See all

20 Citations
See all
36 References
Share

Download full-text PDF

The Impact of Parents Overseas

Employment on Educational Outcomes of
Filipino Children
Article (PDF Available)inInternational Migration Review 44(2):300 - 319 June 2010with4,698 Reads
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2010.00807.x

1st Marie Joy B. Arguillas

2nd Lindy B. Williams

20.36 Cornell University

Abstract
Family structure, household resources, numbers of siblings competing for those resources, and parents own
educational attainment are often important predictors of childrens education outcomes. Overseas migration of
parents from the Philippines has resulted in increasing numbers of long-term separations of parents from each other
and from their children. Western-based analyses might predict negative education outcomes for children as a result
of parental absence. We find that separations caused by overseas migration often are either neutral or can have
positive effects on schooling outcomes, at least among older children. Girls fare better in terms of educational
attainment than do boys overall. Boys are often more affected by background variables, including parents
international migration.

Discover the world's research

11+ million members

100+ million publications

100k+ research projects

Join for free

Full-text (PDF)
Available from: Lindy B. Williams, Mar 03, 2015
Download full-text PDF

Overseas
Parents
on Educational
Outcomes
Children
Marie
University
Lindy
Cornell
siblings
their
2001;
a ncome
offset
hardship
parent
other
economic
Education
success,
live
better
with
type
but
be
those
behind
own
mothers
because
to
chances
Raftery,
these
both
have
family
choose
children
economic
are
siblings
for
outcomes
Joy
childrens
outcomes.
the
in
eachincreasing
Western-based
might
children
parental
caused
migration
effects
outcomes,
fare
migration.
ROLE
STRUCTURE
OUTCOMES
considered
inuencing
success
structure,
resources,
those
be
Clearly
factors
a
manythe
major
world,
exporting
(Semyonov
Studies
reserved.
resources
child, OF
of
parents
global
labor
demand
been
families
limited behind
experience
remittances
migrant
iGorodzeisky,
household
migration
of staying
effects,
parental
brought
absence
also
education
parents
that
parenting
not
[mother]
example, in
structural
the
(Biblarz
325).
paid
while one
that
household,
educational
CHILDRENS
OUTCOMES
may the
however.
children.
transmitted
and
through of
consequences
psychologists
families
best
single
continuation.
Blake
Powell
HAVE
OTHER
likely
wage
nancial
worse,
(1999)
negative
household
once
status
controlled.
argue
living
fewer
CONTEXT
Many
topic
of
the
who
both
parents
have
work often
available,
constitute
literature
presence
studies
families
those
biological
their
separation
death
addition,
relied
temporary
at
adult
familythe
migration
a
and large
abroad.
Parrenas
parent
certain
overseas
often
economic
through
but
clear.
are
1987;
that
as
being
Migrants
been
use,
mothers
healthy
whose
the
DATA
drawn
Workers
in
UP
was other
dominated.
receiving
industry.
in
newly
males have
combination
over- are
(Commission
Overseas,
demand
sectors
women large
countries,
(Philippine
As we
additionthe
left
emotional
People-CBCP
2004).
study
than
research
reported
Review
academic
affected
also
Conaco,
Commission
B.
children
well-being,
whether
overseas
parents
attainment.
across
argued
has
for
and the
structures
necessary
serve
child
over
ability
are
effect
and cul-
(Biblarz
The
amount has of
Williams
attainment own
Philippines
separations
other
predict
educational
Boys
affected
parents areby
on
better as
demand
has
falling
Gorodzeisky,
who
Philippines
are
mothers
on are
highlights
the to
role and
might
negative
(McLanahan,
McLanahan any
is
affect
301
only
absence
(Parrenas, In
correct,
bothin
can
and
to
on
early
were
traditional
structures.
matriarchy
numerous
examine 1965
Education parents
increasingly
Philippines
international
According
estimates,
Filipinos
Over half
Arguillas
a
a
the
University
competing
are
who
been
for
leaving
increasingly
of
labor
improve
and
studied
been
outcomes
McLanahan,
Mclanahan,
average, hold
single-parent
to
controlled,
(McLanahan, of
Pollak,
Philippines,
investigations
left to
potentially
those
individual
posits
siblings, that of
and
absence.
often
mens
disciplines
that
school
of
Beller,
argument how
in
who
found
mother
and
siblings
parent
in is
whose
end
members
(particularly
up job is in
has
overseas,
children
ApostleshipFor
overseas
gambling.
medias
depiction
is
fathers.
of 1999
University
Migrant
2001).
years
reect
urban
their number
adolescence
Philippines
educational
educationoften
Overseas
has
parents
negative
overseas
schooling
at
in
often
by analyses
result
international
in FAMILY
resources,
particularly
unrelated
their
article, theseto
contexts.
we
affect
Philippines.
analysis
countries
perhaps
New
7379.2010.00807.x
(Summer
of been
decades IN are
least
attain-
terms
back-more
important
childrens
household
numbers
one
relative
assess
parents
Semyonov
may
present.
present
an
intact
than
McLanahan,
as
conguration
literature
which clear
both
domestic
they then
are
and
the one
often In
must
for
on
2005),
young
literature
family
success
resources,
is mainly
lack
social,
well-being, 1986;
an the
the
Raftery
economic
the tend
family
the
have
indicated,
not
The
from
hired
since
have to
We
and
elements resulted
of
important.
childrens
outcomes
nation
and
York. because
around
All
2010):300319
an ofcial
and theof
another,
thethis
rights
struc-
one
across
family1994).
invest
well-being.
there
(1989),
(1989).
AN
mothers
be
present,
cases
brings
Filipino
feelings
different
children
(Episcopal found
Also,
less
others
been
is
Itinerant
Sea-Manila,
describes
President
because
solidarity
1995a,b). with
cost
speculated
partially
drinking,
reected
public father,
together
considering
gender
to
between
which and
opinion,
educational
arrangements
developed
parents
employment
on the
Households parents
Sociology
Population of
Philippines,
OFW-sending
Manila,
City,
censored.
restrict
were
which
Education and
conducted
at in
any
gender
AND
from theafford
keep
of
dataschool
circumstances
resources
child.
with
effects
enumerated,
cited
in
which
partnership headed
an
not
suggests
of
likely
for a
whose
has
According
(2007),
live
workers.
consequences
well-being remittance
Parrenas,
specic
unloved, example,
behind
from
of of are
any
available
a dimin-
EFFECT
INFLUENCES?
occupations,
of on unem-
circumstances
two-parent
average,
two
which
parents
or that
occupation
On
because
households
competing
living may
Commission
migrant
results
is(Cruz,
meagermixed
1998;
Ramos for
of
et
efforts
(Ramos
of
Parrenas
overall
of
survey
by
settings,
the
the who
areas.
educa- in
our
or
305 seen
in
or
of
Workers,
Respondents
old Davaofrom the
Pangas-the
and
the
infrom
either
of in
policy
leave
female
labor
those
children
that
investigate
affect
migration
growing have
consequences
partici-
children
1985;
1988;
for the Amato,
Sandefur,
lower of
i.e.,
economic,
including
overall
extensively
found
difference
Astone
advantage
well-being
2004).
considerable
gains
may
in
however,
involve-
about
in
determines of one
arrangement
outcomes,
children,hypothesis
with
biological
negative
social
which many
affect
education).
typically
reinforced,
institutions
1986;
costs,
circumstances
childrens
outcomes.
circumstances,
Review
associated
education.
capital
way for of
is of
should
mother,
which
thisdo
children
somewhat human
women
for
reasons,
1999).
The sent
outcomes.2005).
more
nancial
with
because
childrens
the nuclear
those
styles
control which
suggests
outcomes
the
parents
attainment
High
are
their
viewed
Kingston,
a familys diminished
one
then
argument
so
also
andsaid
schooling
In
generally but
own very
the
for
litera-
studies
motivated
For
Moyni-
303 family
migrants,
expected
of
2008).
was
opportunities
the Recent
countries
for
volume in
including from
researchers
to
abroadthe
as effects
of
common
stay
their
onthus
children
stress migra-
pathological
of in theand
migrant of
often
the
ithas
the
chil-
of
(1999).
to fam-
in
to
thus
school.
by to
should
See,
Downey
areon
service
rapid
contributed
developing
female
Filipino
Overseas
an 1992
indicated,the
are
Itinerant
is
of
in
however,
1985;
several
have children.
(e.g.,
only
In
in
children
parent.
would
biological
are present.
families,
the is by
and
from
or
household
overseas
for
and
there
more
they
additional
the or
havethe
their
an
through
both as
considerable
benets experi-
emotions,
or
than
cases
the
both
who
followed
and men
parents
conse-
attainment.
EDUCATION
factors
childrens
human
across
behaviors Such
(Bourdieu,
most
addi- that
must
greater
Again, In
(Astone
undermining
consequence
of
Raftery
case
2001:369). the
workersof
employ
overseas for
longer.
competing
The
one
more the
disappeared
the
with
controlled.
thus to
divorce bothby
the
are per
e.g.,
THAT
more
through
spouse).
instance,
grew
Philippines
because
the
recent a
solo
migration.
as oftoofthe
on
Filipinos
workers
fathers
relationship
thatApostleship
while
socially
(Battistella
performance
alsoyoung
Press 1987)
to
and
family
mainstream
specically
the
outcomes
migrating
educa-
overseas
experiences
Asthis
educa-
above a
analysis for
that
depends
METHOD of as
Survey
et
four
areas
City, in
to
(Cruz,
2001),
others (e.g.,
Episcopal
the
People-CBCP
al. by
to
and
Ginther
shown
one
the
or
family
mostbe
that
then
tends
aspirations
to of If
In
father
1999:
on
would
both
childrens
biologists
children the
is
over-
that Con-
is
genera- fact,
actually
reduced that
If it
who
live
to
The
tend
for
(both
exposure
favorably,
2001).
economic
continued
a good may
invest-
their
than
house-
boys
that
biological
children. eitherout
and a
with
a in
created
fami-
to
beingincome,
less
result
Chil- who
were
mothers
children
one
adjusted
the
2004).
in
accounts
that has
former
children
a
families
outcomes
mother,
remain
Philip-
the
conducted
only
residethe and
sample,
result, less
have
parents
al.,
the in to
2007.
or
overseas
return
male
Middle
for
growth in a
were
children
The
pre-In the
the
of
the
toby
U.S.
this
those
to
such
by
parent,
child.
the
primary
Iloilo
results
in
to we
age isof
of IS
the
of
the at
21.
between
go
at
are
have
those
begun.
been
sample
cases,
parent
were
gone,
after In
at
to
or19,
question
had
we
the
to
The have
occurred
cases
excluded
number
separated
parents
meaningful
original
Table
percent
OFW
working
3 percent
whose
home
TABLE
C
Family
T
Neither
Mother
Father
Both
Review
OF
BY been
going
strategy
with
families
migrants,
children the
the
done
and who is
between
college
around
overseas
parent
variablefamily
outcome
occurred,
could
both
outcome ,or
occurred.
have
parents
have
occurred,
study
atbut
the
in
1.
remaining
sample.
1 is
HILDREN
YPE OF F
parent
parents
is of
is thus
the
nearly
withto
whose
in
homeand
that
[6 reached;
Philip-
secondary
so,
are
targeted
without
the
restrictions,
this
left
is (2)
only
from
sample
Of
were
mothers, and Yages
com-
strategy
could
parents
recoded
would
before
structure
thus in all
As
question
outcome
or
cases
overseas,
parents
through
1021
structure
abroad
abroad
AMILY had
S
areis 506
549
TRUCTURE at
had
percent ages
typically
while
going
initial
for
parents
have
fathers
occurred,
had since
and
both
52
Nabroad
= a
isOthe
recently
subgroup]).
widowed
this
analysis.
the widowed
children
23
were
the
EARS of
2,346 of
those
at
in
have
categorized
been
shown
per-
(21.6)
(23.1) and
1218
73
LD the
19
in
oflevel
most
families
international left
,result,
had
before
(3)
could
time
at
schooling
percent
(%)
(3.1) and
enroll
who
had
some
had
and
are
ofonly
(51.9) inof
to 21-year-old
shown
structure
original
half
there
in of
overseas,
mothers
were
fathers,
had both
examine
number
respondent
whether
(3)that
We
analysis
about
level.
since
level
almost
indicate
which
period isin
distribution
the
whether
school
se. dene
was
indicator
We 97
This
collected,
12 year
adding
reported
income
sources
pesos). of
obtained
as
did
sovariable
sample:
who
children
and
are:
orno
of
outcome
was
each
from96
olds on
years
not
had
or
not
little
revealed
percent
is
elementary
in
Education not
universal.
the
that sample
the
children
18
parents
3percent
were
of
(1)
werethe
some
nished
having
schooling,
cpanel/uploads/issuanceIm
<http://www.deped.gov.ph/
factsheet2005(Oct21).pdf>.
g/
classied
Variables
measured
completed as
for
in follows.
mothers
education.
years
combined
(in
This ones
Philippine
variableis
OFW
percent
the
ofhad
nished
not
question
nished she
include
that
Philippines
Data
(Philippines)
coincides
during for the
which
withof
constructed
resident is
family
aboutquite
highone
had
overseas.
or
since
on
an
variability
chil-
surprising
the
of
Ais7
monthly he
by
 were
income
regression
expected
important,
household
based
TABLE
CYPE
Family
T
recently,
school).
194
high
they
expository
classied
this
line
When
on
with
in
and the
category,
siblings
within
briey
assess
overseas
parents
six
least in
remittance
reported
whether
differences 2
(53.4)
completeschool
Education
ownership
dura-
Pritchett,
their
bottom
next
middle,
Distributions
variables
3.
divided
men
the
small
of
average,
more
mothers
years
These
likely
urban
distribution
outcomes
Statistically
status
matriculation
per-
college
households
Philippines
sample
point
who high overseas.
used
asset
comparable
proportion
sample,
our
lowest
equations
times six
and
respectively).
because family
siblings
comparatively
are schooling
sizeable
advantage
college.
subgroups
according
Review
OF
BY
had
HILDREN
OF
for on
approach,
40 we
2000is
,the
structure
F 40
schooling
roughly
education. due 93
high
307
wealth
approximately
sample
highest
one-third
the is
numbers
sample.
in in
and to
a
1921S
as
times
differences
schoolpermembers
included
value
there
are
between
women
the
the
(11.2
Philippines,
to equations.
this
index
drop
46
discussed,
in be
wealth
principal
N Ymeasure
(25.8)
school
assets
of
2001).
percentpercent
and con-
(34
the
included
to income
collegein
size
fathers
is
migrant
educational
AMILY
attended
Within any =
household.
migration
years, year
on
the
according
of
than
both
for The
360
per64
9
consumer
we
the O
grouping
poor
with (40
Filipinos
wealth
percent
appearing the
logged).
effects
are
shown
only;
mean
com-
favoring
gender
TRUCTURE
we
as
these
respondents
Probably
Phil-
about
equiva-
Again, is
andthan
the
comple-fact
education
signicant
are observed
forin
by ,in
particularly
index
(17.8)
(2.5)
and
Following
as upper
percent).
distribution
in
of
versus
young
(49.7
this
differences
EARS LD who
classi-
of
(total
gender
relatively
suggest
educated as 2.7.
10.9
male
some in the
using
ofwho
one-fth
fall-
well the
pos-
also
both
to
higher
family
intact
the
gender
years
girls is for
ainat
any
Table
On
full
appear
although
slight
The
children
appears
89.4
had
time
average,
of
1921
some
dichotomous
nishing
least
completed
continuous
have
effect
and
this
TABLE
V
C
181)
status)
Neither
53.9
17.8
Father
25.8
Both
complete
2.5
Gender
Male
Female
19.91
(2.87)
(3.13) 53.0
20.4
secondary
23.2
3.3
Moderate
Low 50.3
Household
High 21.4
32.2
25,602.47
28,202.57
(59,954.09)
22,924.90
(79,538.26)
(28,074.31)
Education
ARIABLES
HILDREN percent
graduated
of
schooling.
MULTIVARIATE
regressions
the
educational
separate
we 3some
Female1921
parent
left
parents
1.7
49.7
(0.78)
characteristics
(1.62) 2.83
10.81
11.44 to
advantage
comparatively
estimated
general
association
structure
have
analyses Iof
also in
to
the
year
college.
54.7
15.1
32.0 migration
favor
other
and the
models
run be
respondents
controlling
(n
before
28.5
(1.87)
21.5
46.6 Y
education
secondary
left
(2.74)
(2.77)
wealth
309
NCLUDED =
left
21.2
32.4
46.4
EARS
IN of
survey,
for
college.
educa-THEbeing
Among
olds,
variable,
parental success.
measure
between
estimated O
179)
child
before A
before
46.4daughters,
sample
both
indicators:
OLS
education
separateLD for
could
education high
respondents
,four
ANALYSIS
child
NALYSIS Gand
BYchild sons.
trans-
the
Years
migrationregres-
so
To
,forof
family
male
ENDER on
we
the
could
complete
could of
dif-
TABLE
A
G
Educational
Total
away
79.7
schooling
(2.12)
Number
Male
high
some
education
75.1
13.19
Female
college
84.4
14.33
a
Note:
percent.
Review 66.74BY
,(3.27)
sample
Both
73.214.08
school
college
(1.98)
79.6
TTAINMENT
ENDER H C
82.8
78.4attainment
away
89.4
13.56
ofOF cases
87.8
13.10
education
90.2
13.9313.76
91.1
14.07
OUSEHOLD90.3
(2.87)
90.587.6
13.32
360
85.4
(2.85)
88.9
HILDREN 181
89.9
(2.76)
179 S
1921
88.9
13.33
83.3
(2.38)93.8
96
100.0
(2.24)
98(3.02)
194
91.9
12.97
96.3 37
12.83
TRUCTURE 27 Y90.5
90.3
(1.87)
64
12.83
14.33 42
90.2
51 6O
13.56
933
(3.32)
(1.94)
EARS 9LD, BY
88.9
83.3
(1.94)
100.0
(1.53)
variables.
importance
effects
income
remittances
away)
members,
these
clearly
success
behind,
examine
us
other
are
in
not children
enough
that to
family
childrens
success,
for
amount
or parents
identied
used=the
although
of
surveys very
information
and
on time
RESULTS
Filipino
mothers
educational
TABLE
C P
Independent
Total
Male
Female
(n
status)
complete
)0.50
secondary
Child
Number
0.16+
0.18*
0.54
Constant
R
2
8.3
a
Note:
**p < is
15.9 assess
5in
present
include
frequency
total
completed.
340)
172)
167)
0.91
0.01;
Education
ON ARENT
HILDREN 1921
female
0.15
0.05 of
S of
wasM
9.90
4.0 on
is
variables
we
of
independent
to the
and outcome
While
income,
wealth
not
and in
asked
structure
while
those
models
ndings have
time
above.
small,
we
draw (and
children
have
of
accom-
overseas.
Children
years Y
education
siblings
***p
311 on
As the
educational
the the
detailed
0.63*
4.94
<
IGRATION 0.001.
EARS of we
because
could
variables
and
attainment
variables
secondary fathers
S education
0.11
)0.02)1.08
16.66
TATUS
LD lit-
given
where
signicant.only
time
also
circumstances
OFWs importance
Ocontrolling
the
been
regressions
and
discussvery
briey.
samples we
AND tend
left run
parent
variables
lit-
duration
schooling
)0.41
)0.05 )2.22*do
several
large
0.03+
0.72
)0.02 to
its
1.27
childrens
This
not
daughters.
positive,
signicant
men.
equation
migration
attainment.
slightly
on
for
had <total
intact the
biological
children
were
decidedly
sons
is
the
years
nd
with
apt
their
neither
factors.
dilution
analysis. effect
signicant
completed
out-migration
schooling
to
decreases in
matriculation
Table
positively
entry
subsample in
statistically
equation
Interestingly,
TABLE
S
P
C
Y
Male
Female
(n
1.71=
Neither
status)
complete
Number
1.22*
1.27**
Low
Medium
High
a
Note:
**p
Review
OME
ARENT
EARS C
O
Independent
Total 360)
181)
179)
1.97
secondary
Child
Householdis 6
1.10
1.30
0.01; of
6,
for
M the
Snational
attain
brothers,
parent
female
1.14
OLLEGE
HARACTERISTICS
LD of Eas
Thus,total
are
positive
combined
years
families
overseas is
The
only
parents
whose
schooling.
this
In
hypothesis
higher There
negative
completed
schooling,
inuences
the
secondary
1.80+education
siblings
wealth
1.38
***p
IGRATION < of
,variables
left
1.88*
3.67**
0.86 of
sample.
combined
Faddi-
increases
years higher
data,
the
to
full schooling.
important
for
predicted,
the effect
for
with
more
net
edu-
C
before effects
effect
both
signicant
of
education
1.02
index
0.001.
DUCATION
ILIPINO ON1.84
1.74
1.16 is
schooling
migrants
mothersat
norof both
In
we
girls
resource
college
however,
young 1.00
HILDREN is
child
2.32
1.07 a
formal ofbut
of
total
effect
bypar-
do
other
college
men.
1921
1.031.81of
are
in
could
1.72
.001 of
in is
signicant
sample
Instead,
analysis
that
the
medium
positive
overseas
odds
The
migration
college
variables
addition,
parents
household
to
Table
matriculate
while
all
ratios
table.
surprising
are
nished
educated
effect
however.
1.62
Child
Number
1.02
1.06
by
or
formal
is
migrant
allows
schooling,
replace
domestic
survey
frequency
on
overseas
had
1921
cases
we
having
ones
school,
sons.
small
shown.)
been
when
family
benet
for
gain nd
improves
remittances
again
This compared
lowest
resources
young
women.
having positive
college
daughters
more
structure
predictor
completion,
quite
men;
TABLE
S
C
Y
Independent
Total
Male
(n =
Female
status)
Neither
completeO
360)
181)
179)
3.86
secondary
Household
Low
Medium
Note:
High
a
**p <
Educationis
1.177
0.01;
households
times
those
in nish
Neither
equations.
being
one
not
affected
particular
possible
divorce
may
children
not
they years
educational
chil-
who
present.
matriculation
in
difference
and
years
size the
presence
parents,
of
bivariate
that
although
positively
behind
studies
single-parent
children,
migrant
actually
children.
however,
produces
outcomes.
9-
elementary
typesto
performance
grades.
two
absent of
6
number
regressions.
school. for
is
female
signicant
our
better
(matriculation
and
same much total
have
be
present
have
internationally
of
may of
0.93
more
in
true
the parent, but
differently
educational
Parents
done
improve enhance
so at
families
duration
analyses,
these (69
As
HARACTERISTICS
where
EARS
chances
addition,
working
lead
college
schooling
(Data
control
earned
(logged),
Review to
remittance
increase
sons
the
remitted
other
Income
predicteffect
dependent
due or
men,
one
an
girls
variables,
Unfortunately,
parents
year
both
effect
ECONDARY
that
mother
regular
LD
substantially
notfor
in
part
samples.
abroad
they
left
children,
or
pronounced
OFWs
girls
education of
Households
Overseas
parents
be theis
non-migrant
extremesare
onesthatwhen
Very
Again,
important
those
E
parent
more
abroad
higher
butor
overseas
association
have
In apt
effect
highis
are
present
indicatefor
for
controlling
wealth
wealth
are
likely
only
ofF
education
siblings
wealth
4.21*
***p
313
gender
subsample
than
time, more
from<
which
education.
(inof
least
help.
collected and
experience.
male
that
particularly
likelihood antici-
particularly
matriculation
the
is
education
earned
any among
toof
olds
shown.)
the
weofboth
amount
income
not
send
improved
behind,
Interestingly,
lose girls
only,between
outcomes
completed
differences.
DISCUSSION
our sample
1921 model.
level.
having
appears
our
It
15-year-old
Battistella
(1998) reported
had or
,neither
attending
status
matriculation
the to
nishing
that
fathers.
Neither
nor 1.36
1.97
both
families
explana-
in
theirin U.S.0.26
chil-
controlling
par-
to
total
associated
complete.
children
labor
parent
improveis
more
and to
comparedto
it
high
but
from
variables
secondary left A
.001.
were
likely
boys
boys
terms
disadvantaged
whose in
migrated
terms
attainment.
their
abroad
also
of
intensies
DUCATION
the
as
appears
year
absence
only
not
school the
either
inwe
awith
of
signi-
both
bivari-
notion
perhaps
data
parents
abroad. using
this
to
and
chances
com-
(Data
longer
particularly
frequency
as
abroad.
among a
and
parent
Once
argued
families
analysis
having
mother-absent
children, the
while
are for and
controlled.
necessarily
not in
college,
ofisC
before
education
1.10
index
0.20
outcomes)
interest
overseas
formal 0.94
0.87
school.
in in of
this
likely
attainment
may poor
par-
girls,
parents
is
contexts
part
con-
very full
run
category
have
notnancial
often
138
CCORDING
college,
ILIPINO
remittances
increases
boys
years
for sons.
total
Philippines
nd
likelihood
sta-
variables.
of in
the that
one
result
educa- This
olds
to
tends 69
In
disappears,
to
While
migration
may left on
for
among
improves the
supported.
nearly
that
siblings
children
school
to
signicant
income for high
not
have
This
family
school
household
the
restric-
HILDREN
will
do
amount
outcomes. of
onenot
and tofor
young
child
0.99
over
than 0.54
0.25
respon-
fare
on
collegeset
education
parents
of The
of
is
one
quite be
with
that
sons.
the
or
of
that
Again,
children
boys
a at
be may
in
Children
orwith
that
education lead
of
surprising,
negative
Conaco
that
parents chil-
children
father-
with these
the to
TO
the
a
Pthe
those
young
parents
college.
thatthus
(not
1921
1.24could
2.40
1.60
3E8
four
family
that of
same
by
of
ARENT In
in
are in
S
former
old)
completion.
while
Education
educational
cannot
or
older
with
peershow
compared
students.
mother
immediate
(2007:49)
division
from
contact,
children
suggests
parental
indeed
More
better
source
apparently
to
parents.
remittance
controlling
wealth,
his
perhapsor
parenting
on
Families,
Inquirer
.
Threaten
Philippine
Amato,
Parent,
Families:
and
States the
Mclanahan
Practices we
the
Philippines.
intact
maintain
advantage
The
system
2005).
sample gender
consistent
Estudillo,
Otsuka
years
reports
resources
invest
considerable
has
demonstrate
commit-
believed
more
regarding
education
have
2001).
Semyonov
found
contrary
Review
however.
indicate
than
result,
the
women
thus
detail.
ndings
part,
Philippines
migration
believe
appear
mother
of
them.
total
with
for
future
be of
Completion.
,
320.
Residential
Dropout:
Demography
Education
Conaco
Migration
Behind.
Commission
94:S94S120.
as
at of
Garnkel,
Children.
Institute
Ginther,
Childrens
Blended
Cultural
74:8899.
Krein,
Children
Families:
Demography
McLanahan,
Poverty.
Parent:
Cambridge,
Harvard
Medina,
Feminist

Clash
Migration
Steelman,
College: of outperforming
suggest
children
andmake
upon
afar
their May
P.
13(2):220241.
Biblarz,
Educational
Socioeconomic
Rethinking
105:32165.
Blake,
of
Bourdieu,
Handbook
Sociology
Greenwood
Coleman,
Creation
American J.
Achievement. T.
California
38(1):115132.
Regressions.
41(4):671696.
King,
Filipino E.
S.
Philippines
Parrenas,
Emotions,in
Philippines.
Research
56.
Administration
based
at:
%20Sex.xls>. D.
and
Generations,.
Population
Kingston,
Review
Conguration.
Sociological
Aviv
Scientic
Israel
City,
Virola,
on 6 R.
on
December
<http://
k%202007.pdf>
4 2009.
Concepcion,
Community.
Families
Sociology,
Philippines,
Cruz,
Parents:
Downey,
Family V.
Migration.
Sociological
Pastoral
Itinerant
Scalabrini
Overseas
Welfare
the
Quezon
pines:
K. Eyes
Otsuka City.
P.
The
D.
Size,
Childrens
Carein
well
by
period
chances
of
family
her and can
315
drawn
(2001)
more
regularly,
possibilities,
parents
daughters
support
age data
(King do
together
internationally.
differences
some-
abroad).
school,
providehome
those
household;
concern
surveys
undertaken
families
international
separated
dissolution
nal are
or It
absence
mothers
of
and
of
that
them
Recent
evidence
women
Philippines
have
difference
schooling
were show working
that,
Only
this
that
domestic
disproportionately
that a college
Sonsabroad
schooling
research.
research
migration.
REFERENCES
Agence
Employment with our
than
this
tend
and
Philippine
Filipino
Star
Stepparent,
The
Family
and Aand
Sojourn
ofJ.,
P.
of
J.of
in 26.
the
and
on
S.
a
Application
India.
WomenI.,
Washington,
Press.
P.
Capital
F.,
From
What K.,
StudiesW.
and
Differences
American
University
B.R.
Intergenerational T.
Philippines: MA:
Press.
S.
Gender, To
nancial
This
an
concerning
Their
that
actually to
no
separated
France by
a a
they
with
is
tapping
family
teachers.
has
labor
through
physical
that
translate
specically,
remittances,
frequently,
longer parents OFWs,
migration
and
requires
(again)
indicating
Inthere
enrolled made
for
from
that may
children,
families
over
Maya
childrens
tend
and rely
more
Childs
Press. (1921
of
oth-
occur,
abroad
observed.
is
with
whose
this
and
and in
men
and
advan-
outcomes
between dif-
be
draw
attainment,
claims
study
of
through
incomeeffect
49:32737.
High
American
Mobility,
Research
317 Ph.D.
University
Diliman,
Quezon
B.Impact
Parental
People-CBCP
Scalabrini
Inheritance,
Lifetime
Journal
37(4):2348.
Filmer,
Without
Tears: An City,
of
D.,Income: of
Migration
Administration.
Workers
the and
Educational
Families,L.
Journal
Globalization:
and
28:37
Workers,
%20Hires%20by%20Skill%20and
Semyonov,
and
, February
Economic
38(1):525.
Remittances
Income:
Workers. andA
The
University
Consequences
Contract M.,
7and
Workers.
J.
the
Social
<http://www.poea.gov. by
Accessed
Comparison
39:4568. and
Mobility
International
L.
Labour
Development
February
Education Report
Philippines.
Education:
News! R. A.
Available
Good C.,
Review
of
s/StatsSpeak/2007/010807_rav_e
duc.asp>. Accessed
319 and
Constraints did
possible
other
argued
perhaps
remit in
time
educational
differentials
withsuccess
addition, are
Quisumbing,
receive
schooling
suggest are in other
at
1.5
limited,
that
School
31(4):575584.
2007.
Educa-
Review Filipino
Philip-
Schooling
Development
and
Expenditure L. R.
Theory.
Education
A.
Sandefur
Hurts, H. and
Children
A.
Attainment,
Success:
Berkeley:
Education.
Research
Press.
S.
Journal
Human Pp.
of E.
Single-Parent
25:221234.
Sociology
G. and clear,
of
tend
migration,
daughters
inin
speculation
point,
to
evaluate
on
when
children
either
front. larger
so than
analyses
for those
Where
impor-
educa-
do
is
onto to
Daily
Families,
26.
and some
the
Note.
Sociology
Filipinos
Accessed
Labor City:
of
Data
Demography
S. S.
Stylized
Demography
Domingo
Philippine
Across Beller
by
Transmission In
college
household a
signal
quite
afar.
these in
that
more
inof
and
sons.
stronger
they to
and favor
their
results
than
explore the
both
compared
migration
marital
Presse.
Threat even a
Also, the
they
drop
labor
Simi- to
tend years
were,
their
including
frequent
absence.
to
have our
sons
who canand
remit
as
their
continue
partly do that
to
study
educa-
more of
have
steady
available
the
Recall,
par-
the
the
com- a
more
whenin
old
the
most
of a
Filipino
Intact
School
Left
Raftery
and we
in
ter-
rural
and
these
their
with
both
We
with
helpnd
cause
this in
samples
by by
as
are
inter-out
University
for
Ed.
90:873901.
What
Press.
University
Relations
27(2):361390.
Mod-
American
2008.to
News
at: A. the
241258.
Capital.Overseas.
Available
Exporting
of the
60:746761.
Migrants
Migration
Evidence
H.
Center,
and on
Overseas
Center.
Resources,
and
McLanahan
A.D.C.:
Pollak
Women,
Thought
Sex.Available
B.Gorodzeisky
Householdsof Or itof
the
on
may
June
and
Children.
Center.
Studies
Pritchett Urban
Outcomes:
Family
2(14):119. Helps.
of
and
Filipino
Between
Migration
Powell
of
54:84455.
Kaibigan
Migration
International
Netherlands-
and the
Family
of
Bad aa
Citations20

References36

A New Global Partnership for Development: Factoring in the Contribution of

Migration

o "It seems that gender matters, with girls tending to benefit relatively more from parental migration
than boys. Positive effects of migration on schooling for girls in comparison with boys were found in Mexico (Antman,
2012), the Philippines (Arguillas and Williams, 2010) and Pakistan (Mansuri, 2006), showing that migration can lead
to reduced gender inequalities in access to education. Some studies also show that a mother's migration has a
positive effect on education, while a father's migration seems to be either neutral or slightly negative (Dreby and
Stutz, 2012; Piotrowski and Paat, 2012). "

[Show description]
File Research Sep 2016 Asian and Pacific migration journal: APMJ

Teressa Juzwiak Elaine McGregor Nora Ragab Melissa Siegel

View research

Left Behind by Parents in China: Internal Migration and Adolescents Well-Being

o "Scholars have recorded mixed effects of parental migration on their transnational left-behind
children. On the one hand, financial improvement due to remittances to their original community and families is
related to positive or at least neutral child outcomes (Arguillas & Williams, 2010; Asis, 2006; Bryant, 2005). For
instance, Asis (2006) shows, with national data from the Philippines , that children of migrants fare significantly better
in either material or nonmaterial realms such as academic performance, physical health, incidence of abuse, and
emotional health. "

[Show abstract]
Article Oct 2015

Wei-Jun Jean Yeung Gu Xiaorong

Read

Life Satisfaction of the Families of Migrants in the Philippines

o "Because remittance transfers are often the most characteristic outcomes of migration, many
studies have focused on the economic impact of remittances, including the linkage between remittance income and
poverty reduction, the role of remittances as insurance, and the investment of remittances into entrepreneurial
activities in the migrant household (Yang, 2008; Yang and Choi, 2007; Yang and Martinez, 2005). On the other hand,
sociological studies investigate the impact of the absence of migrants on the health and education outcomes of
children (Arguillas and Williams, 2010; Asis, 2006) and inter-familial relationships (Parreas, 2005; 2008). Although
these studies offer valuable insight into the outcomes of international migration in the Philippines, comparatively little
is known about how these two aspects of migration come together and produce net outcomes. "

[Show abstract]

Article Sep 2014

Yoon Ah Oh

Read

Show more

People who read this publication also read

 China's Left-Behind Children: Impact Of Parental Migration On Health, Nutrition,
And Educational Outcomes
Full-text Article Nov 2015

C. Zhou S. Sylvia L. Zhang+7 more authors ...

S. Rozelle

Read full-text

Communication, Psychosocial, and Educational Outcomes of Children with

Cochlear Implants and Challenges Remaining for Professionals and Parents
Full-text Article Sep 2011

Rene Punch Merv B Hyde

Read full-text

Employment and educational outcomes in early intervention programmes for early

psychosis: A systematic review
Article Jul 2014

G R Bond R E Drake A Luciano

Read

Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.
This publication is from a journal that may support self archiving.
Learn more

Last Updated: 17 Oct 16

2008-2017 researchgate.net. All rights reserved.About us Help Center Careers Developers News Contact
us Privacy Terms Copyright | Advertising Recruiting
Discover by subject area
Recruit
for researchers
Join in
Log free
Log in
 A Parent's Guide to Overseas Study
Over 1,400 IUB students study abroad every year, and parents are an integral part of the process. The IU
Office of Overseas Study is not only committed to providing safe experiences for all students, but to
setting high standards of academic quality for all programs. Each of IUs study abroad programs is an
intensive educational experience that combines academic excellence with cross-cultural learning.

Overseas Study understands that parents have numerous questions and concerns about their student
studying abroad. Below are a few guidelines to what you can do as a parent to serve as a stepping stone
to your students study abroad journey.

What You Can Do as a Parent

If your student is thinking about studying abroad . . .

Encourage him/her to go! Students who have participated in Overseas Study programs have said
that studying abroad is a life-changing experience. Studying abroad helps students focus on their goals
and teaches them to live and work with people from different cultures. It is one of the most effective and
dramatic experiences your student can have to broaden their international and intercultural awareness.
A great way for your son or daughter to get started is by visiting our office, contacting a study abroad
returnee or simply exploring our Web site.

Emphasize the importance of choosing a program that fits with your students academic and
career goals. Whatever your students major, the Overseas Study staff can help select a program that
best matches his or her needs. IU grants credit for all its programs so that your student can continue
normal academic progress while abroad. We offer more than 90 programs, in 37 countries and in 17
different languages. For a complete list of all programs, visit the IU Big List at
www.indiana.edu/~overseas/programs/biglist.shtml.

Understand that studying abroad does not have to be expensive! Numerous financial resources
are available and financial aid can also be applied to most programs. Visit
www.indiana.edu/~overseas/basics/finaid.shtml for more financial information.

Before your student leaves the country . . .

Help them prepare to study abroad. While the Office of Overseas Study provides a network of
support services, the student will need your help as well! Assist them in making travel arrangements
and taking care of all necessary paperwork including fee payments and passport and visa (if
necessary) applications. Overseas Study can assist your student with academic advising, pre-
departure orientation, peer counseling, health insurance and cultural preparations.

Encourage your student to look out for important documents that they will be receiving from
Overseas Study including fee sheets and handbooks (a general Getting Started handbook and in
most cases, a program specific handbook). We expect students to read the materials from the office
carefully, but you too should read them so you are as well-informed as possible. Pay significant
 attention to the sections on Academic Policies and Safety and Responsibility Guidelines. We expect
that you will play an important role in discussing safety and behavior issues with your student, keeping
in touch while he or she is abroad, and being responsive to this office should we request information or
advice concerning your student.

Originally published in CampusLink, IU Parent's Association newsletter, Spring 200