Showing posts with label family socioeconomics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family socioeconomics. Show all posts

Friday, 11 July 2014

Counting Pennies: A new PISA report compares students’ financial know-how

This blog is written by Wikichild co-ordinator Melinda Deleuze. The post presents findings from the latest PISA report, highlighting the links between students' financial literacy levels and their socio-economic background. It is a part of the Wikiprogress spotlight on Education and Skills.

The importance of financial literacy among young people is growing, as more adolescents have access to financial services, have their own bank accounts, make independent financial decisions, and are often in paid employment as well as school. More than ever, the ability of students to manage their finances is central to their immediate and future well-being. Furthermore, rising tuition costs, and the increasing burden of student debt, is a major issue in countries around the world. Earlier this year in Chile, an activist burnt student debt papers worth $500 million in protest of widespread student poverty. Financial literacy is therefore of key importance, not just at the individual level, in terms of enabling young people to avoid or minimise debt or to plan for a more financially-secure future, but also at the societal level.

Queen Maxima of the Netherlands
at the PISA launch
On Wednesday, the OECD launched Volume VI of the PISA 2012 results entitled “Students and Money: Financial Literacy Skills for the 21st Century.” This part of the PISA survey, the first ever cross-national evaluation of financial literacy among young people, involved 29,000 students from 18 countries. The 15 year-olds are asked questions with 5 different levels of questions, from recognising the purpose of an invoice (Level 1) to identifying which loan is the best offer.
(You can take the test here!)
Average scores in all participating countries


Across the 18 countries, students show a wide range of financial skills and knowledge. Shanghai-China students had the strongest performance with a mean score of 603 points, while Colombian students averaged the lowest mean score of 379 points. A majority of the countries are in a tighter point span, ranging from 520 to 480, such as the United States (492 points) and France (486 points). 
Distribution of differences in scores


However, even within countries students demonstrate varying levels of financial literacy. In New Zealand, the top 5% of students score around 700 score points, while the bottom 5% score around 300 points. This 400-point difference equates to about 10 years of schooling.




In addition to providing results on students’ financial literacy levels, the report also explores the relationships between financial literacy and other factors (including gender, rural vs. urban, immigration, mathematics performance, attitudes and socio-economic background). The relationship between socio-economic status and financial literacy comes across as especially important to acknowledge, as it shows a system’s ability to break vicious cycles of inequality and promote truly inclusive growth. In a successful system, students would obtain higher levels of financial literacy regardless of the parents’ level of education, income or wealth. Also, a system which does not rely on parents to transmit financial literacy has greater chances of reducing inequalities in household wealth in the long-term.


Across the 13 participating OECD countries, financial literacy performance increases by 41 score points with every one-unit increase in the PISA index of socio-economic status (ESCS). This score gap represents the equivalent to about one extra year of schooling for students who have above-average family wealth and additional educational resources at home The difference between the students in the top quarter and bottom quarter of socio-economic index amounts to 91 score points (over two years of schooling). A students’ socio-economic status, therefore, explains a large proportion of the variation in financial literacy in OECD countries, more so than gender or immigrant background. 

% variation explained by socio-economic status
Estonia appears to be the champion of breaking socio-economic boundaries in this field, with only a 53-point difference between the students in the top quarter and the bottom quarter of socio-economic status. It is the only country whose students overall have an above-average financial literacy performance, and that has a weak association between financial literacy performance and socio-economic status. It achieves high performance without leaving behind the disadvantaged students.  

Parents’ life decisions also impact students’ financial know-how. Both parents’ occupation and their level of education are strongly related to students’ financial literacy performance in the OECD countries. The financial literacy performance of students with at least one parent with tertiary education differs by an average of 40 score points in comparison to those whose parents do not have a higher education degree. Again, that corresponds to one year of schooling. There is a large range among the countries’ average differences, from Israel’s 79-point difference to Italy’s 9-point difference.

In all countries, the students with at least one parent in a skilled occupation, such as a manager or professional, have a higher financial literacy score than students whose parents work in semi-skilled or low-skilled occupations. The average difference in financial literacy performance between these student groups is 54 points. However, the variation among countries for parents’ occupation is not as stark as it is for parents’ education. Israel has a 75-point difference, while both Italy and the Russian Federation show the smallest differences with 34 points each. Overall, these results show that home-related factors do impact a student’s performance and financially literate parents could make a difference of a year of schooling.

Fortunately, governments are already taking this important issue to heart, with over 50 countries implementing a national strategy for financial education, compared to 10 countries in 2008. The next assessment of students’ financial literacy will to be taken in 2015, allowing for the first comparison of change over time. Fingers-crossed for more good examples like Estonia by then!



*The graphs used in this post were presented at the report's launch on 9 July, 2014.


Tuesday, 6 May 2014

Do family characteristics affect children's health?

This blog, written by Wikichild co-ordinator Melinda Deleuze, provides an overview of the latest World Family Map 2014. The report takes a look at family characteristics across the globe to see if they affect children's health. The post is a part of Wikiprogress' Series on Health.

The World Family Map Project measures and monitors global changes in the family. Last month, the World Family Map 2014 was released and it sure has a lot going on! This second annual edition provides 1) updates on the project’s 16 indicators, 2) an essay on union stability and child health in developing countries, as well as 3) a short analysis of psychological distress among 9 to 16 year olds in the European Union (EU). This blog will provide an overview of the report’s three sections, sharing a few of the findings. 

The Countries included in the World Family Map 2014

The Data Updates, part 1

The first section, representing a bulk of the report, offers an inside view of families within 49 countries. The report presents a description of the data trends, showing regional and country differences, as well as colourful tables and maps for almost every indicator. The report pulls data from a multitude of sources: country-level sources; DHS; FAO; Integrated Public Use Microdata Series-International (IPMUS); LIS; OECD; PISA; UNICEF Innocenti Research Center; World Value Surveys. The blending of these surveys produces 16 indicators divided into 4 domains: family structure; family socioeconomics; family processes; family culture.

The “family structure” dimension includes data regarding living arrangements, marriage and cohabitation rates, fertility rates, and non-marital childbearing rates. Living arrangements is separated into 2-parent households, single-parent households, neither-parent households, and households with extended family members.

The “family socioeconomics” dimension includes poverty, undernourishment, parental education level, parental employment rates, and public family benefits. Poverty measures include both absolute and relative child poverty rates.

The “family processes” dimension includes adult satisfaction with family life, disagreement over household work, teen’s discussion with parents, and family meals around the table with 15 year-olds. Teen’s discussion with parents includes communication frequency measures as well as whether the conversation is about how well the 15 year old is doing in school or about non-school related topics.

Finally, the “family culture” dimension includes measures regarding attitudes toward voluntary single motherhood, attitudes about whether children need both a mother and father, amount of support for working mothers, and family trust.

The Essay, part 2

The report also contains an essay which explores the relationship between family instability and children’s health in developing countries. There are 27 countries observed in Central/South America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Middle East, using data from the Demographic Health Surveys (DHS). Family instability is measured here by divorce or dissolution of a cohabiting partnership, widowhood, or re-partnership (i.e. re-marriage; cohabitation) during the child’s lifetime. The essay looks into 3 child health measures with varying degrees of severity: diarrhea (acute illness); stunting (longer-term); child mortality (most severe outcome). 



Children of Mothers Who Divorced, Dissolved a Cohabiting Union, and/or Re-partnered More Likely to Have Died in Three Out of Four Regions



The essay suggest that family instability compromises parents’ ability to provide the kind of consistent and attentive care that is most likely to foster good health in children. The essay hypothesizes that union instability may affect children’s health due to additional time and attention consumption, more stress, a disruption of social support networks, and reduction of socioeconomic resources available to parents. The results show that in a number of low-income regions divorce or partnership dissolution and re-partnering are associated with increased negative conditions for all three child health measures. The overall findings suggest that union instability is associated with worse child health outcomes; however, the findings are stronger for diarrhea and death than for stunted growth.

The Analysis, part 3

The third and final section of the report contains an analysis of the 2010 EU Kids Online Survey to determine whether there are links between family structure across Europe and children’s psychological health and if there are variations among countries. The survey contains findings for 1,000 children who use the internet aged 9-16 in each of the 25 EU countries observed. Psychological health is defined as emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems, and pro-social behaviour (or voluntary behaviour intended to benefit another).

Odds of Elevated Psychological Difficulties in Sole-Parent Families Relative to Two-Parent Families



The results suggest that in the EU as a whole, children’s living arrangements are related to their psychological well-being. Children from more educated households report fewer psychological difficulties, but household socioeconomic status has the opposite effect, with higher status being associated with more difficulties. 
Overall, the World Family Map 2014 brings a good deal of interesting analysis and provides more insight to important questions facing countries all over the world. I am looking forward to see what new understandings next year’s edition brings.

-Melinda Deleuze

See Also:
The OECD Family Database
Child Family and Peer Relationships