Study finds ‘opportunity gap’ between rich and poor children can come down to just six missed chances

Decades of research have shown that children who are born into low-income households have less access to opportunities like high-quality child care and afterschool activities. Now, a 26-year longitudinal study has quantified the severity of this opportunity gap for the first time, as well as the sizable impact this has on children as they grow into young adults.

The new study, published by the American Educational Research Association, followed 814 children from low-, middle- and high-income families from birth through age 26, scrutinizing access to a spectrum of opportunities in childhood and adolescent years, including such factors as the instructional quality of classrooms, neighborhood income and participation in after-school activities like sports, music lessons and clubs.

Researchers found that while most high-income children experience six or more “opportunities” between birth and high school, nearly two-thirds of children from low-income households have zero or only one opportunity.

The size of that gap over the course of the childhood and adolescent years is striking, researchers said. “I wasn’t super surprised that the wealthiest kids were having seven, eight, nine, 10 opportunities, but that the poor children were getting one or no chances,” said co-author of the report, Eric Dearing, a professor at Boston College and executive director of the Mary E. Walsh Center for Thriving Children.

In their report, the authors say this opportunity gap appears to be a more powerful predictor of future educational attainment and earnings than childhood poverty alone. Children from low-income households who benefited from even a few of these opportunities had better outcomes as young adults. When children from low-income households moved from zero to four opportunities, for example, their odds of graduating from a four-year college jumped from 10 to 50 percent, and their annual salaries by age 26 increased by around $10,000.

Between birth and high school, “even one additional opportunity was very meaningful,” said Dearing. The study suggests there could be great societal payoffs from investing in diverse programs and opportunities for children. The outsized impact of opportunities could be attributed to the benefits that come from a range of positive experiences, Dearing noted. Those experiences and opportunities seem to be particularly valuable for brain growth and learning. “The more chances you get … the greater the likelihood that you will find that setting, that activity, that place in life that aligns with your strengths and your talents and your abilities,” Dearing said.

Such opportunities also offer a beneficial “time substitution” for children, said co-author Henrik D. Zachrisson, a developmental psychologist and professor at the University of Oslo. These opportunities essentially replace what could be a non-enriching experience, like being in a stressful home environment, with an activity that is more enriching and beneficial, he added.

While the study showed that more opportunities were correlated with better academic outcomes and higher income, it did not prove that the opportunities caused the outcomes. However, even the fact that there is correlation indicates the potential “serious consequences” for children who do not receive a bevy of opportunities, the authors wrote.

The findings underscore the need to invest more in expanding the number of opportunities low-income children access across the childhood and adolescent years, said Dearing. This includes enrolling more eligible children in programs like federally-funded Early Head Start and Head Start, and investing more in “community school” models, which provide broad support and enrichment opportunities for students.

The research also suggests that while focusing efforts on expanding just one opportunity for children, like after school clubs or early learning programs, may be helpful, it could be short-sighted. Instead, policymakers should consider solutions that tackle as many environments in a child’s life as possible. “What I hope we’re making clear,” Zachrisson said,” is that the idea of a single solution to alleviating negative consequences of poverty is just nonsensical.”  

Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at (212) 678-3562 or mader@hechingerreport.org.

This story about opportunity gaps was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Early Childhood newsletter.

Related articles