nancy

Gullo

Dominic

. 2002. “A Comparison of Early Childhood and Elementary Education Students’ Beliefs about Primary Classroom Teaching Practices.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 17(1):126–37.

19.

Fuller

Bruce

Loeb

Susanna

Strath

Annelie

Carrol

Bidemi Abioseh

. 2004. “State Formation of the Child Care Sector: Family Demand and Policy Action.” Sociology of Education 77(4):337–58.

20.

Gamoran

Adam

López-Turley

Ruth

Turner

Alyn

Fish

Rachel

. 2012. “Differences between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Families in Social Capital and Child Development: First-year Findings from an Experimental Study.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 30:97–112.

21.

Garces

Eliana

Thomas

Duncan

Currie

Janet

. 2002. “Longer-term Effects of Head Start.” American Economic Review 92(4):999–1012.

22.

Garcia

Eugene

Jensen

Bryant

. 2009. “Early Educational Opportunities for Children of Hispanic Origins.” Society for Research in Child Development 23(2):1–20.

23.

Guzman

Lina

Hickman

Shelby

Turner

Kimberly

Gennetian

Lisa

. 2018. Who Is Caring for Latino Children? The Characteristics of the Early Care and Education Teachers and Caregivers Serving a High Proportion of Hispanic Children. Bethesda, MD: National Research Center on Hispanic Children & Families.

24.

Hill

Nancy

Taylor

Lorraine

. 2004. “Parental School Involvement and Children’s Academic Achievement: Pragmatics and Issues.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 13(4):161–64.

25.

Jigjidsuren

Dari

. 2013. “School Readiness: Does it Matter if Parents and Caregivers Think Alike?” Working Paper. Retrieved May 9, 2019 (https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:a986b052-9f6f-4414-b8dd-70c20ed2414a).

26.

Joe

Emanique

Davis

James Earl

. 2009. “Parental Influence, School Readiness and Early Academic Achievement of African American Boys.” The Journal of Negro Education 78:260–76.

27.

Koury

Amanda

Votruba-Drzal

Elizabeth

. 2014. “School Readiness of Children from Immigrant Families: Contributions of Region of Origin, Home, and Childcare.” Journal of Educational Psychology 106(1):268–88.

28.

Ladd

Helen

Muschkin

Clara

Dodge

Kenneth

. 2014. “From Birth to School: Early Childhood Initiatives and Third-grade Outcomes in North Carolina.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33(1):162–87.

29.

La Paro

Karen

Thomason

Amy

Lower

Joanna

Kintner-Duffy

Victoria

Cassidy

Deborah

. 2012. “Examining the Definition and Measurement of Quality in Early Childhood Education: A Review of Studies Using the ECERS-R from 2003 to 2010.” Early Childhood Research & Practice 14(1). Retrieved May 9, 2019 (http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v14n1/laparo.html).

30.

Lara-Cinisomo

Sandraluz

Fuligni

Alison Sidle

Daugherty

Lindsay

Howes

Carollee

Karoly

Lynn

. 2009. “A Qualitative Study of Early Childhood Educators’ Beliefs about Key Preschool Classroom Experiences.” Early Childhood Research & Practice 11(1). Retrieved May 9, 2019 (http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v11n1/lara.html).

31.

Magnuson

Katherine

Lahaie

Claudia

Waldfogel

Jane

. 2006. “Preschool and School Readiness of Children of Immigrants.” Social Science Quarterly 87(5):1241–62.

32.

Magnuson

Katherine

Waldfogel

Jane

. 2005. “Early Childhood Care and Education: Effects on Ethnic and Racial Gaps in School Readiness.” The Future of Children 15(1):169–96.

33.

Mashburn

Andrew

Pianta

Robert

Hamre

Bridget

Downer

Jason

Barbarin

Oscar

Bryant

Donna

Burchinal

Margaret

Early

Diane

Howes

Carollee

. 2008. “Measures of Classroom Quality in Prekindergarten and Children’s Development of Academic, Language, and Social Skills.” Child Development 79(3):732–49.

34.

McCarthy

Frances

Abbott-Shim

Martha

Lambert

Richard

. 2001. “The Relationship between Teacher Beliefs and Practices, and Head Start Classroom Quality.” Early Education and Development 12(2):225–38.

35.

McIntyre

Laura Lee

Eckert

Tanya

Fiese

Barbara

DiGennaro

Florence

Wildenger

Leah

. 2007. “Transition to Kindergarten: Family Experiences and Involvement.” Early Childhood Education Journal 35(1):83–88.

36.

McMullen

Mary Benson

Alat

Kazim

. 2002. “Education Matters in the Nurturing of the Beliefs of Preschool Caregivers and Teachers.” Early Childhood Research & Practice 4(2). Retrieved May 9, 2019 (http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n2/mcmullen.html).

37.

Mollborn

Stefanie

Fomby

Paula

Dennis

Jeff

. 2011. “Who Matters for Children’s Early Development? Race/Ethnicity and Extended Household Structures in the United States.” Child Indicators Research 4(3):389–411.

38.

Murphey

David

Madill

Rebecca

Guzman

Lina

. 2017. “Making Math Count More for Young Latino Children.” Washington, DC: Child Trends.

39.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2017. “Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools.” The Condition of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

40.

National Education Goals Panel. 1997. “Special Early Child Report, 1997.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

41.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research Network. 2002. “Early Child Care and Children’s Development Prior to School Entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.” American Educational Research Journal 39(1):133–64.

42.

Piotrkowski

Chaya

Botsko

Michael

Matthews

Eunice

. 2000. “Parents’ and Teachers’ Beliefs about Children’s School Readiness in a High-need Community.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 15:537–58.

43.

Puccioni

Jaime

. 2015. “Parents’ Conceptions of School Readiness, Transition Practices, and Children’s Academic Achievement Trajectories.” The Journal of Education Research 108(2):130–47.

44.

Rathbun

Amy

Zhang

Anlan

. 2016. “Primary Early Care and Education Arrangements and Achievement at Kindergarten Entry.” Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

45.

Reynolds

Arthur

Magnuson

Katherine

Suh-Ruu

. 2010. “Preschool-to-third Grade Programs and Practices: A Review of Research.” Children and Youth Services Review 32(8):1121–31.

46.

Rimm-Kaufman

Sara

Pianta

Robert

. 2000. “An Ecological Perspective on the Transition to Kindergarten: A Theoretical Framework to Guide Empirical Research.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21(5):491–511.

47.

Rutherford

Taggart

Kao

Lindsay Grace

. 2007. “Does Social Capital Still Matter? Immigrant Minority Disadvantage in School-specific Social Capital and its Effects on Academic Achievement.” Sociological Perspectives 50(1):27–52.

48.

Sameroff

Arnold J.

2009. “The Transactional Model.” Pp. 139–61 in The Transactional Model of Development: How Children and Contexts Shape Each Other, edited by Sameroff

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

49.

Sandvik

Jenny Miglis

van Daal

Victor

Ader

Herman

. 2014. “Emergent Literacy: Preschool Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 14(1):28–52.

50.

Shonkoff

Jack

Phillips

Deborah

. 2000. “The Developing Brain.” Pp. 183–219 in From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development, edited by Phillips

Shonkoff

Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

51.

StataCorp. 2015. “Stata Statistical Software: Release 14.” College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

52.

Suárez-Orosco

Carola

Suárez-Orosco

Marcelo

Doucet

Fabienne

. 2003. “The Academic Engagement and Achievement of Latino Youth.” Pp. 420–41 in Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, edited by Banks

Banks

C. M.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

53.

Sylva

Kathy

. 2014. “The Role of Families and Pre-school in Educational Disadvantage.” Oxford Review of Education 40(6):680–95.

54.

Vartuli

Sue

. 1999. “How Early Childhood Teacher Beliefs Vary across Grade Level.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 14(4):489–514.

55.

Woolcock

Michael

Narayan

Deepa

. 2001. “Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy.” The World Bank Research Observer 15:225–49.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.43 MB