Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
CHAPTER 11 - PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN CHILDREN’S LEARNING AND IN SCHOOLS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Parental involvement in schools and children’s learning has long been a focus for Head Start programs and was included in the National Transition Demonstration Programs as one of the four major component areas. The emphasis within the National Transition Demonstration Program on strengthening and expanding parent involvement in children’s learning and in schools is founded in two decades of research documenting the benefits of such involvement. Overall, this body of research, including both correlational and intervention studies (Henderson, 1987), has consistently concluded that parental involvement has a significant positive relationship to a wide range of child, family, and school outcomes, including higher achievement for children and more positive schools (Epstein, 1995; Grolnick, Banjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997; Henderson, 1987). This has been found to be true in a diverse set of populations, including both gifted and disadvantaged children (Henderson, 1987). Further, parental involvement with schools’ and children’s academic endeavors has been found to improve parental attitudes toward the school and the school’s climate, and to promote a more positive atmosphere within the school (Epstein, 1985).SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The information reported below was obtained from multiple sources. Informants included families (via personal interviews completed in the spring of each school year), teachers and principals (via questionnaires completed at the end of the program), Transition Demonstration Program staff (via site visits completed annually), and others (via the Program Implementation Profile, completed in the final year of program implementation). The instruments used to obtain information included:
- Family Involvement in Children’s Learning (National Transition Demonstration Research Consortium, 1995), a 20-item instrument devised by the National Transition Demonstration Research Consortium to gather information about the different ways schools and families Chapter 11 - Page 128 work together to help children learn. The questionnaire was administered to families in the spring of the final two years of their program participation.
- Family Background Interview This interview included four items specifically designed to address communication with the child and teacher about school activities and supportive educational activities in the home. It was administered to families each spring.
- Family Routines Questionnaire (Boyce, Jensen, James, & Peacock, 1983), a 27-item inventory designed to measure an individual family’s enactment of positive routines that are thought to be protective for family members. The areas considered are workday routines, children/s routines, disciplinary routines, meals, weekend and leisure time, bedtime, extended family activities, leaving and homecoming, and chores. The questionnaire was administered to families in the fall of the first program year, and in the spring of the last (fourth) program year.
- Supplemental Questionnaires for Principals and Teachers, completed by teachers and principals in the spring of the final year of program participation. These questionnaires gathered information about: (1) the existence of Transition-like services and personnel in both demonstration and comparison schools, (2) the needs of the families served by the school, (3) parent involvement opportunities available in the school, and (4) barriers to parent involvement perceived by school personnel. These supplemental questionnaires were optional, so data was not available for all sites or for all teachers or principals within sites.
SCHOOL-BASED ACTIVITIES TO FACILITATE LEARNING
Staffing Patterns and Activities
Within the Supplemental Questionnaire for Principals, principals were asked if they had staff assigned to facilitate parent involvement in the school.a Slightly more demonstration principals (67%) indicated they did have such staff identified, compared to comparison principals (65%). Demonstration schools (70%) were more likely to have paid paraprofessional staff than comparison schools (45%), and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.001). Comparison schools reported more paid professional staff assigned to facilitate parent involvement (66% demonstration, 75% comparison; p = 0.161)
Staff in demonstration schools were more likely to staff the parent resource room, schedule parent education or information programs, recruit and schedule parent volunteers for classrooms, provide parent education through home visits, coordinate the production and distribution of parent newsletters, and schedule and coordinate family-focused activities and programs. In addition, staff in demonstration schools engaged in a larger number of different types of activities (see Table 26). Overall, it appears that the demonstration was successful in facilitating parent involvement opportunities, at least from the principals’ point of view.
| Activity | Demonstration | Comparison | ?2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staff the parent resource room | 62.30% | 42.20% | 4.822 |
| Schedule parent education programs | 83.50% | 70.20% | 1.52 |
| Develop & coordinate child-focused programs | 59.50% | 59.00% | 0.223 |
| Develop & coordinate after-school programs for children | 38.70% | 38.60% | 0.006 |
| Recruit & schedule parent volunteers for classrooms | 82.80% | 74.30% | 0.458 |
| Provide parent education through home visits | 61.00% | 43.20% | 0.591 |
| Parent newsletters | 72.10% | 60.80% | 4.693* |
| Schedule & coordinate family activities | 85.40% | 65.70% | 1.272 |
| Mean (s.d.) number of activities | 3.4 (2.6) | 3.0 (2.6%) | 5.702* |
| Median number of activities | 4 | 3 | -- |
School-Wide Activities
Parents were asked to indicate whether they had been offered opportunities to participate in 12 different kinds of school-based activities thought to facilitate student learning by bringing schools and families closer togther. The activities have been characterized as either traditional (open house, teacher-parent conferences, student programs, family social events, field trips, and lunch or breakfast at school for parents) or non-traditional (home visits with school staff, parent education, parent discussion groups, parent resource rooms, and home lending libraries).
Site visits noted that in some of the local sites, comparison schools were implementing a number of Transition-like services, activities, and programs, the existence of which may have complicated the interpretation of comparative outcomes analyses. The relationships between the treatment condition of the school, the level of these competitive Transition-like activities being offered in comparison (control) schools, and the mean number of traditional and non-traditional parent involvement activities reported by families were investigated.
Results indicate that families in demonstration schools tended to report more traditional parent involvement opportunities (e.g., parent-teacher conferences, open houses, student performances or programs, field trips, and family-oriented social events) than did families in either comparison or non-study schools6 (see Table 27). In addition, families in demonstration schools also reported more non-traditional parent involvement opportunities (e.g., visits at home with school staff, family educational events or classes, parent discussion groups, parent resource rooms, and home lending libraries) than did families in either comparison schools or non-study schools. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in average number of activities offered by treatment condition (p # .0001 for both models).b
| Treatment condition of school | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Demonstration | Comparison | Non-study | |
| Mean (s.d.) | Mean (s.d.) | Mean (s.d.) | |
| Traditional parent involvement activities offered | 4.5 (1.3) | 4.3 (1.3) | 4.3 (1.3) |
| Non-traditional parent involvement activities offered | 2.3 (1.7) | 1.8 (1.6) | 1.8 (1.6) |
Overall, findings indicate that the implementation of the Transition Demonstration Programs in demonstration schools resulted in quantitative and substantive differences in the number and types of involvement options offered to parents.
Volunteer Activities
|
|
Families were also asked to indicate which volunteer opportunities were made available to them within the schools, both at the classroom level (send treats for the class, help with parties, be a room parent, help teacher with work in the classroom, help with field trips, work with children in the classroom) and at the school level (help in the library, computer lab, office, cafeteria, or playground; help with fund-raising; help with newsletter; and help other parents become involved). Opportunities to work with children in the classroom and to help other parents become involved were of particular interest, since they were most often emphasized as part of the broader definition of parent involvement within the Transition Demonstration Program. Analyses indicated significant differences between school groups in the percentage of families who reported having been offered those opportunities (see Figure 11.1).c These findings indicate that demonstration schools were significantly more likely to offer parents the opportunity to pursue non-traditional and substantive volunteer opportunities than were either comparison or nonstudy schools. Parents who indicated that an activity was offered were asked if they attended or participated. Figure 11.2 shows that the majority of families in all schools reported participating in some traditional and/or non-traditional parent involvement activity, and there were no significant differences between groups.d
PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES
|
Participation in volunteer activities. Families were also asked to indicate whether or not they participated in opportunities to volunteer in school and classroom. Reviewing participation responses for the two opportunities of particular interest -- working with children in the classroom and helping other parents become involved in the school -- no significant differences were seen among families in demonstration, comparison, or non-study schools (see Figure 11.3).e Between 40 and 45 percent of the families in each group indicated that they had participated when the opportunity was offered.
Perceived and Reported Barriers to Parent Involvement. A majority of parents in demonstration (71%), comparison (68%), and other schools (71%) reported the existence of barriers to their becoming more involved in schools. These reported barriers included lack of child care or transportation, work schedules, language barriers, feeling uncomfortable at school, health problems, teacher or school policies, and previous negative experiences with the school. There were no important differences in the types of barriers reported by families in demonstration or comparison schools. To the extent that the Transition Demonstration Programs successfully raised awareness of potential barriers and facilitated the remediation of barriers, one would expect that the number of families reporting barriers in demonstration schools would be lower than in either comparison or non-study schools. There were, however, no statistically significant differences between demonstration and comparison schools.f
Principals were also asked at the end of their school’s participation in the Transition Demonstration Program what, if any, barriers to parental involvement existed for families in the school. Five barriers were proposed for consideration by principals: (1) limited transportation; (2) lack of release time from work; (3) low levels of parent education and/or literacy; (4) parents’ negative experiences with schools in the past; and (5) parental apathy. Principals most often reported that lack of release time from work (85%) and apathy on the part of parents (72%) were significant barriers to parent involvement. There were no significant differences between principals of demonstration and comparison schools in their perception of barriers impacting parent involvement.g
HOME-BASED ACTIVITIES TO FACILITATE CHILDREN’S LEARNING
The completion of home-based activities to support learning activities in the classroom was an important part of parent involvement in education as conceptualized by the Transition Demonstration Programs. Families were asked in a number of ways to indicate whether or not, and how often, they communicated with the teacher, read with the child, completed activities to support classroom learning, and/or maintained routines in the home that might support learning (e.g., consistent times for homework and bedtime each night).
Communication With Teachers. Families were asked each year in the spring how often they had spoken with the child’s teacher. In kindergarten, 17 percent of caregivers indicated that they spoke with the child’s teacher nearly every day, 61 percent several times a month, and 21 percent less than monthly. By the spring of second or third grade, the percentage of caregivers reporting daily communication with teachers had dropped to only 11 percent, and the percentage reporting communication several times monthly had risen to 66 percent. These shifts in communication frequency are thought to be natural shifts, related to the changing nature of classrooms and student-teacher-family interactions as children mature. There were no significant differences between demonstration and comparison families. Further, most parents in both demonstration and comparison schools indicated a high degree of satisfaction with their interactions with their children’s teachers.h
Educational Activities in the Home
|
Family-child activities. Families were asked how often they worked with their children on things the children might be learning in school, and how often they read or looked at books with the children (see Table 28). More than half reported that they worked with the child nearly every day and slightly over a third reported reading or looking at books nearly every day, but there were no differences among groups. Caregivers were also asked whether some members of the family had, in the past week, read to the child or taught reading, spelling, or math (see Figure 11.4). More than three-fourths of the caregivers indicated that those activities had taken place in the past week in their home but, again, there were no differences among groups.i These relatively high selfreported engagement levels are counter to negative national stereotypes of “uninvolved” low income parents.
| Activity | Almost Every Day | 3-5 Times/Week | 1-2 Times/Week | 1-3 Times/Month | Less than Monthly | Almost Never | ?2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Work with
child on things he/she is learning in school |
|||||||
| Demonstration schools | 52.90% | 24.4% | 16.6% | 4.20% | 1.00% | 1.00% | 18.561 |
| Comparison schools | 56.60% | 22.6% | 16.5% | 3.00% | 0.80% | 0.50% | |
| Non-study schools | 53.20% | 22.9% | 17.7% | 3.60% | 1.90% | 0.80% | |
| Read or
look at books with child |
|||||||
| Demonstration schools | 36.60% | 29.7% | 24.4% | 5.80% | 2.20% | 1.40% | 15.376 |
| Comparison schools | 40.20% | 28.7% | 22.7% | 5.30% | 2.00% | 1.20% | |
| Non-study schools | 33.50% | 31.2% | 25.4% | 5.30% | 3.00% | 1.70% | |
Supportive family routines at home. Families were asked about the consistency of family routines thought to be highly relevant to school performance, such as having a regular bedtime and a predictable time for homework. The majority of families report consistency in these two family routines (see Table 29), and there are no significant differences between groups.
| Routine | Almost Every Day | 3-5 Times/Week | 1-2 Times/Week | Almost Never | ?2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children go to bed at a certain time each night | |||||
| Demonstration | 63.70% | 24.8 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 1.612 |
| Comparison | 65.10% | 24.2 | 5.5 | 5.2 | |
| Children do their homework at the same time of day or night | |||||
| Demonstration | 33.60% | 22.7 | 15 | 9.9 | 2.926 |
| Comparison | 34.00% | 23.9 | 14 | 9.1 | |
FAMILY INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOLS (GOVERNANCE)
Opportunities reported by principals. In the fifth year of program implementation, principals were asked to identify opportunities that were available for parents to participate in schools. Although differences between demonstration and comparison groups were not statistically significant, demonstration schools were more often said to offer the following opportunities: (1) providing input into teacher evaluation policies; (2) choosing a school for the child; (3) selecting the child’s teacher; (4) providing input into hiring school staff; (5) evaluating teachers; (6) providing input into budget policies and practices; and (7) serving on policy committees (see Table 30).
Opportunities reported by parents. In a similar manner, families were asked to respond to questions relating to their involvement in what may be thought of as the governance of the school -- i.e., serving on committees or advisory boards, helping to make decisions about school policies and programs. Their responses (see Figure11.5) indicate a positive and statistically significant effect (p = 0.001) of Demonstration program participation, in that more families with children in demonstration schools reported that they were offered opportunities to serve on committees, advisory boards, or councils, and to help make decisions about school policies and programs.j
| Demonstration Schools |
Comparison Schools |
?2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher evaluation policies | 6.20% | 1.30% | 5.177 |
| Parent involvement policies | 56.50% | 55.10% | 0.062 |
| Choosing a school for their child | 34.50% | 29.50% | 0.863 |
| Selecting child's teacher | 37.90% | 33.90% | 0.511 |
| Development of grievance policies | 7.60% | 7.00% | 0.032 |
| Hiring staff | 15.20% | 9.00% | 2.742 |
| Evaluating teachers | 2.80% | 1.90% | 0.231 |
| Budget policies & practices | 26.20% | 21.20% | 1.065 |
| School goals | 73.10% | 76.90% | 0.586 |
| Long-range planning | 71.70% | 75.00% | 0.413 |
| Policy committees | 45.50% | 41.00% | 0.618 |
| Kindergarten retention policy | 3.50% | 7.00% | 1.938 |
| Grades 1 to 3 retention policy | 4.10% | 8.30% | 2.237 |
|
Interestingly, nearly one third of the families with children in comparison schools also indicated the offering of such opportunities in their schools. This may be the result of a national emphasis on parent involvement. Further, fewer families in non-study schools reported school involvement activities were offered than did families in comparison schools, again suggesting that comparison schools were actively engaged in the implementation of Transition-like school involvement programs.
SUMMARY FINDINGS
The investigations concerning parent involvement with children’s education reveal several important findings. First, it is noted that former Head Start parents report being very involved with their children’s learning at home, providing supportive environments and routines (e.g., having a regular bedtime for children), engaging in learning activities on a regular basis (such as reading with the child or reviewing things they learned in school), and communicating with teachers on a frequent basis. This picture of parental involvement is counter to many of the negative stereotypes of “uninvolved” low income families.
Second, parents reported that Transition Demonstration schools provided more opportunities for parent involvement, and provided more non-traditional opportunities -- such as home visits, family educational activities, parent discussion groups, parent resource rooms, and home lending libraries-- than did comparison schools. It is possible that two factors were working to achieve these findings: first, demonstration schools were likely providing more opportunities of all kinds for parent involvement, and, second, demonstration schools were more effective in making parents aware of the opportunities available to them.
6“Non-study” schools are schools that were not randomized to either the demonstration or comparison condition but in which children participating in the national Transition Demonstration Study have enrolled (after their initial enrollment in a demonstration or comparison school). Information about these non-study schools is included to provide the most complete picture of parent involvement opportunities in schools generally and of the existence of any specific competitive efforts (to provide Transition-like services) within the comparison schools. (back)
aSupplemental Questionnaires for Principals were completed by 340 principals (158 demonstration, 182 comparison) in 23 of the 31 sites. Statistical analyses were completed using chi-square methods for categorical data. (back)
bA total of 4,783 families provided information for these analyses in their third or fourth years of study participation via the Family Involvement in Children’s Learning. These families were enrolled in 2,129 demonstration schools, 1,873 comparison schools, and 781 non-study schools. Analysis of variance techniques were used to assess the difference in mean number of opportunities reported by families enrolled in the three school groups. Separate models were constructed and analyzed for traditional and non-traditional opportunities. (back)
cA total of 4,832 families provided the data included in these analyses (2,084 in demonstration schools; 1,844 in comparison schools; 904 in non-study schools). Chi-square analyses were completed to assess relationships between the categorical variables. (back)
dThese analyses include that group of families who indicated that opportunities were offered and provided information about their participation in those activities. A total of 1,150 families provided information concerning participation in traditional activities and 270 provided information concerning non-traditional activities. Analyses (using chi-square techniques) were completed separately for traditional and non-traditional activities. (back)
eThese analyses include that group of families who indicated that opportunities were offered and provided information about their participation in those activities. A total of 2,074 families provided information (970 in demonstration schools, 744 in comparison schools, and 360 in non-study schools). Chi-square analyses were completed separately for each of the two types of volunteer participation. (back)
fInformation concerning barriers to participation was available from a total of 4,836 families (2,085 in demonstration schools, 1,845 in comparison schools, and 906 in non-study schools). Chi-square analyses were completed to assess the relationship between school treatment condition and reporting of barriers to parent involvement. (back)
gWhile there was some variability in the number of responses to specific questions, approximately 300 principals (range 286 - 320) provided information via the Supplementation Questionnaire for Principals concerning perceived barriers to parent participation in schools. The principals were approximately equally distributed between demonstration and comparison schools. Chi-square analyses were completed to assess relationships between the categorical variables. (back)
hThese analyses were completed for those 6,090 families who provided information concerning family involvement in learning in second and/or third grades. The families were evenly distributed between demonstration and comparison conditions. (back)
iSee note h above. (back)
jThe sample used for these analyses is the same as described in notes I and j above. Chi-square analyses were completed to assess the relationship between parent participation in school governance and school group (demonstration, comparison, non-study). (back)
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |