Side-by-side Chinese-English



(1.中国人民大学人口与发展研究中心、健康科学研究所, 北京 100872)

【摘要】农村父母流动对不同年龄阶段儿童的影响有所差别, 同时, 父母流动对儿童在校行为的影响也是多方面的, 需要从不同的维度进行评估。基于中国教育追踪调查数据, 文章从班级融入、学校适应以及行为规范3个维度考察农村父母流动对大龄留守儿童在校行为的影响, 并在多元回归模型的基础上使用倾向值分析法对父母流动对大龄留守儿童在校行为的干预效应进行更精准的测算。估计结果稳健地表明:父母流动对大龄留守儿童的在校行为, 尤其是班级融入及行为规范具有消极作用。亲子分离式的中国人口城乡流动的代价不仅仅在于未来中国人力资本的市场竞争力, 而更应该警惕其对下一代人口适应社会、融入社会的能力以及行为自控力等综合发展能力的影响。

【关键词】 父母流动;大龄留守儿童;在校行为;倾向值分析法;


【基金资助】 国家社会科学基金一般项目“城镇化背景下流动人口家庭发展问题研究” (项目编号:15BRK036) 的支持;

The impact of parental migration on school behaviors of left-behind older children in rural areas: evidence from China Education Panel Survey

SONG Yueping1

(1.Center for Population and Development Studies and Research institute of Health Science, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China 100872)

【Abstract】The impact of parental migration on school behavior of their children is multidimensional and differentiated by age. Based on the data from China Education Panel Survey, this paper measures the school behavior of left-behind older children from three perspectives: integration into class, adaptation to school life and personal behavior control, and estimates the effect of parental migration on children’s school behavior by propensity score analysis. The results show that parental migration negatively affects school behavior of left-behind older children significantly, especially the class integration and personal behavior control. The parent-child separated migration not only affects the market competitive ability of the human resource in the near future, but also the ability to adapt to and be integrated into the society of the next generation, which needs to get more attention.

【Keywords】 parental migration; left-behind older children; school behavior; propensity score analysis;


【Funds】 General Project of National Social Science Fund of China (15BRK036);

Download this article

    [1]. ① The age standard for children is 0–17 years old (under 18 years old). The same below unless otherwise specified. [^Back]

    [2]. ① These indicators, derived from the scale, are all four-category variables (1 = totally disagree, 2 = relatively disagree, 3 = relatively agree, 4 = totally agree). In this paper, its reliability and validity are tested respectively. In terms of reliability, its corresponding Cronbach’s α coefficient is about 0.69, greater than 0.6, and meets the acceptable standard for reliability, suggesting that its internal consistency is good. As far as validity is concerned, the correlation between each item and the whole is very high and the identification ability of item strong, which indicates that it meets the standards for validity. [^Back]

    [3]. ② Compared with the common factor of the integration into class, the scores of the two common factors—the adaptation to school life and personal behavior control show somewhat different trends: for the common factor of integration into class, the higher the score is, the higher the integration level is; but for the two common factors—the adaptation to school life and personal behavior control, the higher the score is, the lower the level of the adaptation to school life and the personal behavior control is. In order to facilitate in-depth analysis later, this paper adopts score normalization to keep the two common factors in the same trend as the common factor of the integration into class (i.e. the higher the score is, the higher the level of the adaptation to school life and the personal behavior control is). [^Back]

    [4]. ① Both the student questionnaire and parent questionnaire of the CEPS2014 have surveyed the cohabitation of the interviewed students and their lineal relatives (the corresponding question is “which lineal relatives do not live with you (children) at home for the moment”). The above variable is finally generated with reference to the survey results of the two questionnaires on the basis of logic validation. [^Back]

    [5]. ① Individual characteristic variables are all sourced from student questionnaire, with family characteristic variables generated with reference to student questionnaire and parent questionnaire on the basis of logic validation, class characteristic variables from head teacher questionnaire, and school variables from school leadership questionnaire. [^Back]

    [6]. ① Due to limited space, the reduction of selectivity bias will be omitted here. Please contact the author if necessary. [^Back]


    1 Amuedo-Dorantes C. and Pozo S. 2010. Accounting for Remittance and Migration Effects on Children’s Schooling. World Development 12: 1747–1759.

    2 Bronfenbrenner. 1989. Ecological Systems Theory, in R. Vasta (ed.). Annals of Child Development: Six Theories of Child Development-Revised Formulations and Current Issues. London: JAI Press.

    3 Bowlby J. M. 1969. Attachment and Loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books.

    4 Gottfredson M. R. and Hirschi T. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press.

    5 Guo S. and Fraser M. W. 2011. Propensity Score Analysis: Statistical Methods and Applications. Sage Publications, Inc.

    6 Hope Trina L. et al. 2003. The Family in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: Structure, Parenting, and Self-control. Sociological Focus 4: 291–311.

    7 Mckenzie D. and Rapoport H. 2011. Can Migration Reduce Educational Attainment? Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Population Economics 4: 1331–1358.

    8 Oswald F. L., Schmitt N., Kim B. H. et al. 2004. Developing a Biodata Measure and Situational Judgment Inventory as Predictors of College Student Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 2: 187–207.

    9 Steinberg L. 2007. Adolescence (8th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    10 Vock M., Preckel F. and Holling H. 2011. Mental Abilities and School Achievement: A Test of a Mediation Hypothesis. Intelligence 5: 357–369.

    11 Woelfel J. and Haller A. O. 1971. Significant Others, The Self-Reflexive Act and the Attitude Formation Process. American Sociological Review 1: 74.

    12 Duan, C., Lyu, L. Guo, J. et al. Population Journal (人口学刊), (3): 37–49 (2013).

    13 Duan, C. & Zhou, F. Population Research (人口研究), (1): 29–36 (2005).

    14 Fan, F. & Sang, B. Journal of Psychological Science (心理科学), (4): 855–858 (2005).

    15 Li, Q. Journal of Shanghai Educational Research (上海教育科研), (9): 25–28 (2002).

    16 Li, Q., Sun, R. & Li, R. Chinese Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (10): 4–20 (2014).

    17 Song, Y. & Zhang, Yao. Population Research (人口研究), (6): 57–66 (2009).

    18 Yang, J. & Duan, C. Population Research (人口研究), (1): 11–21 (2008).

    19 Ye, J., Wang, Y. Zhang, K. et al. China Rural Economy (中国农村经济), (1): 57–65 (2006).

This Article


CN: 11-1489/C

Vol 42, No. 05, Pages 68-77

September 2018


Article Outline


  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Hypotheses of study
  • 3 Data and method
  • 4 Empirical results
  • 5 Conclusion and discussion
  • Footnote