Focus: Educational Issues Series Involving Families in Order to Improve Student Achievement

By Iris Othrow and Katie Schultz Stout

Parents do care about what happens to their children and, if given the chance, will work with a school to ensure a better education for that child.

Introduction

Everyone involved in education realizes that working closely with families is essential in order to improve student achievement and the quality of education we offer in schools. Studies have shown that students get better grades, do better on achievement tests, have better attitudes toward school and have higher aspirations when families are involved.

According to the Secretary of Education Richard Riley, “Thirty years of research tells us that the starting point of American education is parent expectations and parental involvement with their children’s education regardless of their station in life, their income level or their educational background.”

Family involvement also affects a child’s attitude toward school and teachers. Parent’s conversations about teachers overheard by students can make a big difference in the student’s attitude toward the teacher. The relationship and mutual respect of teacher to student, and the reverse, are directly reflected in the quality work done by the student and the feeling of efficacy experienced by the teacher.

“Teachers report more positive feelings about teaching and about their school when there is more parent involvement at the school.” (Epstein & Dauber, 1991)

Families, too, benefit from parent involvement. Studies have shown that participation in meaningful parent-involvement programs can improve parents’ self-image, increase their respect for teachers and schools, and give increased confidence in their ability to help their children succeed in school.

When parents are involved, teachers gain an understanding of families’ cultures, needs, goals and capabilities. They also learn that parents/families can offer valuable resources, skills, talents and creativity. When quality programs exist, teachers are able to share the responsibility of educating children with parents who can provide time, help at home, and positive influences on their children.

As we looked at the broad topic of parent involvement, we studied the research and a variety of programmatic approaches. Several things were immediately evident. First, when considering effects on student achievement one must look at the entire family, not just parent involvement and influence. Second, while most of the research and programs deal with interaction from kindergarten through graduation, there is emerging evidence, added to what we already know, that brain and intellectual development are heavily influenced before children reach formal schooling in pre-school or kindergarten.

The significance of parenting

Studies show that all children are born with a world of potential—potential that will be realized only if appropriately tapped. The traditional view of how our brain works was that the “wiring diagram,” the chemical circuitry of the brain, is predetermined, analogous to wiring a new house, by the genes in the fertilized egg. Unfortunately, even though one half of the genes—50,000— are involved in the central nervous system in some way, there are not nearly enough to direct the complex “wiring” of the brain. So, the determination of how the brain works is heavily influenced by environment and early experiences. In fact, if these determinations are not influenced by a certain time in a child’s development they may never be possible. Each set of skills and mental abilities appear to have a window for development. If this window is missed, the child may never recover.

“The home environment is a powerful factor in determining the level of school achievement of students, student interest in school learning and the number of years of schooling the children will receive.” (Benjamin Bloom)

For example, the establishment of circuits that allow the development of math and logic skills is completed by four years of age. Toddlers taught simple concepts like “one” and “many” before age four, tend to do better in math. Likewise, early music lessons may help develop the spatial skills needed for the development of mathematical minds (Begley, 1997).

A second example challenges our education practices in the schools. Language circuitry is developed to a large extent before the age of two. The ability to “hear” and process sounds is directly related to what children hear during that time. A child whose parents speak to them frequently, about almost anything, will have a much larger vocabulary than one growing up in a more “quiet” environment. A child taught a second language after the age of 10 or so is unlikely ever to speak it like a native (Cowley, 1997).

These examples are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to recent brain research and what that research shows about learning. Because formal schools do not usually see children until the age of five or six, school programs have little influence on building capacity for learning unless they partner with parents long before their children arrive at the doors.

“It doesn’t matter what your race, religion or ethnic background is. What counts is having a learning culture which strengthens each child’s ability to get ahead.” (Diane Ramsey of the Knowledge Network)

How do we do this? This and a myriad of other questions need to be asked as we review family involvement research: What is the evidence that family involvement improves achievement?

How can we get and keep families involved in the various opportunities that schools offer? At what level is family involvement most effective? Are there benefits for families, schools, and community? As families face ever busier lives, how do we capitalize on their limited time? What aspects of a student’s life are affected by family involvement?

Research on parenting and parent involvement

A review of the research indicates a number of important findings that provide answers to some of the questions listed above. Over the last 10 to 15 years quality studies have provided empirical evidence that our traditional views about the importance of family are, in fact, essential for improved student achievement.

Research has shown that the more students read in their leisure time, the higher their reading proficiency is likely to be. Unfortunately, the frequency with which students read for pleasure seems to decrease as they grow older. Furthermore, home support for reading appears to be central in fostering higher academic achievement (Mullis et. al., 1990, page 55).

Swap (1990) concludes that parent involvement is especially crucial for children at risk. In fact, she argues that parent involvement is not a frill, but a necessity. Studies of the effects of family involvement on minority groups support her premise. Chavkin and Williams (1993) note that research demonstrates that “. . . all parents, regardless of ethnicity or minority status, are concerned about their children’s education. But most important, in addition to being concerned, parents want to take an active role in their children’s education.” The challenge then is to identify how this can be done.

Case studies summarized in Parent Centers in Urban Schools provide evidence of the impact of good programming on children from various minority groups and socioeconomic levels. The studies show evidence of significant improvement in student learning. James Comer (1988) provides further evidence in his article, “Educating Poor Minority Children.” Of particular importance is that in following students for 12 to 20 years, he found evidence that the initial improvement effects remain.

A study of more than twelve hundred public school students in Wisconsin showed that students who are most successful academically have parents who are demanding, have high expectations regarding their child’s performance in school, and are actively involved in the education of their child (Allen and Kickbusch, 1992).

Studies that show the negative impact of too much television viewing and excessive hours of work during the school year (Steinberg et. al, 1988) have important messages for parents and how they influence the decisions made by their students.

“One junior high school class whose parents had individual meetings with counselors the summer before seventh grade not only had higher attendance rates, but also better grades and lower dropout rates, compared to the class entering the year before.” (Eagle)

A review of hundreds of studies shows that the most accurate prediction for a student’s achievement in school is not income or social status, but the extent to which that student’s family is able to:

1. create a home environment that encourages learning,
2. express high (but not unrealistic) expectations for their children’s achievement and future careers,
3. become involved in their children’s education at school and in the community.

Even with only one or two of these conditions in place, children do measurably better at school.

Parent involvement and parent achievement

Studies of parent involvement efforts have documented these benefits for students:

1. higher grades and test scores,
2. better attendance and more homework done,
3. fewer placements in special education,
4. more positive attitudes and behavior,
5. higher graduation rates,
6. greater enrollment in post-secondary education (Henderson and Berla, 1994).

Schools and communities also profit when schools work well with families. These schools have:

1. improved teacher morale,
2. higher ratings of teachers by parents,
3. more support from families,
4. higher student achievement,
5. better reputations in the community (Henderson and Berla,1994).

In a paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Eva Eagle examined the effects of socioeconomic status, family structure, and parental involvement on high school student achievement. Achievement is defined as enrollment in post secondary education and attainment of a college degree. Using data from the 1980 High School and Beyond (HS&B) national survey conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics, she analyzed the relationship between selected characteristics and student achievement (Eagle, 1989). Data for 11,227 HS&B students who were seniors in 1980, and who participated in a follow-up survey in 1986, were examined. For this study Socioeconomic Status (SES) is defined as a composite of five different family characteristics (mother’s education, father’s education, family income, father’s occupational status, and number of certain major possessions such as automobiles and appliances). She found that all five factors were strongly associated with student achievement.

“Parents of any social class can contribute to their children’s post-secondary educational attainment by monitoring educational progress during high school.” (Eagle)

Eagle then examined five other characteristics of students’ family backgrounds: family composition (number of original parents), parent involvement during high school, parents’ reading to the student in early childhood, mother’s employment status, and existence of a special place at home to study. The three factors significantly related to student achievement, from most to least impact, were: parent involvement during high school (defined as frequency of talking to teachers, parent involvement in planning for post-secondary school activities, and parent monitoring of homework), family reading, and a place to study at home.

“Three every day interactions between parents and their high school-aged children have a powerful effect on whether students go on to post-secondary education: talking together, planning for post-high school activities, and monitoring school work.” (Eagle)

While Eagle found that high-SES homes are associated with high student achievement, she went on to ask another question: Does family involvement have an effect independent of SES? She controlled for SES and found three factors that demonstrated a significant impact: the possessions index (or affluence level), students living with neither original parent, and parent involvement during high school. Of these, the most powerful was parent involvement. It is clear from this study that parents of any social class can contribute to their children’s post secondary educational attainment by monitoring educational progress during high school.

In a second study reported in 1993 Simich-Dudgeon reports in, Increasing Student Achievement Through Teacher Knowledge About Parent Involvement, that involving parents with limited English proficiency in their children’s education can help student performance. From 1983 to 1986 the program studied trained parents from four language groups (Spanish, Vietnamese, Khmer, and Lao) in home tutoring strategies. Though the project was implemented at all levels, this study focused on the experience at the two high schools, where the families of 350 students participated. Eighty percent of the parents spoke little or no English.

The project had three components: teacher training in techniques for involving parents, parent training, and curriculum development. During the training, school staff developed 19 home-learning lessons designed to bring parent and child together as co-learners.

Students were pre- and post-tested and made significant gains on all measures of SOLOM English oral language proficiency tests (comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation) as well as writing. In addition, the frequency and type of parent contacts with schools increased, and parents reported that they knew more about the school system.

Students also reported that they discussed the homework lessons with the parent but also with siblings and other extended family members. This finding raises interesting possibilities about sibling cooperative learning at home when parents are not available to participate. It also shows that parental involvement must be defined to include all family members.

Perhaps the most widely quoted and extensive research has been conducted by Joyce Epstein and a number of colleagues. Her Reading/ Language Research is the most informative study reported in 1991 in Advances in Reading/Language Research, Vol. 5. This study analyzed data from 293 third and fifth grade students in 14 classrooms who took the California Achievement Test in fall and spring of the 1980-81 school year. The teachers in these 14 classrooms were classified into three categories: (1) those who reported frequent use of parent involvement in learning activities at home, (2) those who were infrequent users, and (3) confirmed nonusers.

“Students most likely to enroll in and complete post-secondary education were the ones whose parents were highly involved in their education, regardless of SES.” (Eagle)

Epstein used multiple-regression analysis to determine the effects of student and family background (sex, race, parent education, fall test scores), teacher quality and leadership in parent involvement, parent reactions (rating of quality of homework assignments and requests), and student effort (quality of homework completed). Epstein found that teacher leadership in parent involvement in learning activities at home positively and significantly influences change in reading achievement.

Parents also reported that as a result of improved communication parents learned more during the year than they previously knew about their child’s instructional program. The evidence also showed that the gains come not only for the parents who make a regular practice of helping their children, but also for children whose parents have been encouraged by teachers to help their children.

This particular study showed that teacher leadership in involving parents to work with their children at home makes a strong positive contribution to reading achievement, regardless of teacher quality, students’ fall scores, parent education, parent understanding of the school program, and the quality of student homework. According to Epstein, “Parents are one available but untapped and directed resource that teachers can mobilize to help more children master and maintain needed skills for school . . . this requires teachers’ leadership in organizing, evaluating, and continually building their parent involvement practices.”

In a 1992 article in the Encyclopedia of Educational research, Epstein describes the realities of what it will take to develop approaches that can capitalize on what has been learned from the entire body of research. She describes and supports the nature of the overlapping influence of the family and school as it relates to student learning (Seeley, 1981). She also indicates that when this overlapping influence exists students are not passive in the process. When schools and families work in partnership, students hear that school is important from their parents and teachers and perceive that caring people in both environments are investing and coordinating time and resources to help them succeed. The student’s own work is legitimized by this process of mutual support. Teachers also have higher expectations of students whose parents collaborate with them; they also have higher opinions of those parents (Dauber and Epstein, 1992). Conversely, when they become involved at school, or with the school, parents develop more positive attitudes about school and school personnel, help build support in the community for the program, become more active in community affairs, develop increased self-confidence, and enroll in other educational programs (Becher, 1984).

Challenges

If the evidence is so strong, why do many remain isolated from the families of their students? Why do parents hesitate to be involved when we invite them? What specific programs will work? What are the barriers that prevent parents from assisting their children with their learning? Finally, how do families and schools find the time to develop programs or approaches that work?

Studies have identified a number of barriers that make it difficult for parents and teachers to work together. Many teachers feel that parents do not have the time or interest to interact with them. For example, Davies (1989) found that many teachers believe that parents with low incomes do not value education highly or have little to offer to the education of their children. Some teachers are concerned that parents will encroach upon their area of responsibility and will not follow instructions and school regulations. Many other teachers are very supportive of parent involvement and don’t understand why parents aren’t responding to programs that are school developed. Some parents are distrustful of schools and are reluctant to get involved because of bad experiences that they had as students. Some view their child’s performance as a reflection on themselves and are hesitant to step forward to address problems. Many others feel that they do not have the skills to be helpful and that if they do step forward the school personnel will think that they are interfering.

Unfortunately, many educators lack the necessary skills to work with parents. Many teachers and administrators admit that they do not know how to involve parents in the classroom and still maintain their role as teacher, probably because they have not had the training and support needed to work with parents, especially those whose cultural experience is different than that of the teacher.

“When parents learn to teach their own children, they not only give their children new skills but also build their own feelings of competence. This in turn motivates the children to perform better, setting a cycle of success- reinforcement in motion.” (Stearns)

Perhaps the greatest impediment is that of time. Parents, most of whom are working outside the home, find it difficult to participate in school activities. Teachers whose days are filled with more and more curricular and non-curricular experiences, more challenging behaviors and larger class sizes, find the idea of developing parent involvement strategies overwhelming, as do administrators who often spend most of their time dealing with the immediate crisis of the day.

In order to develop effective programs the following leadership supports are necessary (Wikeland 1990):

• written school and district policies that establish parent involvement as a legitimate and desirable activity,
• clear and high expectations that parent involvement is a key to improved schools,
• leadership and encouragement,
• sufficient funding,
• time allocated for staff and parents to plan and coordinate family-involvement activities,
• staff and parent training,
• space and equipment,
• food, transportation, and child care as needed for parent meetings.

Program planning and components

It is clear from the literature that planning programs should be done jointly with parents from the very beginning. It is also critical that the school reach beyond the “parents who always volunteer.” They will be there whether we plan programs or not. The larger group of less involved and more apathetic parents must be represented during planning. If we believe that all parents care about their children, we must jointly discover how to involve and support them on behalf of those children.

While thousands of family involvement programs exist as kits, books, articles, etc., it is important that when developing programs you look Beyond the Bake Sale as Lazotte contends.

Epstein, Vandegrift and others have each attempted to describe the components of effective programs. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has used these sources to describe what they call a Student-Centered Learning Environment. It outlines a framework for participation that includes development in the following areas: parenting and family skills, communication, learning at home, volunteering, governance and advocacy and community outreach.

For example, you may want to develop parenting and family skills materials to be given to parents when they leave the hospital following the birth of their child. You may also want to offer parenting classes, co-facilitated by a parent and an educator, at the elementary, middle and high school levels. You may want to offer these at churches, community centers, and other places where some parents feel more comfortable.

For communication you may wish to consider home visits, newsletters written by parents, weekly or daily radio spots or call-in shows. Be certain to recognize that good communication is a two-way activity. Assessing the needs of families on an ongoing basis is critical.

Learning at home can be facilitated by creative homework assignments that involve parents, (e.g., interviewing parents about transportation options when they were children.) Volunteering is the easiest and most traditional. The challenge is to expand options that provide opportunities for working parents.

Governance and advocacy is an area often overlooked. Parents must be included in site and district councils in numbers that make them comfortable. A single parent on a site council can often feel intimidated into silence. Advocacy in and beyond the school can be best facilitated by a PTA with national affiliation. These organizations focus their efforts on policies and practices that benefit all children. They can help to move parents beyond advocacy for their child alone into an arena that benefits all.

“Parents did not want to be parents of a ‘professional-client’ relationship with the school or to be patronized in any way. It would appear . . . that the manner in which a parental involvement program is introduced to parents may be as important as the program itself.” (Melnick)

Finally, there is community outreach. At a time when less than one-third of our households have children in school, it is critical that we reach out into the larger community. This is needed for two reasons. We need their support if we want to sustain strong public schools and our communities offer rich resources that can enhance learning for students and can help in the world beyond our schools.

It is important to note that not all parents can be involved in each of these areas and they should not be expected to do so any more than we would expect that of each teacher. It is very clear that when planning new approaches it is critical that parents and school personnel be involved in planning from the very beginning. Schools should not tell parents what to do but plan with them as partners. It is also clear that the larger community, including the business community, has a role in supporting family participation in schools. Above all, it is clear from the research that while program components must offer a wide range of opportunities, it is the efforts that focus directly on student learning that must be emphasized.

For a list of specific program sources contact the WEAC IPD Division at 1-800-362-8034 ext. 217.

Bibliography

Allen, Russ and Kickbusch, Ken. “The Effect of Student Attitudes, Behaviors, and Experiences on Academic Achievement in High School.” Wisconsin Education Association Council. Madison, Wisconsin, 1992.

Becker, Rhoda McShane. “Parent Involvement: A Review of Research and Principles of Successful Practice.” National Institute of Education. Washington, D.C., 1984.

Begley, Sharon. “Your Child’s Brain.” Newsweek Special Issue, Spring/Summer, 1997.

Cawley, Geoffrey. “The Language Explosion.” Newsweek Special Issue, Spring/Summer, 1997.

Chavkin, Nancy Feyl. “School Social Workers Helping Multi-Ethnic Families, Schools, and Communities Join Forces.” Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society, Nancy Feyl Chavkin, Ed. State University of New York Press. Albany, New York, 1993. Chapter 12, pgs. 217-226.

Chavkin, N. F. and Williams, D.L. Jr. “Minority Parents and the Elementary School: Attitudes and Practices.” Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society, Nancy Feyl Chavkin, Ed. State University of New York Press. Albany, New York, 1993. Pgs. 73-83.

Comer, James P. “Educating Poor Minority Children.” Scientific American: Vol. 259, No. 5, November 1988. Pgs. 2-8.

Dauber, Susan, and Epstein, Joyce. “Parent Attitudes and Practices of Involvement in Inner City Elementary and Middle Schools.” Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society, Nancy Feyl Chavkin, Ed. State University of New York Press. Albany, New York, 1993. Chapter 2, pgs. 53-71.

Davies, D. “Poor Parents, Teachers, and the Schools: Comments About Practice, Policy, and Research.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, California, March, 1989.

Eagle, Eva. “Socioeconomic Status, Family Structure, and Parental Involvement: The Correlates of Achievement.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, California, March, 1989.

Epstein, J. L. “School and Family Partnerships.” Encyclopedia of Educational Research: 6th Edition. MacMillan. New York, New York, 1992. Pgs. 1131-1151.

Epstein, Joyce L. “Effects on StudentAchievement of Teachers’ Practices of Parental Involvement.” Advances in Reading/Language, Research, Vol. 5. JAI Press. Greenwich, Connecticut, 1991. Pgs. 261-276.

Lezotte, L. Foreword. “Beyond The Bake Sale: An Educator’s Guide to Working With Parents” by A. Henderson, C. Marburger, and T. Ooms. National Committee for Citizens in Education. Columbia, Maryland, 1985.

Mullis, Ina V.S., and Owen, Eugene H., and Phillips, Gary W. “Accelerating Academic Achievement: A Summary of Findings from 20 Years of NAEP.” Educational Testing Service. Princeton, New Jersey, September, 1990.

Seeley, D.S. “Education Through Partnership: Mediating Structures and Education.” Ballinger. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981.

Simich-Dudgeon, Carmen. “Increasing Student Achievement Through Teacher Knowledge About Parent Involvement.” Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society, Nancy Feyl Chavkin, Ed. State University of New York Press. Albany, New York, 1993. Chapter 10, pgs. 189-204.

Steinberg, Laurance, and Brown, B. Bradford, and Cider Mary, and Kaczmarek, Nancy, and Lazzaro, Cary. “Noninstructional Influences on High School Student Achievement: The Contributions of Parents, Peers, Extracurricular Activities, and Part-Time Work.” National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin, 1988

Swap, Susan McAllister. “Parent Involvement and Success for All Children: What We Know Now.” Institute for Responsive Education. Boston, Massachusetts, February, 1990.

Wikelund, K.R. “Schools and Communities Together: A Guide to Parent Involvement.” Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Portland, Oregon, 1990.

Submission of manuscripts

Focus articles review a broad spectrum of current research with recommendations for application or a summary of uses. All manuscripts up to 4,000 words will be considered for publication. Manuscripts are accepted for publication subject to nonsubstantive editing and should be submitted to:

Ken Kickbusch
Wisconsin Education Association Council
33 Nob Hill Drive
P.O. Box 8003
Madison, WI 53708-8003

Please submit typed, double-spaced manuscripts on 81/2” x 11” paper. When possible, please include a 3.5” disk containing a copy of your manuscript formatted as a DOS text (ASCll) file.

Manuscripts must conform to the style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association or The Chicago Manual of Style. The manuscript should be accompanied by an abstract of up to 200 words.

Posted October 26, 1999