Dr. Maggie LAU Department of Social Sciences The Hong Kong Institute of Education AND

1. The extent of family and school social capital promoting positive subjective well-being among children in Shenzhen, China Dr. Maggie LAU Department of Social Sciences The Hong Kong Institute of Education AND Dr. Wanxin LI Department of Public and Social Administration City University of Hong Kong The third Conference of the International Society for Child Indicators University of York (27 – 29 July 2011)

2. Objectives • Examine the extent to which variations in family and school social capital can be explained by child’s differing socioeconomic and demographic background and school characteristics • Examine the extent to which family and school social capital in combination might be associated with variations in child subjective well-being

3. Background • Relationships between family background and variation of social capital accrued, and effects of social and cultural capital on child and adolescents’ well-being in China. • Adolescents’ disadvantaged socioeconomic background may contribute to the unequal access to the social networks and their embedded resources which affects their employment opportunities (Yan & Lam, 2009) • Children’s education engagement in poor area of China is not only associated with their socioeconomic status, but also cultural capital, and family and school social capital (An, 2005) • Issue of gender inequality in social capital contributing to gender differential in network diversity and size (Lin, 2000) • Effects of hukou system (i.e. urban vs. rural residents) on education opportunies and health care access for migrant children in urban China(Liang, Guo, & Duan, 2008) • Given China’s one-child policy, children shoulder various degree of parent expectation and the pressure of being his/her family’s ‘only hope’(Fong, 2004; Wang & Fong, 2009)

4. Child well-being • Multi-dimensional – The dimensions include material well-being, child health, educational attainment and participation, children’s relationship with friends and family, their feelings about their own well-being, their involvement with problem behaviours, etc • Ecological – Individual well-being is influenced not only by personal attributes, but also by the characteristics of the contextual factors emphasizing the significance of interactions among individuals, family, peers, schools, neighbourhood, the broader community, and society at large • Subjective well-being (SWB) is considered as a crucial and valuable outcome measure for better policy advocacy, planning, monitoring and evaluation (UNICEF, 2001) • SWB(Diener, 1984; Diener, Scollon, & Lucas, 2009) • Cognitive component – life satisfaction in terms of overall subjective assessment of the satisfaction and/or within specific domains • Affective component – the experience of positive and negative emotions

5. Social capital • consists of resources embedded in social relations and social structure • can be accumulated over time, and be mobilized when an individual wishes to increase the likelihood of success in a purposive action • can be categorized into two dimensions (Grootaert & Van Bastelaer, 2002; Krishna & Shrader, 2002) • Structural social capital (SSC) – is an objective and observable construct and the established roles and networks can facilitate purposive action • Cognitive social capital (CSC) – is a subjective element and refers to shared norms, values, trust, attitudes and beliefs / …. continued

6. Social capital • Social capital includes: • Structural component – the social setting which facilitates or inhibits interpersonal interactions, and access to resources (Coleman, 1988; Israel et al., 2001) • Family structure and number of sibling in the household are examples of the structural component • school band and school type in terms of school resources and teachers’ qualification are two examples of structural attributes • Process component – the actual and interpersonal interactions between parents and their children; the extent of social interactions with friends and schoolmates, and trust and trustworthiness with peers and schoolmates and experience of being bullied • Parents discussing important issues with their children, and parental involvement in children’s educational experience • Children’s participation in social activities with friends, willingness to offer help, etc / …. continued

7. Foci of the current study • Both structural and cognitive social capital can be incorporated into family and school social capital measures • Family and school social capital can be described at two key dimensions, including: • child–parent relationships – discussing important issues with parents, interpersonal interactions between children and parents; and perception of child–parent relationships • formal and informal extra familial ties — parental involvement in school activities, interpersonal interactions with friends and schoolmates; perceptions of connectedness to friends, teachers and schools, feelings of trust and safety • Variations in family and school social capital can be assessed by: • socioeconomic background – family structure, parents’ income and educational level, number of siblings in a household, hukou status • school characteristics – type of school, and school band and perception of school safety

8. Methods • The subject of the study was drawn from the sixth-grade primary school students and their parents • As they are the 11–12 year-old children who are capable to comprehend and answer self-administered questionnaires in plain language • The study was undertaken in the Nanshan district in Shenzhen, Guangdong province • The sample was drawn from Shenzhen since it was the first special economic zone in China which has enjoyed rapid economic growth, but also encountered challenges resulting from industrialization and urbanization • Marginality of rural migrants and their family members in the urban welfare and educational system is one typical example / …. continued

9. Methods • There were altogether 57 primary schools in Nanshan district in 2009 • In terms of school resources, teacher qualifications and school type, the schools have been divided into 4 categories from band A (which is the best) to band D. They include 8, 34, 10 and 5 schools in each category accordingly • School bands A, C, and D were oversampled so as to have a meaningful comparison between families who have access to those exceptionally “good” and “bad” schools • It randomly selected 3, 7, 3, and 3 schools from each category • Two classes were randomly selected in each participant school and all the students in both classes and their parents were invited to participate in the study • The stratified random sample comprised of 1306 sixth-grade primary school children and their parents in Nanshan district, Shenzhen, China / …. continued

10. Findings • Family background and school characteristics of primary school children (Table 1) • Reliability analysis of family social capital, school social capital, and child SWB (Table 2) • Family social capital, school social capital and child SWB by family background and school characteristics (Table 3) • Correlations between child SWB, family social capital and school social capital (Table 4) • Hierarchical regression of child SWB by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, family and school social capital (Table 5) / …. continued

11. Table 1: Family background and school characteristics of primary school children

12. Table 2: Reliability analysis of family and school social capital and child subjective well-being

13. Table 2 (Continued….) *negatively worded item (reverse coded)

14. Table 3: Family and school social capital by family background and school characteristics

15. Table 3 (Continued….)

16. Table 3 (Continued….)

17. Table 3 (Continued….) Note: Kruskal WallisTest

18. Table 4: Correlations between child subjective well-being, and family and school social capital *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

19. Table 5: Hierarchical regression of subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary school children by socioeconomic and demographic background, family and school social capital variables *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

20. Discussion and conclusions • Variations in family and school social capital could be explained by child’s differing socioeconomic and demographic background and school characteristics • Girls, children who are the only child at home, family with household registration in Shenzhen, parents with higher education attainment and monthly family income had strong interactions with parents and peers, and also close perceived parent–child and peer relationships • Children who have two or more sibling and do not have household registration had close perceived teacher–student relationship, and their parents had close connections with schools • Children studying in public schools, top rank schools (i.e. school band) (in terms of better school facilities, quality of teaching, extra-curriculum activities organized), and having good impression of school safety relatively with high level of family and school social capital • There were links between child’s perception of connectedness to their parents, peers, and teachers, and their positive child subjective well-being / …. continued

21. Discussion and conclusions • Limitations and contributions of this study • The subject of the study mainly focused on 11–12 year-old children and it might ignore significance of children’s age on their feelings about their own well-being (Huan et al., 2008; Wong et al., 2010) • The results of this study contributed to the literature by enriching our understanding of the extent of family and school social capital promoting positive subjective well-being among primary school children in transitional China • Findings of this analysis provide evidence for future child and family related service planning • Financial and social support from schools and teachers should be prioritized to children who are in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions. This is particularly true for migrant children without sufficient parental supervision and emotional support • school teachers can actively engage parents in their children’s educational experience through interactive communication (including face-to-face, telephone and text messaging)

22. ~ End ~ Thank you!