Coauthor
  • ASSIRELLI Giulia (9)
  • RECCHI Ettore (6)
  • ARGENTIN Gianluca (5)
  • PIN Clément (5)
  • Show more
Document Type
  • Article (19)
  • Working paper (8)
  • Report (4)
  • Web site contribution (4)
  • Show more
136
views

0
downloads
Le présent rapport se fixe un objectif pour le moins ambitieux. Il s’agit de donner un aperçu de ce que nous savons en tant que scientifiques au sujet des dimensions développementales qui, dans la petite enfance, sont particulièrement prédictrices de l’accomplissement académique et du bien-être futur, de l’effet des modes d’accueil formels sur le développement et des barrières à leur accès, ainsi que des interventions qui peuvent être faites auprès des parents pour accompagner leur développement, avec toujours une attention particulière aux impacts sur les inégalités de destin.

in Educational Research and Evaluation Publication date 2020-10
EMILIO Chambuleyron
VONNAK Reka
ASSIRELLI Giulia
3
views

0
downloads
Over the past 2 decades, a growing number of randomised controlled trials have assessed the impact on children’s language skills of interventions encouraging parents to read books to their offspring. We present the results of a meta-analysis of the impact of 30 such interventions. Results indicate that they are often ineffective, and that only one specific methodology (dialogic reading) displays systematically positive impacts. Moreover, effective interventions display weaker impacts on low-socioeconomic groups, thus raising equity issues. Our systematic analysis of the research designs of these studies points at three major weaknesses. First, only short-term outcomes are measured, and, even within such a narrow time window, we find indications that treatment impacts fade out. A second limitation concerns the limited range of outcomes measured (receptive or expressive vocabulary). Finally, these studies display low external validity (ad hoc sampling, small sample sizes, lack of multi-site experiments, scant evidence outside Anglo-Saxon countries).

Shared book reading (SBR) between parents and children is often regarded as a significant mediator of social inequalities in early skill development processes. We argue that socially biased gaps between parents in the awareness of the benefits of this activity for school success contribute to inequalities between children in access to this activity and in their language development. We test this hypothesis with a large-scale field experiment assessing the causal impact of an intervention targeting parents of pre-schoolers on both the frequency of SBR and the receptive vocabulary of children. Results indicate that low-educated parents are more reactive to this intervention, with significant effects on the language development of their children. We conclude that cognitive barriers and information gaps on the potential of informal learning activities at home fuel social inequalities in early childhood. At the same time, light-touch interventions removing these barriers are a cost-effective way of reducing these inequalities.

in Perspectivas y fronteras en el estudio de la desigualdad social: movilidad social y clases sociales en tiempos de cambio Edited by SALIDO Olga, FACHELLI Sandra Publication date 2020-10
0
views

0
downloads

in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Publication date 2020-10
0
views

0
downloads
Cultural capital theory provides a structural explanation for the persistence of educational inequalities in affluent western societies. According to Bourdieu and Passeron, upper classes manage to impose their cultural conventions as superior and more legitimate cultural expressions, which are then transmitted and valued by educational institutions, thus generating a structural advantage for upper‐class children, who enjoy a higher cultural proximity between the family and the school environment. Qualitative and quantitative research has only partially supported this explanation and has opened the way to several reformulations of the original theory.

This study presents the results of a randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of a shared-book reading (SBR) intervention that targeted children aged 4 living in socially mixed neighborhoods of the city of Paris. We selected a large, random sample of families and provided parents with free books, information on the benefits of SBR and tips for effective reading practices. We measured SBR frequency and children’s vocabulary before and after this intervention, among treated and control children. The intervention had a large effect on SBR frequency. At the pre-test, SBR on a daily basis involved 41.2% of the families, and the treatment fostered this practice by 8 percentage points. SBR on a weekly basis was fostered by 14 percentage points. The intervention fostered SBR frequency only in low-educated households. This equalising impact is an important finding against the background of previous research reporting that disadvantaged families tend to benefit less from SBR programs. The intervention also significantly enhanced children’s language skills measured with standardized tests of receptive vocabulary. The effect size for the main treatment effect ranges from 0.12 at the post-test to 0.16 at the follow-up. Treatment effects are persistent six months after the end of the intervention. Children from low-educated and immigrant families improved their vocabulary as much as those from high-educated, native families. Moreover, the persisting positive impacts on vocabulary growth detected at the follow-up also involve children from disadvantaged families. Furthermore, these children more often attend schools with lower educational resources. It is therefore encouraging that the intervention has strong impacts in schools with initially low involvement in reading-related activities and with low educational resources.

Cette page décrit le projet de recherche Faire face au Covid-19. Distanciation sociale, cohésion et inégalités dans la France de 2020, mené depuis le 1er avril par des chercheurs et des personnels d'appui de l'OSC et du CDSP. Il sera aussi l'endroit où vous trouverez des liens et des ressources pour suivre l'évolution et les résultats du programme. Que peuvent chercher et apporter des chercheurs en sciences humaines et sociales, face à une crise sanitaire, une pandémie où le corps médical se retrouve naturellement en première ligne ? [Introduction]

Jusqu’à quel point le Covid-19 perturbe-t-il notre vie de tous les jours ? Comment la population française vit-elle le confinement ? Dans quelles mesures les inégalités sociales sont-elles exacerbées et la cohésion sociale menacée ? Le projet CoCo apporte des éléments de réponse à ces questions d’actualité en comparant les conditions de vie en France avant et après le blocage. Il s’agit du deuxième rapport préliminaire de la série que nous publierons dans les prochaines semaines. Nous analysons ici la façon dont la société française a fait face à ce premier mois de confinement, notamment en ce qui concerne les préoccupations sur l’état de l’économie, la santé et le bien-être autodéclarés, et enfin l’enseignement à la maison.

How disruptive is COVID-19 to everyday life? How is the French population experiencing the lockdown? Is it magnifying inequalities and affecting social cohesion? The CoCo project sheds light on these pressing questions by comparing living conditions in France before, during, and after the lockdown. This is the second of a series of research briefs that we will publish in the forthcoming weeks. In this brief, we explore how French society has coped with the first month of the lockdown, particularly with the economy, self-reported health and well-being, and homeschooling.

Publication date 2019-12 Collection OSC Papers : 2019-3
BARG Katherin
ICHOU Mathieu
12
views

0
downloads
This work examines the validity of the two main assumptions of relative risk-aversion models of educational inequality. We compare the Breen-Goldthorpe (BG) and the Breen-Yaish (BY) models in terms of their assumptions about status maintenance motives and beliefs about the occupational risks associated with educational decisions. Concerning the first assumption, our contribution is threefold. First, we criticise the assumption of the BG model that families aim only at avoiding downward mobility and are insensitive to the prospects of upward mobility. We argue that the loss-aversion assumption proposed by BY is a more realistic formulation of status-maintenance motives. Second, we propose and implement a novel empirical approach to assess the validity of the loss-aversion assumption. Third, we present empirical results based on a sample of families of lower secondary school leavers indicating that families are sensitive to the prospects of both upward and downward mobility, and that the loss-aversion hypothesis of BY is empirically supported. As regards the risky choice assumption, we argue that families may not believe that more ambitious educational options entail occupational risks relative to less ambitious ones. We present empirical evidence indicating that, in France, the academic path is not perceived as a risky option. We conclude that, if the restrictive assumptions of the BG model are removed, relative-risk aversion needs not to drive educational inequalities.

Next