Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Contemporary Educational Psychology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c e d p s y c h

Decreasing the SES math achievement gap: Initial math proficiency

and home learning environments
Claudia Galindo *, Susan Sonnenschein
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Many children in the U.S., particularly those from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, do not
Available online 21 August 2015 develop sufficient math skills to be competitive in today’s technological world. We utilized a mediation/
moderation framework and the ECLS-K dataset to investigate factors that can decrease the SES-related
Keywords: math achievement gap in kindergarten. Starting kindergarten proficient in math and experiencing a sup-
Math skills portive home learning environment significantly decreased SES achievement differences. Proficiency in
SES
math at the start of kindergarten accounted for the greatest decrease in the SES-math achievement gap.
Home learning environments
Findings support the importance of comprehensive and multi-contextual approaches targeted to fami-
lies and schools for improving children’s exposure to math-relevant experiences.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction We next examine whether SES could also be framed as a mod-

erator between initial math proficiency, indicators of the home
Many children in the U.S., particularly those from socio- learning environment in kindergarten, and children’s math achieve-
economically disadvantaged backgrounds, do not exhibit adequate ment (Beauchaine, Webster-Stratton, & Reid, 2005). We examine the
mathematical skills (National Research Council, 2009). Math dis- extent to which initial math proficiency at the start of kindergar-
advantages associated with various indices of low socioeconomic ten and the home learning environment have similar associations
status (SES) are evident by kindergarten (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; for children from different SES groups. By utilizing a mediation/
Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Chatterji, 2005; Duncan & Magnuson, 2005; moderation framework, we assess the chain or path of associations
Jordan, Kaplan, Olah, & Locuniak, 2006; Lee & Burkam, 2002; Nores at the same time that we address for whom these factors are rel-
& Barnett, 2014) or even earlier (Burchinal et al., 2011). Children evant (Beauchaine et al., 2005). Understanding the nature of the
from families with low SES, on average, score about one half stan- relation will increase our knowledge of what processes account for
dard deviation below higher SES children on standardized measures associations between SES and math skills, and provide a founda-
of academic achievement (e.g., Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Duncan & tion for the development of possible interventions that may decrease
Magnuson, 2005). the SES-achievement gaps.
This study uses data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study- Most studies have considered math entry skills as a continu-
Kindergarten cohort 1998–1999 (ECLS-K) to investigate two factors ous variable (e.g., Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Duncan et al., 2007; Jordan,
that could be associated with the SES-math achievement gap: start- Kaplan, Ramineni, & Locuniak, 2009); we consider it as a dichoto-
ing kindergarten with age-appropriate math skills and children’s mous one to assess threshold effects (discussed further in section
home learning environments. We examine the extent to which math 1.2). We focus on math proficiency at kindergarten entry (defined
proficiency at entry to kindergarten attenuates (mediates) the re- as proficiency at aspects of number sense; discussed further in
lation between SES and math scores at the end of kindergarten. After section 2.2.2.) because starting kindergarten with well-developed
controlling for math proficiency at the start of kindergarten, we also number sense is an important predictor of more advanced math skills
consider which, if any, indicators of the home learning environ- (e.g., Anders et al., 2012; Aunola, Leskinen, Lerkkanen, & Nurmi, 2004;
ment in kindergarten further attenuate (or mediate) the SES- Duncan et al., 2007; Geary, Hoard, Nugent, & Bailey, 2013; Jordan,
math achievement gap. Glutting, Dyson, Hassinger-Das, & Irwin, 2012; Jordan, Glutting,
Ramineni, & Watkins, 2010; Lago & DiPerna, 2010; Watts, Duncan,
Siegler, & Davis-Kean, 2014).
Although the exact definition of what is included in number sense
* Corresponding author. Sherman Hall 403, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD
varies across researchers (Lago & DiPerna, 2010), most agree that
21250, USA. Fax: +1 410 455 3233. it includes an understanding of whole numbers, number opera-
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Galindo). tions, and number relations (Jordan et al., 2010; National Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.003
0361-476X/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
26 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38

Council, 2009). For example, Jordan et al. (2006) included count- trolling for other math knowledge, SES, parents’ education,
ing, number knowledge, number transformation, estimation, and intellectual abilities. In another study, Siegler and colleagues showed
number patterns as components of number sense (see also National that number line estimation and calculation fluency in third grade
Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008). Similarly, the National Council were the major predictors of knowledge of fractions at the end of
of Teachers of Mathematics (1989) defined number sense as the fifth grade (Bailey, Siegler, & Geary, 2014; see also Jordan et al., 2013).
ability to understand the meaning of numbers, define relation- Most pertinent for this study, Claessens and Engel (2013), using the
ships among numbers, recognize the relative size of numbers, and ECLS-K data set, found that what we are calling math proficiency
use referents for measuring objects. For example, children in pre- at the start of kindergarten (attainment of proficiency level 2) was
school through second grade are expected to be able to connect the strongest predictor of children’s math skills in eighth grade. Pro-
number words and numerals with the quantities they represent, ficiency level 2 included reading all single-digit numerals, counting
using various physical models and representations (National Council beyond 10, recognizing a sequence of patterns, and using nonstan-
of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989; http://www.nctm.org/Standards dard units of length to compare objects. We do not yet know,
-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/Principles,-Standards, however, whether starting kindergarten with a certain level of math
-and-Expectations/). By third grade, children are expected to rec- skills attenuates the negative impact of SES on math achievement.
ognize equivalent representations for the same number and generate
them by decomposing and composing numbers. Number sense has 1.3. Home learning environments
also been called informal or everyday math, suggesting that its roots
generally lie in informal or daily experiences (Ginsburg, Lee, & Boyd, The home environment is an important context or microsystem
2008) rather than the types of formal instruction experienced in for young children’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Growing
elementary school. up in a cognitively stimulating home predicts children’s immedi-
ate and longer-term academic development (e.g., Crosnoe & Cooper,
1.1. Socioeconomic status and young children’s math skills 2010; Crosnoe et al., 2010). A cognitively stimulating home learn-
ing environment typically has been defined as including a broad array
There has been extensive research investigating the impact of of possible activities and interactions with others (e.g., Caldwell &
SES on children’s development (e.g., Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo, & Bradley, 1984; Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010).
Garcia Coll, 2001; Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010; Children from different SES levels do not have equal access to
Duncan & Magnuson, 2005; Gershoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon, 2007; comparable home learning environments. Bradley et al. (2001), using
Guo & Harris, 2000; McLoyd, 1998). Children from low SES fami- the National Longitudinal Study of Youth data set, found that low
lies are more likely to start school with lower academic skills; these income children had less access to learning tools at home than
differences between low SES children and their higher SES peers con- middle income children. Similarly, low income families spend less
tinue or expand as children proceed through school (Bradley & time than middle income ones in cognitively enriching environ-
Corwyn, 2002; Caro, McDonald, & Willms, 2009; Sirin, 2005). ments outside the home (Phillips, 2011). Children from low income
Consistent with findings of children’s general academic skills, backgrounds are also less likely to engage in cognitively enriching
there are differences related to SES in children’s acquisition of math verbal (Hart & Risley, 1995) or reading interactions (Guo & Harris,
skills (Jordan et al., 2006: National Research Council, 2009). Chil- 2000; Serpell, Baker, & Sonnenschein, 2005). The differences in the
dren from low SES backgrounds generally enter kindergarten with language low and middle income children hear at home can result
more limited math skills than their middle income peers (see Klein, in differences in their readiness for or understanding of instruc-
Starkey, Clements, Sarama, & Iyer, 2008 for a review). For example, tion at school (Hindman, Skibbe, Miller, & Zimmerman, 2010).
Jordan et al. (2006), among others, found that children from low Parents’ expectations for their children’s development and
income backgrounds generally began kindergarten with less well- achievement, and their involvement in their children’s general edu-
developed number sense than their more affluent peers. Others have cational development, particularly at school, are associated with
noted that most children develop basic counting skills by the start children’s academic achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001; Galindo &
of kindergarten; however, SES related group-based differences Sheldon, 2012; Hill & Taylor, 2004; Jeynes, 2005; Sonnenschein,
emerge in the more advanced number sense skills (e.g., numerical Stapleton, & Metzger, 2014; Yamamato & Holloway, 2010). Dearing,
magnitude estimation), and then in subsequent math skills (Claessens Kreider, Simpkins, and Weiss (2006) found that the SES-related
& Engel, 2013; National Research Council, 2009). reading gap was eliminated when parents were involved at their
children’s schools. However, low income parents generally are less
1.2. Children’s math proficiency at kindergarten entry involved than middle-income parents (Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski,
& Apostoleris, 1997; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Reynolds, 1992). Based on
Regardless of SES, young children acquire informal mathematical the results of a meta-analysis with 25 studies, Fan and Chen (2001)
knowledge through their involvement in home activities before the found that parents’ expectations for their children’s future educa-
start of formal schooling; such knowledge serves as the basis for de- tional attainment accounted for more variance in children’s academic
velopment of math skills once they enter school (Ginsburg et al., 2008; achievement than other aspects of parent involvement. Most re-
National Research Council, 2009; Ramani & Siegler, 2014; Starkey, search has focused on parents’ expectations for their children’s future
Klein, & Wakely, 2004). Children who start school with more limited educational attainment; however, recent research shows the need
number sense continue to have difficulties as they proceed through to focus as well on expectations for what skills children need to have
elementary school (Jordan, Kaplan, Locuniak, & Ramineni, 2007). in kindergarten because of their predictive value for achievement
It is possible that children may need to display a certain level (Sonnenschein & Galindo, 2015).
or threshold of math skills to achieve maximum benefit from teach- Children’s early math skills can be acquired through their ex-
ers’ instruction (e.g., Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004 for reading periences at home and/or preschool (Ginsburg et al., 2008). However,
instruction). Research on children’s math development shows the our knowledge of what specific aspects of the home environment
importance of achieving certain math skills as the threshold for foster children’s math skills is still fairly limited. Research has shown
future math development. For example, Siegler et al. (2012), using links between literacy-related activities, other components of the
children in the U.S. and Great Britain, found that children’s knowl- home learning environment and children’s math skills. For example,
edge of fractions and division at the end of elementary school reading at home and parents’ expectations for their children’s future
predicted their knowledge of algebra in high school, even after con- educational achievement are associated with children’s math
 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38 27

achievement (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009; Chatterji, 2005; Davis-Kean, Bradley et al. (2001) noted that there were significantly fewer books
2005; Sonnenschein & Galindo, 2015; Yan & Lin, 2005). and other cultural artifacts in the homes of low income than middle
LeFevre and colleagues (LeFevre, Polyzoi, Skwarchuk, Fast, & income families (see also Guo & Harris, 2000). A related way to con-
Sowinski, 2010; LeFevre et al., 2009) found that the frequency with ceptualize income-related differences comes from the work of Lareau
which young children engaged in playing board games, card games, (2003), who noted that concerted cultivation, or deliberately foster-
cooking, and shopping predicted their math knowledge and fluency ing children’s cognitive skills, occurred less frequently in low income
(see also Anders et al., 2012; Kleemans, Peeters, Segers, & Verhoeven, than middle income families. Components of concerted cultiva-
2012; Ramani & Siegler, 2008; Saxe, Guberman, & Gearhart, 1987). tion include children’s participation in adult-orchestrated leisure
Involvement in these activities is important for math learning as activities, parents’ investments in educational materials at home,
it provides children with problem-solving and different concepts pre- and parents’ involvement with their children’s school. Using data
sented in daily-living contexts (see Civil & Andrade, 2002; LeFevre from the ECLS-K, Cheadle (2008) found that concerted cultivation
et al., 2009). Cooking for example, could help children learn key partially mediated the relation between income and children’s ac-
mathematical concepts by making abstract concepts such as count- ademic achievement.
ing, addition, measurement or fractions, concrete. Ramani and Siegler Although most researchers have viewed SES as a predictor of chil-
(2008) also found that playing a board game similar to Chutes and dren’s development, a few have shown that the relation between
Ladders facilitated the development of numerical magnitude skills aspects of the home environment and aspects of children’s devel-
because the game provided cues about the magnitude and order opment are moderated by SES. Hill (2001) found that income
of the numbers. moderated the relation between parenting behaviors (warmth, ac-
Skwarchuk, Sowinski, and LeFevre (2014) found that parents of ceptance) and kindergartners’ early reading scores: the relation was
kindergarten children engaged in both formal (systematic instruc- much stronger for lower than higher income families. Magnuson,
tion in math) and informal math activities (playing games) with their Sexton, Davis-Kean, and Huston (2007) found an interaction between
children. These two forms of math-related interactions were asso- mothers’ educational levels, an aspect of SES, and the quality of the
ciated with different types of math knowledge when children were home environment (assessed with the Home Observation for Mea-
in first grade. Formal math activities predicted symbolic number surement of the Environment [HOME], Caldwell & Bradley, 1984)
knowledge (knowledge of arithmetic symbols including numbers on the academic achievement of children ages 6 through 12. Changes
and knowledge of numerical concepts such as rounding; Polk, Reed, in maternal education had a positive effect only if the mother’s initial
Keenan, Hogarth, & Anderson, 2001) whereas informal activities pre- educational level was low (see also Bakermans-Kranenburg, van
dicted what they called non-symbolic math knowledge (the ability Ijzendoorn, & Bradley, 2005; Geoffrey et al., 2007). Based on pre-
to understand and manipulate numerical magnitudes that do not vious research, we expect to find a stronger influence of math
involve actual numerals; Kolkman, Kroesbergen, & Leseman, 2013). proficiency at kindergarten entry and the home learning environ-
Most studies have considered a composite score of home learn- ment for those students coming from the most economically
ing environment, only looked at a few indicators, or created a latent disadvantaged background.
home learning variable instead of exploring the impact of individ-
ual variables (Cheadle, 2008; Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002). 1.5. The present study
Given that there may be differences in which aspect of the home
learning environment best promotes math development, it is im- This study investigates three questions about the association
portant to consider the effects of individual variables and include between SES and math achievement gaps. One, to what extent does
a broad set of variables (Byrnes & Wasik, 2009). Therefore, this study children’s math proficiency at entry to kindergarten attenuate
includes an array of home indicators –availability of learning tools, (mediate) the relation between SES and math scores at the end of
participation in home learning activities, parents’ involvement at kindergarten? Two, after accounting for the effects of math profi-
school and expectations for their children’s current and future learn- ciency, do indicators of the home learning environment in
ing – found to be relevant not only for math but for different kindergarten further attenuate the relation between SES and chil-
dimensions of academic development. dren’s math achievement at the end of kindergarten? Three, to what
extent does SES moderate the relation between math proficiency
1.4. Mediation/moderation processes at the start of kindergarten and indicators of the home learning en-
vironment and children’s math achievement?
We do not yet know whether starting kindergarten with a certain Only recently have scholars begun to emphasize the impor-
level or threshold of math skills attenuates the negative associa- tance of examining mediation and moderation aspects of the
tion of SES and math achievement. If so, it reinforces the need to relations among variables (Donaldson, 2001; Judd et al., 2001). Con-
focus more on home-based interventions prior to kindergarten sistent with recommendations by Beauchaine et al. (2005) and
(Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta, & Mashburn, 2010; Wang, Shen, & Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007), we consider both approaches
Byrnes, 2013). It is also possible that SES can moderate the rela- within the current study to document the processes through which
tion between math proficiency and children’s math skills. SES affects children’s math skills, and whether these processes
Determining whether SES is a moderator will determine which operate in the same manner for children from different SES back-
groups, if any, should be differentially treated as targets for inter- grounds (see also Jones et al., 2009; Rieppi et al., 2002 who examine
ventions or whether resources need to be differentially devoted to demographic characteristics as moderators).
improving children’s math skills (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Judd,
Kenny, & McClelland, 2001). 2. Method
Most studies have considered the association between SES and
children’s achievement as one in which the home learning envi- 2.1. Sample
ronment mediates the association between the two variables (e.g.,
Cheadle, 2008; Davis-Kean, 2005; Linver, Brooks-Gunn, & Kohen, The data came from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
2002; Yeung et al., 2002). Consistent with such an approach, the (ECLS-K) Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 which included a nation-
family investment model has been used to discuss how SES, par- ally representative sample of about 21 000 kindergarteners in over
ticularly income, affects parents’ ability to provide appropriate 1000 schools (see National Center for Education Statistics, 2001
physical and material environments for their children (Evans, 2004). for additional details). We used the kindergarten sample from
28 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38

Table 1
Weighted descriptive statistics for the ECLS-K sample.

Mean or % SD % of Missing Range

Key analytical variables

Math IRT 27.63 8.86 0 07.32–59.34
SES Q1 (lowest; %) 19.0 0 0–100
SES Q2 19.3
SES Q3 18.9
SES Q4 19.1
SES Q5 (highest) 19.3
Proficiency at entry 43.7 9.66 0–100
Learning tools 0.01 0.77 4.21 −1.14–3.44
General learning activities 0.00 0.42 4.21 −1.86–3.90
Reading learning activities 3.24 0.65 4.23 1–4
Parental involvement in school 0.54 0.24 7.78 0–1
Future educational expectations 4.10 1.11 14.19 1–6
Current educational expectations 4.00 0.50 13.70 1–5
Child and Family Control variables
Race/ethnicity (%)
White 55.9 0.17 0–100
Black 14.8
Latino 18.5
Asian 5.5
Other 5.3
Female (%) 48.8 0.01 0–100
English home (%) 87.0 4.77 0–100
Children’s approaches to learning 3.11 0.68 3.17 1–4
Age at kindergarten entry (months) 65.48 4.42 13.76 33–84
Retained in kindergarten (%) 4.5 0.21 13.75 0–100
Family type (%)
Two-biological parents 66.8 13.62 0–100
Two-parents, one biological 7.9
Single-parent family 21.6
Other parental arrangements 3.7
Number of siblings 1.44 1.15 13.62 0–11
Maternal depression 1.46 0.46 9.55 1–4
Child care arrangement (%)
Center-based care 43.7 14.84 0–100
Home-based care 23.8
Head Start care 9.29
Other care 5.02
No formal care 18.19
Teacher and Classroom Control variables
Amount of math instruction 1.85 0.73 13.16 1–4
Instructional practices
Numbers & geometry 4.48 0.71 10.66 1–6
Advanced number & operations 3.48 1.34 11.09 1–6
Traditional practices & computation 3.20 0.98 10.61 1–6
Measurement & advanced topics 2.72 0.83 10.64 1–6
Teacher-highest education degree 2.12 0.90 20.28 1–5
Certification (%)
Highest 64.23 13.33 0–100
Regular 20.94
Alternative 14.82
Elementary Certification (%) 84.9 13.02 0–100
Class SES composition −0.099 0.601 4.85 −4.47–2.48

Note: Percentages of missing data were calculated based on 19 280 children students or 3530 classroom/teachers. All descriptive statistics were computed using the da-
tabase before conducting multiple imputation utilizing survey commands with similar stratification and sampling units. Population weights differed depending upon whether
we estimated descriptive statistics for child (“c2cw0”) or teacher/classroom (“b2tw0”) level variables.

1998–1999 and limited our analytical sample to children with avail- the MI command. The analytical sample in this study included 19 280
able math test scores in the spring of kindergarten (19 650 children) children from 3530 classrooms in 1085 schools.
and whose teachers responded to the survey (19 280 children). The Table 1 shows the percentage of missing cases, means or per-
sample sizes were rounded to the nearest 10 because of restricted centages, and standard deviations for all variables before applying
license requirements. To deal with missing data, we applied the Im- multiple imputation procedures.
putation by Chained Equations (ICE) algorithm in STATA. ICE handles
complex data structures by fitting a sequence of chain equations 2.2. Measures
to impute variables in order of increasing “missingness,” that is, the
variable with the least missing values is imputed first and so on 2.2.1. Math achievement
(Royston, 2005). Following Downey, Von Hippel, and Broh (2004), Math achievement was measured using individually adminis-
we separately imputed student—and classroom—level informa- tered two-stage adaptive math tests, with content areas and domains
tion. To the best of our knowledge, a procedure to impute missing based on the National Assessment for Educational Progress
values with nested data has yet to be developed. The imputation (NAEP) framework (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001).
procedure resulted in 15 plausible data sets that were analyzed with These measured number sense, properties and operations;
 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38 29

measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data analysis, statis- to the items were standardized and then averaged to create a com-
tics, and probabilities; and patterns, algebra, and functions. We used posite measure. The Cronbach’s alpha for this index is .58, somewhat
item response theory (IRT) scale scores from spring of kindergar- lower than optimal. These alphas are consistent with what others
ten to measure math achievement (variable name = c2rmscal). The have found using the same or similar indices (e.g., Crosnoe & Cooper,
IRT math scale scores are criterion-referenced measures of achieve- 2010). Note that we do not necessarily expect different compo-
ment that place children’s performance within a common and nents of this index, or others discussed below, to be highly
continuous 64-point scale. We used spring of kindergarten math interrelated. That is, parents may provide their children one but not
achievement scores as the dependent variable. Internal item-level all of the experiences/tools within a category. Our interest with this
reliability of the ECLS-K math test overall scores in the spring of kin- category is whether children have access to learning tools rather
dergarten was .81 (Rock & Pollack, 2002). Test validity was evaluated than the specific tools they can access. In addition, although the re-
by judgments of technical and substantive experts, by patterns of liability indicators are less than optimal, utilizing scales with
correlations across rounds of data collection and subjects, and by heterogeneous items is important for the construct validity of a
patterns of results with other national tests, including NAEP (Pollack, measure (Eisinga, Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013). The same reason-
Atkins-Burnett, Najarian, & Rock, 2005). For additional details on ing applies to the other constructs noted below.
the ECLS-K assessments, see Rock and Pollack (2002), and for a few
examples of items utilized in the math test scores, see 2.2.4.2. General home learning activities. This was the average of
http://www.myeclsk2011.com/samples.html. parents’ responses to two questions. Parents reported how often
(1 = never to 4 = everyday) they or other family members partici-
2.2.2. Math proficiency at kindergarten entry pated in the following activities with their child: tell stories, sing
Math proficiency level scores at kindergarten entry were used songs, do arts, do chores, play games or do puzzles, talk about nature
to categorize children as displaying proficient or limited profi- or do science projects, play sports and build things together or play
cient math skills (variable name = c1mprob2; Claessens & Engel, with construction toys. Parents also reported whether (0 = no, 1 = yes)
2013). Consistent with ECLS-K guidelines, children were consid- the child participated in dance lessons, athletic events, organized
ered to display math proficiency if they obtained a proficient clubs, music lessons, drama classes, art lessons, organized perform-
probability of 0.75 or higher on the proficiency level 2 which in- ing, craft classes, and non-English language instruction outside of
cluded reading all single-digit numerals, counting beyond 10, school hours. Responses to items within each question were stan-
recognizing a sequence of patterns, and using nonstandard units of dardized and then averaged. Cronbach’s alpha was .62.
length to compare objects (National Center for Education Statistics,
2001). As noted by Claessens and Engel (2013), attainment of pro- 2.2.4.3. Reading home learning activities. We averaged parents’ re-
ficiency level 2 (but not the other levels) was highly predictive of sponses to three questions, the frequency (1 = never to 4 = everyday)
future math skills through eighth grade. Most of the tasks com- with which children looked at picture books, and read books by
prising proficiency level 2 are considered components of number themselves or with others. Cronbach’s alpha was .63.
sense (Lago & DiPerna, 2010; National Council of Teacher of Math-
ematics Standards). It is important to note that proficiency level 1 2.2.4.4. Parents’ involvement in school. Parents reported whether they
also included aspects of number sense (identifying some one- attended/participated (0 = no, 1 = yes) in various school-related
digit numerals, recognizing geometric shapes, and one-to-one events: open house or back-to-school nights; meetings of PTA, PTO,
counting of up to 10 objects) but almost all children showed pro- or parent–teacher–student organization; meetings of the parent ad-
ficiency in acquisition of these skills by the start of kindergarten visory group or policy council; regularly-scheduled parent–teacher
(Claessens & Engel, 2013). About 43% of children began kindergar- conferences or meeting with teachers; school or class events; vol-
ten with proficient mathematical skills. unteering at the school or serving on a committee; and fundraising
for the school. An index was created by averaging responses to ques-
2.2.3. Socioeconomic status tions. Cronbach’s alpha was .58.
We used the composite SES variable, constructed by ECLS-K spe-
cialists, based on mothers’ and fathers’ education, mothers’ and 2.2.4.5. Parents’ future educational expectations. Parents were asked
fathers’ occupational prestige, and household income. This com- what level of educational attainment they believed their child would
posite is the average of the five measures that were previously achieve. Response options ranged from 1 = receive less than a high
standardized with a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 (National school diploma to 6 = get a PhD, MD, or other higher degree.
Center for Education Statistics, 2001). For analytical purposes, this
measure was divided into quintiles; the highest quintile is the ref- 2.2.4.6. Parents’ current educational expectations. Parents were asked
erence group. to rate how important (1 = not important to 5 = essential) it was for
their child to have certain competencies to be ready for kindergar-
2.2.4. Home learning environment ten: knowing how to count to 20 or more, sharing and taking turns,
This was measured using access to learning tools, general learn- using pencils and paint brushes, knowing alphabet letters, com-
ing and reading learning activities, parents’ involvement in school, municating well, and sitting still and paying attention. We averaged
and parents’ future and current educational expectations. These vari- responses to these questions to create this index. Cronbach’s alpha
ables were created utilizing items in the ECLS-K home environment was .77.
section from the fall and spring of kindergarten, adapted from the The strength of associations among the various indicators of the
commonly used HOME Inventory developed by Caldwell and Bradley home learning environment ranged from small to moderate. Thus,
(1984). Similar scales from the ECLS-K have been used in many pub- multicollinearity among the indicators was not an issue. Learning
lished articles (see Cheadle, 2008; Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010; Galindo tools was moderately correlated with parents’ involvement in school
& Sheldon, 2012). (r = .39), general home learning (r = .36) and reading home learn-
ing (r = .25). General home learning was moderately correlated with
2.2.4.1. Learning tools. This index consisted of number of books and parents’ involvement in school and reading home learning (r = .32,
CDs, records and tapes in the home, and whether the child had a respectively). Correlations with parents’ future educational expec-
computer. The first two questions were open-ended; the third ques- tations were small (r = .15 for general and reading learning activities;
tion was dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes). Therefore, parents’ responses r = .12 for learning tools and parents’ involvement in school; and
30 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38

r = .10 for current educational expectations). Correlations with & Holm, 2011). Although this method was originally developed to
parents’ current educational expectations were .02 for learning tools, be used within logit and probit frameworks, its application has been
.00 for parents’ involvement in school, .06 for general learning ac- expanded into linear models (Breen, Karlson, & Holm, 2013). Because
tivities, and .08 for reading learning activities. we were interested in testing the mediating associations of seven
variables (math proficiency and six indicators of home learning en-
2.2.5. Control variables vironment), we explored potential mediation paths by utilizing a
As several scholars have noted, SES is often correlated with other block approach: testing the mediation of each of these two groups
demographic variables such as race/ethnicity (Dearing, McCartney, of variables (math proficiency, home learning environment) sepa-
& Taylor, 2001; Yeung & Conley, 2008). We therefore controlled for rately and then in combination. Because the KHB-method in Stata
race/ethnicity and other potentially pertinent factors. Child-level command does not support estimation procedures with more than
control variables were assessment date, children’s approaches to one data set (recall that the imputation resulted in 15 data sets),
learning, gender, race/ethnicity, age at kindergarten entry, whether we tested for mediation by randomly selecting one of the fifteen
the child repeated kindergarten, and type of non-parental child care. datasets.
Family level controls were family type (child living with two bio- The second analytic strategy estimated the moderating associa-
logical parents, reference group; two parents, one biological; one tions of SES using seven models, within the OLS regression
biological parent; or other including guardian or adoptive parents), framework, with spring kindergarten math score as the depen-
primary home language, and number of siblings at home. Class- dent variable. Following Jose (2013), these models included math
room and school factors are also associated with SES (Crosnoe & proficiency and all indicators of home learning environment as main
Cooper, 2010). Accordingly, we controlled the socioeconomic com- effects to avoid model misspecification but examined interaction
position of the student body, teachers’ educational attainment effects separately. For example, model 5 included math proficien-
(1 = high school degree, associate degree or BA, 2 = one year beyond cy and all indicators of the home environment but only the
BA, 3 = Masters, 4 = educational specialists or professional diploma, interaction terms for math proficiency and SES. All continuous vari-
or 5 = doctorate) and certification type (elementary and highest, ables (but not dichotomous ones) were centered to facilitate the
regular, or alternative). We also added indicators of instructional interpretation of the interaction coefficients and to avoid poten-
practices (frequency of instruction focusing on numbers and ge- tial problems of multicollinearity. In Table 4, we report only main
ometry, advanced numbers and operations, traditional practices and effects and interaction terms’ coefficients, although all models in-
computation, measurement and advanced topics; 1 = never to cluded similar control variables as in previous analyses.
6 = daily) and amount of math instruction (1 = 1 to 30 minutes,
2 = 31–60 minutes, 3 = 61–90 minutes, or 4 = more than 90 minutes) 3. Results
as its contribution has been identified in other studies (Sonnenschein
& Galindo, 2015). These control variables have been commonly used 3.1. Math proficiency at kindergarten entry, home learning
in studies of academic achievement utilizing the ECLS-K (e.g., Cooper, environment, and math achievement at the end of kindergarten
2010; Gershoff et al., 2007).
Consistent with other research (Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010; Duncan
2.3. Analytic plan & Murnane, 2011), there were significant achievement gaps at the
end of kindergarten by SES quintiles (Table 2). The unadjusted dif-
All descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were esti- ferences (with no controls) in math achievement for students in the
mated using Stata 13 survey commands specifying stratification lowest two quintiles (quintiles 1 and 2) were 0.48 and 0.32 stan-
levels, sampling units, and population weights (c2tcwstr, c2tcwpsu, dard deviations (SD) lower than that of students in the highest SES
c2cw0) to take into account the complex cluster sample design and quintile (quintile 5, p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences
nested structure of the ECLS-K data. Thus, these commands ad- (p < 0.05) were also observed for students in the third and fourth
dressed potential concerns about the nesting of the data (students quintiles, although these differences were smaller in magnitude (0.25
within classrooms within schools). Tables report unstandardized co- and 0.14 SDs, respectively). As model 2 shows, after controlling for
efficients; standardized coefficients are included in the text. Because key child, family and classroom covariates, the SES achievement gaps
Stata does not provide standardized beta coefficients when utiliz- decreased substantially, although they remained statistically sig-
ing survey commands, all standardized coefficients were calculated nificant (Table 2). The SES achievement gaps were 0.18 and 0.13 SDs
manually by multiplying the standard coefficient by the ratio of the for students in the two lowest quintiles (1 and 2) and 0.11 and
standard deviation of the independent variable to the standard de- 0.06 SDs for students in the third and fourth quintiles relative to
viation of the dependent variable. These standard deviations were students in the highest quintile (5).
calculated from the initial database prior to multiple imputation. Math proficiency at kindergarten entry and indicators of the home
Two analytical strategies were taken. First, we tested four models learning environment were associated with math achievement at
utilizing OLS regression to examine the association between math the end of kindergarten (see models 3 and 4). After controlling for
proficiency at kindergarten entry, the home learning environ- SES, and other covariates, children who began kindergarten profi-
ment, and math achievement with spring of kindergarten math cient in math obtained math scores that were 0.43 SDs higher than
scores as the dependent variable. Model 1 included only SES those for children who began kindergarten non-proficient in math
quintiles; model 2 included SES quintiles and control variables. We (model 3). After controlling for SES, math proficiency and key child,
then added math proficiency at kindergarten entry to examine the family, and classroom covariates, all indicators of the home learn-
extent to which this variable mediated the relation between math ing environment in kindergarten, except for general learning
achievement and SES (model 3). In model 4 we added indicators activities, were significantly associated with math achievement. Other
of the home learning environment. things being equal, children with greater access to learning tools
We tested mediation using the KHB-method, based on the Sobel (0.05 SD), reading activities (0.03 SD), and whose parents re-
test (Sobel, 1982). This method examines the associations of mul- ported higher levels of parental involvement in school (0.02 SDs)
tiple mediators simultaneously when control variables are also and higher current/future educational expectations (0.03 SD, re-
included in the model. This method corrects for the fact that when spectively) obtained higher math scores in the spring of kindergarten
comparing models with different variables, error distribution and (model 4). To have a better sense of the relative importance of these
variance of the dependent variables differ across models (Karlson indicators, we estimated the standardized coefficient for parents’
 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38 31

Table 2
Kindergarten math achievement by income quartiles, math proficiency at kindergarten entry, and home learning environment indicators.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

SES Q1 (lowest) −10.803*** (0.262) −4.006*** (0.246) −2.631*** (0.216) −1.928*** (0.230)
SES Q2 −7.135*** (0.275) −2.848*** (0.233) −1.698*** (0.192) −1.229*** (0.203)
SES Q3 −5.610*** (0.258) −2.549*** (0.207) −1.622*** (0.178) −1.330*** (0.183)
SES Q4 −3.140*** (0.244) −1.384*** (0.199) −0.969*** (0.174) −0.810*** (0.175)
SES Q5 (highest) – – – –
Math proficiency at entry 7.731*** (0.132) 7.577*** (0.131)
Learning tools 0.559*** (0.085)
General learning activities 0.118 (0.144)
Reading learning activities 0.369*** (0.092)
Parental involvement in school 0.770** (0.284)
Future educational expectations 0.212*** (0.050)
Current educational expectation 0.486*** (0.107)
Control Variables
Black −2.492*** (0.222) −2.067*** (0.192) −2.002*** (0.190)
Latino −1.920*** (0.209) −1.247*** (0.179) −1.248*** (0.180)
Asian 0.751* (0.373) 0.875** (0.311) 0.979** (0.311)
Other −1.700*** (0.272) −1.277*** (0.230) −1.186*** (0.231)
Female −1.263*** (0.116) −1.063*** (0.104) −1.178*** (0.104)
English home 1.456*** (0.228) 1.004*** (0.204) 0.852*** (0.205)
Approaches to learning 4.650*** (0.094) 3.224*** (0.092) 3.113*** (0.091)
Age at kindergarten entry 0.323*** (0.015) 0.188*** (0.013) 0.194*** (0.013)
Retained in kindergarten 2.998*** (0.279) 1.388*** (0.233) 1.554*** (0.229)
Two-parents, one biological −0.497* (0.221) −0.512** (0.194) −0.426* (0.194)
Single-parent family −0.314* (0.152) −0.272+ (0.140) −0.194 (0.142)
Other parental arrangements −1.127*** (0.338) −1.172*** (0.282) −1.087*** (0.280)
Number of siblings −0.290*** (0.050) −0.206*** (0.045) −0.194*** (0.045)
Maternal depression −0.310* (0.128) −0.264* (0.114) −0.203+ (0.115)
Home-based care −1.010*** (0.155) −0.476*** (0.139) −0.402** (0.138)
Head Start care −1.239*** (0.215) 0.785*** (0.237) 0.860*** (0.233)
Other care −0.511+ (0.271) −0.171 (0.240) −0.129 (0.237)
No care −1.448*** (0.175) −0.709*** (0.155) −0.672*** (0.155)
Amount of math instruction 0.276* (0.113) 0.306** (0.102) 0.308** (0.100)
Numbers & geometry −0.782*** (0.149) −0.729*** (0.123) −0.731*** (0.121)
Advanced number & operations 0.319*** (0.067) 0.233*** (0.057) 0.229*** (0.057)
Traditional practices & computation 0.928*** (0.094) 0.886*** (0.084) 0.878*** (0.084)
Measurement & advanced topics 0.268* (0.129) 0.203+ (0.109) 0.194+ (0.109)
Teacher education −0.083 (0.094) −0.070 (0.081) −0.067 (0.080)
Certification-highest 0.072 (0.188) −0.033 (0.166) −0.054 (0.165)
Certification-alternative 0.308 (0.267) 0.192 (0.244) 0.183 (0.243)
Certification-elementary 0.284 (0.242) 0.111 (0.210) 0.106 (0.209)
Class SES composition 2.215*** (0.171) 1.486*** (0.163) 1.315*** (0.162)
R2 0.17 0.41 0.53 0.54
F-statistic F(4, 997) = 486.13 F(33, 968) = 265.11 F(34, 967) = 402.29 F(40, 961) = 351.83

Note: Math achievement is represented by unstandardized coefficients in the table; standardized coefficients are reported in the text. Robust standard errors are in paren-
theses. p-Values are based on estimations with robust standard errors. Reference group was children in the highest quintile (SES Q5). All models were estimated utilizing
survey commands with similar stratification and sampling units. Reported R2 and F-value are the average values across 15 datasets.
+
p ≤ 0.10; * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.

education (0.09SD), which is a key predictor of children’s achieve- associated with math achievement in the spring of kindergarten.
ment outcomes (e.g. Davis-Kean, 2005; Hill & Taylor, 2004; Lareau, The simultaneous mediation analysis of math proficiency and in-
2003). Although the absolute values of the home indicators are small, dicators of home learning environment (column 3) corresponds to
they are moderately important in relative terms, compared with the model 4 and includes the same control variables as the mediation
association of parents’ education and achievement. reported in column 2.
Overall, math proficiency at kindergarten entry partially attenu-
3.2. Mediation of math proficiency at kindergarten entry and home ated (mediated) the relation between SES and math achievement.
learning environment Results of the KHB-method tests in Column 1 indicated that the ad-
justed association between math achievement and SES was partially
Table 3 shows mediational associations of math proficiency and but significantly mediated by math proficiency at kindergarten entry
home indicators by reporting the decomposition of the total asso- for all SES quintiles (quintile 1, z′ = −7.04, p < 0.001; quintile 2,
ciation between SES and math achievement into direct and indirect z′ = −6.30, p < 0.001; quintile 3, z′ = −4.71, p < 0.001; quintile 4,
associations The mediation analysis of math proficiency (column z′ = −2.50, p < 0.05; recall quintile 5 is the reference group). Math
1) corresponds to model 3 reported in Table 2. The mediation anal- proficiency at kindergarten entry, after controlling for all covariates
ysis of indicators of the home learning environment (column 2) in the model, accounted for about one-third of the total associa-
corresponds to model 4. In this analysis, math proficiency is a control tion of SES, across SES quintiles, on math achievement in the spring
variable because we intended to examine the mediating role of in- of kindergarten.
dicators of the home learning environment in kindergarten after Results of the KHB-method tests in Column 2 indicated that the
controlling for the association of math proficiency at kindergarten adjusted association between math achievement and SES was also
entry. General learning activities was also included as a control vari- partially mediated by indicators of the home learning environ-
able in this mediation analysis because it was not significantly ment in kindergarten for all SES quintiles, even after controlling for
32 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38

Table 3
Decomposition of total effect of SES on math achievement into direct and indirect effects via math proficiency and home learning environment indicators.

Column 1 Column2 Column 3

Math Proficiency Home Environment Proficiency & Home Environment

SES Q1, lowest

Coefficients and (standard errors)
Total effect −4.046*** (0.198) −2.591*** (0.199) −3.829*** (0.198)
Direct effect −2.734*** (0.198) −1.986*** (0.206) −1.986*** (0.206)
Indirect effect −1.312*** (0.186) −0.606*** (0.063) −1.843*** (0.198)
Mediation % 32.43 23.38 48.14
Via math proficiency 100 65.62
Via learning tools 47.91 16.45
Via parental involvement 21.23 7.20
Via general learning activities – –
Via reading activities 10.22 3.65
Via future educational expectations 20.64 7.09
Via current educational expectations NA NA
SES Q2
Coefficients and (standard errors)
Total effect −3.129*** (0.170) −1.835*** (0.171) −2.944*** (0.170)
Direct effect −1.956*** (0.170) −1.450*** (0.174) −1.450*** (0.174)
Indirect effect −1.173*** (0.186) −0.384*** (0.050) −1.494*** (0.194)
Mediation % 37.50 20.94 50.74
Via math proficiency 100 71.95
Via learning tools 48.76 13.65
Via parental involvement 18.84 5.20
Via general learning activities – –
Via reading activities 10.42 3.07
Via future educational expectations 21.98 6.14
Via current educational expectations NA NA
SES Q3
Coefficients and (standard errors)
Total effect −2.510*** (0.158) −1.539*** (0.158) −2.366*** (0.158)
Direct effect −1.633*** (0.158) −1.311*** (0.160) −1.311*** (0.160)
Indirect effect −0.876*** (0.186) −0.228*** (0.042) −1.055*** (0.192)
Mediation % 34.92 14.80 44.58
Via math proficiency 100 74.89
Via learning tools 46.63 11.69
Via parental involvement 13.69 3.39
Via general learning activities – –
Via reading activities 14.91 3.85
Via future educational expectations 24.77 6.17
Via current educational expectations NA NA
SES Q4
Coefficients and (standard errors)
Total effect −1.600*** (0.147) −1.084*** (0.146) −1.521*** (0.146)
Direct effect −1.136*** (0.147) −0.967*** (0.147) −0.967*** (0.147)
Indirect effect −0.465* (0.186) −0.117** (0.037) −0.554** (0.190)
Mediation % 29.05 10.76 36.44
Via math proficiency 100 75.03
Via learning tools 39.18 9.84
Via parental involvement 11.99 2.97
Via general learning activities – –
Via reading activities 19.32 4.89
Via future educational expectations 29.51 7.28
Via current educational expectations NA NA

Note: Reference group was children in the highest quintile (SES Q5). NA = no mediating effect was observed. The variables measuring “general learning activities” was not
included in the mediation analyses because it was not significant in the regression models reported in Table 2.
+p ≤ 0.10; *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.

math proficiency at kindergarten (quintile 1, z′ = −9.66, p < 0.001; learning tools. For example, 48% of the total mediating association
quintile 2, z′ = −7.73, p < 0.001; quintile 3, z′ = −5.39, p < 0.001; quintile was accounted for by learning tools when the lowest and highest
4, z′ = −3.11, p < 0.01). After controlling for covariates and math pro- SES quintiles were compared. Twenty percent of the mediating as-
ficiency at kindergarten entry, the full set of home learning sociation was accounted by future educational expectations and
environment indicators in kindergarten accounted for between 23% parental involvement between these two quintiles. The patterns with
and 11% of the total association of SES, across SES quintiles, on math the indicators of the home learning environment in kindergarten
achievement in the spring of kindergarten. were consistent across the other SES quintile comparisons.
Also, after examining the contribution of each home indicator Results from the combined mediation analysis indicated that both
as a mediator, we found that all indicators, except for current edu- math proficiency and indicators of the home learning environ-
cational expectations, had a mediating association for all group ment in kindergarten partially mediated the relation between SES
comparisons (quintile 1, z′ = 0.75, p < 0.45; quintile 2, z′ = 1.81, and math achievement when both sets of variables were included
p < 0.071; quintile 3, z′ = 2.41, p < 0.016; quintile 4, z′ = 1.60, p < 0.11). in the model (quintile 1, lowest, z′ = −9.32, p < 0.001; quintile 2,
Furthermore, the greatest proportion of the mediating association z′ = −7.71, p < 0.001; quintile 3, z′ = −5.50, p < 0.001; quintile 4,
of the home learning environment was accounted for by access to z′ = −2.91, p < 0.01). Math proficiency at kindergarten entry
 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38 33

combined with indicators of the home learning environment in kin-

Note: Math achievement is represented by unstandardized coefficients in the table; standardized coefficients are reported in the text. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. p-Values are based on estimations with robust
standard errors. Reference group was children in the highest quintile (SES Q5). All models were estimated utilizing survey commands with similar stratification and sampling units. All models included similar statistical con-
Current educational
dergarten accounted for between 48% and 36% of the total SES

−1.923*** (0.230)
−1.224*** (0.203)
−1.307*** (0.183)
−0.810*** (0.175)
association, across SES quintiles, on math achievement in the spring

0.433* (0.216)

0.332 (0.311)
0.088 (0.339)
−0.329 (0.320)
0.158 (0.315)
expectations
of kindergarten. Math proficiency at kindergarten entry accounted

Model 11
for around two-thirds of the total mediating associations across SES
groups. The relative importance of this variable as a mediator in-
creased when the higher SES groups were compared. For example,
math proficiency at kindergarten entry accounted for 75% of the total
mediating association of SES, when students in the fourth and fifth

Future educational
quintiles were examined, whereas this variable only accounted for

−1.880*** (0.232)

−0.769*** (0.182)
−1.196*** (0.208)
−1.228*** (0.190)

0.365* (0.157)

−0.213 (0.179)
−0.254 (0.189)
−0.065 (0.193)
65% when comparing the lowest and highest quintiles. Indicators

−0.134 (0.177)
expectations
of the home learning environment in kindergarten also contrib-

Model 10
uted to the mediation associations, although their relative
contribution was lower. After taking into account the mediating role
of math proficiency at kindergarten entry, access to learning tools
accounted for 16% of the total mediating association when com-
paring the lowest and highest quintiles.

Reading learning activities

3.3. Moderation of SES on the relations between math proficiency at

−1.816*** (0.231)

0.674*** (0.204)
−1.201*** (0.204)
−1.278*** (0.185)
−0.750*** (0.179)

−0.698** (0.263)
−0.475+ (0.275)
kindergarten entry, home learning environment and math

−0.411 (0.271)
0.042 (0.254)
achievement

Model 9
Most of the moderation analyses were non-significant and pat-
terns of moderation were not consistent across key independent
variables and comparison groups. As model 5 (Table 4) indicates,
SES only moderated the association between math proficiency at

General learning activities

kindergarten entry and math achievement for children in the two
highest quintiles (b = −0.86, p < 0.05). The association between math
proficiency at kindergarten entry and math achievement differs de-

−1.770*** (0.233)

−1.340*** (0.389)
−1.154*** (0.202)
−1.201*** (0.188)
−0.677*** (0.180)
0.774** (0.279)

−0.952* (0.389)
pending on whether students were in the 4th or 5th quintile. In other

−0.511 (0.379)

−0.628 (0.415)
words, this association was stronger for children in the highest
Model 8

quintile (5) than for children in the 4th quintile.

SES did not moderate most of the associations between home
learning environment indicators in kindergarten and math achieve-

trols which are not reported in the table. Reported R2 and F-value are the average values across 15 datasets.
ment in kindergarten; the only two exceptions were general and
reading learning activities. SES moderated the relationship between
Involvement in school

general and reading learning activities and math achievement for

children in the second and highest quintiles (b = −1.34, p < 0.01 and
−1.769*** (0.247)

−1.276*** (0.201)
−1.184*** (0.211)

−0.753*** (0.193)

0.346 (0.819)
−0.375 (0.872)

−0.592 (0.859)
−1.016 (0.867)
1.081 (0.709)

b = −0.70, p < 0.01). General learning activities also moderated the

SES achievement gaps for children in the third and highest quintiles
Model 7

(b = −0.95, p < 0.05). The advantages associated with these two types
of involvement were stronger for those students in the highest SES
quintiles than for those in the 4th quintile. These findings suggest
that, in the few cases where there was moderation, children from
the 5th SES quintiles benefitted more from math proficiency at kin-
−1.721*** (0.256)

−0.730*** (0.203)
−1.183*** (0.217)
−1.242*** (0.198)

0.726*** (0.189)

−0.275 (0.242)
0.036 (0.274)
−0.340 (0.236)

−0.145 (0.254)

dergarten entry and general and reading activities. Thus, these key
Learning tools

variables were not factors that could provide stronger opportuni-

Model 6

ties for those economically disadvantaged students.

Examining the moderating effects of socio-economic status.

4. Discussion
p ≤ 0.10; * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
−1.786*** (0.278)

−0.999*** (0.268)

7.965*** (0.287)
−1.003*** (0.250)
Math Proficiency

Eliminating the SES achievement gap in early childhood is a major

−0.629+ (0.362)
−0.857* (0.352)
−0.330 (0.256)

0.270 (0.419)
−0.343 (0.380)

social concern given its lasting consequences for children’s aca-

demic and subsequent economic well-being (Alexander, Entwisle,
Model 5

& Olson, 2007; Duncan & Murnane, 2011). This study examined SES-
math achievement gaps in kindergarten and the potential mediating/
moderating associations of key predictors using a nationally
representative dataset. We addressed three questions: One, to what
Main indicator effect

extent does children’s math proficiency at the start of kindergar-

SES Q1 × Indicator
SES Q2 × Indicator
SES Q3 × Indicator
SES Q4 × Indicator
Interaction effects
SES Q1 (lowest)

ten attenuate the relation between SES and math scores at the end
Main SES Effects

of kindergarten? Two, after accounting for the associations of math

proficiency, do indicators of the home learning environment in kin-
SES Q2
SES Q3
SES Q4

dergarten further attenuate the relation between SES and children’s

Table 4

math achievement at the end of kindergarten? Three, to what extent

+

does SES moderate the association between math proficiency at the

34 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38

start of kindergarten, indicators of the home learning environ- Consistent with previous research, the findings from this study
ment in kindergarten, and children’s math achievement? identify four particularly important indicators of the home learn-
Consistent with other research (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003; Byrnes ing environment: learning tools, reading with children, parents’
& Wasik, 2009; Jordan et al., 2006), we found a significant associ- expectations and involvement at school. These findings are over and
ation between SES and children’s math scores at the end of above the contribution of math proficiency. These home learning
kindergarten. The magnitudes of the unadjusted gaps were between indicators not only represent the overall academic orientation of
one-third and half standard deviations across SES-groups, with the families by measuring parents’ beliefs expressed through expecta-
largest gap between children in the highest and lowest quintiles. tions, and access to learning tools, but also parents’ behaviors that
As noted by Duncan and Murnane (2011; see also Yeung & Conley, may facilitate learning. As Davis-Kean (2005) argued, parents’ edu-
2008), children from families of low SES generally have less access cational expectations for their children influenced the provision of
to educational resources, live in low SES neighborhoods and are more relevant learning experiences to their children and their flexibility
likely to attend schools with children with limited academic achieve- to modify their home environment to respond to their children’s
ment. Thus, it is imperative to identify factors that can promote the needs. Similarly, access to books and technology at home could be
academic success of children from low SES backgrounds. important contexts for facilitating the learning of mathematical con-
cepts and procedures embedded in non-specific math activities (see
4.1. Math proficiency as a mediator of SES-math achievement gaps Anderson, Anderson, & Shapiro, 2005 for an examination of math
learning through story telling).
A major contribution of this study was to show the associa- Surprisingly, the association between general learning activi-
tions of math proficiency at the start of kindergarten with children’s ties and math achievement was not significant when including all
subsequent math skills. Although prior research shows the impor- home learning environment indicators. This finding may be related
tance of early math skills for children’s long-term development to the nature of learning activities collected by the ECLS-K study,
(Anders et al., 2012; Bodovski & Farkas, 2007; Duncan et al., 2007; which include activities such as talk about nature, do science proj-
Geary et al., 2013), those studies treated math skills as a continu- ects, sing songs, do arts, or play sports, which do not necessarily
ous variable. In contrast, this study showed the importance of starting focus on math content. Nevertheless, knowing what indicators of
kindergarten with a certain level or threshold of math skills. the home learning environment foster math skills in kindergarten
Starting kindergarten proficient in math is important for sub- can serve as a springboard for teachers to discuss with parents what
sequent learning for two reasons. One, children who start they can do at home with their children to foster their math
kindergarten proficient in math have the required math founda- development.
tion to capitalize on classroom instruction. As Kaplan and Walpole Of particular interest are the mediation associations of access
(2005) argued about early reading skills, certain forms of knowl- to learning tools, reading at home, parental involvement in school,
edge acquisition is sequential: One first needs to master one level and parents’ future educational expectations, on the association
before being able to advance to the next level. Two, math instruc- between SES and math achievement. Consistent with the family in-
tion in the average kindergarten classroom may better match the volvement model and concerted cultivation (Cheadle, 2008; Evans,
skills of children who start kindergarten with what we call profi- 2004; Lareau, 2003), learning tools and reading practices are less
cient math skills. These explanations are based on research on present in the homes of children from low SES backgrounds (Bradley
reading (Connor et al., 2004; Morrison & Connor, 2002); future re- et al., 2001), and these parents experience greater barriers for in-
search should investigate similar aspects of math learning and volvement in school (Cooper, 2010). Nevertheless, there is ample
instruction. evidence showing that comprehensive and systematic family–
Our results not only indicated that math proficiency at the start school partnerships positively influence family practices (Galindo
of kindergarten had a significant association with math achieve- & Pucino, 2012; Galindo & Sheldon, 2012; Sanders, 2003).
ment, but also that being proficient substantially attenuated,
although did not fully eliminate, the association between SES and
math skills at the end of the kindergarten. On average, math pro- 4.3. SES as moderating the relationship between math proficiency
ficiency decreased the SES-math achievement gap by one third. and home learning environment and math achievement
However, it is important to note that more children from higher SES
started kindergarten proficient in math: The percentage of chil- A potential way to decrease or eliminate the SES achievement
dren who started kindergarten proficient in math ranged from 14.11 gap is to observe a stronger association of key factors for those stu-
and 29.45 in the 1st and 2nd SES quintile, respectively, to 37.43 in dents in the lowest SES quintiles than in the highest.
the 3rd quintile, and 50.59 and 63.85 in the 4th and 5th quintiles, Unfortunately, the findings in this study did not support such a
respectively. pattern. There was no overall evidence of moderation contrary to
our expectations. In the few analyses where there were signifi-
4.2. Home learning environment as a mediator of SES-math cant associations for moderation, contrary to our expectations, the
achievement gaps moderators provided stronger benefits for children in the highest
SES quintile. That said, there are still relevant implications from the
As discussed in section 1.3, there is a large body of research moderation analyses.
showing that growing up in a stimulating home environment pre- SES only moderated the relationships between two indicators
dicts children’s academic development (Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010; of the home learning environment in kindergarten (general and
Crosnoe et al, 2010; Serpell et al., 2005). Consistent with the family reading learning activities) and math achievement at the end of kin-
investment model (Evans, 2004), research shows SES differences, dergarten (when examining students in the 2nd or 3rd vs. 5th
favoring those from higher SES, in the nature and amount of home quintiles). In these cases, the advantages were stronger for chil-
academic stimulation (Bradley et al., 2001; Phillips, 2011). In fact, dren in the highest quintile. These results suggest that children from
Haskins, Garfinkel, and McLanahan (2014) attribute much of the SES the upper SES quintiles were able to draw upon other family
gap in early learning to children’s home environments. However, strengths or learning opportunities to capitalize even further on the
research addressing what specific indicators of the home learning advantages associated with their high SES. It is also possible that
environment predict children’s math development, and more spe- the nature of the interactions children have when engaging in general
cifically, attenuate SES-math achievement gaps, is far more limited. and reading learning activities may differ for children from low and
 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38 35

higher SES families, and therefore be more beneficial for the latter programs in preschool or kindergarten should target (see further
group (Serpell et al., 2005). discussion in section 4.5 of effective interventions). Research on
This pattern of findings showing that math proficiency and in- reading by Connor and colleagues (Connor et al., 2004; Morrison
dicators of the home learning environment were more beneficial & Connor, 2002) confirms the importance of a match between chil-
to higher SES children is not uncommon. Ceci and Papierno (2005), dren’s skills and instruction.
in discussing possible effects of interventions, noted that some- Despite the limitations, discussed above, the data from this study
times interventions intended to close SES-achievement gaps actually show how aspects of the home learning environment attenuate the
increase such gaps. One approach to avoid such a pattern is to target SES math achievement gap. This has important implications for how
interventions, if possible, to the focal group (in this case, lower SES to improve all children’s math skills.
children). Given these findings, interventions can build upon math
proficiency at kindergarten entry and indicators of the home learn- 4.5. Policy and educational implications
ing environment (e.g., learning tools, reading, parent expectations
and involvement at school) identified in the mediational analyses, These findings, showing that starting kindergarten proficient in
to target low income SES children and their families. Recommen- math significantly attenuated the association between SES and chil-
dations for such are presented in section 4.5. dren’s math achievement and that the home learning environment
in kindergarten further reduced the gap, have significant implica-
4.4. Limitations tions for policy makers and educators. Several studies have shown
that school-based intervention programs focused on improving chil-
Although this study increases our knowledge of how early pro- dren’s early math skills can be effective. Jordan et al. (2012)
ficiency in math and the home learning environment significantly successfully taught kindergarten children number sense; effects were
narrow SES-related math achievement gaps in kindergarten, there still evident eight weeks later when children were tested at post-
are limitations to the study. One, the alphas for the home indices test. Their population consisted of mainly low income children. Clarke
were sometimes fairly low, although similar scales with compara- et al. (2011) also developed an effective curriculum for use with kin-
ble alphas have been consistently used in several publications dergartners. The curriculum included number operations, geometry,
(Crosnoe et al, 2010; Galindo & Sheldon, 2012). Two, the informa- measurement, and vocabulary. About 56% of the kindergartners were
tion from the parents were self-reports and may not be a veridical from low income backgrounds as indexed by free and reduced lunch
representation of actual practices. Three, our selection of indica- status. Children showed significant growth over the school year com-
tors of the home learning environment obviously is constrained by pared to a control group who did not receive the focal curriculum.
what was available in the dataset. For example, it did not include The prior two studies focused on kindergartners; others have ad-
factors such as parents’ warmth and nurturance, factors known to dressed math skill development in preschool. Klein and Starkey have
be relevant for children’s academic growth (Brooks-Gunn & conducted several studies using trained classroom teachers as in-
Markman, 2005; Duncan & Magnuson, 2005) or questions that terventionists and found significant positive effects of the training
focused on specific math activities. Four, we focused on children’s with low income preschoolers (Klein, Starkey, DeFlorio, & Brown,
home learning environment in kindergarten. However, the home 2012; Klein et al., 2008; see also Clements & Sarama, 2007, 2008).
learning environment in kindergarten is probably highly corre- Both Klein et al. (2012) and Sarama and Clements (2004) have de-
lated with the environment before kindergarten and related to veloped empirically validated education curricula for use in
children’s math skills at the start of kindergarten. Unfortunately, that preschools.
is a naturally occurring confound experienced by other research- Early formal education (e.g., center-based child care, pre-
ers investigating these types of issues (e.g., Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010; school, Head Start) can be an important arena for fostering children’s
Crosnoe et al, 2010). Five, although the ECLS-K study followed sys- early math skills (Nores & Barnett, 2014; Wang et al., 2013). However,
tematic procedures to design, construct, and study the psychometric a significant proportion of children, particularly from low SES fami-
characteristics of the cognitive assessments (see Rock & Pollack, lies, do not participate in any type of early formal education before
2002), standardized assessments are not necessarily free of cultur- kindergarten (Bassok, 2010; Loeb, Bridges, Bassok, Fuller, &
al and racial/ethnic biases (Jencks, 1998; see also Steele, 1997). This Rumberger, 2007), attend programs that are less adequate than those
is particularly relevant in a study that focuses on SES-related achieve- attended by children from higher SES (Nores & Barnett, 2014), or
ment given the overrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority students have teachers who do little or no direct math instruction (Hindman,
among those in the lowest SES groups. It is important to note that 2013). Ginsburg et al. (2008) note, for example, that many teach-
the ECLS-K study conducted differential items functioning (DIF) to ers of preschoolers report not knowing what to do to promote
investigate statistically potential racial biases of items (for addi- children’s math skills. Teachers need to improve their knowledge
tional information, see Rock & Pollack, 2002). Six, the ECLS-K tested of how to teach math to this age group. Such instruction should
kindergartners in 1998, with test development probably occur- include direct math instruction (Klein et al., 2008) but also can
ring a few years earlier. Thus, it is important to consider whether include more indirect instruction, such as math-related talk during
the math items assessed are still pertinent for today’s kindergart- circle time (Klibanoff, Levine, Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Hedges,
ners. ECLS-K in kindergarten emphasized number and shape 2006).
(proficiency level 1), relative size (proficiency level 2, see National Following Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory, and rec-
Center for Education Statistics, 2001), and ordinality, sequence (pro- ognizing that development is highly influenced by the
ficiency level 3). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS-M) for interrelationships among contexts, we argue that a comprehen-
math in kindergarten include knowledge of counting and cardinal- sive multi-contextual approach be taken to improve the educational
ity, operations and algebraic thinking, number and operations in opportunities of children from low SES backgrounds. Such an ap-
based ten, measurement and data and geometry (www.nctm.org). proach should focus on the home (Burchinal et al., 2010) and school
A comparison of the elements making up the actual math domains contexts (including preschool; Ginsburg et al., 2008; Yoshikawa et al.,
in both the ECLS-K and the CCSS-M reveals considerable overlap. 2013).
Thus, the findings appear relevant for understanding how today’s Many parents, including those from middle SES backgrounds,
kindergarteners fare in math. Knowing with which skills children report not knowing what to do to foster their children’s math skills
start kindergarten, and which skills these children or groups of chil- (Cannon & Ginsburg, 2008), and view math as less important than
dren still need to develop, has implications for what instructional reading (Musun-Miller & Blevins-Knabe, 1998; Starkey et al., 2004).
36 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38

Furthermore, low income children reportedly experience fewer math- Beauchaine, T. P., Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2005). Mediators, moderators,
and predictors of 1-year outcomes among children treated for early-onset conduct
related activities at home than middle income children (Ramani &
problems: A latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Siegler, 2008; Saxe et al., 1987) and there is substantial variability Psychology, 73, 371–388.
in the amount of math-related talk and experiences children have Bodovski, K., & Farkas, G. (2007). Mathematics growth in early elementary school:
at home (Levine, Suriyakham, Rowe, Huttenlocher, & Gunderson, The roles of beginning knowledge, student engagement and instruction. The
Elementary School Journal, 108, 115–130.
2010), even when one controls for SES. Taken together, these find- Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Age and ethnic variations in family
ings show that there is a need to increase parents’ awareness of the process mediators of SES. In M. H. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley (Eds.),
importance of math and ways to foster their children’s math skills Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 151–188). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
(Sonnenschein et al., 2012). Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., McAdoo, H. P., & Garcia Coll, C. (2001). The home
Through developing strong family and school partnerships and environments of children in the United States Part I: Variations by age, ethnicity,
building upon the strengths of the families, schools can help parents and poverty status. Child Development, 72, 1844–1867.
Breen, R., Karlson, K. B., & Holm, A. (2013). Total, direct, and indirect effects in Logit
increase their awareness of what home learning activities foster chil- and Probit models. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 164–191.
dren’s math development and utilization of math learning Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
opportunities at home (Epstein & Sanders, 2000; Klein et al., 2008; Harvard University Press.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Markman, L. B. (2005). The contribution of parenting to ethnic
Sheldon, Epstein, & Galindo, 2010). For example, Klein et al.’s (2008)
and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15, 139–168.
school-based training study with low income preschoolers in- Burchinal, M., McCartney, K., Steinberg, L., Crosnoe, R., Friedman, S. L., McLoyd, V.,
cluded a component where teachers sent home relevant math et al. (2011). Examining the Black-White achievement gap among low-income
children using the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Child
activities for parents to do. Parents reported liking and doing the
Development, 82, 1404–1420.
activities (Starkey et al., 2004). An added advantage of such part- Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis
nerships is that it would inform teachers about what parents are of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income
doing at home to foster their children’s educational development, children in pre- kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25,
166–176.
something teachers often do not know (Serpell et al., 2005; Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (2009). Factors predictive of mathematics achievement
Sonnenschein & Schmidt, 2000). in kindergarten, first and third grades: An opportunity-propensity analysis.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 167–183.
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the
5. Conclusion environment (HOME). Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Cannon, J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2008). “Doing the math”: Maternal beliefs about early
mathematics versus language learning. Early Education and Development, 19,
Much of the research on SES-math achievement gaps has focused
238–260.
on mediational processes (Cheadle, 2008; Davis-Kean, 2005; Linver Caro, D. H., McDonald, J. T., & Willms, J. D. (2009). Socio-economic status and academic
et al., 2002). Our study was one of the first, we believe, to compare achievement trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Journal of
mediational and moderation approaches in the same study. Such Education, 32, 558–590.
Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the
a comparison is important because it allows us to identify factors “have-nots” gain but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist, 60,
or processes that decrease the gap and determine whether asso- 149–160.
ciations vary with SES (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Judd et al., 2001). Chatterji, M. (2005). Achievement gaps and correlates of early math achievement:
Evidence from the ECLS K-First grade sample. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
The findings from this study identify important processes that 46, 1–35.
may reduce the SES-math achievement gap. Starting kindergarten Cheadle, J. E. (2008). Educational investment, family context, and children’s math
proficient in math significantly attenuated that gap. Aspects of the and reading growth from kindergarten through the third grade. Sociology of
Education, 81, 1–31.
home learning environment in kindergarten including access to home Civil, M., & Andrade, R. (2002). Transitions between home and school mathematics:
learning tools, reading with children, parents’ expectations and in- Rays of hope amidst the passing clouds. In G. de Abreu, A. J. Bishop, & N. C.
volvement at school further reduced the gap. The next step for Presmeg (Eds.), Transitions between contexts of mathematical practices (pp.
149–169). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
educators and policy makers is to translate these potential path-
Claessens, A., & Engel, M. (2013). How important is where you start? Early
ways into actualities for children from low SES backgrounds. mathematics knowledge and later school success. Teachers College Record, 115(6),
1–29.
Clarke, B., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Fien, H., Doabler, C. T., & Chard, D. J. (2011).
Acknowledgments The impact of a comprehensive tier 1 core kindergarten program on the
achievement of students at risk in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal,
We appreciate the invaluable research assistance provided by 111, 561–584.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum:
Claire Hempel, Rebecca Dowling, and Hannah Engelke. Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 38, 136–163.
References Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a
research-based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research
Journal, 45, 443–494.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, E. L. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring
summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 167–180. the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific
Anders, Y., Rossbach, H.-G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., et al. (2012). Home Studies of Reading, 8, 305–336.
and preschool learning environments and their relations to the development of Cooper, C. E. (2010). Family poverty, school-based parental involvement, and
early numeracy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 231–244. policy-focused protective factors in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research
Anderson, A., Anderson, J., & Shapiro, J. (2005). Supporting multiple literacies: Parents’ Quarterly, 25, 480–492.
and children’s mathematical talk within storytelling reading. Mathematics Crosnoe, R., & Cooper, C. E. (2010). Economically disadvantaged children’s transitions
Education Research Journal, 16(3), 5–26. into elementary school: Linking family processes, school contexts, and educational
Arnold, D. H., & Doctoroff, G. L. (2003). The early education of socioeconomically policy. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 258–291.
disadvantaged children. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 517–545. Crosnoe, R., Leventhal, T., Wirth, R. J., Pierce, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & the NICHD Early
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Developmental Child Care Research Network (2010). Family socioeconomic status and consistent
dynamics of math performance from preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational environmental stimulation in early childhood. Child Development, 81, 972–
Psychology, 96, 699–713. 987.
Bailey, D. H., Siegler, R. S., & Geary, D. C. (2014). Early predictors of middle school Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on
fraction knowledge. Developmental Science, 17, 775–785. child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and home
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. M., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (2005). Those environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 294–304.
who have, receive: The Matthew effect in early childhood intervention in the Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in
home environment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 1–26. school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between
Bassok, D. (2010). Do Black and Hispanic children benefit more from preschool? and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 653–664.
Understanding differences in preschool effects across racial groups. Child Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2001). Change in family income-to-needs
Development, 81, 1828–1845. matters more for children with less. Child Development, 72, 1779–1793.
 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38 37

Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Mediator and moderator analysis in program analysis Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M. N., & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting first-grade
development. In S. Sussman (Ed.), Handbook of program development for health math achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning
behavior research and practice (pp. 470–500). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 36–46.
Publications, Inc. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Olah, L. N., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth
Downey, D., Von Hippel, P., & Broh, B. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer? in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for math
Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. American difficulties. Child Development, 77, 153–175.
Sociological Review, 69, 613–635. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters:
Duncan, G., Dowsett, C., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A., Klebanov, P., et al. Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes.
(2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, Developmental Psychology, 45, 850–867.
1428–1446. Jose, P. E. (2013). Doing statistical mediation & moderation. New York, NY: The Guilford
Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2005). Can family socioeconomic resources account Press.
for racial and ethnic test score gaps? The Future of Children, 15, 35–54. Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2011). Introduction: The American dream now and and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–
then. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity?: Rising inequality, 134.
schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 3–22). NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Kaplan, D., & Walpole, S. (2005). A stage-sequential model of reading transitions:
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal of Educational
mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychology, 97, 551–563.
Psychological Methods, 12, 1–32. Karlson, K. B., & Holm, A. (2011). Decomposing primary and secondary effects: A
Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: new decomposition method. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 29,
Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 221–237.
58, 637–642. Kleemans, T., Peeters, M., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Child and home predictors
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000). Connecting home, school, and community: of early numeracy skills in children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27,
New directions for social research. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology 471–477.
of education (pp. 285–306). NY: Springer. Klein, A., Starkey, P., Clements, D., Sarama, J., & Iyer, R. (2008). Effects of a pre-
Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, kindergarten mathematics intervention: A randomized experiment. Journal of
59, 77–92. Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1, 155–178.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: Klein, A., Starkey, P., DeFlorio, L., & Brown, E. T. (2012). Establishing and sustaining
A meta- analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1–22. an effective pre-kindergarten math intervention at scale. Paper presented at SREE,
Galindo, C., & Pucino, A. (2012). Family diversity and school-family relationships. Washington, DC.
In J. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (pp. 885–889). New York: Klibanoff, R. S., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2006).
Sage Publications. Preschool children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher “math talk.
Galindo, C., & Sheldon, S. (2012). School and home connections and children’s Developmental Psychology, 42, 59–69.
kindergarten achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Kolkman, M. E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2013). Early numerical
Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 90–103. development and the role of non-symbolic and symbolic skills. Learning and
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2013). Adolescents’ functional Instruction, 25, 95–103.
numeracy is predicted by their school entry number system knowledge. PLoS Lago, R. M., & DiPerna, J. C. (2010). Number sense in kindergarten: A factor-analytic
ONE, 8(1). study of the construct. School Psychology Review, 39, 164–180.
Geoffrey, M.-C., Cote, S. M., Borge, A. I. H., Larouche, F., Sequin, J. R., & Rutter, M. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University
(2007). Association between nonmaternal care in the first year of life and of California Press.
children’s receptive language skills prior to school entry: The moderating Lee, J.-S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the
role of socioeconomic status. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational
490–497. Research Journal, 43, 193–218.
Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., Raver, C. C., & Lennon, M. C. (2007). Income is not enough: Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background
Incorporating material hardship into models of income associations with differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic
parenting and child development. Child Development, 78, 70–95. Policy Institute.
Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young LeFevre, J.-A., Polyzoi, E., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Fast, L., & Sowinski, C. (2010). Do home
children: What it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report, XXII. numeracy and literacy practices of Greek and Canadian parents predict the
Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of numeracy skills of kindergarten children? International Journal of Early Years
parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, Education, 18, 55–70.
538–548. LeFevre, J.-A., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., &
Guo, G., & Harris, K. M. (2000). The mechanisms mediating the effects of poverty Bisanz, J. (2009). Home numeracy experiences and children’s math
on children’s intellectual development. Demography, 37, 431–447. performance in the early school years. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 41,
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young 55–66.
American children. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Levine, S. C., Suriyakham, L. W., Rowe, M. L., Huttenlocher, J., & Gunderson, E. A. (2010).
Haskins, R., Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. (2014). Introduction: Two-Generation What counts in the development of young children’s number knowledge?
mechanisms of child development. The Future of Children, 24, 3–13. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1309–1319.
Hill, N. E. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school Linver, M. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Kohen, D. E. (2002). Family processes as pathways
readiness: The roles of ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational from income to young children’s development. Developmental Psychology, 38,
Psychology, 93, 686–697. 719–734.
Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., & Rumberger, R. W. (2007). How much is
achievement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 161–164. too much? The influence of preschool centers on children’s social and cognitive
Hindman, A. H. (2013). Mathematics instruction in Head Start: Nature, extent, and development. Economics of Education Review, 26, 52–66.
contributions to children’s learning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Magnuson, K. A., Sexton, H. R., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Huston, A. C. (2007). Increases in
14, 230–240. maternal education and young children’s language skills. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
Hindman, A. H., Skibbe, L. E., Miller, A., & Zimmerman, M. (2010). Ecological contexts 55, 319–350.
and early learning: Contributions of child, family, and classroom factors during McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American
Head Start, to literacy and mathematics growth through first grade. Early Psychologist, 53, 185–204.
Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 235–250. Morrison, F. J., & Connor, C. M. (2002). Understanding schooling effects on
Jencks, C. (1998). Racial bias in testing. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White early literacy: A working research strategy. Journal of School Psychology, 40,
test score gap (pp. 55–85). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 493–500.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to Musun-Miller, L., & Blevins-Knabe, B. (1998). Adults’ beliefs about children and
urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, mathematics: How important is it and how do children learn about it? Early
237–269. Development and Parenting, 7, 191–202.
Jones, H. A., Epstein, J. N., Hinshaw, S. P., Owens, E. B., Chi, T. C., Eugene Arnold, L., National Center for Education Statistics (2001). ECLS-K, base year public-use data file,
et al. (2009). Ethnicity as a moderator of treatment effects on parent-child kindergarten class of 1998–99: Data files and electronic codebook (child,
interaction for children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 13, 592– teacher, school files), and user’s manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
600. Education.
Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., Dyson, N., Hassinger-Das, B., & Irwin, C. (2012). Building National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
kindergartners’ number sense: A randomized controlled study. Journal of standards for school mathematics (Report No. SE050-418). Reston, VA: NCTM. ERIC
Educational Psychology, 104, 647–660. document 304 338.
Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., Ramineni, C., & Watkins, M. W. (2010). Validating a number National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report
sense screening tool for use in kindergarten and first grade: Prediction of of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
mathematics proficiency in third grade. School Psychology Review, 39, 181–195. Education.
Jordan, N. C., Hansen, N., Fuchs, L. S., Siegler, R. S., Gersten, R., & Micklos, D. (2013). National Research Council (2009). C. T. Cross, T. A. Woods, & H. Schweingruber (Eds.),
Developmental predictors of fraction concepts and procedures. Journal of Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths towards excellence and equity.
Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 45–58. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
38 C. Galindo, S. Sonnenschein/Contemporary Educational Psychology 43 (2015) 25–38

Nores, M., & Barnett, W. S. (2014). Access to high quality early care and education: Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic
Readiness and opportunity gaps in America. CEELO Policy Report. New Brunswick, review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
NJ: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. Skwarchuk, S.-L., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2014). Formal and informal home
Phillips, M. (2011). Parenting, time use, and disparities in academic outcomes. In learning activities in relation to children’s early numeracy and literacy skills: The
G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity?: Rising inequality, schools, development of a home numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
and children’s life chances (pp. 207–228). NY: Russell Sage Foundation. 121, 63–84.
Polk, T. A., Reed, C. L., Keenan, J. M., Hogarth, P., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). A dissociation Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
between symbolic number knowledge and analogue magnitude information. equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.
Brain and Cognition, 47, 545–563. Sonnenschein, S., & Galindo, C. (2015). Race/ethnicity and initial math skills: Relations
Pollack, J. M., Atkins-Burnett, S., Najarian, M., & Rock, D. A. (2005). Psychometric report between home, classroom, and math achievement. The Journal of Educational
for the fifth grade, NCES 2006-036. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, 108, 261–277.
Statistics, United States Department of Education. Early Childhood Longitudinal Sonnenschein, S., Galindo, C., Metzger, S. R., Thompson, J. A., Huang, H. C., & Lewis,
Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS–K). H. (2012). Parents’ beliefs about children’s math development and children’s
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation participation in math activities. Child Development Research, doi:10.1155/2012/
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 851657.
42, 185–227. Sonnenschein, S., & Schmidt, D. (2000). Fostering home and community connections
Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in to support children’s reading development. In L. Baker, M. J. Dreher, & J. T. Guthrie
low-income children’s numerical knowledge through playing number board (Eds.), Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (pp.
games. Child Development, 29, 375–394. 264–284). NY: Guilford.
Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2014). How informal learning activities can promote Sonnenschein, S., Stapleton, L. M., & Metzger, S. R. (2014). What parents know about
children’s numerical knowledge. In R. C. Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford how well their children are doing in school. The Journal of Educational Research,
handbook of mathematical cognition, published on-line (pp. 3–2014). 107, 152–162.
Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakely, A. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical
on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 441–462. knowledge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood
Rieppi, R., Greenhill, L. L., Ford, R. E., Chuang, S., Wu, M., Davies, M., et al. (2002). Research Quarterly, 19, 99–120.
Socioeconomic status as a moderator of ADHD treatment outcomes. Journal of Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 269–277. and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.
Rock, D. A., & Pollack, J. M. (2002). Early childhood longitudinal study-kindergarten Wang, A. H., Shen, F., & Byrnes, J. P. (2013). Does the opportunity-propensity
class of 1998–99 (ECLS–K), psychometric report for kindergarten through first grade framework predict the early mathematics skills of low-income pre-kindergarten
(NCES 2002–05). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. children? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 259–270.
Royston, P. (2005). Multiple imputation of missing values: Update. The Stata Journal, Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2014). What’s past is
5, 527–536. prologue: Relations between early mathematics knowledge and high school
Sanders, M. G. (2003). Community involvement in schools: From concept to practice. achievement. Educational Researcher, 43, 352–360.
Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 161–181. Yamamoto, Y., & Holloway, S. D. (2010). Parental expectations and children’s
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2004). Building blocks for early childhood mathematics. academic performance in sociocultural context. Educational Psychology Review,
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 181–189. 22, 189–214.
Saxe, G. B., Guberman, S. R., & Gearhart, M. (1987). Social processes in early number Yan, W., & Lin, Q. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achievement: Contrast
development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52, across racial and ethnic groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 116–127.
153–159. Yeung, W. J., & Conley, D. (2008). Black-White achievement gap and family wealth.
Serpell, R., Baker, L., & Sonnenschein, S. (2005). Becoming literate in the city: The Child Development, 79, 303–324.
Baltimore Early Childhood Project. NY: Cambridge University Press. Yeung, W. J., Linver, M. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). How money matters for young
Sheldon, S., Epstein, J., & Galindo, C. (2010). Not just numbers: Creating a partnership children’s development: Parental investment and family processes. Child
climate to improve math proficiency in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, Development, 73, 1861–1879.
9, 27–48. Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M. R., Espinosa, L. M., Gormley,
Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., W. T., et al. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool
et al. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. education. <http://fcdus.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20
Psychological Science, 23, 691–697. Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf>.