1 1 » A £3. a...
4.3.1.3113; rt €5.31 1:?
. : ; .y

3...: .Wn “3...:
use Jamar“. ..

94
Z. x,
, uh“: , “3.11.5.2:

. , a.
t .x... .
2. “2.1.

.mi. v.1...” .
Sun-J} .1"... v’

31!
1.3.1.:
. 4

 

 

 

 

A...
I.» it. 1

 

3..
,..3...n..a.1s.
{(vffiv'l 5...

V19. r...“ :2"

 

 

THESlS

A. r
2 (1...!)

INHNUIHHHINIUWIIIHNHNIIUIUINUIUIHHIIHM

23 02048 3891

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

"0H THE NETWORK WEBS THEY WEAVE,
WHEN PARENTS WANT THEIR CHILDREN
T0 SUCCEED"

presented by

Steven Benjamin Sheldon

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhD . degree in lhilasnphL

Kenneth A. Frank I

Major professor

 

 

Date August 21, 2000

 

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 C‘JCIRCJDath.;£5-p.14

 

“OH Tl
WHEN

 

 

h.
» 4".
rm.“ .3

“OH THE NETWORK WEBS THEY WEAVE,
WHEN PARENTS WANT THEIR CHILDREN
TO SUCCEED”

By

Steven Benjamin Sheldon

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling Psychology, Educational Psychology,

and Special Education

2000

“FH THE SET“

Lesserzzzon expzores
. , 4
:izetrenz at home :m.

H4. 12?”: uenees on r

L ff L.”

.. . emu “'th sCflO-L

kiss-ire: it: their (M n c

A Lheor heal frame

-‘

«i then: through the he

see. ma) cohesion. I

cl

 

ABSTRACT
“OH THE NETWORK WEBS THEY WEAVE, WHEN PARENTS WANT THEIR
CHILDREN TO SUCCEED”

By

Steven Benjamin Sheldon

Focusing on the social network processes of social capital and social cohesion,
this dissertation explores how a parent’s social ties and beliefs influence parent
involvement at home and at school. In addition, to network factors, this study examined
individual influences on parent involvement including a parent’s sense of efficacy to help
his or her child with school and the degree to which he or she believes all parents should
be involved in their own child’s education.

A theoretical framework was created arguing social networks affect parent
involvement through the network processes of social cohesion and social capital. In the
first case, social cohesion, parents are embedded in a subgroup of other parents where
they share and compare their beliefs about parent involvement. Social capital involves a
parent’s investment of resources into another parent or the school, and was expected to
affect parent involvement at home and at school. The investment of resources into one
another enable parents to become more involved at home and at school. The investment
of resources toward the school, on the other hand, affect parent involvement at school

through the development of a sense of obligation.

Inorierlo stud} we.

|

W' :rioixemenl. sun e} ;
.LLJ . l

in data new ork 1.:

 

 

:15 sibgmeps. Parents
L‘;".".le>‘.iCS. uere exanzzn
Fix"). inzen 1cm were er ‘n
'35... .13563301". function [OVA

Dee arrives that e
533E" or parent 1m 01 x e
7:333 of” parent inxolt gr
Lineman has obtaine

‘\.
.

3""?! 1 n4 ‘
.,.-.d.. lll auirilon I0 E

"\

.- -eirces Much fault.

I».

.m 0’ Parent 1m

 

 

In order to study social network processes and parental beliefs as predictors of
parent involvement, survey and interview data were collected at two elementary schools.
Using this data, network maps of parent-parent relationships were created and used to
identify subgroups. Parents’ beliefs and network characteristics, as well as subgroup
characteristics, were examined as predictors of parent involvement at home and at school.
Finally, interviews were conducted to obtain qualitative data about how social capital and
social cohesion function toward the creation of parent involvement.

Data analyses showed evidence that social cohesion and social capital were
influences on parent involvement. The data also indicate that parental beliefs were
predictors of parent involvement. Further support for the theoretical framework guiding
this dissertation was obtained from interviews with parents. The results of this study
suggest that, in addition to parental beliefs, a parent’s social network provide her or him
with resources which facilitate parent involvement. In the end, this dissertation argues
for researchers of parent involvement to look beyond the individual parent andto begin to

consider social ties and social networks as important influences on parents’ behaviors.

“rm-”‘— 3":-

‘rnretmg this div

“3;: ...:. a
fist: colleagues and 3'3 7'
:r-Eairrxgh: nexer haw ~
*“ee qualities. 1 .o'
.‘trrrang the peopl': ‘~‘
{girlish to thank m) u
ii'._i7l'?i write 'his dl>>CTT.
tare: and look to her f or
Titit‘lfng. this dissent:
Tit". 333a: this entire d1“;
2:5 to come. I look for

[Wife «l, .
All“ 50 11kt t0 .

WEE"; Be,
' e”) and s

c
to

L‘ If: "" m
" tag-Lia
‘

.Slionabh Oil"-

‘-
\_ .
.

 

.i‘ifij h
“-35 " _
. dhe 3’10““ h ;

I ‘ "Q Rl‘fi
“rill".

.Ed me tin

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEGEMEN TS

Having studied the impact of social networks and personal ties, I cannot deny the
fact that competing this dissertation was enabled through my connections with many
friends, colleagues and mentors. Without love, support, and compassion from these
people, I might never have completed graduate school. Perhaps more than any of the
previous three qualities, I am most grateful that my family and friends have patience.

Among the people who have supported me and my work while conducting this
study, I wish to thank my wife Dr. Brenda Neuman-Sheldon. Despite the fact that she
would not write this dissertation for me, even after I asked her to marry me, I continue to
love her and look to her for inspiration. Without her love and support, and a lot of
proofreading, this dissertation would not have been possible. Her contributions to this
project span this entire dissertation, and she will inevitably continue to inspire me for
decades to come. I look forward to our future together.

I would also like to thank my family for their help and support with this project.
My parents, Beverly and Samuel, have shown me only unconditional love and support
and are unquestionably one of the greatest inspirations to my work (their financial
support they have shown has been helpful too). My brother, David, also deserves thanks.
He too has supported me throughout graduate school, despite his skepticism of academia.
It is perhaps David’s skepticism that has helped direct me to think about how my own
work can have meaning in the “real world.” There is no way for me to truly acknowledge
just how important the love and support my family has shown has been.

Among the faculty at Michigan State University, there are numerous individuals

who have affected my interests in and ability to conduct research. Among those who

iv

an intact. l u our
“7'“ trmtttts w ith tht~

air":

" ' i I'll.
'Cililllinllal tndn 1.. ..

 

at: tennis. ll 15 his l-
ttefit Dr. Carole Ames. '
:33: me and the due."
13:. l will like to thank
-t.» and it he JE\0 c
2:: 3.. Patnca Edtt aids,

13:35:. eatest mttuenc

.‘T'Tflllit‘t‘ members ital

 

:fT-Ititresearch in getter l

Minion to facult
”WV

iterate impacted n

we friendship ti

.p’i
.

.1; r"

have had an impact, I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their insight and
helpful comments with this endeavor. In particular, Dr. Ken Frank has been among the
most influential individuals, teaching me about research methods and the importance of
social networks. It is his fault I have become interested in Sociology. I would also like
to thank Dr. Carole Ames, who offered me the opportunity to come to MSU and who has
supported me and the directions my research interest has taken while in graduate school.
Also, I would like to thank Aaron Pallas, whom I greatly respect as a scholar and
individuals, and who also encouraged my interest in Sociology. Finally, I would like to
thank Dr. Patrica Edwards, one of the first professors I met upon arriving at MSU, and
among the greatest influences on my thinking with regard to parent involvement. Each of
my committee members has contributed greatly to my dissertation and to the way I
approach research in general. They are all deserving of my appreciation.

In addition to faculty, there are fellow students and friends that I have made at
MSU who have impacted my life greatly. First, I would like to thank Dr. Susan Wallace-
Cowell, whose friendship throughout graduate school has been vital to my mental health
and well-being. We were destined to be good friends the first night I showed up with a
bowl of raw cookie dough. I am also thankful to Susan for her support of my research
and writing, in the dissertation writing group. I would also like to thank Heather
Mikkelson-Pleasants, who helped me with my dissertation through the writing group and
whose shared interest in parents and parent involvement Opened up new issues for me to
consider.

In addition to those friends who helped me write this dissertation, there are others

who deserve acknowledgment for the role they played in my graduate school

Assets. first. Di. Pd.
h for and intetev. '

reset:contentions. l

n little min: outs:

 

3.: felt in the bftlmm‘é
:tt interest in edut‘ 'tl't‘u‘
titre haul says. l mu
flex-rand for making \
33.3. She is the meex‘.
helium to m). m”.

if £3"an

Ir. pamculxl

 

a. and Linda and \‘
-ii; a. ' "' .

cad. ml}. the\ it
mm 111% to make the'1

at ‘

yO'I ‘
.\~,. K?"
x A .,
I

it.» ,
"“450 like to l

. as. kindness that tl

'uv.

" i be

r.€ thal [hCV a";
. k.

experiences. First, Dr. Paul Conway has been a good friend and colleague. His
enthusiasm for and interest in research has been inspiring to me, and has enabled many
interesting conversations. I would also like to thank Cheryl Rau, for her friendship and
support while waiting outside of the Dean’s office. In addition, Dr. Phil Kelly provided
much help in the beginning of my dissertation and has opened my mind to many new
areas of interest in education. It is because of him that I know who Amy Guttman is, and
what her book says. I would also like to thank Dr. Cindy Brock for our wonderful
friendship and for making sure I got into the swimming pool when I didn’t want to get off
the couch. She is the nicest person I have ever met.

In addition to my immediate family, I would like to thank my extended family for
their support. In particular Irwin Grossman, Sheila Homer, Howard and Terressa
Grossman, and Linda and Mitch Fenton have been as supportive as they are ...family.
Like all good family, they make sure my head never swells too much. It may be that my
stubborn drive to make them call me “doctor” got me through the process of writing this
dissertation. A few more years in school and I might have been able to collect social
security.

I would also like to thank my new in-laws, Terry and Jerry Neuman, for the
support and kindness that they have shown me. Their interest in school and the research
we do has been wonderful. They have raised five fantastic children, a testimony to the
kind of people that they are. I could not have gotten any more lucky than to have them as
in-laws.

Next, I would like to thank the secretaries and assistants at Erickson Hall for

helping me negotiate my way through this graduate program. In particular, Karen

vi

3.3.7.55; lattice Bent "t
It :t'trtless occasions 1
its: ini:‘~'i.li;.ils are arr
sit-Est: m} _ egree.
hail}. I would ‘
;:t'::‘3eerl)wtxi com
;.;:::s:'~e‘.’i- communit}

:iet'zilon. Without m

trite tho I hate knou
Jim-35. houet er 3p;

'I.‘
‘ G

25:31.? me I0 COD

K‘—

I;

TU

 

 

 

Glickman, Janice Benjamin, and Lisa Roy have been wonderful friends and resources.
On countless occasions they have smoothed over roads and provided resources to me.
These individuals are among the most important people at MSU, who helped me
complete my degree.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the role of the friends with whom I grew up
in the Beverlywood community, of Los Angeles. Having grown up in this tight-knit
(cohesive?) community surly added to my interest in the issued studied within my
dissertation. Without my experiences in this community, the ideas I set out to study
would not have appeared worthwhile in the first place. I know that my friendships with
people who I have known since kindergarten are special. I hope to never loss those
connection, however sparse they may seem at times. These friendships are the anecdotes

which inspire me to continue my work.

vii

ror TABLES ........... '
..ror names .........
GL't’lERORE; I\TR(
atria no: LIFER
same mm l.‘
tam mom-Er
tam mower
muttttuiCRo

7f: PORTRAIT OF A

 

 

 

Stit‘ltl. NETWORKS .
THE [\HL'ENCE OF S
SOCN. C OHES l O.\'
SOCHL CAPITAL...
.1. SEER“. THEORE

1.4%:

.....
o

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ XI
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... XH
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. l l
DEFINING PARENT INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................... 14
PARENT INVOLVEMENT AT SCHOOL .............................................................. 18
PARENT INVOLVEMENT AT HOME .................................................................. l9
INDIVIDUAIJMICRO INFLUENCES ON PARENT INVOLVEMENT .................. 2]
THE PORTRAIT OF A PARENT ................................................................................ 29
SOCIAL NETWORKS AS A SOCIAL CONTEXT .................................................... 31
THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS AS SOCIAL CONTEXT .................. 33
SOCIAL COHESION ............................................................................................... 34
SOCIAL CAPITAL ................................................................................................... 35

A GENERAL THEORETICAL MODEL ..................................................................... 46
CHAPTER THREE: DATA AND METHODS .............................................................. 55
DESIGN ........................................................................................................................ 55
PHASE ONE: SURVEY DATA ................................................................................... 57
DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 64
PHASE TWO: INTERVIEW DATA ............................................................................ 66
CHAPTER FOUR: SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND SURVEY RESULTS .................. 72
MEASURING ROLE, EFFICACY, AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT ..................... 72
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ...................................................................................... 74

viii

tgngRlC AXAL‘

ptRBTlVVON

 

PARENT NOLVI
SllhlARl l\' REl.
S‘CiClOCEhTRlC .35
SllflliRl' OF RESI i
.tTR FMS: HOW l
EllilltlllRll NOT DEF

SI'AI COHESION .._

 

STAI CAPITAL; TH
BOOKMARK NOT 0]
EllllllRl'

ESTER SIX: REVIS T
3331th IN REL-Y.
3330.“) THE THEOI
I‘ELlCAllONS FOR
lg‘llCATlONS FOR

TELlCATlONS FOR

.I
........
~-

EGOCENTRIC ANALYSES ........................................................................................ 78

PARENT INVOLVEMENT AT HOME. ................................................................. 80
PARENT INVOLVEMENT AT SCHOOL. ............................................................. 84
SUMMARY IN RELATION TO THEORY. ........................................................... 90
SOCIOCENTRIC ANALYSES .................................................................................... 91
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ........................................................................................ 102

CHAPTER FIVE: HOW SOCIAL TIES AFFECT PARENT INVOLVEMENTERROR!

BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
SOCIAL COHESION ................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
SOCIAL CAPITAL: THE INVESTMENT OF RESOURCES ........................ ERROR!
BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
SUMMARY ............................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
CHAPTER SD(: REVISITING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................... 106
SUMMARY IN RELATION TO THE THEORY ...................................................... 154
BEYOND THE THEORY .......................................................................................... 159
IMPLICATIONS FOR PARENT INVOLVEMENT ................................................. 159
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL CAPITAL .............................................................. 162
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS ............................................. 168
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .............................................................................. 171
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... l 74
APPENDIX A: PARENT SURVEY .............................................................................. 178
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .................................................................. 190

ram C: com;

LTREWES

WW:

APPENDD( C: CONTRASTING MODELS TO EXPLORE MULTICOLLINEARITY

......................................................................................................................................... l 94
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 203
ENDNOTES .................................................................................................................... 21 l

Eel: Epstein'slipv.

.
.I.
9'.’
.&

 

I: Descriptive Stiz.
in? ZnnOttlet C on .
Elsi, liens and stand.
”312311153113. 51337;.
‘t 5 Means and stare.

it‘ll-tn pr dime»
16.35. th~§ it I5\ll-..

 

lllndels Predicttn
”Conditional Med
1 20: Conditional Mt“!
ll: Conditional .\1~‘
12; Conditional .\lt.
13: Conditional .\lt
31' Conditional .\1

5» "
-..- \
\eg 4 1

\ {deis Predict

333:6 \l-: ._
. . 1“. 1) Predik

LIST OF TABLES

Table l: Epstein’s Typology of Parent Involvement ....................................................... 15
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients of multiple item scales ........ 73
Table 3: Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients among Scales ............................................ 74
Table 4: Means and standard deviations of network characteristics ................................. 75

Table 5: Means and standard deviations of network characteristics by ethnic groups ..... 76

Table 6: Means and standard deviations of network characteristics by parents’ .............. 76
Table 7:Models Predicting Parent Involvement at Home ................................................. 81
Table 8:Models Predicting Parent Involvement at School ................................................ 87
Table 9: Conditional Model predicting Parent Involvement at Home .............................. 94
Table 10: Conditional Model Predicting Involvement at Home with Tie Density ........... 96
Table 11: Conditional Model Predicting Involvement at Home with Bridges ................. 97
Table 12: Conditional Model Predicting Involvement at Home with Tie Density ........... 98

Table 13: Conditional Model using Subgroup mean of Parental Role Construction ...... 100

Table 14: Conditional Model using subgroup mean of efficacy ..................................... 101
Table 15:Models Predicting Parent Involvement at School ............................................ 195
Table 16: Models Predicting Parent Involvement at Home ............................................ 197

xi

’ u 1‘ 1' r‘ ‘ ‘
nungMC.

 

figs 2. .1 Theoretical .\'

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Diagram of Closure Between Schools and Parents .......................................... 40

Figure 2: A Theoretical Model of How Social Context Affects Parent Involvement ....... 49

xii

l: :s national ed;
:‘ station of c .ildtcn
trill). tier} school
clenczptinn in pron;
\r.‘ Education God)
93:51:;

.T-ll‘; commttx K-l

7c: tint role in the ed:

 

 

 

.1 parent-sch W
tie inited States 3
Setting the CltdliO

341331331 schools and

l .
011' duum
T~431tittttl nth
‘« “CD are r

API.‘ ‘
"‘14.:F 9’ ’
Bxitlfil. AUTO“

m ,; .[4 h'r n '
when mi 0'

3“ ; '~ 1‘
p‘ 15 tlh‘Cl} 10b,

Cw
el.\em 0\
Cf We

3;"; .
K ‘IRS'SA? ‘
”Um and
emf, .
., , fiche:
“TIC _ 3
at’
f:- .g‘i
.. ‘11,;

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

It is a national educational policy tenet that parents are an important resource in
the education of children. Goal eight of the National Education Goals states, “By the
year 2000, every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement
and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children”
(National Education Goals Report, US. Department of Education, 1995). This goal
symbolically commits K-12 schools to working with parents and helping parents take a
more active role in the education of their children. Now that the year 2000 has arrived,
establishing parent—school partnerships for all families remains a goal to which schools
across the United States are committed.

Setting the creation of parent-school partnerships as a national goal in education
assumes that schools and teachers know how to generate parent involvement. In
particular, the goal assumes we know why some parents are involved in their child’s
education and others are not. In fact, we know very little about why parents get involved
(Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997). Without more knowledge and
research into parent involvement, the national dedication toward family-school
partnerships is likely to become nothing more than rhetoric.

Concern over parent involvement in education stems from the widespread belief
that the interactions and events a child experiences at school are not the sole determinants
of his or her academic achievement. Among others, parents can have a significant effect

on their child’s academic achievement by providing academic support, as well as by

""1" ‘ 5101M:
5.1111111} unite

recon chools. the to.

 

.1 tonne so common 1'
’ I
1. econ: an “institutti
.. continual) 15011.
At the local lt‘lt’l.

711113 send home noig.

..... . patents in the h

 

:1: children tsee pubiica
...i to use modern
trite-3r. Educational I

33721111 for interactin

1w».

VOA

chool if their Pt
riser: Behind 1116 1“"

. rents of parent ND

The

filmtion of

L 33365 of re.

'5'... 3‘.» ; .
. r ..
«I. ‘Lmll‘

In: cal. IrCJI'

,:‘

-, : :v‘
1:3“ 3 ti -
Mirna.

11
it

socializing attitudes towards school and academic work (Eccles & Harold, 1993). In
American schools, the idea that parents should be a partner in their children’s education
has become so common that the promotion of teacher-parent and parent-child interactions
has become an “institutional standard”(Lareau, 1989, p.34). Schools, administrators, and
teachers continually work to bring parents into the process of education.

At the local level, schools are reaching out to parents in a variety of ways.
Teachers send home notes and newsletters, and some schools have created resource
rooms for parents in the hopes that they might take home games or books and work with
their children (see publication of Educational Leadership, 1998). Other schools are
attempting to use modern technology such as the intemet to connect with parents (See the
publication Educational Leadership, April, 1998). The creation of new and innovative
techniques for interacting with parents comes as a result of the belief that students will do
better in school if their parents are working as partners with teachers and school staff
members. Behind the policy and beliefs of educators is a body of research establishing
the benefits of parent involvement.

The elevation of parent involvement to a national goal is based on a wide range of
research in the social sciences that supports the role of parents in the development of their
children. Decades of research in developmental psychology has shown that parents are
among the most important influences on their children (Maccoby, 1992), affecting
cognitive, social, and emotional development (See Hess & Holloway, 1984; Ladd, Le
Sieur, Profilet, 1992; Maccoby & Martin, 1983 for reviews and discussions of this). As a
result, the family environment and parent-child interactions are recognized and accepted

as having an enormous impact on a wide range of developmental outcomes in children.

Parents' 1n\Ol\ er.

 

  
   
 
 

31:11 students' acme
atret} clones of we
are parents are im oh ~.
iaachln‘ whose parent
Emmi Keith. 8; Rex:

3.311211 academic ewe.

v

or "

.. he most poor and c
of research prox idt
merge a u tde ran ge
.{though pater:

r}
\.

11.11313. efiorts to

NO

.313 ecentl}, seve

“ting their chrldre

“iLEJ a
Lareau 1 WA
<th «t. .
“B‘WCII \‘C :-

s.\3:1f\§ ,.
‘° Pcem
Y
' nt“;il!\_a
3 I" ‘773 a.
\ .
- C?
3“:-‘.\\ [t
K.

Parents’ involvement in their children’s education is particularly important with
regard to students’ academic achievement. Studies investigating the relationship between
a variety of types of parent involvement and school achievement have found that a child
whose parents are involved in his or her education generally performs better in school
than a child whose parents are not involved (Stevenson & Baker, 1986; Muller, 1993;
Fehnnann, Keith, & Reimers, 1987). Research has shown that when parents and families
hold high academic expectations, and structure their home to support these expectations,
even the most poor and disadvantaged students can do well in school (Clark, 1983). This
body of research provides the foundation for many programs and initiatives created to
encourage a wide range of parent involvement behaviors.

Although parent involvement is widely supported throughout the field of
education, efforts to generate more parent involvement are not without their skeptics and
critics. Recently, several programs designed to bring more parents into the process of
educating their children have been criticized as an attempts to shift the burden for
improving schools from educators and the government to parents (Fine, 1993). In
addition, Lareau (1989) has argued that in some instances parent involvement can
become destructive, rather than productive, to educational achievement. In her research,
Lareau describes a “dark side” to parent involvement, where conflicts and frustration
arise as some parents pressure their children when they try to help them with schoolwork.
Nevertheless, parent involvement continues to be viewed by a majority of educators and
policy-makers as a critical factor in the attainment of academic competence among

students (Epstein, 1992).

Parent ini'olxeme

 

Sci-toiling the on} in '3
2:725. "fl’jhe dedicatitv
Sif‘klé‘tilfiii. lW. p.235
3 :0 help her or his cf
7;} some in the form or

5. 171365 about school

 

 

 

mm these investmen
pgitse'ingieal. as well as
The Via} in v. hie”:

7;; De :nfluenced b\ the

‘..

‘. Epstein & D

xix T- " h
,_ .3.p.1rentin\'ol\'er

.._-
flu?
.

‘fi.

a parent interact

-.
.._ g.

L ,I
‘ Lifiufie‘t “‘4‘
‘H;
\ \TC'J.‘ int“

Parent involvement can, and has, been defined and discussed in a variety of ways.
Synthesizing the way in which others have used the term, parent involvement is defined
here as, “[T]he dedication of resources by the parent to the child” (Grolnick &
Slowiaczek, 1994, p.238), and constitutes opportunities where a parent’s resources can be
used to help her or his children (Muller, 1993). The resources parents offer their children
may come in the form of academic support or they may be psychological resources such
as attitudes about school and learning (Ames, De Stefano, Watkins, & Sheldon, 1995). In
addition, these investment opportunities may have important consequences on the
psychological, as well as academic, development of children (Eccles & Harold, 1993).

The way in which parent involvement affects children’s learning and development
may be influenced by the manner in which parents choose to support their child’s
schooling. Epstein & Dauber (1991) have suggested that there are at least six different
types of parent involvement. Among the types of involvement, parents may become
involved at home or at school. Parent involvement at home refers to those instances in
which a parent interacts with her or his children in school-related behaviors such as
helping with homework, reading, or having discussions about school. In comparison,
parent involvement at school encompasses behaviors such as volunteering in the
classroom, attending school events, or volunteering at the school in places such as the
library. Whether parents construct school-like activities in the home, or choose to put
time and energy into the classroom, each type of involvement can be viewed as a
different way in which parents invest in their child’s education'.

Parent involvement at home involves the direct dedication of a parent’s resources

toward the education of his or her children. By engaging in intellectual activities at home

1:333 may bring the ill

mall 1994 l. ln a,

 

immunities for the sot 2

a: alien‘s perceptio'.

 

ti-iiertent at home. tli;

;::‘..-52;:r22 the det elopn

5

-x'

,a..i.i:ng help on Spfitlll

 

Parent imoheme

3....
N—L'

...ien's though differen
:2}. 3e modeling to the.

Sirv‘szarzel. I99“. In a

.
sign“:

1': ...ge of school d3

7i”.- Sir-ensign 3; B at.

1.3mm. parents ma

._~ , . _
\‘:":!:a h, ‘ x
We 21130 2:11:
\

33;",
"""~J It

agent a SCh
: figh§M RJ ,
5.3 dkmin1\‘

parents may bring the home and school closer together (Epstein, 1987; Gronick &
Slowiaczek, 1994). In addition, as parents interact with their children they may create
opportunities for the socialization of motivational beliefs about school, the role of effort,
and children’s perceptions of themselves (Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991). Parent
involvement at home, therefore, may affect children’s academic performance by
influencing the development of children’s attitudes about school and learning. as well as
providing help on specific homework problems.

Parent involvement at school, on the other hand, affects academic achievement in
students though different mechanisms. By volunteering at their child’s school, parents
may be modeling to their child an interest, concern, and value for education (Grolnick &
Slowiaczek, 1994). In addition, involvement at school allows parents access to
knowledge of school activities, which can be a crucial determinant for providing effective
help (Stevenson & Baker, 1987). By spending time at the school or in their child’s
classroom, parents may be sending a message to their child about the importance of
school, while also gathering information that may make any help provided at home more
effective.

In addition to differences in locale, parent involvement at home and parent
involvement at school differ in the extent to which they can be observed by others (such
as teachers, administrators, students, and other parents). Parent involvement at school,
because of where it occurs, is a more public set of behaviors. In contrast, parent
involvement at home takes place in settings where few others are likely to observe the
interaction. Teachers, for example, can know how often a parent volunteers in their

classroom, but cannot know how often a parent checks his or her child’s homework. The

    
  
   
  

affereriee bets een more

it} w how the sacral .

. t ad»
was bfihdl'lOl'S.
Patent im olx em

tiger-deter; the interest

.

st-zioogists have focu~
sg‘rsntal beliefs (See
gererallr focused '0
first such as socioeeo
iii-rhea 6: Passerson,

2:535 get inroli ed. a‘;

irse' r,’ a
heretical deve

This Study drat

‘; -.
3.3.31“

:\L ‘
whips and soot:

fired
b a EWUTCE r

-. .';3l‘=.ip5 bets; een

9'97 \'

(“.21.
‘~*-.‘\ :1
. w

1 P...
.3..d 61.131533 ‘

cl

4
3 .
" CF ..
._'gm&1“. lg;
3»
:‘ i}

difference between more and less public types of parent involvement may distinguish
why and how the social context of parents’ lives, and various other social factors, affect
parental behaviors.

Parent involvement, and the role of parents in their children’s education, have
engendered the interest of researchers from across social science disciplines.
Psychologists have focused more on individual characteristics and cognitive factors, such
as parental beliefs (See Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Sociologists, in contrast,
have generally focused on how social context affects parents, emphasizing the role of
factors such as socioeconomic status and the culture of social institutions (Lareau, 1989;
Bourdieu & Passerson, 1977). Each field has contributed to our understanding of why
parents get involved, although there is little integration across these two disciplines.
Recent theoretical developments, however, suggests that the two perspectives can be
integrated.

This study draws on the construct of social capital to examine how social
relationships and social networks affect parent involvement. Social capital has been
defined as a resource which exists between like-minded people, resulting from
relationships between these individuals (Coleman, 1988; 1990; Morgan & Sorenson,
1997). Networks and relationships become a resource themselves when they provide
access to, and enable the use of, various forms of financial, cultural, or human capital
(Bourdieu, 1986; Lin, 1999). The idea that the relationships between people can function
as an important resource for the education of children has gained increased attention
lately (Coleman, 1988), although much of the research on social capital has focused on

the social capital in students’ lives (Schnieder & Coleman, 1993; Stanton-Salazar, 1996;

55133-531123 6t Dorr. *
2351':th provided sut
iii-messed how social rel.
real carts] as a resour.
ares :‘hrough. parent.
3111' network em bod}

rimtion. create and

P‘eeratehild and parent-;

Although Colem.
amoral achievement
:sfiiteman. ln particula
1:33:33. impacts how she
if...” ot‘Eeologieal Psyc
3312?: the mesosyster

757-33ls1mn: .. 3
33.431 parents.

 

333:5 ‘ \
3e 310? themseixl

M V
i'."b,' .
. . ”2

IHLHJ'J

-i~.. .
«fin-1
‘ .

4“

W79). DExp

llC

Stanton-Salazar & Dombusch, 1995; Valenzuela & Dombusch, 1994). While this
research has provided support for the importance of social capital for students, it has not
addressed how social relationships affects parents. Coleman (1988) originally described
social capital as a resource affecting student achievement, which Operates because of, and
at times through, parents’ social ties and conversations with other parents. For Coleman,
social networks embody social capital when they enable groups and individuals to share
information, create and enforce norms, and monitor children’s behavior (Coleman, 1987).
Parent-child and parent-parent relationships are both expected to contribute to social
capital.

Although Coleman was among the first to discuss social capital in relation to
educational achievement, parents’ social networks had been the discussed by others prior
to Coleman. In particular, Cochran & Bassard, (1979) have argued that a parent’s social
network impacts how she or he raises her or his children. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s
model of Ecological Psychology (1979), parents’ friends and social relationships
constitute the mesosystem, within which children are embedded and develop. These
networks impact parents, affecting children indirectly, in three ways: by impacting how
parents develop themselves, by connecting parents to a larger variety of “life
possibilities”, and by making the role of parent easier or more difficult (Cochran &
Brassard, 1979). Despite the rhetoric about how parents’ social networks might impact
parental behaviors, researchers have yet to examine them as an influence on parents’
decisions to become involved in their child’s education.

Implicit in educators’ desires and efforts for more parent involvement is the

assumption that parents have the necessary resources to effectively help their children

   
  
  
  

hither WNW:- 8
example. schools and tr
3,331,31th and tomt'or‘
garnered b} mant sug
ens: line. 1993'. Late .:
21.1.0211 attainment
.151} to be intolied in i
17’95; Hoorer-Dempms
:ag'fallrowerer. may 2
716733511313. Through 1
ate» [0 ianous resou

T315 SlUd)’ bet}

..._..;on to facilitate o

; rents from pare'
3.33:1. through me

wrong to Fried‘xi'

'3 13161115 L133 I.

p.
31
-5 -
Jr)":-
_ ~s\\

with their schooling. By assigning homework which requires parent-child interaction, for
example, schools and teachers are assuming that all parents have the requisite knowledge.
motivation, and comfort with school and school activities. This assumption has been
questioned by many suggesting that, across parents, equity in these resources does not
exist (Fine, 1993; Lareau, 1989). Research has shown that individual differences in
educational attainment and parental beliefs differentiate which parents are more or less
likely to be involved in their child’s schooling (Ames, DeStefano, Watkins, & Sheldon,
1995; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992; Laraeu, 1989). Differences in social
capital, however, may also be a mechanism through which some parents are advantaged
over others. Through their social contacts and relationships, parents may be provided
access to various resources that enable parent involvement.

This study seeks to understand how the social context of parental social networks
function to facilitate or constrain parent involvement. In particular, the social context
that results from parent-parent relationships may influence parent involvement in two
ways: (1) through social cohesion, and (2) through the development of social capital.
According to Friedkin (1993) individuals who are in a group composed of dense ties
among actors are more likely to be aware of others’ opinions and to be influenced by
them. The process whereby beliefs are visible and influential is social cohesion. In
contrast, Lin (1990) has defined social capital as the mobilization of resources embedded
within a social structure. With regard to parent involvement, social capital is the process
whereby parents use their social relationships as access to resources in ways that allow
them to be active in their child’s educational development. Whether and how each of

these processes effect parent involvement at home and at school is explored in this study.

I

elsoztships among pa'
groups of parents he
eaaton. for example.
:2 tt’h‘iltd to predict r
*3 believe that par.”
2651mm help their e.“

N school or not help

 

 

 

 

 

 

respected to predict p
31:.“ comet! affects pa
The social conte

r” parents draw upot

..

to"? ’

r3 ..aetion. .‘\CC€\.\IJ
..tn and the perce

33117533.;
‘r‘l‘t. 503ml Str

.1 .taate the detelop

3221‘ '
. 111 this study. th

\_.3 \

‘ ’4“ ulLElOfS 0f h

4, ,
paints net.
i
53:3,!“
“enter 1».
“QC“

Social cohesion is hypothesized to be related to parent involvement through
relationships among parents that maintain norms about parents’ behaviors. When
subgroups of parents believe that it is their responsibility to be involved in their child’s
education, for example, discussions among group members may reinforce these ideas and
are expected to predict parent involvement at home and at school. Likewise, when
groups believe that parents should not get involved in the educational process, or that
they cannot help their children with school, they may reinforce one another to stay away
from school or not help their children at home. In these ways, subgroup characteristics
are expected to predict parental behaviors, illustrating one mechanism through which
social context affects parental involvement at home or at school.

The social context, created through networks of parents, operates as social capital
when parents draw upon the resources of their subgroup to help accomplish a particular
goal or action. Accessing the resources of others is expected to create a sense of
obligation and the perception that others expect reciprocation. Within the literature on
social capital, social structure has been associated with interpersonal and group dynamics
that enable the development of these obligations and norms (Coleman, 1988; Bourdieu,
1986). In this study, the extent to which structural features of a subgroup, as well as
parents’ perceptions of others, predicts parent involvement at home and at school are
taken as indicators of how social capital might facilitate parental behaviors.

This dissertation set out to answer the general question: “How might social
context, as parents’ network relationships, contribute to the creation or facilitation of
parent involvement at home and at school?” In answering this question, social network

data was collected, using self-report surveys, from mothers with children in elementary

tied, Once the netw
liftiiilttl. analyses e’ta'
ma paent intol 1 en

ln addition to tlfi.

 

azcoilected from inte
tiherdhips and aeq...
acted in the educatto
“13 ‘he mechanisms

trot cohesion and soc

 

2215 research literati
atrial capital.
7:111}. concludes \3 ith

ratings from the su

: lu\fi£€d and aff‘c
1? il‘
‘5' panlCult—lr

school. Once the network of parent-parent relationships and subgroups of parents was
identified, analyses examined the degree to which individual and subgroup characteristics
predict parent involvement.

In addition to the survey data on parents’ beliefs and social network information,
data collected from interviews with parents were analyzed to address the question; “How
do friendships and acquaintances among parents affect their decisions to become
involved in the education of their children?” Through random and purposive sampling of
parents, the mechanisms through which social relationships affects parental behavior
(social cohesion and social capital) were explored. This analysis, drawing on the survey
data and research literature, enabled a discussion of why and how relationships function
as social capital.

Finally, concludes with a summary and discussion of the findings reported. Combining
the findings from the survey and interview data brings into focus the ways parent-parent
relationships constitute a social context in which social cohesion and social capital
facilitates parent involvement at home and at school. In addition, the implications this
research has for the literature on parent involvement and social capital are discussed. In
the end, this study brings together, and builds upon, the literature on parent involvement
and social capital. This study argues for the need to study parents as social actors, who
are influenced and affected by the friendships and relationships that they maintain.
Ultimately this study reinforces the need for more research into how the social context of
parents’ lives, particularly the social network aspects of it, affect parent involvement at

home and at school.

10

xuifi OUICOmCS (

ASP-55 m3
teztersfiil’s “m i

:tshtdren. Reseat
a¢.;.pi’EUlLL§ >kn'\
‘_';' '1‘fl1. .-

5a....93..hltr.»iei

\ As the bodt

:‘sgtte student out.

:h;.dren is beet

Mile some t

111 school. tht

.g‘.‘

I‘.

,. L:~¢.
“3.. 4, 5n.
hy‘!‘ “
....

..1 studies.

:

‘Qw

LCLC a} '
‘aant ini'oli

“n 3 '
...‘vtrfled In IL}
is
PSUcn. 193” '

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Across the nation, schools and educators are spending time and money to create
partnerships with parents and communities toward the education of children. Although
the research is mixed, enough evidence has been collected to suggest that schools should
devote some of their resources toward increasing parental involvement in the education
of children. Research on the effects of various forms of parent involvement has found
that it predicts school achievement (Fehrman, Keith, & Reimer, 1987; Stevenson &
baker, 1987; Muller, 1993), as well as declines in student drop out and truancy (McNeal,
1998). As the body of research showing the connection between parent involvement and
positive student outcomes grows, the importance of involving parents in the education of
their children is becoming more readily accepted.

While some research may conclude that parent involvement will not help students
achieve in school, there are ample reasons to suggest that these results may be
misleading. Studies finding a negative relationship between parent involvement and
academic outcomes, or no relationship at all, have generally been cross-sectional,
correlational studies. In these cases, the negative relationship (or absence of one)
between parent involvement and student outcomes may reflect the fact that many parents
become involved in their child’s education in reaction to their child’s poor performance
at school (Epstien, 1991). That is, parents may wait until their child is struggling before
they take an active role in his or her education. In order to disentangle the effects of

proactive and reactive parent involvement, longitudinal evidence must be considered.

11

Fess stud-t
aszieternent lon:
Eastern. Domh;

EITHER
r b

L

practio
reacted student
serfs. and setei
::-:e3tts:on that. ‘
rzozparsing it‘

A second

'14. , -
..atoleaming g

”.3 spent rea.

e filtatgonal d:

agreement belt ‘3
.31... pros'ide 1
...mn. and the

ESE-Ca

tor3

Few studies have examined the effects of parent involvement on student
achievement longitudinally. One such study, by Steinberg and his colleagues (Steinberg
Lambom, Dombusch, & Darling, 1992), examined the effects of parenting styles and
parenting practices on children over time. Their analyses found that parent involvement
predicted students’ grades at time 2, while controlling for grades at time 1, parents’
beliefs, and several demographic variables. These results lead the researchers to the
conclusion that, “parental involvement actually leads to academic success, rather than
accompanying it” (Steinberg et al., 1992, p1275).

A second study, by Joyce Epstein (1991), has shown that parent involvement can
lead to learning gains in young children. In her study, also longitudinal, the more time
parents spent reading with their children, the higher were the children’s gains in reading
and literacy skills. The association between parent involvement and achievement gains
in this study lends further credence to claims about the important role parents can play in
the educational development of their children. In the case of Epstein’s research the
involvement behavior was parents reading with their child. Epstein and Steinberg’s
research provide convincing evidence that parents should be involved in their children’s
education, and the schools should encourage parental involvement.

Educators continue to struggle with ways to bring more parents into the process of
educating their children. To date, little is known about why parents get involved in their
children’s education (Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997). Both parents’
beliefs and the social context of parents’ lives have been found to predict the extent of
parent involvement. In particular, beliefs such as parents’ sense of efficacy and the way

they view their role as a parent have been suggested as important predictors of parent

12

tenent tAt

 

..tt‘G
loser-D5171?”
taxi that p316“
jififibit’s ‘vi hl
tom 19931.
1:5 paen: llllO-ch‘
Betti een
caters. Bronte
're enrironme
1.1.? in this i:
2:“- personai
titration, 13 \s
7’79. Cochran d;
:WJI ESOUI'C

h
up

1131-11 ,,
J’Wu d. ‘3 ~.
4 \
,1...

''''
\‘~

's.
\ V:
:I.-'“ I
" ’hs
\- - .’
‘1‘]:

involvement (Ames, DeStefano, Watkins, & Sheldon, 1995; Eccles & Harold, 1993;
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Research on the social context of parents’ lives has
found that parents’ socioeconomic status, marital status, and educational attainment are
all variables which predict levels of parent involvement (Lareau, 1989; Muller &
Kerbow, 1993). Other contextual factors, however, have not been studied as predictors
of parent involvement.

Between the level of the individual and larger societal forces exists other social
contexts. Bronfenbrenner, in particular, has argued that between a child’s immediate
home environment and the larger society exists the mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Included in this intermediate system are the social networks of parents, also referred to as
parents’ personal social networks, which function as channels of communication and
information, as well as identification of human and material resources (Bronfenbrenner,
1979; Cochran & Brassard, 1979). Although social networks have been shown to be
important resources for finding job (Granovetter, 1973) or as support systems (W ellman
& Wortley, 1990), this aspect of parents’ lives has not been studied in relation to parent
involvement.

This study looks at parents’ decisions to become involved in their child’s
education and focuses on how social relationships with other parents might impact these
choices. The social group to which parents are members is hypothesized to act as a social
context which affects parent involvement. Two processes are expected to affect parent
involvement: (1) social cohesion and (2) social capital. Models of social cohesion
suggest that pressures toward uniformity between two individuals within the same

subgroup make their beliefs influential on one another (Friedkin, 1984). Social capital. in

13

:‘ttfuiéi. reters tt‘
remark. directe.‘
M The relati

re he focus of th

Although
."'1 Parent i
:ii'er; .Grolnic'
malfeagues «G
rent 1111‘01\ eme:

fjjas .- 1 ".n
~~l.s»tutilt’ L ‘3) 22 I:
s

1453 Separate
*' mtOllcmsr

.15 1-
\.1‘ r
Paren'
V w
-: HE“:- E' A
. slit Lffaze‘

contrast, refers to the availability, access, and exchange of resources from others within a
network, directed toward a particular goal or outcome (Coleman, 1990; Lin, 1999; Fortes,
1998). The relationship between these subgroup phenomena and parent involvement will

be the focus of this study.

Defining Parent Involvement

Although the term parent involvement is commonly used, its definition is not
uniform. Parent involvement can be defined as parents’ investment of resources in their
children (Grolnick, et al., 1997) and can refer to a wide range of behaviors. Grolnick and
her colleagues (Grolnick & Slowiaczek; 1994; Grolnick et. al., 1997) have argued that
parent involvement can be defined as three types of actions; behavioral,
intellectual/cognitive, and personal. Epstein (1986a; Epstein & Dauber, 1991) has
created a separate framework for examining parent involvement that lists six types of
parent involvement (or what she refers to as school-family partnerships); ranging from
parents providing a place for their children to do homework to collaboration between
community agencies and the school (See Table 1). Although Epstein and Grolnick have
conceptualized parent involvement somewhat differently, both researchers recognize
parent involvement as a distinct set of behaviors that draws on different resources. Usage
of the term “parent involvement” in this study draws primarily on the typology of parent

involvement created by Epstein and her colleagues.

14

 

..-............ 7......Jfli a Jodi-N447

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

1......- J...:..:. 1:: 3:71: .2......../ :.........::::::CU 2.. 133:9). 2.154 2...: J...C.>...£L: h: 2:.~==3-€A» Uta-ah
unfizw die—1...“- $2313...- 11. . 111111. 1.1:. .._..-,....:.: ...th......,..:MtU.>.27.. FN. i i 1: : I-
3.9.745! .13.: 2.42.129 ..C. ...~....—:>35L m..._._..:_ 3:: ...UZ.LCTJ>L= 32:...» 3932.5: 2.222.222 25.....8-3‘
1.2.4.1. 12.2.0.2:— 1—223743’93 2.12)) a... 7.27:3; :2: 1.2.9.2:113 3:... .I.L:.-.).2~bm~ .5: .l.-=-=ni:-Rv 9‘22...
. \-.V~II.V view} In.
— Int-A-Ilnl-lsv- lltvlilhh-l.i.€nihth \ i-.I.,hi!.-Qtli.z§tni .&.M..Wnrhr§i“vhh.b.. i.
. lilti .P:I'~III. ‘1 .. .(r II‘aI‘JOK.v. x. . .l.l..!..

 

 

 

 

'III‘IIIII.'.I'3'II. 'Ilrlfilli. .‘ll

 

m:0=:n_::m0

 

8003.8 2:0 :::0: 8080580: 0:: 80_0:0w: 5:3 20000::00 3:55:50
0::0 30:08:21.: 0:: 8003.8 “3&8 0:: b30888 0: 8000: 503 :0=:._0::=0U
830:8 :: 89.8w .050
:0 800EEE00 :0 89:80:80.:
8:0:000 E830: .3302}.

3:52: 0:0: 30:8
25.852: PEEK

£0>0_ 2:8 :0 .8383 ._00:8 :3 300% >0:00>0:
0:: 00::E0>0w E 8.03: 33:30:: E 8:03:

0:: 03:50.56
5 2.05023:— $0.5m

 

88:..woa 30:8 8:83
0003060: 505 :3:
0003055: 3.30:: 0:: 8:83
0:3: :: 0::0 50$ 0:0:

0:03 8:3 50$ 00850300 0:: :5 800300:
w:_:._:0_ :0 53:5 :30 :05 $88: 0:: 9:03:

050:
.0 2.05029»:— 2.0.5.—

 

8005:0300
3:82-305: w:_0:0=:
3:05 30:8 0: w:3w
500:8:3 0:: E w:t00.::3>

.8:0>0 .050 :0 .800::::0t0a .338
3.: 30:8 0: wEEoo 800205 82 8:308:20 E
5.02:0 0:: $388333: 88:80: 0:: w:_8_8<

.85:
.0 2.050203— 2.05:.—

 

mE::m0:W 30:8

 

 

 

 

 

0:: 80:3:— .3:00:8 50:: 8058:: 820008 5:: 032—5

0:3: 80000: 0:: 080.: w:_0:8 30833580 5 830:8 :00: 8:: &0_>::0m .3 2.020336 00.25
b0._:m 0:: :::0: 8:020:00 0:3: 03:80:

ans—0:8 .000... 53:5 :0: w:_0_>0a w:_0=:: 0:: “:0E:0_0>00 0::0 32:0: 5852: 02.0.3.—

238 w:::0::: w:30_0>00 :25: 00 3:03: 3:: 80:88:? 0:: 80328: 3 m:0=:w=:O 083—

3050203—

00_._E:xm 533.089 30.5.— .3 3039:.

 

 

2.05023:— ::0..:.— .3 303...»: 0.=_0.mam "n 030,—.

15

 

EpsZSm'S ‘
5515!? snag I‘m;
:1;me " the 0
jif‘hfmfm 31 [hi
amen making b
A; 32: first 10 6] 0
fcsi define. and b
0503’ bamc obir
.‘mlzes informauc
r4 the 5cm
01:01. where pare
$7922.78]. The {on
‘7 assisting r
”:r m other a.
135‘}? of invohc
F0015. This In;
)3 on school
15:53:33.3“ beru Ct
iT. ISLLL cafe. 3ft:
Gm}: the f
{$3335 a large \
"Tm $071510 in.
.424... ‘h

L FAA 1‘ -
‘kOLId‘

\.

Epstein’s typology of parent involvement articulates several levels of behavior
which bring families and schools into a closer partnership toward the education of
children: (1) the obligations of parents, (2) the obligation of schools, (3) parents’
involvement at the school, (4) parents’ involvement at home, (5) involvement in schools’
decision making boards, and (6) collaboration between community services and schools.
At the first level of this typology, parent involvement concerns parents’ responsibilities to
feed, clothe, and bring their child to school. The second type of involvement refers to the
schools’ basic obligations to parents, where schools are responsible for communicating to
families information about school programs, their child’s progress, and other news
involving the school. The third type of involvement refers to parents working at the
school, where parents volunteer to assist teachers in the classroom or other school
personnel. The fourth type of involvement refers to parents working with their children
at home, assisting them with learning activities, having discussions about school, or
engaging in other activities which might encourage learning and school success. The
fifth type of involvement refers to the inclusion of parents in the decision making process
of schools. This may, for example, occur by getting parents involved with the PT A/PT O
or sitting on school boards. Finally, the sixth type of involvement refers to the
collaboration between schools and community services or organizations to help families
with health care, after-school care, or any other service they might need.

Clearly, the framework developed by Epstein and her colleagues is broad and can
encapsulate a large variety of possible behaviors. This dissertation, however, focuses on
parents’ efforts to invest directly in the learning and education of their own child. For

this reason, the collaboration between community organizations and schools, as well as

16

fruit-55:14“
grief‘i'fmfinl. In
3:: 3311521 New
atrgmzmons (Sc
neat-3' as an m.
are npcs of par
stained in 1th
Research I
:1:~::§\:ment pare
N that elemen
133(er compr:
*5 C‘Jmmumcatc

'81:: tteir element

20.92; of the
EJCS. 43d 0\ Cr

ttliganon.‘
T; ‘r their Chi
‘ u'voliemer"
‘1»:3‘3Ci531} t
.ntathom

the basic obligations of school will not be included in the definition of parent
involvement. In addition, involvement in the decision-making process of school will not
be studied because it refers to parental actions into the governance of educational
organizations (See Comer, 1988; Comer & Haynes, 1991 for more on this), and is not
viewed as an investment directed toward their own child’s learning. Of the remaining
three types of parent involvement, only involvement at home and at school will be
examined in this study.

Research has shown considerable variation in the types and amount of
involvement parents are encouraged to do. Epstein and Dauber (1991), for example,
found that elementary schools, in comparison to junior high or middle schools, generally
have more comprehensive programs for all types of parent involvement, except for how
they communicate to parents. In a study of parents’ perceptions of their involvement
with their elementary school children, Epstein ( 1986) reported that almost all parents
appeared to fulfill what Epstein refers to as their “basic obligation as parents.” In her
study, 97% of the respondents reported that they provide their children with school
supplies, and over 90% stated that they provide their child with a place to do homework.
These results suggest that there is little variation in parent involvement at the level of
parent obligations -- almost all parents seem to provide (or at least perceive themselves as
providing) their children with school supplies and a place to study at home. In contrast,
parent involvement at home and at school continue to be goals for many schools and
teachers, precisely because they are less prevalent. The quest for more parent
involvement at home or at school, and the degree to which this is valued in our society, is

reflected in the large amount of research conducted on the topic.

17

Aknough
33%;. i! m} also 1

‘ ‘ . I ‘ ‘
g. n' ' ,M? ‘ ' ‘
“.4 IL“ Ln} u

radii-tier}. [his 1
:- are mod:
:4519'87; Grc
“tfirwenngrt
:f'iji's educatior
ml. interactir
:2" L31: :tiid with
issrtnm afford
mules. their c
3i; their childre

While lm

fleas .

«.._;s this mu

p

“-4.1%?" ‘ I
.2 L0
TIE
\
5).

._ “MS 33} LLS“

‘1," s
. ‘1‘ ft \'

...C-2 of 1}

Parent Involvement at School

Although parent involvement can benefit teachers by providing them with extra
help, it may also produce benefits for parents and students. More specifically,
involvement at school benefits parents by providing: (1) access to important information
about their child’s education and (2) direct opportunities to talk to their child’s teacher.
In addition, this form of involvement can lead to increases in student achievement as
parents are modeling to the child that education is important and valuable (Stevenson &
Baker, 1987; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). Muller and Kerbow (1993) have argued,
“Volunteering may be understood as engagement with the overall experience of the
child’s education through acquiring first-hand information about the environment of the
school, interacting with teachers as they perform their jobs, and observing the interactions
of the child with other students (p. 34).” Being at the school and in their child’s
classroom affords parents the opportunity to collect information about classroom
activities, their child’s classroom behaviors, and may place parents in a better position to
help their children in ways that support school learning.

While involvement at school may provide parents and students with important
benefits, this type of involvement is somewhat rare. Reports using data from the National
Educational Longitudinal Study 1988 (NELS:88) indicate that betweenIS - 26% of all
mothers say they volunteer at their child’s school, depending on the amount of time they
work outside of the home (Muller & Kerbow, 1993). Mothers who work full-time
outside of the home reported volunteering the least at school, a finding replicated
elsewhere (Eccles & Harold, 1996). A second reason why involvement at school is rare

may be that parents feel as though their presence is unwanted. Epstein (1986) found that

18

than} as 12‘? of 11
become involved in

prints gain from b“
is. xttxtonomic l

.7321: more llh'Oth‘

friars that ”111le

Parent imc
.r: nx'estmem of
: parent int-oh

Ef’éiliOl'lS 0\ CT

F.-‘O~

if".

k-
{.L‘.
-“5-\\ "-.. -
i I\
‘v
fa.
$7., al.
6.\ c...
‘ ktl'; \
._‘¥
o
s ‘
“‘1, ,\
*‘ugtl I’-
4\-
.K_ A.
\
2“
‘h
F.» -
\,.\-o-
\ ‘-_
“‘L
-‘.a
\'_“
5: ‘-
\‘A‘
‘c

as many as 12% of the parents she surveyed reported that they were never asked to
become involved in the classroom. Together these studies suggest that the benefits
parents gain from being in the classroom or at the school may not be realized because of
the socioeconomic factors of parents’ lives and/or feelings of alienation. In order to
create more involvement at school, schools and teachers must better understand the

factors that inhibit and enable this type of involvement.

firent Involvement at Home

Parent involvement at home differs from involvement at school in that it refers to
the investment of parents’ resources into their child’s education in a more private location
than parent involvement at school. Parent involvement at home refers to parent-child
interactions over school-related or learning activities (Epstein, 1986; Epstein & Dauber,
1991). This type of involvement, also referred to as “the curriculum of the home”

(W alberg, 1984), encompasses behaviors that help children on their schoolwork and
which create a context at home that emphasizes the importance of school and obtaining
an education. Becker and Epstein (1982) have suggested that teachers’ attempts to
generate this type of involvement fall into five categories; (1) having parents read to their
children, (2) encouraging discussion between parents and children, (3) specifying
activities at home to stimulate learning, (4) creating contracts between teachers and
parents, and (5) having parents act as tutors to their children. Together these five
activities comprise a set of behaviors which may help parents create a home environment
that encourages learning and the desire to learn.

Research has shown a positive relationship between parent involvement at home

and children’s educational outcomes. Home-based parent involvement, such as parent-

l9

 

at: discussions
[remit Keith.
strolling- for ac
ri'ultsmcm pm;
Er-stsrn. 1991).
stghaize schm
his to do u e;
Almost a}
7:535 are actin-
$11.1 difference:

.1“: Parents fr

2. ,~ ‘
«is. 3; Shel

3-:3 -,.
.~ A-
IL“:

"AM a

1““,
' Km) '55»
445..

&‘
-__ 5"".

‘ f~dICE “5‘

It

”ix-‘5”;

mat; '
h“ h. -

‘0 Know

9

Q1
\1
‘71.» a v
'. «T.- a...”
‘ snake
‘-
-4, ,
“gt-fl “‘-

‘1‘ Yr".
“‘1 (I

child discussions about school, have been found to predict higher grades in students
(Fehrman, Keith, & Reimers, 1987). This relationship continued in later research,
controlling for achievement test scores (Muller, 1993). Other studies have found that
involvement practices such as reading to children were related to higher reading scores
(Epstein, 1991). Together, these studies suggest that home environments which
emphasize schooling may contribute to school success through the development of skills
needed to do well in school.

Almost all parents may want their child to do well in school, however not all
parents are actively involved in their child’s education at home. Several studies have
found differences across socioeconomic groups in the frequency of parent involvement at
home. Parents from higher socioeconomic (SES) groups are generally more involved
than parents from lower SES groups (Lareau, 1988; Fehrman, Keith, & Reimers, 1987).
In related research, studies have shown that the amount of education parents have
completed is an important predictor of parent involvement, as parents with more
schooling tend to be more involved in their children’s education (Ames, De Stefano,
Watkins, & Sheldon, 1995; Muller & Kerbow, 1993). The amount of financial and/or
human capital a parent possesses appears related to parent involvement at home.

Although factors such as maternal employment or parent’s level of education can
help predict which parents are likely to get involved in their child’s education, we
continue to know very little about why a parent chooses to act as a partner with the
school or teachers. Among the possible influences on parent involvement at home and at
school are those at the individual level and others which may be more social. At the

individual/micro level, research has found relationships between parents’ beliefs and the

20

'“trueno and sule 1‘
themes has etamt

1310115 forms of cap

Psychologts
* he idea that the
:t'tiett uhere pare
tiring :Eccles 6;
reefs of parents t
fet‘teettp'trertts‘ t

...tste. 8; Bassler

rest-Jr.
v.1 sug‘

liefs an
E‘r‘zstetn. 1993.; '

zen-eh. & Mount

‘tt~‘-.,.t‘t ‘
{r'tJUgDL “a1 "
. {it app

Q

. beliefs ax

34, -, ‘
‘ -~= * fin-eat.

:fl" \L. n
"J “Md sde
t5 \ ,

“ 51‘ Cm“ '

frequency and style in which they interact with their children. Research on social/macro
influences has examined differences across groups of individuals and how access to

various forms of capital may function to influence parent involvement.

Individual/Micro Influences on Parent Involvement

Psychologists interested in parent involvement have generally based their efforts
on the idea that the interactions which occur between parent and child are an important
context where parents might socialize children to strive toward school success and
learning (Eccles & Harold, 1993). Emphasis has been placed on identifying various
beliefs of parents (e.g., Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1996), studying the relationship
between parents’ beliefs and their behaviors (Ames et al., 1995; Hoover-Dempsey,
Brissie, & Bassler, 1992; Eccles & Harold, 1996), as well as the relationship between
parents’ beliefs and children’s outcomes (Eccles, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982; Ginsburg &
Bronstein, 1993; Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfired, 1994; Phillips, 1984; Steinberg,
Elemen, & Mounts, 1989). Overall, the research that has emerged from this
psychological approach to studying parent involvement has shown the importance of
parents’ beliefs as a predictor of parent involvement, which in turn affects student

achievement.

The Influence of Parents on Children

Historically, parents have been considered one of the most important influences
on their child’s development (Maccoby, 1992). As research emerges showing that parent
involvement can affect children’s motivation and school achievement (Gottfried, et al.,

1994), the parent-child context created through parent involvement becomes of greater

21

lam-RI. Th6 {121d '

“mung s01CS
:zes researchers 1
:iifdren. which in
fim’fii‘tl‘lnl. Th6
grants influence t
e of the
rtehpment of th
fan's. Steinberg
Bastiand's txpolt
:a‘erizrg and par:
.. rated that ea
1; differences at
1"; 1*) parents. I
~" tit‘llhln a he

$1531}? . '
7: & SEle

2:
:m “L11“-
r5 betu
mg: Sq...
..\‘£~r

interest. The field of developmental psychology, in general, has focused on factors such
as parenting styles and parents’ beliefs as predictors of parent involvement. In both
cases, researchers have argued that parents’ beliefs influence their interactions with their
children, which in turn shape the development of children’s beliefs and academic
achievement. The review that follows focuses on research into the process whereby
parents influence their children’s attitudes and education.

One of the most common approaches to studying parents and how they affect the
development of their own children, is to examine the general style with which they act as
parents. Steinberg and his colleagues (Steinberg, 1996; Steinberg, et al, 1992) have used
Baumrind’s typology of parenting styles (Baumrind, 1971) to study the effects of
parenting and parent involvement on children. Adopting this approach, Steinberg (1996)
has argued that each parenting style represents an overall approach to child-rearing, and
that differences across each style reflect differences in more specific beliefs and attitudes
held by parents. Parenting styles, therefore, are a measure of the affective context and
values within a home, and mediate the influence of parents’ behaviors on child outcomes
(Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Research from this approach has been able to demonstrate
that the home context greatly affects the psychological and scholastic development of
children.

Over the last several decades, research on parenting styles has shown consistent
relationships between authoritative parenting, where parents express control and warmth,
and higher levels of school achievement, academic grades, and a more internalized and
an intrinsic type of student motivation (Dombusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, &

Fraleigh, 1987; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991). In longitudinal

22

ll

 

staiies. parents u
satiation. and en
73-Jtit22i0n to wet
Steinberg. et al ..
at more or less i
shifted in their.

Research:
a: interact my
..'t of child 0

grader-based ste:

x.‘ ‘1 ‘\
\--‘
:- tkm-
raw-u- .
“5 Ir
l
“i.
"‘ LC! ..

studies, parents who were labeled Authoritative were more involved with their children’s
education, and encouraged them to succeed more, which in turn led to greater student
motivation to work (Steinberg, Elmen, Mounts, 1989) and greater student achievement
(Steinberg, et al., 1992). Although this approach may help discriminate which parents
are more or less involved, it does little to help explain why some parents are more
involved in their child’s education, either at home or at school.
Researchers have also studied the relationship between parents’ beliefs and how
they interact with their children, as well as the relationship between parents’ beliefs and a
variety of child outcomes. Among the beliefs that have been the focus of study are
gender-based stereotypes and perceptions of children’s competence. Parents make their
beliefs public to their children, who then internalize them. The findings from the
following studies suggest that the discussions parents have with their children about
school and school performance have an influence on how children perceive school and
themselves. Parent involvement, it follows, may be a context where these expectations
and beliefs are conveyed to children.

Children are exposed to many voices throughout each day and, given the amount
of time they spend in school, one might expect the teacher to be the most significant
influence on how a child perceives him- or herself. A study by Phillips (1987), however,
presented evidence that parents are a greater influence on children than the messages
received from school. In a study of high achieving third graders, Phillips found that
when parents inaccurately rated their child’s competence as being low, the children

tended to perceive themselves as less competent. This suggests that parents’ beliefs

23

 

 

llfiliilit’f the de\ 6
caazdered more 0

Parental be
til; school sublet
ht: the unlit) a:
redictors of their
hard that parents
~37: not prediett'
ten nan childre
gflfli. Through
at school an:
sac-.31 achie\ en
Ti slimlthg to .

Althoug
12‘ rate that thej

*7 4 moons:

s
T

w: tii‘. ‘Q’
m ,:\\3. If
I

..N‘
--‘_ ‘ata
.‘ " s

~dfii

influence the development of children’s beliefs, overshadowing what might be
considered more objective data from teachers and the school.

Parental beliefs may also affect how they perceive school and their own ability
with school subjects. Eccles, Adler, and Kaczala (1982) found that parents’ stereotypes
about the utility and difficulty of mathematics for boys and girls were important
predictors of their children’s expectations of themselves in math. In addition, this study
found that parents’ own behaviors around mathematics, (i.e., how often they used it),
were not predictive of their children’s beliefs. Rather, the authors suggest, parents impact
their own children because they are “conveyors of expectancies” (Eccles, et al., 1982,
p.320). Through direct interactions with their children, parents communicate their beliefs
about school and school performance. Parent involvement at home may be predictive of
school achievement because of the fact that these situations communicate the importance
of schooling to children.

Although these studies rely on correlational data to make their case, it is important
to note that they provide support for a more general theory which suggests that parents
act as important mediators between their children and various outside/ecological
influences. In the study by Eccles and her colleagues, for example, the findings can be
interpreted as evidence that parents were mediating the more general societal attitudes
about gender and math performance to their children. In the study by Phillips, parents act
as mediators of more local sources of information, namely the school. Together these
studies support the hypothesis that the immediate interactions between parents and
children provide a context whereby parents represent both personal and/or social attitudes

to their children.

24

The studies
cazidren's beliefs. .
ttnnuntcated ant
unmatched to
not. their childret
tracer. parent!
:1 his colleague
sears. parents \

:jteimttnaire a.

'i-‘n’a ',-. ,,
“Ml-ad to.

“£45 Im‘ol \‘CL‘

The studies above provide evidence for a connection between parents’ beliefs and
children’s beliefs, albeit without much discussion about how these beliefs are
communicated and made public. More than merely words or ideas that are verbally
communicated to children, parents’ beliefs may also be the basis for how parents interact
with their children. Perhaps some of the strongest evidence showing the connection
between parents’ beliefs and how they interact with their children was collected by Sigel
and his colleagues (Laosa & Sigel, 1982; Sigel, 1992). Working within a laboratory
setting, parents were asked to teach a variety of skills to their child after completing a
questionnaire assessing parents’ beliefs about learning and development. Based on
observations, parents’ teaching strategies were rated on the extent to which parents
required their child to use abstract and representational thinking, referred to as
“distancing strategies”. From these studies, parental beliefs about how children learn
were found to predict the way they set out to teach their children the various tasks and
skills involved in the study. This relationship between parents’ beliefs and the way they
interact with their child remained even after controlling for demographic variables such
as family size and socioeconomic status (McGillicuddy—DeLisi, l982)2. Additionally,
supporting McGillicuddy-DeLisi’s findings, Si gel (1992) reported that parents who
believed that children learn through direct instruction were more likely than other parents
to propose the use of didactic and authoritative instructional strategies. Although Si gel
reported that the belief-behavior relationship was weak, the beliefs of parents are related
to their interactions with their children. The research conducted by Sigel and his

associates show that parents’ beliefs are an important factor to consider when studying

25

 

 

hot parents thot‘

:tplatation for v

In study:
he schoolins of

:2. appear to he

N70." fill the
excitement 19.
EM 1997M A
Easier. 8; Bris:
asepteJ '-

ruzi'jfl FDIC C0

3' p..-”
' '-~‘Q\ .
‘ Q
\\n
‘2

how parents choose to help their children learn. Whether parents’ beliefs are an

explanation for why parents get involved has been investigated by others.

Parental Factors Affecting Pgent Involvement

In studying parent involvement and why parents choose to actively participate in
the schooling of their children, researchers have begun to hypothesize a variety of beliefs
that appear to be important predictors of this behavior. Parental beliefs such as sense of
efficacy, perception of the parental role, perception that help is wanted, and level of
comfort with the school have all been suggested as important predictors of parent
involvement (Ames et al., 1995; Eccles & Harold, 1993; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler,
1996; 1997). As confirming evidence for some of these relationships grows (Hoover,
Bassler, & Brisse, 1992; Sheldon & Ames, 1997), parents’ beliefs have come to be
accepted as important influences on both parents and children. Among these beliefs,
parental role construction and parents’ sense of self-efficacy have received thekmost
attention.

Achievement motivation researchers have, for decades, argued that a person is
more likely to engage in an activity if he or she believes they can successfully accomplish
the task. Bandura (1986;1993) suggested that confidence in oneself is a particularly
important determinant of behavior. For parent involvement, this translates into parents’
belief that they have the skills and knowledge necessary to help their children (Hoover-
Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). Parents’ self-efficacy to help their children achieve in
school has been examined in several studies and has been proven to be a powerful
predictor of parent involvement (Hoover-Depsey et al., 1992; Ames, et.al., 1995; Sheldon

& Ames, 1997). Attempts to understand why parents’ choose to participate in the

26

 

throng oi their c
ations. tiill lead to

In addition
greats must also i;
Seem and San
on: when paren
eat of the 1’8) port
lZ‘EL’thl their to
"-73. their child 3
:‘li-E'tchemp‘C
797313.140-da} it
X5163 are din
1:339 81211 p;

'5“; a

In.

t u hether .

[1". add?

k
.2.
k) to b
: 7...,
“~11.
.-
"4:5“...
I; S
~'~ ear _
“‘12::-
"tiara

schooling of their child, therefore, must take into consideration parents’ beliefs that
actions will lead to increased learning and achievement.

In addition to the belief that their actions will have a positive effect on the child,
parents must also see involvement behaviors as something they should do. Hoover-
Dempsey and Sandler (1997) have suggest that parent involvement is more likely to
occur when parents view their own personal involvement in the education of children as
part of the responsibilities of being a parent. Parents can vary widely in how they
construct their roles, and the extent to which their role includes being actively involved
with their child’s education. In their study of parents’ understanding of their role,
Hoover-Dempsey and Jones (1997) found that some parents believed they are responsible
for day-to-day involvement in their child’s education, others felt as though the school and
teachers are almost completely responsible for children’s schooling, while a third groups
believed that parents and schools are partners in the education of children. To date,
however, research has not been conducted showing a connection between parents’ beliefs
about whether or not they should be involved and their actual involvement

In addition to parental beliefs, researchers have tried to understand why and who
gets involved in their child’s education by comparing groups of parents. Among the
background or demographic characteristics that help predict which parents are more or
less likely to become involved are educational attainment and ethnicity. Studies have
shown that parents who have more education are more likely to be involved in their
child’s education than parents with very little education (Delgato-Gaitan, 1992; Lareau,
1988; Sheldon & Ames, 1997; Stevenson & Baker, 1987). In addition, studies have also

found that parents from different ethnic backgrounds are more or less likely to get

27

 

halted in their
children about st
round to hold hig
Curt. Sperduto.

ext that ther

are or less like

In additi
educators n
alien's edue

wines of p;

-t en foun
SET-n [0 be up
Similar

*‘T'éT. 10 pred;

3;.ed tha: eff

wt: -

._ for A
. N: a “GIT

l\~
n.

...‘i [It the‘

--
\_
~

t-"-
' ‘4‘; Y A“."
tfiqk‘r:

».
.rr-
.- E‘.
hing
,‘n
\w ‘9-
~ x: ‘L-‘
.yQ
f‘i\".‘
eli‘
\"
2. 3
\a. ._
o“

involved in their children’s education. White parents tend to communicate with their
children about school more than any other ethnic group, while Asian parents have been
found to hold higher aspirations for their children than other ethnic groups (Keith, Keith,
Quirk, Sperduto, Santillo, & Killings, 1998). Together the findings from this study
suggest that there are characteristics of parents that can help us predict which parents are

more or less likely to be involved in their child’s education.

Igcher/School Effects on Parent Involvement

In addition to qualities of individual parents, research has examined how schools
and educators might affect the degree to which parents become involved in their
children’s education. Although a paucity of research examining school factors as
predictors of parent involvement exists, both teachers’ practices and teachers’ beliefs
have been found to predict parent involvement. As a social context, schools have been
shown to be an important influence on parent-child interactions.

Similar to the research on parents, the efficacy beliefs of teachers have been
shown to predict parent involvement. Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie (1987) have
argued that efficacious teachers are likely to, “convey a sense that requests for parent
help are a complement to the teaching program, not a sign of teacher inadequacy (p.
429).” In their own research of teacher efficacy, the degree to which teachers believe
they can teach and help students learn, predicted parent involvement at home and at
school. Although no causal evidence exists to suggest that teacher efficacy creates
greater parent involvement, evidence such as this suggests that teachers beliefs can

impact the behaviors of their students’ parents.

28

If: dddlllt‘
that: to affect ;
handed pareno
resents develop
Batter. l995 t.
norm stud
galore ways.

[It {Elihu

:munieatror
:ted herea
tenement f

vie-3'51} h r"

. I
‘5"

 

In addition to teachers’ beliefs, the efforts of schools and teachers have been
shown to affect parent involvement at student outcomes. In one study, when teachers
included parents in the development and presentation of art and social studies curriculum,
students developed an awareness and appreciation of art and art styles (Epstein &
Dauber, 1995). When schools and teachers enable parents to volunteer and help develop
curriculum, students learning and educational development appear to be effected in
positive ways.

In addition to getting parents involved in the classroom teachers’ communications
with parents may affect their involvement. In one study Ames and her colleague (Ames
et. al., 1993; Ames et al., 1995) asked teachers to increase the frequency and types of
communications they sent home to parents. The results of this research are somewhat
mixed. Increased school-to-home communication appeared to increase parent
involvement for parents with the most education, but had no effect on parents with
relatively little education (Sheldon & Ames, 1997). This study suggests that, although
teachers’ practices can impact parental behaviors, it’s effect is dependent on
characteristics of parents. It is the context within which parents exist, and within which
teachers’ practices are received, that requires the attention of researchers. To date, the

social context within which parents live has been narrowly defined.

The Portrait of a Parent

What has emerged from decades of research on parents is a portrait of an
individual whose interactions are largely confined to his or her child, and perhaps the
child’s teacher. Cochran and Brassard argued two decades ago that, “While the

prominent role played by the parents in [child] development has been a subject much in

29

 

ll

 

center: heir
.Ceehrart 6t

etafrd toda}

vogue during the past decade, little attempt has been made to place the family in a social
context beyond that provided by timewom and static socioeconomic parameters.”
(Cochran & Brassard, 1979, p.601). With respect to parent involvement, this criticism is
a valid today as it was then. Research on parent involvement has characterized “a parent”
as an isolated individual, interacting with his or her child and perhaps a teacher.

Beliefs are often described as individual attributes, absent any social context.
However, beliefs are tied to the social contexts within which they operate (Hoover-
Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). The construction of roles, for example, is a social process
that occurs within the society at large (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Likewise, self-efficacy
can be developed through vicarious experiences, such as watching others succeed or fail
at tasks (Bandura, 1977; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). Given that beliefs such as
self-efficacy and how parents understand their responsibilities are linked to parents’
social interactions with others, research on the relationships between the social context
and parents’ personal beliefs is warranted.

To date, research pertaining to the origins and influences on parents’ beliefs have
largely focused on demographic factors or the influence of teachers. Despite a paucity of
research in this area, studies have shown that teachers’ practices can influence parents’
beliefs about themselves and the teacher (Ames, Khoujo, & Watkins, 1993; Epstein,
1986b; Sheldon & Ames, 1997). In addition to the influence of teachers, Lareau (1989)
has argued that social class is a more meaningful determinant of parent involvement. In
this dissertation, a social context that lays between individual parents and societal forces,

parents’ friendships with other parents and adults, is explored as a social context which

impacts parental beliefs and parent involvement.

30

 

lhe other
leltels is often ptt
rude their at
.‘erthtldren. St
treatngoarents‘
his the} percei
Ld “parent.
een as interter
lites . . W ,3 t.
tf‘aenced by 1
fire immedi.‘

eerie and bel

The evidence suggesting that parents’ beliefs affect the development of children’s
beliefs is often portrayed as a rather straightforward process; parents construct the beliefs
that guide their actions, and these beliefs and actions then influence the development of
their children. Such a conception of parental influence, however, has been criticized for
viewing parents’ lives out of context and isolated from environments which might affect
how they perceive themselves and schooling. Among these critics, Kohn (1984) has
argued, “parental values cannot be treated as the beginning of the process, ...but must be
seen as intervening in a chain that starts with the social-structural conditions of parents’
lives.. .” (p.5). The beliefs that predict involvement may have their origins, or at least be
influenced by factors, outside of the home. If this is the case, it important is to take note
of the immediate social context surrounding parents and how it might affect parental

beliefs and behaviors.

Social Networks as a Social Context

Parents invest in their children’s education in a variety of ways, and factors
affecting the amount and types of investments can be found within and outside of the
home. While many influences on parent involvement have been studied, as discussed
previously, investigation into factors outside of the family have been somewhat limited.
For example, despite longtime recognition that families are embedded within networks of
relatives, neighbors, and friends (Bott, 1957; Cochran & Brassard, 1979), the impact
these networks have on parent involvement have gone largely unexamined. In this study,
parents’ social networks are recognized as an important and influential social context on

parents’ decisions to become involved with their child’s education at home and at school.

31

 

 

. '. r

awe 31‘
.n, will? IhCOle't
IH‘L “l: "

or parent int Olt’t'

111111: 13 sté‘
lescrlhes the .\l
decorneetions
313...:s and 'ar
:aneuinieatto
733311223 nee.
23-33: one sett
:3 expected I
flirtation.

. ”.49

.1. a me
fez: :hild to

In as;
treats

SDCi

7:33.5- Til:

Despite the paucity of attention parental social networks have received, there are
important theoretical reasons why researchers might begin to study them as an influence
on parent involvement, and even academic achievement. In The Ecology of Human
Development, Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) suggests that child development is affected by
the nested systems in which all individuals exist. Among these systems, Bronfenbrenner
describes the Mesosystem; it is the interrelations and social ties among individuals and
the connections between settings such as the home, school, or one’s neighborhood. For
parents and families, these social ties and networks provide indirect channels for desired
communication when no direct link is available, they can help identify human or material
resources needed, and they serve as channels for transmitting information and attitudes
about one setting to another (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). From this, parents’ social networks
are expected to affect parent involvement to the extent that they serve as a source of
information, communication, and attitudes about school. In addition, these ties may
provide a means by which parents can identify some of the resources needed in order for
their child to succeed in school.

In addition to Bronfenbrenner, Cochran and Brassard (1979) have argued that
parents’ social networks affect child development indirectly, through their impact on
parents. They suggest three ways in which parents’ social networks affect how parents
interact with their children: ( 1) networks provide access to emotional and material
assistance, (2) networks encourage or discourage patterns of parent-child interactions,
and (3) networks provide role models of child-rearing practices. Parents’ social
networks, therefore, might also affect parent involvement by providing parents access to

resources, role models, and reinforcement for these types of behaviors.

32

ln addition
their; patenH‘
late shoun the h
ezahle.» researche
meridional \e
levied as isolat
than a relatio
testing tFranl
.1113 socia
-Lx might

if”; Otis

Sociol
“dials. 1
5231331113

“ l
1.321%: 3

.1}.
‘.~ I,
“' 1137;? 4
a [H
K
- a V
:I\ 1r
..fi .‘t‘
‘g‘; F ‘-
‘ c "an
i‘ —
. 14".‘._1
7‘12 7".»-

In addition to the theoretical arguments about the role parents’ networks can have
affecting parent-child interactions, social network approaches to educational research
have shown the benefits of examining teachers as social actors. Social network research
enables researchers to capture the interactions between individual, institutional, and
organizational levels of schooling (Frank 1998). For example, where teachers were once
viewed as isolated individuals (Cusick, 1983; Lortie, 1977), social network research has
shown a relationship between the interactions among teachers and their orientations to
teaching (Frank, 1996). Just as educational research has illustrated the importance of
teachers’ social networks as a context of influence, a similar approach to research with
parents might provide equally important findings about the importance of parents’ social

networks.

The Influence of Social Networks as Social Context

Sociologists have, for decades, investigated how groups and network ties affect
individuals. Merton (1957), for example, distinguishes between “locals” and
“cosmopolitans” based on the ways these individuals are perceived and interact with the
members of their social networks. Homans (1950) also studied how groups affect human
behavior, and suggests that cohesion, the desire to remain in a group, is an important
influence on human behavior. Although there is little debate regarding whether or not
networks and groups impact human behavior, how these group processes affect parents’
behavior and parent-child interactions has received far less attention.

The influence of parents’ social networks on parent involvement can occur
through a variety of mechanisms. Among these, social network research has discussed

two social processes which are of particular interest to this study; social cohesion and

33

 

 

social capital. Bot

 

uesand social new!

As indit id
Iea'r. net int-om;
otteel about di‘.
:: he process til
:tehatge of into

serrated 111m .

social capital. Both phenomena can be considered to be processes through which social

ties and social networks affect parent involvement at home and at school.

Social Cohesion

As individuals communicate and interact with friends and relatives they often
learn new information and share opinions, both of which might influence what they think
and feel about different situations. Within the social network literature, cohesion refers
to the process whereby close ties and frequent interactions influence actors through the
exchange of information and attitudes (Frank, 1998: Friedkin, 1997). This influence is
associated with network characteristics such as the presence of strong interpersonal ties
and groups, “in which each member is strongly tied to all other members” (Friedkin,
1997, p.83). Early interest in cohesion focused mostly on how groups affect individual
behavior and attitudes (Homans, 1950; Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950; Mudrack,
1989). More recently, however, researchers have begun to study cohesion as a process
among individuals or dyads (Friedkin, 1997). In this dissertation, cohesion is one process
expected to affect parent involvement. Parents’ behaviors are influenced by their
interactions with other parents or parent groups. In particular, the beliefs held by other
parents, or groups of parents, are believed to be predictive of parent involvement at home
and at school.

Early research into the effect of social interactions and social networks on
individuals suggests that group norms and pressures to conform are an important source
of influence on individuals’ behavior. Festinger, et. a1. (1950) found that informal social

groups are likely to form among individuals who interact often and, within these groups,

34

 

 

 

adrtiduah coral/‘4
lb: more people

More rece
abject. fnedktr
map are me
dent in l'omiir
been found to Ct
33:: ifnedlan
1512111. in 1
fields of sub;

As an i
33.333 of othe
353‘: \Q My;
lietrotrrenon.
’13: b
:ililiuah“
3411:1311 p;

|
a ~13

:47 M1131

individuals compare opinions under growing pressure to achieve uniformity of beliefs.
The more people interact, the more likely it is that they will come to share beliefs.

More recent research on cohesion lends strong support the earlier studies on the
subject. Friedkin, for example, found that individuals who are in the same cohesive
subgroup are more likely to be aware of each others’ opinions, and to find these beliefs
salient in forming their own opinions. In addition, members of cohesive groups have
been found to come to consensus faster than individuals who not members of a cohesive
group (Friedkin, 1983; 1997). These findings suggest that membership within a group or
subgroup, in which actors are well connected and talk to one another often, make the
beliefs of subgroup members more salient and more of an influence.

As an influence on parent involvement, cohesion functions to the extent that the
beliefs of other parents, or the beliefs of one’s subgroup, affect parental beliefs or the
degree to which a parent gets involved with her or his child’s education. As a group
phenomenon, cohesion may be represented in the relationship between a parent’s
subgroup’s beliefs and her or his involvement behavior. As a phenomena across
individuals, cohesion operates when the beliefs of those with whom a parent talks about
education predict that parent’s behavior or beliefs. The network ties that enable a parent

to gain knowledge of others’ beliefs may also function as an influence on that parent.

Social Capital

The term social capital has been used across many fields of study, as researchers
begin to study how relationships and social networks affect individual behavior’. At its
core, social capital is a resource resulting from the presence of social interaction among

individuals. Portes (1998) distinguishes social capital from other resources when he

35

I
l ‘

 

Ii

 

sl'fx "WWW b
[We their heaJ‘r
More smificalil
“...the a
p05,\t’\.5lt
htionx

each of 1
capital..
itrBourdieu. s
salable to at:
Timed». inter:
nomad-on. tl
WtJ Iuill <

1m orks tow

‘.
.\‘:
\~
‘.
7.5— .
‘ ..:“=~»~
-;-..“‘
”k
‘ -
r1 \

states, “Whereas economic capital is in pe0ple’s bank accounts and human capital is
inside their heads, social capital inheres in the structure of their relationships” (p.7).
More specifically, Bourdieu defines social capital as,

“...the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to

possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized

relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition... which provides

each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned

capital,. . .(Bourdieu, 1986, pp.248-249).”
For Bourdieu, social capital is the collective capital (economic, cultural, and otherwise)
available to a person by virtue of his or her social interactions or membership in a group.
Through interactions and social ties, individuals gain access to resources such as
information, they are able to exchange favors, and they can enforce norms (Coleman,
1990). I will explore how social capital functions within the context of parents’ social
networks toward the creation of parents’ involvement in their children’s education.

Social capital is a resource dependent on both the structure and function of social
networks and network actors. As researchers have begun to develop the concept of social
capital, some have focused on network structure and actors’ position within a network
(Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1990), while others have dealt mostly with how networks might
affect individuals or groups (Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993; Stanton-Salazar &

Dombush, 1995). Although the two, network structure and network function, cannot be

separated in actors’ lives, they can be separated theoretically.

Social Capital as Network Structure

Network Size. Perhaps the simplest way to study social networks is by counting
the number of social ties that each individual maintains. Bourdieu (1986) has argued that

network size is an important indicator of social capital, and argues that individuals with

36

trger networks s
52; ugued that i
m resources.
flap ‘ 19881 hen
etp'totmem. K
using about v
sue. although L
Birch tudixidu

Reseur
mean netm
fund that COL
finkmmr
fiction. dim
$33 9:76 anc

4t ’
me
"1';

- V~M Kg 1‘“
5413-"
\

"f‘é‘r -.

"i. 11-35
“‘\e

\ ‘ '
x t \
XL: "
.4:
7‘,
\\‘
s‘a‘;
‘4‘- fit?
”J
‘\
A-
‘
~

larger networks should have more social capital at their disposal. Similarly, Lin (1988)
has argued that individuals with larger social networks have access to a wider variety of
social resources. As an example of how this aspect functions as capital, De Graf and
Flap (1988) have found a positive relationship between network size and finding
employment. Knowing the number of social ties an individual has, however, says
nothing about whether or how these ties might provide access to resources. Network
size, although useful, might best be considered a measure of the potential social capital to
which individuals have access.

Research examining the effects network size has found several connections
between network size and various family processes. In one study, Elizabeth Bott (1957)
found that couples with larger networks of friends tended to define their roles as husband
and wife more traditionally, carrying out their household responsibilities separately. In
addition, during leisure time and activities, these couples tended to spend more time away .
from one another. Bott argued that the size of a couple’s social network affected how
they viewed their role as a husband or wife, as well as how they viewed one another as a
potential friend. Having a large social network of friends, according to Bott’s research, is
related to the way adults define their roles in relation to family members.

Social Closure. Beyond network size, specific types of network structures have
been theorized to create social capital among individuals. According to Coleman (1990),
when the parents of two childhood friends know one another, intergenerational closure
exists in the social structure. This type of social structure, one that can be diagrammed as
a square or rectangle, is a necessary condition for social processes. When parents are

friends with one another, they are more likely to monitor the behavior of one another, and

37

mutt» "b
Ufilxtiilmtel‘i _\ .I

doing these re
gems: lat structi

ml taut-til.

guises. have be
55:31:!) on [it
15 suil rare art;

333» Minot

their children’s behavior. Moreover, intergenerational closures has been suggested to
enable processes such as the establishment of norms or the exchange of information,
allowing these relationships to function as social capital (Coleman, 1988; 1990). This
particular structure of interpersonal relationships enables relationships to function as
social capital.

Despite the fact that intergenerational closure itself is not social capital, several
studies have been conducted where it has served as a direct measure of social capital.
Research on the relationship between intergenerational closure and student achievement
is still rare and in it’s earliest stages. One study (Muller, 1993) found a positive, albeit
weak, relationship between intergenerational closure and both students’ grades and
achievement test scores. Nevertheless, the existence of this specific network structure,
where parents are friends with the parents of their children’s friends, is predictive of
academic achievement.

In addition to student achievement, intergenerational closure has been found to
have direct and interaction effects on student drop out. In a recent study, Teachman,
Paasch, and Carver (1997) found that parents who have more friends which are the
parents of their children’s friends (i.e., parents with greater intergenerational closure)
have children that are less likely to drop out of high school. Furthermore, the study
shows that greater amounts of social capital increase the benefits of financial capital in
reducing student drop out, while a lack of social capital makes financial capital less
predictive of success in school. Based on the direct and interaction affects of social
capital on student drop out, Teachman et al., concluded that social capital sets the context

within which factors such as parents’ financial and human capital affect children’s

38

slitting- The?
green to be an
xrséstente in sc

Researcl
suggests that so
it eir analyse
grants. and pa
gems than th

a. utterance
g

fluent in S(

schooling. The presence of intergenerational closure, as a measure of social capital,
appears to be an important resource in families that can affect student achievement and
persistence in school.

Research on the extent to which intergenerational closure exists across parents
suggests that some groups may have a greater amount of social capital at their disposal.
In their analyses of the NELS:88 data, Muller & Kerbow (1993) found that Caucasian
parents, and parents who were highly educated, knew more of their children’s friends’
parents than those from other ethnic groups or with less education. Given the findings
that intergenerational closure helps predict academic success, social capital may be more
prevalent in some communities than others.

Although Coleman focused his examples of social closure around parent-child
relationships, the idea can be extended to relationships among parents and schools.
Figure 1 illustrates a social structure consisting of parents and their child’s school, which
might be considered a closed system. In this example, two parents have a social
relationships with one another, as well as with the school to which they send their child.
Just as the parents in Coleman’s example could observe the behaviors of each other, and
each others’ children, the relationship among parents (and their respective ties to the
school) in the new model are expected to enable the observation of parental behaviors
such as involvement at the school. This form of inter-institutional closure (families-
school ties) may create greater visibility and access to resources that encourage parent

involvement in their child’s education.

39

 

 

 

 

 

V Y
I Parent B

 

 

4——> Indicates social relation

—~———> Indicates Behavioral Investment

Figure 1: Diagram of Closure Between Schools and Parents

To illustrate the point above, consider two parents who know one another and
who volunteer at the school. In the cases of these parents, it is foreseeable that watching
one’s friend volunteer and invest time into the school may create a sense of obligation to
contribute one’s own resources to the school. This observation of a friend and creation of
obligation is a process of social capital. The relationship is based in social structure, as
without a relationship between the two parents a sense of obligation is not likely to
emerge. Furthermore, without a relationship between parent A and school, the actions of
parent B are more likely to go unnoticed. Without a social relationships through which
Parent A learns about the behaviors of other parents (perhaps through a teacher, principle,
or school staff member), no sense of obligation can develop. Thus, the triad of
relationships between a school and parents is an important structural feature that may

result in parent involvement at school.

40

Net‘s Oil

intergeneration
jetteuat'ior. (
trim a netuo
maizulurh
zrzu an otheru
.e:.’:ed. rigid. .-
f-c: t‘ie inform

Builit
“mint t‘na

“be?“ ficted

1"- e_

um‘ I 1‘
. ¥~Q‘ m
3.)?

Network Position. In addition to network size and the presence of
intergenerational closure, an individual’s position within a network can also affect his or
her behavior. Granovetter (1973), for example, has drawn attention to those individuals
within a network who act as bridges between two groups. These bridges, he contends,
are particularly important because they provide entrances for new ideas and information
into an otherwise isolated groups. Without these “weak ties“”, group norms become
reified, rigid, and out dated. Individuals who act as weak ties, therefore, are significant
for the information they convey to others.

Building on Granovetter’s work, Burt (1992) has argued that tie strength is less
important than the fact that an individual might act as a bridge between otherwise
disconnected people or groups. He refers to places where there is no connection as
“structural holes” and argues that individuals who fill these “holes” have a great deal of
social capital. In competitive systems, Burt argues, these bridging individuals can play
the two other parties against one another in order to gain an advantage toward achieving
one’s own goal. Although parents’ networks may not be based on competition, the idea
that some parents are especially important because of their ability to bring new
information into the network, or to function as a bridge between two distinct groups of
parents, makes examination of structural positions an important consideration in studying
social capital. Identifying parents who maintain different structural positions and
comparing the effect of their ties on others, as well as on themselves, will be one strategy

employed in this study.

41

ll

 

Social n
texture and be
lites. Research
textural Chara
resort, Rathe
em: networks
Hetietson t, l9"
23h uhom the
eerie in pare

Among
’4‘ ltehat‘i
’f‘f‘fupment (

-.1 ‘
-.1" ’ha . "
Ni A|j¥ndg t!
\ e

I) -
'33 \U?‘
r.
,- .._.v'.
-. ..1r'16r.‘
v... 5 r
"x.
w._;. ;.d
‘\' T
.9.“ -
v “, \—\ "9.
‘ :‘_. 7"}!-
F"
L" :i 4
“u
e-,-.
“e" ."~-
‘ “:2

Social Capital and Network Functions

Social network research, beyond examining the relation between network
structure and behavioral outcomes, has tried to study how networks function in people’s
lives. Research looking at how social networks affect parenting have found that
structural characteristics such as network size may not be the most important aspect of a
network. Rather than social structure, others have focused their efforts on the functions
social networks serve in people’s lives. Cochran, Lamer, Riley, Gunnarsson, and
Henderson (1990), in particular, have found that parents’ personal social network (those
with whom they are in direct contact) function in profound ways on parents’ behaviors
and beliefs. Each function, it can be argued, is an example of how social capital might
operate in parents’ lives.

Among the ways social networks affect parents is by supporting and sanctioning
certain behaviors over others. In a study of how parents’ social networks affect the
development of children, Riley (1990) found that fathers most often went to their nonkin,
male friends for advice on raising their child. In this same study, he also found that the
men who were most involved in raising their children had the largest number of people
who were supportive of their role in childrearing. In addition, as the proportion of males
in a father’s network increased, the amount of time they spent playing with their children
decreased. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that the membership of parents’ social
networks can influence parent-child interactions by either encouraging or discouraging
the roles parents take in their child’s development.

In addition to supporting certain family roles over others, research into the effects

of social networks on families also suggests that they may act as a source of information

42

ll

andpersuaiun.
uezeori ties on
eeiuthtrhuou's
ur'urtrtutiurt art
l‘mhehrture. t
thrill} wax rel
lasted that p
sures of info
33133;: With r

331m is inf

El". "h
'-5\ tibf n
~51???

and persuasion. Weenig and Midden (1991), for example, investigated the effects of
network ties on the dissemination of information and decision-making process in two
neighborhoods. Through their analysis, the researchers found that the spread of
information among families was related to the number of ties in a community.
Furthermore, decisions about which energy/utility program a person chose for their
family was related to whether or not they had a close relationship with someone else who
favored that program. The findings of this study suggests that networks can act as a
source of information and/or persuasion, and that larger networks are likely to provide
people with more information. Moreover, knowing a friend who acts in a particular
manner is influential on the choices people make for themselves and their family.

Reciprocity. Everyday life demands much of us, and through the help and
support of our friends these demands may be dealt with more easily. Social life often
operates as a process of give-and-take, where favors, information, and approval are
exchanged among individuals (Simmel, 1955). Interactions characterized by these types
of exchanges represent one type of social capital, reciprocity transactions (Portes &
Sensenbrenner, 1993; Portes, 1998). Underlying this type of social capital is the norm of
reciprocity or the felt need to repay another individual or a group. It is important to note
that the exchange does not have to be instantaneous or even specified (Portes, 1998).
Perhaps more important is the perception induced by the social structure that one is
obligated to repay a favor in some way, at some point in time.

With regard to parent involvement, reciprocity transactions may function among
parents through the exchange of information and news about teachers, classrooms, and

the school. One parent’s personal disclosure of information about school events or

43

ll

 

mound mu}.
’ulurrttuuon'“
teacher for thet
:rt'ctrtrtzttiort m;
haulrement or
It} pret'tde ar
exchanged. prc
A new
terbmmp 01
”work um.
7‘?:2uns and I",

0‘ dRu th

personnel may prompt a similar reaction in another parents. The circulation of
“information”5 about teachers or events at the school might affect parents’ choice of
teacher for their child or position on a school policy. In this sense, possessing
information may provide a basis for parent involvement beyond parents’ efficacy of
involvement or construction of their role. A parent’s conversations with other parents
may provide an continuing context in which information about events at the school are
exchanged, providing an additional basis on which parents can be involved.

A network’s ability to function as a source of information is dependent on the
membership of that network. Lareau and Shumar (1996) found the parents who maintain
a network which includes ties to educators and other parents regularly exchanged
opinions and information about the school and schooling with these people. The authors
suggest that that these networks are particularly important because they “provide a basis
for helping parents troubleshoot problems and develop plans for their encounters with
educators” (p.28), as well as help parents “develop a clear idea of how other parents
handled certain aspects of family-school relationships, especially homework” (p.28).
These conclusions suggest that some groups of parents use their relationship with one
another to talk about future interactions with the school, as well as how they might
structure their homes to promote learning.

Lareau and Shumar also found that when a parent’s social network was comprised
of mostly relatives (often these were working-class parents), their networks did not
provide them with the information that appeared to be important to other parents. Unless
they too have a child at the school, relatives could not provide information about the

reputations of teachers or how to get special services for their child. For these parents

 

 

moulfdgt‘ 31“
thdzridual effC

The res
pygmy SOC-131
parents talk to
entitle. the}
teens social
Sit-fl capital :
seed that nc
frxlitating eet
.‘tessure grout
..t. enforce
3113118 paren

31mm m.

(If)

truth-ante '
‘f‘e‘t"""
...i-Acuii 10 (

A nor

"f- ‘ wx
u \ “' -
H“ ‘
We. (1
1‘.
n- z
3‘5 1“"
a' "3
.

knowledge and information about their child’s education and school was the result of
individual effort, without the backing of a social group.

The research by Lareau and Shumar (1996) suggest that the membership of
parents’ social network may greatly affect whether or not it acts as social capital. When
parents talk to one another about school, a teacher, or even how to structure a homework
schedule, they exchange useful information that can affect parental involvement. When
parents’ social networks include mostly relatives, this exchange is less likely.

Norm Enforcement. A second way in which social relationships function as
social capital is through the emergence and enforcement of norms. Coleman (1988) has
argued that norms can constitute a powerful form of social capital, constraining and
facilitating certain actions. Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) have suggested that the
pressure groups apply to ensure individuals maintain norms is a form of social capital,
called enforceable trust. In regard to schooling and education, enforceable trust may
involve parents conforming to the norms of the group and expecting benefits in long-term
outcomes (e.g., retention of membership in the group may benefit their child’s school
performance or experience). The types of norms which may exist among parents is
important to consider.

A norm of reciprocity, previously discussed, where individuals are expected to
repay favors or deeds, is only one possible norm that may operate among individuals.
Around parent involvement, for example, a group of parents may believe that it is very
important for all parents to be involved at their child’s school. In maintaining this norm,
parents call one another to help at school functions or to attend open house together, and

expect other parents to be to be involved at school to some extent. The presence of this

45

 

arm may be t
patents leg- t
represented b}.
that it is their ‘
subgroup mea
:riitttiual‘s p
two trays 1

Parent
tettariors. \V
zzrluehee groi

:r'mal sane

1 Q-
" In _
t 1‘ , fl

- ..tect r
ere conic

3'35: their re;

norm may be reflected in the shared expectations of behavior held by subgroups of
parents (e.g., parents can be expected to get involved at the school), or they may be
represented by a consensus in beliefs among a subgroup of parents (e. g., parents agree
that it is their responsibility to help teach their children). The relationship between
subgroup measures of beliefs and parent involvement, as well as a relationship between
individual’s perception of others’ expectation for involvement and parent involvement
are two ways in which social capital can be shown to affect parent involvement.

Parents who are members of a group are expected to be guided by their friends’
behaviors. When groups share beliefs or patterns of behavior, social norms exist which
influence group members. In addition to shared expectations, norms require the presence
of social sanctions (Coleman, 1990; Marini, 1984). One example of a social sanction that
might affect parents is gossip. According to Suls (1977), gossip functions to clarify and
enforce conformity to group norms . Conversations among parents may reinforce notions
about their responsibility to be involved in their child’s education, creating agreement
around such a belief. Parents who do not share these beliefs should be sanctioned by the
group, perhaps by being ostracized. Furthermore, fear of being the focus of gossip may
also act as an incentive for parents within a group to act alike. In this sense, parents
might reinforce their own beliefs and actions, as well as those of their friends, through

their interactions with each other.

A General Theoretical Model

The theoretical model represented in this dissertation draws upon existing
research on parent involvement, as well as attempts to introduce unexamined influences

on a parent’s decision to become involved with her or his child’s education. In addition

46

 

ll

 

tohrt‘rgtit‘cf
out cohesi

Rese.
reliefs a at
rate construe
a: research
regzd to her
31‘ ,. metre:
'foh ire-Cluck
Llflllemgn

.‘ir'i‘i'li 5 OR

;... 1‘.i
«Hercule:

\.\ ma\ 3.?

\
l
“H. F?:~~‘
: , -.
“\3‘
.
“ ‘
P‘PV“
§.‘. N
l,\
k
‘*~
* ' .
x ‘f
. ‘5.-
\31
4‘
--'.‘\ -:
h i a
9. l.‘

to background and organizational effects, Figure 2 shows illustrates how parental beliefs,
social cohesion, and social capital all might affect parent involvement.

Research in parent involvement has paid much attention to the role of parental
beliefs as a predictor of involvement behaviors. Recently, parental efficacy and parental
role construction have been argued to be among the most important beliefs for educators
and researchers to consider. How a parent conceives of her or his responsibilities with
regard to her or his child’s education (parental role construction) and how capable she or
he perceives himself or herself to be helping a child with school (parental efficacy) are
both included in the theoretical model as direct influences on both types of parent
involvement. The influences on these beliefs, as shown in the model, are derived from a
parent’s own background experiences (i.e., her or his parents, educational attainment, or
ethnic/cultural norms), as well as from a parent’s interaction with her or his peers. In
addition to the unique contribution parental beliefs have predicting parent involvement,
they may also interact with the social context.

In this study, in addition to parental beliefs, social networks function as a social
context which can affect parent involvement at home and at school through two
processes. The first process through which social networks affect parent involvement is
social cohesion. Social cohesion, refers to the process where the beliefs of individuals, or
those shared by a group, function as an influence on parental beliefs. These beliefs, in
turn, predict parent involvement. The second way in which social networks affect parent
involvement is when network ties constitute forms of social capital. In these
relationships, resources are shared among actors, or within the network system, creating a

sense of obligation and/or enabling parents to utilize and mobilize their own personal

47

 

ll

(53.313138. T‘
represented i
tent-oats. as

her or his. chi

 

resources. The role of social cohesion, and social capital in parent involvement are
represented in Figure 2, and are described more fully in order to illustrate how social
networks, as a social context, affect an individual parent’s decision to become involved in

her or his children’s schooling.

48

 

E2523:— Eouum 38...: 28:80 38m .33.— be .282 .auaoaeosh < “N unsure

Setm casewxoum A.|l coiucou Eoom A :
.ootm 3533530 A.-:. .8EaU Eoom At t

 

8:22am 53»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. ..\ EoEuwawcm Begum
t >\\. //./ i. ..v...\.
.859.“ 4/ .._/x ,
E2529:— anm {/7/ /_ Begum of Beach.—
/ ..w/ 22.2%.; Bea:
./ ,. /,// sonactoms ...\-\., ”me. 050 be 88.1%. oz.
/ \
/ /,.,m 0885 “..t-.\
,, r 0::
/ t\... I||| l .._.
(\t \r... 3:83 .8 8838M
-..\. x
- >\.. / \_ 22.5% e23
28: a >\ .
EoEo>_o>5 52$ 4/ \
X. 3855.8 >\\ _ 208.2 82.25

 

 

use .355. A 9253
”£36m 9:25 — 5:85.”.—

 

 

49

 

As 3 st
and heir resin:
erred rnembe
:trfuston reg
er. stuth so:
ingen ral. th
ndxzidual's:
rule about
‘ roie hel

I“ 9"» ~ ,
“iv-‘5 )1 It

‘ \ 3:1";
A‘L‘
‘ - 73: -.
L. \ ,‘
~-C
v- '.
rs'.;
._..|

As a social context, parents’ social networks impact their beliefs about themselves
and their responsibilities as a parent through the presence of strong interpersonal ties and
shared membership within a cohesive subgroup. Although there has been much
confusion regarding the definition of a cohesive group or subgroup (Mudrack, 1989), for
this study social cohesion refers to the process of interpersonal influence among parents .
In general, the process of social cohesion has been described as the process whereby an
individual’s social understanding is influenced by conversations and interactions with
people about a particular issue or topic (Burt, 1987). Parents’ beliefs about themselves,
their role helping their children, and the school or its teachers is expected to be influenced
by those with whom they have regular contact, and/or who are in the same cohesive
subgroup.

Research on cohesive subgroups has demonstrated why close friends or fellow
subgroup members might be expected to influence an individual parent. First, research
has shown that when individuals are members of the same cohesive subgroup, they are
more likely to be aware of each others’ beliefs (Friedkin, 1983). This knowledge of
others’ opinions comes mainly from the fact that members of the same cohesive subgroup
are more likely to engage in face-to-face communication (Friedkin, 1993; 1997). When
combined with the pressures for uniformity in opinion, which arise as people share and
compare beliefs (Festinger et. al., 1950), subgroup members’ beliefs, as well as those
beliefs shared by the group in general, become an influence on people’s beliefs. The
result of social cohesion, then, should be that parents’ own beliefs about themselves and

their roles are related to the beliefs of their friends and the subgroup to which they are

50

 

ll

 

embers. To tl
mlrement. su
Giren tl
”o and ties
sitzgroup is mo
Lnse set of tie
subgroup mem
oertll. The d
senior of su
lines within 5
In cont

:‘l-it lm'OlVe

Etioed 3051 al

rations dif

4r:
“Libby. - -
.th\ۤ 11

le‘s

“L
flip.‘ .H
r a _
‘ U' \\ 0e
\\
k
5,‘.
.‘ri‘ ’
‘-‘;,":h it.
*5 3 C-‘

members. To the extent that there is a connection between parents’ beliefs and their
involvement, subgroup and friends’ beliefs are expected to predict parent involvement.

Given the impact cohesive subgroups might have on parents, identifying these
groups and ties is especially important in order to study social cohesion. First, a
subgroup is more likely to be cohesive, and to foster social cohesion, when there is a
dense set of ties among it’s members (Friedkin, 1997). The more interconnected
subgroup members are to each other, the more structurally cohesive the subgroup is
overall. The density of ties among subgroup members, therefore, can be used as an
indicator of subgroup cohesion (Friedkin, 1993; Wasserrnan & Faust, 1997). The density
of ties within subgroups is expected to predict parent involvement.

In contrast to social cohesion, social relationships among parents can also affect
parent involvement when these relationships function as social capital. Lin (1999) has
defined social capital the “resources in a social structure which are accessed and/or
mobilized in purposive action” (p.35). There are two ways in which the social capital
among parents affect their involvement at home or at school: (1) when parents create
obligations by investing resources into the school and (2) when parents invest their
resources in one another. Both forms of investment require access and/or mobilization of
resources (e.g., material resources, time, and information). Each form of social capital
functions differently toward the creation of parent involvement, however, due to
differences in where resources are invested.

The social capital that exists when parents invest in their child’s school (e.g.,
when they get involved at the school) is created because friends and other subgroup

members can observe this behavior. When parents are able to observe or learn that others

51

 

at: Inl‘esiit
obligation 1
3:35.11! fee
one she or
get mien-ea”
:erents' life.
:esire to mai
pee. is In tl
duo} tie. a
swing a sen
school from o
The 111
:‘testrnents tc
iff‘tllo‘rk memt
1993. argues l
R EDD-{her - is

“U Accorc

:3 ‘AL 9? o
4"” Otters 3C1

are investing their own resources into the school, it is hypothesized to develop a sense of
obligation within those who have not been involved. An example of this might be when
a parent feels guilty for not being able to visit the school or help with school events every
time she or he is asked to help. In order to ease this sense of guilt, the parent agrees to
get involved when an opportunity arises, despite the inconvenience it might create in the
parents’ life. In addition, a sense of obligation may develop as the result of a parent’s
desire to maintain membership in a subgroup or maintain her connections to other
parents. In this way, the development of a relationships between one parent and the
school (i.e., an investment toward the school or it’s teachers) operates as social capital,
creating a sense of obligation in others, and eventually creating parent involvement at
school from other parents who are embedded within the network of parents at a school.

The likelihood that a relationship will function as social capital through parents’
investments toward the school is dependent upon the social structure that exists among
network members (parents) and the school. In his discussion of social capital, Coleman
(1990) argues that social closure - where network actors maintain ties and interact with
one another - is an important condition under which network ties function as social
capital. According to Coleman, when three actors know one another they can monitor
each others’ actions and enforce norms of behavior more easily. If we consider the
school as a social actor, relationships between friends and the school can represent social
closure (See figure 1). In cases such as these, the amount of parent A’s involvement at
the school can be observed and monitored by parent B. Observing others creates a sense
of obligation to become involved, and a sense of pressure to become involved or risk

being excluded from the closed subgroup of involved parents. In addition, school

52

oiietrls can 01‘
none}. or othe
sthgroup with
The se;

nrent to anotl
Errors for a fri
result. have m
ieuhen a or
rt parent is
tone 1n the
Tiese resour.

1§f_?tt.ding or

Sect:

if} lattlitat
Frent 11110]
’1’” he or
’33 .l ‘m ;
{Fill In t
.t.

officials can observe and/or discuss the fact that a parent has invested his or her time,
money, or other resources into the school and community of children. Membership in a
subgroup with social closure, therefore, is expected to predict parent involvement.

The second form of social capital involves the investment of resources from one
parent to another. An example of these investments might be when parents perform
favors for a friend or because of subgroup membership. Parents who receive favors, as a
result, have more resources to invest in their child’s education. Another example might
be when a parent talks to another parent about how to help a child with homework. The
first parent is provided with a resource (information) that enables parent involvement at
home. In these cases, parents are afforded resources that enable involvement behaviors.
These resources are expected to affect parent involvement at home and at school,
depending on the resources invested among parents.

Social networks, as a social context, affect parent involvement to the extent that
they facilitate the processes of social cohesion and social capital. Social cohesion affects
parent involvement at home and at school, as a parent’s beliefs are affect by those with
whom he or she interacts. In particular, parents’ beliefs about their capacities to help
children in and with school are expected to predict parent involvement at home and
school. In addition to social cohesion, social networks can affect parent involvement
when social relationships constitute social capital. When subgroup members become
involved at school, the social structure fosters a sense of obligation in other subgroup
members. Likewise, when parents invest in one another, parent involvement at home and
at school is more likely, as the receiving parent gains personal resources from which to

draw upon and become involved in schooling. Together, social cohesion and social

53

 

capital are
parent int
5} 376511111;

In .

. ' F;

:iilihwd 6
:nolremen'
expected to ;
1: their child
rent intolt

floured ant

capital are mechanisms through which a parent’s social networks function to create
parent involvement at home and at school by affecting parents’ own beliefs, resources, or
by creating a sense of obligation.

In addition to parents’ social networks, other exogenous factors such as school or
teacher efforts to create involvement affect parent involvement (organizational effects).
School factors are likely to affect parent involvement to the extent that they are supported
by parents’ own resources such as time, money, or understanding of the school system
(See Lareau, 1989; Sheldon & Ames, 1997). Parents’ own background and early
childhood experiences are also included in the model as indirect influences on parent
involvement (background effects). Unlike school efforts, background characteristics are
expected to relate to parents’ own beliefs about what they can and should do with respect
to their child’s education. Neither parents’ background nor the schools’ efforts to create
parent involvement are the focus of this research, although indicators of each are

measured and used in the data analyses as controls.

54

 

serial eoh
education
fez: role
er.

s..~.D 3‘

p

..eos orl; <

E11":-

Jili'ill':

CHAPTER THREE: DATA AND METHODS

Design

This study examines the relationships between parental beliefs, social capital,
social cohesion, and the degree to which parents’ are actively involved in their children’s
education. Survey data were collect to analyze the degree to which parents’ beliefs about
their role in the education of children and whether or not they believe parent involvement
affects a child’s schooling predict parent involvement behaviors. In addition, social
network data were collected in order to analyze the potential impact of interpersonal ties
on parents’ involvement at home and at school. Relationships between subgroup
characteristics (i.e. subgroup size and/or density of connections) and parent involvement
were also investigated in an effort to better understand how subgroup membership might
impact a parent’s decisions to get involved in her or his child’s education. In addition,
interviews were conducted to gather more information about the process through which
social network processes operate to affect parents’ behavior.

Through the collection of cross-sectional survey data, this study focused on
network characteristics as predictors of parent involvement. The intent of this study was
to explore the role of parents’ social networks as a social context, whether and how
interpersonal relationships among parents affect their role in the education of their
children. As a cross-sectional study, any relationship between networks and parent

involvement cannot be taken as causal evidence and statistical relationships may be bi-

55

 

 

irrational.
rrorlts an
rrelopmen
god of this
are-id cm

In a:

lift ..33101’1

1": nature of
:rn'ersation

:‘auJ. ' _
:kiithp.‘ a

35511 intolt

directional. A study designed to assess causal relationships between parents’ social
networks and parent involvement would require longitudinal research looking at the
development of subgroups. Such a design was not chosen for this research project, as the
goal of this study was to establish preliminary evidence about parents’ social networks as
a social context, which affects parent involvement. To date, such evidence does not exist.

In addition to collecting survey data, interviews were conducted to gain more
information on some of the interpersonal dynamics that enable relationships to function
as social capital. In particular, these interviews sought to provide information regarding
the nature of parents’ relationships with other parents, the frequency and nature of
conversations between parents and other adults (i.e., other parents and relatives), and how
friendships and acquaintances might act to encourage or maintain different forms of
parent involvement.

Data collection for this study occurred in two phases. The first phase of data
collection consisted of sending surveys to children’s homes to collect information
regarding parents’ social networks, beliefs, and behaviors. The second phase of data
collection built on phase one, and consisted of interviews with mothers of elementary
school students. These interviews enabled collection of information from parents who
did not return the surveys and more closely examined some of the processes through

which social capital might operate. Each phase is described separately below.

56

 

rile tut

71-13313 t

9th tore
0‘ {'4
In; “t

x"
- .—
4‘!~

‘5

 

 

Phase One: Survey Data

Procedure

In the Spring of 1998, surveys were sent to the homes of all first through fifth
grade students at one urban and one suburban elementary school. Accompanying the
survey was a cover letter and a self-addressed stamped envelope. The cover letter asked
mothers or maternal guardians to complete the survey and return it in the envelope
provided, and informed parents about the purposes of the study. Mothers were
specifically asked to complete the survey because past research has showed that they tend
to be more involved than fathers in the academic and intellectual development of their
children (Eccles & Harold, 1996). In addition to information about the study, parents
were told that, of the returned surveys, ten randomly chosen families from each school
would win one hundred dollars. A phone number for parents to call and ask questions or
to complete the survey orally was included in the cover letter. To help ensure an
adequate return rate, teachers at both schools were asked to include a reminder for
parents to complete the survey in their communications home.

The survey was designed, in part, to obtain social network data and asked mothers
to provide their name and address, as well as the names of other parents with whom they
interact. In an attempt to allay any concerns about confidentiality, parents were given an
assurance that all of the information provided on the surveys would remain confidential
and in the care of the researcher. Parents were informed that all names would be
assigned identification numbers, which would be used throughout the analyses.

From both schools a list of students and/or their parents was obtained, enabling

the researcher to keep track of the families that returned the survey. After one month, a

57

 

 

.A‘ J‘ l ‘
stem w
L ,

terllli‘

it‘ll. {‘an

Su
denim?”
he lltd-l‘
mooted
:iif‘t’erent
enabled er
ire eseart
schools. tl
Senentar
regretted er

n The

I which P

second survey was sent to those parents who had not returned the survey. After some
parents had expressed concern about the lack of anonymity with the survey, an additional
letter was included with the second survey that provided more detail into the process of

how each name provided in the surveys would be kept confidential.

W

Survey data was collected from the mothers of first through fifth grade, public
elementary school students. At two elementary schools, located near a large university in
the Mid-West, mothers or maternal guardians were asked to complete surveys and were
contacted for interviews. The two schools were chosen because each school represented
a different community (one urban, one suburban), and because the researcher had ties that
enabled entrance into the schools. The presence of a connection to each school enabled
the researcher to engender the support of the school staff for this study. The sample of
schools, therefore, constituted both a purposive and convenience sample. Pierce
Elementary School is located within an urban setting, in a medium sized city. The
reported enrollment at Pierce was 324 students, 54.7% of who receive a free or reduced
lunch. The second school, Chief Elementary, is located in a township adjacent to the city
in which Pierce is located. This school had 295 students when data were collected, 19%
of who participate in the free or reduced lunch program6. These figures suggest that, on
average, the families associated with Chief Elementary School have a higher level of
family income than whose children attend Pierce.

In this study, approximately 48% (n=195) of the surveys sent home to parents
were returned either partially or fully completed. Ninety-two surveys (46.9%) were from

parents of Chief Elementary School. From Pierce Elementary School, 103 surveys were

58

rontmou
-tses. .‘
ares o'er»:
ire stud}
rents aer
4.- stud} r
fess likely 1
film 35 pa

Des
5375936 0f c

P“?- R“
‘i\ {AI-en

 

 

returned (approximately 49.1%)7. Of the 195 surveys collected, 16 were returned
anonymously and could not be used for the social network grouping and some of the
analyses. As a result, the number of respondents used in the analyses of survey data
varies depending on the nature of the analysis. Although the return rate is relatively high
for a study that asks parents to return a survey via mail, having less than half of the
parents across both schools creates limitations in the sample. The low response rate in
this study results in less statistical power, making statistical results more conservative and
less likely to find relationships that actually exist. In addition, network maps should be
taken as partial representations of the social ties within each elementary school.

Despite the limitations of the sample, the returned surveys represent a diverse
sample of children. Forty-nine percent of the respondents were parents of boys, and 51%
were parents of girls. By student grade level, 26.2% of the surveys were parents of first
grade students, 15.9% of second graders, 15.4% of third graders, 19.0% of fourth graders,
and 23.6% of the surveys came from parents of fifth grade students.

With regard to the parents themselves, the sample also represents a diverse group.
A wide range of educational attainment is represented with the survey data. Twenty-one
percent of the parents in this study have a high school diploma or less education, 30.3%
of the parents obtained some college education, 26.2% had earned their bachelor’s
degree, and 21.5% reported to have at least some credits towards a post-bachelor’s
degree. With respect to the samples’ racial composition, 69.7% of the parents considered
themselves Caucasian, 9.7% reported being Asian-Americans, 6.7% were African-
Americans, and 3.1% were Hispanic. Just over nine percent of the sample (9.2%)

considered themselves from an ethnic group other than those mentioned.

59

 

The
ienographi
lenendis l

pot-ride the

series. ll \
one to to
.23 :dent

l“; " '
~‘- Lil’s paf

SurveLMeasures

The survey for this study was designed to collect social network data,
demographic information, as well as information on parents’ behavior and beliefs (See
Appendix A). Due to the nature of collecting social network data, parents were asked to
provide their name and the name of their child, as well as the names of other parents (or
names of the children of parents) with whom they interacted. Through pilot tests of the
survey, it was determined that parents should include their own and their child’s name in
order to make the data matrices of network ties more accurate. Parents, it was reported,
may identify parents through their child, knowing the name of the child and not the name
of the parent. For those parents with two children at the school, parents were asked to

complete the survey with their oldest child in mind.

Individqu Level Variables

Background Information:

Child ’5 grade level - parents were asked to indicate the grade level of their oldest son or
daughter

Gender of Child - Parents were asked to indicate whether their child is male or female.

School — The school each child attends was recorded.

Parents’ educational attainment - parents were asked to indicate whether they have
completed some high school education, a high school degree, some college, a
college degree, or a post-graduate degree. These categories were coded as

dummy variables for data analyses.

60

 

rt '
*9'1rll"‘
L.’ (Mill‘

r1_‘.“" _.
handle

r .
A l»? (9f.

1'6

,1

r Er“
J ,

he

Ethnicity - Parents were asked to which ethnic group they consider themselves a member
of; White/non-Hispanic, African-American, Hispanic, Asia/Pacific Islander, or
“Other”. Those who checked “Other” were asked to state to which ethnic group
they belong. These were coded as dummy variables for data analyses.

Residence - Parents were asked to report the number of years and months they had lived

at their current residence.

_P_arental Beliefs:

Role Construction - This scale measured the extent to which parents believe that it is their
responsibility to help the school educate their children. Parents responded to 20
items following the stem, “It is parents’ responsibility to...” Using a five-point
Likert scale, parents were able to indicate the extent to which they agreed or
disagreed with items such as, “help their child understand his or her homework”
and “contact the teacher before academic problems arise.”

Parent Efficacy - This scale assessed the extent to which parents believe that they can
help their children succeed in school. Parents responded to twelve items using a
5-point Likert scale, developed by Hoover-Dempsey and her colleagues. For each
item, parents rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with items such
as; “I know how to help my child do well in school” and “A student’s motivation
to do well in school depends on the parents.” When given to parents across four
elementary schools, this scale was found to have a reliability coefficient of 0.81
(Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992).

Sense of Obligation - Parents were asked to rate the extent to which they felt as though

other parents expected them to be involved in their child’s education. Largely

61

 

 

 

ext
her
the

till

1 l
t’l'-‘_'t tfn‘lf‘

oh

so
ch

.r' t'-
"' rffllr

exploratory, the level of felt pressure from other parents was assessed with one
item that asked parents to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with
the following statement, “Other parents expect me to be involved in my child’s

education.” Responses were based on a 6-point Likert scale.

Involvement:

Involvement at Home - This scale consists of ten questions designed to measure how
often parents interact with their child at home on educational activities. Parents
reported the extent to which they are involved at home, using a five-point Likert
scale ranging from “always” to “never”. Items following the stem “How often do
you...” include, “talk to your child about his/her schoolwork?”, “read with your
child?”, and “watch television with your child?”

Involvement at School - This scale is comprised of five-items assessing how often parents
are at the school or interact with their child’s teacher. Items follow the stem,
“How often do you...” and are rated on a five-point Likert scale. Sample items
include, “attend events that are going on at school?” and “volunteer in the

classroom or at the school?”

Parental-School Network;

Parents were asked to provide the first and last names of up to seven other
parents, whose children attend the same school as theirs, and with whom they most often
discuss issues pertaining to their child’s education or school. In the event that the name
of a parent was not known, parents were asked to provide the name of that parent’s child.

For each nomination, the respondent was asked to indicate the frequency with which

62

 

there dis;
mmfifl
- r. l
Milky"); 'b“

in

Patents we
all about 1
parents net
ofedueatiot
Ednt‘ntors -

who

Suh:

1hr“: mean

1hereno:

rfPIESenl!
finance (3
ml} Hon

bfltefs, M

5:0“? 110m

.. p
hf,
4:: fr?

i‘-
. Efflcae

these discussions occur. A five-point scale was provided with possible responses ranging
from as often as daily to as infrequent as twice a year.
School-based Ties - This variable is the number of other parents nominated by an

individual.

Personal Ties:

Parents were asked to list up to five people, other than parents at school, with whom they
talk about their child’s education. Rather than reporting the frequency of discussions,
parents were asked to indicate whether or not each person is a relative, works in the field
of education, or has a child at a different school.

Educators - This variable is the sum of the number of people an individual nominates

who work in the field of education.

Subgroup Level Variables:

Group Norms: The existence of norms within a subgroup was determined by examining
the mean and variance of the beliefs within each subgroup identified. In subgroups
where norms exist, there should be little variation around the mean. The mean
represents the degree to which a subgroup endorses a particular perspective, while the
variance of a belief represents the extent to which a subgroup shares a belief. In this
study, norms are defined as existing when members of a subgroup share common
beliefs. Means, variances, and the interaction of the two are needed to represent
group norms and to test for subgroup effects.

Role of Parents - a subgroup’s mean score on the Role Construction scale.

Parental Efiicacy - a subgroup’s mean score on the Parent Efficacy scale.

63

~ Hi
I

{4
b“: ‘3'“ .1,
"' 5st.

 

 

Group Pressure - A subgroup’s mean score on the Obligation scale. This scale is
designed to assess the extent to which parents feel pressure from their friends to

become involved, at the subgroup level.

Network Factors:

Density - This variable was based on the log of the density of ties within a subgroup. It
measures the social structure of subgroups. Density of a subgroup was calculated
by dividing the total possible ties within a subgroup by the number of ties
reported among subgroup members.

Bridges - The number of ties a subgroup has, by virtue of it’s members, to other
subgroups.

Social Closure - A dichotomous variable that indicates whether or not a subgroup has

social closure among at least three of its members.

Data Analysis

Data analysis began by using social network software to find non-overlapping
subgroups of parents. Using this software, subgroups are defined by maximizing
conversations within subgroups and minimizing conversations between subgroups, while
accounting for the sizes of the subgroups. No individual is placed in more than one
subgroup, although communication between subgroups remains possible. Graphic
representation of these groups was created through the use of Multidimensional Scaling
(MDS), which enables the creation of a graph showing the relative frequency of contact
between parents within and between subgroups (See Frank, 1996 for an example of what

these maps look like).

 

 

 

trite
Efftt
’3 :7 D -'

musk

I. 4.3-
lds.

1'53 ff
1. 7

|
14.1, r
.

Efifihfir
1‘.
Tf"f

Following subgroup identification, two approaches to the analysis of data were
taken. An Egocentric approach was taken at the start of the data analysis. From this
approach, individual characteristics are used as predictors of behavior. This analysis
relied on Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression analyses, which treats individuals as
independent actors, keeping the level of analysis at the individual.

The second set of data analyses took a Sociocentric approach, where aspects of
the network and subgroups are analyzed and used as predictors of individual behaviors.
Analyses from this perspective relied on Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM). HLM is
appropriate for this study due to the fact that several parents were nested within
subgroups, making them non-independent observations. Bryk & Raudenbush, (1992),
have argued that in cases where observations are not independent, OLS methods of
analysis are problematic and may result in an underestimation of effects and incorrect
standard errors. Therefore, HLM was used to analyze the two levels of variables; those
that can be attributed to individual families or parents (e.g., demographic variables and
parents’ beliefs) and those variables that are characteristics of the subgroup (e. g., group
density of ties or group mean scores). HLM enables an analysis of the relationship
between subgroup characteristics and parent involvement, as well as the degree to which
the relationship between individual level variables and parent involvement varies across

subgroups.

65

 

It‘ll;

..
.

' t
5.5]

UK.

tuft:

FEW-
*Hfl

~‘VL

Phase Two: Interview Data

Procedure

Interviews with mothers were conducted in the fall of 1998, after the survey data
had been collected and analyses had begun. These interviews were conducted in order to
investigate how relationships among parents might act as a potential source of social
capital. Six parents from each school were selected and asked to discuss issues related to
their social network, relationships with other adults, and parent involvement.
Specifically, these interviews attempted to elicit detailed information about; (1) to whom
these parents most often talk with about their child’s education, (2) the nature of these
conversations, (3) who their closest friends are, and (4) if their friendships affect the
manner in which the parents interacted with their children and school (See Appendix B).

Based on the network graphs for each school, parents who fit the profiles of
specific types of actors, within their schools’ social structure, were listed. From each
school’s list, one parent from each category was contacted and interviewed. These
interviews were conducted in order to examine any differences, based on a parent’s
network position, in the way social networks affect parent involvement. In addition,
three parents from each school who did not return the survey were contacted and
interviewed. All non-respondents were originally chosen at random in order to obtain
data representative of the larger network of parents at each school.

At Chief Elementary School, a list of parents and their phone number was
obtained and used to identify non-respondents and establish contact. At Pierce
Elementary School, a list of students was used identify respondents and non-respondents.

The children of non-respondents were chosen at random, and phone numbers of parents

66

 

who:

elirni

were obtained through by looking up individuals with similar last names in phone book.
Children whose parents do not have the same last name, whose parents were unlisted, or
whose last name was so common that identification was almost impossible were
eliminated from the pool of potential interviewees. Three parents from Pierce
Elementary School, originally selected to be interviewed, had to be dropped because the

parents could not be contacted.

Participants

From each school, six mothers were selected to be interviewed for the second
phase of this study. Three Mothers who were identified as occupying particular positions
within a schools’ were purposely chosen to be interviewed. These positions (Central
Actor, Bridging Actor, and Isolate) are described below. The remaining three mothers
were randomly selected from a list of parents who did not return the survey (non-
respondents). Of the 12 mothers interviewed, therefore, six had returned the survey sent
earlier in the calendar year and six represented those parents who had not returned the
survey.

The demographic characteristics of the twelve parents interviewed revealed a
relatively homogeneous group. Eleven of the twelve parents interviewed were mothers.
One father was interviewed instead of his wife because she was not a proficient English
speaker. The information gathered throughout this study, in general, reflects mothers’
involvement in their children’s education. In addition, among the twelve parents
interviewed, all but four (75%) indicated that they had at least a college education. The

interview data, therefore, is most representative of college educated parents.

67

Central actors.

According to social capital theory, the number of relationships an individual
maintains may correspond to the amount of social capital they have available. In
particular, individuals who are at the center of an active and highly connected subgroup
may be influenced by these relationships, as well as have influence on others.
Wasserman and Faust (1994) suggest that central actors have a high degree of
betweenness and may be a channel through which information flows. In this study
mothers who were well connected to other parents were believed to have more access’to
information about the school by virtue of their many contacts. Furthermore, these
mothers might be perceived by other parents as an informational resource.

From each school, one interview with a parent who was a central actor was '
conducted. Central actors were defined as those parents who had several ties to other
subgroup members. These individuals had ties to most or all of the other individuals in
their subgroup and may have had several ties to other subgroups. If possible, the central

actors interviewed were members of a subgroup that had many ties to other subgroups.

Bridging Actor

Within any larger social system, subgroups may exist that operate independently
or they may forge bonds and relationships with one another. Granovetter (1973), argues
that relationships between subgroups or organization, what he called “weak ties,” can
serve as bridges that enable new and innovative information to travel across subgroups
and throughout a social system. Building on this argument, Morgan and Sorensen (1997)
maintain that in addition to preventing the recycling and rehashing of ideas, weak ties

function to prevent local norms from becoming too restrictive and overbearing. To

68

Al |

 

 

r7

1

>1»

EOE

If:

{in

l

2311

Eire

'1’:
‘r

/

.\

investigate the function of these inter-subgroup ties, one parent determined to be a “weak
tie” between two or more subgroups was interviewed. For this study, a parent was
identified as a “weak tie” (referred to as a bridging actor) when at least one of the
following conditions existed: (l) the parent was not placed in a subgroup by the network
software, although has ties to two or more subgroups, (2) the parent was placed in a
subgroup, but has one or more ties to members of other subgroups, or (3) the parent was

placed in a group, but has more inter-subgroup ties than intra-subgroup ties.

Isolates.

According to the social network maps created from the survey data, each school
had one subgroup that did not maintain ties with any other subgroup identified. In order
to compare these “disconnected” parents to those in the larger parent network, one
member from each of these subgroups was interviewed. As a member of an isolated
subgroup, parents identified within one of these subgroups might have less access to
information or other resources other parents can offer. These interviews began by
confirming that the map generated is accurate and then investigated reasons for these

9“

parents outsider” status. Information about these parents perceptions of the school,

other parents, and their role in the education of their children was investigated.

Non-respondents.

From each school, three parents who chose not to return the survey were
interviewed in an attempt to collect information about the parents who are not
represented in the survey data. Interviews with these parents mirrored some of the

information collected in the survey and probed further about their interactions with other

69

 

 

 

 

parents or adults. In general, the purpose of these interviews was to enable a comparison
between the parents who did not return the survey and those that did, while also
collecting more data on how interpersonal relationships among parents and other adults
might function as social capital.

Among the parents who were interviewed as non-respondents, half could be
identified on the network maps created by the survey data. All three parents that were on
the network maps sent their children to the suburban school. None of these parents could
be characterized as either a central actor, weak tie, or isolate. Some of the non-
respondents, however, had connections to more than one other person, suggesting that

they might be a weak tie or a more central actor than the maps suggests.

Data Analysis

Interview data were analyzed to provide information about the processes through
which social capital and social cohesion might affect parent involvement. Comparisons
between respondents and not-respondents were conducted, as were comparisons among
central actors, weak ties, and isolates. In addition, all twelve interviews were examined
collectively for trends regarding the manner and extent to which parents use and are
affected by their relationships with others.

Analysis of the interview data began by coding interview data into two categories:
statements indicative of social capital and statement indicative of social cohesion.
Following the initial coding, parent statements were further broken down based on the
theoretical framework guiding this study (Figure 2). Unlike grounded theory approaches

to analyzing qualitative data, where the researcher is attempting to build theory with his

70

or her data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), the interview data in this study were used to

confirm the theoretical framework developed and to inform the analyses of survey data.

71

CHAPTER FOUR: SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND SURVEY RESULTS

Measuring Role, Efficacy, and Parent Involvement

Parents were asked to complete four multiple-item Likert scales, each of which
was used to examine the relationship between social capital and parent involvement.
Three of these scales were created expressly for this study; one to assess parent
involvement at home, one to assess parent involvement at school, and one to assess
parents’ beliefs about the degree to which they should be involved in their child’s
schooling. The fourth scale, assessing parents’ sense of efficacy to help their children
with school, was developed and used previously by Hoover-Dempsey and her colleagues
(Hoover-Dempsey, et al., 1992). As a first step in data analysis, descriptive statistics and
reliability coefficients were generated for both parent involvement scales and the two
parental belief scales (Table 2). The adequacy of each scale was tested by conducting
Cronbach alpha reliability tests. The reliability coefficients for all four scales are
reported in table 1 alongside scale means and standard deviations.

The degree to which a parent was involved in her or his son or daughter’s
education was assessed using two involvement scales; parent involvement at home and
parent involvement at school. The scale for parent involvement at home consisted of 10
items that asked parents to report on the frequency of various behaviors (See appendix

A). The reliability proved adequate, with an alpha coefficient of .84. The scale for

parent involvement at school was smaller, five items, and also proved reliable for this
sample (alpha = .82).

Three parental beliefs were measured in this study, two of which required
reliability analyses. With this sample of parents, the scale measuring parents’ sense of
efficacy proved to be reliable with an alpha: .89. How parents construe their role and
responsibilities with their child’s schooling was assessed using a 20-item scale developed
expressly for this study (See appendix A). Eighteen of the twenty items were used in the
following analyses. The two items withdrawn were conceptually different from the other
18 items, focusing on parents’ role in relation to their child’s teacher rather than in
relation to their child. The lack of conceptual congruence with these items was
demonstrated as each item had relatively low item-total correlation coefficients (.256 and
.333). The 18 remaining items of this scale proved to be reliable, resulting in an alpha

coefficient =.90.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients of multiple item scales

 

 

 

 

Scale Number Mean Standard Reliability
of Items Deviation Coefficients

Parental Role 18 77.24 8.43 .90

Parent Involvement at Home 10 41.22 5.02 .84

Parent Involvement at School 5 19.03 3.67 .82

Self-efficacy 10 40.1 1 5.98 .89

 

In order to ensure the scales used in this study were relatively independent of one
another, the relationships among the four scales were examined using zero-order
correlation coefficients (See Table 3). The results of this analysis suggest that each of the
four scales are measuring somewhat related constructs. The correlation between parental
role construction and parental efficacy showed a relatively strong relationship between

the two constructs. Tests were conducted in order to assess the degree to which

73

’2.‘ 9 , .
“It-Wot“

E;JC;:1

Multicollinearity between these two scales might have biased the statistical tests (See
Appendix C). Based on the reliability analysis, as well as the zero-order correlation

among scales, the four scales were used throughout the remainder of study.

Table 3: Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients among Scales

 

 

PI at Home PI at School Parental Role Self-Efficacy
PI at Home --
PI at School .357*** --
Parental Role .365*** .244** --
Self-Efficacy .207** . 1 37+ .442*** --

 

’ p<.10 * p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.OOl

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistical procedures were used to help guide later analyses of the
relationships between parents’ network characteristics and involvement in their child’s
education. Mean and frequency counts of the number of parents with children at the
same school as the respondent’s own child (Parent Network), the number of “other”
adults each respondent talks to (Non-Parent Network), and the number of educators and
relatives in a parent’s network were calculated for the sample as a whole (Table 4), across
ethnic groups, and across parents with different levels of education. In Table 5, network
characteristics were examined across ethnic groups and parents’ education level due to
prior research suggesting differences in the amount of parent involvement, and it’s
impact on student achievement, based on these classifications (Keith, et. al., 1998;

Lareau, 1989).

74

 

U
r

1?»

[FA r

H}

Table 4: Means and standard deviations of network characteristics

 

 

 

 

Network Characteristics Mean Standard Deviation
Number of parents* 1.96 2.1 1

Number of “other adults” 3.31 1.64
Number of Relatives 1.59 1.23
Number of Educators 0.79 1.00

n=185, *n=184

P_arent Network Size.

Across the entire sample, parents reported a small number of other parents at the
school with whom they talk about their children’s education. On average, a parent talks
to approximately two other parents (1.96) whose children attend the same school as their
own children (Table 4). Approximately one-third of the parents (n=63) reported that they
do not speak to any other parents at the school.

By ethnic group, parents who considered themselves White or Caucasian
averaged the most ties to other parents whose children attend the same school as their
own child (mean = 2.22). Asian-American parents averaged the second highest number
of ties to other parents (mean = 1.75), and Hispanic families reported the lowest average
number of ties to other parents at the school (mean = 0.33). In general, Hispanic families
appear to be the most isolated from other families whose children attend the same school
as their own children.

Across education level, there appears to be more homogeneity with regard to the
size of the parent network. Parents who have a college degree, however, tend to know
more parents with children at the school than those with am more or less education
(2.80 parents). Parents with the least education, a high school diploma or less, know the

fewest other parents at the school (1.05 parents).

75

“Non-Parent Adult (NPALNetwork.

Most parents in this sample reported that they speak to at least one adult who does

not have a child at the same school as their own. Only 15 parents reported that they do

no speak to any adults who do not have at least one child at the same school as their own

children. On the other hand, over one-third of the parents in this sample reported

speaking to at least five “other adults” (n=63). On average, parents have just over three

NPAs with whom they talk about their child’s education (mean = 3.31).

By ethnicity (Table 5), parents who consider themselves White/Caucasian,

African-American, or Hispanic all reported, on average, maintaining over three NPA.

Parents who consider themselves Asian-American reported the lowest average non-parent

network size (1.75), while those who indicated that they were “other” averaged 2.35

NPAs in their social network. Examining the data across educational levels (Table 6), the

average number of non-parent adults listed from each group ranged from 3.10 to 3.44

adults.

Table 5: Means and standard deviations of network characteristics by ethnic groups

 

 

Ethnic Group

Asian-American
African-American
White

Hispanic

Others

Number of

parents

l.75(2.35)
1.50(2.32)
2.22(2.1 1)
0.33(0.52)
0.82( 1 . 19)

Number of
“other adults”

1.75(1.91)
3.27(2.10)
3.64(1.39)
3.17(2.04)
2.35( l .66)

Number of

Relatives

0.94(1.34)
2.00(1.48)
1 .72(1 . 16)
1 . 17(1.33)
1.29(1.36)

Number of
Educators*
0.38(0.62)
0.45(0.52)
0.90( l .07)
0.83(0.98)
0.7 1 (0.84)

 

Mean (std. Dev.), n=182, *n=181

Table 6: Means and standard deviations of network characteristics by parents’
EDUCATION LEVEL

76

 

 

 

 

 

Education Level Number of Number of Number of Number of
parents “other adults” Relatives Educators

High School 1.05(1.45) 3.15(1.68) 1.92(1.44) 0.46(0.72)

Degree or Less

Some College 1.62(2. 13) 3.40(1.58) l.65(1.13) 0.75(0.91)

College Degree 2.81(2.24) 3.46(1.58) 1.38(1.25) 1.00(1.15)

Post-Bachelor 2.09(1.99) 3.12(1.87) 1.35( l .20) 1 .03(1.09)

 

 

Mean (std. Dev.), n=l76

Number of Relatives in Network.

Throughout the sample, parents reported speaking with an average of 1.59
relatives about their child’s education. Parents who considered themselves African-
American reported speaking to the highest number of relatives (2.00), while Asian-
Americans, on average, spoke to less than one relative about their child’s education (See
table 5). Furthermore, parents with the least education seemed to speak with the most

relatives (1.92), in comparison to parents with more education (See table 6).

Number of Educators in Network.

Investigation into the average number of educators each parent speaks with about
his or her child’s education suggested that many parents do not communicate with her or
his child’s teacher. On average, parents reported talking to less than one person who
works in the field of education (0.79). On average, parents with a college degree or more
reported speaking to at least one person who is involved in the field of education. Of the
39 parents with a high school degree or less education, 26 (approximately 67%) reported
that they do not speak to anyone who works in the field of education. In general, parents
with more education appear to speak with more educators about their child’s education

than those parents who never went beyond high school.

77

To

til.

we

‘ 'A
T 13.133:-
P "'vr.

I l
b i. ‘l'l‘ 0‘
‘.
'3‘

Egocentric Analyses

In order to test for the possible effect of social capital on parent involvement in
children’s education, ordinary least square regression analyses were used to predict the
relationship between network characteristics and parent involvement, as well as the
relationship between parents’ beliefs and parent involvement. A hypothesized model,
where the network influences on parent involvement are mediated by parents’ beliefs,
was tested in addition to models testing for unique effects of parental beliefs and parents’
social networks. Four models were tested consecutively. Model A tests the relationships
between demographic variables and parent involvement, model B includes social network
information as a predictor of involvement, and model C uses demographic and parent
belief variables as predictors of parent involvement. Finally, model D includes parents’
beliefs, in addition to demographic and network variables, as predictors of involvement.
By comparing changes in coefficient values and R—squared, the mediating role of parents’
beliefs can be tested.

Throughout these analyses, network size was used as a proxy for social capital. It
has been argued that the size of an individual’s social network is an indicator of the
potential resources available to an individual, and is therefore a measure of the social
capital available to him or her (Bourdieu, 1986). In this dissertation, network size was
taken as a proxy for social capital. Although the existence of a large network does not
guarantee that parents are utilizing their relationships with others as a resource, without a
network of other parents from which to draw resources, social capital cannot exist.
Network size, therefore, represents a measure of the potential social capital to which each

parent has access.

78

K

«
.

In order to simplify the models, variables that did not significantly predict the
dependent variable (either involvement at home or involvement at school), and that were
not theoretically significant, were removed from the regression equations in order to
preserve degrees of freedom. Throughout the analyses, gender of the child and the length
of time the family had lived at their current residence did not predict parent involvement
at home or at school. As a result, both variables were removed from the analyses. Grade
level of the child also did not predict parent involvement at home or at school. Despite
the fact that this result was inconsistent with existing literature on parent involvement
(Eccles & Harold, 1996), grade level was subsequently removed from the models.

Across all of the regression analyses, anonymity of the respondent was not found
to significantly predict either type of involvement. This variable, however, was kept in
later models in an attempt to measure, and control for, any response bias that may exist in
the data. Among the remaining background variables, race and parents’ educational
attainment were included in all of the OLS equations as dummy variables to assess
differences across groups.

Due to the relatively high correlation between parental role construction and
parental efficacy, analyses were conducted to test for any possible bias due to
multicollinearity. OLS regression analyses were conducted, entering either parental role
construction or parental efficacy as a predictor of each type of parent involvement. The
results of these analyses indicate that multicollinearity was not occurring between the two
measures. Analyses discovered that parental efficacy, when entered without parental role

construction, predicted parent involvement at home, but not at school. Parental role

79

construction, when parental efficacy was not entered, predicted both types of

involvement. Further discussion of these analyses accompany the tables in Appendix C.

Parent Involvement at Home.

Across the four models tested, the r-squared improves from approximately 4% of
the variance, when only background variables are used at predictors, up to 28.5%, when
network and belief variables are included (See Table 7). Model A suggests that, in
general, the parents with children at the urban elementary school (Pierce) reported more
involvement at home with their children’s education than parents at the suburban
elementary school (Chief). The relationship between school and parent involvement
approached significance (t = -1.889, p _<_ 0.060).

Model B tested the relationship between measures of network size and parent
involvement. The results of this model suggest that social capital may play a role in
creating parent involvement. Specifically, parents who talked to more adults (NPA),
other than parents with children at the same school, reported higher levels of involvement
(t = 3.233, p 5 0.001). Furthermore, upon controlling for network size, Asian-American
parents reported significantly more parent involvement at home than other parents (t =
2.721, p 5 0.007). Finally, with network characteristics accounted for, parents with
children at the urban school reported more involvement at home than the parents who live
in the suburbs (t = -1.949, p 5 0.053). Together, this model accounted for almost 11% of

the variation in parent involvement at home.

80

Table 7 :Models Predicting Parent Involvement at Home

 

 

Model A Model B
Variables Beta B Beta
5. (Std. Error)
(Std. Error)
Anonymous -0.634 -0.035 -0.982 -0.035
(1 .420) (2.098)
Asian-American 2. 175 0. 129 4.097* * 0.234
(1.436) (1.506)
White 1 .107 0. 102 0.466 0.042
(0.909) (0.944)
Some College 0567 -0.051 -0.557 -0.051
(0.908) (0.870)
College Degree 0813 -0.071 —0.882 -0.078
(0.940) (0.920)
School -1.448+ -0. 144 -1.523* -0. 153
(0.766) (0.781)
“Other adult” Network Size ---------- 0.797*** 0.262
(NPA) (0.247)
Size of School-Based Parent ---------- -0.058 -0.025
Network (0. 191 )
Parental Role --------------- -----
Self-Efficacy --------------------
Obligation ----- ---------------
R-squared 0.036 0. 108
(adj. r-sq) (0.005) (0.067)

 

+ p .<. 0.10, * p S 0.05, ** p S 0.01
n=l93

81

Table 7(cont’d):

 

 

Model C Model D
Variables B Beta B Beta
(Std. Error) (Std. Error)

Anonymous 0326 -0.018 -2.457 -0.091
(1.335) (1.939)

Asian-American 4.278 0.240“ 4.868*** 0.270
(1.378) (1.446)

White 0.981 0.091 0.649 0.059
(0.834) (0.873)

Some College -0960 -0.089 -0.927 -0.087
(0.821) (0.808) .

College Degree -1.452+ -0. 128 -1.313 -0.1 17
(0.870) (0.872)

School -l.510* -0.153 -l.129 -0.114
(0.706) (0.734)

“Other adult” Network Size ---------- 0.634** 0.208

(NPA) (0.243)

Size of School-Based Parent ---------- -0.234 -0.102

Network (0. l 84)

Parental Role 0.217*** 0.381 0.190*** 0.337
(0.043) (0.044)

Self-Efficacy 0.048 0.060 0.070 0.086
(0.061) (0.063) .

Obligation 0.085 0.228 0.082 0.025
(0.228) (0.235)

R-squared 0.234 0.270

(adj. r-sq) (0.194) (0.220)

 

+p .<.0.10, * p S 0.05, ** p S 0.01
n=l93

 

The third regression model (Model C) used demographic and parental belief
variables as predictors of parent involvement at home. Neither parental efficacy nor
parents’ sense of obligation significantly predicted involvement at home (t = 0.797 & t =
0.373, respectively). Parental role construction, however, was strongly associated with
parent involvement at home (t = 5.043, p S 0.001). In addition, as with earlier models,

parents at the urban school reported greater parent involvement at home (t = -2. 138, p S

0.034), as did Asian-American parents (t = 3.104, p S 0.002). In general, how parents
perceive their role in a child’s schooling is a strong determinant of the extent to which
they interact with their child, outside of school, in ways that might affect educational
achievement.

The final model tested, Model D, helped examine whether or not network
influences on parent involvement are mediated through parents’ beliefs. In this model
with all of independent variables included, parents’ role construction was the only belief
found to predict significantly parent involvement at home (t = 4.344, p S 0.001 ). Neither
parents’ sense of efficacy nor their perceptions that others expect them to be involved in
their child’s education predicted involvement at home. Moreover, in this model, Asian-
American parents reported significantly more involvement than parents from other ethnic
groups (t = 3.368, p S 0.001). In addition, the relationships between the number of “other
adults” in one’s network (NPA) and involvement at home continued to be statistically
significant related (t = 2.610, pS 0.01). The more people that are in a parent’s other-adult
network, the more involved at home that parent is likely to be. Together, parents’
background, social network, and beliefs were able to account for 27.0% of the variance in

parent involvement at home.

83

Comparing Model D to Model B, the results suggest that any effect social capital
may have on parent involvement at home is not mediated through parents’ beliefs.
Instead, the influence of parents’ social network appears to be separate from the influence
of parents’ privately held beliefs. A parent’s social network, in particular those people
not affiliated with his or her child’s school, may provide that parent with various
resources which enable parent involvement at home. The survey data collected, however,
could not provide details into how one’s network might directly affect parent
involvement at home.

The conclusion that parental beliefs and social capital independently affect parent
involvement at home is based on two findings. First, comparing the amount of explained
variance in parent involvement across Model B and Model D shows a dramatic increase
when parental beliefs are included in the regression equation. This suggests that parental
beliefs have a separate effect on parent involvement at home. Second, the relationships
between network variables and parent involvement at home remained significant after
parents’ beliefs were added into the model. If beliefs mediated the effects of parents’
networks, the relationship between network characteristics and involvement would be
expected to disappear. Together, the increase in r-square and persistence of a significant
relationship between network variables suggests that the effect of parents’ beliefs and

parent networks are additive.

Parent Involvement at School.

 

As with parent involvement at home, four models were tested to assess the effect

of social capital on parent involvement at school (See table 8). Model A describes the

84

relationship between various background variables and parents’ involvement at school,
Model B includes social network characteristics at predictors, Model C predicts parent
involvement at school using demographic and social network variables, and Model D is
the full model of independent variables (demographic, parental beliefs, and social
network size) predicting parent involvement at school. Unlike the models for predicting
parent involvement at home, these models examine the relationship between having
educators in one’s network and parent involvement at school. When the non-parent
network members were divided into educators versus non-educators, the number of
educators in a parent’s network predicted involvement. This was not the case in the
previous analyses predicting parent involvement at home.

Analyses looking at differences across demographic groups in parent involvement
at school (Model A) show that White/Caucasian parents reported being more involved at
the school than other parents (t = 3.181, p S 0.002). In this model, no other demographic
variables predicted parent involvement at school.

The regression analysis examining social network and demographic variables
(Model B) added insight into explanations of parent involvement at school. First, parents
who talked to more educators tended to be more involved at the school (t = 3.155, p S
0.002), as were parents who reported speaking to more parents with children at the same
school as their own (t = 2.546, p S 0.012). Also, after including social network variables,
both White and Asian-American parents reported greater involvement at school than the
other ethnic groups of parents (t = 2.289, p S 0.023 & t = 2.165, p S 0.032, respectively).

Upon entering network variables, the amount of variance accounted for by the regression

85

 

model increased from 7.6% to 19.0%. The increase in r-square suggests that network

variables help explain some of the variation found in parent involvement at school.

86

Table 8:Models Predicting Parent Involvement at School

 

 

Model A Model B
Variables B Beta B Beta
(Std. Error) (Std. Error)

Anonymous 1.223 0.091 1 .355 0.065
(1.026) (1.509)

Asian-American 1.628 0.131 2346* 0.178
(1.038) (1.084)

White 2.090** 0.260 1554* 0. 188
(0.657) (0.679)

Some College 0.952 0.1 15 0.944 0.116
(0.657) (0.626)

College Degree 1.084 0.127 0.678 0.080
(1.084) (0.663)

School 0.065 0.009 -0.578 -0.077
(0.554) (0.563)

Educators in “Other” ---------- 0.904** 0.241

Network (0.287)

Non-Educators in “Other” ---------- 0.014 0.006

Network (0. 187)

Size of School-Based Parent ---------- 0352* 0.199

Network (0. 138)

Parental Role --------------------

Self-Efficacy --------------------

Obligation --------------------

R-squared 0.076 0. 190

(adj. r-sq) (0.047) (0.148)

 

+pSOJQ*pS001**pS001
n=193

87

Table 8(cont’d)

 

 

Model C Model D
Variables B Beta B Beta
(Std. Error) (Std. Error)

Anonymous 1.376 0.099 1 .027 0.050
(1.043) (1.499)

Asian-American 2768* 0.206 2.761 * 0.201
(1.077) (1.118)

White 1681* 0.206 1524* 0.184
(0.651) (0.675)

Some College 1072* 0.132 1.083+ 0.134
(0.641) (0.625)

College Degree 1346* 0.157 0.921 0.108
(0.679) (0.676)

School 0.178 0.024 -0.441 -0.059
(0.552) (0.569)

Educators in “Other” ---------- 0676* 0.183

Network (0.292)

Non-Educators in “Other” ---------- -0. 166 0068

Network (0. 196)

Size of School-Based Parent ---------- 0.316* 0.180

Network (0. 142)

Parental Role 0.102** 0.238 0.100** 0.232
(0.034) (0.034)

Self-Efficacy -0.002 -0.004 -0.053 -0.085
(0.047) (0.049)

Obligation 0.399* 0.160 0.300 0.1 18
(0.178) (0.182)

R-squared 0. 177 0.250

(adj. r-sq) (0. 134) (0. 194)

 

+psoro, * pS0.05, ** p 50.01

n=193

88

 

Model C examined parental beliefs as a predictor of involvement at school
separate from network variables. In this analysis, two beliefs predicted parents’ behavior.
Specifically, parental role construction predicted parent involvement at school (t = 3.035,
p S 0.003), as did parents’ sense that others’ expect them to be involved (t = 2.241, p S
0.026). In addition, Asian-American and White parents reported greater involvement at
school than other ethnic groups (t = 2.570, p S 0.011 & t = 2.582, p S 0.01 1,
respectively). Parents who have attained a college degree also reported greater parent
involvement at school (I = 1.981, p S 0.049). Like parent involvement at home, parental
role construction predicted involvement at school. Unlike the previous type of
involvement, however, a parent’s sense of others’ expectations was predictive of his or
her involvement at school.

The final model, model D, tested the relationship between parents’ beliefs,
demographic, and social network variables as predictors of involvement at the school. In
this model, parents who believe that they should be more active in their child’s education
tended to be more involved at school (t = 2.942, p S 0.004), although parents’ sense of
obligation no longer significantly predicted this behavior (t = 1.646, p S 0.102). In
addition to parental role construction, the number of people in the field of education and
the amount of conversations with other parents at the school remained significant
predictors of parent involvement (t = 2.313, p S 0.022 & t = 2.220, p S 0.028,
respectively). Also, with parents’ beliefs and network variables accounted for, Asian-
American and White/Caucasian parents continue to report greater amounts of parent
involvement at school (t = 2.469, p S 0.015 & t = 2.257, p S 0.025, respectively). Finally,

the relationship between having some college and being involved at the school

89

approached significance (t = 1.733, p S 0.085). With the inclusion of parents’ beliefs,
25% of the variance in parent involvement at school was explained, improving on the
previous models.

As the models predicting involvement at school developed and became more
complex, they were able to account for greater amounts of variability in parents’
behavior. Like parent involvement at home, a parent’s belief about her or his role as a
parent and the effect of her or his social networks seem to act independently. Unlike
parent involvement at home, however, parents’ sense of obligation was moderately
predictive of involvement at school. This suggests that a parent’s perception of other
parents’ expectations predicts behaviors which are public and which contribute to the
school environment and community. The fact that the relationship between the sense of
obligation and parent involvement at school disappeared once network variables were
included in regression models suggests a connection between the pressure a parent feels
to become involved in her or his child’s education and his or her social network. It is
also possible that, given a more reliable measure, the relationship between parents’ sense
of obligation and parent involvement at school might remain significant after controlling

for network factors.

Summary in Reunion to Theory.

The results of the multiple regression analyses suggest some important similarities

and differences with respect to factors that help predict to parent involvement at home

versus parent involvement at school. Across both types of parent involvement, the belief

that all parents have a responsibility to be involved in their children’s education strongly

predicted the extent to which a parent reported that she or he was involved. Likewise,

90

 

across both types of involvement, ethnicity also proved to help predict parent
involvement behaviors. Both of these factors continued to be predictive of parent
involvement when social network variables were accounted for in the analyses.

Parents’ social network, like parental beliefs and ethnicity, predicted both parent
involvement at home and parent involvement at school. However, the analyses suggest
that different networks predict different types of parent involvement. Specifically, a
parent who knows other parents with children at the same school as his or her own child,
is likely to report greater involvement at the school. In contrast, the larger a parent’s
social network outside of the school, the more that parent tended to be involved at home.
The finding that different networks are predictive of different types of parent involvement
suggests the need to more fully examine how networks function to affect each type of

involvement.

Sociocentric Analyses

The previous analyses approached social capital as a resource and phenomena
which operates idiosyncratically and separately for each individual. Such analyses, while
useful in their own right, fail to consider the fact that individuals’ lives are embedded
within a larger social network (Wellman, 1988; Frank & Wellman, 1998). In order to
examine the effect of social capital on parent involvement, as a network phenomenon, the
network data collected were used to construct a map of social relations for each school.
Following the creation of these maps, Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) enabled an
analysis of the degree to which parent involvement at home and at school vary across
subgroups. HLM is appropriate because parents are embedded within subgroups and are

therefore neither isolated nor independent of one another. Through HLM analyses,

91

subgroup effects could be estimated as predictors of parents’ involvement. This type of
analysis allows for subgroup characteristics, such as group norms, to be tested as forms of
social capital.

The first step in analyzing subgroup effects on parent involvement was to create a
social network map for each school. Using parents’ reports of who they talk to and how
often, social network maps could be generated by software (Kliquefinder) that identifies
cohesive subgroups of parents. The software utilizes a clustering algorithm, maximizing
the ratio of within subgroup ties to between subgroup ties (See Frank 1996 for more on
this). The emphasis is on the network as a whole, rather than on the individuals who
comprise the network. Using the software, a network map was then created for each
school. In Chief Elementary School, the network program identified 13 different
subgroups. With the data from Pierce Elementary School, Kliquefinder identified 9
subgroups. For both schools, memberships were concentrated within subgroups at a level
that was unlikely to occur by chance alone (p S 0.001). This suggests that the subgroups
identified by the Kliquefinder software are not the result of a random pattern of network
ties, and that they reflect the discernible patterns of social relationships reported by the
responding parents.

Having identified 22 groups within the entire sample, analyses into subgroup
influences on parent involvement at home and at school followed. With so few
subgroups, there was limited power to examine effects at the subgroup level. Analyses
are likely to be conservative and to underestimate effects.

When conducting HLM analyses, Bryk and Raudenbush (1992) recommend

beginning with unconditional models to examine the extent of variation across groups. In

92

addition, this analysis allows the researcher to compare the variance at the group level to
the variance at the individual level. The unconditional model examining parent
involvement at school indicated that the extent of variance across subgroups was not
different from zero (p S 0.356). Given these results, HLM analyses were not continued
on this outcome. Subgroup characteristics do not appear to be determinants of parent
involvement at school.

In contrast to the analysis into parent involvement at school, the unconditional
model predicting parent involvement at home found significant variance across
subgroups (X2 = 30.66, p S 0.06). Approximately 13.6% of the variance in parents’
involvement at home could be attributed to subgroups. This finding suggests that
subgroup characteristics and processes might influence the degree to which members of a
subgroup become involved with their children’s education at home. Given the results,
further analyses were conducted to study subgroup effects on parent involvement at

home.

Social-Structural Characteristics as Predictors.

Building on the unconditional model of parent involvement at home, individual
level variables (Level-1 variables) were used as predictors for the outcome. Students’
grade level and gender were not entered into any of these models due to the fact that they
did not predict parent involvement in the OLS-regressions previously discussed. School
was also not included in the HLM analyses due to the fact that each subgroup is nested
within a school. Parents’ ethnic affiliation and level of educational attainment were the

only background variables included in these analyses. Nether set of variables

93

significantly predicted involvement at home in the HLM analyses and are, therefore, not
discussed.

Parents’ beliefs, in addition to race and education level, were included in the
level-1 predictors of involvement at home (See Table 9). Each of the individual level
variables were subgroup-mean centered, so that the constant (Bo) would represent the
average level of involvement (See Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Subgroup-mean
centering also allowed a more meaningful examination of the variation across subgroups
in parents’ involvement at home. Similar to the OLS results, parents’ role construction
was the only belief to predict parent involvement at home ([3 = 0.265, p S 0.000).
Furthermore, the analysis showed that significant variation in parent involvement across

subgroups remained after level-1 predictors were entered (X2 = 35.721 , p S 0.017).

Table 9: Conditional Model predicting Parent Involvement at Home

 

 

 

 

Variables Coefficients T-ratio
Constant 40.807 68505***
Some College 0.638 0.591
Asian-American 1 .978 0.795
White -0.270 -0.097
Obligation -0.308 -0.846
Self-Efficacy 0.094 0.917
Parental Role 0.265 5.866***
Construction

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Estimation of Variance Components

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Random Effect Variance Chi-Square
Component

Constant 3.380 35.721 *

Level-1 15.789

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Social capital theory suggests that the social structure of people’s lives can affect

their behavior (Coleman, 1990; Burt, 1992). In order to investigate the effect of social

94

capital on parent involvement, three aspects of subgroup structure were used as subgroup
level predictors; the density of ties among subgroup members (DENSITY), the number of
connections each subgroup has to other subgroups (BRIDGES), and the presence of
social closure among some or all members of a subgroup (CLOSURE). Each variable
was entered into a separate HLM model due to the limited degrees of freedom available.
Analyses of socio—structural influences on parent involvement at home suggest
that none of the structural measures (subgroup density, the number ties that bridge one
subgroup to another, or the presence of closure) could reject the null hypothesis stating
there is no relationship between social structure and parent involvement at home. The
first model tested (Table 10) found that density of subgroup ties did not predict parent
involvement at home ([3 = -2.23, p = ns), nor did it reduce the amount of residual variance
in parent involvement across subgroups. The null hypothesis, that there is no
relationships between subgroup tie density and parent involvement at home could not be

rejected.

95

Table 10: Conditional Model Predicting Involvement at Home with Tie Density

 

 

 

Variables Coefficients T-ratio
Constant 40.823 27.820***
DENSITY -2.23 0975
Some College 0.460 0.453
Asian-American -1 .822 -1 .303
White -0.087 -0.049
Obligation -0.395 - 1 . 162
Self-Efficacy 0. 1 .2 1.037
Parental Role 0.272 6.048***
Construction

 

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Estimation of Variance Components

 

 

 

 

 

Random Effect Variance Chi-Square
Component

Constant 3.367 32.574*

Level-1 15.936

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

The number of ties to other subgroups (bridges) was also tested as a subgroup
characteristic, representative of social capital, which may affect parents’ involvement
activities (Table 11). Like subgroup density, membership in a subgroup with more ties to
other subgroups was not significantly related to parent involvement at home (B = 0.109, p
= ns). Inclusion of this variable did not reduce the residual variance of involvement at
home across subgroups. The null hypothesis in this case, that there is no relationship
between the number of subgroup ties to other subgroups and parent involvement, could

not be rejected.

96

Table 11: Conditional Model Predicting Involvement at Home with Bridges

 

 

 

Variables Coefficients T-ratio
Constant 40.823 27.820***
BRIDGES 0.1 10 0.644
Some College 0.460 0.453
Asian-American -1 .822 -1 .303
White 0087 -0.049
Obligation -0.395 - 1. 162
Self-Efficacy 0.1 .2 1 .037
Parental Role 0.272 6.048***
Construction

 

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Estimation of Variance Components

 

 

 

 

 

Random Effect Variance Chi-Square
Component

Constant 3.492 33.039*

Level-l 15.901

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Finally, the existence of social closure among some or all subgroup members was
used to help predict parent involvement at home across subgroups (Table 12). Social
closure, it has been argued, enables individuals to monitor the behavior of one another
and allow for the emergence and enforcement of norms (Coleman, 1990). Like the
previous two subgroup measures, closure among subgroup member did not significantly
predict parent involvement at home (B = 0.299, p = ns). The findings of this analysis
suggest that behaviors which take place within the privacy of one’s home, where the
monitoring of behavior may be especially difficult, may not be influenced by social
processes associated with social capital. The null hypothesis stating that there is no
relationship between the presence of social closure and parent involvement at home could

not be rejected.

97

Table 12: Conditional Model Predicting Involvement at Home with Tie Density

 

 

 

Variables Coefficients T-ratio
Constant 40.647 43.886
CLOSURE 0.298 0.250
Some College 0.638 0.591
Asian-American 1 .978 0.795
White -0.270 -0.097
Obligation —0.308 -0.846
Self-Efficacy 0.094 0.9 1 7
Parental Role 0.265 5.866***
Construction

 

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Estimation of Variance Components

 

 

 

 

 

Random Effect Variance Chi-Square
Component

Constant 3.677 35.274*

Level-1 15.843

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

When social capital is measured using structural variables as indicators of social
processes, it does not appear to affect parent involvement at home. None of the structural
measures of parents’ subgroups significantly predicted involvement behaviors. These
findings suggest that social capital may not affect those types of parent-child interactions
that occur within the home. Whether the shared beliefs of subgroup members are
predictive of parent involvement at home is the focus of the following analyses.

One limitation in the analyses above is the small number of subgroups with which
to conduct the HLM analyses. Given the limited degrees of freedom with the HLM,
failure to reject the null hypotheses regarding social structure does not necessarily mean
social structure has no effect on parent involvement. In this study, with 22 subgroups, the
probability that existing relationships were not found is relatively high. Also, results of

the level-two analyses are likely to be conservative. Studies in which data can be

98

gathered from a larger number of subgroups would increase the power of the analyses in

this study and reduce the likelihood of a Type H error.

Using Subggoup Beliefs a_s Predictors.

In addition to examining the effects of social structure, HLM analyses were
conducted using the mean of each subgroup’s belief scores as predictors of the intercept.
Whereas structural features are considered indicative of social capital effects, social
cohesion is expected to be represented by the effect of the mean level of subgroup
members’ beliefs on an individual’s involvement. In the analyses using subgroup beliefs
as a predictor of parent involvement at home, the mean level of obligation to be involved
was not significantly related to the outcome. The extent to which subgroup members
believe that others expect them to be involved, therefore, does not help explain why
parents are more or less involved at home with their children’s education.

In the first analysis presented here, a subgroup’s mean scores on the parental role
construction scale, as well as individual level variables, were used to predict involvement
at home (See table 13). The HLM analysis found that parents who were above their
subgroup’s average on the degree to which they believe it is parents’ role to be involved
with a child’s education were more likely to be involved at home (B = 0.265, p S 0.000).
In addition to this individual level effect, parents who were members of a subgroup that
more strongly believe parents should be involved, tended to report greater amounts of
parent involvement (7 = 0.396, p S 0.007). These findings suggest that membership in
particular subgroups affect parental behaviors. More specifically, if a parent interacts
often with other parents who believe that all parents should be involved in their children’s

education, they are more likely to become involved themselves, regardless of their own

99

personal beliefs. Parent involvement at home, then, can be explained by both individual

and subgroups effects.

Table 13: Conditional Model using Subgroup mean of Parental Role Construction

 

 

 

Variables Coefficients T-ratio
Constant 9.884 0.982
Mean Role 0.396 3.038**
Construction
Some College 0.638 0.591
Asian-American 1 .978 0.795
White -0.270 -0.097
Obligation -0.308 -0.846
Self-Efficacy 0.094 0.917
Parental Role 0.65 5.866***
Construction

 

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Estimation of Variance Components

 

 

 

 

 

Random Effect Variance Chi-Square
Component

Constant 1 .353 24.692

Level-1 16. 1 83

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

The second belief used to predict parent involvement at home was parental
efficacy, particularly the mean level of efficacy among subgroup members (See table 14).

At the individual level, parents’ role construction predicted parent involvement at home
(B = 0.265, p S 0.001). In addition, the subgroup mean level of parental efficacy was
found to significantly predict parent involvement at home (7: 0.472, p S 0.025). When
subgroup members believe parents can help their children in school, a parent in that
subgroup was likely to be involved in his or her child’s education at home. Upon
entering the mean level of parental efficacy, much of the variance in parent involvement
across subgroups was explained (X2 = 28.433, p S 0.075), approximately 13%. Like

parental role construction, this subgroup effect helps explain variance in parent

100

involvement at home, although it is not as powerful a predictor as parents’ role

construction.

Table 14: Conditional Model using subgroup mean of efficacy

 

 

 

Variables Coefficients T-ratio
Constant 21 .280 2642*
Mean Subgroup 0.472 2439*
Efficacy
Some College 0.638 0.591
Asian-American 1 .978 0.795
White 0270 -0.097
Obligation -0.308 -0.846
Self-Efficacy 0.094 0.917
Parental Role 0.265 5.866***
Construction

 

 

 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Estimation of Variance Components

 

 

 

 

 

Random Effect Variance Chi-Square
Component

Constant 2.323 28.433+

Level-1 15.940

 

 

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Overall, the HLM analyses suggested that social structural factors may not be
predictive of parent involvement at home, although the shared beliefs of a subgroup did
appear to have an impact on individual behaviors. Throughout the analyses, a parent’s
private beliefs about the proper role of all parents in a child’s education helped predict
the extent to which she or he reported being involved. In addition, the analyses suggested
that membership in some groups may make parent involvement more likely.

Membership in a subgroup whose members felt as though parents should be involved, or
that parent involvement can produce educational benefits, was related to more frequent

parent involvement at home.

101

To the extent that the social structural variables represent the effects of social
capital, while subgroup beliefs represent social cohesion, the HLM analyses suggest that
social cohesion may be an influential network process affecting parent involvement at
home. In all three analyses using social structure variables as indicators of social capital,
there was no significant predictive relationship between the subgroup variables and
parent involvement at home. Due to a lack of variation in parent involvement at school
across the subgroups, the relationships between social capital and parent involvement at

school could not be explored.

Summary of Results

The regression and HLM analyses revealed several important findings with regard to
the relationship between social networks and parent involvement: 1) network size is an
important characteristic which predicts parent involvement, 2) different social networks
seem to facilitate different types of parent involvement, and 3) the mean level of
subgroup beliefs predict parent involvement at home. These findings are consistent with
the theoretical model depicting the role of social capital and social cohesion in the
facilitation of parent involvement at home and at school. Parents’ social networks appear
to affect different types of parent involvement through different social processes.

To the extent that network size is related to the transfer and availability of
resources among social actors, the finding that network size is predictive of parent
involvement (at home and at school) supports the hypothesis that social capital
contributes to parent involvement generally. Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as
the resources to which an individual has access by virtue of his or her connections to

others. Overall, parents who reported speaking with more individuals about their child’s

102

education tend to be more involved than parents with smaller social networks. Although
network size alone should not be taken as direct evidence that social capital is present and
functioning in an individual’s social network, it can serve as a measure of the potential
resources available to a parent. Thus, parents with more ties to others have more
opportunities for resources to be made available, and therefore have more social capital
available.

The findings that network size predicts parent involvement builds on existing
research which has shown the importance of studying network size. Nan Lin, in
discussing his theory of social resources, argues “social structure allows access to and use
of resources not necessarily in the possession of each individual” (Lin, 1988, p.263).
Research drawing upon this theory has shown that individuals with larger networks have
ties across a wider range of status levels. These ties across levels, according to Lin
(1998), provide access to others with dissimilar, useful resources and have been shown to
predict social mobility and a person’s ability to obtain employment. Ties, therefore,
serve as access to resources which help individuals achieve various goals

The second important finding from the regression analyses was that different
networks were associated with different types of parent involvement. While network size
is an important characteristic for measuring social capital, understanding the composition
of a network’s membership may be necessary in order to comprehend the effects of social
capital. The regression analyses show that larger school-based networks predicted
greater involvement at school. However, the network of “other adults” with whom
parents talk about their child’s education (NPA) did not predict parent involvement at

school, but was instead related to parent involvement at home. This suggests that social

103

 

capital, the resources individuals invest in one another or the school, function toward
specific goals and types of behavior. The finding that network members provide
specialized support is consistent with existing research on social support. Kin, for
example, are more likely to provide individuals with financial aid or large services
(Wellman & Wortley, 1990), and women are more likely to provide emotional support
(Frank & Wellman, 1998). Different network members and different subgroups, it
appears, provide parents with unique types of resources which facilitate different forms
of behavior.

In addition to using multiple regression analyses, Hierarchical Linear Modeling
(HLM) enabled analyses of the relationship between subgroup characteristics and parent
involvement. The relationships between the mean beliefs of a subgroup and parent
involvement suggest that social cohesion may be an important network process through
which parents are encouraged to become active in their child’s education at home. The
findings that subgroup characteristics generally associated with social capital processes
(i.e., density of ties and number of weak ties) did not predict involvement at home
suggests that social capital among parents at a school does not affect the behaviors that
take place in the privacy of one’s home.

While socio-structural measures did not help predict parent involvement,
subgroup measures of beliefs did. Members of subgroups that felt more strongly about
the importance of parent involvement tended to be more involved at home. Likewise,
those parents who are in a subgroup whose members more strongly believe involvement
can help children in school were also more likely to be involved. These results suggest

that subgroup norms may develop and encourage parents to be more involved at home.

104

 

Although a parent may not believe strongly that parents should get involved in their
child’s education, frequently interacting with others who do seems to affect parents’
behaviors.

The statistical analyses conducted in this study support the theory proposed in this
dissertation by showing the importance of examining parent involvement at home and at
school. Different subgroups may provide parents with different resources. The
regression analyses also suggest that network affects are not mediated by parental beliefs,
supporting the idea that the presence and investment of resources among parents (i.e.,
social capital) has a direct effect on parental behaviors. The HLM analyses, meanwhile,
suggest an affect of subgroup beliefs (social cohesion) on parent involvement at home.
Each method of data analyses (OLS & HLM) seems to highlight a social mechanisms
through which networks affect parent involvement.

Although the survey data illustrates the importance of parental networks with
respect to parent involvement, it cannot provide direct evidence for how social
relationships among parents and other adults might serve as a resource which facilitates
parent involvement. Network size, for example, says nothing about the types of
resources exchanged or how they affect parent involvement. For this type of analysis,
individual parent interviews are needed. Social capital and social cohesion can then be
studied at the more micro level; from the ground up. This type of “ground up” analyses
of social capital and social cohesion is the focus of the following chapter, which begins to
explain how social relationships foster social capital and social cohesion toward the

creation of parent involvement at home and at school.

105

CHAPTER FIVE: HOW SOCIAL TIES AFFECT PARENT INVOLVEMENT

In the previous chapter, analyses of the survey data suggest an important
connection between parents’ social networks and parent involvement. Multiple
regression analyses found a relationship between the number of pe0ple a parent talks with
about her or his child’s education and parent involvement. In addition, HLM analyses
revealed that membership in a subgroup of parents who emphasize a parent’s role in the
education of her or his child’s education, or a subgroup in which parents believe that
parent involvement can help a child in school, predicted the extent to which a parent will
be involved at home. Both findings support arguments for further investigation into the
effect of social capital and social cohesion on parent involvement. However, the survey
data provide little insight into how network processes function among parents of
elementary school children. In this chapter, parent interview data were analyzed in order
to examine how social capital and social cohesion function toward parent involvement at
home and at school.

Parents’ reports suggested that social networks, and the subgroups in which a
parent are embedded, can affect involvement behaviors and beliefs about the education of
his or her children. First, parents reported that in their conversations with other parents,
they compare their own beliefs and actions with their friends and acquaintances.
Furthermore, the interview data suggest that parents can learn about, and are sometimes
influenced by, other parents’ opinions. Where the survey data could provide findings that

were consistent with social cohesion explanations of influence among parents, the

106

interview data in the first section of this chapter provide instances and examples which
support the claim that social cohesion functions among parents to facilitate parent
involvement.

In contrast to social cohesion, social capital appears to affect parent involvement
through the transfer or exchange of resources among parents, as well as through the
creation of a sense of obligation for a parent to become involved in her or his child’s
education. In the former case, parental interviews identified three resources shared
among parents; (1) favors, (2) education materials, and (3) information. The second way
in which social capital might affect parent involvement is through the creation of a sense
of obligation among parents. By watching others become involved, some parents
reported that they developed a sense of obligation to be involved. Moreover, parents also
reported that they have tried to foster a sense of obligation in other parents by applying
pressure on their friends to become involved.

The qualitative data collected for this dissertation, while limited in size, support
the claims made earlier regarding the role social networks have in the creation of parent
involvement at home and at school. The parents who were interviewed described their
relationships and interactions with others in ways that are generally consistent with social
cohesion and social capital theory. Each of these processes are examined separately in

the remainder of this chapter.

Social Cohesion

As a network process among individuals, social cohesion refers to the influence
interpersonal conversations can have on an individual’s beliefs. Through conversations

parents share their beliefs with one another, they compare their own perspectives with

107

other parents’ perspectives, and they may modify their own beliefs as a result of this
sharing and comparing. The effect of this influence, ultimately the result of being part of
a social network or subgroup, may be that parents become more involved in their
children’s education. In chapter 4, HLM analyses suggest that social cohesion can
function among parents’ social networks to affect parent involvement at home. In the
section below, each aspect of social cohesion (sharing beliefs, comparing beliefs, and the
effects of exposure to others’ beliefs) is assessed in terms of interview data. Analyses of
the interview data highlighted the interpersonal processes that make up social cohesion in

support of the data presented in the previous chapter.

glaring Beliefs.

During the interviews, parents reported that they often knew how their friends and
acquaintances felt about a variety of issues pertaining to their child’s schooling. Asking
parents what they talked about with one another revealed that they frequently exchanged
opinions on specific school policies, teachers’ actions, and at times students’ academic
achievements. These conversations between parents appear to have provided them with
knowledge of one another’s opinions (direct exposure to beliefs), as well as exposure to
the opinions and beliefs of parents who are not participating in the immediate
conversation (indirect exposure to beliefs). It is the direct exposure to others’ beliefs that
enable social cohesion to operate between two individuals, while indirect exposure to
others’ beliefs help explain how social cohesion might function within a larger subgroup

of individuals.

Direct Exmsure.

108

Across the interviews, parents remarked that their children and childrearing are
among the most common topics of conversation. Further, almost all of the parents
reported that they shared opinions about involvement, as well as the ways in which they
are involved with their children’s education, with other parents. Through their
conversations, parents appear to have access to the beliefs and behaviors of those with
whom they speak.

Insight into other parents’ beliefs appeared to be common among parents. Even
parents with the fewest network ties reported speaking with other parents about how they
were involved with their child’s education. An illustration of how common it is for
parents to talk about their own involvement was Phil Park“, the member of an isolated
subgroup, who commented that he and other parents ask one another about different types
of involvement practices; “what do your children do in extra hours? All day Kids Club, or
they will do piano lessons, or art lessons? So we exchange such information.” These
types of questions might be one way through which ideas circulate among parents,
enabling them to share and compare parenting and involvement behaviors. These
conversations, however, can do more than inform parents of what others are doing. Phil
described how talking to other parents affected his own perceptions,

Because when I talk with the other parents, they talk about what they did

with their daughter. Some night they went someplace during the weekend,

and they say that to me. So I assume that during the day they have some

involvement, at least several hours a day. (Phil, Isolate)

According to Phil, through conversations with other parents he learns how much other
parents are involved in their children’s education. Phil’s comments suggest that the

interactions among parents allow for exchanges of information regarding involvement

practices.

109

Parents, in addition to talking about the ways in which they are involved in their
child’s education, also reported sharing perceptions of their children’s teacher. Michelle
Kelly describes how she and another parent share perspective of their children’s teacher,

“[B]ut with someone like Val and I, who had the same teacher, we might

have been talking right after conferences. . .There is a problem and I don’t

think its so and so, or she doesn’t seem to notice that this kid is really out

of hand, or have you ever volunteered and noticed that this and this

happens?. It really does go across the board” (Michelle, Central Actor)
Although parents reported that teachers were a common topic of conversation, few
parents reported conversations as detailed as those between Michelle and her friend Val.
These comments may be rare because few parents volunteer in the classroom, the primary
way of getting firsthand knowledge about the way a teacher manages her or his students.
Nevertheless, discussions like the one Michelle described characterize the
communication through which two informed parents share their observations and
impressions of a teacher, enabling the process of social cohesion.

According to both the OLS and HLM analyses, the degree to which a parent
believes that all parents should be involved in the education of their children was
predictive of the parent involvement at home and at school. The case of Nicole Seaver, a
bridging actor between two groups of parents, provides an example of conversations
where parents share their belief about the role parents should have in the education of
their children. Nicole reported that, when talking to other parents, conversations often
reinforce the belief that parents should be involved,

“It would be like, like what the kids are doing, the reason why we are

there volunteering, we’ll just talk about that. Nothing major, you know,

like if they are working part-time they will talk about that, but nothing in

detail.”
(Nicole, Bridger)

llO

In addition to conversations reinforcing the importance of parent involvement, Nicole
also talks to parents who believe they should not have to be involved in their child’s
education. Below Nicole relates her own frustration with parents who think that the
responsibility for teaching children to read rests solely with the school and its teachers,

“I’ve talked to, I don’t know them personally, but I’ve talked to them at

the school and I’ve found that one mom was blaming the school for stuff.

‘they’re not doing this, and they’re not doing that’. It’s hard to tell them

‘I feel that you should be doing more at home’ because I’ve talked with a

couple of parents and they weren’t from Pierce, just in our neighborhood,

and I mean when you tell them you should be teaching your children, they

thought ‘Man, no. When I was growing up my parents didn’t have to read

to me and do this and that with me.’ (Nicole, Bridger)
Despite the fact that this later type of conversation was reported by only one parent, it
suggests that social cohesion may work in opposition to the creation of parent
involvement.

It is perhaps noteworthy to highlight the fact that Nicole Seaver was identified as
a bridging actor within the network structure at Pierce Elementary School. As a
“Bridger,” Nicole connects subgroups who would otherwise be isolated from one
another. The two comments presented support the identification of Nicole as a Bridger,
indicating that she interacts with a variety of groups, from parents who are highly
involved to those who may have no intention of ever being involved in the education of
their children.

Like some of the examples above, two-thirds of the sample of parents interviewed
(8) indicated that conversations with other parents allow them to learn what other parents
think about the school, teachers, and parent involvement. Furthermore, each example

illustrates an instance where one parent’s exposure to others’ beliefs is direct - parents

share their own perspectives in conversations.

lll

Indirect Exposure.

In addition to gaining direct exposure and access to other parents’ attitudes and
beliefs, a parent’s interpersonal interactions with other parents also provide insight into
the attitudes of the larger school community. Interview data contain instances where the
conversations among parents provide indirect exposure to others’ beliefs. That is, a
parent can become informed about the attitudes of parents with whom he or she has no
contact. This phenomenon makes it possible for the beliefs of one parent to influence
another, without the two parents ever talking to one another.

Four of the parents interviewed related instances when their own friend passed
along insight into others’ beliefs. Among these four parents, Francis Brock most clearly
described the process while responding to a question asking her what she talks about with
her friends and other parents at Chief Elementary,

“and then she told me about what the other parents were saying -- how did

they feel about it. And it’s just that, it’s not just my son, it’s, you know,

there’s not too many boys in the fourth grade at Chief and it’s just...maybe

one or two are handling [homework] okay, the rest of them are struggling.

(Francis, Non-Respondent)

In this quote, Francis clearly states that in talking to her friends about a homework
situation, she is informed of “the other parents” perspectives. In addition to finding out
what her friend believes and discussed with the teacher, Francis gained indirect insight
into the beliefs of parents she may not know. This conversation provides her some

understanding of how the community of parents was reacting to the teacher’s homework

policy, and an opportunity to compare her own experiences to the larger community.

112

 

In addition to Francis, other parents reported having access and exposure to other
parents’ beliefs, without actually talking to them. Like Francis, Michelle states that her
conversations with other parents are often spurred by controversies at the school:

“Actually it runs the entire gambit. And it’s usually timely - I mean if

something has come out in the mail, I will go to the [gym] Sunday with

the kids and I will see two other parents from the class there. . .and I will

say, ‘what did you think about the so and so.’ And, you know, ‘if I had

my choice I don’t know if I would vote year around. I really seem to like

it - ideal for Zack, but its not ideal for me. So if they are going to stick

with that, I back it and if not it might be easier for me.’ And I say, ‘Gee I

think so and so left because her son was in 6th grade and it must have

goofed up the schedule’ and [they say], ‘No, she left for another reason. '

And then you get into the policy of this Halloween thing, which was a big

problem, how they would not let kids wear costumes in class and that has

become a topic of the discussion more than once. (Michelle, Central

Actor, emphasis added)

In Michelle’s quote above, her indirect access to the beliefs of other parents is indicated.
Identified as a central actor, Michelle has a large social network which can provide her
with information about the larger network of parents at Chief Elementary School. When
Michelle states why she thinks another mother left the school, she is corrected and
informed of why that parent actually left. The conversation between Michelle and her
friend at the gym began by discussing their own opinions, however, the context expanded
into an opportunity for Michelle to learn the reason why another parent pulled her child
out of the local elementary school. Despite the fact that Michelle never spoke to the
parent who left the school, she nonetheless has knowledge of that parent’s attitudes about
the school.

The comments of Francis and Michelle illustrate an important network process;

the diffusion of attitudes throughout a network. As parents convey the beliefs of others in

their conversations with one another, it appears as though social cohesion can function as

113

a subgroup process. Through their interactions with friends and acquaintances, parents
come to learn about the opinions and attitudes of other parents with whom they may have
no interactions, but to whom others are connected through subgroup ties. Because of this

phenomenon, parents’ observe and compare beliefs with others in their social networks.

Opportunities for Cormarison.

While the previous section provided evidence that parents share their beliefs on a
variety of issues, further evidence exists in support of the proposition that this serves as
the basis for one parent to compare herself to another. The theoretical model proposed in
this dissertation suggests that parents’ social networks affect parent involvement because
the process of social cohesion affects parents own beliefs about themselves, the school,
and/or their child. An important facet of social cohesion models is that individuals
compare themselves to others with whom they come into contact. This comparison,
combined with a pressure toward conformity, makes others’ beliefs influential on the
individual (Festinger et. al., 1959).

In this dissertation, parents reported that they often compared their own beliefs
and behaviors to the beliefs and behaviors of other parents. In addition, parents reported
that these interactions are important to them and influence them. Michelle Kelly, a
central actor, describes how the process of comparison can begin slowly and subtly;

“Yes, I honestly think that [parents] would just rather think all their

teachers are the best of all the classes. But every once in a while you will

get into a situation where we will start talking about the teacher and they

say, ‘I’m really uncomfortable with this.’ and you say, ‘I am too.’ And -

but for awhile I honestly think that at the beginning of the year we all want
to go, ‘yes, we got a good one this year’. ...” (Michelle, central actor)

114

Michelle’s comment suggests that as parents compare each others’ opinions and
perceptions, they may modify their beliefs. The effect of interactions such as those above
can be seen as Michelle elaborated, “I try to take it with a grain of salt, but I betcha that’s
in my head the whole year.” Although Michelle is supportive of her child’s teacher,
conversations with other parents establish a basis for comparison and allow her to voice
her concerns among other parents.

Like Michelle, Karen Clarke reported that her conversations with friends allow
for them to compare perspectives, influencing Karen’s own attitudes about the school and
her child. Karen, also a central actor, reported that talking to others allows her to
compare the development of her daughter to the daughters of her peers. When asked
what the most common topic of conversation is among her friends, Karen reported it was
their children:

“What is going on at school and it could be anything. First you talk about

the kids growing up - the new things - a boyfriend now - how are we going

to deal with this. The body changing you know. Its more about the

attitude of growing up. To discuss - you can figure out - is the kid really

waco here or we....Is this something I got to worry about or is it not. So

we discuss a lot about growing up with personality changes. We talk

about the work of the teachers - we discuss teachers a lot. I agreed with

that, I disagree with that - did you hear about that - did you hear about this

or what’s going on at the school”

Karen’s comment suggests that she gauges her own reactions, whether they are to
developmental changes in her daughter or her opinions of a teacher, through interactions
with other parents. In talking to her friend, Karen compares her reactions and her
daughter’s maturation to others. She confers with her friends about how to handle the

developmental changes in her children. What is considered an appropriate reaction to

any given event, and what is considered a “waco” reaction, appears likely to be

115

determined among Karen’s network of friends, through their interactions with one
another.

In addition to comparing beliefs and attitudes, parents also reported comparing
involvement practices. One example, Brenda Cassey, reported that she and her close
friends not only compare, but coordinate their involvement. Brenda, a non-respondent to
the survey, stated that, “with homework and stuff, we talk a lot about how to do- or
different ways to do that, when to do it - when is the best time - make sure that they all do
it at the same time so that they can play together.” Brenda later explained how
conversations about the ways in which she and her friends are involved at home can be
specific, enabling them to compare and contrast their involvement strategies against one
another;

“On Mondays they get spelling words. . .and talking with other parents on

how much you have them do each night, do you have them do it all in one

night or. . .How do you review the word? Do you just have them spell them

out loud, do you have them write it down, if they make mistakes do you

have them write it 10 times, or do you just wait until the next day? Just

comparing what you do.” (Brenda, Non-respondent)
According to Brenda, she and her friends are constantly talking to one another, hoping to
discover strategies that will help their children learn. Brenda and her friends share new
ideas with one another about how to help their children with school and other
extracurricular activities.

Although Brenda presents a good example of how close friends might compare
involvement behaviors with one another, the act of comparing is not necessarily confined

to groups of friends. During an interview, one parent (Jackie, a Non-respondent) could

recall a situation where she and a group of parents stood around at the school, comparing

116

 

 

the sacrifices they made to be there and the various demands and constraints of their
lives. Jackie states,

J: . .and I don’t know how we got into the conversation, but I said- I

said ‘how long have you been here?’ . .. I asked them how long they had

been there and we talked about what hours they worked and I said, ‘wow,

you had to take a day off work to come here?’ and they said, ‘yeah, but it

was worth it because it was for my kids. I took a vacation day or early

leave day.’ And there was a few of us parents standing around, and a few

said, ‘yeah that was the only way I could of done it, was if I took a

vacation day or early leave.’ Some parents didn’t have a vacation, so they

took an early leave day or a late come-in day (if they work second shift).

There were some parents, I told them I wouldn’t have been able to do this

if it would have been during the day, during the school hours. And a few

parents said, yeah, I wouldn’t have been able to do it if I hadn’t taken a

vacation day. So we were all kind of talking about it.

S: How you could manage to be there?

J: Yeah, I think that helps because it gives other parents ideas. You

know, I didn’t think about it, but I could have taken a vacation day. But I

was saving my vacation days to go to camp, so I still, I still was o.k. I was

good.” (Jackie, Non-Respondent)
In addition to further illustrating how parents compare their own behaviors and.
dedication to the schooling of their children, the statement by Jackie also conveys the
pressure that is created from this comparison. These parents, while publicly sharing the
sacrifices they made to be at the school, are also communicating to others that they too
could (and perhaps should) be making sacrifices. As parents’ sacrifices are made public,
it may become increasingly difficult for parents not to compare themselves to others.

The comparisons parents make among one another not only propel them to action,
but also ease some parents’ concerns about their children. Throughout the interviews,
parents stated they will talk to a close friend or family member in order to reassure

themselves that they are not overreacting to a given situation. Michelle Kelly, a central

actor, makes this point well;

117

“They either bring me back to earth- because you are so wrapped up in

this, that you think it is the worst it could be or the best you could be, or

this is what I tried and they bring you back -‘Oh, don’t worry about it you

know what, everybody does that.’ You talk to people who usually have a

child a year older than you are or a couple months older than yours is.
For Michelle and five other parents interviewed, having a network of parents to call and
discuss recent events appears to help them gauge the relative normalcy of their own child,
their reactions to various situations, or simply the developmental course their child is on.
Moreover, a parent’s social networks may function to help understand what role to play
in his or her child’s development. In some cases, the interactions with other parents
allowed a parent to compare his or her children to other children. Interactions also

enabled parents to compare their beliefs to the beliefs of other parents and to compare

their involvement practices with the practices of other parents.

The Effect on Parental Beliefs

Ultimately, through sharing and comparing beliefs and behaviors, social networks
may influence a parent’s beliefs. Interview data collected for this study indicate that a
parent’s own beliefs about issues pertaining to her or his children’s schooling can be
affected by interactions with other parents. It is this final dynamic among parents that
allows a parents’ social networks to become a context in which social cohesion has an
important influence on parent involvement.

Throughout the interviews, and regardless of whether or not they returned the
surveys, parents reported that teachers are among the most common topics about which
parents talk to one another. Parents continually related incidents in which they shared
with their friends opinions about their child’s teachers and other teachers at the school.

Francis, a mother who worked at Chief Elementary School as a noon supervisor.

118

 

described how she is often approached by other parents who wish to learn more about the
teachers at Chief;

“We used to live in an apartment and then there was a lot of parents

wanting to know about the teachers and my feelings about it and what was

going on at the school. New parents and even some of the old parents that

are there and they are not able to come in and volunteer in the classroom.

They asked me - so I tell them my opinion” (Francis, Non-respondent)

In the statement above, Francis described herself as a bridge between the school and
those parents who cannot visit the school or talk to their child’s teacher often. As a
bridge, Francis states that her opinion of the school and its teachers were often sought
after and held in high regard by many parents.

The opinions and beliefs of parents are not always stated explicitly and are often
embedded in the subtext of a conversation. Michelle Kelly, a central actor, described
how parents share their opinions of various teachers:

“I have never had anybody sit down and say, ‘now tell me about so and

so’ or ‘what do you think of so and so?’ It has come up but someone will

say, ‘you have Mrs. Little, well I hear she was one of the best.’ I must say

if I had my choice all over again I might have chosen her over Dunn, but I

wouldn’t have known the difference and Dunn was fine for Zack.”

(Michelle, Central Actor)

Michelle’s comment is particularly enlightening about parents’ conversations for several
reasons. The quote suggests that the exchange of opinions and beliefs is not necessarily
an explicit topic of conversation and may come across in casual comments made by
parents. This is evident when Michelle comments that nobody has explicitly asked her to
“tell me about so and so.” Instead, social cohesion may operate in more subtle ways, as
parents comment on what they have seen or heard about teachers.

In addition to the subtle exchange of opinions, Michelle’s comment also indicates

that these conversations can impact parents. Upon reflection, Michelle claims that she

119

would prefer her son to have been in the classroom of “one of the best” teachers, despite
the fact that Michelle’s son succeeded, and even thrived, in Mrs. Dunn’s classroom. The
influence of others’ Opinions about Mrs. Little seem to be more influential than
Michelle’s own experiences with Mrs. Dunn.

In addition to helping parents choose a teacher for their child, conversations with
other parents also appear to provide an additional perspective on the classroom and
children’s learning. Heather Wallace, an isolate, commented about how conversations
with another parent affected the way she perceived the competency of her son’s teacher,

H. My last conversation with one of the parents was over, you know, [the

teacher’s] teaching methods and her ability to come across, represent
what she was talking about so that the kids can understand. Or at least
so that [my son] can understand what she is trying to tell him. When
he asks her a question and she tells it to him in the same thing over and
over again, instead of repeating it in some way he can understand.
And so one of the parents said, yeah, that some of their kids have
had. . .the same problem.
I. ...Did that just make you feel better?..
H. Apprehensive as to whether she is going to be able to teach my son
where he can understand, learn it, and come with -you know- a good
comprehension of the fourth grade, and what he needs to learn. Sol
am a little leery, we’re going to wait until conferences come around
and then see how he is doing. Whether I should switch him into the
other fourth grade class. So we’ll see.
If Heather was concerned about her son’s fourth grade experience before talking to a
friend, the result of this conversation seems to have only heightened that worry. One of
the results of Heather’s conversation about her son’s teacher, at least according to her,
was that it confirmed for her that there may be a problem with the teacher- as opposed to

her son. The fact that other children have had similar issues with this teacher makes the

child’s learning difficulties more easily attributable to the teacher. Having “confirmed”

120

that there may be a problem with the teacher, Heather appears to be ready to get involved
with her son’s education and have her son moved to another fourth grade classroom.
Heather’s beliefs about the ability of her son’s teacher to effectively help him learn have
been affected (perhaps magnifying her concern) by the conversation(s) with a friend.

It is important to note that some parents explained how their conversations with their
friends do not affect their own beliefs. The degree and frequency with which social
cohesion occurs, therefore, may be quite limited. When talking about her friendships,
Karen Clark responded; “I’m not going to change my view just simply because they do it
a different way. But I will view how they handle their kids, and if I like the results or I
like the interaction, I may try it.” The amount of influence may be dependent on the
personal values held by the individuals interacting with one another. For example, some
parents may be more self-assured than others.

As a social context, the conversations a parent has with other parents at the school -
are capable of influencing his or her beliefs about the school and it’s teachers. In
showing how a parent’s beliefs can be affected by her or his interactions with other
parents, the claim that social cohesion can affect parent involvement appears receives
support. Specifically, the interviews were able to provide illustrations of various stages
which comprise the process of social cohesion. As parents talk to one another they may
become involved in sharing opinions with one another, comparing their own beliefs and
behaviors to one another, and ultimately influencing the beliefs of one another. By
identifying each of these processes and illustrating them with interview data, I have lent

support to the survey data and guiding theoretical model of social cohesion.

121

Social Capital: The Investment of Resources
In addition to social cohesion, a parent’s social network was hypothesized to

affect involvement in her or his child’s education when it provides a context in which
social capital functions. In this dissertation, social capital has been argued to facilitate
parent involvement when interpersonal relationships provide a means through which
parents can invest resources in one another, or when parents invest their own personal
resources into their child’s school. During the interviews, parents spoke about both types
of resource investment, and the manner in which they facilitate parent involvement at

home or at school.

Investments Toward Other Parents

The first mechanism through which social capital promotes parent involvement is
the sharing of resources among parents. During interviews, parents indicated several
types of resources they share with their friends that affect parent involvement. Among
the resources identified were favors, educational and learning materials, and information.
Parent interviews suggest that the cooperative exchange of these resources can help

facilitate parent involvement at home and at school.

Favors

Among the many factors which affect the degree to which a parent becomes
involved in her or his children’s education is the parent’s perception that she or he has
time available to be involved. Parent involvement, whether at home or at school, can
only occur if parents feel that they have the time to volunteer at the school, go to the
museum, or read with their children. Throughout the interviews, three-quarters of the

parents repeatedly stated that one of the biggest obstacles to parent involvement was a

122

' 1

lack of time to be involved at the school, or even to interact one-on-one with a child at
home. In some of the cases, parents reported that their friendships and network ties
helped provide them with more time to accomplish numerous errands and
responsibilities.

Although relatively few parents reported that they seek favors from their friends,
relationships that can offer a parent extra help function as social capital. By offering to
take a friend’s child to community events or by helping a parent with child care, friends
and network ties can provide a parent time and allow her or him to accomplish more than
if there had been no network tie present. Furthermore, performing favors was also
reported as having a positive effect on parent involvement and other types of parent-child
interactions.

An important form of investment from one parent to another was help with
childcare and carpooling. During interviews, parents who reported that they share
childcare responsibilities with their friends emphasized the importance of this form of
interpersonal investment. One mother, Brenda Cassey (Non-respondent), is involved in a
cooperative system of daycare with three of her neighbors. When asked if she and her
friends share childcare, Brenda responded;

But yeah we communicate back and forth on that because all of us work.

We say, OK you guys- lets bring your calendars to soccer, because we are

going to figure out- and we did. You know, there is four of us, and we

have it all organized about who is taking... 1 have an appointment today at

3, and at 4. Well, they are done at 3. So my kids are going to my

neighbors and her son was with me yesterday. Oh, yeah, that’s very

important.

Brenda explained how one day a week, each mother takes the group of children so that

the others can work or run errands. According to Brenda, without this network she and

123

her children would be deprived of valued activities and experiences. She stated, “If I
didn’t have them to rely on, I don’t know what I would do. I wouldn’t be able to work,
my kids wouldn’t be participating in anything. They would be in Kids’ Club9 and Chief
Elementary, morning and at night, and I don’t want that.” The coordinated system of
favors described by Brenda creates time for her to practice law, read in her children’s
classrooms, hold a position on the school’s parent counsel, and watch her children play
league soccer.

Among the parents interviewed, the cooperative daycare described by Brenda
may be among the best illustrations of how investments among parents help them
accomplish more. Such scenarios, however, are relatively uncommon. More often,
investments and favors that affect childcare occur between two parents. Parents indicated
these types of interactions foster parent involvement in two ways: by expanding the
opportunities children have for involvement and by maintaining a tie across which one
parent can stay informed about community.

For a parent who works or who has several children, finding time to spend with
her or his children was often perceived to be difficult. One strategy reported to help ease
the pressures of time is sharing the responsibility of driving children to various
community events. Terri Grossman (Non-respondent) described how both she and her
friend benefit from the fact that Terri’s friend drives both of their sons to basketball
practice:

“it’s helpful for her to have someone to come along with her son because

he’ll want to do it more. So she sort of used my child to help make it more

enjoyable for her child, but she help me out tremendously by actually

getting him there and back and, um, just letting me know what is going
on.”

124

In the case above, Terri’s friends actually asked if she could take Terri’s son to
basketball, helping her own son stay motivated to play while also helping Terri. Offers to
carpool or look after a friend’s child for an hour or two are particularly helpful to parents
who are trying to manage the time constraints of both their own lives and the lives of
their children. Terri, who has two other sons and worked, reported that investments such
as the one described above help ease the demand for time that parent involvement can
have. Specifically, these favors connected Terri and her children to community activities
without having to, “put the time in to do the research” that would be required were it not
for her social relationships with other mothers.

Where Terri described the profits of having others invest in her, Karen Clarke
describes how investing in others can also provide benefits. During her interview, Karen
mentioned that she will often invite her daughter’s friends to join her family on trips to
places such as the museum. Despite the fact that Karen’s investment toward her friend
results in an extra child to be responsible for, it also makes her own parent involvement
easier. She explains this apparent contradiction, “My girls will have more fun if [her]
girls are with me” (Karen Clarke, Central Actor). An extra child to take care of may be
the needed resource in order for parent involvement, in this case at the museum, to be a
positive experience for parents and children.

The previous examples of social capital among parents have taken the form of
carpooling and sharing childcare. The final example describes a different type of
investment. According to Francis Brock (Non-respondent), her friend cooked dinner for

her family while she was involved with their sons’ schooling and Cub Scouts. This act of

125

generosity also fosters parent involvement and may increase the degree to which the
relationship between Francis and her friend have social capital between themselves;
Francis: last night a parent brought food over because we had Cub Scouts
right after school and then we had an hour and we had to be back at the
school. OK, Cub Scouts from 3:30 - 5:30 - we went on a field trip and

she insisted on bringing dinner over. She brought dinner over at 6:15.

Interviewer: Now that’s amazing - very generous and I am very curious to
find out, like, why she did that.

F: Well she said if I would drop off her son she would bring me food.
I: Like trading favors.
F: She just did it, because I had to drop him off anyway. When we go on
field trips we drop all the kids off - hassle to go back to school. It is
easier to drop them off - they all in the neighborhood. . .I still haven ’t
repaid her for that, I’ll have to do something special for her.
(emphasis added)
As Francis described, being friends with another mother helped her juggle the tasks of
helping the Cub Scouts, making dinner for the family, and being involved at the school.
Francis’ comment also illustrates how social capital is maintained or perpetuated
among parents. Francis’ comment, “I still haven’t repaid her for that, I’ll have to do
something special,” suggests that her friend’s action engendered a sense of indebtedness
and a need to repay the favor. This comment suggests that being the recipient of an
investment develops a sense of obligation to invest in others, in much the way Coleman
and others (Coleman, 1990; Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993) have hypothesized
obligations are created among social actors.
Terri Grossman also described a time when she had offered resources of her own

to other parents, with the hopes that they would become more involved at the school.

According to Terri, parents can be influenced to become involved in their child’s

126

 

education by watching other parents get involved or by getting some help from their
friends:
“By seeing someone else being involved then, you know, I think then
maybe other people have followed suit. I have, I have in the past very
subtly encouraged just by saying, ‘you’ve got a small child, I have a
nanny. Feel free to have your child come to my home for an hour while
you go to help. (Terri, Non-Respondent)
In the second half of the quote, Terri very clearly states that she has offered her
own resources to help another parent with childcare, so that the parent can help at
the school. Terri’s offer to let another parent use her nanny, so that the parent can
help at the school, is demonstrative of the kinds of resources and favors parents

can (and sometimes do) invest in one another which create additional time for

parent involvement.

 

Taken together, the examples from Francis, Karen, Terri, and Brenda support the
connection between social capital and parent involvement. As hypothesized in this
dissertation, when parents invest their own personal resources in other parents they may
enable parent involvement at school and at home. Based on the interviews conducted,
social capital among networks of parents, in the form of doing favors for one another,
might affect parent involvement at school and at home by providing parents with extra

time to engage in these types of interactions.

Educational Resources.

In addition to carpools and daycare, a small group of parents reported that they
invested material resources in one another. The parents who reported exchanging this
type of resource all sent their children to Chief Elementary and, therefore, were more

likely to have higher incomes than those parents who did not report sharing educational

127

 

resources with other parents. In all of the cases presented, the investment of educational
resources among parents facilitated parent involvement at home, where parents could
work more closely with their own children.

In the first example, Joan Getty stated that she and her friends lend and borrow
resources from one another. In her interview, Joan (a bridging actor) commented that she
has shared and borrowed educational computer games and learning resources with
friends. Terri Grossman (a Non-respondent) also reported this type of investment, where
parents share educational software with one another.

Joan Getty reported investments and exchanges of educational resources beyond
computer software. In one instance, Joan borrowed a phonics game from her friend so
that she could work with her son on reading and evaluate the product to see if it was
worth purchasing. Knowing that her son does not like to read, and feeling as though
reading and writing are his weakest academic area, Joan sought out her friends for ideas
and resources to increase the amount and quality of involvement at home.

In addition to borrowing others’ resources, Joan has also been in the role of
lender. Joan describes how she shared her own educational materials with another
mother and that mother’s children,

“I shared with my friend about the SRA (reading curriculum materials). I

was doing with Michael, and she and her kids came over 2 or 3 times this

summer. . .we put them at various levels because one of her kids is in

junior high school. And they worked on things together.”

Through her friendships and acquaintances with other parents, Joan not only shared the

resources she has purchased for her son, but she has also used the educational resources

owned by others.

128

 

Examination of Joan Getty suggests that the exchange and investment of
educational resources among parents can influence parent involvement at home greatly.
These exchanges, however, appear to be quite rare. Only one other parent reported that
she and her friends lend materials to one another. Both of these parents are representative
of parents who are highly educated and generally wealthy. While this second type of
resource invested among parents may be influential, it is not likely to be widespread.
Although highly encouraging and enabling of parent involvement at home, it is unclear

how often or in what context this type of exchange might actually occur among parents.

Information.

Theoretical arguments describing social capital and how it functions among actors
suggest that information is among the most important resources individuals provide one
another. Unlike opinions or beliefs, which are the basis for social cohesion, information
exchange among parents involve conversations where parents are sharing facts or relating
events to one another. Coleman ( 1990) has argued that information provides a basis for
action, and that network ties function as social capital to the extent that they make
information available. During the interviews, many parents reported that they frequently
engage in conversations where they seek and offer information about parent involvement
and their children’s schooling.

While most parents reported that they collect a lot of information from other
parents, this was not true of all parents. Terri (a non-respondent), for example, reported
that she felt that she rarely had time to hold conversations with her friends; “Life is so
busy...and when you get together with your friends, you know, you’re usually there with

your kids, and it is actually hard to have a conversation.” In addition, almost all of the

129

 

parents reported that they get a lot of information from the teachers at their children’s
school. Jackie (non-respondent), for example, stated that she rarely spoke with other
parents and instead, “concentrated on talking to the teachers, but not the parents.”
Although not all parents perceived themselves as drawing upon a network of other
parents for information, when parents began to talk about their conversations with other
parents it became clear that a great deal of information was exchanged.

Analyses of parent interviews indicated that the topics of conversation vary
widely and that the exchange of information actually occurred among all parents. Across
the sample, parents reported at least three types of information they share and invest in
one another: (1) information about educational resources and activities, (2) information
about teachers, schools, and school policy, and (3) information about parent involvement
and parenting in general. These topics of conversation occur among parents from across
the social network (central actors, bridging actors, isolates, and non-respondents),
although the frequency with which these conversations occur varies by network position.
Parents who were central actors more often spoke about exchanging information with
other parents than those parents who were isolates.

Information about Resources and Activities. Conversations in which parents
share their own experiences and knowledge about various educational resources or
activities were reported to be one of the more important ways in which social ties affect
parent involvement. Although some parents reported that they often learned about
community events from school notices or communications home, they also stated that
friends function as additional resources from which they can learn about new

opportunities for getting involved in their child’s education. Oftentimes, information

130

 

about resources and involvement activities fosters the type of parent-child interactions
that occur at home or in the community.

Perhaps one of the best examples of how social ties can provide useful
information to a parent regarding new and different ways to become involved in her or
his child’s education comes from Karen Clarke. According to Karen, a central actor, she
receives information about a variety of books and activities from different friends;

“One of my friends. . .and I used to work in a book store, we love books.

So she reads a book, ‘Jenny just got this book it’s really good, Carrie

should get it’ . . .Another friend of mine, Alice. . .she is a naturalist. . .We

will discuss—Woldumar [a group] are having their Winterfest and you

should really bring your girls to [the] arboretum-they are doing tapping,

they are doing the apple butter. You should come in and see how they tap
the trees. It really cool so lets do that with your kids.”

In this example, Karen describes how her friendships provide information about various
books to read and places to go with her daughters. These relationships keep Karen
informed of the different ways in which she might be involved in her daughters’
education and development.

Karen’s comment, in addition to describing the information she is provided with
by her friends, illustrates a connection between social capital and human capital.
Through her connections to others, Karen is afforded opportunities in which she and her
daughters can develop knowledge, information, and skills. Karen’s social capital enables
the development of human capital. While one friend may be particularly knowledgeable
about books, another may know more about ecology and the environment. Karen and her
friend Alice, the naturalist, seem to keep their exchanges focused on the environment,
and local environmental organizations with which Alice is involved. The information
exchanged between Karen and each of her friends is highly specific and tends to be

focused on the interests and knowledge of those friends"). Conversation topics, and the

131

 

 

information that is passed along, is specific to the person with whom Karen interacts.
The friend with whom Karen worked at a bookstore provides exchanges of information
about books that are new or that her daughters might enjoy. In contrast, she almost never
talks about books for her daughters with her friend who is active with the nature group.
As Karen states, “Maybe once I’ve told [Alice] that this is a cool book, [her daughter]
would probably like it.” It may be that Karen’s social network consists of a variety of
people with specialized knowledge, expertise, and interests. For Karen, the network can
serve to broaden her individual knowledge and range of resources. Karen draws on her
social capital, using others’ human capital in order to provide her with greater
opportunities to be involved in the education of her daughters.

Karen’s comment suggests that parents with friends who are interested and
involved in a wide variety of activities are capable of obtaining a great deal of
information about a wide range of activities. This conclusion is consistent with Nan
Lin’s theory of social resources (1990), which suggests that individuals with larger, more
diverse social networks have access to more heterogeneous resources. Conversely,
parents who have very few social relationships might be less likely to get involved in
their child’s education at home, due to the likelihood that they are presented with fewer
options and opportunities for parent involvement. This finding complements the OLS
regression analyses by making connections among network size, the amount, and the
variety of information to which a parent has access.

Where Karen demonstrates how networks can offer information about
involvement to a parent, other parents reported actively seeking information from their

social network. Among these parents, Phil Park (a father from Korea, unfamiliar with the

132

 

 

community, and a member of the isolated subgroup at Chief Elementary) stated that he
has asked others for information regarding the resources and activities important to his
daughter. One example Phil described involves finding a piano instructor for his
daughter;

“My daughter wanted to learn some piano lessons and the problem is that

we don’t know where to go, and then one of the parents showed me, OK.

you should try a music store, it’s on Main Street. . .it was very helpful for

me because I contacted them and it was very nice.”

Unlike Karen, who demonstrates how friends and network ties might offer ideas for
involvement, Phil’s comment suggests that parents will also use their network ties to
actively pursue information. Having a larger social network provides parents with a
greater variety of people from which to gain information about activities to become
involved in with their child.

Teachers, School, and School Policies. Perhaps the most common topic of
conversation among parents, and one that might provide the most helpful information
with regard to a child’s schooling, is the school personnel and policies. By gathering as
much information as possible about the school, its teachers, and its policies, parents can
interact with schools as knowledgeable advocates for their children. Annette Lareau
(1989) has shown how parents take information they collect from their friends about a
school or teacher and use it to interact with the school more effectively. Like the parents
Lareau studied, the parents in this study also talked to one another about teachers and
how to approach them when problems arise. Furthermore, their conversations with one

another lead to several types of parent involvement, including involvement at home,

involvement at school, and even discuss about which school to send their child.

133

 

 

Across the interviews, parents reported that they frequently talked to other parents
about the personalities and competence of individual teachers. Both schools participating
in this study had at least two teachers per grade level. Having two possible teachers, it
was not uncommon for parents to request that their children be placed in one classroom
and not another, or to compare teachers who taught the same grade. Parents from each
network position reported talking to others about teachers. For example, Heather
Wallace (an isolate), reported using her friend as a source of information about her son’s
current fourth grade teacher. She asked,

“What kind of teacher [is] this person? I’ve asked them because they’ve

had kids that were at higher grades, and mine are lower, so you knew kind

of what teachers would be like, as far as their teaching abilities, their

personalities”.

Drawing upon the experiences of parents with older children was a strategy Nicole
Seaver (Bridger) also used. Both Heather and Nicole’s relationship with their friends
could function as a valuable resource to the extent that they provided each mother with
insight gained from others’ personal experiences.

Information about teachers was not only exchanged between close friends.
Francis Brock, a Non-respondent, was previously a noon hour supervisor and at the time
of the interview worked at Chief Elementary School as a paid classroom aide. She stated
(in a comment used earlier to indicate the exchange of beliefs) that a lot of people have
asked her about the teachers at Chief. Many of these parents are new to the school and
unknown to Francis:

“We used to live in an apartment, and there was a lot of parents wanting to

know about the teachers and my feelings about it, and what was going on

at the school. New parents and even some of the old parents that are there

and they are not able to come in and volunteer in the classroom. They ask
me — so I tell them my opinion.”

134

 

 

Francis is functioning in the way that researchers have described actors as “weak ties’
and filling “structural holes” (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1977; Morgan and Sorensen,
1998). She linked different groups and acted as a conduit across which information could
travel. In this case, Francis bridged parents in the apartments and the school staff.
Francis’ role as a source for information for those parents who cannot spend time at the
school was further illustrated when she stated:

“And then there are some parents that are not there because they are not

able to come and then they ask so, OK, this is what happened - do you

know anything about it - you are usually there. . .Do you know about this.”
Knowing that Francis spends a great deal of time at the school, parents have used her as a
resource from which they may obtain more information about school events and
information about teachers.

In addition to illustrating how conversations about specific teachers might
function as a resource for parents, the interviews also highlight the role bridging actors
might play in affecting parents’ choice of school for their children. Joan Getty, identified
as a bridging actor, removed her child from Chief and sent him to a private school.
During the interview, Joan described a conversation she had with another mother who
also took her child out of Chief Elementary and a third parent who was considering
withdrawing his or her child from the public elementary school system. Living in the
same community as other parents with children at Chief Elementary School, Joan has
become a connection between those who are considering private school for their children
and the school to which she currently sends her son.

These interpersonal exchanges (conversations) can be interpreted as social capital

functioning to influence parent involvement in the form of school choice. Whether it is

135

 

 

to compare teachers or schools, parents gather information and use it as a basis for their
own actions, as well as a basis for the role they take in their children’s education. For
example, Joan Getty remarked that she sent her son to a private school because of the
stories she heard from other parents about the district middle school,

“from what I have heard about the middle school, and I have a friend

whose daughter was assaulted at the middle school, Assaulted-there was a

police report and her daughter begged her not to press charges. ...the girl

was suspended for a week. . .how about kicking her out for a year?. . .I hear

that kind of stuff and I just- my son is not going there. Because I have no

respect for the people who run that place. They obviously have no

standards there.”
Joan’s reaction to her friends’ stories about the middle school illustrates how
conversations about a school and its administration can affect parent involvement in the
form of school choice. Joan, who never mentioned having any conversations with staff
from the middle school, has judged them to be people with “no standards” and has
already decided not to send her son there. She stated, “I will be putting my son back into
high school though. . .that’s what my other friend in the neighborhood did with her older
daughter.” Through her friendship with a mother who has an older child than she, Joan
has heard stories, passed judgment on the Middle School, and made educational decisions
regarding which schools her son will (and will not) be attending in the upcoming years.

Lagnt Involvement andiarenting. Analysis of the interview data identified a
third type of information that parents shared with one another. According to parents,
their social relationships and interactions with other parents will, at times, provide them

information about general parenting strategies and/or specific strategies for becoming

involved in their children’s education. Unlike the first type of information, the types of

136

 

 

resources available (i.e., books, events, or computer software), parents also reported that
they shared information about how to interact with and help their children.

Several parents, from across schools and network positions, reported that they go
to their friends for advice about a variety of circumstances they encounter as children
grow up. Among the topics of conversation, parents stated that they share information
with and help one another regarding non-education related issues such as how to deal
with a child who is not succeeding in sports, a child who is undergoing bodily changes
that occur from entering adolescence, how to set up an allowance schedule, and more.
Parents look to their close friends for advice on raising their children, particularly those
friends who have older children and who may have had similar experiences.

Specifically with regard to information about their children’s education, parents
reported that they have learned about involvement strategies and information regarding
developmental problems with learning from other parents. In some cases these
conversations appeared to occur in organized forums, and at other times they took place
under more informal conditions (i.e., over the phone). Francis Brock (a bridging actor)
talked about her own experiences interacting with other parents from Chief Elementary
SchooL

“I used to go...’O.K., this is what I am doing with my kids now and it is

not working. Any suggestions?’ I go to parents and see what they

have to suggest. We even have a literacy team and that’s what that is for.

Where the parents come in and we have ideas - we swap ideas O.K.,

‘What problems are you having. Is it working? This is what I would do

for that.’ And we have a teacher - a couple of teachers come in and they

give suggestions”

Chief Elementary created this literacy team as a forum where parents can help one

another remain involved with their child’s education at home. Teachers are there as an

137

 

 

added resource for parents, although not necessarily the primary resource. Given
Francis’ emphasis on how parents “swap ideas:” the literacy team seems to be an
example of how schools can develop social capital among parents that promotes parent
involvement.

A second example of parents exchanging information about how to get involved
came from Jackie, a non-respondent, who commented that through a conversation with
another mother she eventually came to get special education resources for one of her
sons:

Jackie: Like I talk about Ricardo, my oldest son, I’m worried about him
because he has a learning disability. He comprehends what he reads,
but he has to take his time, he has to go really slow, and his writing is
slow. When I run across a parent who talks about their child having a
disability, usually we get into a deeper conversation about it.

Interviewer: Have you ever gotten advice that’s really helped Ricardo
out?

J: Yeah, there was one parent that I talked to, when he was going to Davis
Elementary, in Baily, that was telling me that no matter how many
times people tell you that it’s all in your head, or you worry too much,
there is something inside a mother that tells her something isn’t right.
Don’t ever let go of that feeling, or just think that you are just-you are
over reacting. Don’t ever let anybody tell you that you are overreacting
when it comes to your child’s welfare. And she was right because I
went ahead and went through and got Ricardo tested for ADD and he
doesn’t have ADD, but he does have a learning disability.

1. So it sounds like you found out that he had a learning disability
through some encouragement?

J: Right, talking to a parent and hearing her side. I mean, all of the
symptoms that she told me her son had, that’s how Ricardo was acting

at the time. And so I thought for sure that it was ADD, when they said
he didn’t have ADD and that he does have a learning disability.

According to Jackie, the idea that she should get her son tested for Attention Deficit

Disorder (ADD) had not occurred to her until a conversation with another parent in which

138

 

 

symptoms of ADD were described. From this conversation, Ricardo was tested and
eventually diagnosed as having a learning disability. As Jackie reports, her role as an
advocate for her son was the direct result of her conversation with another parent.

As influential as parents’ conversations with one another appear to be, the sample
of parents interviewed also reported that they get a great deal of information and advice
from their children’s teachers. In some cases, the teacher might have been the most
frequently consulted and most trusted source of information. Both parents who were
isolates (Heather Wallace and Phil Park) reported that they typically do not consult other
parents. For Phil, parents are a secondary source of information, “The teacher is the
major source of discussion, and the other parents are more superficial.” For parents
without many network ties, teachers may be these parents’ only source of information
and advice about parenting.

Reliance on teachers for information was also reported by Brenda, a non-
respondent who was actively involved at home and at school. Brenda stated that she
finds out which teacher to request for her sons from teachers they have already had.
While parents can, and at times do, provide one another with information, they may not
be perceived to be the most valued resource upon which a parent draws. A Parent’s
social network of other parents is only one resource. For many parents, across network
positions, the establishment of a social relationship with their child’s teacher is more
valued and is perceived to be a more important resource.

The interview data, although based on only twelve interviews, supports the
theoretical framework described earlier regarding social capital. The type of social

capital created by the investment of resources from one parent to another appeared to

139

 

 

affect parent involvement at home and at school. It is important to note, however, that a
parent’s social ties to other parents may not be perceived to be the only, or even most
important, resource available. Many parents stated that they often consult their child’s
teacher (or past teacher) for advice about the education and development of their child.
For some parents, their social network is perceived to be an important and valuable

resource, while for others it is seen as a secondary resource upon which to draw.

Investments Toward the School

In contrast to the previous section, where parents’ investments in other parents
were discussed, this section deals with situations where parents direct their investments
toward their children’s school. When parents see others getting involved and investing in
the school, or when parents are subject to pressure to contribute to the school community,
they begin to feel as though they should invest in the school. At times this pressure may
be subtle, whereas in other instances the pressure to become involved at the school is
more obvious. This second form of social capital, it is hypothesized, operates to create
parent involvement at school.

A number of parents expressed a sense of obligation to be involved and
resentment of those who are not. They explained how these perceptions impact decisions
to become more involved at the school. Unlike investments from one parent to another
parent, investments toward the school appear most likely to function as social capital
among parents who have larger networks (e. g., central actors and weak ties). The
description of how membership in certain subgroups within the school can expose a

parent to pressure to become involved at her or his children’s school is consistent with

140

 

the HLM analyses and support the theoretical claims that social capital can affect parent
involvement at school.

Based on the interviews I conducted, investments toward the school seemed to
function in two ways. First, some parents are particularly conscious about reciprocity,
making sure that they repay or contribute alongside other parents who invest in their
children’s school. In these situations, action is motivated by parents’ perception that they
are paying off a debt, making the relationship function as social capital (Coleman, 1990;
Portes & Senesenbrenner, 1993). Second, a sense of obligation to become involved was
evoked as individual parents or parent groups created a social pressure for parents to
become involved at the school. Parents who engender a sense of obligation posses social
capital. In this study, because social capital facilitated parent involvement at school, the

school and its students are the ultimate beneficiaries.

The Obligation to Reciprocal;

Interviews indicated that, in some cases, the felt need to repay a favor was based
on the interactions between two individuals. In other cases, the obligation to repay was
directed toward a group or community. Jackie (a non-respondent) is an example of a
parent who felt obligated to the community of parents at Pierce Elementary School. She
commented that “pulling one’s weight” is an incentive for her to get involved at the
school. Jackie expects herself and other parents to help when asked. Jackie’s attitude
was justified in her mind because she believed other parents are more involved than
herself; “that parent is spending a heck of a lot more time at school and helping my
children out with tutoring or whatever else.” For Jackie, she owed it to the school and the

other parents to get involved at the school.

141

 

 

In the case of Jackie, the sense of obligation to contribute to the education of her
own children, and the children of other parents, is a powerful influence on her
involvement. She commented,

“I feel that way because my children are going to that school. . .and there

are parents there almost everyday, bless their hearts. I feel like I just don’t

get to help out enough. That is my guilty conscious. But I’ve had them

tell me plenty of times, ‘you have tried to help out a few time and we

appreciate it.’ So I feel like, myself, I feel like that is the least I could do.”

The sense of obligation to be involved at the school, to not freeload and to contribute as
much as other parents, was a powerful motivating force for Jackie.

In addition to describing the emergence of a perceived obligation to become
involved, Jackie also described how this perception actually facilitates parent
involvement. Throughout the interview, Jackie commented that she felt as though she
fulfilled her commitment to the school community by going on a week-long field trip
with her son’s third grade class. The degree to which this involvement was motivated by
a need to reciprocate was indicated by Jackie when she stated, “I took a whole week of
vacation so that I could go help out at camp. I felt better about that, because I’m
thinking, you know, a lot of these parents do a lot more than this, you know, and I was

thinking that I wasn’t doing enough.” In the case of Jackie, this sense of obligation to

contribute to the school community was a significant influence on her behavior.

Pressure from Others

Despite the fact that almost all of the parents interviewed said they recognize not
all parents can or will be involved, some parents reported that they often tried to pressure

and convince their friends to become involved in school activities. As an active member

142

 

 

of the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), Karen Clarke (a central actor) described how

the pressure to become involved at the school functions:

“Yeah we do that all the time with the PTA/PTO. And I have a friend

who is from the school, who just doesn’t like to volunteer, but yet I know

she likes to bake. So I will call her up and, ‘can you make some stuff for

the bake sale’ or ‘can you do this or that.’ If I am going on a field trip I

will call another - ‘come and go on the field trip with me.’ So, and they

do that to me all the time too, ‘Oh come on to open house and walk

through’ and Ellen Jones will catch me- ‘Oh you are going to do this for

me this year, Right.’ Sure, you know. It’s the other parents helping out

too and part of it you don’t feel put upon because you know everybody

else is doing something too.”

Karen’s description of her interactions with other parents, and how they convince one
another to help with school activities, is indicative of interactions among parents which
can function as social capital. According to Karen, she and her friends constantly
pressure one another into getting involved at the school. The comment above by Karen
highlights the influence friends can have on one another, in large part because they know
the likes and dislikes of one another. Moreover, there is reciprocity among these friends.
Karen convinced others to help, just as others have convinced her to be involved at times
when she had not planned on it.

Pressure to become involved at the school is not limited to bake sales and field
trips. Parents from both schools in this study stated that they became officers in the
school’s parent groups (PTA or parent counsel) because a current officer in the group
approached them. At Chief Elementary, Brenda commented that she became treasurer of

the parent council because her friend called and asked if she would accept a position.

Without that outreach, according to Brenda, she would have never thought about being

on the council.

143

 

 

Like Brenda, Karen happened to be treasurer of her school’s PTA. She became
active in the organization, despite her intention to not get involved that year. Karen
describes the situation where another parent (Katie) finally convinced her to accept a
position on the PTA board,

“And one of the teachers at the other school who I really liked said, ‘you

need to take a year off - just go in and do what you want. Go sit in the

class and be with your kids. Don’t get involved for a year - just relax and

do what you want.’ . . .And so I did that. And then Katie came out and she

was the one who got me involved. [She asked, do you] think you would

like it [to be on PTA]?- ‘Oh I don’t know.’ ‘How about treasurer you

don’t have to come to all the meetings - you don’t have to do this- you just

have to keep the book -would you like something like that’. ‘Yeah I guess

I could do that.’ And she just kept asking.”

Despite Karen’s original commitment to not get involved at the school and focus on her
own daughter, her interactions with other parents convinced her to take the job of
treasurer on the school’s PTA. As a parent who invests heavily in the school, Katie could
apply enough pressure to eventually get Karen to be more involved at the school than she
originally wanted to be. Social capital, in this instance and in the case of Brenda,
involved one parent reaching out to another and convincing them to get involved at the
school in a manner they otherwise may have not.

The type of social capital illustrated by Brenda and Karen can be perpetuated by
the same people who are affected by it. Karen described her interactions with a friend
who enrolled her daughter at Pierce and who, like Karen, intended to take a year off.

Karen discussed how she convinced her friend to get involved in a school event called

“Field Day”:

144

 

 

Karen: But constantly, I have a friend who decided to do a school of
choice and she said, ‘I am taking off a year’ because she did the same
thing I did. And then I called about field day and said, ‘lets you and I
do it.’ So now she does the field day. And she has got younger kids
than I do, so when I am done she will be able to, when my kids are out
she will be able to take over and invite somebody to do the bake sale.

Interviewer: You have already got her spotted for your job?

Karen: She is doing them. And I feel like whenever I do something it’s
my responsibility then I go tell my friends and say ‘I know you don’t
do it, but you are going to have to come and help me.’

Just as Karen became involved at school as a result of social capital, in the form of
pressure from another parent, she uses the same social process to get her friends involved.
Drawing on her friendships, Karen pressured her friends to become active in their
children’s education by becoming active at the school.

In contrast to the kind of pressure that Karen and Brenda describe, other parents
describe experiencing indirect pressure to be involved. Terri (Non-respondent) reported
that the pressure she feels comes from her close friends and the people she interacts with
the most:

“Among my, you know, the pe0ple that I associate with there’s, um, there

is an expectation for participation. Not so much in the kinds of things that

I do, you know, like going in, you know, to actually help out in the class,

but more in terms of the like the social aspects, you know, the parties and

the, urn yeah. I, I think my, my friends are going on the field trips and the,

planning the parties and that sort of thing.”

According to Terri, she perceives an expectation from her friends to be supportive of the
teachers and school in some ways and not others. Parents are expected to help with
events such as parties and field trips, but there is little pressure on parents to actually

spend time in the classroom. Terri’s comment suggests that the social capital which

results from investments in the school facilitates specific forms of involvement at school.

145

 

 

In Terri’s case, the social ties and network relationships among parents reinforce parents’
role as a supportive resource to teachers, rather than a resource that might impact student
learning more directly.

Although Terri’s comment does not specify how expectations or pressures to be
involved at the school emerges, the social structure of parents’ relationships might be one
enabling factor. Social closure among parents, or parents and school employees, may
help generate social capital, which facilitates involvement through the development of a
sense of obligation. Although analyses of the survey data did not find a relationship
between social structure and parent involvement, interviews with parents suggest
otherwise.

During interviews, parents commented about the role teachers might play in
generating social closure and parent involvement. According to Karen Clarke, teachers
can facilitate social ties among parents. During Karen’s interview she recalled how
Katie, then president of the PTA, approached her and asked if she would become PTA
treasurer; “[Katie said], ‘yeah, I’m president and somebody gave me your name, and
come on let’s do this” A follow-up question to this statement revealed that it was one of
the teachers at Pierce Elementary School who gave Karen’s name to Katie. In this case,
it was a teacher who served to connect two parents who, at the time, did not know one
another.

Familiarity and social relationships among parents and teachers makes it easier
for parents to create norms or pressure for involvement at school. Comments by Karen
Clarke (central actor) suggest that social closure among herself, her friends, and school

personnel made it easier for her to encourage other parents to become involved at the

146

 

 

school. In her interview, Karen compared the teachers at Pierce to those at the
elementary schools her daughters previously attended to reveal how perceptions of a
closed system of social relationships (including school employees) might function to
generate parent involvement at school:

“Here [at Pierce Elementary] I call on two friends, I have examples within

the school showing them that the teachers and the principal are going the

extra mile, where at Hillsdale Elementary- there were [only] two teachers

that (comments unclear here) none of the other teachers [and] the principal

could care less.”

Karen described Hillsdale as a school where the principal and teachers were more
concerned about their careers than about the children, and where they had to “bargin”
with the principal in order to have activities at school. The result, according to Karen,
was that parent began to refuse to help at school or with any activities for the students.

In contrast to Hillsdale, Karen spoke of an event where the teachers at Pierce
Elementary were actively involved at the school, and discussed how teacher participation
can affect parent involvement:

“At the haunted house it wasn’t just the parents — every teacher helped out

at a station, and they absolutely earned no money — it was for the school,

the PTA. Every teacher was there doing it right along with a parent and so

this year I can get a parent - the parents - it means something to the

teachers and the teachers are having fun and everybody is enjoying it, and

everybody is saying thank you so much for coming — thank you , so

everyone is willing to come back.”

By working “right along” with parents, the teachers seem to affect the parents at Pierce,
making them more willing to volunteer for future school events.

Social closure, according to Coleman (1990) creates social capital because it

enables actors to observe and evaluate one another. In the case of Karen, her attempts to

involve parents were supported by the social closure existing among parents and teachers,

147

 

 

and her ability to point to school staff as examples of individuals making sacrifices for
the school and students. The teachers and principals at Pierce not only worked with
parents, making them more visible and adding pressure on parents to become involved at
the school, but actively connected parents to one another. Teachers, therefore, can be an
important influence on parent involvement at school, not only through their interactions
with individual parents, but also through their ability to connect parents with one another
and to create a social network with closure among it’s members.

In addition to the visibility social closure provides, at times enabling teachers to
act as examples to others, it also appears to enable the diffusion of teacher expectations
among parents. Michelle, a central actor, discussed how she felt pressure to be involved
through conversations with her children’s teacher:

Somehow I have found that out, through either the teacher or a parent who got it

from the teacher, and it has come up in conversation there. We say, I said, ‘I

thought you said Torie’s mother was going to chaperone one of the field trips’ and

she said, ‘Oh no, I have never met her mother - she hasn’t been to one teacher
conference - I have never met her.’ And this was like a week before school
ended. So things like that come out and there is definite disapproval. There is
definite disappointment when I hear that
Unlike the case of Karen, where social closure enable a parent to point to others to
demonstrate the importance of parent involvement at school, Michelle’s comment
highlights how social closure can facilitate the expectancy for parent involvement and the
development of norms among parents. Michelle’s ties to the teacher and other parents
provide her information regarding the sense of disappointment teachers (and perhaps
other parents) feel toward parents who are not involved at the school. The expectations

of others, be they a teacher or other parents, become public. Without a social structure to

facilitate the expectations for attending parent-teachers conferences or helping with field

148’

 

 

trips, parents may not feel any social pressure or obligation to become involved at the
school. In contrast to the survey results, the interview data indicated that closure among
parents, or between parents and the school, might affect involvement and a parent’s sense

of obligation to become involved at the school.

Summary

Overall, the interview data collected for this dissertation lends additional support
to the hypothesized model of how social networks might function toward the creation of
parent involvement at home and at school. Although interviews were conducted with a
small sample of parents, evidence that parents’ social networks affect their involvement
at home and at school was found. Among the network ties connecting parents, social
cohesion and social capital appear to affect parents’ beliefs, perceptions, and the
resources to which they have access. Similar to the survey analyses, the interview data
support the hypothesis that parents’ social networks influence parent involvement and
that the social context created by subgroups affect the manner and degree to which a
parent is active in her or his children’s education.

In the first part of this chapter, examples of how parents’ social ties and social
networks might affect parent involvement through their effects on parents’ beliefs were
provided. Previously, in Chapter 4, survey data showed a strong relationship between
parents’ beliefs regarding the role they should play in the education of their child and
parent involvement. The data in this chapter were able to illustrate how interactions
among parents might affect their beliefs. Through conversations and interpersonal
interactions with one another, parents can share opinions, they can compare themselves to

others, and they may modify their beliefs based on these interactions.

149

 

 

Use of subgroup beliefs as a predictor of parent involvement was supported by
examples which illustrate instances where parents are exposed to the beliefs of parents
with whom they do not directly interact. HLM uses subgroup mean values as a predictor
of individual behavior, and the beliefs held by parents who never interact directly might
be used to predict each other’s behavior. Studying social cohesion as a multi-level
phenomenon (individual and subgroup levels) is consistent with the dynamics reported by
parents in this dissertation.

In addition to social cohesion, evidence was found in support of the idea that
parents’ social networks provide a context in which social capital can facilitate parent
involvement. Both hypothesized mechanisms of social capital, parental investments in
other parents and parental investment in their children’s school, appear to affect parent
involvement at school and at home. Examples were presented where parent involvement
was promoted when parents provided one another with an assortment of resources to help
their children at school. Among these resources were material resources, favors, and
information. These investments led to parent involvement at home and at school.

Instances where a parent’s investment of his or her own resources toward the
school facilitated other parents’ involvement at school were also found. Despite survey
results which could not show an association between subgroup structure and parent
involvement, interview data suggest that social closure might be related to parent
involvement at school. Social closure might play an important role in facilitating the
development of obligation and expectations in parents. In addition to the findings on
social structure, the network position of individual parents (i.e., central actor, weak tie, or

isolate) is related to the way social capital affects parent involvement. Social capital as a

150

 

 

sense of obligation was reported almost solely by parents who were central actors and/or
who reported being highly involved at the school. These are the parents embedded
within the closed social structures within parental subgroups.

In contrast, to social capital as investments toward schools, the social capital that
emerged when parents invested in one another appeared to facilitate parent involvement

across all parents. Specifically, all of the parents reported that they shared and exchanged

 

information about a wide variety of topics related to children’s schooling. Network
position, however, was related to the amount of investment a parent provides or receives.
Parents who were central actors reported a greater amount of information exchange,
while isolates reported sharing less information with other parents and a greater
dependency on the teacher. The more embedded a parent was within the social network,
the more access to social capital she or he seemed to have.

Although the interview data presented support the claims made regarding the role
parents’ social relationships have in the creation of parent involvement at home and at
school, it is important to treat these results with some caution. First, data were collected
on a small number of parents, from two schools. From this small sample of parents it
was clear that different parents draw upon their social networks to different degrees.
Second, a parent’s social network was viewed as one resource among others. Teachers,
for example, were seen as a very important resource to parents. While social
relationships with other parents are important, the relative importance of these network
compared to the parent-teacher relationship is unclear.

In the end, the interview data presented support and extend analyses of the survey

data. Parents who maintain larger social networks may have access to a wider range of

151

 

resources, and more exposure to the beliefs of others regarding parent involvement or the
school, than parents with fewer social relationships. Given the illustration of social
cohesion and social capital in this chapter, measures of network size seem to be
justifiable estimates of how much social capital and cohesive pressure a given parent
experiences. A parent’s social network and ties to other parent, although perhaps not the
most important resource, does appear to play a role in facilitating parent involvement at

home and at school.

152

 

 

 

CHAPTER SIX: REVISITHVG THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The findings of this study suggest that parents’ social networks may facilitate
partnerships between schools and families. Analyses of survey and interview data
support the theoretical framework guiding this dissertation, which argues that social
network processes impact parent involvement. In the original framework for this study, I
hypothesized that social cohesion would affect parent involvement at home and school by
influencing a parent’s beliefs about her or his own role in the education of his or her
child, or beliefs about the impact parent involvement can have on a child’s schooling.
Likewise, I argued that social capital would affect parent involvement at school and at
home through the exchange and investment of resources among parents or between
parents and the school.

Together, the quantitative and qualitative data of this study are consistent with the
claims that social network mechanisms can act as a resource toward parent involvement
at home and at school. Analyses of the survey data demonstrate a relationship between
parents’ social ties and parent involvement. The larger a parent’s social network, the
more likely she or he is to be involved. Furthermore, multiple regression analyses
indicate that different social networks predict different types of parent involvement.
Examination of subgroup effects on parent involvement show that membership in a
subgroup whose members more strongly believe that all parents should be involved in
their children’s education, or that parent involvement can impact educational
achievement, predicted parent involvement at home. Together, these analyses suggest

that the social processes associated with social networks, social capital and social

153

 

 

cohesion, can affect a parent’s decision to become involved in her or his children’s
education.

The qualitative data analyses conducted as part of this dissertation further support
the claims that a parent’s network ties and relationships function as social capital or
social cohesion to help create parent involvement. Examples were provided of
conversations in which the cooperative exchange of resources and social pressure for
parent involvement appear to have created opportunities for parent involvement. A
parent’s social networks can become a resource that generates parent involvement at

home and at school.

Summary in Relation to the Theory

This dissertation began by suggesting that current attempts to study parents and
parent involvement have largely focused on qualities of the individual parent or ways in
which social institutions shape the behaviors of parents. In both cases, parents are
characterized as isolated individuals who do not interact with other parents about their
own children’s education. Acknowledging that parents are social actors, and that
interactions with other parents or adults might affect the manner and degree to which a
parent becomes involved in his or her child’s education, network processes and
mechanisms were hypothesized to influence parent involvement.

Although this dissertation focused on the role of social networks in a parent’s
decision to become involved in her or his children’s education, results from the survey
analyses demonstrate the importance of parental beliefs as unique predictors of parent
involvement at home and at school. Individual level and multi-level analyses both show

that a parent’s belief regarding the role all parents should play in a child’s education

154

 

 

 

(parental role construction) strongly predicted his or her involvement. In contrast, a
parent’s sense that her or his involvement can affect learning (parental efficacy) did not
predict either type of involvement when parental role construction was controlled for.
Even when parental efficacy was the sole belief used to predict involvement, it was only
predictive of parent involvement at home.

Analyses looking into the effects of social networks on parent involvement found
that a parent’s interactions with other parents, as well as the beliefs of a parent’s
subgroup, predicts parental behaviors. Social cohesion, the process whereby the beliefs
of network members affect one another, was found to be one mechanism through which a
parent’s social network affects involvement in her or his children’s education. A parent,
through interactions with other parents, can compare her own beliefs and perceptions to
those of others, and change these beliefs based on these comparisons.

Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) analyses provided preliminary support for
models of cohesion. These analyses show a relationship between a parent’s involvement
at home and the beliefs of subgroup members. In addition to the survey analyses,
interviews with parents illustrate how interactions with other parents might affect a
parent’s beliefs and involvement behaviors. Parents described how they are capable of
observing the beliefs of other parents, directly and indirectly, as well as how they often
compared their own involvement behaviors with the behaviors of others. Both the survey
and interview data, therefore, support the hypothesis that social cohesion can affect
parent involvement and that a parents’ beliefs about involvement can be influenced by

her or his social interactions with others.

155

 

 

The second social mechanism through which social networks are believed to
affect parent involvement is social capital. Social capital was hypothesized to influence
parent involvement at school or at home through two network processes: (1) When
parents invest their own personal resources (favors, information, and/or material
resources) into other parents, and (2) when parents direct their resources toward the
school (generally through involvement at the school). In the first case, parent
involvement is affected directly. In the latter type of social capital, the investment of
resources seem to foster a sense of obligation among other parents, which then leads
them to become involved at the school.

The initial survey analyses found a relationship between the number of people a
parent speaks with about his or her children’s education and both types of parent
involvement. To the extent network size represents the amount of available and invested
resources, the statistical relationship represents the effect of social capital on parent
involvement. Network membership, however, is differentially related to type of
involvement. The greater number of parents who have children at the same school a
respondent reported talking to, the more involvement at school she or he reported. In
contrast, a larger network of adults outside of the school was associated with more
involvement at home. These results suggest that different social networks generate
different types of involvement. This effect may be the result of different types of
resources that function among a parent’s network of social ties.

The first type of social capital explored in this study results from the investment
of resources among parents. In this case, a social relationship that exists between parents

provides a channel through which resources such as favors and information can be

156

 

 

exchanged from one person to another. Analyses of the interview data provided
examples of the way in which parents share and trade resources with one another and
how these exchanges affect parent involvement. Parents reported that they often share a
variety of forms of information (about schools/teachers, involvement activities, and
educational resources), help one another with childcare, and sometimes lend educational
materials. These interactions, according to parents, helped them become more involved
in their child’s education at the school, as well as at home. This latter finding, that the
interactions among parents with children at the same school facilitates parent

involvement at home, was not found in the survey analyses.

 

With so few parents interviewed, the connection between social capital and parent
involvement at home remains uncertain. Parents, for example, were reluctant to
comment on the amount of involvement other parents should engage in, especially with
regard to what takes place inside another families’ home. More research, perhaps using
ethnographic methods for data collection, may be able to investigate the connection
between social capital and parent involvement at home. The establishment of a trusting
relationship, and one that exists over time, between researchers and participants may be
needed in order to collect data about what influence the activities that take place inside
families’ homes.

The second manner in which social capital might affect parent involvement was
found when parents invest in their children’s school. As the theory suggests, when a
network of parents is structured so that they are able to observe one another’s
investments, parents can develop a sense of obligation to become involved. This

obligation was found to be predictive of parent involvement at school. In this study,

157

 

multiple regression analyses found a relationship between a parent’s sense of obligation
to be involved and her or his involvement at school. This relationship, however,
disappeared when network variables were controlled for. The change in statistical
significance between parent involvement at schools and a parent’s perception of others
suggests a connection between social networks, parental beliefs, and parent involvement.
The relationship between a parent’s sense of obligation and parent involvement at school
might have disappeared due to the lack of a reliable measure for parents’ sense of
obligation. Despite the limitation in the survey data, the qualitative data collected
supports the theoretical model connecting a parent’s network to a sense of obligation,
which then affects parent involvement at school.

During interviews, parents described how they felt obligated to be involved
because other parents were more involved then they were. In addition, parents reported
that they often pressured others, and felt pressure from others, to work with parent groups
at school events. Evidence, albeit limited, was found suggesting that social structure can
facilitate the development of a sense of obligation in parents. Although the HLM
analysis could not find support for the hypothesis that social structure predicts parent
involvement, the limited number of subgroups created conservative results. More data,
therefore, is needed to better examine the relationships among social structure, a parent’s
sense of obligation, and parent involvement at school.

Overall, the results of this dissertation are supportive of the general proposition
that social networks are influential in a parent’s decision to be involved in the education
of her or his children. Analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data are supportive of

the theory that social cohesion and social capital affect a parent’s decision to become

158

 

 

involved at home and at school in his or her children’s education. This study supports
arguments regarding the importance of parental beliefs as predictors of parent
involvement, however, it also suggests the importance of other influences on parents.
The image of parents as isolated individuals does not capture the aspects of parents’ lives
that involve social relationships and interpersonal interactions. It can be argued that
models of parent involvement which do not recognize the social psychological and
sociological aspect of parents’ lives cannot fully account for why a parent chooses to
become involved in her or his children’s education. The implications this study has for
the broader literature on parent involvement and social capital are discussed in the next

sections.

Beyond the Theory

Implications for Parent Involvement

Previous research on parent involvement, particularly why parents get involved in
their child’s education, has focused heavily on the role of parents’ beliefs and social-
contextual factors that differentiate groups of parents. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler
(1995; 1997) have proposed a theoretical model in which parents’ ideas about their role
in the education of their children (parental role), their sense of parental self-efficacy, and
opportunities to get involved all interact to create parent involvement. This dissertation
adds to the literature on parent involvement by casting parents as social actors, embedded
within a larger network of parents surrounding a school. Some parents are central to the
network, while others may be more peripheral. Furthermore, membership within a

network appears to be related to parent involvement at home and at school. In showing a

159

 

connection between network processes (social cohesion and social capital) and parent
involvement, this dissertation illustrates limitations of individualistic models.

The findings that network size and membership predict parent involvement
suggest that the degree to which a parent is integrated into a structure of relationships can
impact that parent’s role in educating her or his child. Even after controlling for parents'
beliefs and background characteristics, the ties among parents predicted parent

involvement at home and at school. These results suggest that social capital directly

 

affects and facilitates parent involvement at home and at school. The resources of other
parents may be invested through social ties, affecting a parents’ ability or willingness to
become involved in his or her child’s schooling.

The qualitative data collected for this study, albeit limited, support and extend
previous research on the role social relationships have in facilitating parent involvement.
Previous studies have focused on the ability of parent’s to use network ties in order to
obtain information and advice (Lareau, 1989; Lareau & Shumar, 1996; Useem, 1992).
The data collected in this study suggests that social capital is particularly important for
parent involvement, not only because of the information that is exchanged, but also
because network ties allow access to other resources (favors and educational materials).

In addition to extending, this study also supports Hoover-Dempsey’s model of
parent involvement. Results of the regression analyses show that parental role
construction is an important predictor of parent involvement at home and at school.
Parents’ sense of efficacy to help their child in school, a belief commonly thought to be
predictive of parent involvement, was not related to either type of involvement when

parental role construction was controlled for. Analyses examining multicollinearity

160

 

between these two beliefs (Appendix D), found that parental role construction may be a
more important predictor of involvement than parental efficacy. Once we take into
consideration the degree to which parents think that they should be involved in their
child’s education, it becomes less important to know the degree to which they believe
their involvement will have an effect on their children’s education. Moreover, even
without parental role construction in the regression models, the tables in Appendix D
indicate that parental efficacy only predicted parent involvement at home.

The finding that self-efficacy does not predict parent involvement, or only
predicts one type of parent involvement, is counter to previous research which has
characterized self-efficacy as an important predictor of parent involvement (Hoover-
Dempsey, et. al., 1992; Ames et al., 1993). The discontinuity between this study and past
research looking at self-efficacy and parent involvement may be due to the fact that
earlier research not examined parental efficacy and parental role construction
simultaneously and/or has not differentiated parent involvement at home and parent
involvement at school. Further research on the relationship between parents’ self-
efficacy and parental role construction is needed to evaluate the relationships found here.
In addition, the role of parental efficacy may need to be re-examined and understood as a
predictor of some types of parent involvement and not others.

Parents’ beliefs about the role of all parents, and not simply beliefs about
themselves, appear to be a more important predictor of behavior. Where role
construction defines the types of behaviors a parent believes she or he should do,

perceived efficacy guides whether or not an individual commits to these actions (Hoover-

161

 

 

Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). With this in mind, it follows that parental efficacy would
and should be of secondary importance, as a predictor, to parent involvement.

This study extends existing research on parent involvement, as well as suggests a
new direction for those interested in studying parent involvement. First, parental role
construction was shown to predict parent involvement at home and at school, as
hypothesized by others. In addition, the data show that parents should not be studied as
isolated individuals. Research into why a parent becomes involved in his or her child’s
education should examine the role of interpersonal interactions among parents. Beyond

the individual parent exists important and influential resources.

Implications for Social Capital

One of the primary goals of this dissertation was to explore the role of social
contexts as an influence on parent involvement. In particular, social capital was
considered to be a social process that is dependent on a network of relationships between
parents. For this study, social capital refers to the investment of resources from one
person to another (parent-parent), or from a person to an institution (parent-school). Data
analyses suggest that social capital, represented by measures of network size, affects a
parent’s decision or ability to be involved in her or his child’s education through these
two mechanisms

The relationship between network characteristics and parent involvement have
implications for general thinking and research on social capital. To date, educational
research on social capital has generally ignored its effect on parents, focusing more on
student outcomes such as school drop out, truancy, and academic achievement

(Carbonaro, 1998; Morgan & Sorenson, 1998; McNeal, 1998; Stanton-Salazar &

162

 

 

Dombusch, 1996). This dissertation suggests that, rather than (or in addition to) affecting
student outcomes directly, social capital can affect parents’ lives and the decision to
become involved in a child’s education.

A great deal of the current research on social capital has been criticized for being
overly optimistic, downplaying the possible negative effects social ties might have on
individuals (Portes, 1992). In the end, this study plays up the positive effect social capital

may have, while downplaying the possibility that social networks might decrease

 

involvement in some parents. However, I recognize that conversations among parents
can discourage parent involvement, just as they might encourage involvement. The
extent to which social capital inhibits involvement could not be estimated in this study.
Data were not obtained which suggest that the social ties among parents reinforce a
distancing from the school.

One possible reason why no information was collected on the negative aspects of
social capital may be the sample of parents who participated. If network ties and social
capital promote a lack of involvement, parents who utilize this resource would be less
likely to return the surveys sent home from the school. The lack of survey information
on any negative effects of social capital, therefore, may be a result of the functioning of
this type of social capital. Although interviews with non-respondents, chosen at random,
also did not indicate that social capital might inhibit parent involvement, the number of
interviews conducted was modest. The lack of data on negative forms of social capital,
therefore, should not be taken as evidence that it does not exist. Rather, more data are
needed in order to better explore whether and how social capital might operate to

discourage various types of parent involvement.

163

 

Despite the optimistic characterization of social capital, the findings in this study
do have implications for other aspects of social capital theory. In particular, this study
raises issues regarding the distribution of social capital across families, the role of social
structure, and the measurement of social capital. Through the collection of quantitative

and qualitative data, several new insights into social capital could be explored.

Distribution of Resoarces.

Personal interviews with parents suggest that network ties can help facilitate
parent involvement through the transmission of information, doing favors for one
another, and lending educational materials to one another. The trading and exchanging of
these resources is similar to the form of social capital Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993)
refer to as reciprocal transactions, where resources move back and forth between
individuals. Parents reported sharing resources with one another often, sometimes
providing and other times receiving.

The types of resources parents share with their friends and peers were often
immaterial and priceless, most often in the form of information or doing a favor. This
finding is consistent with research by others who have studied the types of support and
assistance social networks provide individuals. In their discussion about network
support, Wellman and Wortley (1990) suggest, “most relationships are based on the
mutual exchange of intangible or mundane resources. . .”(p.582). Although Wellman and
his colleague examined general forms of support, the findings of this study are consistent
despite the fact that it focused on a specific set of parent behaviors. Parents, in their
desire to enrich their children’s lives, exchanged what can be thought of as intangible and

mundane resources and information.

164

 

 

All of the parents interviewed reported that they shared at least some resources
with other parents who are their friends, however, some families appear to draw from or
build this type of social capital more than others. In particular, parents who maintained a
higher socio—economic status (i.e., a higher level of education and a job where they made
more money) reported sharing material resources with other parents. In contrast, parents
who make far less income did not report that they shared material resources. This
distinction by SES suggests that some types of social capital are more likely to occur
among some parents and not others. Given the small sample of parents, however, more
research is needed in order to better understand the relation between social capital and
socioeconomic status.

Like financial and cultural capital, social capital may create advantages for one
group of individuals over others. According to Bourdieu, both cultural and social capital
are forms of power that people use, consciously and unconsciously, to provide
themselves and their families benefits and advantages over others (Bourdieu, 1986;
Swartz, 1997). As such, the additional resources some parents access by virtue of their
network ties may provide some advantages to their children in the way of educational
achievement. Difference in the resources exchanged among parents may be predictive of
differences in parent involvement across SES and racial groups (Muller, 1993).

In addition to gaining access to a greater number of resources, some social
networks may provide their members with different types of resources. A subgroup of
well educated and wealthy parents may have greater educational expertise and knowledge
of activities or resources needed for schooling. In addition, these parents might also

possess the money funds needed to purchase resources for their children. In contrast, a

165

 

 

subgroup whose members have little education or money possesses less of the cultural
and financial capital that prove useful in school systems. Support for the idea that social
capital interacts with other forms of capital has been found elsewhere (Teachman et. al.,
1996), although the effects these interactions might have on parents has not been studied.
Researchers interested in social inequities and social capital might begin to
investigate how individuals and groups with social capital use this resource to gain
advantages for their children. Network ties may gain parents or children access to a
wider variety of resources that can affect schooling. Research into this might, for
example, compare the ways in which social capital affects the nature of parent-teacher or
parent—school relationships. A parent who is displeased with a new school policy may
talk to his or her friends about how to repeal a new school policy. Without the support of
friends, the parent speaks as an individual. However, if a parent uses the social capital
available to her, she can be supported by others and perhaps exercise a more influential

voice.

The Role of Social Structure.

In adopting a network approach to studying social capital, this study has been able
to highlight the importance of an individual’s position within a larger network of ties.
Interview data revealed that parents who maintained different positions within a school's
network of ties acted somewhat differently. Parents who were central actors, for
example, more often discussed how they shared information and did favors for their
friends. Furthermore, these individuals also reported putting more pressure on their

friends, as well as feeling more pressure from their friends, to be involved at the school.

166

 

 

In contrast to central actors, parents who were bridges, connecting two distinct
subgroups or individuals (for example Francis Brock, Nicole Seaver, and Joan Getty),
appeared to fill "structural holes," (Burt, 1992). These individuals, as predicted by
network researchers (Granovetter, 1973; Burt, 1992), were particularly active channels of
information. In two cases, the mothers acted as channels of information between a school
and parents searching for information about the school environment. Each individual
who was identified as a bridging actor described a situation where they acted as an active

channel of communication between two individuals or groups.

Measurement of Social Capital.

The survey data collected for this research are unique to the study of social
capital. The data collected from mothers enabled the creation of a network map of the
social relationships among parents, identifying subgroups within a school. From this,
social capital could be studied as a subgroup phenomenon, rather than as an individual
attribute. Few others interested in social capital have studied it as a subgroup
phenomenon (See Frank & Wellman, 1998; Frank & Yasumoto, 1998). By studying
social capital at two levels, the individual and the subgroup, the structural and normative
features of social capital could be examined as influences on parents’ behaviors.
Although the subgroup measures of social closure did not predict involvement at home,
the results indicating a subgroup effect of parental beliefs add validity to the sociocentric
approach to studying network phenomena like social capital and social cohesion.

In addition to using network information for statistical purposes, the network
maps created were used to help identify interview participants. Parents who maintained

structurally meaningful positions (i.e., central actors, inter-subgroup bridges, and isolates)

167

 

 

were chosen for interviews to help examine how differences in network positions might
be related to the processes by which social capital affects parent involvement. These
interviews enabled a more detailed perspective of parents’ social relationships than the
surveys could. Without the information collected through the interviews, processes
through which relationships might act as social capital would have remained hidden.

In addition to studying social capital at the individual level, subgroup effects were
tested in order to study social capital as a network resource. Social closure and inter-
subgroup ties were structural measures used in order to test the hypothesis that social
capital facilitates parent involvement. Both of these subgroup measures (social closure
and inter-subgroup ties), although argued to foster social capital elsewhere (Coleman,
1990; Burt, 1992), were not predictive of parent involvement with this sample of parents.
Future research with a more representative sample of a network (perhaps 70%), or with a
greater number of subgroups would be better able to evaluate the relationships between

social structure and parent involvement at home or at school.

Implications for Schools and Teachers

Social capital is a network resource that predicts parent involvement. As such,
educators who wish to increase parental participation and partnerships might look to the
parental network embedded in their school as a resource (or perhaps barrier) toward this
goal. Recognizing that the social relations among parents can function as channels of
information and influence, teachers and administrators might use existing ties to help
create parent involvement at school or at home. Sarason (1971) has argued, “the effort to
understand and to change something in schools should not be constricted by a narrow

conception of a school system” (p12). With respect to parent involvement, the network

168

 

 

of parents that surround a school might be considered part of the school system. Thus
far, however, schools have overlooked these networks and have not recognized them as a
potential resource toward increasing parent involvement. By viewing parents as
members of subgroups and small communities, or by trying to bring more parents into a
subgroup of their peers, schools might be more successful reaching parents who are
traditionally viewed as disengaged from their child’s schooling.

Among the ways in which schools and teachers might utilize the social networks
of parents to increase parent involvement at school would be to take advantage of the
social pressure network ties can create. One example of how a teacher might draw upon

network mechanisms to increase parent involvement at school would be to take time in

 

public forums, such as open house nights, to emphasize the importance of parent
involvement at school and then distribute a sign-up list on which parents commit
themselves to an activity or indicate that they would like to help. A parent’s commitment
to become involved at school, when made in public, may encourage and pressure others
to do act similarly. Moreover, choosing not to help may be more difficult when
surrounded by other parents.

In addition to teachers’ efforts, parent-teacher associations (PTA) might also try
to establish and use network ties as a resource. A first step for PTA organizations is to
establish, as a formal goal, the creation of network ties among families throughout the
school. Strong networks ties, as illustrated by Karen Clark, can enable one parent to pass
down the responsibility for a school event to a parent whose child has recently entered
the school. In order to develop parent networks parent organizations might have their

own “parent open house” or “town meeting” events. At these open houses, parents might

169

 

be given the opportunity to meet and speak with one another about the school, teachers,
and the role they play (or would like to play) at the school.

At the school level, efforts to develop a highly connected network of parents
might take several approaches. One possible way for a school to facilitate connections
among parents is be to create a parent mentor program, where more experienced parents

at the school are paired with parents whose children are entering the school for the first

 

time. Also, schools can hold workshops about helping children with homework or other
social events that bring parents together. At these events, schools might emphasize the
fact that parents are an important resource to the school and to one another. The more
opportunities schools create for parents to interact, the more likely network ties among
parents are to develop.

In order for schools to facilitate the development of network ties among parents, it
may be necessary for them to establish and utilize ties with other community
organizations. When schools reach out to community groups, parents with children at the
same school may eventually establish friendships with one another in contexts away from
the school. For example, parents with children in the same boy scout or girl scout troop
may establish a friendship because of these organizations, but also a relationship that
continues throughout children’s schooling. Another possibility is for schools to
communicate with community sports leagues, helping establish network ties among
parents whose children play with or against one another. Likewise, communicating with
adult sports leagues might connect parents who share a common interest in sports.
Community events outside and away from the schools, may be opportunities for schools

to develop and build social capital among parents.

170

 

By investing in parent networks, schools can benefit themselves. A school’s
resources can be conceptualized to include the skills and knowledge of the parents whose
children attend. School-community partnerships might be established more easily if
schools knew and understood the connections parents have to organizations, groups, and
resources in the community. Individual parents can act as bridging ties between the
school and community businesses, increasing the resources and opportunities available to
school staff and students. The resources to which a school has access, by virtue of its
parent network, can not be accessed unless that school takes the time to assess and
understand the resources that exist among its parents.

In addition to implications for school efforts to create parent involvement,
recognition of the fact that social networks provide parents resources may also have
implications for educational reforms attempting to institute market-based systems.
Specifically, as school choice become more and more common across educational
systems, the role of parents’ social networks may begin to take on greater importance
because of their ability to act as a channel of information. With the emergence of
market-based reforms, network influences may become an even more hidden aspect of a

parent’s life that affects the education of her or his child.

Limitations of the Study

Although the data support the theoretical claims regarding the relationship
between parents’ social networks and parent involvement, this dissertation should be
viewed as an introductory study with limitations. It is important to draw attention to the
fact that this study is cross-sectional and uses a small sample of parents for insight into

how a parent’s social ties might affect involvement in her or his child’s education.

171

 

 

Moreover, the sample of parents in this dissertation is comprised of mostly white
individuals, and may not represent the perspectives of all groups of parents. In the end,
this dissertation presents a methodological and theoretical approach to studying parent
involvement that, despite its limitations, suggests the need for further research into
parents’ social networks as an influential context on parent involvement at home and at
school

Given the fact that the analyses and conclusions in this dissertation are based on
cross-sectional data, strong claims about the causal relationship between parents’ social
network and parent involvement cannot be made. For example, it could be argued that
parents meet other parents only after they became involved at the school, rather than
before they visit the school. Social networks, then, would be a result of parent
involvement at school, rather than an antecedent. In fact, there may be some validity in
this statement. Some parents stated that they often met other parents while visiting their
child’s school. This does not mean, however, that social networks have no impact on a
parent’s decision to be involved in her or his child’s education.

Social relationships that develop through involvement at school can encourage
further parent involvement. The relationship between social networks and parent
involvement might best be characterized as reciprocal, where involvement affects
networks and networks affect involvement. Cross-sectional studies such as this
dissertation cannot adequately address this issue. Instead, future studies investigating the
effects of parents’ social networks need to examine them longitudinally, exploring how

networks develop and whether or not they influence parents’ beliefs or behaviors.

172

 

 

Although involvement at school may create larger networks, it seems less likely
that parent involvement at home leads to the development of social networks. Activities
such as reading to one’s child and discussing school events are not likely to create
opportunities where a parent might meet other parents. It seems more likely that a
parent’s social network would suggest activities or communicate ideas about how much
and what types of behaviors parents should be doing. Parent involvement at home, it
would seem, is more likely to be influenced by a parent’s social network than to be an
influence on it.

In addition to the cross-sectional data, insight gathered from interviews with
parents should be read with caution. Having only 12 parent interviews, the data
presented can support theoretical claims, but should not be understood as confirming the
theory presented. Studies in which a larger number of parents are interviewed, and in
which parents from a wide variety of groups are interviewed, are needed in order to
confirm the social processes that have been supported in this dissertation.

This study is particularly limited to the extent that the parents represented are
mostly White/Non-minorities. Ethnic and cultural differences in parent involvement
(Keith et. al., 1996) suggest the possibility that differences exist across ethnic groups in
their social networks. Unfortunately, this study collected data from too few minorities
and is unable to draw conclusions about how these networks might function with respect
to parent involvement. More research on minority social networks is needed in order to
assess if there are differences across ethnic groups. In particular, large scale studies are

needed to better understand the variation in subgroup characteristics and processes

173

 

 

In addition to comparing minority groups to non-minority groups, comparisons
across schools may also provide insight into the role social networks play toward the
creation of parent involvement. Specifically, comparisons between minorities in a school
with high minority enrollment and those in a school with a small minority population
might provide additional insight into the role of school context as an influence on
network processes. As research into social capital begins to emerge, researchers need to
begin to examine how minorities understand and view the role their networks ties play in

their lives, and in the education of their children.

Conclusion

In studying parents as social actors, who maintain and are influenced by their
social networks, this dissertation has accomplished several goals. First, with regard to the
literature on parent involvement, this study has shown the importance of social networks
as a predictor of parent involvement. The results of the regression analyses showed that
different networks predict different types of parent involvement. This finding seems to
emphasize the need for research on parent involvement to consider each type of parent
involvement, and the influence on them, separately.

The second contribution this study makes to the literature is the association
between the way parents construct their role in the education of their children and
parents’ own behavior. The results, suggest that this belief (parental role) is more
important in predicting parent involvement than parental efficacy. In addition, the degree
to which the members of a parent’s subgroup believe that all parents should be involved

predicted parent involvement at home. This latter finding suggests the importance of a

174

 

 

parent’s social network and the shared belief about the role of parents as an influence on
parent involvement.

In addition to the importance of parental beliefs, this study examined two network
processes as potential influences on parental involvement. In particular, social cohesion
and social capital were found to affect the degree and manner in which a parent becomes
active in his or her children’s education. With respect to the former, social cohesion, a

subgroup members’ beliefs about parental role construction or parent efficacy predicted

 

parent involvement at home. Furthermore, interview data corroborated these findings as
parents described how they compare and adjust their own beliefs based on conversations
with other parents and friends.

The second network processes associated with parent involvement is social
capital. Through the exchange and investment of resources among parents or from a
parent to the school, social capital was hypothesized to influence parent involvement at
home and at school. Parents reported that they share with one another resources such as
information, educational material, or favors (through carpools or childcare) which enable
involvement at home and at school. Social capital, however, may also facilitate parent
involvement when parents pressure one another to get involved. This pressure may be
verbal or by example. This second form of social capital was associated only with parent
involvement at school.

Overall, this dissertation was able to support claims made for the importance of
parents’ immediate social context, their social networks, on involvement behaviors. In
addition to parental beliefs, previously shown to predict involvement, researchers and

educators interested in parent involvement might also begin to examine network ties as a

175

resource and source of influence. Finally, the research here suggests that it is important
to examine each type of parent involvement separately. In the end, researchers may need
to re-examine the driving conception of parents as isolated individuals, and begin to
approach research from a perspective that considers the immediate social contexts in
which parents are embedded. Between the individual and the larger society exist a wide
array of influences on parent involvement. Among these are parents’ social ties and

social networks.

176

 

 

APPENDICES

177

APPENDIX A: PARENT SURVEY

178

 

Dear parent,

Hello, my name is Steven Sheldon. I am a graduate student at Michigan State
University, working on my doctorate in Educational Psychology. For my dissertation, I
am investigating parents’ involvement in their children’s education and the role friends
play in parents’ lives. I have created a survey, which will be sent to the parents of first
through fifth grade students, in order to study this question at ******** Elementary
School. As a result of the topic, the survey I created asks you to provide your name and
the name of your friends. I understand that providing a stranger with this type of
information may feel risky, but let me assure you that nobody other than myself will look
at the survey once it has been mailed to me. Only I will know who has filled out these
surveys, and the information that you provide will be kept strictly confidential.

I have spoken with the Principal, ********, and the school staff at ******** about
my study, and I have received their support for this project. The results of my study will
be used to help the school consider new ways to keep you informed about your child’s
education, as well as make it easier to for you to participate in the education of your
child.

I have tried to make this survey as short as possible and estimate that it will take you
approximately 30 minutes to complete. If there are two parents living in the household, I
would appreciate it if the mother or maternal guardian in the household could complete
the survey. If you have more than one child in elementary school, please answer the
questions in reference to your oldest child at ********. In addition to the survey, you
should have a self-addressed stamped envelope. When you have completed the survey,
simply mail it back to me. You do not need to send the survey back to the school. For
those surveys that are completed and returned to me, I will have a lottery. Ten families
from each school will be chosen at random to receive $100.00. If you are one of those
chosen, I will contact you and mail you a check.

Finally, by completing and returning this survey you are indicating to me your
willingness to participate in my study. If you have any questions about the survey or
would like to complete it over phone, please call me at ********. I will do everything
that I can to answer your questions and make filling the survey out as easy as possible.
Thank you for your help!

 

Sincerely,

Steven Sheldon
Graduate Student in the Educational Psychology Program

Michigan State University
emu”: ********

179

 

Section A

1. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements. There are no right or wrong answers to these statement, I simply want
to know what you think. Circle the number that most closely matches your point of
view.

Neither
Strongly Agree nor Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1. I know how to help my child do well in school. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I never know if I’m getting through to my child. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I know how to help my child make good grades 1 2 3 4 5

in school.
4. I can motivate my child to do well in school. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I feel good about my efforts to help my child 1 2 3 4 5
learn.
6. Other children have more influence on my 1 2 3 4 5

child’s grades than I do.
7. I can get through to my child even when he or 1 2 3 4 5
she has difficulty understanding something.
8. I don’t know how to help my child. 1 2 3 ‘ 4 5
9. My efforts to help my child learn are successful. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I make a difference in my child’s school 1 2 3 4 5

performance.

180

 

 

2. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements. There are no right or wrong answers, I simply want to know what you
think. Respond to each statement by circling the number that most closely matches

you point of view.

“It is parents ’ responsibility to. .. ”

1. help their child understand homework
assignments.

2. test their child on material being taught at
school.

3. show their child how to use things like a
dictionary or encyclopedia.

4. support the teacher, no matter what.

5. contact the teacher before academic problems
arise.

6. determine what their child is good at and
what needs more work.

7. review their child’s completed homework.
8. visit their child’s classroom.
9. keep track of their child’s progress in school.

10. teach their child to value schoolwork and
success.

11. show an interest in school.

12. contact the teacher if they think their child is
struggling in school.

13. support whatever decisions the teacher thinks
is best.

14. go to parent-teacher conferences.

15. work with their child everyday on something
related to school.

16. know if their child is having trouble in school.

17. make sure that their child learns at school.

18. attend open houses at school.

181

Neither
Strongly Agree nor

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

1 2 3
1 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3
l 2 3

4

b-b-D-b

5

LIILIIUILII

UI

 

 

19. ask their child about school everyday. I

20. supplement what is learned or done at school. 1

182

3. Please indicate how often you do the following activities. There are no right or
wrong answers, I am simply interested in finding out how frequently you do things
with your child. Circle the number that best describes your behavior.

“How often do you... ”

Almost
Always AlwaysSometimes RarelyNever

1. watch television with your child? 1 2 3 4 5
2. read with your child? 1 2 3 4 5
3. talk to your child about what he/she is learning 1 2 3 4 5
in school?
4. work with your child on school subjects? 1 2 3 5
5. respond to the teacher’s requests for your help? 1 2 3 4 5
6. review and discuss the completed work your 1 2 3 4 5
child brings home?
7. help your child with math? 1 2 3 4 5
8. visit your child’s school? 1 2 3 4 5
9. attend events that are going on at school? 1 2 3 4 5
10. ask your child about what he/she is learning in 1 2 3 4 5
school?
11. help your child with homework? I 2 3 4 5
12. talk to your child’s teacher? 1 2 3 4 5
13. play with your child? 1 2 3 4 5
14. volunteer in the classroom or at the school? 1 2 3 4 5
15. ask your child how well he/she is doing in l 2 3 4 5
school?

183

 

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statement.

Other parents expect me to be involved in my child’s education.

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6

184

Section B

1. Sometimes parents talk to other parents, who have children attending their
child’s school, about their child’s education. Please list those parents you talk to
most often, and circle the number that best describes how often the two of you talk.
If you do not know the first name of the parent, please write the name of the child.
You may list up to seven other parents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How often do you talk?
Name of Parent/Child (first and last) twice once a twice once a once a
a year month a week day
month
1. 1 2 3 4 5
2. 1 2 3 4 5
3 1 2 3 4 5
4 1 2 3 4 5
5 1 2 3 4 5
6 1 2 3 4 5
7 l 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. In this section, please list up to five other adults you talk to a lot about your child
and his or her education

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name of Person (first and last) Is this Does this person Does this person
person a work within the have a child at a
relative? field of education? different school?

1 y n y n y n
2 y n y n y n
3 y n y n Y n
4 y n y n Y n
5 y n y n y n

 

 

 

 

 

185

 

Section C

1. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following

statement.

“It is difficult for me to communicate with the teacher because... ”

Neither
Strongly Agree
Disagree Disagree nor
Disagree
1. we have different schedules. 1 2 3
2. we have different backgrounds l 2 3
3. the teacher is not accessible 1 2 3
4. I do not have a phone 1 2 3
5. I don’t have time 1 2 3

“It is difficult for me to spend time at the school because. . .

Neither
Strongly Agree
Disagree Disagree nor
Disagree
1. my job demands too much time. I 2 3
2. I am not available at the times 1 2 3
when the school needs volunteers.
3. I cannot get to the school. 1 2 3
4. I don’t get along with the
1 2 3
teacher.
5. I feel like I am not wanted 1 2 3
there.
186

Agree
4

4

Agree

4

ii

Strongly
Agree

5

5

 

Strongly
Agree

5

“I cannot spend time working with my child at home because... ”

Neither
Strongly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree nor Agree Agree
Disagree
1. my job demands too much time. 1 2 3 4 5
2 I am too tired at the end of the 1 2 3 4 5
day.
3. my child doesn’t like my help. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I don t know what my Chlld 1 2 3 4 5
does at school.
5. I don’t have the right materials 1 2 3 4 5

at home.

187

 

Section D: Background Information

Name of Parent:

 

 

Name of Child:

1. My child is a: _ Boy _ Girl

2. My child is in the:
_ First grade _ Fourth grade
__ Second grade __ Fifth grade
__ Third grade __ Sixth grade

3. How much schooling have you completed?
Some high school

High school degree or equivalent.
_ Some college

College degree

Some post-bachelor credits or degree (e. g., Master’s or M. D.)

4. I consider myself to be:

Asian-American
Black/African-American

Caucasian/Anglo-American

 

Hispanic/Latino(a)
Other ethnicity : (please list)
5. How long have you lived at your current residence? years, months

188

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey! If you would like to be entered
into the lottery, a chance to win 8 100, please write your phone number or address below.
This section of the survey is optional. The information I am asking for is needed so that I
may contact you if you win the lottery.

Name:

 

Street Address:

 

City: State: MI
Zip Code:

Phone Number:

 

189

 

 

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

190

Questions to define parent involvement:

In this first section, I would like to ask you some questions about the role of parents

in the education of their child, what you see as being parent involvement, and some

of the ways that you might be involved in your own child’s education. Some parents

think that it is their responsibility to be very active in the education of their child,

while other parents believe that educating children is almost entirely the

responsibility of schools and teachers. ..

1.

What are some of the ways you are involved in your child’s education at school?
How much involvement in your child’s education at school do you think is
appropriate for you? [Probe: What do you feel your involvement at school
accomplishes?]

What are some of the ways you are involved in your child’s education at home? How
much involvement in your child’s education at home do you think is appropriate for
you? [Probe: What do you feel your involvement at home accomplishes?]

How much involvement in a child’s education at school do you think is appropriate
for parents in general? How much involvement at home do you is appropriate for
parents in general? [Probe: What are some of the ways parents should be involved in
their child’s education?]

Do you feel as though a parent can be too involved in their child’s education at
school? at home? [Probe: Can you give examples where this is the case and discuss

why?]

19]

 

Existence of social norms about parent involvement

Now I would like to ask some questions that focus on how you perceive other

parents at [name of school] and the community at the school.

5.

How much involvement in a child’s education at school do you think other parents at
[name of school] believe is appropriate? [Probe: Do you think that they believe

parents should be involved at their child’s school?]

Social Nonns; expectations and sanctions

I would like to ask you some questions about your own experiences at [name of

school]

7.

10.

Earlier you talked about involvement at school as being [list behaviors stated in #1].
Have you ever seen a parent at [name of school] encourage another parent to do
these? [Probe: Could you tell me a little about this? Are there other examples?]

Have you ever seen a parent at [name of school] encourage another parents to be
involved at home? [Probe: Could you tell me a little about this? Are there other
examples?]

Can you describe a situation where someone has encouraged you to be more involved
in your child’s education, either at school or at home? [Probe: Have you ever
experienced this from other parents at the school? relatives or others adults?]

Can you describe how a parent, teacher, or administrator might express disapproval in
some way, if they felt that you were not involved enough at school? at home? [Probe:

Have you ever experienced a situation such as this, or know of someone who has?]

192

 

 

Describing conversations and their function

I 1. In general, with whom to you talk to the most about your child’s school and
education? [Probe: what are some of the most common topics of conversation?
Where did you first meet some of these people?]

12. Growing up, my mother would often talk to her friends about what my brother and I
were doing and what we accomplished. Do you ever talk to your friends and relatives
about how your child is doing in school? [Probe: How would you describe a typical
conversations with these people?]

Demographics and survey questions

These last questions are designed to get some basic, background information

13. In terms of raising your child, do you feel as though your friends are an important
source of support for you? [Probe: if yes, how 50?]

14. Can you tell me what grade your child was in last year? Is your child a boy or a girl?
How much education have you completed?

15. How often would you say you are involved at the school? at home? [list some

behaviors they mentioned]

193

 

 

APPENDD( C: CONTRASTING MODELS TO EXPLORE MULTICOLLINEARIT Y

194

L1

 

6:03qu

 

 

a _ .o mm _ .o- 8. .o 985. $3. 8 _ .o- :55? 5 8383-82

c.8362
83 .305 and 1.3:. a _ .o $55 :55? 5 228:3
83 928. $2 and- once. ES- 623
Ed 83 89¢ 83 8. .o god 8&5 98:5
Rod +3: 39o $2 ._ 426 +95. amaze 2:8
39¢ .32 ago .82 £3 as? 223
mo: .22 .43; 3mm 53 .62 =855<$a<
83 See a: was 83 E: £328....

85 .3 m .25 .3 m 55 .3 m 835.9
mg ileum—m 3%

 

 

32.3 3 E2529»:— Eouam wig—3.5 mice—zum— mink.

195

men:
_odwa**wQCwa*d<owa+

 

Ame .ovcvmd

Gm _ .ovo _ Nd

$2 .8 83 3..-. .63 Eugene

 

 

 

2 _ .o +22 8 _ .o +23 M: _.o 83 55330
.......... 03¢ Bod Sod- mod- 532.52%
.23 tamed .......... 23 :8. .o 23. 3:28

x5382

o: .o .83 ...o: .o 83 8 _ .o .2 no see. Bam-_86m B 85

SE .3 m 8335» m Sum .3 m 835...;
$312. 3% mg

 

 

8.258 m— 935—.

196

 

 

 

 

.......... God **mw _ .o mood 03.0 zomuEm—afim
owed ***Emd .......... god 3.52 .o 20¢ .35an
x8382
_w _ .o womd- m2 .o 036. v2 .o med- 2.23 vommm-_oocom .6 ofim
Nvmd *oocd ovmd ***ohwd mvmd **vmcd ofim x8382 :22? 850..
and $0. _ - mid than. _ - ammo oi . _ - Begum
:wd 000—- Sad 95—- mnwd 2m. _- cameo owe—BU
nowd go- _mw.o NE..- wowd Rod. 03:00 oEom
wcwd Emd omad _ Ed mnwd owed 25>?
more: .13.. _ 36 man; ***mmm.v 031 ***wowé cwocoE<é§m<
Oma; «mmd- owed VmoN- 93.. Rim- mzoExco:<
8km .Bm m cotm .Em m Stu .Em m 333...;
”3'82 flung g3

 

 

25.: 3 ecoEoZeE— «5.3m 9.53.5.5 £0.52 new 035.

197

 

 

 

m8":
_odwa**onwa*d<owq+
6E8 88.8
.85 mm _ .o 888 ES 3a-. .83 8.23».
ammo Sod 8.3 $3 33 god 888:8
notm .Em m cotm .Em m Sam .Em m
Mug jug .3333

 

 

€3.53 3 2a.;

198

Discussion

In order to assess the extent to which parental role construction might be
concealing a relationships between parental self-efficacy and either type of parent
involvement, regression analyses were conducted with one of these beliefs removed.
Examination of the results (See tables above) suggest that the results regarding an
absences of relationships between parents’ self-efficacy and both types of parent
involvement is not due to any multicollinearity between parents’ self—efficacy and
parental role construction. The tables above suggest; that self-efficacy may not be
predictive of all types of parent involvement, and that even when self-efficacy does
predict parent involvement, parental role is a better predictor of these behaviors. In
general, the regression analyses support the interpretation that, of the parental beliefs
assessed in this study, parental role construction predicts parent involvement at home and
at school better than parental self-efficacy.

Examining the relationships between the two parental beliefs, parental role
construction and parents’ self-efficacy, and parent involvement required that three
regression analyses be tested: one with both beliefs, one with parental role construction
only, and one with parental self-efficacy one. By comparing the coefficients and
standard errors of the beliefs across the models, as well as looking at changes in the
amount of variance each regression model explains, the degree of multicollinearity could
be assessed.

First, comparing the results across each type of parent involvement suggests that
self-efficacy may not be an important predictor of parent involvement at school. In the

full regression model predicting parent involvement at school, with parent role

199

construction and parental self-efficacy both entered as predictors, only parental role is
significantly related to the outcome. In model 1, when parental role construction is
removed from the regression equation, the relationships between parent involvement at
school and parental self-efficacy remains not significant. These results suggest that
parents’ beliefs that they can help their children achieve in school may not motivate or
inspire them to volunteer or spend time at the school itself.

In contrast to parent involvement at school, when parental role construction was
removed from the regression equations predicting parent involvement at home parental
self-efficacy was significantly related to the outcome. Although parental may be
predictive of parent involvement at home, comparisons of the three models suggest that
parental role construction is a more important predictor than parental self-efficacy. In the
full regression model, with both parental role construction and parental self-efficacy
included, the regression model explained 27% of the variance in parent involvement.
With parental self-efficacy removed (Model 2), parental role construction was found to
explain a similar amount of variance in the outcome (26.1%). However, when parent role
construction is removed and parental self-efficacy remains as a predictor of parent
involvement at home (Model 1), the amount of variance explained falls dramatically
(18.5%). This decline exists despite the significant relationships between parental self-
efficacy and parent involvement.

Further evidence supporting the relative importance of parental role construction
can be seen by examining, across the models, the standard errors of the regression
coefficients between parental self-efficacy and parent involvement at home. Typically,

multicollinearity is evident when there is a change in the standard error for a coefficient.

200

 

 

Comparing the Full Model with Model 1, the relationship between parental self-efficacy
and parent involvement at home become significant because of an increase in the
coefficient, not because of any changes in the standard errors of the coefficients. This
comparison of standard errors is further evidence in support of the conclusion that
parents’ beliefs about what they should be doing is a better predictor of involvement than
their beliefs about what their involvement can help their child accomplish.

Comparing the models, across both types of parent involvement, the results
suggest that the relationships between parents’ self-efficacy and parent involvement may
not be as strong as suggested by previous research. In addition, parents’ beliefs that their
involvement can affect their child’s schooling may not even be an influential belief
toward the creation of parent involvement at school. When parental self-efficacy is used
as a predictor of involvement without parental role construction, it was found to only
predict parent involvement at home. Upon entering parental role construction, the
importance of parental self-efficacy diminishes. Parents’ beliefs that involvement at
home and at school are a responsibility of all parents, it appears, is a better predict or both

types of behavior.

201

 

 

REFERENCES

202

REFERENCES

Ames, C., Khoju, M., & Watkins, T. (1993). Parent involvement: The relationship
between school-to-home communication and parents’ perceptions and beliefs. Report no.
15 to the Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children ’3 Learning.

Ames, C., DeStefano, L., Watkins, T., & Sheldon, S., (1995). Teachers’ school-to-
home communications and parent involvement: The role of parent perceptions and
beliefs. Report to the Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children ’s
Learning.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Leaming Theogg. Englewood Cliffs, N. J .: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educationalfi Psychologist, E0), 117-148.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology Monographs, 3(1).

Becker, H. J. & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher
practices. The Elementary School Journa_l, Q, 2, 85-102.

Bott, E. (1957). Family and Social Network: Roles. Norm_s_,and Extemal
Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. Tavistock Publications: London.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Educagion. Greenwood Press: New York, NY

Boudieu, P. & Passerson, J. (1977). Reproduction in Educagion, Society. and
Culture. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by
Nature and Design. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA

Bryk, A. S. & Raudensush, S. W. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications
and Data Analysis Methods. Sage: Newbury Park

Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural
equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287-1335.

203

 

 

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Carbanaro, W. J. (1998). A little help from my friends’ parents: Intergenerational
closure and educational outcomes. Sociology of Educflon, 11, 295-313.

Cochran, M. M. & Brassard, J. A. (1979). Child development and personal social
networks. Child Development, _5_O, 601-616.

Cochran, M., Lamer, M., Riley, D., Gunnarsson, L., & Henderson Jr., C. R. (1990).
Extending Families: The Social Networks of Parents and their Children. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociolggy, 24, 895-8120.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press;
Cambridge, MA.

Comer, J. P. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 259, 5,
42-48.

Comer, J. P. & Haynes, N. H. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological
approach. The Elementary School Journal, 9_1, 3, 271-277.

Cusick, P. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the american high school: Studies of
three schools. New York: Longman.

Darling, N. & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting styles as context: An integrative
model. Psmhological Bulletin, 113, 3, 487-496.

De Graaf, N. D. & Flap, H. D. (1988). With a little help from my friends. Social
Forces, 67(2), 452—472.

Delgato-Gaitan, C. (1992). School matter in the mexican-american home:
Socializing children to education. American Educational Research Journa_1, 2.2, 3, 495-
513.

Dombusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, D. F., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J.
(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child
Development, 58, 1244- l 257.

Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early
adolescent years. Teachers College Press, 24, 3, 568-587.

204

Eccles, J. S. & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and
adolescents’ schooling. In A. Bloom and J. F. Dunn (Eds), FamilkSchool Links: How
d_o They Affect Educational Outcomes? Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

 

Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement.
The Elementary School Journal, Q, 3, 277-294.

Epstein, J. L. (1987). What Principals should know about parent involvement.
Principal, Q, 3, 6-9.

Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teachers’ practices of parent
involvement. In S. Silbem (Ed.), Advances in Reading/Language Research: Literacy
Through Family, Community, and School Interaction IVol.5)., 261-276.

Epstein, J. L. & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of
parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementa_ry School
Journal, 9_1, 3, 289-305.

Fehrman, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M. (1987). Home influence on school
learning: Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school grades.
Joumalfiof Educational Research, 89(6), 330-337.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Black, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power, and urban
public schools. Teachers College Record, 9_4, 4, 682- 710.

Frank, K. A. (1995). Identifying cohesive subgroups. Social Networks, fl, 27-56.

Frank, K. A. (1996). Mapping interactions within and between cohesive subgroups.
Social Networks, 3, 93-119.

Frank, K. A. (1998). Quantitative methods for studying social context in multilevels
and through interpersonal relations. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (eds.) Review of
Research in Education,Vol. 23. Washington, D. C.: AERA.

Friedkin, N. E. (1983). Horizons of observability and limits of informal control in
organizations. Social Forces, Q, 1, 54-77.

Friedkin, N. E. (1993). Structural bases of interpersonal influence in groups: A
longitudinal case study. American Sociological Review, E, 861-872.

Ginsburg, G. S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children’s

intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation and academic performance. Child
Development, fl, 1461-1474.

205

q

 

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental
motivational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology. _8§(1), 104-113.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of
Sociology, 18, 6, 1360-1380.

 

Grolnick W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-
regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143-
154.

Grolnick, W. S. & Slowiaczek. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s
schooling: A mulitdimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child
Develgament, 95, 237-252.

Grolnick, W. 8., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal
o_f Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. 0., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997).
Predictors of parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 8_9_, 3, 538-548.

Hess R. D., & Holloway, S. D. (1984). Family and school as educational
institutions. In R. D. Parke (Ed.), Review of Child Deve10pment Research (pp. 179-222).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Homans, G. C. (1950). The Human Groap. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. & Jones, K. P. (1997). Parental role construction and
parental involvement in children’s education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. March, 27, 1997.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in
children’s education: Why does it make a difference. Teachers College Record, 21(2),
310-331.

 

Hoover-Dempsey, K V. & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved
in their children’s education?. Review of Educational Resear_ch, 61, l, 3- 42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in
parent-school relations. Journal of Educational Reseaggh, 8_5_, 287-294.

206

 

Keith, T. 2., Keith, P. B., Quirk, K. J ., Sperduto, J., Santillo, S., & Killings, S.
(1998). Longitudinal effects of parent involvement on high school grades: Similarities
and differences across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School Psychology, 3_6_, 3,

335-363.

Kohn, M. L. (1984). On the transmission of values in the family: A preliminary
formulation. Research in Sociology of EducaLfioriand Socialization, vol. 4, 1-12.

Ladd, G. W., Le Sieur, K. D., & Profilet, S. M. (1992). Direct parental influences on
young children’s peer relations. In S. Duck (Ed.), Learning About Relationships (vol. 2).
Sage: London

Laosa, L. M. & Sigel, I. E. (1982). Families as Learning Environments for Children.
Plenum Press: New York.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home Advantage. The Falmer Press: London.

Lareau, A. & Shumar, W. (1996). The problem of individualism in family-school
polices. Sociology of Education, ?, 24-39.

Lin, N. (1990). Social resources and social mobility: A structural theory of status
attainment. In R. L. Breiger (Ed.) Social Mobility and Social Structtfl. (pp.247-271.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-
51.

Lortie, D. (1977). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An
historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 5, 6, 1006-1017.

Macoby, E. E & Martin, J. A. (1983) Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.) Handbook of child psychology: Vol
4. Socialization, parsonality, and schal development (4“1 ed.). New York: Wiley.

Marini, M. M. (1984). Age and sequencing norms in the transition to adulthood.
Social Forces, 6_3(1), 229-244.

McGillicuddy-DeLisi (1982). The relationship between parents’ beliefs about
development and family constellation, socioeconomic status, and parents’ teaching
strategies. In L. M. Laosa & I. E. Sigel, (Eds) Families as Learning Environments for
Children. Plenum Press: New York.

207

 

McNeal, Jr., R. B. (1998). Differential effects of parental involvement on cognitive
and behavioral outcomes by race, household structure, and socioeconomic status. Paper
presented at Social Capital: An International Conference Bridging Disciplines, Policies,
and Communities, at Michigan State University.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Clencoe, IL: Free Press.

Morgan, S. L. & Sorensen, A. B. (1997). Parents’ friends and friends’ parents:
Network components of social closure and their effects on learning. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Toronto Canada.

Mudrack, P. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of confusion? Small
Group Behavior, EU), 37-49.

Muller, C. (1993). Parent involvement and academic achievement: An analysis of
family resources available to the child. In B. Schneider & J. S. Coleman (Eds), Parents,
their Children, and Schools (pp.77-114). Westview: Boulder, CO.

Muller, C. & Kerbow, D. (1993). Parent involvement in the home, school, and
community. In B. Schneider & J. S. Coleman (Eds), Parents their Children and Schools
(pp.77-l l4). Westview: Boulder, CO.

 

 

National Education Goals Panel (1995). The National Echational Goals Remrt,
1995. US. Department of Education.

Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement
attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 22, 310-321.

Phillips, D. A. (1987). Socialization of perceived academic competence among
highly competent children. Child Development, fl, 1308-1320.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24, l-24.

Portes, A. & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on
the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 28(6), 1320-
1350.

Riley, D. (1990). Network influences on father involvement in childrearing. In M.
Cochran, M. Lamer, D. Riley, L. Gunnarsson, and C. R. Henderson Jr. (Eds) Extending
Families: The social networks of parents and their children. (pp.131-153) Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Sarason, S. (1971). The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. Allyn
and Bacon, Inc.: Boston, MA

208

 

Schneider, B. & Coleman, J. S. (1993). Parents, Their Children, and Schools.
Westview press: Boulder.

Sheldon, S. B. & Ames, C. (1997). Two levels of parent involvement: The influence
of the classroom and parents beliefs. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, in Chicago, IL.

Sigel, I. E. (1992). The belief-behavior connection: A resolvable dilemma? In I. E.
Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-Delisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds), firengl Belief Systems: The
Psychological Conaecniences for Children. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict aad the web of group affiliations. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 1,
l- 40.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. & Dombusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the
reproduction of inequality: Information networks among mexican-origin high school
students. Sociology of Education, 6_8, 116-135.

Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the Classroom: Why School Reform has Failed and
What Parents Need to Do. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting,

psychological maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development,
Q, 1424-1436.

Steinberg, L., Lambom, S. D., Dombusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of
parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school

involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, _6_3_, 1266-1281.

Stevenson, D. L. & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and the child’s
school performance. Child Development, 3, 1348-1357.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Suls, J. M. (1977). Gossip as social comparison, Journal of Communication, 164-
168.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culturgnd Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.

209

 

Teachman, J. D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. (1997). Social capital and the generation
of human capital. Social Forces, EM), 1343-1359.

Valenzuela, A. & Dombusch, S. (1994). Familism and social capital in the academic

achievement of mexican origin and anglo adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 15.1,
18-36.

Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta
Kappan, 65, 397-400.

Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Socgl Network Analysis: Methods amp
Application. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wellman, B. & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes from different folks:
Community ties and social support. American JOLIE] of Sociology. %, 558-588.

Weenig, M. W. H. & Midden, C. J. H. (1991). Communication network influences
on information diffusion and persuasion. Journal of PersonalitLand Social Psychology,
6_1_, 5, 734—742.

Woolcock, M. (1997). Social capital and economic development: Toward a
theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theog and Society,

210

EN DNOTES

 

' The reader should be aware that use of the plural terms “parents” and “their children”
refer throughout this dissertation to a parent and her or his child, rather than a set of
parent of parents and a set of children. Use of this plural form avoids continually using
the phrase “his or her” throughout this paper.

2 Although parents’ beliefs did predict their behavior in these studies, this relationships
was not found to be consistent across tasks. This finding suggests that the task itself may
have some role in how parents interact with their child. One possibility is that parents’
beliefs about the task or their own competence at that task may affect the way they
instruct their children.

3 For an excellent review of the term social capital and how it has been applied across
fields, please see Woolcock (1997)

4 The work “weak” refers to the relative strength of a ties between two individuals in
separate groups. It does not refer to the importance of these ties.

5 The term information is placed in quotes to indicate a recognition of the fact that what
parents are exchanging may not be accurate or truthful. The process described may also
perpetuate the spread of rumors and gossip among parents.

6 The information provided here was gathered from the 1998 Michigan School Report
Building Information, located on the intemet at
http://www.state.mi.us/mde/cfdata/msr98/msr_bldg.cfm.

7 The return rate from Pierce Elementary School is an approximation due to the fact that a

211

 

 

/\
comP‘ete list of parents who have at least one child attending the school could not be

obtained. Also, parents who were sent a survey, but who had moved their child out of the
school , were not considered as possible respondents (n=3).
8 A“ of the names in this dissertation are pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality.
9 Kids’ Club is a before and after school daycare program
‘0 This is not to say that Karen and her friends only talk about either books or the
environment, or that these friendships developed around a single shared interest. These
women are highly knowledgeable about specific topics that Karen is not. Hence Karen

can look to them for information on those areas about which they are most informed.

212

 

"lllllllllllllllllllll