Microsoft Word Heckman final 2007-03-22c jsb doc
Yüklə 3,43 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
16 numbers in perspective, in 1940, this number was 3.8%. The birth rate for unmarried Black women has been higher than that of White unmarried women (including Hispanic women), but this gap has narrowed in recent years because the birth rate has grown at a faster pace for unmarried White women. 25 In 1970, the rate for unmarried Black women was roughly 7 times the rate for unmarried White women—96 per 1,000 versus 14 per 1,000. By 1998, the gap was reduced by 70%; it became 73 versus 38 per 1,000. Unfortunately, the birthrate for unmarried Hispanic women is only available for the 1990s, but it is the highest among the three demographic groups. In 1990, the birthrate for unmarried Hispanic women was 89.6 per 1,000, peaked at 101.2 per 1,000, and fell to 90.1 per 1,000 in 1998. 26
race. 27 In 1969, 5.5% of white children were born to unmarried mothers. The corresponding percentage for blacks was 34.9%. By 1999, these numbers were 26.7% and 68.8%, respectively. The percentage for Hispanics in 1999 was 42.1% versus 36.7% in 1990. Until recently, unmarried births have been increasing overall, although the percentage due to minority mothers has stabilized. 28
discussion in Ellwood and Jencks, 2002). Although the media has focused on celebrities who choose single parenthood, the bulk of the single mothers have high school education or less and the majority of this group consists of high school dropouts (see figure 6c). The incidence of divorce is greater for this group as well. 29 The percentage of children born to unmarried teenagers has trended up dramatically over the past fifty years. Close to 10% of all children were born to unmarried teenage mothers in 2000 (see figure 6d). Many pathologies are associated with less educated mothers and teenage mothers. They
17 are less likely to marry when they have children and they are more likely to divorce. Their abilities, (see Armor, 2003), family incomes, and the emotional and intellectual support accorded children are low. Figures 7a-b show that younger mothers provide less emotional and cognitive stimulation for their children, as do mothers with less schooling (figures 7c-d). While the debate is not settled as to which features of adverse family environments are most harmful to the success of children, there is uniform agreement that poor environments adversely affect child outcomes. Other studies show the same pattern. Mayer analyzed child outcomes classified by a long run measure of parental income. 30 Low family income is associated with single parenthood, divorce, reduced education, and low parental ability. Child test scores are greater for children from higher income families. Teenage pregnancy and high school dropout rates are strongly negatively correlated with family income. Young adult education, earnings, wage rates and participation in social pathologies are much greater for children from poor families. Mayer does not isolate which factors in the constellation of poverty are the main causes of poor child outcomes; but the constellation has a clear association with adverse child outcomes. McLanahan and Sandefur focus on another aspect of childhood disadvantage: one-parent vs. two-parent families. For a variety of data sets, and controlling for parental education, and family size, they show that: 1) attrition from high school is higher 31 , while test scores and school expectations are lower for children from one parent families 32 ; 2) college enrollment is lower 33 ;
3) labor force and school withdrawal is greater for disadvantaged children 34 ; and 4) teenage pregnancy is greater. 35 Ginther and Pollak extend their analysis to note that the real dichotomy is that between children living with both biological parents vs. other family structures. Being raised in an intact, two-parent family benefits child outcomes, relative to other family statuses. Armor presents evidence on a variety of home environmental factors and uses test scores of children as the outcomes for his analysis. Test scores, taken at early ages, predict schooling 18 and many other outcomes (see Cameron and Heckman, 2001). Armor shows the gap in ability and knowledge of math between children of teenage mothers and children of older mothers. 36
The gaps are 20 points when he does not control for maternal ability and are smaller but still important when he controls for parental ability (6 points higher ability leads a person to complete two more years of school). His book demonstrates the importance of parental ability as well as the additional negative effect of teenage pregnancy on child outcomes. Armor studies the effects of cognitive stimulation on child ability and math scores. 37 He goes part way toward isolating the factors characterizing adverse environments. Armor studies the effects of various environmental factors on the ability and math achievement of children. 38
factors play a substantial role in raising child test scores. Controlling for maternal ability, never- wed mothers who provide above average cognitive stimulation to their children can largely offset the circumstance of single parenthood in terms of their child’s cognitive outcomes. This evidence is consistent with a large body of research reported in the National Research Council Report Neurons to Neighborhoods (Shonkoff and Phillips; Carneiro, Heckman, and Masterov; and Cunha, et al.). The growth of adverse childhood environments explains a substantial part of the problems of schools, skills and crime in American society. It is especially problematic that poor environments are more common in the minority populations on which America must depend for the growth in its labor force (recall the data in table 1). Unless these environments are improved, one cannot rely on a growth in the skills of these groups to propel growth in workforce quality at the rate we have experienced in the past. The Importance of Cognitive and Noncognitive Ability in Economic Life Yüklə 3,43 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|