LIBRARY
Micnigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

PARENT PRACTICES & HOME-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS: A
DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT FOR CHILDREN WITH SAME-SEX
PARENTS?

presented by

ALICIA LYNN CROWL

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Counseling, Educational
PsychologY. and Special
Education

 

 

Major ProfessoYs Signature

£12210?

Date

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
wt :1 65220111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Aoc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.hdd

PARENT PRACTICES & HOME-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS: A DIFFERENTIAL
EFFECT FOR CHILDREN WITH SAME-SEX PARENTS?

By

Alicia Lynn Crowl

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology. and Special Education

2008

ABSTRACT

PARENT PRACTICES & HOME-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS: A DIFFERENTIAL
EFFECT FOR CHILDREN WITH SAME-SEX PARENTS?

By
Alicia Lynn Crowl
Parents are an integral component of optimizing the success of their children.
When parents have strong links to schools. their children perform better and have higher
rates of long—term academic and social outcomes (Beveridge, 2005; Henderson & Berla.
1994). Despite the fact that it is the school’s responsibility to ensure safe and welcoming
climates for families, there are a substantial proportion of parents, namely same-sex
parents, who feel disconnected and unwelcome in schools (Jeltova & Fish, 2005).
Understanding the role of home—school collaboration in children’s academic and social
adjustment outcomes—particularly for children with same-sex parents—would guide
policy in regards to anti-discrimination laws and issues of school climate within
American schools. Creating positive home-school ties for children from diverse families
will likely optimize their chance for academic success. In order to extend the research
supporting parent practices and strong family-school collaboration, the present study used
the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) dataset to
examine: 1.) How same-sex families compare to heterosexual families with respect to the
parental practices of Helping and Communicating; 2.) How home—school partnerships
compare across same-sex and heterosexual families; and 3.) Whether a strong home-
school partnership is more important for the academic achievement and social adjustment
of children with same-sex parents given the societal context in which these children are

embedded. Results indicated that same-sex and heterosexual parents did not differ with

respect to their parent practices or home-school partnerships. Further. home-school

partnerships were not differentially important for children with same-sex parents.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My most sincere appreciation and thanks to Dr. Jean Baker for her mentorship
throughout the past four years—without her suggestions and guidance, this project would
not have been possible. I would also like to thank Dr. John Kosciulek for his continuous
revisions of my writing. as his time spent editing my work has helped me tremendously
in completing this study. Thank you also to Teresa Clark. who was always available and
willing to give advice. resources. and much ofhcr time. Teresa. if it were not for your
thoughtfulness, generosity. and the hours of labor you poured into the dataset, this project
would not have materialized. And finally to my parents, who continue to give their
unconditional support and understanding in everything I do. Thank you, mom and dad,

for always believing in me and encouraging me to push beyond my limits.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vi
Chapter 1: lntroduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 5
Home-School Collaboration ......................................................................................... 5
School Climate .............................................................................................................. 8
Children with Same-Sex Parents ................................................................................ 13
Parent Practices and Child Outcomes ........................................................................ 22
Limitations of Research with Children of Same-Sex Parents ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 27
Purpose of Present Study ............................................................................................ 30
Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................................... 32
Participants .................................................................................................................. 30
Measures ...................................................................................................................... 37
Analysis Plan ............................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 4: Results .................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 5: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 4 8
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 57
References ................................................................................................................................ 62

LIST OF TABLES

Table 11 Soeiodemographie Information of Sample ............................................................. 35
Table 2: Sociodemographic Information of Same-Sex Parents ____________________________________________ 36
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Child Outcome Variables .................. 43
Table 4: Correlations between Independent and Child Outcome Variables ........................ 44
Table 5: Regression Analyses Predicting Child Outcomes .................................................. 46
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Gay Male Fathers and Lesbian Mothers ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 47

vi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

There is a great political and social divide on the topic of same-sex parenting
(Herek, 2006). Given that schools reflect the culture of our society. this divide
inevitably permeates into classrooms. affecting those children who are raised by gay
and lesbian individuals (Epstein. 1999). It is difficult to obtain accurate estimates of
children raised by gay and lesbian parents (also referred herein as "lesbigay" or
“same-sex” parents) due to the social stigmatization of being a sexual minority, and
therefore studies range in their estimates from approximately 1.5 million to 14 million
children who have at least one gay or lesbian parent (Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988;
Patterson, 1992; Stacey & Biblarz. 2001; Turner. Scadden & Harris. 1990). Same-sex
parents are becoming increasingly visible. with more gay and lesbian couples
choosing to have children through means of donor insemination. adoption. and
surrogacy (Herek. 2006; Martin. 1993; Weston. 1991). An increase in the number of
gay and lesbian parents creates a need to understand the lives of children who are
raised in a society at odds with the appropriateness of same-sex parenting.

The benefits of strong home-school partnerships on children’s developmental
outcomes have been documented extensively in the research (Esler, Godber, &
Christenson. 2002). When ties between children’s families and schools are firmly
established, children’s academic and social competencies flourish (Beveridge, 2005:
Christenson, I995). The importance of building and maintaining this home-school
connection stems from the theoretical understanding that both contexts exert

significant socializing influence on the child (Brofenbrenner. 1979; Esler et al.. 2002;

Scott-Jones, 1995). Thus. the greater the overlap among these contexts, the higher
probability for children‘s success in school.

Despite the fact that schools shoulder the primary responsibility for making
families feel welcome and connected to the school. a large number of parents—
particularly same-sex parents—feel isolated. invisible, and disrespected in the school
culture (Jeltova & Fish. 2005; Ryan & Martin, 2000). For a number of same-sex
parents, schools are merely institutions that reinforce the traditional family structure
of a mother, father, and 2.5 children (Coontz, 1992). For many children growing up
with gay or lesbian parents. schools may be their first experience with persistent
messages about traditional families that run counter to that which they have been
accustomed. Both parents and children often feel invisible and insignificant as their
identities dissolve in a heterosexist environment (C asper, Schultz. & Wickens, 1992).
Further, although schools are the primary social institutions outside of the family
where students should feel welcomed and safe, many aspects of the school
environment fail to meet the needs of gay and lesbian youth or children with lesbigay
parents. Studies have documented numerous incidents of peer harassment, bullying.
and aggression directed towards gay and lesbian students in which few. if any. efforts
were made to combat them (D’Augelli. Pilkington. & Hershberger. 2002; Russell.
Franz, & Driscoll, 2001). Researchers have also uncovered common themes
regarding same-sex parents” negative experiences in schools due to their sexual
orientation, including high levels of anxiety associated with disclosing their sexual

orientation, fears of being “outed” and the stress created through frequent interactions

IQ

with a negative school climate (Casper et al.. 1992: Epstein. 1999; Kozik-Rosabal.
2000)

Although reports of hostile school environments are frequently cited in the
literature, research documenting the outcomes of children with same-sex parents
provides a more positive message. The existing research comparing gay and lesbian
parents with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that parent sexual
orientation is not related to negative psychological adjustment or overall negative
developmental outcomes in children (Allen & Burrell. 1996; 2002; Anderssen. Amlie.
& Ytterou. 2002; Crowl, Ahn. & Baker. in press; Lambert, 2005; Stacey & Biblarz.
2001). These findings are supported from a well-established literature base supporting
the importance of parental process variables (e.g., warmth, discipline practices.
support) as opposed to parental status variables (e.g., race, gender, income). The
evidence in support of what parents do with their children as compared to the social
category to which they belong. has accumulated over the past two decades of research
(Baumrind, 1991; Scott-Jones. 1995; Wentzel. 2002). Specifically. with respect to
children’s academic achievement. numerous studies have cited the importance of
parents’ helping and communicating with their children (see Mandara, 2003; Patrick
et al.. 2005; Scott-Jones. 1995). In other words. parents who actively help with their
children’s homework, spend time engaged in educational activities, and encourage
conversations, have children with higher levels of achievement. Thus, although parent
sexual orientation is the key variable that incites concerns regarding the well-being of
children raised by same-sex parents. researchers have consistently demonstrated the

importance of parental style when predicting children's psychological. social. and

academic outcomes (Baumrind, 1991; Khaleque & Rohner. 2002; Steinberg & Silk.
2002).

Despite the consistent message borne out by these studies, however, most
lesbigay parents frequently face discrimination. both within and outside of schools
(Jeltova & Fish. 2005; Ryan & Martin. 2000). and gay and lesbian parents continue to
lose custody oftheir children (see Stacey & Biblarz. 2001 ). Thus, there continues to
be a considerable disconnect between the socializing contexts of home and school.
Given the importance of home-school partnerships for children’s success in school, it
is imperative that all parents feel included and connected to their child’s school, as
children’s outcomes benefit significantly from positive home-school collaboration.
With the increased visibility in the number of same-sex parents (Tasker, 2005). it is
necessary to explore the role of this home-school partnership as well as key parental
practices that support children's outcomes. The purpose of this study was to therefore
examine the following questions:

1.) How do same—sex families compare to heterosexual families with respect

to the parental practices of Helping and Communicating?

2.) How does the home-school partnership compare across same-sex and

heterosexual families?

3.) Is a strong home-school partnership more important for the academic

achievement and social adjustment of children with same-sex parents.
compared to children with heterosexual parents. given the societal context

in which these children are embedded?

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Home-School Collaboration

The benefits of strong home-school partnerships (referred here also as home-
school collaboration or home-school connection) on children’s developmental
outcomes have been documented extensively in the research. When ties between
children’s families and schools are firmly established, children’s academic and social
competencies flourish (Beveridge. 2005; Christenson, 1995; Esler et al., 2002; Hara.
1998; Jeynes, 2007). That is, schools and families that act as a team and communicate
and exchange information have children whose academic achievement thrives.
Research examining the effects of strong home-school collaboration consistently
documents positive child outcomes (Christenson. 1995; C hristenson & Sheridan.
2001; Cooper & Lindsay, 2000; Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2005, 2007; Sheridan,
Cowan, & Eagle, 2000; Swap. 1993). In two meta-analyses investigating the
relationship between parental involvement and academic achievement among urban
elementary school students (Jeynes, 2005) as well as urban secondary school students
(Jeynes, 2007), parental involvement was associated with all academic variables for
both studies. regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. Both studies did show, however,
that the effect of parent involvement (defined as parental participation in the
educational processes and experiences of their children) was stronger for elementary
students, most likely due to parents being more involved in their children‘s schooling
while they are younger (see Jeynes, 2007). Further research has confirmed that active

parental involvement at the early childhood level is associated with higher literacy

skills, including vocabulary. writing, and reading comprehension (Marcon. 1999;
Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman. & Hemphill. 1991).

In addition to positive child outcomes. strong family-school partnerships also
benefit parents and teachers. As a result of family-school collaboration, parents report
feeling a stronger sense of competence as a parent and having increased feelings of
self-efficacy in helping their children learn (Davies, 1993; Parker. Boak, Griffin.
Ripple. & Peay. 1999). Teachers report better relationships with parents. increased
job satisfaction. and lower incidents ofjob burnout and transfer rates (Christenson.
1995).

The importance of building and maintaining this home-school connection
stems from the theoretical understanding that both contexts exert significant
socializing influence on the child (Brofenbrenner, 1979; Esler et al.. 2002; Gregory &
Weinstein, 2004; Scott-Jones. 1995). Thus, the greater the overlap among these
contexts, the higher probability for children‘s success in school. For many families.
however. there is a great disconnection between the home and school contexts.
Whether this home-school disconnection hinges on differences in beliefs about family
involvement in school or misunderstandings regarding the role families play in their
child’s schooling (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Swap, 1993), a divide between
contexts serves as one of many barriers identified to forming effective family-school
partnerships (Christenson, 2003). Additional barriers outlined in more detail by
Christenson (2003) include: linguistic and cultural differences resulting in confusion
about the educational process: families' suspicion about treatment from educators:

parental feelings of inadequacy or perceived lack of school responsiveness to parental

needs; schools’ stereotypical views about families that attribute blame to parents;
schools’ doubting parental abilities to address academic concerns. and failure for
schools to view family differences as strengths. In addition to these barriers. research
has documented factors such as a lack oftime and knowledge about what children are
Ieaming in school. as well as negative school environments (unwelcoming school
climate, “deficit view" of families) that create almost impenetrable walls that form
between home and school contexts (McCarthey. 2000; Patrikakou. Weissberg. &
Rubenstein, 1999).

Despite the multitude of barriers to forming effective home-school
partnerships, there are a number of factors that serve to bridge families and schools.
Thus, in addition to those factors that impede family-school collaboration, researchers
have also identified characteristics and strategies of families and schools that
facilitate the development ofeffective relationships. Understanding the cultural
background and values of families (McCarthey. 2000) as well as inviting parents to
school functions and sharing important events and information about their child
(Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997) are ways in which schools can create ties with
families. Similarly, parents who value their child’s education and perceive themselves
to be efficacious in helping with their child’s schooling will be more involved and
connected to schools (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler. 1997). Thus. this bidirectional
relationship is critical in establishing and maintaining an effective home-school

partnership.

School Climate

Although both families and schools are accountable in creating a mutual
partnership. schools shoulder the primary responsibility of making families and
children feel welcome. A critical component of forging positive school relationships
is school climate. When researchers speak of school climate, they are typically
refen'ing to a number of different factors that color an individual’s perception of the
school environment. School climate has been defined as the values, cultures. safety
policies, and organizational structures that determine how a school will operate
(McBrien & Brandt. 1997). Thus. school climate is a multidimensional construct that
has been shown to be influenced by a number of different factors. including the
frequency and quality of student-teacher interactions (Kuperminc, Leadbeater. &
Blatt, 2001). both students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their school environment
(Johnson, Johnson, & Zimmerman, 1996), physical features of the school (e.g.,
building quality and structure. school size. classroom size and arrangement.
instructional materials and amount of resources). students’ academic performance
(Johnson & Johnson, 1993). students’ and teachers’ feelings of safeness (Freiberg.
1998), and the degree of trust and respect between students and teachers (Manning &
Saddlemire. 1996).

Research consistently shows beneficial outcomes for both students and
teachers who are members of a positive school climate. Students who have positive
interpersonal relationships with their peers and teachers. regardless of their
demographic background, have increased achievement levels and reduced incidents

of maladaptive behaviors (McEvoy & Welker, 2000). Moreover. positive perceptions

of school climate have been found to serve as protective factors in boys (Haynes.
1998; Kuperminc. Leadbeater. Emmons, & Blatt, 1997) as well as urban students
(Haynes & Comer, 1993) who may be at-risk for behavioral problems. resulting in the
prevention of antisocial behaviors. In addition to the beneficial outcomes for students.
studies on school climate also have yielded positive results for teachers and other
school personnel. finding that a positive school climate is associated with increased
job satisfaction (Taylor & Tashakkori. 1995).

Just as positive school climate has been associated with positive academic,
behavioral, and psychological outcomes. a negative school climate has been shown to
be detrimental to students’ learning and development (F reiberg, 1998; Johnson &
Johnson, 1993, 1997; Kuperminc et al.. 1997; Kuperminc et al.. 2001; Manning &
Saddlemire, 1996). Compared to students who are a part of a positive school climate.
students whose climate is not positive, supportive. and safe have been found to
exhibit greater levels of maladaptive behaviors. leading to reduced academic
achievement levels (McEvoy & Welker. 2000). Thus. if students do not feel they can
trust their teachers or other adults at their school. do not feel as if their school is a safe
and welcoming environment, and do not feel as if they are respected or cared for. they
are unlikely to perceive school as a positive context for Ieaming, and their educational
and psychological development will be negatively affected.

Thus, it is the responsibility of schools to create positive Ieaming
environments for their students, making them feel welcome. safe. and. respected.
Unfortunately, for a number of gay or lesbian youth or students with lesbigay parents.

this is not always the case, for "safe and inclusive learning spaces in classrooms

become sites where gay families become invisible and disappear in a heterosexist
curriculum” (Kozik-Rosabal. 2000. p. 369). The issue of school climate thus becomes
particularly salient for those children whose fears of being ostracized or bullied
because oftheir or their parents’ sexual orientation are often kept undisclosed.

For many same-sex couples. schools are merely institutions that reinforce the
traditional family structure of a mother. father. and 2.5 children (Coontz. 1992. as
cited in Kozik-Rosabal. 2000). Further. for a number ofchildren growing up with
lesbigay parents, schools may be their first experience with persistent messages about
traditional families that run counter to that which they have been accustomed.
Children read books and hear stories about parents that are not similar to their
“mommies” or “daddies”. and may feel left out and atypical compared to peers
(Casper & Schultz, 1999). In their qualitative work with gay and lesbian parents in
the schools, Casper and her colleagues (1992) expanded on the ways in which
lesbigay parents feel ostracized from schools. According to Casper. the
“misrepresentation and underrepresentation in early childhood curricula of children
who fall outside the cultural and the socially created gender norm has the effect of
delegitimizing their present lives and limiting their possibilities for the future” (1992.
p. 115). While this study did not specifically look into the effects of school climate
and open parent-teacher communication on the child. both parents and teachers were
interviewed regarding the dialogues (or lack thereof) between them in order to get a
clearer picture of how same-sex parents experience schools. Results indicated that the
30 gay and lesbian parents interviewed in C asper’s (1992) study felt more

comfortable in disclOsing their sexual orientation if there was a climate of diversity

and respect already apparent within the school. However. not all parents have the
luxury of choosing a school that is accepting of sexual minority families. and thus
there are many parents whose sexual orientation is kept undisclosed. Many gay and
lesbian parents. as well as their children, live in fear of being “outed” (Kosik-Rosabal.
2000). The effects of having to hide one’s sexual orientation is apparent, for it not
only creates stress and anxiety among families. but also sends a negative message to
children regarding the acceptability of homosexuality (C asper, 1992).

Casper’s (1992) study also reported the stress that parents have from not only
hiding one’s sexual orientation. but also disclosing it to the school. Many parents
feared negative consequences for both them and their child. and were unsure as to
how the teacher would react. However, the stress and anxiety associated with
revealing one’s sexual orientation is not only experienced by parents, but also to the
children. The literature reveals that the primary stressor for children with gay and
lesbian parents centers on their feelings of isolation due to keeping their parents’
sexual orientation a secret (Fitzgerald. 1999; Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen. &
Brewaeys, 2002). Similarly, gay and lesbian youth often struggle with feelings of
isolation regarding their own sexual identity and decision to disclose. often facing
verbal and physical harassment for being a sexual minority (Russell et al.. 2001).
Results from the 2005 National School Climate Survey indicated that approximately
75 percent of students heard derogatory remarks such as "faggot" or "dyke"
frequently or often at school, and nearly nine out of ten (89.2%) reported hearing
"that's so gay" or "you're so gay"—used synonymously as stupid or worthless—

frequently or often. Further. almost 64 percent of gay and lesbian students reported

being verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation and gender expression,
while nearly 18 percent of students had been physically assaulted because of their
sexual orientation (GLSEN, 2005).

The statistics related to the derogatory comments and assaults on gay and
lesbian youth are shocking. illustrating the frequency with which these youth, as well
as same-sex parents. experience a negative social environment at school. Not only are
students hearing degrading homophobic comments. but they also report that teachers
are frequently not doing anything about these comments. and that they often feel
unsafe at school (GLSEN, 2005). The quality of student-teacher relationships, the
degree to which students feel they can trust their teachers and other school personnel.
and families’ feelings of safety are all integral components of school climate.

Clearly many gay and lesbian youth and families are embedded in a school
context that is anything but positive. and the impact of these stressors is inevitably
felt by sexual minority youth and families. Same-sex parents are less likely to “come
out” to schools if there is a climate of intolerance and hostility. particularly because
these parents do not want their children to be discriminated against (Lamme &
Lamme, 2002). Although there have been no studies to date documenting the
relationship between same-sex parents’ home—school partnerships and children’s
outcomes, there is little debate that these children are often embedded in a context
that is hostile toward sexual minority youth and families, and that this relationship
will invariably influence children’s outcomes. The present study examined the

outcomes of children with same-sex parents and sought to understand if these

children were differentially affected by a strong home-school partnership. particularly

given the social context with which these children are embedded.

Children with Same-Sex Parents

The major areas of study of children with same-sex parents have compared
children with same-sex and heterosexual parents with respect to their gender.
emotional, and social development. Studies in the literature involve both single and
coupled gay and lesbian parents. with the participants having had their children
through a variety of means (e.g.. adoption. donor insemination, product of
heterosexual relationships. etc.). More commonly today. one or both partners of
lesbian couples are choosing to have their children through known or unknown donor
insemination, while gay men are serving either as sperm donors, sharing parental
responsibilities with the mother. or choosing to use a surrogate mother (Herek. 2006;
Momingstar, 1999).

Adoption is yet another means through which lesbian and gay couples are
becoming parents. However, the adoption of children by gay and lesbian individuals
remains a controversial subject. with Florida continuing to ban gay and lesbian
adoption entirely. and two states denying gay couples from adopting (Laird. 2003).
Yet, there are a number of means through which gay and lesbian couples can get
around these legal statutes. In some cases, one partner will adopt the child without
disclosing his or her sexual orientation. and in other instances. social service workers
are desperate enough for the child to be adopted that they overlook the couple’s

sexual orientation and allow for the child’s adoption (Ricketts & Achtenberg. 1989).

Finally. there is the option of adopting children overseas. for this not only avoids
many ofthe legal hurdles gay and lesbian couples encounter in the United States. but
many foreign countries ask few questions with respect to the parents’ sexual
orientation (Laird. 2003). In sum, there are a variety of channels through which gay
or lesbian couples create families and. therefore. the research conducted involves a
mixture of subjects (e.g., single and coupled, co-habiting and non-cohabiting couples)
as well as a number of means through which the participants became parents.

Given the varying diversity that exists in participant backgrounds. studies
typically do not distinguish among the many means through which lesbigay parents
create their families. Instead. the most common themes underlying the research with
gay and lesbian parents are the developmental outcomes of their children. Thus. in
order to organize the literature in this area the following review will be divided
according to the three primary developmental outcome areas most commonly
addressed: gender development, emotional development. and social development.

Gender Development. One of the primary issues regarding children of gay and
lesbian families is gender development. When addressing this issue. researchers often
distinguish among gender identity. gender-role behavior. and sexual orientation
(Tasker, 2005). Gender identity concerns the degree to which the child identifies
him/herself as male or female. Gender-role behavior, on the other hand, refers to the
extent to which the child behaves according to culturally appropriate standards of
female and male behavior—that is. do girls and boys act as girls and boys are
supposed to act (i.e.. do girls play with dolls and boys with trucks as is expected in

traditional American culture)? Lastly. sexual orientation is defined as an individual’s

sexual attraction to others. An individual is considered to be homosexual,
heterosexual, or bisexual, respectively, depending on whether the person has a sexual
attraction for members of the same-sex. opposite sex. or both (Golombok & Tasker. .
1994)

Of the research to date on the gender identity of children raised by gay and
lesbian parents, no evidence has been found to support the notion that these children
develop in an atypical manner. In a study conducted by Kirkpatrick. Smith, and Roy
(1981), children raised by lesbian mothers were compared to a group of children
raised by single heterosexual mothers. The children were evaluated using WISC
scales, the Holtzman Inkblot technique. the Human Figure Drawing Test, and a
developmental history. In this study, the children’s history of play preferences (e.g..
the types of toys with which children typically chose to play). their behavior in the
playroom. and the sex of their primary parental figure were all evaluated and no
significant differences were found between the two groups of children. In another
study, children reared by lesbian mothers were found to be no different in their
gender identity development than children raised by heterosexual mothers
(Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter, 1983). Using interviews and parent and teacher
questionnaires regarding 37 single lesbian mothers and 38 single heterosexual
mothers, Golombok et a1. (1983) found no gender identity confusion for those
children who were raised by lesbian mothers. Similar findings have been detected by
other researchers. and thus combined. the research support the conclusion that having
same-sex parents does not lead children to have conflicted gender identities

(Golombok et al.. 2003; Green. 1978; Hotvedt & Mandel. 1982; Schwartz. 1986).

15

Researchers who have investigated children's gender role development have
gathered similar findings—namely. having same-sex parents does not cause children
to exhibit behaviors atypical for their gender (Golombok et al.. 1983; Gottman, 1989;
Green, 1978; Green et al.. 1986; Hotvedt & Mandel, 1982; Kirkpatrick et al.. 1981;
Schwartz, 1986). For example, Hoeffer (1981) examined the sex-role behavior of 40
six to nine year-old children (20 lesbian and 20 heterosexual mothers). The mothers
were matched according to their level of education and occupation type, and the
children were matched by gender and age. Using the Toy Preference Test. the author
assessed children’s preferences for sex-typed masculine. feminine, and gender-neutral
toys. The study found no significant differences among the two groups of children in
toy preferences, but noted a substantial difference between girls’ and boys”
preferences in both groups, with girls scoring higher on feminine sex-typed toys and
boys on masculine toys. In sum. the studies conducted on children of gay and lesbian
parents support the general conclusion that there are no differences with the
children’s acquisition of sex-role behavior.

The third and final dimension of the research conducted on gender
development is sexual orientation. A commonly-voiced concern is that children of
gay and lesbian parents will themselves grow up to be homosexual. Research with
respect to this issue is conflicted. Several studies have found an increased correlation
between same-sex parenting and child sexual orientation (Cameron & C ameron.
1996; Hays & Samuels, 1989). while other studies have shown that children who are
raised by lesbigay parents are no more likely to be gay or lesbian themselves (Bailey.

Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach. 1995; Gottman, 1989; Green, 1978; Green et al.. 1986;

Huggins. 1989; Miller. 1979; Schwartz, 1986; Tasker & Golombok. 1995). Yet other
research findings indicate otherwise. For example, Gottman’s (1989) study with adult
daughters of lesbian and heterosexual mothers illustrated an equal proportion of
daughters in each group who identified themselves as lesbian. Furthermore, in one of
the few extensive longitudinal studies focusing on this issue with children of same-
sex parents, Golombok and Tasker (1996) followed 25 children of lesbian mothers
and 21 children of heterosexual mothers for 15 years. The average age of the children
at the start of the study was 9.5 and 23.5 years at the end of the study. Using
standardized interviews to obtain information on the children’s sexual orientation.
these researchers found that the great majority of the children self-identified as being
heterosexual. What was even more interesting with respect to the authors’ findings.
however, was that young adults raised in lesbian families were more likely to
consider having a same-sex relationship than children raised in heterosexual families.
Thus, while many of the children raised by same-sex couples did not identify
themselves as gay or lesbian. they had more open and accepting attitudes towards a
nontraditional sexual identity than did children who were raised by heterosexual
families.

However, results must be interpreted with caution. Given the small sample
sizes in all of the previous studies, it is not surprising that there are mixed results with
respect to children growing up with same-sex parents being gay or lesbian
themselves. Although many researchers claim sexual orientation is likely not learned

or modeled from parents (Golombok et al.. 1983; Marciano. 1985), more research on

larger, random samples is needed in order to make general claims about children’s
sexual orientation after being raised in same-sex households.

Emotional Development. Much like the studies conducted on children’s
gender development, the literature investigating the emotional development of
children with gay and lesbian parents has produced consistent evidence that the
psychosocial well-being of children is not negatively affected by their parents’ sexual
orientation. Researchers who have studied in this area have commonly examined
children’s self-esteem, the quality of the relationships they have with their parent
(and/or co-parent), and the prevalence of depression or anxiety.

Huggins (1989) administered the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory to 36
children, equally divided according to their gender and mother‘s sexual orientation. in
order to assess their level of self-esteem. Huggins concluded that there were no
significant differences between the two groups and that daughters of coupled
heterosexual mothers had the highest mean score. and boys of single heterosexual
mothers had the lowest mean score. An interesting finding in this study, however, was
that adolescent daughters of lesbian mothers had higher overall scores if their mother
was either married or living with her partner. Similar results have been found with
respect to the idea that children in lesbian families establish closer relationships with
their mother’s partner than do children of heterosexual families whose mother or
father has a new partner (Tasker & Golombok. 1995). Thus. although there may be
difficulties for the child with parental separation. it is theorized that it may be easier
for children of lesbian families to accept their mother’s new partner. The new lesbian

partner is often viewed not as a replacement. but as a supplemental parent. and thus

many of the children continue to have a close relationship with their father as well
(Golombok & Tasker. 1996).

Golombok et al. (1983) examined the prevalence of psychiatric disorders
among children with lesbian parents. In a series of interviews. a child psychiatrist,
unaware of the family’s situation, assessed 75 children, 37 in lesbian-led families. and
38 in heterosexual families. There was no significant difference in psychological
functioning between children raised by lesbian mothers and children brought up by
heterosexual mothers. F urther, research findings regarding children’s psychiatric
states are also consistent with this study. For example, Kirkpatrick et al. (1981), using
a child psychiatrist to assess information elicited from the child’s mother, discovered
that children with lesbian mothers are no more likely to exhibit a psychiatric problem
than are children of heterosexual mothers. Overall. emotional development occurs
normally for children with same-sex parents, and there have been no studies thus far
to date that have indicated otherwise (Golombok et al.. 1983; Gottman, 1989; Green
et al.. 1986).

Social Development. A common concern regarding the developmental
outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents relates to their relationships with
peers and potential for stigmatization. Studies of the social development of children
with gay or lesbian parents have consistently shown that these assumptions are
unfounded. For example, Golombok et a1. (2003) conducted one of the most
extensive and recent studies on children of lesbian parents. To address the need for a
more representative sample (i.e., one not consisting primarily of volunteers). the

authors used a geographic population study in Bristol. England (The Avon

l9

Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children). comprised of 14.000 individuals, to
obtain a sample of lesbian—mother families. The sample included 1 14 heterosexual
families and 39 lesbian families—both groups were a mixture of two-parent and
single—parent families. Children in all of the families were approximately 7 years of
age when the study began. Primary questions addressed included quality of parent-
child relationships. children’s socioemotional development (self—esteem. social
acceptance. cognitive competence). and gender-role behavior. Data were gathered
through standardized questionnaires from both mothers and the child’s teachers. as
well as through observations made by researchers in the family‘s home. Child
outcomes were assessed through various standardized scales, including the Pictorial
Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (the
Harter scale; Harter & Pike, 1984), the Children’s Peer Relations Scale (Crick, 1991),
and the Preschool Activities Inventory (PSAI; Golombok & Rust, 1993a, 1993b).
Results indicated that children raised by lesbian mothers were psychologically- and
socially-adjusted similar to that of children with heterosexual parents. Thus. even
with a general population sample of lesbian mothers, the results were consistent with
previous research conducted with volunteer lesbian families.

Additional studies also have demonstrated that children raised in gay or
lesbian families experience positive social relationships with their peers (Golombok
et al., 1983; Green et al.. 1986; Hotvedt & Mandel. 1982; Schwartz, 1986). Research
conducted by Tasker and Golombok (1995), using interviews with children of lesbian
parents. assessed children’s memories of being teased or bullied by their peers.

Results demonstrated that children with lesbian mothers were no more likely to be

teased or ostracized by their peers than children with heterosexual parents. The main
difference, however, was that when both groups of children were teased, the children
of lesbian families were picked on in regards to their mother’s sexual orientation.
whereas the other children would be bullied with respect to their appearance, religion.
or race. Therefore, although children of lesbian mothers were teased about their
mother’s sexual identity, their experiences of bullying were no more frequent than
that experienced by the children with heterosexual parents.

Green et al. (1986) further supported the findings that children with gay or
lesbian parents do not experience significantly more harassment and stigmatization
than do children with heterosexual parents. With a total of 37 children, the authors
examined whether there were group differences with respect to the children’s
perceptions of their popularity with peers. or their mother's ratings of the children's
social acceptance. There were no statistically significant differences. suggesting that
stigmatization by peers is not a problem captured in the research for children with gay
or lesbian parents.

Although the body of literature investigating outcomes of children with same-
sex parents has found no statistically significant differences with respect to children’s
experiences of stigmatization and bullying. school climate research on sexual
minority youth and families. as described earlier, has demonstrated otherwise. These
conflicting findings can likely be reconciled by taking into consideration contextual
and cultural factors that have influenced results. Such variables include the climate of
the school. the supportiveness of school staff with sexual diversity, and the presence

of LGBT clubs and organizations to name a few (Jeltova & Fish, 2005). These factors

influence parents’ “coming out” to the school. in turn influencing their children’s
comfort and desire to also be open about their parents’ sexual orientation. However.
these factors are hardly exhaustive in terms ofthe multitude of influences that hinder
same-sex parents’ from disclosing and feeling comfortable with their sexual
orientation. Larger systemic barriers such as societal prejudice and negative
stereotypes of same-sex parents come into play. and thus it is difficult to capture these
larger scale influences in the research. Thus, although there are discrepant findings
with respect to children’s experiences of bullying and discrimination within schools,
it is not surprising when these findings are interpreted through a societal lens that
views same-sex parenting as both acceptable and divisive. Whether the culture and
climate of the school supports or denies the rights of same-sex parents will inevitably
influence the home-school relationship between parents and school personnel. In turn.
the school experiences of same-sex parents and their children will depend largely on
the relationship established between the school and home. Yet, children’s academic
and social outcomes do not depend solely on the relationship established between the
school and their parents, as parents play a significant part in their children’s

development.

Parent Practices & Child Outcomes

Based on the foregoing review of the literature, the empirical research
surrounding children of gay and lesbian parents has focused mainly on the
developmental differences between children of heterosexual parents and children of

gay and lesbian parents. Traditionally. developmental theories have emphasized the

importance of male and female parental figures in contributing to the healthy
psychosocial development of the child (see Patterson, 1997). Thus, predictions
regarding the development of children from lesbi gay parents are often negative when
conceived through this framework. For example. social Ieaming theory (e.g.. Huston.
1983) posits that children acquire sexual identities through the modeling of their
same-sex parent. Thus. daughters model their mothers and are rewarded for their
feminine behavior, while boys model after their fathers and are likewise rewarded for
their masculine behavior. F urtherrnore, from a psychoanalytic perspective (e.g.,
Chodorow, 1978), children’s healthy development is dependent upon their resolution
of the Oedipus complex: Boys must overcome the desire for their mother through fear
of castration, whereas girls resolve the complex through a desire for the male sex
organ (Freud, 1931). In sum, any child who does not overcome the oedipal stage will
become neurotic and be unable to develop normally. In other words, when viewed in
the context of these two developmental theories (see Patterson. 1997 for a more
detailed account of these theories). children of gay and lesbian parents will not
experience the type of family environment deemed optimal for healthy
development—hence, children reared by gay and lesbian parents will develop
atypically.

Yet, there have been challenges to these positions regarding the need for a
strictly opposite-sex parental influence on the child. Although parent sexual
orientation is the key variable that incites concerns regarding the well-being of
children raised by same-sex parents. researchers have consistently demonstrated the

importance of parental style when predicting chi ldren’s psychological. social. and

academic outcomes (Baumrind, 1991; Khaleque & Rohner. 2002; Steinberg & Silk.
2002). In fact, the past two decades of research has built a considerable body of
literature establishing the importance of parent process variables (e.g., warmth.
control. discipline practices) over those of parental status variables (e.g..
socioeconomic status. race. ethnicity. parent sexual orientation; see Scott-Jones.
1995). One well-known contributor to the importance of parental style is Baumrind’s
(1991) typology, where high levels of two parental characteristics (demandingness
and responsiveness) result in children who are high in self-esteem, are well-
mannered, and are optimally competent. On the other hand, other combinations of
these two dimensions result in children who are either less achievement-oriented, less
independent, or are high in hostility and dominance (Baumrind, 1989). Thus, children
reared by so-called authoritative parents (those parents high on both demandingness
and responsiveness) are more likely to be high functioning. both academically and
socially. Children who experience Baumrind’s dual characteristics of parental warmth
and control are thought to adapt better to their environment and hence possess these
positive outcomes because they are socialized in a context that both accepts them as
individuals and yet establishes boundaries to aid in their own self-regulation.
Moreover, these parental dimensions—also termed support, monitoring, and
discipline—have been associated in subsequent studies with positive child outcomes
across diverse family backgrounds (Amato & Fowler. 2002). Thus. these parental
processes appear to exert its influence despite categories of race. ethnicity. or

socioeconomic status.

Although there have been a number of studies confirming Baumrind’s
parental typology (Chen. Liu. & Li. 2000: Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Weiss &
Schwarz, 1996). researchers have begun to use a number of additional dimensions to
study parental style. In addition to warmth. characteristics such as cohesion. conflict.
and expressiveness have also shown to be reliable indicators of further parental styles
and their relationship with child outcomes (see Mandara. 2003). More specifically to
educational outcomes. parent practices termed Valuing. Monitoring, Helping, and
Doing, have been conceptualized in a model to organize the existing research
regarding the effect of parent practices on children’s academic achievement (Scott-
Jones, 1995).

Valuing is a broad term encompassing high parental expectations for
children’s educational attainment, the importance parents place on effort as opposed
to ability, and the provision of educational materials (e.g., books, computers). Parents
who have high educational values tend to have children who have high academic
achievement and educational aspirations. The second parental practice, Monitoring.
also encompasses a number of measures. Whereas Valuing refers to parents’ beliefs
about the importance of education. Monitoring is defined more in terms of the
interactions between parents and children. It refers to the rules parents set with
respect to amount of time devoted to homework, restriction of television or computer
time, or the style parents use to develop their children’s self-management strategies
(i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, permissive. or neglectful). When parents restrict
television or computer time. research shows that children have higher test scores and

grades. Further, as indicated earlier in Baumrind’s (1991) research. parents who have

an authoritative parenting style tend to have children who perform better in school
and have higher levels of self-competence. The third parental practice, known as
Helping, is characterized by the support parents give to children in promoting their
academic skills. Helping comprises actions such as reading to children. acting as
tutors in helping with children’s homework. learning new skills or subject areas
together, or invoking the help of someone else if parents are unable to help with their
child’s academics (i.e.. tutoring). The final parental practice, termed Doing. refers to
parents’ over involvement in their children’s schooling. This parental over—control
has been associated with lower levels of student achievement, motivation, and grades.
All of these practices form a well-known conceptual model that integrates the
literature regarding parent-child interactions and children’s academic and social
outcomes (for a more detailed description of this model see Scott-Jones, 1995).

In addition to the parental process constructs outlined above, researchers have
documented the importance of parental communication for children’s successful
outcomes. Communication is often subsumed under the construct of Monitoring. as
parental communication entails parents seeking knowledge of children’s activities
and interests (Patrick et al., 2005). Parent communication in early childhood. however
(defined as parents’ solicitation of information regarding children’s activities. friends.
and school), has been associated with children’s willingness to disclose information
and maintain an open relationship with their parents in later childhood and early
adolescence (Kerns et al., 2001). Further. parental communication has consistently
predicted the prevention ofconduct problems. augression. early sexual activity.

K
Kw

substance abuse. and poor academic achievement (see Patrick et al.. 2005).

Given the limitations of using an existing dataset for this study, only two key
components could be extracted that reflected the literature on parental processes.
Helping. as explained above. represents parents’ active promotion of their child’s
academic skills. Communicating. as also reflected in the literature. represents parents’
encouragement of discussion and child expressiveness with respect to such topics as
friends, activities, school, interests. and troubles. Parental Helping and
Communicating thus serve as the framework for the questions addressed in the
present study. Both constructs have consistently predicted positive outcomes for

children (Mandara. 2003; Patrick et al.. 2005; Scott-Jones. 1995).

Limitations of Research with Children o/‘Same-Sex Parents
Research on the welfare of children in the context of same-sex parents has

been on the upsurge. largely in response to the legal battles of gay and lesbian
parents, for many lesbian mothers have lost custody of their children in the midst of
divorces from heterosexual partners (F alk, 1989; Golombok, 1999; Herek, 2006;
Patterson, 1992; 1995). Assumptions continue to plague decisions made by
politicians, judges. professionals, and the overall general public in relation to the
issue of lesbigay parents raising children. For many people, the tenet is: children
should be raised in a family comprised of a mother and a father, for without this
gender-balanced structure. children would be wrought with developmental
disadvantage. Many of the issues underlying these assumptions include the concern
that children raised by same-sex parents will be adversely affected in their gender and

socioemotional development. that children will be ostracized and rejected by their

peers. and that children will likely grow up to be homosexual as well. However. as
research concerning the mental health and developmental outcomes of children with
gay and lesbian parents expands. assumptions such as these are being demonstrated as
empirically unsound. In addition to the studies elaborated on in the previous sections.
three extensive literature reviews (Anderssen et al., 2002; Fitzgerald, 1999; Lambert.
2005) on the outcomes of children from gay and lesbian families support the view
that there are no substantial differences in the development of children with same-sex
parents when compared to children with heterosexual parents. Furthermore, three
meta-analyses (Allen and Burrell. 1996; 2002: C rowl et al.. in press) reported no
statistically significant differences with respect to children’s emotional well-being or
sexual orientation when raised with a gay. lesbian. or heterosexual parent.

Yet. despite the consensus of research findings that suggest the development
of children with gay or lesbian parents is just as typical and healthy as that of children
with heterosexual families, there are limitations inherent in this area of study. In a
critique of the studies done on the outcomes of children with homosexual parents,
Schumm (2004) provided several limitations that underlie this line of research. and
that he believes should lend caution to researchers and policy makers when
interpreting the absence of significant differences between children raised by same-
sex and heterosexual parents.

First, it is difficult to obtain a random. representative sample of gay and
lesbian parents. Because many same-sex parents are not open about their sexual
orientation, it is often necessary to rely on volunteer participants. who may differ in

important ways from gay and lesbian individuals unwilling to expose their sexual

identities, resulting in biased samples. Second, much of the research conducted in this
area is based on small sample sizes, since it is difficult to obtain subjects that are
willing to participate in studies assessing the impact of their sexual orientation on
their children’s development. Because the samples tend to be small, they also tend to
look fairly homogeneous: white. middle-class. urban, female. and well-educated.
Little research has included a diverse group of individuals. whether by race. class. or
gender. The majority of the research conducted on children with same-sex parents is
conducted primarily with lesbian mothers. because they tend to have not only custody
of the child, but are often the primary caregivers as well. Gay fathers are much less
likely to be custodial parents (Bozett, 1987). A small sample necessarily leads to low
statistical power, increasing the likelihood of failing to reject null hypotheses
(Schumm, 2004). Other critics also have argued that there are meaningful differences.
especially with respect to gender development. when children are raised by same-sex
parents, and that researchers have downplayed the importance of the differences to
appease the courts (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001). Although it has also been argued that
Stacey and Biblarz (2001) overemphasized these differences (Golombok et al.. 2003).
there are definite criticisms of the “no differences” consensus in this area of research.
Thus, although the literature suggests there are no real differences between children’s
development when raised with same-sex or heterosexual parents, critics argue there is
not enough statistical power to provide strong evidence that these findings are true
(Cameron, 1999; Cameron & Cameron. 2003; Schumm. 2000. 2004). Clearly there is
a need to address these limitations by examining the outcomes ofchildren with gay

and lesbian parents from a random. national sample. The present study will address

this limitation in the research through the use of an extant, public-use dataset in which

a random sample of children with same-sex and heterosexual parents will be drawn.

Purpose o/‘Present Study

There is little doubt that what parents do matter in terms of influencing their
child’s academic and social outcomes. Further, given the importance of home-school
partnerships for children’s success in school, it is imperative that all parents feel
included and connected to their child’s school, as children flourish when strong
connections are established. However. as the research literature has shown. many
same-sex parents and sexual minority youth experience an unwelcoming and often
hostile climate. Given the importance of a strong home-school partnership for
children’s outcomes. as well as the literature supporting the influence of various
parental practices, the present study addressed three questions:

1.) How do same-sex families compare to heterosexual families with respect
to the parental practices of Helping and Communicating? Given the
absence of significant differences between same-sex and heterosexual
parents as demonstrated in the literature. it was predicted that there would
be no differences between families’ parental practices.

2.) How does the home-school partnership compare across same-sex and
heterosexual families? Because ofthe school climate literature which
indicates that same-sex parents often feel unsafe and unwelcome in their

schools. it was hypothesized that same-sex parents would not have as

strong a relationship with their child’s school as would heterosexual
parents.

3.) Is a strong home-school partnership more important for the academic
achievement and social adjustment of children with same-sex parents.
compared to children with heterosexual parents. given the societal context
in which these children are embedded? Because same-sex parents often
face discrimination and harassment not only within but also outside of the
school. it was hypothesized that a strong home-school partnership would
likely be more beneficial to children with same-sex parents. and would

serve as a buffer for negative outcomes.

CHAPTER 3
METHOD

Participants

The sample for this study was drawn from the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study-Kindergarten Cohort (EC LS-K). a national sample of kindergarteners attending
public and private schools. as well as early childhood programs. in the fall of 1998.
Approximately 22.000 randomly-selected children enrolled in about 1,000
kindergarten programs during the 1998-1999 school year comprised the sample for
the ECLS-K dataset. Although the children are meant to be nationally representative
of kindergarteners from various racial-ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, the
design purposively oversampled Asian children. private kindergarteners, and private
school kindergarteners. i

Data were collected in eight waves. Baseline assessments of the children were
conducted in the fall of 1998 while the children were in kindergarten. Waves 2. 3. and
4, were collected in the spring of 1999, the fall of 1999. and the spring of 2000.
respectively. The final waves were conducted in the spring of third grade (2002), fifth
grade (2004), and eighth grades (2007). Data collected during the fourth wave (spring
of 2000), when most of the children were in first grade, were used for the purposes of
the present study. because home—school partnerships have been shown to be stronger
in the early elementary-school years (Marcon, 1999). In addition to child assessments
during these data collection periods. parents and guardians. teachers. and school

administrators, were also administered questionnaires and interviews regarding

 

. Statistical base and replicate weights included in the analysis allow for the data to be generalized to
the overall population

b)
[J

information about their children. their own backgrounds. and the physical.
organizational. and fiscal characteristics oftheir schools (Tourangeau. Nord. Lé.
Pollack. & Atkins-Bumett, 2006).

Although same-sex parents were not explicitly identified in the data set. the
ECLS-K user manual specified how same-sex parents could be indirectly extracted
from the data set. First. households in which more than one person identified as the
“father” or “mother” to the focal child and were living together with the child were
categorized as “same-sex” couples. Second. because not all same-sex partners
identified themselves as the “mother” or “father” to the child, households in which
the respondent is the child’s guardian. and the respondent’s spouse or partner is the
same sex as the respondent, were also identified as “same-sex” couples (Tourangeau
et al., 2006). After using both approaches to identify these couples, a total of 40
same-sex parents and their children out of the 22,000 participants were selected for
use in the present study. A randomly-selected 40 heterosexual couples and their
children were chosen as a comparison group. No exclusionary criteria was applied in
generating this comparison sample. as it was intended to be an entirely random
selection of children raised by a mother and father figure. Following data
compilation, five cases were excluded from each ofthe same-sex and heterosexual
parent groups due to missing data. Thus. a total of 70 couples and their children (35 in
the same-sex parent group and 35 in the heterosexual parent group) comprised the
sample used for the current study. The children in the total sample were 51% female,
56% Caucasian, 23% African-American. 12% Hispanic. 4% Asian. and 5% “Other.”

Demographics of the families and children in the sample are presented in Table 1.

'0)
J)

Comparisons between families were made using independent samples t-tests. As
indicated in Table 1. a significant difference between families emerged with respect
to the location of the child’s school (urban, suburban, or rural), with heterosexual
parents schooling their children in significantly more rural type settings. Although a
statistically significant difference was found with respect to the location ofthe child’s
school, it was not necessary to incorporate this variable as a statistical control given
that this difference was not meaningfully significant (location of child’s school. r2 =
.06; Cohen, 1988; Green, 1991).

Given that both gay male fathers as well as lesbian mothers were included as
part of the same-sex parent group, statistical comparisons were made within the
same-sex parent group to evaluate any demographic differences between gay male
fathers and lesbian mothers. As shown in Table 2, no statistically significant
differences were found. However, because parent gender may play a more significant
influence with respect to children’s outcomes (Stacey & Biblarz. 2001). implications
for collapsing gay male fathers and lesbian mothers into one group will be discussed

in relation to the present study’s findings.

34

Table l
Sociodemographic Information of Sample

 

 

 

 

 

Same-Sex Heterosexual Same-Sex vs.
Parents Parents Heterosexual
Variable
Child's age (years) t < 1, n.s.
M 6.8 (.32) 6.7 (.28)
Range 6.4 to 8.0 6.5 to 7.9
N % N %
Child's sex t = 1.937. n.s.
Boy 13 37 21 60
Girl 22 63 14 4O
Child's race t = 1.522. n.s.
African-American 10 29 6 16
Asian 1 3 2 6
Caucasian 15 43 24 69
Hispanic 6 17 2 6
Mixed/Other 3 8 1 3
Census Regiona t <1. n.s.
Northeast 4 12 5 15
Midwest 5 15 5 15
South 18 53 19 54
West 7 20 6 '16
Type of Child's Schoola t = -l .254. n.s.
Public 32 94 30 86
Private 2 6 5 14
Type of Private School t <1, n.s.
Catholic 2 100 1 25
Private (Other) 0 0 4 75
Location of Child’s Schoola t = -2.130*
Urban 4 31 6 21
Suburban 6 46 9 31
Rural 3 23 14 48
Family Socioeconomic Statusb t < l. n.s.
First Quintile (lowest) 4 l l 1 l 31
Second Quintile 14 40 6 17
Third Quintile 9 26 6 17
Fourth Quintile 5 l4 5 15
Fifth Quintile (highest) 3 9 7 20

 

Note. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. aIndicates missing data for one or
both groups. bSocioeconomic status is a combined measure of parents’ education.
occupation, and income. *p < .05

Table 2
Sociodemographic ln/ot'n-zation ofSame-Sex Parents

 

 

 

 

 

Gay Male Lesbian Gay Male vs.
Fathers Mothers Lesbian Parents
Variable
Child’s age (years) t = 1.179, n.s.
M 6.9 (.31) 6.8 (.34)
Range 6.0 to 7.3 6.0 to 7.1
N % N %
Child's sex
Boy 3 38 10 37 t < l. n.s.
Girl 5 62 17 63
Child's race t <1. n.s.
African-American 3 38 7 26
Asian 1 12 0 0
Caucasian 3 38 12 44
Hispanic 1 l2 5 19
Mixed/Other O O 3 1 1
Census Region"l t < 1. n.s.
Northeast 1 12.5 3 12
Midwest 2 25 3 12
South 4 50 14 54
West 1 12.5 6 22
Type of Child's School"l t < 1. n.s.
Public 7 88 25 96
Private 1 12 1 4
Type of Private School I < 1. n.s.
Catholic 1 100 1 100
Private (Other) 0 0 0 0
Location of Child’s Schoola t < l. n.s.
Urban 1 33 3 30
Suburban 2 67 4 40
Rural 0 O 3 30
Family Socioeconomic Statusb t < l. n.s.
First Quintile (lowest) 1 l2 3 l 1
Second Quintile 2 25 12 44
Third Quintile 3 61 6 22
Fourth Quintile 1 12 4 15
Fifth Quintile (highest) 1 12 2 8

 

Note. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. aIndicates missing data for one or
both groups. bSocioeconomic status is a combined measure of parents’ education,

occupation, and income. *p < .05

Measures

Parent Practices. Parents answered questions regarding their child’s
development and experiences at home through Computer Assisted Telephone
Interviewing (or Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing if the parents did not have
a phone). Interviews lasted approximately 44 minutes and included approximately
330 questions covering children’s school experiences. child care. parent
characteristics, and child health. Ofthe 330 questions. 19 items reflecting parents’
involvement in their children’s lives (reflecting the I'aluing. Monitoring, Helping.
and Doing parental practice constructs) were subjected to principal components
analysis (PCA) by the researcher. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the
presence of a number of coefficients exceeding the .3 level (most were in the .4
range). The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .72, while Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
was statistically significant, thus meeting the assumptions for factor analysis. PC A
revealed the presence of two components with eigenvalues over I. explaining 16 and
9 percent of the variance. These two components reflected two core parent practices:
Helping & Communicating.

The parent Helping dimension was comprised of five items reflecting parents’
active involvement in aiding their child’s education. Examples included such items as
how often parents read to children. help children with homework, and practice
numbers with their child (Cronbach’s (1:60). In a three item scale, Communicating
measured parents’ tendency to encourage their child’s talk about troubles. discuss
friends and activities, and listen to the child when they were busy (Cronbach’s (1:67;

see Appendix A for the specific questionnaire items reflecting these two dimensions).

Due to the small sample size of the present study, restrictions on the number
of predictor variables were necessary to maintain power in the analyses (Green.
1991). Thus. a summative total of the items comprising Helping and Communicating
were created to form one scale of overall Parental Practices. The internal consistency
for this combined scale was higher than the two factors considered separately
(Cronbach’s a=.78).

Home-School Collaboration. The researcher used a similar set of procedures
through PCA in order to extract the items that represented Home-School
Collaboration. Out of the 330 questions in the parent interview. 18 were subjected to
PCA using the entire dataset. as they were items reflecting parent’ relationship with
the school or teacher. The Kaiser—Meyer-Oklin value was .73, while Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity reached statistical significance. meeting the assumptions for factor
analysis. PCA revealed two components (with a total of eight items) for Home-School
Collaboration: parent-initiated involvement with the school, and school-initiated
involvement with parents, confirming the literature that suggests a bidirectional
nature of home-school partnerships. With eigenvalues over 1, these two components
explained 19 and 12 percent of the variance. respectively. The parent-initiated scale
for Home-School Collaboration was comprised of five items measuring such things
as parents’ involvement with PTA. volunteering activities at the school. and attending
school functions (Cronbach’s (1:60). The school-initiated scale consisted ofthree
items and measured things such as the school’s ability to provide parents information
on their child, help parents understand their child, and provide parents the chance to

volunteer at school (Cronbach’s a=.60). Similar to the combined measure for the

38

Parent Practices scale. the two factors representing Home-School Collaboration were
also combined to reflect a summative total ofthe eight items. Collapsing the items
allowed for a higher predictive power by minimizing the number of independent
variables in the analyses. The internal consistency for the combined scale remained
the same (Cronbach’s (1:60). For all eight questions reflecting Home-School
Collaboration, see Appendix A.

Child Outcomes. Parents were asked to assess their children’s social skills
during the interview. These 24 questions were adapted from the Social Skills Rating
Scale (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Topics consist ofthe child’s social
interaction, approaches to learning. self-control. loneliness. and impulsivity. Example

9’ 66

items include “is sensitive to the feelings of others, forms and maintains

friendships,” “respects the property rights of others,” “comforts or helps other

99 ‘6 99 6‘ ’9 6‘

children, shows low self esteem, worries about things, expresses own opinion
or ideas without putting down those of others,” and “controls temper.” Parents rated
whether each item was “not at all true.” “a little bit true.” “mostly true.” or “very
true” for their child. For the purposes of the present study, two of the scales
(loneliness and impulsivity) were reverse coded by the researcher to allow for the
mean on the above items to be collapsed as a measure of the child’s “social
adjustment.” The internal consistency reliability for this scale was acceptable
(Cronbach’s (1:88).

To measure children’s academic achievement, direct academic tests were

administered to the first grade children in the domains of reading, mathematics. and

knowledge of the social world (for the purposes of the current study. only the reading

'9 J
O

and mathematics scores were used to reflect children’s academic achievement).
Easels with items printed on one side and administration instructions for the assessor
on the other side were used to assess children’s academic abilities. The first-grade
assessments asked children to point or orally respond to questions.

The reading test measured the following skills. with the range in difficulty
from basic to more advanced skills: print familiarity; letter knowledge; beginning and
ending sounds; recognizing common sight words; vocabulary; and reading words in
context. Scores on the reading test ranged from 0-186. with a mean of 70.4 and
standard deviation of 21 .9 for all first graders in the national dataset. Items in the
first-grade mathematics test measured the following, ranging from basic facts and
concepts to higher levels of proficiency: identifying one-digit numerals. recognizing
geometric shapes, counting up to ten objects; reading all one-di git numerals. counting
beyond ten, recognizing a sequence of patterns. and using nonstandard units of length
to compare the size of objects: reading two-digit numerals, recognizing the next
number in a sequence. identifying the ordinal position of an object. and solving a
simple word problem; solving simple addition and subtraction problems; and solving
simple multiplication and division problems and recognizing more complex number
patterns. First-grade scores for the mathematics test ranged from 0-153, with a mean
of 57.2 and a standard deviation of 16.5.

Children’s performance on the academic tests was calculated in a variety of
means, one of which was Item Response Theory (IRT), which is based on the child’s
pattern of correct and incorrect responses. IRT scores reflect an overall criterion-

referenced measure of academic ability and are useful in identifying cross-sectional

40

subgroup differences in overall achievement level as well as in correlational analysis
with status variables. Moreover. because IRT scores use the overall pattern of right
and wrong responses and the characteristics of each item to estimate a child’s ability,
IRT scores represent estimates of the number of items students would have answered
correctly at each point in time if they had taken all of the 186 questions in all of the
first- and second-stage reading forms administered, as well as all of the 153 questions
in the mathematics forms. It is therefore a more comprehensive measure of a child’s
academic ability and will serve as the academic achievement measures for the present
study. lntemal reliability was .93 for the Reading IRT scale score and .94 for the
Mathematics IRT scale score. The child’s mean score for the Reading and
Mathematics scales were combined and calculated as the outcome measure for
academic achievement.

Analysis. Before analyses were conducted. appropriate weighting techniques
were applied to the data in order to generalize to the larger population (Tourangeau et
al., 2006). Further, as described earlier, comparisons between families were made
using independent t-tests to ensure similarity among groups. Although a statistically
significant difference was found with respect to the location of the child’s school. it
was not necessary to incorporate this variable as a control given that the difference
was not meaningfully significant due to its small effect size (C ohen. 1988; Green.
1991). Subsequent to these steps. the first two questions regarding how same-sex
parents compare with heterosexual parents in their parent practices and home-school
partnerships were answered using independent sample t-tests to compare groups by

family type (Pallant. 2001). All assumptions for group comparisons were met.

41

namely: continuous dependent variables. independence of observations. normal
distribution of the dependent variables, and homogeneity of variance (Pallant, 2001).
For the third question examining whether children with same-sex parents are
differentially affected by the strength of their family’s home-school partnemship. a
moderating relationship between home-school partnership and children’s outcomes
was assessed with family type (sexual orientation of the parent) serving as the
moderator. Before regression techniques were used. statistical strategies were
employed to test the following assumptions for regression analyses: adequate sample
size; low multicollinearity; the exclusion of outliers when necessary; and an adequate
distribution related to normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of
residuals (Pallant, 2001). F urther, both the independent and moderator variables were

centered to reduce multicollinearity (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The results of the analyses are presented in several steps. First, descriptive
statistics regarding mean differences on the independent variables of Parent Practices
and Home-School Partnership. as well as the outcome variables of child Academic
Achievement and Social Adjustment. are presented across same-sex and heterosexual
parent groups. F urther, correlations between the predictors and child outcomes are
presented. Second, the hypotheses regarding the three questions of the present study
are tested. Third, given the importance of parental gender with respect to child rearing
(Stacey & Biblarz. 2001), as well as the few documented differences between gay
male fathers and lesbian mothers (Bozett, 1989; Gottman, 1990), exploratory analyses
were conducted within the same-sex parent group to ascertain any mean differences
between these two groups on Parent Practices and Home-School Partnership. There
were not enough participants in the same-sex parent group to explore the relationship
between the predictor variables and children’s outcomes.

Table 3
Descriptive Statisticsfor Independent Variables and Child Outcome Variables

 

 

 

 

 

Same-Sex Parents Heterosexual Parents
N=35 N=35
Mean Range Mean Range
Parent Measure (SD) (SD)
Parent Practices 17.3 (4.1) 6-24 17.7 (3.3) 11-23
Home-School Partnership 7.4 (2.2 0-1 1 7.7 (2.0) 3-1 1
Child Measure
Academic Achievement 41.1 (8.5) 23.8-55.7 42.4 (9.6) 19.3-60.0
Social Adjustment 3.1 (.33) 2.3-3.9 3.1 (.39) 2.3-3.8

 

43

Table 4
Correlations between Independent Ir'ariables and Child Outcome Variables

 

 

Parent Home-School Social Academic
Practices Partnership Adjustment Achievement
Parent 1 .224 .291 * .087
Practices
Home-School 1 .234“ -.O68
Partnership
Social 1 .293 *
Adjustment
Academic 1
Achievement

 

* p < .05 (two-tailed)

“Approaching Significance (p < .054)

Question I .' How do same-sexfamilies compare to heterosexual families with respect
to the parent practices ofHe/ping and C'ommunicating?

It was hypothesized that there would be no differences between families’
parental practices based on the literature documenting similar parental processes.
irrespective of parent sexual orientation. Results supported this hypothesis. in that no
significant differences between same-sex and heterosexual parents on levels of parent
practices were found. Thus, with a total possible score of 24 on the Parent Practices
combined scale, both groups of families averaged a score of approximately 17,
indicating that they were similarly active in their children’s lives with respect to
helping with homework and discussing topics such as school. friends. and activities

(mean of 3 to 4 times per week).

44

Question 2: How does the home-school partnership compare across same-sex and
heterosexual families?

Based on the school climate literature indicating that same-sex parents often
feel unsafe and unwelcome in their schools, it was hypothesized that same-sex
parents would not have as strong a relationship with their child’s school as would
heterosexual parents. The results. however, indicated that the level of home-school
partnership across same-sex and heterosexual parents was virtually the same. Thus.
contrary to prediction. both parent groups indicated that they had a strong home-
school partnership. represented by mean scores of 7.4 (same-sex) and 7.7 (opposite-
sex) out of a total possible score of 16. Further. no mean differences were found with
respect to levels of school-initiated versus family-initiated home-school involvement
across family types, indicating that both family groups perceived their level of active

involvement with the school to be equally bidirectional.

Question 3 .' Is a strong home-school partnership more importantfor the academic
achievement and social adjustment of children with same-sex parents compared to
children with heterosexual parents?

Given the societal context in which children with same-sex parents are
embedded, and because same-sex parents often face discrimination and harassment
within the school, it was hypothesized that a strong home-school partnership would
be more beneficial to children with same-sex parents, and would serve as a buffer for
negative outcomes. Using regression analysis with home-school partnership as the

predictor and family-type (same-sex and opposite sex parents) as the moderator.

45

analyses were conducted to examine whether children with same-sex parents were
more positively influenced in their academic achievement and social adjustment
outcomes with a strong home-school partnership than children with heterosexual
parents. Results indicated that a home-school partnership was not differentially
important for children with same-sex parents for academic achievement (F(3. 64) =
.38. Adj R2 = -.03) or social adjustment (F(3. 66) = 1.65. Adj R2 = .03: see Table 5).

Although home-school partnership explained a significant amount of variance
for children’s social adjustment (p < .04). it was not a significant predictor of
children’s academic achievement (p < .93). However, because the overall regression
model was not significant in predicting academic achievement (p < .77) and social
adjustment (p < .19), the role of home-school partnership in predicting outcomes for
children in both families was found to be minimal.

Table 5
Regression Analyses Predicting Child Outcomes

 

Child Outcomes

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Social
Achievement Adjustment
Models [3 SE p B SE p
Family Type —.080 2.238 .526 .029 .086 .81 l
H-S Partnership .016 .834 .933 .370 .031 .042
Interaction -.122 1.093 .526 -.179 .041 .320

 

 

Comparisons between Gay Male Fathers & Lesbian lilo/hers
Descriptive statistics of both independent and child outcome variables were
calculated in order to examine within—group differences for same-sex parents (see

Table 6). Although there were not enough participants to run mean group

46

comparisons. the data illustrate differences with respect to levels of Parent Practices

and Home-School Partnership. On a surface level it appears that lesbian mothers have

a higher level of Helping and (’ommunicating behaviors compared to gay male

fathers. However. there was also significantly more variation in the levels of Parent

Practices for lesbian mothers than there was for gay male fathers. likely due to the

larger sample size for lesbian mothers. Similarly, although levels of home-school

partnerships were slightly higher for lesbian mothers, the range was also much wider.

indicating perhaps more variation within- than between-groups of parents. Child

outcome variables, however. were similar. These results are presented for descriptive

purposes and conclusions are limited due to the small and unequal sample size for the

two groups.

Table 6

Descriptive Statisticsfor Gay Male Fathers and Lesbian illothers

 

 

 

 

 

Gay Male Fathers Lesbian Mothers
(N = 3) (N = 27)
Mean Range Mean Range
Parent Measure (SD) (SD)
Parent Practices 13.5 (2.9) 9-18 18.5 (3.8) 6-24
Home-School Partnership 6.8 (2.3) 4-10 7.6 (2.2) 0-1 1
Child Measure
Academic Achievement 41.7 (8.5) 30.2-54.4 40.8 (8.6) 23.8-40.9
Social Adjustment 3.0 (.49) 2 3-3 9 3.1 (.29) 2.6-3.8

 

47

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

The present study examined the differences between same-sex and opposite-
sex parents’ parenting practices and home-school partnerships. In addition, the
relationship between parents’ home school partnerships and children’s outcomes were
assessed in order to examine whether children with same-sex parents were
differentially affected by a strong home-school partnership. The results are discussed
in relation to previous research. In addition. limitations and implications ofthe
present study for subsequent work in this area are described.

Based on the literature reporting low predictive power of parent sexual
orientation on children’s outcomes (Allen & Burrell. 1996; 2002; Anderssen. Amlie.
& Ytterou, 2002; Crowl. Ahn. & Baker, in press; Lambert, 2005; Stacey & Biblarz.
2001), it was expected that parent practices would not differ across groups. This
hypothesis was supported by the sample data. as levels of Helping and
Communicating did not differ across same-sex and heterosexual parents. Similar
results have been documented in the literature. which have noted the importance of
family dynamics and parental processes rather than parental sexual orientation
(Patterson, 2006; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Wainright & Patterson, 2006). Thus. the
data suggest that both types of families exhibited similar types of Helping and
Communicating behaviors with their children, and that these practices did not differ
as a function of parent sexual orientation.

The second question posed in the current study concerned the differences in

home-school partnerships across same-sex and heterosexual parents. Similar to the

48

results with Parental Practices, levels of home-school partnerships did not differ
between same-sex and heterosexual parents. This finding was contrary to what was
hypothesized, as there has been a wealth of literature documenting the negative
school experiences of same-sex parents (see .Ieltova & Fish, 2005; Kozik-Rosabal.
2000; Lamme & Lamme. 2002). However. research in this area is minimal (Jeltova &
Fish, 2005), and thus there is much to learn with respect to same-sex parents’
experiences with schools. As research with families of all backgrounds show, creating
a climate that encourages parental involvement (celebrating diversity. offering family
involvement and social activities, establishing informal contacts, having volunteer
opportunities, etc.) leads to strong home-school partnerships (Esler et al., 2002).
Thus, there are a number of school climate variables that influence the partnership
between home and school. For same-sex parents. factors such as the exclusion or
prohibition of sexual diversity topics in the curriculum. stereotypical views of gay
and lesbian individuals, heterosexist parental assumptions (assuming all parents are
heterosexual). and a lack of communication and respect for their role as parents have
all been shown to negatively influence their relationship with the school (see Jeltova
& Fish, 2005).

Given the limitations of the sample data in the present study, it was not
possible to measure such factors and their influence with the families’ home-school
partnerships. It is therefore unclear what factors lead both groups of families and their
schools to develop working home-school partnerships. It is possible that sample bias
influenced the results, as participants in this dataset were required to engage in a

number of assessments over years of study. Thus, these parents could be

49

fundamentally different than parents who did not participate in the study. Further. it
was not possible to determine whether same-sex parents had even disclosed their
sexual orientation to schools. as many parents choose not to do so in order to avoid
harassment and discrimination (Lamme & Lamme. 2002). All of these factors would
inevitably play a role in establishing effective home-school partnerships, and thus
serve as an important line of future research. Qualitative research aimed at identifying
specific experiences and perspectives from parents and teachers regarding these
questions have been suggested as a fruitful means of collecting data for complex
questions such as these. as there are a multitude of factors that influence same-sex
parents’ feelings of comfort. disclosure. and relationships with others (Hicks. 2005).
The final research question examined whether a strong home-school
partnership exerted a differential effect for children with same-sex parents given the
social climate in which sexual minority families are embedded. Contrary to the
hypothesis, the importance of a home-school partnership was not differentially
important for children with same-sex parents. However, given that both families
exhibited similar levels of home-school partnerships. it was not surprising that a
strong home-school partnership was not shown to be more beneficial for children
with same-sex parents. In other words. given that both families exhibited similar
levels of home-school partnerships, indicating that both groups of families
participated in activities and received information from the school about their child at
relatively similar rates, it was unlikely that a differential effect for children with
same-sex parents would be found. Given that little research has been conducted on

same-sex parents’ relationships with schools, there is much to be learned about home-

50

school partnerships with same-sex parents. As previously mentioned. the issue of
school climate plays a critical role in same-sex parents’ willingness to forge
relationships with the school (Jeltova & Fish. 2005). It is therefore possible that the
school climates in which same-sex parents were engaged were welcoming and
respectful of their families. However, it is also possible that same-sex parents had not
disclosed their sexual orientation and were therefore treated like “other” parents
(Lamme & Lamme. 2002). which could have affected their perceived level of home-
school partnership. In sum. although it is unclear why both families had similar levels
of home-school partnerships, it helps explain why there was not a differential effect
for children with same-sex parents, as both families perceived similar relational levels
with their schools.

Of notable importance in this study was the inclusion of both gay male fathers
and lesbian mothers, as there is a dearth of research on the outcomes of children with
gay fathers (Patterson, 2006). However, although the inclusion of gay male fathers in
the same-sex parent group is of interest due to the scarcity of research on gay male
fathers (Gottman, I990), comparisons could not be made within the same-sex parent
group due to limited sample size. In future studies. caution must be taken when
collapsing both sets of parents in the same category. as gender is thought to play a
more influential role than sexual orientation in parenting processes (Stacey & Biblarz.
2001). Although research on gay male fathers is extremely limited relative to that
done with lesbian mothers. what little data has been collected serves as frame of

reference for the present study in comparing the two groups of same-sex parents.

51

Most of the research to date on gay male fathers is comprised of either a
comparison between single gay male fathers and single heterosexual fathers. or the
parenting practices and well-being of gay male fathers without a control group
(Gottman. 1990). Currently there have been two published studies (Turner, Scadden.
& Harris. 1990; Wyers. 1984) that have compared gay male fathers with lesbian
mothers. The combined sample size for both studies was 42 gay male fathers and 45
lesbian mothers. The results of these small studies indicated few differences between
parent groups with respect to parenting styles and relationships with children.
although there were some exceptions. First, gay fathers appeared to have more
difficulty disclosing their sexuality to their children compared with lesbian mothers.
Fathers therefore waited longer to disclose their sexual orientation to their children.
Second. more “untoward” reactions of parents’ disclosure of their sexual identity
stem from children with gay fathers compared to children with lesbian mothers. In
other words, children of gay fathers had more negative reactions and feelings to their
father’s sexual orientation than did children with lesbian mothers. Lastly, gay fathers
report that their children have more peer relationship problems due to their sexuality
than are reported by lesbian mothers (see Bozett, 1989).

Although these differences were found between gay fathers and lesbian
mothers, it is difficult to ascertain the magnitude of these differences given the
limitations ofthese studies (Bozett. 1989). Yet. it is important to continue to keep
these differences in mind with respect to the current study’s findings. as gay male
fathers may have fundamentally different experiences than lesbian mothers given the

heightened stigma of being a gay male parent (Gottman. 1990). With the small

number of gay fathers in the present study. it was not possible to ascertain meaningful
differences between gay fathers and lesbian mothers on the measures of Parent
Practices and Home-School Partnerships. However. based on descriptive statistics
alone. it was clear there were differences on the measure of Parent Practices.
although it is not clear whether these findings represent true differences between
parenting styles and involvement with the children, or if these differences were due to
unequal sampling groups between gay fathers and lesbian mothers. Given the
preliminary differences between gay male fathers and lesbian mothers in both the
current study as well as the two previous studies. it would be beneficial for future
research to examine in more depth the parental processes across a number of different
types of same-sex families (i.e.. gay fathers and lesbian mothers; coupled. single. and

married partners; adopted, biological. and step-children).

Limitations

While the present study contributes important information to the literature
base on children with same-sex parents, there are a number of limitations that must be
accounted for when interpreting results. First. the present study involved the
collection of data from parents who did not explicitly state their sexual identity. That
is, data were collected from same-sex couples. but this cannot account for other
aspects of sexual identity, such as behaviors or fantasies. Indirect extraction of same-
sex parent participants poses the possibility that these parents would not identify as

gay or lesbian if explicitly asked. Similar difficulties have been reported in previous

53

research (Wainright et al.. 2004) and must be accounted for as a limitation in the
present study.

Second, given the small sample size in the present study, a limited number of
predictor variables were included in an equation that would account for the variance
in children’s outcomes. Thus. predictor variables had to be collapsed in order to retain
power for statistical analyses. This process likely limited the degree to which specific
aspects of Parent Practices and Hattie-School (Collaboration contributed to Children's
academic achievement and social adjustment. Collapsing specific components of each
scale minimized the Opportunity to understand what particular parental practices and
aspects of the home-school relationship are important in relation to children’s
outcomes.

Third, a low internal consistency reliability index for the Home—School
Collaboration scale could have contributed to the lack of difference observed
between same-sex and opposite-sex parents. It is unclear whether the “no difference”
result between families was due to low reliability of the Home-School Collaboration
scale, or was a reflection of a meaningful similarity among same—sex and
heterosexual parents’ home-school partnerships. Future research is needed to examine
this question with a psychometrically strong measure of home-school partnerships.
taking into account salient school climate factors that would influence how parents’
perceived their relationship with the school.

Fourth, inherent in this study is the use of solely parent data to inform
perceptions of their own parental practices and relationships with the school.

Including both teacher and child data would provide a more comprehensive picture of

54

parent-child relationships and practices as well as interactions and communication
between home and school contexts.

The final limitation concerns the methodology employed in the present study.
Although the analytical techniques employed for this study are relatively robust in
regards to statistical violations (Pallant. 2001), there were a number of limitations that
must be taken into account when interpreting results. The most notable limitation
stems from the small sample size obtained from the dataset. as the small number of
participants inherently creates low predictive power (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989).
This limitation has been pervasive throughout research with sexual minority parents.
given the difficulty in obtaining large samples in this area (Tasker. 2005). Although
“rule of thumb” formulas have been developed that estimate the required number of
participants dependent on the number of predictors to be used in analyses
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). other researchers argue for the inclusion of effect size in
determining the total number of needed participants (Green, 1991). Thus, with the
case of a small to medium effect size, Green (1991) concluded that N 2 50 + 8p
resulted in a more accurate estimate of sample size than earlier rules-of-thumb. For
the purposes of the present study. therefore. it was necessary to have at least 74
participants in order to incorporate all 3 predictors (Parent Practices, Home-School
Partnership, and F amily- Type (Same-Sex or Heterosexual). Further. conventional
standards for internal scale consistency suggest a C ronbach alpha cutoff of .60. Given
that the Home-School Partnership scale bordered on the .60 level (calculated from the
entire dataset), the low internal consistency of the scale items could have affected the

results of the present study. Further research is needed with a pre-established Home-

55

School Partnership scale in order to further examine the relationship between home-

school partnerships and children’s outcomes with same-sex parents.

Future Directions

The results of the present study suggest a number of important research
directions. A wealth of research exists regarding what factors contribute to strong
home-school partnerships among families of a variety of backgrounds. However,
there is little known about the features that influence a strong partnership between
home and school for same-sex parents. School climate has been shown to play a
critical role in helping same-sex parents feel comfortable and welcome in the school
(Jeltova & Fish, 2005). but more research is needed to help clarify specific aspects of
school climate, as well as how these factors are related to children’s outcomes.
Second, the low levels of variance and internal consistency of the Home-School
Partnership scale could have affected whether there were significant differences
between family types and whether or not this relationship was more important for
children with same-sex parents.

In sum, the present study assessed the differences between same-sex and
opposite-sex parents’ practices and borne-school partnerships. as well as the
relationship between parents’ home school partnerships and children’s outcomes. The
results are consistent with the existing literature that emphasizes the importance of
parent-child interaction variables in lieu of parent sexual orientation. Despite parent
sexual orientation, there were no differences with respect to levels of Helping and

Communicating behaviors across families. although these behaviors were associated

56

 

with children’s outcomes. Further, there were no differences with respect to levels of
Home-School Partnerships across family types, and children with same-sex parents
were not differentially affected by a strong home-school partnership. Subsequent
work in this area is needed to substantiate these findings, as previous research has

documented differences among the relationships same-sex parents have with schools.

57

Appendix A

Questions Elicitedfrom the ECLS-K Parent Interview Reflecting

Parent Practices and Home-School Collaboration

Parent Practices
Helping

1.) During this school year. how often did you help with your child’s reading.
language arts, or spelling homework? Would you say . . .

Never ................................................................. 1
l to 2 Times a Week ................................................ 2
3 to 4 Times a Week ................................................ 3
5 or More Times a Week .......................................... 4
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

2.) In a typical week, how often do you or any other family member tell stories to
the child? Would you say . . .

Not at all .............................................................. 1
Once or Twice a Week ............................................. 2
3 to 6 Times a Week ................................................ 3
Everyday .............................................................. 4
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

3.) In a typical week, how often do you or any other family member sing songs to
the child? Would you say . . .

Not at all .............................................................. 1
Once or Twice a Week ............................................. 2
3 to 6 Times a Week ................................................ 3
Everyday .............................................................. 4
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

4.) In a typical week. how often do you or any other family member practice
reading. writing. or working with numbers? Would you say . . .

Not at all .............................................................. 1
Once or Twice a Week ............................................. 2
3 to 6 Times a Week ................................................ 3
Everyday .............................................................. 4
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

59

5.) In a typical week. how often do you or any other family member read books to
the child? Would you say . . .

Not at all .............................................................. 1
Once or Twice a Week ............................................. 2
3 to 6 Times a Week ................................................ 3
Everyday .............................................................. 4
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

Communicating

1.) Even ifl’m really busy. I make time to listen to my child.

Never ................................................................. 1
Sometimes ............................................................ 2
Often .................................................................. 3
Very Often ............................................................ 4
Not Ascertained ..................................................... -9

2.) I encourage my child to talk about his/her troubles.

Never ................................................................. 1
Sometimes ............................................................ 2
Often .................................................................. 3
Very Often ............................................................ 4
Not Ascertained ..................................................... -9

3.) I encourage my child to talk about his/her friends and activities.

Never ................................................................. 1
Sometimes ............................................................ 2
Often .................................................................. 3
Very Often ............................................................ 4
Not Ascertained ..................................................... -9

6O

Home-School Collaboration
Parent-Initiated

1.) Since the beginning ofthis school year, have you or other adults in your
household attended an open house or back to school night?

Yes .................................................................... 1
N0 ..................................................................... 2
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

2.) Since the beginning of this school year. have you or other adults in your
household volunteered at the school or served on a committee?

Yes .................................................................... 1
No ..................................................................... 2
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

3.) Since the beginning of this school year. have you or the other adults in your
household attended a school or class event. such as a play. sports event, or
science fair?

Yes .................................................................... 1
No ..................................................................... 2
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

4.) Since the beginning of this school year, have you or other adults in your
household attended a meeting of a PTA, PTO, or Parent-Teacher

Organization?

Yes .................................................................... 1
No ..................................................................... 2
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

5.) Since the beginning of this school year. have you or other adults in your
household participated in fundraising for the child’s school?

Yes .................................................................... 1
No ..................................................................... 2
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

61

School-Initiated

1.) The school helps to understand what children are like at my child’s age.

Does this very well .................................................. 1
Just okay .............................................................. 2
Doesn’t do this at all ................................................ 3
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

2.) The school makes you aware of chances to volunteer at school.

Does this very well .................................................. 1
Just okay .............................................................. 2
Doesn’t do this at all ................................................ 3
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

3.) The school provides workshops. materials. or advice about how to help the
child learn at home.

Does this very well .................................................. 1
Just okay .............................................................. 2
Doesn’t do this at all ................................................ 3
Not Ascertained .................................................... -9

REFERENCES

Allen. M., & Burrell. N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and
heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal
of Homosexuality, 32, 19—35.

Allen, M., & Burrell. N. (2002). Sexual orientation ofthe parent: The impact on the
child. In M. Allen & R.W. Preiss (Eds). Interpersonal Communication
Research: Advances Through Meta-Analysis (pp. 125—143). Mahwah. N..I.:
USum Associates Publishers.

Amato, P. R.. & Fowler. F. (2002). Parenting practices. child adjustment. and family
diversity. Journal ofMarriage and Family. 64, 703-716.

Anderssen. N., Amlie. C., & Ytteroy. E. A. (2002). Outcomes for children with
lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian
Journal Of Psychology, 43(4), 335—351.

Bailey. J. M., Bobrow, D.. Wolfe. M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexual orientation of
adult sons of gay fathers. Developmental Psychologv. 31(1). 124—129.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny. D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51(6). 1 175-1 182.

Baumrind. D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.). Child

development today and tomorrow. (pp. 349-378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
The Jossey-Bass social and behavioral science series.

Baumrind. D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In
P.A. Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds), Family Transitions (pp. 111-163).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beveridge, S. (2005). Childrenfamilies. and schools: Developing partnershipsfor
inclusive education. London: Routledge Falmer.

Bozett, F. W. (1987). Gay and lesbian parents. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Brofenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecologv of'human development. Cambridge. MA:
Harvard University Press.

Cameron, P. (1999). Homosexual parents: testing “common sense’—a literature review
emphasizing the Golombok and Tasker longitudinal study of lesbians’

children. Psychological Reports, 85. 282—322.

Cameron. P.. & Cameron. K. (2003). Psychology ofthe scientist: LXXXV. Research

63

on homosexuality: a response to Schumm (and Herek). Psychological
Reports, 92. 259—274.

Cameron. P.. & Cameron. K. (1996). Homosexual parents. Adolescence, 3], 757—776.

Casper, V., & Schultz, S. (1999). Gay parents/straight schools: Building
communication and trust. New York: Teachers College Press.

Casper. V., Schultz. S., & Wickens, E. (1992). Breaking the silences: Lesbian and gay
parents and the schools. Teachers College Record, 94(1), 109—137.

Chen. X., Liu, M., & Li. D. (2000). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence and
their relations to adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Family Psychology, I 4, 401-419.

C hodorow, N. (1978). The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the
Sociology of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Christenson. S. L. (1995). Supporting home-school collaboration. In A. Thomas & J.
Grimes (Eds), Best Practices in School Psychology 111 (pp. 253-267).
Bethesda. MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Christenson. S. L. (2003). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote
the learning competence of all students. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4),
454-482.

Christenson. S. L., & Sheridan. S. M. (2001). Schools andfamilies: Creating
essential connectionsfor learning. New York: Guilford Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysisfor the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: Americanfamilies and the nostalgia trap.
New York: Basic Books.

Cooper, H., & Lindsay. J. J. (2000). Homework in the home: How student. family.
and parenting-style differences relate to the homework process. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 464-487.

Crick, N. (1991, April). Subgroups of neglected and rejected children. Paper
presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Seattle, WA.

Crowl, A. L., Ahn. S., & Baker. J. A. (in press). A Meta-Analysis of Developmental

Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents. Journal of
GLBT Family Studies, x. xx-xx.

64

D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington. N. W.. & Hershberger. S. L. (2002). Incidence and
mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay. and
bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(2), 148-167.

Davies, D. (1993). Benefits and barriers to parent involvement: From Portugal to
Boston. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Family and Schools in a Pluralistic Society
(pp. 205-216). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Epstein. R. (1999). Our kids in the hall: Lesbian families negotiate the public school
system. Journal of the Associationfor Research on Mothering. I (2). 68-82.

Esler, A. N., Godber. Y.. & Christenson, S. L. (2002). Best Practices in Supporting
Home-School Collaboration. In A. Thomas & T. Grimes (Eds), Best
Practices in School Psychology IV. Bethesda, MD: NASP.

Falk, P. J. (1989). Lesbian mothers, psychosocial assumptions in family law.
American Psychologist, 44, 941—947.

F an. X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.

Fitzgerald, B. (1999). Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: A Review of the
Literature. Marriage and Family Review, 29, 57—75.

F reiberg, H. J. (1998). Measuring school climate: Let me count the ways. Educational
Leadership, 56(1), 22-26.

Freud, S. (1931). The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud: Volume 2 I .
London: The Hagarth Press.

Gibbs. E. (1988). Psychosocial development of children raised by lesbian mothers.
Women & Therapy, 8(1/2), 65—75.

GLSEN National School Climate Survey (2005). http://wwwsglsengg.

Golombok, 8., Perry, B, Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-Somers, J., Stevens, M., &
Golding, J. (2003). Children with lesbian parents: A community study.
Developmental Psychology. 39. 20—33.

Golombok, 8., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983). Children in lesbian and single-
parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 24(4). 55 1—5 72.

Golombok, S. & Rust. J. (1993a). The measurement of gender role behavior in pre-
school children: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
3, 805—811.

65

Golombok, S. & Rust, J. (1993b). The Pre-School Activities Inventory: A
standardized assessment of gender role in children. Psychological Assessment,
5, 131—136.

Golombok, S. & Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual orientation of
their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families.
Developmental Psychology. 32(1). 3—1 1.

Golombok, S. & Tasker. F. (1994). Children in lesbian and gay families: Theories and
evidence. In J. Bancroft (Ed.). Annual Review of Sex Research, Volume 5.
Mount Vernon, Iowa: The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.
Gottman, J. (1989). Children of gay and lesbian parents. Marriage and Family
Review, 14(3/4), 177—196.

Gottman, J. (1989). Children of gay and lesbian parents. Marriage and Family
Review, 14(3/4), 177—196.

Green, R. (1978). Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual
parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135(6). 692—697.

Green, R.. Mandel, J., Hotvedt, M., Gray. J ., & Smith. L. (1986). Lesbian mothers
and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and
their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 167—184.

Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499-510.

Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2004). Connection and regulation at home and in
school: Predicting growth in achievement for adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 19(4), 405-427.

Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating Scale: Elementary Scale
A (“How Often? ”). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance, Inc.

Hara. S. R. (1998). Parent involvement: The key to improved student achievement.
School Community Journal, 8(2). 9-19.

Harter. S. & Pike, R. (1984). The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social
Acceptance for Young Children. Child Development, 55. 1969—1982.

Haynes, N. M., & Comer, J. P. (1993). The Yale School Development Program
process, outcomes. and policy implications. Urban Education. 28(2), 166-199.

Hays. D., & Samuels, A. (1989). Heterosexual women’s perceptions of their

marriages to bisexual or homosexual men. In F. Bozett (Ed.), Homosexuality
in thefamily (pp. 81-100). New York: Harrington Park Press.

66

Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United
States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist. 61(6). 607-621.

Hicks. S. (2005). Is gay parenting bad for kids? Responding to the 'Very idea of
difference’ in research on lesbian and gay parents. Sexualities, 8(2), 153-168.

Hoeffer, B. (1981). Children’s acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian—mother
families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 536—544.

Hoover-Dempsey. K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved
in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3-42.

Hotvedt, M., & Mandel, J. (1982). Children of lesbian mothers. In Paul, W..
Weinrich, J ., Gonsiorek. J., & Hotvedt. M. (Eds), Homosexuality: Social.
Psychological, and Biological Issues (pp. 275—285). Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

Huggins. S. (1989). A comparative study of self-esteem of adolescent children of
divorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers. Marriage and
Family Review, 18(1/2), 123—135.

Huston. A. (1983). Sex typing. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), P.H. Mussen series,
Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization. Personality. and Social
Development (pp. 387—487).

Jeltova. I.. & Fish, M. C. (2005). Creating school environments responsive to gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender families: Traditional and systemic
approaches for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 16(1&2). 17-33.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to
urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education.
40(3). 237-269.

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban
secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban
Education, 42(1), 82-1 10.

Johnson, W. L., & Johnson, A. M. (1997). Assessing the validity of scores on the
Charles F. Kettering Scale for the junior high school. Educational &
Psychological Measurement, 5 7(5), 858-869.

Johnson, W. L.. & Johnson. A. M. (1993). Validity ofthe quality of school life scale:

A primary and second-order factor analysis. Educational & Psychological
Measurement, 53(1). 145-153.

67

Johnson, W. L., Johnson, A. M., & Zimmerman, K., (1996). Assessing school climate
priorities: A Texas study. The Clearing House, 70(2), 64-66.

Khaleque, A., & Rohner. R. P. (2002). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and
psychological adjustment; A meta-analysis of cross-cultural and intracultural
studies. Journal of Marriage and F amily, 64, 54-64.

Kirkpatrick, M., Smith, C. & Roy. R. (1981). Lesbian mothers and their children: A
comparative survey. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51(3), 545—55 1.

Kozik-Rosabal, G. (2000). “Well, we haven’t noticed anything bad going on,” said
the principal. Parents speak about their gay families and schools. Education
and Urban Society. 32(3). 368—389.

Kuperminc. G. P., Leadbeater. B. J .. & Blatt, S. J. (2001). School social climate and
individual differences in vulnerability to psychopathology among middle
school students. Journal of School Psychology, 39(2), 141-159.

Kupenninc, G. P., Leadbeater. B. J., Emmons, C., & Blatt, S. J. (1997). Perceived
school climate and difficulties in the social adjustment of middle school
students. Applied Developmental Science, 1(2), 76-88.

Laird, J. (2003). Gay and Lesbian Families. In Walsh, F. (Ed.), Normal Family
Processes: Growing diversity and complexity (pp. 176—209). New York:
Columbia University Press.

Lambert. S. (2005). Gay and lesbian families: What we know and where to go from
here. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families.
13(1), 43—51.

Lamme, L. L., & Lamme, L. A. (2002). Welcoming children from gay and lesbian
families into our schools. Educational Leadership. 5 9, 65-72.

Maccoby, E. E.. & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent- child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Heterington
(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality.
and social development (4’h ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Mandara. J. (2003). The typological approach in child and family psychology: A
review of theory. methods. and research. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 6(2), 129-146.

Manning. M. L.. & Saddlemire. R. (1996). Developing a sense of community in
secondary schools. National Association of Secondary School Principals.
NASSP Bulletin, 80(584). 41 -48.

68

Marciano, T. D. (1985). Homosexual marriage and parenthood should not be allowed.
In H. Feldman & M. Feldman (Eds), Current controversies in marriage and
family. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and
public inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance.
School Psychology Review, 28(3). 395-412.

Martin, A. (1993). The guide to lesbian and gay parenting. London. UK: Pandora.

McBrien, J. L., & Brandt, R. S. (1997). The Language of Learning: A Guide to
Education Terms. Alexandria. VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

McCarthey, S. J. (2000). Home-school connections: A review of the literature.
Journal of Educational Research. 9(3), 145-153.

McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure. and school
climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.
8(3), 130- 140.

Miller, B. (1979). Gay fathers and their children. Family Coordinator, 28. 544—552.

Morningstar. B. (1999). Lesbian parents: Understanding developmental pathways. In
J. Laird (Ed.), Lesbians and lesbianfamilies. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival Manual. Buckingham, England: Open University
Press.

Parker, F. L., Boak, A. Y., Griffin, K. W., Ripple, C., & Peay, L. (1999). Parent-child
relationship, home Ieaming environment, and school readiness. School
Psychology Review. 28(3), 413-425.

Patrick. R. M., Snyder, J ., Schrepferrnan, L. M., & Snyder, J. (2005). The joint
contribution of early parental warmth. communication and tracking, and early

child conduct problems on monitoring in late childhood. Child Development.
76(5), 999-1014.

Patrikakou. E. N., Weissberg. R. P., & Rubenstein. M. I. (1999). School-family
partnerships. In J. Reynolds. H. J. Walberg. & R. P. Weissberg (Eds), Issues
in children ’s andfamilies ' lives: Promoting positive outcomes (pp. 95-127).
Washington. DC: Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63,
1025—1042.

69

Patterson, C. J. (1995). Lesbian mothers. gay fathers and their children. In A. R.
D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds). Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities over
the lifespan: Psychological perspectives (pp. 262—290). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.

Patterson. C. (1997). Children oflesbian and gay parents. In T. Ollendick & R. Prinz
(Eds), Advances in clinical child psychology. 19. New York: Plenum Press.

Patterson. C. J. (2006). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current Directions in
Psychological Science. I 5(5). 241 -244.

Ricketts, W., & Achtenberg. R. (1989). Adoption and foster parenting for lesbians
and gay men: Creating new traditions. Marriage and Family Review. 14(3/4).
83—1 18.

Russell. S. T., Franz. B. T.. & Driscoll. A. K. (2001). Same-sex romantic attraction
and experiences of violence in adolescence. American Journal of Public
Health. 91(6). 903-906.

Ryan. D., & Martin, A. (2000). Lesbian. gay, bisexual. and transgender parents
in the school systems. The School Psychology Review, 29(2). 207—216.

Schumm, W. R. (2004). What was really learned from Tasker and Golombok's (1995)
study of lesbian and single parent mothers? Psychological Reports, 94(2),
422-424.

Schumm, W. R. (2000). Psychology of the scientist: LXXXIII. An assessment of
Herek’s critique of the Cameron group’s survey studies. Psychological
Reports, 87, 1123—1132.

Scott-Jones, D. (1995). Parent-child interactions and school achievement. In B. A.
Ryan, G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta. R. P. Weissberg. & R. L. Hampton (Eds).
The Family-School Connection: Theory. Research. and Practice (Vol. 2).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schwartz, J. (1986). An exploration of personality traits in daughters of lesbian
mothers. (unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional
Psycholog)’, San Diego). Dissertation Abstracts International-B, 47/02, 805.

Sheridan, S. M., Cowan, R. J., & Eagle. J. W. (2000). Partnering with parents in
educational programming for students with special needs. In C. F. Telzrow &
M. Tankersley (Eds), IDEA amendments of I 997: Practice guidelines for
school-based teams (pp. 307-349). Bethesda, MD: National Association of
School Psychologists.

Snow. C. E.. Barnes. W. 5.. Chandler. J.. Goodman. I. F.. & Hemphill. L. (1991).

70

Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T. (2001). (How) Does the sexual orientation of parents matter?
American Sociological Review, 66, 159—183.

Steinberg, L., & Silk. J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M.H. Bomstein (Ed).
Handbook of parenting: Vol. I .C hildren and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 103-
133). Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum.

Swap, S. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships: From concepts to practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Tabachnick, B. G.. & Fidell, L. S. ( 1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.) New
York: Harper Collins.

Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: A review. Journal
of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 26(3), 224-240.

Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1995). Adults raised as children in lesbian families.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(2), 203—215.

Taylor, D. L., & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision participation and school climate as
predictors of job satisfaction and teacher’s sense of efficacy. Journal of
Experimental Education. 63(3), 217—227.

Tourangeau, K., Nord. C.. Le, T.. Pollack. J. M., & Atkins-Bumett, S. (2006). Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study. Kindergarten Class of I 998—99 (ECLS-K).
Combined User '5 Manna/for the ECLS-K F ifth-Grade Data Files and
Electronic Codebooks (NC ES 2006—032). US. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Turner, P. H., Scadden, L.. & Harris, M. B. (1990). Parenting in gay and lesbian
families. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1(3), 55—66.

Vanfraussen, K., Ponjaert-Krisoffersen, 1., & Brewaeys, A. (2002). What does it
mean for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family created by means of donor
insemination? Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 20(4), 23 7-
252.

Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). The relationship between parenting and older
adolescents’ personality. academic achievement. adj ustment. and substance
use. Child Development, 67, 2101-21 14.

Wentzel, K. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and
student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301.

71

Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians. gays, kinship. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Wyers. N. L. (1984). Lesbian and gay spouses and parents: Homosexuality in the
family. Portland. OR: School of Social Work, Portland State University.

     

 
 

E

M1111111111111)lljlllllljlljljllljllllE’