Monday, September 26, 2011
Science The Asian effect: How early in life does it start?
Posted by Steve Bogira on 09.26.11 at 01:39 PM
Asian-American students of all ages—especially those from the East Asian countries of China, Japan, and Korea—outperform their peers on standardized tests generally, and in math by wide margins. Researchers have come to call this the "Asian effect."
Most studies of the Asian effect have focused on children of at least elementary school age—but a 2008 study showed Asian-American children already outperforming their peers in math and literacy tests at age four.
Ohio State University sociologist Yongmin Sun wondered whether the effect existed even earlier. Sun compared results of cognitive tests of children of various racial and ethnic groups at ages nine months, two years, and four years, using data from a sample of 7,800 children born in 2001. The results of his study, published in the fall issue of Sociological Perspectives, are intriguing, and important beyond what they say about Asian-Americans.
At nine months, the East Asian-American children scored lowest among the racial/ethnic groups, although only European-American children outperformed them by a statistically significant margin. (The nine-month-olds were given tasks such as putting blocks into a cup, ringing a bell, and playing peek-a-boo.)
By age two, however, the East Asian-American children were performing as well on cognitive tests as their European-American counterparts, and better than all other racial/ethnic groups. By age four, the East Asian children were outperforming children in all other groups, and the gap was "fairly large."
The results at nine months cast doubt on the idea that the Asian effect is due to genetics, Sun says, though they don't completely refute a genetic hypothesis because some traits—height, for example—don't manifest themselves until later in life.
Sun notes that previous studies have attributed the Asian effect to the financial resources of Asian-American families, and the emphasis they place on education—a value "embedded in and implied by the doctrine of Confucius, which still remains influential in East Asian cultures." Perhaps East Asian-American children don't reap these advantages in infancy, when language skills aren't yet far along, Sun writes. As children begin to develop language skills in their second year, they "start to understand and be influenced by cultural values explicitly taught by parents and subtly embedded in parenting practices." They also are old enough as toddlers to benefit from their parents' tutoring, he says, and from the educational toys, books, private classes, and educational software their parents can provide.
East Asian-American children have important advantages beyond their parents' wealth and education, Sun notes: compared with other children, they're born prematurely less often, are generally healthier at birth, are less likely to be born into single-parent households, and have fewer siblings—all factors linked to better cognitive development. The inferior health of African-American and Hispanic-American children in his study was partly responsible for their lower cognitive scores. This suggests that more government money be spent on infants and on pregnant women in these minority communities to reduce their health problems, Sun says.
African-American, Hispanic-American, and American Indian parents also scored low in parent-child communication—they told stories, read books, and sang to their children less often than other parents. Sun believes minority parents need to be taught the key role such communication plays in cognitive development.
Sun notes that the math performance gap between African-American and East Asian-American four-year-olds in his study was almost as large as it is in eighth grade, according to other studies. Most of the East Asian advantage in math, in other words, has already developed "at least one year before our school systems even get a chance to address these racial gaps," he writes. "This finding sends a strong message to parents, educators, and policy makers alike: The effort to equalize racial inequality in educational outcomes needs to start earlier, probably in infancy."
Comments (14)
Showing 1-14 of 14
It should cast 100% doubt that the Asian Effect is caused by genetics. Any differences culturally between races/ethnicities is not to linked to genetics. It has been found, for example, that I (being a white male) probably have more in common with an East Asian-American, than I do with another white guy.
like
dislike
I do get very tired of this sort of analysis. Something similar was on the radio here this morning, with the take-home being, as usual, "Throw more money at poor black households." This despite the fact that not too very long ago, an unsurprising study result startled the media by demonstrating that there are rather large test-score gaps between black and white kids from same-income households. Poverty is not the issue.
The wealthy Asians sending their kids to Ivies (and Chinese school, starting in elementary) are often second-, third-, or fourth-generation Americans whose ancestors arrived here stony broke. As did my own family, on both sides, about a hundred years ago, mostly from farms and villages. Of my four grandparents, only three finished high school; only one went to college. That was the first English-speaking generation in America. Within two generations the young men had started going to graduate school; within three, the women. I'm trying to think of family members under the age of 70 without graduate degrees; I count two.
As for me, I've done more than enough time below the poverty line, and even now raise a child as a single mother at below median household income. This child, today, spent her day like so: School, Hebrew school, swimming lesson, homework, an episode of the Muppet Show, bed. She lost a privilege for sticking her tongue out at me. On the way home from swimming lessons, in the 23-year-old car, the conversation was about -- what else? -- how caucuses and primaries differ, and why people on the coasts think we live in Idaho. Breakfast conversation was driven by her questions about whatever was on NPR at the time. She's in elementary school, but she thinks about saving money for college. Household income: Not the issue.
You can throw all the money you like at poor households, and unless the mothers actually want to do whatever it is you're prescribing, it's not going to happen. I've seen this firsthand, repeatedly, as a volunteer and as a do-gooder on committees and boards. Set up a program to hand out free preventive medical care and books, and you know who shows up? Strapped middle-class types who're johnny-on-the-spot. These are people who appreciate the value of the books and preventive medical care. Take the same books and care to the homes of the people you want to do good to, and you'll likely encounter...not outright hostility, but a distinct unease and mistrust, and you can expect those books to be lost and shredded (or put away till the child can read), the health tips forgotten or ignored. Get aggressive with the prenatal care and I can tell you what you'll see: Healthy babies whose mothers will not tear themselves to bits over the relative merits of breastfeeding; will not scan ingredient lists before buying treats for the kids; will not go around OCDlike babyproofing the apartment; will not harangue the landlord about an unsafe whatever; will not read up anxiously on when the first pediatric dental visit should be; will smoke and will let other people smoke around the kid; will not bring babies and toddlers to the library...do I go on? Health is a good start. Unless the parents -- which is generally to say the mothers -- are actually interested in this stuff, though, it's not going to be maintained.
The issue is not money -- not even class -- but culture. Your piece begins to make that point, Steve, and then veers away from it in favor of throwing money. But there's really not a hell of a lot you can do about culture from outside, and I think it's questionable whether anyone has the right to try. Where we usually end up in these conversation is in full-day preschool programs, endorsed anxiously as aiming at school readiness and success. In other words, putting the kids, for most of their waking hours, in the care of people we think will do better. And if that sounds to you faintly like Indian school, it should.
All the money in the world isn't going to fix the single-parent problem if we're talking about an after-the-kid-is-born approach. You can't pay people to stay married, and couples who stay together for financial reasons/"for the sake of the kids" often find that doesn't work out as hoped.
A more serious approach to contraception is the best you can do in that regard, unless society wants to go the route of forcing single women (poor, of course) to have abortions, which - rabidly drooling eugenics supporters aside - nobody takes seriously.
However, govt spending for medical care of poor pregnant moms and newborns is a very smart investment when you look at the long-term health of the child-then-adult as well as the health care savings.
"are less likely to be born into single-parent households"
Sparky, how a society decides to address issues of public health and education is the definition of culture.
"The issue is not money -- not even class -- but culture. Your piece begins to make that point, Steve, and then veers away from it in favor of throwing money."
You're missing the point, skeptic. Healthy babies are unqualified good. But they don't stay that way unless the mother finds health important enough that she'll seek info, learn what she needs to learn, and fight for a good environment and education for the kid. It's a hell of a lot of work whether or not there's money, but you can't do it for the mom. You can try taking a lot of the kid's care away from the mom, as we gently do with full-day preschool programs and social services streamed through public schools and after-school programs and community programs etc. Even then, if mama won't back you up, the odds of your winning are low. That has everything to do with mama's culture. And you're not going to change it as an outsider.
As for "Sparky, how a society decides to address issues of public health and education is the definition of culture.": No, culture involves much more than this. Apart from which, the society we're talking about comprises many cultures.
See what I said above about who shows up for the free books and healthcare. It's not the people the programs are aimed at. It's the people who already value health and education, and see their lives -- and their children's -- in terms of decades. They look at their babies and see college, career, next generation, and it's not pie-in-sky; they have a realistic idea of how to get there. That involves a culturally-transmitted orientation and an enormous amount of knowledge that's been collecting since their own births, and it's a much more complex thing than social services providers like to admit. You can't just slather people with social workers and books and nurses and expect test gaps to close. It's not that simple.
As for the single-parent problem, what helps a hell of a lot is if the girls learn math, take their own futures seriously, and refrain from the babymaking until/unless they can support kids well on their own if necessary. Which also involves a lot of realistic thinking ahead. Parents not only divorce; they sometimes become disabled, sometimes die. But again, these are cultural issues involving the status of women, the future's reality, imagined degrees of control over one's future, etc., and you can't force those on people via social worker. It doesn't work so hot with democracy via armed forces and Defense money, either. What's the name of that new book? We Meant Well?
@FGFM: Nice.
You say it's not so simple, Sparky--yet you also say, "The issue is not money--not even class--but culture." It can only be one? Who's simplifying? Culture isn't connected to class, and money?
You give an example of your own terrific parenting--and I believe you are a terrific parent. But then you feel compelled to add that you do this despite your meager household income. That's typical, you think?
Cultural norms are indeed an issue and an obstacle. But I get very tired of the cliched "Let's not throw money at poor families" response, and the "Nothing works, because I've seen it not work." I get around, too, Sparky, and I've seen programs that are smart and sophisticated and that take the issues you mention into consideration. And then, instead of throwing their hands up and saying nothing can be done, they do their best and they make a difference. Especially with young children and their parents--thanks to philanthropists and government programs that, luckily, sometimes still "throw money" at poor people.
"You say it's not so simple, Sparky--yet you also say, "The issue is not money--not even class--but culture." It can only be one? Who's simplifying? Culture isn't connected to class, and money? "
It is connected, but culture is considerably more than class and money. It's an enormously rich set of conversations and judgments about what the world is and how it works, what is good, and what successful adulthood looks like, embodied in behaviors, stories, rites, language, song. Which is why my parenting is dead typical of Jews without money, whether or not their families have had money in recent memory. (And thanks for the compliment.) "My son the doctor" doesn't come from nowhere. Neither does the scene in Malamud's "The Jewbird", where the aggravating bird makes himself useful as a tutor to the schleppy kid, and the father in his undershirt approves, provisionally. The grades go up, the bird's a hero in the kitchen, the mother beams. (Then it all falls apart, of course.) My childhood best friend -- also Jewish, crazy as they come, poorer than her truck-driver-father family, single mom a long time. Of course her kid goes to Hebrew school and has music lessons, of course there's college plans, and yes, he's on the drippy side, because why should he get hurt playing some rough sport? And of course she's in there at the school angling for every special program she can get for him, has been since he was six and slow to read, forget how crazy and tragic the rest of their lives were.
My daughter's (yes) violin teacher had another young student she told us about, a boy whose parents made videos of every lesson, had the boy review the lesson, and made sure he had it down perfectly before the next lesson every time. "Chinese or Korean?" I asked. Chinese. That rigor doesn't cost money. The lessons themselves, and the instrument? If you want them bad for the kid, you'll figure it out, money or no. I'm looking at a piano in my living room. Did I buy it? No. Gift from an old lady whose mother had been in a nearby nursing home; we used to visit. My own lessons used to cost $5 a pop at a community music school, housed in a church in a bad neighborhood. Waiting room was always full of middle-class kids from another neighborhood. The school worked very hard to get instruments into the hands of poor kids, and succeeded, but eventually stopped their free-loan program. Too many instruments damaged in disintegrating households where nobody was going to take care of them properly. Contrast: my grandfather and his sibs slept three to the bed, but somebody made sure his little brother had a violin; I have it now. One reads but doesn't write in books, one practices but doesn't leave instruments lying around...this is culture, not money, not even class.
"But I get very tired of the cliched 'Let's not throw money at poor families' response, and the 'Nothing works, because I've seen it not work.' I get around, too, Sparky, and I've seen programs that are smart and sophisticated and that take the issues you mention into consideration. And then, instead of throwing their hands up and saying nothing can be done, they do their best and they make a difference."
With great energy, and at great expense, they make a difference for the few equipped to take advantage of them. And for them it's a blessing. (One of these programs -- EITC -- will help send my daughter to college.) But do things change substantially overall: that's the question. I say -- and not with pleasure -- no. We've been at this experiment many decades now. I do not think real solutions can come from outside the communities.
That's not some asshole's "hike up them bootstraps" line, btw. It's an unhappy recognition that teaching someone to fish is a fantastically complex enterprise and that it appears you can't import it wholesale into other people's lives -- except when they're your own children, or close enough. Not only is that tremendous work for decades, but it (often) works because you've got such huge power over your own kids. You can make them do things. Homework, room-cleaning, standing up straight and being civil to Mrs. Schelling. You don't get that kind of power over other people; nor, I think, should you.
You saw the same thing at work in The Interrupters, where it's clear that all the interruption does is buy time. No small thing, but not enough on its own. Try to pull a young man or woman into another culture in that moment...man, that's a tough racket. Look at that one thing Ameena's trying to teach: Know when and how to walk away. Now think about how many years you spent teaching your own children to grapple with those ones, in how many progressively deep iterations, and how well-supported you were by the cultural norms of your community. How many conversations, how many examples. And even so you only got them to the point of knowing these things are important to keep in the front of your mind, that simply reacting and fighting is a bad idea. Because in adulthood they'd have to find these lines on their own -- but they knew to look.
It just doesn't come from a social worker once a week or a CDBG paying for an activity coordinator, or mentor, or community programming, or whatever. Can those things help? Maybe. I don't think it really does the job, though. I think -- again, not happily -- that it's homegrown or bust.
I say make the good things easy to grab and use. Make libraries, the best art, the best music easy to get to. Chicago does terrific at this, better than most any other city I can think of at this point. Make decent healthcare, childcare, K12 ed easy to reach out and get, make safe housing the norm at least to start out with, make decent food easy to get, make it reasonably easy for a poor person to get from A to B without having a breakdown when all she's trying to do is get to work and bring groceries home. But you cannot in the end move people's hands for them, I think, nor can you treat them that way anyway. If in the end what you wind up doing is supporting an increasingly shabby middle class and its cultural norms...well, I think you could do worse.
So no, I don't object, blanket, to throwing money. What I object to are two things: One, exaggerating throw-money programs' results in order to keep the money coming (or, related, claiming we can't study results but should just take it on faith that the programs work); two, the presumption that lagging groups are in trouble because we're not throwing enough money. Some in those groups may indeed benefit from the money. But I don't think they're lagging because we're not throwing money.
It's just called "bleeding heart v. doesn't work", FGFM. Which takes you to the indignant question: "Well, what does, then?" And my answer: "Got me." Then you break for lunch while things continue as they were wherever you were talking about.
And congrats anyway for pissing me off first thing in the morning, FGFM. When you can find the vanishingly small bits of DNA responsible for racial differences, and show how they do or don't make people push their kids to do homework, then we can talk about race and test gaps. No, it's not about race.
And may I second your congrats to FGFM for pissing you off in the morning. It's usually noon at earliest.
I don't need to take your warmed-over Thomas Sowell routine seriously, even if he does view Germans like me favorably.
I think you need some more first-hand experience with these demographics, because you don't seem to have an idea what life as a lower-income Chicago teen is like. Girls don't engage in "baby-making" - they have sex. Usually a healthy amount of peer pressure (male and female) is involved, and all the math in the world has nothing to do with the ridiculous number of boys who either don't or won't use protection.
But in all that gobbledy-gook, do you actually have a solution above and beyond wishful thinking? We all know what the challenges are, but sorry if you disagree, how we as citizens decide to allocate resources to try to help most definitely qualifies as culture.
Universal health care is part-and-parcel of many cultures, Sparky. Just accept that your position really boils down to not wanting to pay for anything to help change the situation.
Sigh. If only people spent as much time getting worked up over the amount of money we "throw" at the military.
"As for the single-parent problem, what helps a hell of a lot is if the girls learn math, take their own futures seriously, and refrain from the babymaking until/unless they can support kids well on their own if necessary. Which also involves a lot of realistic thinking ahead."
