. . 3.x
33 am ...
T

 

 

l :

53m

 

2W .
P465 . ... .
a? A...“

are}

 

 

3.13911 ‘f
' 4‘ I. a‘ .

g:
E

1...: k \
11 bl... :1
. 1‘13““)...
and“: .1. R]!

95, . U! .

a

 

 

tidxﬂu
1.. E

1...!»

I!

 

mu Va

ﬂ
“‘

 

m
A

 

         

       

        

 

 

     

    
     

 

V 33.2aaﬁvgﬁﬁirénm¢§eﬁua$ﬂgxm$mgk.wfﬁﬁa
.n. r. ., ‘ , .

:‘ .

 

 

$38.3».an

swam. have 5 5%

gaﬁﬁﬁgsgégﬁﬁé

 

ll
1

|

I l‘

“1"

 

 

 

Q LIBRARY
" MIL] I. . State
/‘ 0‘9 (’0 Uni’versity

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN STUDENT LEARNING:

DO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND
PARENT TRUST MATTER?

presented by

JENNIFER JILL BARR

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in School Psychology

 

 

RQJQX) 9%

 

MU Professor’ 5 Signature
5/5/05

Date

MSU is an Aﬁinnative ActiorVEqual Opportunity Institution

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

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

MARS 13% mg;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J 2/05 cJCI-RCIDItoDmJndd-pds

PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN STUDENT LEARNING:
DO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND PARENT TRUST MATTER?

By

Jennifer Jill Barr

A DISSERTATION

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

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

2005

ABSTRACT

PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN STUDENT LEARNING:
DO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND PARENT TRUST MATTER?

By
Jennifer Jill Barr

Three decades of research provide convincing evidence that parents are an
important inﬂuence in helping their children achieve high academic standards. Despite
the grong empirical database demonstrating beneﬁts for students, parents, and teachers,
numerous barriers to effective home-school relationships hamper efforts to research and
promote greater parental involvement. One fundamental barrier is the lack of trust
between home and school. Yet there is currently little empirical research examining
parent trust in schools.

The present study used a correlational design to explore the relationships between
parent involvement and parent trust in school, the school a student attends, student grade,
and student achievement. Parents from three rural mid-Michigan elementary schools
participated. Results suggest that the school a child attends was signiﬁcantly related to
parent involvement. Furthermore, parent trust signiﬁcantly affects parents’ decision to be
involved at some schools and not others. In general, the school a child attends was a
better predictor of parent involvement than parent trust in school. Student achievement
and grade level were not related to parent involvement.

Based on these ﬁndings, educators should focus on creating school-wide
comprehensive involvement programs, creating a greater number and higher quality of
interactions open to all parents. The greater number of involvement opportunities may

aid in facilitating greater parent trust.

Cepyn'ght by
JENNIFER JILL BARR
2005

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I must acknowledge my committee members, Evelyn Oka (adviser), Mark
Reckase, John Carlson, and Esther Onaga. To Evelyn, thank you for you continuous
support and thoughtful feedback throughout my entire graduate career, especially “The
Big D”. I appreciate the way you challenge my thinking, molding me into well-rounded
researcher and practitioner. To Mark, thank you for your easy-to-understand quantitative
explanations that helped the results “make sense”. To John, thank you for serving as an
excellent example of a scholar-practitioner. It is wonderful to be surrounded by someone
whose research and practice makes a difference in the lives of many. And to Esther, for
opening my eyes to the wonderful world of families (especially those of children with
special needs)! Your course helped to shape my life in multiple ways, and I never want
to lose sight of the parent’s perspective in either research or practice!

The following research would not have been possible without the funding
provided by the Spencer Foundation (Spencer Research Training Fellowship) and the
Michigan State University Graduate School (Dissertation Completion Fellowship). May
the generosity ﬁ'om these two groups continue to support aspiring researchers for many
years to come.

Lastly, I am indebted to the principals and parents that made my dream a reality!
Thank you for giving your precious time, and more importantly, being committed to
empirically supported practices that help children develop a love of learning and achieve

to their fullest potential.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ viii
IN TRODUCTION/LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................... 1
METHODS .......................................................................................... 32
RESULTS/DISCUSSION ......................................................................... 61

APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 105

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Epstein’s (2001) Six Types of Parent Involvement ................................... 7
Table 2. Redeﬁnitions of Six Types of Parent Involvement .................................... 9
Table 3. 2003—2004 Michigan School Report Card ............................................ 38
Table 4. Participant Pools and Respondents .................................................... 39
Table 5. Student Respondents by Grade ......................................................... 40
Table 6. Student Respondents by Race .......................................................... 41
Table 7. Student Respondents by Sex ............................................................ 42
Table 8. Student Respondents by Free/Reduced Lunch Eligibility .......................... 42
Table 9. Chi-Squared Analyses: Sex of Student ............................................... 43
Table 10. Chi-Squared Analyses: Race of Student ............................................ 45
Table 11. Chi-Squared Analyses: Student Grade ............................................. 47

Table 12. Chi-Squared Analyses: Students by F rec/Reduced Lunch Eligibility .......... 48
Table 13. Available Achievement Measures by School and Grade .......................... 54
Table 14. Cronbach’s Coefﬁcient Alphas for the MEAP ..................................... 58

Table 15. Results of Two-Way ANOVA (Parent Trust X Student Achievement). . . ...66
for Parent Involvement (Alta Vista Elementary)

Table 16. Mean Parent Involvement and Standard Deviation: Parent Trust X. . . . . . ...66
Student Achievement for Parent Involvement (Alta Vista Elementary)

Table 17. Results of Two-Way ANOVA (Parent Trust X Student Achievement). . ...67
for Parent Involvement (Washougal and Lamont Elementary Schools)

Table 18. Mean Parent Involvement and Standard Deviation: Parent Trust X. . . . . .......68
Student Achievement for Parent Involvement (Washougal and Lamont
Elementary Schools)

Table 19. Pearson Correlations for Parent Involvement and Parent Trust in School. . ....68

vi

Table 20. Mean Parent Involvement and Standard Deviations: .............................. 69
One-Way AN OVA (Lamont Elementary)

Table 21. Means and Standard Deviations: Multiple Regression ........................... 79
Table 22. Correlations between Variables: Multiple Regression ........................... 79
Table 23. Predicting Parent Involvement: Multiple Regression ............................. 80

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Distribution of parent involvement scores for Alta Vista, ........................ 92
Washougal, and Lamont combined as measured by the Parent Involvement survey.

Figure 2. Distribution of parent involvement scores for Alta Vista as measured ......... 92
by the Parent Involvement survey.

Figure 3. Distribution of parent involvement scores for and Lamont as measured ....... 93
by the Parent Involvement survey.

Figure 4. Distribution of parent involvement scores for Washougal as measured. . . . . ....93
by the Parent Involvement survey.

Figure 5. Distribution of parent trust scores for Alta Vista, Washougal, ................... 94
and Lamont combined as measured by the Parent Views of School survey.

Figure 6. Distribution of parent trust scores for Alta Vista measured by the ............... 94
Parent Views of School survey.

Figure 7. Distribution of parent trust scores for Lamont as measured by the ............... 95
Parent Views of School survey.

Figure 8. Distribution of parent trust scores for Washougal as measured by the .......... 95
Parent Views of School survey.

viii

Introduction

Education is most successful when parents are actively involved in their child’s
schooling. During the last three decades, attempts to increase the involvement of parents
have been a regular feature of federal, state, and local education policies. For example,
parent involvement has received bipartisan support at the national level and is one of four
targeted areas of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 . There is persuasive evidence
that the quality of relationships between schools and families plays an integral role in
fostering positive student attitudes, behaviors, and academic achievement gains
(Mattingly et al., 2002). Despite the growing empirical database demonstrating beneﬁts
for students, parents, and teachers, numerous barriers to effective home-school
relationships hamper efforts to research and promote greater parental involvement and
the development of collaborative relationships to support their children’s education. One
fundamental barrier is the lack of trust between home and school (Dunst et al., 1992).

The goal of the present study is to better understand the nature of parent
involvement in their children’s education by examining patterns of parent trust in school
in relation to student developmental status or grade level, and student achievement across
three different elementary schools. Before exploring parent involvement, the
accompanying beneﬁts, and identiﬁcation of barriers, it is helpﬁil to examine this key
education priority within a historical perspective, as many current issues related to

family-professional relationships are “legacies from the past” (Tumbull & Tumbull,

1990).

Historical Context

Examining the historical context of parent roles in the care and education of
children and youth can help educational researchers and practitioners to better understand
current issues and approaches. In particular, parents of children with special needs have
paved the way for involvement in education. Turnbull and Turnbull (1990) outlined the
major (and varied) roles these parents have assumed or have been historically expected
by professionals to assume in their child’s education. In the 1940s and 19503,
professionals viewed parents as the source of their child’s problems, especially when
their child had special needs like asthma, autism, or an emotional disorder. For example,
professionals labeled parents of children with autism as “rigid”, “perfectionist”,
“emotionally impoverished”, and “depressed” (Kanner, 1943, 1955, 1971). This resulted
in feelings of guilt among many parents who believed that they were responsible for their
children’s learning and behavioral difﬁculties.

These misconceptions on the part of the professionals prompted parents to
organize at both the local and national levels during the 19608 and early 1970s (Turnbull
& Turnbull, 1990). Parents advocated for equal education for all children, including
those with special needs, and emotional support for themselves. Parents rallied together
to generate educational pro grams for those who had previously been excluded from
public schools, including children with moderate and severe disabilities. With the
emergence of these programs, parents’ responsibilities changed ﬁom active roles as
service developers to passive recipients of professionals’ decisions. Parents were
expected to enroll their child in the programs they fought to develop and then to simply

comply with professionals’ decisions.

Dissatisﬁed with the view of professionals as the “sole” experts on their children,
parents of children with special needs once again joined forces in the form of advocacy
groups and forums. These forums began to pay off as a wider variety and quantity of
services began to be offered to students. As a result of success in this new advocacy role,
parents began to take a more active role in educational decision-making. Parent
involvement in educational programming and decision-making blossomed with the

passage of landmark legislation such as the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975

(PL 94-142).

Current Conceptualr'zation of Parent Involvement

Given this rich history, where does parent involvement in education stand today?
Educators and researchers continue to recognize the vital role that parents of all types of
children, those in both regular and special education settings, can have as advocates and
as decision-makers. For example, federal legislation passed in the 19703 mandates
parental notice and consent for assessment, and parent participation in decisions
regarding assessment results and the educational program to be provided to their child.
More importantly, parents and students are being viewed by schools as family members
with critical roles in education. Schools are beginning to recognize that families possess
their own social structures having unique characteristics and needs. The
interdependence of individual members means that any experience, including school

experiences, affecting one member will affect the entire family.

Parent Involvement

As the role of parents has expanded and changed over time, the deﬁnition of a
student’s parent has also broadened. Parents are no longer limited to biological, adoptive,
or step parents, but may also include grandparents, aunts and uncles, older siblings, foster
parents, and even family friends and neighbors who have assumed the legal
responsibilities of child care. Thus, there are a number of individuals who may be
important in a child’s life, and these individuals often have important information for
planning an optimal program of educational services for the child. In the present study, a
reference to a student’s “parent” refers to any individual who may be ﬁrlﬁlling this role
on a consistent basis.

Parent involvement activities may take a variety of forms to match the particular
needs, goals, and interests of students, educators, and families, and to efﬁciently use the
resources of the community (Sheridan, 2003). As outlined in the National Association of
School Psychology’s Position on Home-School Collaboration, it may be detrimental to
adopt a “one size ﬁts all” approach to collaboration, and it is vital to consider instead, a
variety of options that are most successful at different points of student development
(F albo, Lein, & Amador, 2001; National Association of School Psychologists, 1992). To
address this concern for individuality, Epstein (2001) proposed six major types of parent
involvement that may be used to support the education and overall development of
students based on overlapping spheres of inﬂuence: parenting, communicating,

volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community.

Overlapping Spheres of Inﬂuence

Epstein’s theoretical model of overlapping spheres of inﬂuence (2001) asserts that
students are best supported when families and schools have shared or common goals and
when they work collaboratively. Epstein’s (2001) model built upon the work of previous
home-school collaboration theories by introducing a third context, the community, as an
additional location for student learning and overall development. Students are viewed as
living systems whose lives reﬂect complex interactions with other systems (e.g., home,
school), which, in turn, are embedded in larger systems (e.g., community) (Masten,
2003)

Epstein’s (2001) model can be further divided into two sub-models: the external
model and the internal model. The external model recognizes that these three major
contexts (home; school; community) may be either “pulled together” or “pushed apart”.
This suggests there are some activities that schools, families, and communities conduct
separately (“pushed apart”), and there are some activities conducted jointly in order to
inﬂuence student learning and overall development (“pulled together”).

The internal model identiﬁes interpersonal relations among parents and families,
children, educators, and members of the community (Epstein, 2001). These relations
may occur at either the institutional level (e.g., when a school invites all families to an
event or sends the same form of communication to all families) or at the individual level
(e.g., when a parent and a teacher schedule a meeting to talk about a student’s work or
progress). The internal model locates the student at the center, or as the main
stakeholder in learning and as the primary reason why parents and educators

communicate. This implies that school, family, and community partnerships alone do not

simply produce successful students; partnerships must be designed to help students set

and achieve their personal learning goals.

Six Types of Parent Involvement
Drawing upon the overlapping spheres of inﬂuence framework as a guide, Epstein

(2001) has identiﬁed six major types of parent involvement:

Table 1

Epstein ’s (2001) Six T jpes of Parent Involvement

 

Type Deﬁnition Example

Parenting Assist families with parenting Sponsor parent education
skills and setting home conditions workshops and other courses
to support children as students or training for parents.
(includes parent education).

Also, assist schools to
understand families.

Communicating Conduct effective Publish a school newsletter
communication ﬁom containing an events
school-to-home and from calendar, curriculum/pro gram
home-to-school about school information, volunteer
programs and student progress. opportunities, student work

samples, and a column to
address questions.

Volunteering Organize volunteers (and audiences) Have a parent room or family

Learning at Home

Decision Making

Collaborating with
Community

to support the school and students.

Provide volunteer opportunities
at various locations and at
various times.

center for volunteer work,
meetings, and resources.

Involve families with their children Have a regular schedule of

on homework and in other
curriculum-related activities and
decisions.

Involve families as participants
on school decisions, and develop
parent leaders and representatives.

Coordinate resources and services
from the community for families,

interactive homework that
requires students to
demonstrate and discuss
what they are learning.

Ensure parents are
represented on district-
level advisory councils and
committees.

Provide information on
community activities that

students, and the school, and provide link to learning skills and

services to the community.

talents, including summer
programs for students.

Epstein’s (2001) framework incorporates key elements identiﬁed by Vosler-
Hunter (1989) as necessary for effective collaboration: mutual respect for skills and
knowledge; honesty and clear communication; understanding and empathy; mutually
agreed upon goals; shared planning and decision making; open and two-way sharing of
information; accessibility and responsiveness; joint evaluation of progress; and absence
of labeling and blame. A glance at these characteristics suggests it would be difﬁcult, if
not impossible, to achieve this level of collaboration without a trusting relationship
between home and school (Adams & Christenson, 1998).

When referring to the relationships between parents, schools, and communities,
educational researchers, practitioners, and policymakers should not be limited to a narrow
conceptualization of involvement. Epstein’s six types of involvement (2001) imply a
fundamental restructuring of how home, school, and community combine efforts for
student success (Sheridan, 2003). In an authentic partnership, family members and
educators work collectively as equal parties, pushing aside personal preferences to allow
the needs and goals of the entire group to take precedence. Teachers and family members
alike are viewed as “experts,” combining their forces to foster student success. Epstein
(2001) provides “redeﬁnitions” for each of the six types of parent involvement to ensure
that resources, power, and responsibilities are shared between home and school to best

achieve student success in learning:

Table 2

Redeﬁnitions of the Six Types of Parent Involvement

Type

Parenting

Communicating

Volunteering

Learning at Home

Decision Making

Collaborating with
Community

Redeﬁnition

“Workshop” to mean more than a meeting about a topic
held at the school building at a particular time; making
information about a tepic available in a variety of forms
that can be viewed, heard, or read anywhere, anytime.

“Communications about school programs and student
progress” to mean: two-way, three-way and many-way
channels of communication that connect schools, families,
students, and the community.

“Volunteer” to mean anyone who supports school goals and
children’s learning or development in any way, at any
place, and at any time — not just during the school day and
at the school building.

“Homework” to mean not only work done alone, but also
interactive activities shared with others at home or in the
community, linking schoolwork to real life.

“Help” at home to mean encouraging, listening, reacting,
praising, guiding, monitoring, and discussing - not
“teaching” school subjects.

“Decision making” to mean a process of partnership, of
shared views and actions toward shared goals, not just a
power struggle between conﬂicting ideas.

Parent “leader” to mean a real representative, with
opportunities and support to hear from and communicate
with other families.

“Community” to mean not only the neighborhoods where
students’ homes and school are located but also any
neighborhoods that inﬂuence their learning and
development.

“Community” means all who are interested in and affected
by the qualify of educators, not just those with children in
the schools.

As described by Epstein (2001), previous deﬁnitions of involvement were centered on the
actual physical presence of parents in the school building. The redeﬁnitions of
involvement offered by Epstein (2001) are “family-friendly” meaning that they are
feasible to conduct while taking into account the demands of families in the 21St century.

The present study will draw from Epstein’s (2001) ﬁ'amework and its
accompanying six forms of parent involvement. In addition to providing a broad
conceptualization of parent involvement, the Epstein (2001) framework is appropriate for
the current study, as it is comprised of discrete, measurable examples of activities

administrators and teachers can implement in a school setting.

Rationale for Parent Involvement
In addition to operationally deﬁning “parent” and “parent involvement”, it is
important to examine why parent involvement is important to educational professionals
and researchers. Facilitating parent involvement in school to promote student success is

supported empirically, legally, and ethically.

Empirical Support for Parent Involvement

Parent involvement in a student’s education is supported by a growing empirical
database. Empirical studies indicate that parent involvement beneﬁts a variety of
stakeholders, including students, teachers/school, and parents/families.

Student beneﬁts. There is a vast amount of research outlining the beneﬁts for
students when their families are more involved in the school process. Families that

support school reinforce the importance of school, homework, and activities that build

10

student skills and feelings of success (Epstein, 2001). On the other hand, students who
experience discontinuity between their home and school have difﬁculty making
transitions between these different contexts, and are at risk for poor school performance
(Phelan, Davison, & Yu, 1998). Frequent interactions between schools and families
ensure that students are more likely to receive common messages from multiple people
about the importance of school, of working hard, of thinking creatively, and of staying in
school (Epstein, 2001). In other words, when parents are involved in their child’s
education, students receive the message that “education is important”.

Increased parent involvement has been associated with improvements in attitudes
toward school and learning (Epstein & Spann, 1993) as well as greater motivation
(Henderson, 1987). In addition to changes in attitudes, students have demonstrated a
variety of academic gains, such as higher student achievement (Epstein & Spann, 1991;
Epstein & Dauber, 1993), increased language achievement for students with limited
English proﬁciency (Bermudez & Padron, 1988), higher rates of homework completion
(Epstein, 1984; Epstein & Becker, 1992; Roades & Kratochwill, 1998), greater
advancement towards higher levels of education (Redd et al., 2002), and increased
inﬂuence in important retention and promotion decisions (Laureau, 1989). In terms of
behaviors, students have demonstrated improved school behavior (Corner, 1991; Epstein
et a1, 1997), and possibly a decrease in school dropout rates (Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo,
& Hurley, 1998).

Teacher and school beneﬁts. Given the student beneﬁts of parent involvement,
there is an increased desire to understand and work with families on the part of schools

and teachers (Cochran & Dean, 1991). Working more closely with families helps school

11

ofﬁcials gain insights about students and their home environments, promoting greater
cooperation, commitment and trust between parents and teachers (Smreker, 1996).
Greater commitment and trust help decrease stereotypes about certain types of families,
such as lower-socioeconomic status families (Becker & Epstein, 1982) and improved
attitudes towards language minority parents (Bermudez & Padron, 1988). In general,
there is a decreased misunderstanding of parents and a greater awareness of the needs of
families in general (Bermudez & Padron, 1988; Chavkin, 1989; Epstein, 1983),
particularly families from minority cultures (Ramirez, 1980). Beneﬁts to teachers
translate to beneﬁts for schools, including an improved overall school climate (Cochran
& Dean, 1991), improved lines of communication, and the ability of schools to be
responsive to the needs of children and their families (Lareau, 1989). Exemplary
teachers highlight parent involvement more than other teachers, as have effective schools
(Christenson, Rounds, & Gomey, 1982).

Parent and family beneﬁts. Parent involvement has also been found to be
accompanied by improved relationships with teachers and principals, greater satisfaction
with their child’s education, and increased involvement in their child’s learning (Becker
& Epstein, 1982; Dauber & Epstein, 1993). There are also positive beneﬁts in attitudes
and knowledge for parents and families, such as a decreased misunderstanding of school
and teachers (Chavkin, 1989), and increased knowledge about their rights, roles, and
responsibilities in school-related activities (Bermudez & Padron, 1989).

Parents are more likely to be involved when they feel comfortable at their child’s
school (Ames, 1993), and involvement can lend itself to increased social support, such as

broadened social networks. This is particularly true for single parents (Cochran & Dean,

12

1991), and aids in decreasing a sense of alienation felt by minority parents (Calabrese,
1990). This increase in knowledge positively affects parents’ sense of self-efﬁcacy and
their perceptions of their child, including improved perceptions of themselves as parents
(Cochran & Dean, 1991). They are also more likely to see themselves as advocates for
their children and to have increased positive aspirations for their child (Hao & Bonstead-
Bruns, 1998), greater parental satisfaction with their knowledge of their child’s school
(Cochran & Dean, 1991), and enhanced attitudes about themselves, school, school
personnel, and the role each plays in the development of the child (Smreker, 1996).
Parent involvement can be particularly beneﬁcial for children with disabilities
(Turnbull & Turnbull, 1990). Establishing a parent-professional relationship can provide
parents with important information relevant to their child’s individualized education
program. They may also gain a greater understanding of individual teachers’ objectives,
and learn about additional resources with which they were previously unfamiliar. Lastly,
parents gain information on their rights and responsibilities as parents of a child with

special needs.

Legal Support for Parent Involvement

Parent involvement is not only supported empirically, but legally, and ethically as
well. Courts reacted quickly to the parent advocacy groups of the early 1970s, requiring
school systems to identify all school-aged children and youth with disabilities, administer
nondiscriminatory tests, provide all students with a free and appropriate education
(including those with special needs), and educate students with special needs with regular

education students to the greatest extent beneﬁcial for children with disabilities.

13

Furthermore, school systems were required to notify parents of proposed changes in
educational classiﬁcation, programming, or placement and provide parents with
opportunities to consent or to protest against schools’ decisions (Turnbull & Turnbull,
1990). Such case law decisions inﬂuenced the development of the most inﬂuential
legislation of our time: the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, also
referred to as PL 94-142.

PL 94-142 mandates that states provide a Free And Appropriate Education
(FAPE) for all school-aged children with disabilities and required that families play a
signiﬁcant role in the special education process (Myers, 2000). This reﬂected a major
shift in expectations about parents’ roles, as parents were no longer to be passive
recipients of professionals’ decisions; they were now to be educational decision makers.
The subsequent version of this legislation, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Amendments of 1997 (PL 105-17) and its most recent reauthorization, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (HR 1350), mandate broader and
even more meaningful parent involvement in educational planning and decision making.
Parents of children with a disability are viewed as members of all groups making
decisions on the educational placement of a student, and are able to provide input on
services they believe to be most beneﬁcial to their child’s education and ﬁrture.

In terms of procedural safeguards, IDEA ensured parental access to critical school
documents and information (Jacob & Hartshome, 2003). For example, parents were
afforded the rights to examine all records relating to their child. With this access, parents

were now to be provided with important information, and with that information, the

14

opportunity to apply it as an advocate in making important decisions regarding their
child’s educational placement.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (N CLBA) provides an additional legal
mandate for parental involvement. The NCLBA reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), and is based on four principles:
accountability for results; local control and ﬂexibility; expanded parental choice; and
effective and successﬁrl programs that reﬂect scientiﬁcally based research (United States
Department of Education, n.d.). The provisions outlined in the NCLBA are designed to,
“stress shared accountability between schools and parents for high achievement,
including expanded public school choice and supplemental educational services for
eligible children in low-performing schools, local development of parental involvement
plans with sufﬁcient ﬂexibility to address local needs, and building parents’ capacity for
using effective practices to improve their own children’s academic achievement” (United
States Department of Education, n.d.). Education is thus viewed as a shared effort
between home and school.

The NCLBA builds upon previous legal mandates by explicitly outlining what and
how schools should be communicating with parents, including those with limited English
proﬁciency or disabilities. Schools are required to invite parents to participate in
programs describing the school’s curriculum, forms of academic assessment used to
measure progress, and the proﬁciency levels students are expected to meet. These and
other parent programs may be executed through newly mandated Parent Information and
Resource Centers. The goal of these school-based centers is to provide comprehensive

training, information, and support to parents. Furthermore, schools must provide

15

information to parents in an understandable format, including alternative formats upon
the request of parents with disabilities, in a language that parents can understand.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (PL 93-380) is another
law that ensures parents have access to information critical to their child’s education.
Also known as the Buckley Amendment, the purpose of FERPA is to deﬁne and protect
the privacy rights of children and their parents in matters pertaining to education records.
No federal funds will be made available to schools unless they adhere to student record-
keeping procedures outlined in the law. The following basic tenets of FERPA are
designed to ensure conﬁdentiality of and parent access to school records: parents have
access to all ofﬁcial school records of their children and the right to challenge the
accuracy of these records; parents have the right to a hearing regarding the accuracy of
records; student records are to be available only to those in the school setting with a
legitimate educational interest; and parent consent must be obtained before records are
released to agencies outside the school (Jacob & Hartshome, 2003). Thus, a variety of
statutes and laws provide a legal basis for afﬁrming parents’ rights to actively participate

in their children’s education.

Ethical Support for Parent Involvement

Ethical support for parent involvement can also be found in the ethical codes and
standards of professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association
(APA) and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). These documents
contain statements directing their members to act as advocates for their clients, and to

behave in a manner that respects human dignity (Jacob & Hartshome, 2003). For

16

example, psychologists are to strive toward beneﬁcence, or responsible caring, meaning
that psychologists are to engage in actions that most likely beneﬁt others, or minimally,
doing no harm. By overlooking the valuable input of parents, professionals may be
neglecting essential information about students necessary for setting the best possible
learning goals.

Respect for human dignity implies maintaining integrity in professional
relationships. Psychologists are thus mandated to inform students and/or their parents
(dependent on the student’s age) of all relevant aspects of their education at any time.
Information about the nature and scope of educational services and student performance
data must be honest, accurate, and delivered in a straightforward fashion. Also,
psychologists are to contribute to the knowledge base of psychology and education in
order to further improve services to children, families, and others, demonstrating an
ongoing responsibility to community and society. The growing empirical base
surrounding parent involvement in education suggests that it would be in the

scientiﬁcally best interest of professionals to include these important stakeholders.

Barriers to Parent Involvement
Despite the strong empirical, legal, and ethical support for parent involvement in
students’ educational success, numerous and multiple types of barriers may impede the
implementation of parent involvement activities. These barriers can be divided into four
main categories: teacher and school characteristics, parent and family characteristics,

community characteristics, and student characteristics.

17

Teacher and School Characteristics

Beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. Teachers’ beliefs regarding their job as
educators may inhibit the implementation of parent involvement activities. Some
teachers may feel that fostering parent involvement is not a part of their job description,
choosing to separate home and school into two distinct inﬂuences on student learning and
development (Eccles & Harold, 1993). Yet others may be interested in implementing
involvement activities, but have a low sense of efﬁcacy regarding their ability to affect
parents’ levels of participation (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Epstein & Dauber, 1991). This
low sense of efﬁcacy may stem from beliefs that parents do not have the time, or are not
interested in helping. On the other hand, teachers may recognize that parents desire to be
involved but are unsure of the appropriate amount and type of parent involvement (Eccles
& Harold, 1993). Teachers may feel challenged by the variety of skills needed by
students of different abilities within their classroom, questioning how parent involvement
programs can take into account the unique needs and abilities of each individual student
(Epstein & Becker, 1992).

Knowledge, resources, and support. Teachers’ sense of efﬁcacy may also be
related to their ability to support parents’ involvement. A low sense of efﬁcacy among
teachers may result from a lack of knowledge regarding effective parent involvement
practices. Teachers who have not received academic coursework or professional
development training in this area may not possess knowledge of speciﬁc strategies for
encouraging greater parent involvement (Eccles & Harold, 1993). Although classroom
teachers assert that working with families is important to the child’s positive school

outcomes, they receive little formal training and possess minimal lmowledge and skills to

18

work with parents (Hiatt-Michael, 2001). Thus, educators may simply not have the
requisite skills, knowledge, or training to collaborate with families (Chavkin, 1989).
Others may acknowledge that fostering parent involvement is important, but lack plans
for effective implementation of such strategies. Those who have received training and/or
instruction may feel they lack the necessary support for implementing strategies,
including assistance from administrators (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Scott Stein &
Thorkildsen, 1999). A common form of administrative assistance that teachers’ request
for parent involvement is release time for preparation of activities (e.g., projects,
workshops, directions for parents to use at home) and for individualized parent meetings
(Epstein & Becker, 1992).

Beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. Similar to teachers, parents may also question
their efﬁcacy, and will choose types of involvement consistent with their perceptions of
the speciﬁc skills and knowledge they bring to the multiple tasks of their student’s
schooling (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). For instance, a
parent with a low sense of efﬁcacy may believe that she or he does not possess the skills
necessary to help his or her child, and, therefore, that there is little reason to be involved
(Eccles & Harold, 1993). In addition to perceptions of their own abilities, parents’
perceptions of their child may also inﬂuence their decision to become involved, with a
greater amount of involvement ﬁ'om parents who view their student as capable and
motivated to learn (Ames, 1993; Eccles & Harold, 1993).

Parents may also feel inadequate or unwelcome in their child’s school due to a
difference in income, education, culture, or ethnicity as compared to school personnel,

resulting in fewer visits and less general knowledge regarding school operations

19

(DiCamillo, 2001; Eccles & Harold, 1993). Parents’ assumptions regarding the role they
play in their child’s education, as well as the role of educational achievement for their
child in general, may shape their decision to become involved (Eccles & Harold, 1993;
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). Parents may believe it is the teacher’s job to educate
their child, or may question the value of completing high school in general. These
opinions may stem from cultural norms and values associated with demographics,
including income, level of education, culture, and ethnicity.

Knowledge, resources, and support. Like teachers, parents may not feel they
have adequate time to be involved in their student’s schooling (Epstein, 1995). Parents
may feel limited by employment and other responsibilities, such as caring for other
children, spending time with their spouse and other family members, cooking and other
household chores, and the general need for relaxation. Family members may have
difﬁculty leaving work to participate in school activities or attend meetings during the
workday (Myers, 2000). Even if they are able to ﬁnd time away from their jobs, they
may lack affordable childcare for other children or transportation to and from the school
(Myers, 2000). On the other hand, if parents have experienced success helping other
students in their family, they may be more inclined to become involved in the future
(Eccles & Harold, 1993).

Parents’ social networks may also positively or negatively affect their decision to
be involved. When others whom are active in their student’s education surround parents,
they may be more likely to search out such opportunities and vice versa (Sheldon, 2002).
Lastly, parents’ choice to be involved may be inﬂuenced by perceived opportunities,

invitations, or demands from their student and/or their student’s school to do so,

20

independent of time constraints and social support (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995).
prarents do not see themselves as welcome in the school, they are less likely to make an

effort to attend functions or consult with teachers when their child is experiencing

difﬁculty.

Community Characteristics

Evidence from several studies suggests that it is more difﬁcult for individuals
living in high-risk, ﬁnancially stressed neighborhoods to be an effective parent (Eccles &
Harold, 1993). Not only do parents in such circumstances have limited resources
available to implement whatever strategies they think might be effective, they also have
to cope with more external stressors than do middle-class families residing in resource-
rich neighborhoods. Being conﬁonted with these stressors may lead parents to adopt a
less effective parenting style because they do not have the energy or the time to use a
more demanding but more effective strategy. To the extent that schools could help

alleviate some of this stress, they could facilitate greater parent involvement.

Student Characteristics

Child age and developmental level are two important student characteristics that
shape parent-school partnerships. Generally speaking, parents have a greater tendency
toward involvement with younger as opposed to older children (Dauber & Epstein, 1993;
Eccles & Harold, 1993). This decline may occur for a variety of reasons. For example,
research suggests that it is more difﬁcult to present developmentally appropriate

involvement activities and strategies with older students, as they are least enthusiastic

21

about parental involvement (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). It can also be more
difﬁcult to create activities for older students that fall within parents’ personal
competencies and skill level. Furthermore, students approaching adolescence have needs
and ideas about themselves that are different from those of younger children (Epstein et
a1, 1997). As described by Epstein et a1. (1997) these older students need opportunities to
develop their independence an take more responsibility for themselves, even as they

continue to need adults to guide and support them

Addressing Barriers to Parent Involvement

There are thus, multiple barriers affecting the implementation of parent
involvement activities. Furthermore, these barriers can be found at all levels: the student,
his/her parents, school ofﬁcials, and the community. It is difﬁcult to examine all of these
barriers for stakeholders in one study, but one issue that emerges as a particularly urgent
and critical ingredient for success is that of trust.

Dunst et a1 (1992) surveyed parents of children with special needs, educational
practitioners, and administrators regarding the behavioral and attitudinal characteristics
necessary for parent involvement and the formation of parent-professional partnerships.
“Trust” was overwhelmingly rated as a vital component in the formation of partnerships,
listed by 45% of parents and 55% of practitioners.

In their extensive review of empirical studies of trust in organizations, Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy (1998) found the majority of trust studies in schools are internal,
examining teacher perceptions of trust in other teachers, school personnel, and clients

(i.e., parents and students). Surprisingly, there is currently little empirical research

22

examining parent trust in schools, and the present study will focus on how parent trust

helps explain parents’ decisions to be involved in their children’s education.

What is Trust? An Operational Deﬁnition

Despite a clear deﬁnition in the education realm, “trust” has been described as a
vital element in the functioning of an organization, necessary for cooperation and
communication, forming the basis for a productive relationship (Baier, 1995; Dunst et a1,
1992). Despite the tenn’s common usage and the widespread agreement on the
importance of trust in relationships, empirical investigations of trust in organizations,
especially schools, are hindered by this lack of a consensus on a conceptual deﬁnition
(Adams & Christenson, 1998; Forsyth et a1, 2002; Hosmer, 1995; Tschannen-Moran &

Hoy, 2000).

Diﬂiculties Deﬁning Trust

Trust is difﬁcult to deﬁne for a variety of reasons. Ever-present in our day-to-day
lives, trust is most easily noticed in its absence. It is a complex phenomenon based on
many factors, and varies with the expectations held in different types of relationships
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). Furthermore, trust changes over the development of a
relationship (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). As Tschannen-Moran & Hay (1998)
suggest, studying trust is like studying a moving target as it “changes over the course of a
relationship, and the nature of a trusting relationship can be altered instantaneously with a
simple comment, a betrayed conﬁdence, or a decision that violates the sense of care on

has expected of another” (p. 355). Furthermore, the philosophy, economy, interpersonal

23

relations, and organizational literature bases have each taken their own unique approach

to deﬁning (and thus studying) trust (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000).

Historical Underpinnings

The systematic study of trust is a relatively new phenomenon, with the ﬁrst
empirical investigations of trust beginning in the 1950s and 19605 (Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2000). Using paper-and-pencil questionnaires, Rotter (1967) studied trust as a
personality trait. Rotter’s questionnaire asked young adults to make judgments about the
trustworthiness of a variety of prominent social ﬁgures, such as politicians, the media,
parents, and people in general. Rotter (1980) deﬁned trust as “a generalized expectancy
held by an individual that the word, promise, or statement of another individual can be
relied upon” (p. 651).

Although Rotter’s work was an important ﬁrst step for deﬁning and studying
“trust,” his work has been expanded to include a focus on behavioral traits. Using nrixed-
motive games in laboratory experiments, land (1971) expanded both the method in
which trust was studied and introduced the connection between trust and vulnerability. A
mixed-motive game is one in which there is a possibility of mutually beneﬁcial
cooperation but also the temptation to compete to abuse the other party’s cooperation
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000). If both parties select an uncooperative move, the
result is mutual loss. These kinds of games are commonly referred to as “prisoner’s
dilemma” as they are similar to the originally published games of the 19508 with the
same name and premise. land (1971) concluded that trust consisted of actions that

increased one’s vulnerability to another whose behavior was not under one’s own control.

24

Furthermore, the consequence one suffered if the other abused the vulnerability was
greater than the beneﬁt one gained if the other did not.

Also using mixed-motive games to examine trust, Deutsch (1960, 1973)
concluded that it is risky to guess at the motives behind behavior, but we can examine
perceptions of individuals to see if they are consistent with the characteristics of “the
other,” even after the decision to risk has already been made, for example, by placing
one’s child in a particular school. Scanzoni (1979) built upon the work of Deutsch, and
introduced the notion that an individual must be placed in a position of risk to trust.
Scanzoni (1979) concluded that the likelihood that trust would be present in new
relationships is low because of the limited interaction upon which to justify a risk.
Research on trust began to focus on interpersonal relationships during the 19805.
Speciﬁcally, high divorce rates and structural changes in the “American family’ ’
motivated Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna (1985) to examine marital conﬂicts.

Baier (1986) introduced a more philosophical and individualistic approach,
deﬁning trust as, “the reliance on others’ competence and willingness to look after, rather
than harm, things one cares about which are delegated in their care” (p. 259). Based on
his review of the organizational trust literature and his own interview data, Mishra (1996)
deﬁnes trust as “one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the
belief that the latter party is (a) competent, (b) open, (c) concerned, and (d) reliable” (p.
265). Trust, then, can be conceptualized as a multidimensional construct composed of
four perceptual dimensions. These dimensions, which can be examined individually,

converge to shape overall trust. Trust may have different bases and phases depending on

25

the context; trust is then dynamic and changes over the course of a relationship

(T schannen-Moran & Hoy, 2002).

Trust Deﬁned

The deﬁnition of “trust” outlined by Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2000) will be
used in the present study. Based on their multidisciplinary review (individual,
organization, general, behavior perspectives), Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2000) revise
and add one additional dimension to Mishra’s (1996) work: honesty. Trust is deﬁned by
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2000) as: “an individual’s or group’s willingness to be
vulnerable to another party based on the conﬁdence that the latter party is benevolent,
reliable, competent, honesty, and open” (p. 556). Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2000)
deﬁne each of these ﬁve facets in the following manner: Benevolence refers to the
conﬁdence that one’s well being will be protected by the trusted party; Reliability refers
to the extent to which one can count on another person or group; Competence is the
extent to which the trusted party has knowledge and skill; Honesty is the character,
integrity, and authenticity of the trusted party, Lastly, openness refers to the extent to

which there is no withholding of information from others.

Empirical Studies: Trust in Schools
Studies that have investigated the effects and signiﬁcance of trust between
families and school personnel are rare in the educational research literature. As discussed
above, Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (1998) conclude that the overwhelming majority of the

trust-related literature is focused on internal school relationships, such as teacher to

26

teacher, teacher to principal, and teacher to client (parent and/or student). For example,
Hoy and colleagues (1999) designed and tested an empirical instrument for the
measurement of teacher perceptions about the trustworthiness of other school
stakeholders based on their multidimensional deﬁnition of trust. These studies represent
important explorations of trust in schools, but leave unexamined the nature of trust
among other key stakeholders such as parents.

Identifying trust as an important characteristic of family-school relationships,
Adams and Christenson (1998, 2000) have completed two of the few empirical studies
examining parental trust in school. In their 1998 study, Adams and Christenson
examined relative levels of trust between parents and teachers and parent involvement
using their self-developed Home-School Partnership Survey.

Results from the Adams and Christenson (1998) study indicate that parents
demonstrated a higher level of trust for teachers than teachers had for parents. The
researchers hypothesize that parents make an initial “trusting” move by sending their
children to school to be educated. Parents are thus “trusting” the job of educating their
children to a stranger. This requires trust that individual teachers and the school as a
whole are capable of successfully completing this important job.

Signiﬁcant differences in parent trust were found to exist between each school
building/site and for parents of students receiving varying levels of special education,
with parents of students receiving more intensive special education services displaying
signiﬁcantly higher levels of trust. Adams and Christenson (1998) hypothesize that these
differences relate to school climate issues and opportunities available to families for

interacting with their child’s school (i.e., the more services a student is receiving, the

27

more meetings a parent would have with the school). In other words, the frequency and
quality of contact between home and school have important implications for parent trust
in school. When parents were categorized as having low, moderate, or high trust,
signiﬁcant differences emerged between these groups in attitudes and behaviors related to
parent involvement. Parents who reported low or moderate levels of trust had
signiﬁcantly less positive attitudes toward and less frequent engagement in parent
involvement activities than parents reporting high levels of trust suggesting the
importance of further examining such parents’ trust and how to effectively raise it.

Expanding upon their original study, Adams & Christenson (2000) surveyed
parents and teachers from a suburban school district about issues of trust in the family-
school relationship using a slightly expanded version of the Home-School Partnership
Survey. Their results revealed higher levels of parent trust and teacher trust in the
elementary grades than at the middle or high school grades, indicating a change in the
level of trust over time. As with their previous study, Adams and Christenson (2000)
found that parent trust was signiﬁcantly higher than teacher trust.

When asked how trust could be enhanced, both parents and teachers alike
suggested improvements in home-school communication as a primary means. The quality
of family-school interactions was a stronger predictor of trust than was the quantity, or
frequency of contact, or demographic variables. At the high school level, trust was
positively corrected with three measures of school performance or achievement: number
of credits cared per year, overall grade point average, and school attendance.

There are however, some important limitations of the Adams & Christenson

(1998, 2000) studies. No research examining predictive validity of the trust measure has

28

been conducted on the Adams & Christenson scale to date. Furthermore, the authors base
their research on a conceptual framework derived from examining marital relations in
which there is equal power between partners (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). However,
relationships between parents and professionals have traditionally been perceived as
being unequal in power, with teachers exerting more inﬂuence over school-related

decisions.

Summary

Parent involvement in education beneﬁts all key stakeholders, including students,
parents, and teachers. For example, parent involvement is related to positive student
outcomes, such as grade point average, credits earned toward graduation, and attendance
(Adams & Christenson, 1998, 2000). A broad base of research evidence as well as legal
guidelines and ethical principles support these beneﬁts.

Trust is considered the ﬁrst step in creating collaborative relationships between
families and schools for student learning and development (Adams & Christenson, 1998,
2000). Initial research established that trust is different for parents and teachers, with
parents demonstrating a higher level of trust for teachers than vice versa (Adams & ’
Christenson, 1998, 2000). However, parent level of trust in the school has shown to
change over time, with less parent trust in school for high school parents than those of
elementary-aged students.

The climate of the school was found to inﬂuence the level of parental trust. This is
important in that parents may not have the opportunity to communicate and build trust

with their child’s school as their interactions with teachers and other staff are often

29

limited to regularly-scheduled (but brief) conferences and times with of crises. In
addition to school climate, the type of educational services a student received inﬂuenced
the level of parental trust in school. Parents of students who received more intensive
special education services reported higher levels of trust than parents of students who
received less intensive special education services. It may be that the greater number of
interactions with the school perceived to support their children’s education, the more

likely trust is to develop.

Present Study

The current study builds on and extends the Adams and Christenson (1998, 2000)
studies to address the gaps in the current parent involvement literature. First, the
outcome variable, parent involvement, is deﬁned by a wide array of activities, reﬂecting
Epstein’s (2001) broader conceptualization of this key construct. While the Adams and
Christenson (1998, 2000) studies used a variety of behavioral indicators of parent
involvement, an explicit conceptual framework of this key construct was not provided.
Second, using norm-referenced standardized tests of achievement and a statistically
validated measure of parent trust, this study will investigate how parent involvement is
related to student achievement and parent trust as measured by the Parent Views of
School survey developed by Forsyth el. al. (2002). The F orsyth et. a1. (2002) survey of
parent trust has demonstrated reliability and validity compared to the absence of research
examining predictive validity for the Adams and Christenson (1998, 2000) studies.

Adams and Christenson (1998, 2000) determined that the climate of a particular

school affects parents’ decision to be involved. The present study will continue to

30

examine the effect of school climate with parents of multiple elementary schools
participating. The participating schools will be rural, adding a new demographic group to
the current parent involvement and parent trust research base. Lastly, as parent
involvement was found to decrease across middle and high school, the present study will
examine if the same pattern is observed across elementary grades. In other words,
instead of grouping all elementary students together, the present study will examine

patterns of parent involvement across grades kindergarten through ﬁve.

Research Questions

This study explores the relationships between parent involvement and parent trust
in school and student achievement and examines three speciﬁc research questions. First,
does parent trust in school signiﬁcantly inﬂuence a parent’s decision to be involved in
their child’s education? And, does a student’s level of achievement affect parents’
involvement? Based on the results of Adams & Christenson (1998, 2000), it is
hypothesized that parents who trust their child’s school to a greater degree and have
higher achieving students will be more actively involved.

Second, to what extent is parent involvement explained by the school a child
attends, parent trust in school, student developmental status (grade), and student
achievement? Furthermore, which of these four factors is the best predictor of parent
involvement? Adams & Christenson (1998, 2000) posit that the establishment of trust is
a fundamental step in fostering positive school-home relationships. Thus, it is

hypothesized that parent trust in school will contribute the most to parent involvement.

31

 

Methods

Research Design

This study used a correlational design to explore the relationships between parent
involvement and parent trust in school, the school a student attends, student grade, and
student achievement. A correlational design was utilized for two primary reasons. First,
the variables in the present study (i.e., student achievement, grade level, parent trust in
school, and parent involvement) are factors that could not be manipulated by the
researcher. For example, questions relating to parent involvement, like voting in school-
based elections or helping a student at home, were beyond the control of the researcher
and could best be explored by using a self-report measure rather than a true experimental
design.

Second, this particular body of research (i.e., the relationship between parent
involvement and parent trust in schools) is in an exploratory stage of development.
While parent trust is often treated as an important characteristic necessary for parent
involvement, there is surprisingly little research examining this relationship. As such, it
is appropriate to use methods and research designs (such as correlational designs drawing
from self-report data) in a newly developing area to better understand relationships

between variables (Schmitt, 1994).

Participants
Parents ﬁom three rural elementary schools in central Michigan (Alta Vista,

Washougal, and Lamont Elementary Schools) were offered the opportunity to participate.

32

These elementary schools were chosen because of their greater generalizability and
accessibility. First, these schools were representative of rural schools in mid-Michigan.
This is important in that a rural population was not included in the Adams and
Christenson (1998, 2000) studies. The present study will add to the growing parent
involvement and parent trust database by including this population. Second, each of
these three schools expressed interest in participating. Administrators and staff at Alta
Vista, Washougal, and Lamont acknowledged the importance of parent involvement, and
were interested in the results and how they could be applied to improve home-school
relationships within their buildings. It should be noted that two additional districts were
contacted, however, after several months of discussion, it was decided that there was
insufﬁcient interest from these potential districts due to concerns of poor parent
participation (i.e., low response rate), and legal concerns with regard to access of student
achievement data.

Third, at least one individual in a leadership or supervisory position who was familiar
professionally with the researcher was present in two of the schools, providing the
researcher with a point of entry into each building. Lastly, each school was located
within approximately forty minutes of the researcher, thus allowing for an increased

number of opportunities for communication with staff and participants.

School Atmosphere

To better appreciate the atmosphere of each school, the researcher conducted an
informal interview with each building principal. The researcher posed questions
regarding the principal’s tenure, how parent involvement was elicited, parent

involvement activities offered, and recent awards or distinctions the school had received.

33

Alta Vista elementary schooL The principal at Alta Vista Elementary had been in
that leadership role for approximately 3.5 years. A school-wide newsletter was
disseminated to Alta Vista parents on a monthly basis. This newsletter contained a
variety of information about the school, including current events (located in the
“Principal’s Spot”), lunch account reminders, upcoming events, outcomes ﬁom recent
activities (such as the school talent show or kindergarten round-up), and important
transition information (i.e., transitioning to new school year).

While the newsletter provided parents with information about existing school-
related events and activities, Alta Vista parents were invited to join the schools’ parent
teacher organization (PTO) to help with the planning and execution of such events. The
Alta Vista PTO had a monthly board meeting and was active throughout the entire school
year. The PTO had 11 core members who served as ofﬁcers, and other members at-large.
The PTO board members were publicly posted in the principal’s ofﬁce. The PTO funded
teacher-related activities, including a school luncheon for staff appreciation week and
stipends for individual teachers supporting special projects in their classrooms. The
money used for these projects was raised through a variety of fundraisers, including a
plant sale, a pizza sale, and a jewelry sale. The PTO also sponsored school-based
activities for both parents and students, including the fall open house, a daddy-daughter
dance, mother-son bowling, and a family fun night (i.e., spring carnival).

Alta Vista parents were invited to participate in the PTO and other activities
through personal invitations from teachers, volunteer activities listed in the school
newsletter, and through the PTO Volunteer Coordinator, an available position on the PTO

board. The job of the Volunteer Coordinator was to contact representatives from each

34

classroom when volunteers were needed. The classroom representatives then contacted
the other parents in their child’s classroom. Parents were also involved in math night,
Boy/Girl Scouts, and the chess club. Overall, 99% of parents attended parent-teacher
conferences at Alta Vista Elementary.

In terms of awards and distinctions, Alta Vista Elementary has been recognized
by a nationally known research hospital for student-gathered ﬁnancial contributions. Alta
Vista students have also been featured on public broadcasting network programs
highlighting student achievements.

Washougal elementary school. The principal at Washougal Elementary had
served in that leadership role for ﬁve years. Washougal parents were invited to volunteer
for school-related activities at the beginning of every school year through a variety of
means, including the school-wide newsletter, classroom newsletters, personal invitations
extended by staff, parent booster meetings, and the fall open house. The biweekly
school-wide newsletter contained a variety of information about the school, such as
student achievement activities and informative articles explaining special programs or
events. It also contained excerpts on parents, research on teaching and learning, and a
community section.

Washougal parents were extended the invitation to participate in a variety of
school-based activities and organizations. First, parents could join the parent boosters.
With 10 consistent core members, the boosters met monthly and raised funds for
curriculum needs and staff professional development. Parents could choose to become
members of numerous committees, such as the school improvement committee,

committees for change, and bond committees. Parents were invited to serve as room

35

parents or assist with the Title I program. Fathers could volunteer for the PAWS program
(Pops At Washougal School), spending one day at school helping out and serving as a
positive male role model. Lastly, the school sponsored an assortment of one-night
events, such as the fall open house, four curriculum nights per year (reading; math;
science; writing), and a spring carnival.

Overall, 98.9% of Washougal parents attended parent-teacher conferences.
Washougal Elementary was recently awarded an award from the state, highlighting their
successful partnership between the school and the community.

Lamont elementary school. The principal at Lamont Elementary had served in
that leadership role for six years. Lamont parents were invited to volunteer through a
variety of means, including the school newsletter, individual classroom newsletters, and
the fall open house. Other parent involvement activities sponsored by the school include
a series of cuniculum nights, a science fair, and music programs for each grade level.

The biweekly parent newsletter contained a greeting and information ﬁom the
principal, a calendar of events, parent teacher organization information, and a forecast of
events/curriculum to come. The principal also included periodic surveys, attempting to
increase two-way communication between home and school. Teachers also distributed
weekly newsletters to the parents of the students in their individual classrooms. A few
teachers also corresponded with parents via e-mail.

Parents were invited to join the parent teacher organization (PTO) each fall. The
PTO was composed of eight core members, and met monthly. The PTO supported events

including the mother-daughter dance, the spring carnival, grandparent’s day, and

36

teacher/staff appreciation week. The PTO members also helped organize and volunteered
at the annual school ﬁeld day and ﬁeld trips throughout the academic year.

Overall, approximately 98% of parents attended parent-teacher conferences.
Lamont Elementary recently received an outstanding professional development award
ﬁom a state educational organization and received NCATE accreditation during an initial

attempt with zero revisions.

School Achievement

The Michigan Department of Education annual Michigan School Report Card
(Michigan Department of Education, n.d.) was used to report school-wide achievement
and adequate yearly progress information. The report card described if a school had met
adequate yearly progress (AYP) and assigned a letter “grade” for that academic year.
This grade was a composite based on student achievement and 11 indicators of school
performance, such as curriculum alignment, family involvement, student attendance and
dropout rate, and school facilities. The report card also provided information on the
percentage of students who received a rating of “proﬁcient” on the English Language
Arts and Math assessments. Table 3 highlights the Michigan School Report Card results

for the 2003-2004 academic year for all three participating schools:

37

 

Table 3

2003-2004 Michigan School Report Card

 

Alta Vista Washougal Lamont
Met AYP Yes Yes Yes
Composite Score 89.9 87.1 89.4
Grade “A” “B” “B”
Proﬁcient - English Language Arts 75.0% 77.0% 73.0%
Proﬁcient — Math 90.9% 79.2% 77.3%

 

Respondent Demographic Information

Parents. The participant pool consisted of approximately 1,120 parents across

three elementary schools (see Table 4). Approximately twenty-three percent (N = 65) of

these respondents were from Alta Vista Elementary School, 23.404% (N= 66) from

Washougal Elementary, and 53.546% (N = 151) from Lamont Elementary. Two hundred

and forty-eight (87.943%) of respondents were mothers of students at one of these three

schools; 22 fathers (7.801%), three grandfathers (1.064%), three stepparents (1.064%),

and one grandmother (0.355%) also responded.

38

 

Table 4

Participant Pools and Respondents

 

School Participant Number of Percentage of
Pool Respondents Participant Pool

Alta Vista Elementary 306 65 21.242%

Washougal Elementary 326 66 20.245

Lamont Elementary 488 151 30.943

Total 1 120 282 25.179

 

Students. Table 5 provides a complete breakdown of student respondents for each

 

grade by school:

39

Table 5

Student Respondents by Grade

 

 

Grade Number of Percentage
Respondents
PreKindergarten 13 4.610% (of Population)
Alta Vista N/A N/A (of Alta Vista)
Washougal 6 9.091 (of Washougal)
Lamont 7 4.636 (of Lamont)
Kindergarten 34 12.057
Alta Vista 6 9.231
Washougal 3 4.545
Lamont 25 16.556
First 42 14.894
Alta Vista 1 1 16.923
Washougal l 1 16.667
Lamont 20 13.245
Second 51 18.085
Alta Vista 8 12.308
Washougal 9 13.636
Lamont 34 22.516
Third 47 16.667
Alta Vista 8 12.308
Washougal 12 1 8.1 82
Lamont 27 17.881
Fourth 54 19.149
Alta Vista 12 18.462
Washougal 5 7.576
Lamont 37 24.503
Fifth 26 9.220
Alta Vista 19 29.231
Washougal 7 10.606
Lamont N/A N/A
Sixth 13 4.610
Alta Vista N/A N/A
Washougal 13 9.697
Lamont N/A N/A

 

4O

Parent responses indicated that the majority of students were White (see Table 6).
Race categories on the demographic measure were based on the National Center for
Educational Statistics (N CBS) and Michigan Department of Education (DOE) categories,
and did not contain an “Other” option. Despite it’s absence, eleven respondents (3.901%)

wrote in “Other” as their child’s preferred racial identity.

Table 6

Student Respondents by Race

 

Race Number of Percentage
Respondents
White 249 88.298% (of Population)
Alta Vista 51 78.462 (of Alta Vista)
Washougal 57 86.364 (of Washougal)
Lamont 141 94.377 (of Lamont)
American Indian/Alaskan 13 4.610
Alta Vista 3 4.615
Washougal 3 4.545
Lamont 7 4.636
Black 3 1.064
Alta Vista 3 4.615
Washougal 0 0.000
Lamont 0 0.000
Hispanic 2 0.709
Alta Vista 2 3.077
Washougal 0 0.000
Lamont 0 0.000
Asian 1 0.355
Alta Vista 1 1.538
Washougal 0 0.000
Lamont 0 0.000

 

41

A larger percentage of respondents’ children were male across all three schools (see

Table 7).

Table 7

Student Respondents by Gender

 

 

Gender School Number of Respondents Percentage 1;
Male 149 52.837% (of Population)
Alta Vista 36 56.385 (of Alta Vista)
Washougal 35 53.030 (of Washougal)
Lamont 78 51.656 (of Lamont)
Female 127 45.035 I
Alta Vista 28 43.077
Washougal 31 46.970
Lamont 68 45.033

 

Forty-seven parents (16.667%) indicated that their child was eligible for free/reduced

lunch across all three schools (see Table 8).

Table 8

Respondents ’ Children by Free/Reduced Lunch Eligibility

 

Total Alta Vista Washougal Lamont
Number (N) 47 9 10 28
Percentage 16.667% 13.846 15.152 18.543

 

Finally, parents of 36 students (12.890%) reported that their son/daughter was currently
eligible for special education services. This number could not be compared to either the
population as a whole or each individual school as special education services are not a

component of the NCES and MI DOE annual demographic databases.

42

Chi-squared analyses. Chi-squared analyses were conducted to determine
whether respondents were representative of the population as a whole (i.e., students
across all three elementary schools). Chi-squared analyses were also conducted to
determine whether each respective elementary school respondents were representative of
their individual school population. Demographic information was obtained from the
National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES) and the Michigan Department of
Education (DOE) websites.

Chi-squared analyses indicated that there was not a signiﬁcant difference in the
number of male and female student representation when compared to the population ()8 =
0.436, p_ = 0.5091). Furthermore, there was not a signiﬁcant difference in the number of

male and female students representation from each respective elementary school:

Table 9

Chi-Square Analyses: Gender of Student

 

School Students Population Chi-Square p

Total

Alta Vista 0.288 0.591
Male 36 162
Female 28 144

Washougal 0.348 0.555
Male 35 161
Female 31 165

Lamont 0.006 0.937
Male 78 259
Female 68 229

Total 0.436 0.509
Male 149 582
Female 127 538

 

43

c "’

-.— v-v _.__ It". i‘ '2 '

 

In contrast, chi-squared analyses indicated that there was a signiﬁcant difference
between study respondents and the population in terms of student race ()8 = 6282.377, 9
< 0.0001). Furthermore, chi-squared analyses indicated that there was also a signiﬁcant

difference between study respondents and the population for each individual school in

terms of race:

44

 

Table 10

Chi-Square Analyses: Race of Student

 

School Students Population Chi-Square p
Total
Alta Vista 1495.778 <0.001
American Indian/Alaskan 3 0
Asian 1 12
Black 3 10
Hispanic 2 7
White 51 277
“Other” 4 N/A
Washougal 1494.981 <0.001
American Indian/Alaskan 3 0
Asian 0 3
Black 0 1
Hispanic 0 1
White 57 321
“Other” 6 N/A
Lamont 3297.997 <0.001
American Indian/Alaskan 7 0
Asian 0 0
Black 0 0
Hispanic 0 3
White 141 485
“Other” N/A N/A
Total 6282.377 <0.001
American Indian/Alaskan 13 0
Asian 1 15
Black 3 l 1
Hispanic 2 l 1
White 249 1083
“Other” 1 1 N/A

 

The number of students in the racial category “American Indian/Alaskan” was

greater than expected across all three schools. Based on the Michigan Department of

Education (MI DOE) and the National Center for Educational Statistics (N CES) websites,

the reported number of American Indian/Alaskan students was zero. The location of this

45

category (i.e., located at the top of the “Race” category options on the demographic
measure), and/or inclusion of the descriptor “American” may have been confusing
resulting in erroneous responses that appeared to be an “overrepresentation” of this
group.

The remaining chi-square analyses results were inconsistent between the total
population and/or individual schools. In terms of grade, chi-square analyses indicated
that there was a signiﬁcant difference between the study participants and the total
population in terms of the number of students in each grade (x2 = 69.423, p <0.001). A

similar pattern was observed for Lamont Elementary, but not Alta Vista and Washougal:

 

46

Table 11

Chi-Square Analyses: Student Grade

 

School Respondents Population Chi-Square p
(Totals)
Alta Vista 9.063 0.107
PreKindergarten N/A N/A
Kindergarten 6 62
First 11 40
Second 9 43
Third 12 47
Fourth 5 56
Fifth 13 58
Sixth N/A N/A
Washougal 10.015 0.124
PreKindergarten 6 N/A
Kindergarten 3 42
First 11 39
Second 9 36
Third 12 60
Fourth 5 49
Fifth 7 51
Sixth 13 49
Lamont 14.634 0.012
PreKindergarten 7 8
Kindergarten 25 99
First 20 95
Second 34 93
Third 27 90
Fourth 37 103
Fifth N/A N/A
Sixth N/A N/A
Total 69.423 <0.001
PreKindergarten 13 8
Kindergarten 34 203
First 42 174
Second 51 172
Third 47 197
Fourth 54 208
Fifth 26 109
Sixth 13 49

 

47

 

A greater number of prekindergarten and grade two parents responded in the Lamont
Elementary population. Similarly, a greater number of prekindergarten students
responded relative to the total population across all three schools. In contrast, a fewer
number of kindergarten students responded relative to the total population for all three
schools.

With regards to free/reduced lunch eligibility, chi-square analyses indicated that 7
there was a signiﬁcant difference between the study respondents and the total population

()8 = 18.808, p <0.001). A similar pattern was observed for schools Washougal and

 

Lamont, but not in Alta Vista Elementary, respectively: F

Table 12

Chi-Square Analyses: Students by F ree/Reduced Lunch Eligibility

 

School Students Population Chi-Square p
(Total)

Alta Vista 9 41 (13.399% of Alta Vista) 0.011 0.916

Washougal 10 94 (28.834% of Washougal) 5.996 0.014

Lamont 28 182 (37.295% of Lamont) 22.716 <0.001

Total 47 317 (28.306% of Population) 18.808 <0.001

 

Fewer parents eligible for free/reduced lunch responded for Washougal Elementary and

Lamont Elementary than expected based on their respective populations.

48

Procedures

The researcher attended one weekly faculty meeting at each participating elementary
school. During this meeting, the researcher introduced herself, described the purpose of
the study, and provided each teacher with packets to disseminate in their students’ weekly
work folder (one per student). Packets included the following items: Letter to Parents
and consent forms (two copies; one to be completed and one for parent records) (see
Appendixes A-D); the About My Child survey (see Appendix E), the Parent Involvement
survey (see Appendix F), the Parent Views of School survey (see Appendix G), and a
self-addressed stamped envelope. Teachers distributed the packets to parents via their
students’ weekly work folders.

Parents were instructed in the letter of invitation to mail the completed consent form
and surveys back to the researcher in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope if
they were interested in participating. This procedure is similar to mail surveys in that
there is less chance for sampling bias with regard to who receives the survey (Erdos,
1983). Another advantage of this particular procedure is that self-administered surveys
avoid the potential for interviewer bias. Surveys were also more likely to be completed at
the participant’s convenience. Because respondents completed the surveys according to
their own schedules, the replies may be more likely to be complete. Lastly, another
advantage of mail surveys over other forms of data collection, such as telephone surveys
or interviews, is the privacy afforded in collecting sensitive information about how a
parent chooses to be involved in their education and their views of their child’s school.

The researcher also met with parents informally at each school’s spring carnival to

49

 

answer any questions they may have, disseminate additional packets, and encourage
participation in the study.

The researcher assigned a code to each parent-child pair upon receiving the
completed consent letters and surveys. The measures were labeled with the participants’
code. The achievement data, obtained ﬁ'om student ﬁles at each school, were also
labeled with the identiﬁcation code rather than with names. All parents who completed
and returned the consent letter and surveys were eligible to receive a gift certiﬁcate at a

local store in a random selection from each school.

Measures
All participants were asked to respond to a series of surveys that explored parent and
child demographic information, amount of parent involvement in their child’s education,

and level of parent trust in school.

About My Child Survey

Participants were asked to complete the brief About My Child survey (see
Appendix E) requesting parent and child demographic information. The purpose of this
survey was to allow the researcher to ensure that the sample was representative of the
total population and each individual school. Participants were asked to indicate their
relationship to the student, child’s sex, child’s grade, child’s age, child’s race, if their
child received special education services, and if so, what type, and if their child was

eligible for free/reduced lunch at school.

50

Parent Involvement Survey
As a means of assessing parent involvement in their child’s education, all study
participants completed the Parent Involvement survey, an l8-item Likert type measure
(see Appendix F). This survey, constructed by the researcher, was designed to tap into
each of the six types of parent involvement outlined by Epstein (2001). The survey
began with the stem, “How often do you. . .”. Example items for the six types are: m

“Participate in parent education programs or training for parents offered by the school,” E

(Parenting; X = 3); “Communicate with your child’s teacher (in addition to parent-teacher

 

conferences),” (Communicating; X = 4); “Assist in your child’s classroom (tutor, grade }
papers, chaperone ﬁeld trips, etc.),” (Volunteering; X = 3), “Help your child with

schoolwork or seek assistance for your child (tutoring, etc.),” (Learning at Home; X = 3);

“Participate in a Parent Teacher Organization or other parent organization,” (Decision

Making; X = 3); and “Participate in community service activities coordinated through the

school,” (Collaborating with Community, X = 2). Respondents were asked to choose

from one of ﬁve responses (1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Almost Always; 5

= Always).

Cronbach’s coefﬁcient alpha was used to measure the scale’s internal consistency,
or the extent to which items that comprise the scale measure the same underlying
construct: parent involvement. As expected the full scale (including all items) had the
strongest reliability (or = .818). Subscale reliabilities ranged from .464 to .578 for the six
subscales.

Alpha reliabilities for the subscales were as follows: Parenting (a = .546);

Communication ((1 = .57 8); Volunteering (a = .482); Leaming at Home (a = .566);

51

Decision Making (a = .548); and Collaborating with Community (a = .464). Based on
the strong internal consistency of the full scale and the low internal consistency of the six
subscales, all analyses involving the Parent Involvement survey only used the full scale

score.

Parent Views of School Survey
Parents completed the Parent Views of School survey (F orsyth et al, 2002), a 20 item

Likert-type measure designed to assess parents’ trust in school in terms of their l'

 

perceptions regarding the benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and openness of
their child’s school (see Appendix G). The items were written from a parental I
perspective to parallel items contained in previously validated trust scales (e.g., Omnibus
T-Scale, Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999). Marker items for the ﬁve dimensions are:
“Kids at this school are well cared for,” (Benevolence; N = 4); “I never worry about my
child when he/she’s there,” (Reliability; N = 4), “This school has high standards for all
kids,” (Competence; N = 4); “This school is always honest with me,” (Honesty; N = 4);
and “This school keeps me well informed,” (Openness; N = 4). Items have an 8-point
response set ranging from 1 = “strongly agree” to 8 = “strongly disagree”.
Cronbach’s coefﬁcient alpha was used to measure the scale’s internal consistency.
As with the Parent Involvement survey, the full scale Parent Views of Schools survey
(including all items) had the strongest reliability ((1 = .972). Subscale reliabilities ranged
from .792 to .936 for the ﬁve subscales. Alpha reliabilities for the subscales were as

follows: Competence (a = .925); Benevolence (a = .936); Reliability ((1 = .768); Honesty

52

(a = .897); and Openness (a = .920). Based on these high internal consistencies, use of

both the full scale and individual subscales in research analyses was justiﬁed.

Student Achievement

Student achievement was based on data from the most recently administered
achievement measure of reading normed at the state or national level that included a
reading subtest or reading subtest cluster was used. Data from three different
standardized measures were used to assess student achievement based on availability at
each school. The researcher was most interested in reading as it cuts across all content
areas and is ﬁmdamental to success in school. The following achievement measures

administered by schools Alta Vista, Washougal, and Lamont ﬁt the criterion:

53

Table 13

Available Achievement Measures By School and Grade

 

School Grade(s) Measure Subtest/Subtest Cluster
Alta Vista First-Third TerraNova, the Reading/Language Arts
Second Edition
Fourth Michigan Educational Reading
Assessment Program
Fifth Michigan Educational Social Studies
Assessment Program
Washougal First-Fourth Gates-MacGinitie Reading
Reading Tests
Fifth Michigan Educational Reading
Assessment Program
Sixth Michigan Educational Social Studies
Assessment Program
Lamont Fifth Michigan Educational Reading
Assessment Program

 

A brief description of each of these achievement measures follows.

The T erraNova

TerraNova data were available for Alta Vista Elementary School. The TerraNova
is a norm-referenced standardized test that assesses student performance in reading,
language, and mathematics. Student knowledge is assessed in multiple subtest areas,
including reading comprehension, vocabulary, language expression, language mechanics,
mathematics concepts and applications, and mathematics computation. According to
T erraNova developers (CTB/McGraw-Hill, n.d. & 2001), the TerraNova

Reading/Language Arts content objectives reﬂect the following: the goals of curriculum

54

guides ﬁ'om states, districts, and dioceses; standards for English/Language Arts; and the
conceptual frameworks of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
The TerraNova Reading/Language Arts subtests were designed to model exemplary
instructional practices, integrating basic and higher-order thinking skills essential for
effective communication — reading comprehension, language expression, vocabulary, and
reference skills.

The TerrraNova was standardized between 1999 and 2000 on a nationally
representative, stratiﬁed random sample based on geographic region, school size,
socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity, within public, parochial, and private schools
(CTB/McGraw-Hill, n.d. & 2001). Two types of validity have been explored: content-
related and construct validity. TerraN ova developers outlined four major steps
undertaken to ensure content-related validity. First, developers conducted a
comprehensive curriculum review and met with educational experts to determine
common educational goals and the knowledge and skills emphasized in curricula.
Second, the developers conducted a series of validation studies. Third, differential item
ﬁmctioning was employed to minimize ethnic and gender bias. Fourth, teacher and
student questionnaires were administered, providing information regarding overall test
effectiveness, including speededness, clarity, and appropriateness for the target grade.

In terms of construct validity, developers looked ﬁrst at interrcorrelations between
subtests and subtest clusters. In general, TerraN ova test correlation patterns were
consistent with expectations of convergent and discriminant validity (CTB/McGraw-Hill,
n.d. & 2001). For example, the relationship between Reading and Language was higher

at most levels than that between either Reading or Language and Mathematics.

55

 

 

Minimization of construct irrelevant variance and underrepresentation was addressed in
the steps of the test development process, including speciﬁcation (careful speciﬁcation of
content, as well as review of the items representing that content), item writing, reviewing,
ﬁeld testing, test construction, and standardization.

In terms of reliability, the following statistical data were computed for each grade:
Kuder-Richardson formula 20 coefﬁcients (KR-20$), Cronbach’s coefﬁcient alpha ((1),
and the standard error of measurement (SEM) (CTB/McGraw-Hill, n.d. & 2001).
Alternate form reliability was also explored. Data were collected from a geographically
dispersed, heterogeneous sample of 40 school districts, with matched samples of
approximately 200 students. The students were counterbalanced so that approximately
half of the students were ﬁrst administered Battery A and then Battery B, and the
remaining students were given the tests in the reverse order. A two-week interval was
allowed between test administrations. Descriptive statistics were calculated and the
alternate form reliability was computed using the correlation between scale scores for

each content area and test level (i.e., student grade).

The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)

The MEAP tests are the only statewide achievement measure administered to all
Michigan students; thus, MEAP data were available for all three elementary schools
participating in this study. Based on the Content Standards developed by Michigan
educators and approved by the Michigan State Board of Education, the purpose of the
MEAP tests are threefold (Michigan Department of Education, n.d.). First, the MEAP

tests are used to measure academic achievement compared to expectations, and whether

56

student achievement is improving over time. Second, they are used to determine whether
improvement programs and policies are having the desired effect. Lastly, the MEAP
tests are used to target academic help (for both individual students and district curricula)
where it is needed.

Michigan elementary school students are administered the mathematics and
reading tests during grade four, and social studies and science in grade ﬁve. Based on
their performance, students are grouped into one of four standards, or levels: Level 1
(indicates that a student has “Exceeded Michigan Standards”), Level 2 (indicates that a
student has “Met Michigan Standards”), Level 3 (indicates that a student has
demonstrated “Basic” knowledge and skills of Michigan Standards), and Level 4
(indicates that a students is considered to be at an “Apprentice” level, showing little
success in meeting Michigan standards).

The MEAP tests have been recognized nationally as a, “sound, reliable, and valid
measurements of academic achievement” (Michigan Department of Education, n.d.).
Reliability values were determined by using Cronbach’s coefﬁcient alpha, or internal
consistency, which indicate the extent to which students’ responses to each item correlate
with their total test scores. Below are the Cronbach’s coefﬁcient alphas for the MEAP

tests administered in 1998-1999:

57

Table 14

Cronbach ’s Coeﬁicient Alphas for the MEAP

 

Grade Content Area Cronbach’s Coefﬁcient Alpha
Four Reading - Story .814
Four Reading - Informational .809
Four Mathematics .93 1
Five Science .886
Five Social Studies .882

 

It is important to note that reliability estimates for the Reading Total subtest cluster was
not reported. Based on the above estimates, the MEAP appears to have strong reliability.
Validity data answers the question of whether a test measures what is it supposed
to measure. Because the current MEAP assessments are used to assess what students
have learned and should be able to achieve in speciﬁc content areas by the end of a
certain grade, the most important type of validity according to it’s developers is content
validity (Michigan Department of Education, n.d.). The MEAP assessments are based on
a blueprint that speciﬁes objectives to be tested in each content area. The sample of
items chosen for a test represents the domain of all possible test items that ﬁt the
blueprint. Content Advisory Committees, which include teachers and curriculum
coordinators, verify that each test question meets the objective it is supposed to measure,
and that it ﬁts the blueprint or framework. A Bias Review Committee then veriﬁes that
the items are not disadvantaging any particular group. The Content Advisory and Bias

Review Committees thus work together to ensure that questions ﬁt within the MEAP

58

 

ﬁ'amework (acceptable content validity) and are appropriate for the demographics of

Michigan students.

The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests - Third Edition (GMRT)

GMRT data was available for participants ﬁom Washougal Elementary School.
The GMRT are a standardized survey of achievement in reading for students in grades
kindergarten through twelve. There are seven different levels covering grades one
through twelve, and two additional early levels for kindergarten and ﬁrst grade (Kramer
& Conoley, 1992; MacGinitie & MacGinite, 1992; McCullough, 1992). The levels
designed for early grades (PRE and R) were developed to assess students’ knowledge of
important background concepts upon which beginning reading skills are built (i.e.,
phonological awareness, letters and letter/sound correspondence, story comprehension,
consonants and consonant clusters and basic story words) (Kramer & Conoley, 1992;
MacGinitie & MacGinite, 1992; McCullough, 1992). For older students, the GRMT aids
in answering questions such as which, if any, students should receive further evaluation
or be encouraged to complete additional work in reading, whether each student is
continuing to progress in reading at the rate one would expect, and to identify children
who need additional help with comprehension and in developing a larger vocabulary.

The Third Edition of the GMRT was standardized on 77,413 students enrolled in
222 schools across 67 public and private schools in 30 states (Kramer & Conoley, 1992;
MacGinitie & MacGinite, 1992; McCullough, 1992). Students were tested in both the
fall (October) and spring (April), and a longitudinal sample was constructed. Internal

consistency scores (KR-208) were in the .70s and .808 for individual subtests, with the

59

total score in the mid-.908. These values indicate a high degree of internal consistency.
With regards to validity, the authors reported relying on expert judgment to develop
content validity (Kramer & Conoley, 1992; MacGinitie & MacGinite, 1992;

McCullough, 1992).

60

Results and Discussion

The overarching purpose of this study was to investigate which factors most
inﬂuenced parents’ decisions to be involved in their child’s education. Two different
factors were investigated: parents’ trust in schools and student achievement. First, the
researcher tested two assumptions: that parent involvement was similar across all three
schools and that parent involvement was similar across elementary grade levels. Second,
guided by the results of these analyses, the researcher conducted a series of ANOVAs to
examine the relationship between parent trust and student achievement on parent
involvement. Third, the researcher used a standard multiple regression procedure to
determine the total variance in parent involvement explained by the school a child
attends, parent trust in school, student grade level, and student achievement. The
multiple regression procedure was also used to determine which of these four factors was

the best predictor of parent involvement. All survey data were analyzed using SPSS.

Exploring Assumptions: School and Parent Involvement

This analysis was concerned with the question, does level of parent involvement
differ as a function of school? A one-way between groups analysis of variance
(AN OVA) was conducted to explore the impact of school on parent involvement as
measured by the Parent Involvement survey.

Subjects were grouped by the schools they attended (Group One: Alta Vista
Elementary School; Group Two: Washougal Elementary School; Group Three: Lamont
Elementary School). Results revealed a signiﬁcant main effect for school [E(2,256) =

4.619, p = .011]. The effect size was small to moderate (eta squared = 0.041) according

61

to the standards outlined by Cohen (1988). Essentially, the school in which their child
attended was signiﬁcantly related to parents’ decision to be involved. Post hoc
comparisons using the Tukey Honestly Signiﬁcant Difference (HSD) test indicated the
mean score for Alta Vista Elementary (M = 67.902, SD = 8.901) was signiﬁcantly
different from Lamont (M = 64.348, S_D = 8.478) and Washougal (M = 63.583, S_D =
8.825). In contrast, Lamont and Washougal did not differ signiﬁcantly. Thus, parents
with children attending Alta Vista Elementary were signiﬁcantly more likely to be

involved than Lamont and Washougal parents.

Exploring Assumptions: Grade Level and Parent Involvement

This analysis was concerned with the question, does level of parent involvement
differ as a ﬁrnction of developmental status, or the grade a student is in? An independent
samples t-test was conducted to explore the impact of student grade level on parent
involvement as measured by the Parent Involvement survey.

Subjects were divided into two groups according to their grade level (Lower
Elementary Students: kindergarten through grade two; Upper Elementary Students:
grade three through grade ﬁve). There was no signiﬁcant difference in parent
involvement scores for Lower Elementary (M = 64.364, S_D = 8.151) than Upper
Elementary [M = 65.588, $2 = 9.458; _t_(235) = -1.067, p = .287]. Parents of younger

children were equally likely to be involved as parents of older students.

62

 

Exploring Assumptions: Summary

Two underlying assumptions were explored. The ﬁrst assumption was concerned
with the question, does level of parent involvement differ as a ﬁmction of the school a
child attends? In other words, is the level of parent involvement similar enough as to
combine all three participating schools for the remaining analyses? Results of the one-
way analysis of variance suggest that the school in which his/her son or daughter attended
was signiﬁcantly related to a parent’s decision to be involved in their education.
Speciﬁcally, parents of Alta Vista Elementary students were more likely to be involved
than Lamont and Washougal parents. In contrast, Lamont and Washougal parent
involvement were not signiﬁcantly different.

These ﬁndings are consistent with those of Adams and Christenson (1998), who
found that parent involvement could vary between schools. They hypothesized that these
differences stemmed ﬁom school climate issues and opportunities available for families
to interact with their child’s school. Speciﬁcally, they proposed that the frequency and
quality of interactions between home and school resulted in greater parent trust in school
and involvement in their children’s education. Based on these results, two separate
analyses (Alta Vista Elementary versus Lamont and Washougal combined) are warranted
for the ﬁrst research question.

The second assumption was based on the amount of parent involvement across
student grade level. Results ﬁ'om the independent samples t-tests revealed that the
amount of parent involvement was similar across all grades. Unlike previous research

(Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Eccles & Harrold, 1993; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995), a

63

“I"!!!

 

decrease in parental involvement was not observed in these data between the lower and
upper elementary years of school. It may be that declines reported in prior research may
not be evident until the transition from elementary to middle and high school. What is
clear is that the decrease in parental involvement typically observed ﬁom elementary to
middle school and beyond was not observed as students progressed through elementary
school. Based on these results, separate analyses for different grade levels were not

necessary for research question one.

Research Question One: Parent Trust, Student Achievement, and Parent Involvement

 

The following research question was explored: does parent trust in school
signiﬁcantly inﬂuence a parent’s decision to be involved in their child’s education? And,
does a student’s level of achievement affect parents’ involvement? To answer these
questions, a series of two-way AN OVAs were conducted to explore the main and
interaction effects for parent trust in school and student achievement. Based on the
results of the exploratory assumptions (above), two separate AN OVAs were conducted.
One two-way AN OVA was conducted for Alta Vista, and a separate two-way AN OVA
for Lamont and Washougal combined.

Alta Vista elementary school. A two-way between groups analysis of variance
(AN OVA) was conducted to explore the relationship between parent trust in school and
student achievement on parent involvement as measured by the Parent Involvement
survey for Alta Vista Elementary School.

First, parents were divided into two groups according to their level of trust in

school (Group One: Low Trust; Group Two: High Trust). This median split was

64

 

calculated by using respondents’ total scores on the Parent Views of School survey.
Second, a median split was used to divide students into two achievement groups (Group
One: Low Achievers; Group Two: High Achievers). This median split was calculated
by using students’ standard scores from a measure of student achievement. A separate
median split was conducted for each grade per school as different achievement measures
were used both across and between schools. Refer to Table 13 for a detailed explanation
of the achievement measures.

Results ﬁom the two-way AN OVA revealed a signiﬁcant main effect for parent
trust [E(l, 37) = 4.422, p_ < .05], with a moderate to large effect size (eta squared = .107)
according to the standards outlined by Cohen (1998). This indicated that parents who had
reported greater trust in schools also had higher levels of self-reported involvement in
their children’s schooling. The correlational nature of these data do not allow a
determination of the whether the causal direction is that the more parents’ trusted their
child’s school, the more likely they were to be involved or whether the more parents were
involved, the more they trusted the school. In contrast, the main effect for student
achievement was not found to be statistically signiﬁcant [F (1, 37) = .439, p = .512],
suggesting that parents of high achievers were not more likely to be involved than parents
of low achievers nor were parents of low achievers less likely to participate in their
children’s education. The interaction between parent trust and student achievement was

not statistically signiﬁcant [5(1, 37) = 2.016, p = .164].

65

Table 15

Results of T wo- Way ANO VA (Parent Trust X Student Achievement) for Parent
Involvement (Alta Vista Elementary)

 

 

Source df F p
Parent Trust 1 4.422 .042
Student Achievement 1 0.439 .5 12
Trust X Achievement 1 2.016 .164
Error 37
Table 16

Mean Parent Involvement and Standard Deviations: Parent Trust X Student Achievement

(Alta Vista Elementary)

 

Mean SD N

Low Trust 66.048 11.499 21
Low Achieve 62.444 10.933 9

High Achieve 68.750 11.616 12

High Trust 71.850 7.286 20
Low Achieve 73.11 1 5.925 9

High Achieve 70.818 8.376 1 1

Total Trust 68.878 9.998 41
Low Achieve 67.778 10.143 18

High Achieve 69.739 10.143 23

 

66

Washougal and Lamont elementary schools. A two-way between groups analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to explore the impact of parent trust in school and
student achievement on parent involvement as measured by the Parent Involvement
survey for Washou gal and Lamont Elementary Schools combined.

In contrast to the results for Alta Vista, results from the two-way AN OVA
approached signiﬁcance but did not yield a signiﬁcant main effect for parent trust [13(1,
72) = 2.796, p = .099]. Parent trust was not signiﬁcantly related to their decision to be
involved in their child’s education. The main effect for student achievement LE(1, 72) =
0.028, p = .867] and the interaction [F_(l, 72) = 1.001, p = .320] were also not statistically

signiﬁcant.

Table 17

Results of T wo- Way ANO VA (Parent Trust X Student Achievement) for Parent
Involvement (Washougal and Lamont Elementary Schools)

 

Source df F p
Parent Trust 1 2.796 .099
Student Achievement 1 0.028 .867
Trust X Achievement 1 1.001 .320
Error 72

 

67

Table 18

Mean Parent Involvement and Standard Deviations: Parent Trust X Student Achievement

(Washougal and Lamont Elementary Schools)

 

Mean SD N

Low Trust 62.340 9.527 50
Low Achieve 63.222 10.252 27

High Achieve 61.304 8.710 23

High Trust 66.115 9.309 26
Low Achieve 64.769 10.109 13

High Achieve 67.462 8.628 13

Total Trust 63.632 9.562 76
Low Achieve 63.725 10.102 40

High Achieve 63.528 9.066 36

 

Additional information. To better understand the results of the ANOVAs (and the
model of parent involvement that follows), Pearson r correlations were calculated
between parent involvement and parent trust in school for the population as a whole and

for each individual school:

Table 19

Pearson r Correlations for Parent Involvement and Parent Trust in School

 

Sample r Signiﬁcance
Total Population .190“ .003
Alta Vista .119 .370
Washougal .158 .236
Lamont .228" .010

 

"Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

68

Only two of the Pearson r correlations were statistically signiﬁcant: total population and
Lamont. All Pearson r correlations were positive, suggesting that an increase in parent
involvement is related to an increase in parent trust and vice versa.

Figures 1-8 present the distributions of parent involvement (as measured by the
Parent Involvement survey) and parent trust (as measured by the Parent Views of School
survey) for respondents as a whole and each individual school (i.e., Alta Vista,
Washougal, and Lamont). Examination of the distributions revealed a close
approximation of a normal distribution for parent involvement. In contrast, the
distribution of parent trust was negatively skewed for all three schools. Most parents
reported a high level of trust with only a few parents reporting low trust in the school.
These patterns suggest that the results of the AN OVAs (and the model of parent
involvement that follows) might have been stronger if there was less of a restricted range
and skewed distribution on the parent trust measure.

As Lamont had the strongest statistically signiﬁcant correlation between parent
involvement and parent trust, a separate one-way between groups analysis of variance
(AN OVA) was conducted to explore the relationship between parent trust in school on
parent involvement as measured by the Parent Involvement survey. Parents were divided
into groups according to their level of trust in school (Group One: Low Trust; Group
Two: High Trust). This median split was calculated by using respondents’ total scores
on the Parent Views of School survey. Results ﬁ'om the one-way ANOVA revealed a
signiﬁcant main effect for parent trust [E(1,124) = 11.504, p = .01], with a moderate
effect size (eta-squared = .08) according to the standards outlined by Cohen (1998).

These results indicated that parents who had reported greater trust in schools also had

69

higher levels of self-reported involvement in their children’s’ schooling for Lamont

 

 

 

Elementary.
Table 20
Mean Parent Involvement and Standard Deviations: One- Way ANO VA (Lamont
Elementary)
Mean SD N .
Low Trust 61.044 9.444 63
High Trust 66.272 7.580 63
Total Trust 64.405 8.630 126

 

Research Question One: Summary

Following the assumptions analyses, the ﬁrst research question was explored:
does parent trust in school signiﬁcantly inﬂuence a parent’s decision to be involved in
their child’s education? And, does a student’s level of achievement affect parents’
involvement? Based on the results of the Adams & Christenson (1998, 2000), it was
hypothesized that parents of higher achievers and those that trust their child’s school to a
greater degree would be more actively involved.

A two-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the
impact of parent trust in school and student achievement on parent involvement as
measured by the Parent Involvement survey for Alta Vista Elementary School. Results
suggest that the greater the trust parents placed in their child’s school, the more likely
they were to be involved in their child’s education (and vice versa) for Alta Vista parents.

This is similar to the results of the Adams and Christenson (2000), who found that

70

parents who reported low or moderate levels of trust had signiﬁcantly less positive
attitudes toward and less ﬁequently engaged in parent involvement activities than parents
reporting high levels.

Parents of high achievers were not more likely to be involved than parents of low
achievers (and vice versa) for Alta Vista Elementary. The interaction between student
achievement and parent trust was also not statistically signiﬁcant. The statistically
similar levels of parent involvement across achievement were surprising given the
previous research connecting higher levels of parent involvement with measures of

school performance and achievement levels for high school students, such as overall

 

grade point average, number of credits earned per year, and school attendance (Epstein & H
Dauber, 1993; Epstein & Spann, 1991; Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, & Hurley, 1998).

The type of achievement measures used in this study may help explain this
ﬁnding. Grade point averages are often affected by multiple pieces of student
performance data, such as daily assignments, homework, quizzes, and tests. On the other
hand, standardized achievement tests are administered during one assessment session.
Thus, a student who struggles with organizational tasks, such as remembering to
complete homework assignments and/or turning assignments in during the allotted time,
may have a higher score than expected based on quizzes and tests administered over a
shorter (and speciﬁed) amount of time.

Student achievement data from the present study was not related to parents’
decision to be involved, yet achievement data ﬁom the school as a whole may suggest
otherwise. All three participating schools achieved Adequate Yearly Progress as outlined

by state and federal guidelines, yet Alta Vista was the only participating school to receive

71

an “A” on its annual Michigan School Report Card (please refer to Table 3). Alta Vista
had the greatest percentage of students receiving a rating of “proﬁcient” in math for the
2003-2004 academic year, with 90.9% compared to 79.2% and 77 .3% for schools
Washougal and Lamont, respectively. Alta Vista also had the second highest percentage
receiving the “proﬁcient” rating for English language arts. Thus, school-wide data
suggests that higher student achievement, especially in math, may be a characteristic of
schools with greater levels of parent involvement.

A second two-way between groups analysis of variance (AN OVA) was conducted

for Washougal and Lamont Elementary Schools combined. In contrast to the results for

 

school Alta Vista, results for Washougal and Lamont combined did not yield a signiﬁcant
main effect for parent trust. In other words, parent trust was not signiﬁcantly related to
parent involvement in their child’s education at Washougal and Lamont when combined.
Similar to Alta Vista, the main effect for student achievement and the interaction effect
between student achievement and parent trust were also not found to be statistically
signiﬁcant.

Examination of Pearson r correlations revealed that the relationship between
parent involvement and parent trust in school was strongest for Lamont Elementary. A
one-way between groups analysis of variance (AN OVA) was then conducted to explore
the impact of parent trust in school on parent involvement for Lamont Elementary School
individually. Results suggest that the greater the trust parents placed in their child’s
school, the more likely they were to be involved in their child’s education (and vice

versa) for Lamont parents.

72

Results ﬁom the ﬁrst research question are intriguing and raise a variety of
questions. First, why was parent involvement signiﬁcantly higher in Alta Vista compared
to Washougal and Lamont? Furthermore, why was parent trust in school signiﬁcantly
related to a parent’s involvement in their child’s education for Alta Vista and Lamont but
for Washougal? These complex results suggest a need to further examine the available
data to identify distinctive characteristics of each of the schools that may help to explain
these ﬁndings.

Process variables. Results from previous studies suggest that process variables,
speciﬁcally the atmosphere or climate in and around schools, must be conducive to
establishing positive relationships between families and educators. As outlined by
Christenson and Sheridan (2001), process variables are relatively more powerful than
status variables in predicting parent involvement. The signiﬁcantly greater amount of
parent involvement at Alta Vista may have been affected by the frequency and quality of
opportunities afforded by the school atmosphere or climate. Alta Vista Elementary took
volunteer efforts to a higher level by including a formal Volunteer Coordinator as one of
its parent boosters’ ofﬁcer positions. Additionally, each individual classroom had its own
informal volunteer coordinator who contacted parents within each classroom. With these
features, Alta Vista Elementary offered a school-wide comprehensive volunteer program
that was accessible to all parents and kept them informed of school and classroom events
and activities. These volunteer efforts may also have aided in facilitating greater
communication between home and school.

The greater number of involvement opportunities and home-school interactions at

Alta Vista may also help explain the statistically signiﬁcant relationship between parent

73

involvement and parent trust for that particular school. Again, this is consistent with
Adams and Christenson (2000), who found that both parents and teachers alike suggested
improvements in home-school communication as a primary means of enhancing trust.
Thus, when wanting to move parent involvement to the next level, creating greater
opportunities to build a trusting relationship by increasing the frequency of both home-
school communication and volunteer opportunities may be a key factor for parents of
Alta Vista students.

It is also important to think about the relationship between parent involvement
and parent trust from both perspectives. As the results from the present study are
correlational, they do not yield evidence regarding causal directions. Alta Vista parents
who trusted their child’s school to a greater degree may have been more inclined to be
involved in their child’s education, or, with the involvement of Alta Vista’s parents may
have resulted in enhanced trust.

Alta Vista’s school atmosphere is also heavily inﬂuenced by administrative
support, such as that ﬁom the building principal. This is signiﬁcant as administrative
support is essential for creating opportunities for meaningful parent involvement and trust
in school (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). The principal at Alta Vista Elementary was
very proud of the 99% parent-teacher conference attendance rate and the opportunities
afforded to parents at his school. In fact, the parent booster ofﬁcers were publicly posted
within his ofﬁce. This physical posting of parent roles within the school highlights the
importance of involving parents and having them serve in leadership positions that
directly affected the school, setting an example for his staff. It also sends the message to

parents that they are important, and their governance is valued.

74

In contrast, Washougal and Lamont parent booster ofﬁcers were not publicly
listed within the principal’s ofﬁce. Furthermore, neither Washougal nor Lamont had both
formal and informal positions designed to promote greater parent involvement in both
school- and classroom-wide activities. Without these positions, Washougal and Lamont
parents may not have the opportunity for more and varied individuals to interact with
their child’s school and/or become involved. Also, Washougal and Lamont parents may
have less access to their child’s teachers and limited knowledge about how the school
ﬁrnctions without these opportunities

Despite the lack of a school-wide system for involving parents, parent trust was
also signiﬁcantly related to Lamont parents’ decision to be involved. These intriguing
results highlight the importance of future research to continue to explore the relationship
between parent trust and involvement. It may be that parent trust is increasing for
Lamont parents, which may eventually lead to greater parent involvement in the years to
come. On the other hand, it may indicate that parents feel that they do not need to be as
involved in their child’s education if they trust their school to a greater degree. In other
words, parents may “trust” the job of educating their son/daughter to teachers and
administrators and feel less of a need to be involved or intervene.

All three participating schools have involved parents. However, the atmosphere
that was created at Alta Vista Elementary may have afforded greater involvement
opportunities for its parents. With a greater level of involvement, parents may become
more familiar with the school culture and expectations. Familiarity may also afford
parents a greater number of opportunities (and resulting greater comfort level) to talk and

interact with teachers about their child, both positive and negative, including activities or

75

 

interventions they can do at home to help promote education. This knowledge may
create a more school-ﬁiendly home, sending the message to their child that education is
valued.

Status variables. As noted above, process variables are powerful in shaping
parent involvement and trust in school (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). However, there
are a several status variables distinguishing Alta Vista that merit further discussion. First,
the Alta Vista population (and respondents) has the fewest number and lowest percentage
of students eligible for free/reduced lunch. According to Table 12, only 13.4% of Alta
Vista students are eligible compared to a striking 28.8% and 37.3% of Washougal and
Lamont students, respectively.

This lower percentage of free/reduced lunch eligible may have affected Alta Vista
parent involvement in a variety of ways. First, research suggests that more afﬂuent
communities have more positive parent involvement and communication to and from
school than economically depressed communities. Schools in lower socio-economic
communities may have more contacts with family regarding problems or difﬁculties their
children are having (Epstein, 2001). Due to a lack of transportation to and from school, a
lack of child care for younger and/or other children at home, and/or inability to take time
off of work for ﬁnancial reasons or job inﬂexibility, some ﬁnancially stressed parents
may not be able to physically attend conferences or special events at school or in the
community.

The measure of parent involvement used in the present study may unintentionally
yield differences between lower and higher socioeconomic communities. Epstein’s

(2001) framework includes a third context, the community, to support the education and

76

development of children. Parents who live in communities that are ﬁnancially able to
provide extracurricular activities and events may appear to have a greater amount of
involvement as they can enroll their children in these activities compared to ﬁnancially

stressed communities that are not able to offer these opporttmities.

Model of Parent Involvement

As outlined in the review of literature, there are many factors (student, parent,
teacher, and community characteristics) that inﬂuence parents’ decision to be involved in
their child’s education. To what extent is parent involvement explained by the school a
child attends, parent trust in school, student developmental status (grade level), and.
student achievement? Furthermore, which of these four factors is the best predictor of
parent involvement? To answer these questions, a standard multiple regression was
conducted with parent involvement as the dependent or outcome variable and school,
parent trust in school, student grade level, and student achievement as independent
variables.

The survey data were transformed in the following ways. First, student
achievement was recoded into two categories using a median split technique. A separate
median split was conducted for each individual grade level in each individual school, and
students were divided into groups according to their achievement (Group One: Low
Achievers; Group Two: High Achievers. Second, subjects were divided into two groups
according to their grade (Group One: kindergarten through grade two, or Young
Students; Group Two: grade three through grade ﬁve, or Old Students). Lastly, the three

participating elementary schools were recoded into two variables using a dummy coding

77

procedure, with Lamont Elementary as dummy code 1 and Washougal Elementary as
dummy code 2. Table 21 provides the means and standard deviations. Table 22 provides
the correlations between the variables. The unstandardized regression coefﬁcients (B),
the standard error of the unstandardized regression coefﬁcients (SE B), and the
standardized regression coefﬁcients. (B) are provided in Table 23.

The overall model explained 15.6% of the total variance in parent involvement (R
squared = .156). These results suggest that the school a child attends, student grade level,
student achievement level, and parent trust in school explained 15.6% of the variability in
parent involvement. Overall, the model for parent involvement was statistically
signiﬁcant [E(5, 99) = 3.665, p = .004].

When the variance explained by all other variables in the model was controlled
for, Lamont Elementary (beta = -0.312) made the strongest unique contribution to the
amount of variance in parent involvement. Parent trust (beta = 0.305) made the second
strongest contribution. Furthermore the amount of variance explained by Lamont
Elementary [1(114) = -2.950, p_ = .004] and parent trust [1(114) = 2.805, p_ = .006] each

made a statistically signiﬁcant unique contribution to the model.

Table 21

78

 

Means and Standard Deviations: Multiple Regression

 

 

Variable Mean Standard Deviation

Parent involvement 65.448 10.243
Student achievement 0.514 0.502
Grade 1.686 0.466
Lamont Elementary 0.295 0.458
Washougal Elementary 0.324 0.470
Parent trust 131.752 24.510
Table 22

Correlations between Variables: Multiple Regression

 

Variable l 2 3 4 5 6
1. Student Achievement - -.083 -.081 -.020 .160 .089
2. Grade - - .303 -.321"' .057" .022
3. Lamont - - - -.448** .233" -.182"'
4. Washougal - - - - -.496** -.120
5. Parent Trust - - - - - .282"

6. Parent Involvement

*Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0 .05 level (2-tailed)
"Correlation is signiﬁcant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 23

79

Predicting Parent Involvement: Multiple Regression

 

 

 

Variable B SE B B
Student Achievement 0.399 1.926 .020
Grade 1.610 2.201 .073
Lamont -6.968 2.362 -.312*
Washougal -l .843 2.603 -.O85 i“
Parent Trust 0.128 0.045 .305*
* p<.01
Model of Parent Involvement: Summary t

A multiple regression procedure was utilized to determine how much of the total
variance in parent involvement is explained by the school a child attends, parent trust in
school, student developmental status or grade level, and student achievement. The results
from the multiple regression were also used to reveal which of the above four factors is
the best predictor of parent involvement. It was hypothesized that parent trust in school
would contribute most heavily to parent involvement.

Results from the multiple regression suggested that the overall model was
statistically signiﬁcant, but explained only 15.6% of the total variance in parent
involvement. Parent trust was the second best predictor of parent involvement, following
having a child attend Lamont Elementary; these were the only two statistically signiﬁcant
predictors in the model. Thus, the school a child attends affects parent involvement to a
greater degree than parent trust in school. While trust is important, it is not a sufﬁcient

condition for enhancing parent involvement.

80

Given that the model explained a small amount of variance, it is hypothesized that
there are other moderating factors affecting parents’ decision to be involved in their
child’s education. Consistent with previous research (Adams & Christenson, 1998,
2000), the school a child attends signiﬁcantly affects parents’ decision to be involved in
their children’s education. However, what is missing from the current study that might
further explain parent involvement is an explicit measure of school climate, including
quantity and quality of home-school interactions. By including such a measure, the
researcher would be able to examine distinct components of school climate that promote
greater parent involvement, supplementing the interview data collected in the present
study.

The conceptualization of parent involvement used in the present study moved
beyond previous “traditional” measures, which focused solely on the physical presence of
parents in the school, such as parent-teacher conference attendance and room parents. In
addition to these school-based behavioral characteristics, Epstein’s (2001) ﬁamework
includes parent involvement in educational decision making, setting up home conditions
to support children as students, leaming at home, and utilizing resources in the
community to support learning and development. Furthermore, Epstein’s (2001)
framework includes a third context, the community, to support the education and
development of children. Parents may actually appear to have a greater amount of
involvement with this more progressive measure as it includes ways parents can be
involved outside of the school day or speciﬁed one-time events. This framework allows

for greater ﬂexibility for diverse parents, including those that may have difﬁcultly

81

attending school-based events due to work schedules, lack of transportation, lack of child
care, etc.

Given the results of the Adams and Christenson (1998, 2000) studies, it was
hypothesized that parent trust in school would explain more variance than the other
independent variables in the model. While statistically signiﬁcant, parent trust predicted
was only the second largest amount of variance in parent involvement. Perhaps
differences in parents with lower versus higher trust were more difﬁcult to detect given
the conceptualization (and resulting measurement) of parent trust in the present study.
Furthermore, these results continue to highlight the importance of school climate in

fostering greater parent involvement.

Limitations

Selective sample. All three participating schools have impressive parent-teacher
conference attendance rates, and supports in place to assist parents, both at home and in
school-based involvement and volunteer activities. Based on the Parent Involvement
Survey data, all three schools have involved parents. Thus, the three participating
schools may not provide as much variance in parent involvement as expected or
compared to schools nationwide.

It is also important to keep in mind the selective nature of the sample. The three
participating schools granted the researcher permission to distribute surveys to parents
asking questions about the school for which the answers may not be positive. This may
suggest that the principals of these buildings have a commitment to research, and

possibly using data to support (and or create) best practices in education. Or, on the other

82

 

hand, these may be schools that have a successful history of parent involvement and
positive relationships forged between their staff and parents and guardians. A principal
who is less conﬁdent in these areas may have been more hesitant to grant permission for
this research out of a concern of obtaining negative parent ratings. Additionally, only
those parents who are comfortable with their involvement may have responded as
opposed to those who may not feel conﬁdent, contributing to an even more selective
sample within each school.

Generalizability of results. The generalizability of the results to the population
(i.e., rural mid-Michigan districts) needs to be made with caution given the lower
response rate (see below). Furthermore, the generalizability of results is limited to rural
schools. Further research should expand on this exploratory study by sampling schools
ﬁ'om urban areas that have a more diverse population, including greater racial diversity.
Including both ﬁnancially stressed and more afﬂuent communities can help researchers
better understand how socioeconomic status may affect parent involvement.

Separate analyses of particular demographic groups, such as student race and special
education eligibility, were not possible in the present study due to insufﬁcient numbers in
both the p0pulation as a whole (i.e., race) and respondents (i.e., special education
eligibility). Thus, all respondents were grouped together despite possible differences in
these important demographic characteristics. Future research may want to examine these
groups independently to see if any differences in parent involvement emerge, increasing
the generalizability of the ﬁndings to these distinct demographic groups.

Response rate. Actions were taken to increase the likelihood that parents would

respond to the surveys. For example, participants (i.e., parents) were contacted via two

83

 

methods: sending packets home with each student and meeting parents at each school’s
spring carnival. Parent conﬁdentiality was ensured by explicitly stating in the letter of
consent that codes (and not names) would be used. Parents were also guaranteed that
school staff and administration would not have access to the names of participants.
Furthermore, parents were provided with a self-addressed, stamped envelope for which to
return the completed surveys and an incentive (gift certiﬁcate to a local store) was
offered. Despite these efforts, the return rate was slightly over 25 percent. As outlined
by Erdos (1983), response rates to mail surveys is typically considerably lower than the
response rate to other types of surveys, and that this is a major disadvantage for this
particular methodology.

Self-report measures. Another major limitation of this study is that it relies
primarily on self-report measures (Spector, 1994). With self-report measures, answers to
personally sensitive questions are likely to be inﬂuenced by social desirability, known as
social desirability bias (Spector, 1994). People may report their own traits, attitudes, and
behaviors in a manner they feel would impress people, or “look good”.

Yet studies drawing upon participant self-report should not be completely
discounted. Self-report measures can be useful in painting a picture of how people feel
about and view their child’s school. Furthermore, self-report studies can provide insights
and can be useful for deriving hypotheses about how people react to such things as their
child’s school (Spector, 1994). Self-report measures can also be an efﬁcient way of
gathering date or information (Schmitt, 1994). It may be less obtrusive to administer a
questionnaire than to obtain an objective or observational measure. For example, it may

be less obtrusive and more telling to administer a questionnaire than to obtain an

84

 

objective measure of parent involvement as objective measures typically center on
traditional forms of parent involvement only, such as attending parent-teacher
conferences and volunteering at school or in their child’s classroom.

While the use of self-report is a limitation, it is also important to keep in mind that
this particular body of research (i.e., the relationship between parent involvement and
parent trust in schools) is in an exploratory stage of development. As discussed by
Schmitt (1994), it is appropriate to use methods and research designs in a newly
developing area that would be considered “unacceptable” in another area of research.

Correlational designs. While this study serves as a valuable starting point for
examining the relationship between parent involvement and parent trust, it is important to
acknowledge the limitations of this study’s design and therefore the ability to draw
deﬁnitive conclusions based on the results. The design of this study is correlational in
nature. A correlational study is characterized by less control by the researcher over the
independent variable. Thus, only statements regarding the relationships between
variables, and not causal inferences, can be made.

Teacher trust in parents. The present study serves as an important starting tool
for examining parent trust in schools, speciﬁcally how it may relate to parents’
involvement in their children’s education. However, teacher trust in parents was not
examined in the present study. Based on the results of the Adams & Christenson (1998)
study, parent trust in school appears to be higher than teacher trust in parents. It would
be useﬁrl to extend the Adams & Christenson (1998) research to the rural, elementary
school population to see if these results are consistent. It would also be interesting to

examine how teacher trust varies across the three schools. For example, is trust in

85

parents greater for Alta Vista and Lamont teachers compared to Washougal?
Furthermore, the amount of trust may look different using a more statistically validated

measure of trust like the Forsyth et. a1. (2002) used in the present study.

Future Directions

Consistent with previous research, results ﬁom the present study suggest that the
school atmosphere can facilitate a higher quality and quantity of communication between
school and home, including a greater number of opportunities for parents to be involved
in their son’s or daughter’s education. Educational researchers and practitioners can

begin to design interventions aimed at fostering this type of atmosphere or climate within

 

schools. These intervention studies can move beyond correlational studies to include
random assignment of parents to different levels of intervention. Random assignment is
preferred in that it provides a measure of control over other factors, which could
potentially inﬂuence the effectiveness of the intervention by attempting to evenly
distribute such characteristics across all groups (Kazdin, 2003).

There are many other ways to expand upon this exploratory research.
Longitudinal case studies would shed light on how parent involvement and trust evolve
over time. As suggested by Tschannen-Moran & Hoy (2000), “qualitative studies are
helpful in exploring the dynamic nature of trust within particular school buildings” (p.
585). Qualitative studies would also shed light on patterns of parent trust and
involvement across school buildings. For example, one group of parents and students
could be identiﬁed and followed from elementary to middle to high school and beyond.

Adams and Christenson (1998, 2000) posit that parent involvement tends to decrease as

86

students move into middle and/or high school. Parents and students are faced with the
challenges of communicating and building relationships with multiple teachers — not just
one. Students are being held increasingly responsible for their academic performance
and classroom behavior. Teachers are working with an increased number of students,
and dealing with their performance directly; this may leave some parents feeling “out of
the loop”. As the number of students increases, it may be more difﬁcult for teachers to
build in time for parent communication and relationship building. Researchers may be
able to pinpoint how these factors affect the level of involvement parents have in their
son or daughter’s education. Furthermore, researchers could explore patterns of parent
trust and pattern involvement, examining if a decrease in parent trust in school as
children transition from elementary to secondary school then leads to a decline in
involvement.

Even at the elementary school level, little is known about the structural, cultural,
and individual characteristics of teachers that promote student trust (Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 1996). Furthermore, it is also important to examine students’ trust of teachers and
perspectives on parent involvement more in depth. According to Tschannen—Moran &
Hoy (2000), “the study of student trust has also been neglected” (p.586). Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy (2000) suggest examining school structures, such as academic teams,
block scheduling, and teaching styles to see if they are more conducive to the
development of student trust in teachers. Students’ negative interactions with teachers
and/or administrators may inﬂuence their parent’s perceptions, especially as students
become older and have multiple teachers. As noted above, it is more difﬁcult for parents

to “get to know” all of their child’s teachers intimately and vice versa.

87

Also, the present study looked at the relationship between achievement and parent
involvement. Further research may want to explore the relationship between parent
involvement (and trust in school) and other student factors, such as behavioral and social

competence (Adams & Christenson, 2000).

Implications for Practice

According to Ysseldyke et a1. (1997), “School psychologists should be prepared
to help design and operate programs to promote school-farnily interactions” (p. 9). Thus,
school psychologists can use the results of this research to better understand parent
involvement in education and ways to promote partnerships between parents and
educators to improve outcomes for all students.

School psychologists are in a position to work with multiple stakeholders,
including parents, teachers/staff, and community agencies and programs. For example,
school psychologists are trained to serve as systems-level consultants. School
psychologists increasingly are focusing on larger organizational issues to expand and
maximize their inﬂuence, and to deal with problems that are truly systemic in nature
(Zins & Erchul, 1995). Using these consultation skills, school psychologists can work
with other school professionals to better understand and promote those home factors that
work to support learning and achievement in school, including facilitating a school
climate that promotes greater parental trust and involvement.

Consultation may take the form of a professional development workshop or
school-based learning team. For example, school psychologists can provide the

theoretical base necessary for understanding parent involvement, including Epstein’s

88

 

(2001) overlapping spheres of inﬂuence. Next, interventions and strategies grounded in
this conceptual ﬁamework could be explored. Based on the results of the present study,
increasing the quality and quantity of home-school interactions by creating a formal a
more formal volunteer coordinator position is one possibility. Professional development
workshops are unique in that they provide a safe arena for educators to pose questions
and discuss challenges associated with parent involvement, providing the potential to lead
to change in professional practice.

School psychologists could also facilitate training programs for parents. Parents’
and school psychologists’ perspectives of parent involvement activities were examined
by Christenson, Hurley & Sheridan (1997) for the purpose of informing school
psychologists about ways for schools and families to enhance students’ success. A rank
ordering of the top 11 activities desired by parents and deemed feasible to implement by
school psychologists revealed an overlap in eight activities, all of which emphasize
providing parents information about schooling, children or community resources, and
consultation with school psychologists about children’s leaming and behavior. Training
programs could be designed and implemented by school psychologists to provide parents
with the information and tools outlined above. Lastly, school psychologists can share in
leadership roles in coordinating with other agencies and in forming linkages within the

community.

Conclusions

The goal of this study was to better understand the nature of parent involvement

in relation to parent trust in schools. The results yielded support for previous research as

89

 

well as providing data suggesting a more powerful inﬂuence of schools relative to grade
and achievement in predicting parent involvement. As expected, parent involvement was
found to vary as a function of the school a child attended. In fact, the school a child
attended was the most powerful predictor of parent involvement, above and beyond
parent trust in school. These results highlight the importance of particular school
characteristics, climates and practices that may strengthen involvement. Schools can
create school- and classroom-wide climates that value and cultivate home-school
relationships and parent participation. This atmosphere can be encouraged and supported

by its administrators, who publicly acknowledge (perhaps even physically post) the

 

important roles of parents, such as a parent volunteer, a volunteer coordinator, or a parent I,
booster member. School psychologists may also play a valuable role in developing
parent trust and participation in schools by providing organizational consultation, teacher
workshops, and parent training that enhance practices, skills, and attitudes for working
across home and schools boundaries.

With these positions and resulting increase in home-school communication, trust
may more readily develop. However, results from the present study suggest that the
relationship between parent involvement and parent trust may be more complex than
previous research suggests. As expected, parent involvement and parent trust in school
were positively correlated for the population as a whole. However, when examined
individually, parent trust and parent involvement were signiﬁcantly (positively) related
for only two out of the three participating schools. Furthermore, the school with the
greatest amount of parent trust did not have the greatest amount of parent involvement. It

may be that the quality of interactions between home and school may be a better

90

predictor of trust then frequency or quantity of opportunities available for interaction.
Also contrary to prior research, neither the grade of students nor their level of
achievement was related to parent involvement.

Parent involvement continues to gain momentum as a key education priority, both
in mid-Michigan and across the nation. According to a 2004 Michigan Department of
Education teacher survey, communication with parents topped a list of concerns for the
state’s educators (Burton, 2004). One mid-Michigan teacher, recognizing the importance l'“

of including parents in their child’s education, described it as, “one of the biggest voices

is not always being heard — and that’s parents” (Burton, 2004). Nationally, the Parental

 

Involvement Guidance for the No Child Left Behind Act was recently released in April of b
2004. Thus, parent involvement and trust in school will continue to be a key educational

initiative as we consider school improvement and accountability in the years to come.

91

Parent Involvement: Total

 

Frequency

 

 

 

40m 5090 com 70m com
Parent Involvement

Figure 1. Distribution of parent involvement scores for Alta Vista, Washougal, and
Lamont combined as measured by the Parent Involvement survey.

Parent Involvement: AlteVleta

 

10‘

 
    

0')
I

 

Frequency

:1
l

  

 

0
mm mm mm mm
Parent Involvement

Figure 2. Distribution of parent involvement scores for Alta Vista as measured by the
Parent Involvement survey.

92

Parent Involvement: Lamont

 

Frequency

 

 

 

4000 5090 00110 70110 com
Parent Involvement
Figure 3. Distribution of parent involvement scores for Lamont as measured by the

Parent Involvement survey.

Parent Involvement: Washougal

 

Frequency

 

 

 

50.00 0000 70.00 0000
Parent Involvement
Figure 4. Distribution of parent involvement scores for Washougal as measured by the

Parent Involvement survey.

93

Parent Trust: Total

 

Frequency
is as i

B
r

10-

 

 

0d
40m 80m 0090 1009012000 140m 100m
Parent Trust

Figure 5. Distribution of parent trust scores for Alta Vista, Washougal, and Lamont
combined as measured by the Parent Views of School survey.

Parent Trust: Alta Vista

 

20—

  
  
 

.e
01
1

Frequency
‘15

 

8000 100.00 120.00 140.00 16090
Parent Trust

Figure 6. Distribution of parent trust scores for Alta Vista as measured by the Parent
Views of School survey.

94

 

Parent Trust: Lamont

 

Frequency

 

 

80100 100m 120m 140m 100m
Parent Trust
Figure 7. Distribution of parent trust scores for Lamont as measured by the Parent Views

of School survey.

Parent Trust: Washougal

 

.3

Frequency

 

 

40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
Parent Trust
Figure 8. Distribution of parent trust scores for Washougal as measured by the Parent

Views of School survey.

95

APPENDIX A

PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN STUDENT LEARNING
CONSENT LETTER

Dear Parent/Guardian of Washougal/Lamont Elementary Student,

Parent involvement in children’s learning matters! I am completing a study to learn more about how
parents are involved in their child’s learning as part of my school psychology doctoral research at Michigan
State University. I am inviting parents of students at Washougal/Lamont Elementary School to participate.
Participating involves ﬁlling out three short surveys. The ﬁrst survey asks for background information
about your child. The second survey asks about your involvement in your child’s school and learning. The
third survey asks about your views of your child’s school. Filling out all three surveys will take about 15-
20 minutes. If you have more than one child at Washougal/Lamont Elementary, I would like you to please
ﬁll out surveys for each child. I am also asking for your permission to look at your child’s achievement
data. This data will be obtained from your child’s school ﬁle and will not require any of your time. All
information will be kept conﬁdential, or private. I will assign each parent-child pair a code, and no names
will be used. If you would like to see the results of this study, I can send them to you upon request. I have
attached a copy of this form for your records. In appreciation of your time, your name will be entered into
a drawing for a $25 Target stores gift certiﬁcate; one name will be randomly selected.

If you are willing to participate, please fill out and return the attached consent letter and surveys in
the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided. Parents who ﬁll out and return the consent letter
and surveys will have their name entered to win a 825 Target stores gift certificate!

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. This means that you are free to choose whether or not you
want to participate, and you are free to withdraw at any time without consequence. You may also refuse to
answer certain questions without consequence. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. Choosing not to participate will not affect your child’s schooling in any way.

If you have any questions or concerns about participating in this study, or if questions arise, please feel ﬁne
to contact me, Jennifer Barr (Michigan State University; 401 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824; 517-
432-4081; barrjenl@msu.edu), or my advisor, Dr. Evelyn Oka (Michigan State University; CEPSE 451
Erickson Hall; East Lansing, MI, 48824; 517-432-0843; evoka@msu.cdu). Ifyou have any questions or
concerns about your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact - anonymously if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University
Cormnittce on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 35 5-2180, fax: (517) 432-
4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by signing below.

Signature: Date:

 

Child’s name (please PRINT):

 

PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN THIS COPY

96

APPENDIX B

PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN STUDENT LEARNING
CONSENT LETTER

Dear Parent/Guardian of Washougal/Lamont Elementary Student,

Parent involvement in children’s learning matters! I am completing a study to learn more about how
parents are involved in their child’s learning as part of my school psychology doctoral research at Michigan
State University. I am inviting parents of students at Washougal/Lamont Elementary School to participate.
Participating involves ﬁlling out three short surveys. The ﬁrst survey asks for background information
about your child. The second survey asks about your involvement in your child’s school and learning. The
third survey asks about your views of your child’s school. Filling out all three surveys will take about 15-
20 minutes. If you have more than one child at Washougal/Lamont Elementary, I would like you to please
ﬁll out surveys for each child. I am also asking for your permission to look at your child’s achievement
data. This data will be obtained from your child’s school ﬁle and will not require any of your time. All
inforrmtion will be kept conﬁdential, or private. I will assign each parent-child pair a code, and no names
will be used. If you would like to see the results of this study, I can send them to you upon request. I have
attached a c0py of this form for your records. In appreciation of yarn time, your name will be entered into
a drawing for a $25 Target stores gift certiﬁcate; one name will be randomly selected.

If you are willing to participate, please ﬁll out and return the attached consent letter and surveys in
the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided. Parents who fill out and return the consent letter
and surveys will have their name entered to win a 525 Target stores gift certiﬁcate!

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. This means that you are free to choose whether or not you
want to participate, and you are free to withdraw at any time without consequence. You may also refuse to
answer certain questions without consequence. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. Choosing not to participate will not affect your child’s schooling in any way.

If you have any questions or concerns about participating in this study, or if questions arise, please feel free
to contact me, Jennifer Barr (Michigan State University; 401 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824; 517-
432-4081; barrjenl@msu.cdu), or my advisor, Dr. Evelyn Oka (Michigan State University; CEPSE 451
Erickson Hall; East Lansing, MI, 48824; 517-432-0843; evoka@msu.edu). If you have any questions or
concerns about your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact - anonymously if you wish — Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University
Cormnittee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-
4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by signing below.

 

 

 

Signature: Date:
Child’s name (please PRINT):
PARENT COPY:
FOR YOUR RECORDS

97

APPENDIX C

PARENT HV’VOLVEMENT IN STUDENT LEARNING
CONSENT LETTER

Dear Parent/Guardian of Alta Vista Elementary Student,

Parent involvement in children’s learning matters! I am completing a study to learn more about how
parents are involved in their child’s learning as part of my school psychology doctoral research at Michigan
State University. I am inviting parents of students at Alta Vista Elementary SchoOl to participate.
Participating involves ﬁlling out three short surveys. The ﬁrst survey asks for background information
about your child. The second survey asks about your involvement in your child’s school and learning. The
third survey asks about your views of your child’s school. Filling out the surveys will take about 15
minutes. If you have more than one child at Alta Vista Elementary, I would like you to please ﬁll out
surveys for each child. I am also asking for your permission to look at your child’s achievement data. This
data will be obtained from your child’s school ﬁle and will not require any of your time. All information
will be kept conﬁdential, or private. I will assign each parent-chﬂd pair a code, and no names will be used.
If you would like to see the results of this study, I can send them to you upon request. I have attached a
copy of this form for your records. In appreciation of your time, your name will be entered into a drawing
for a $25 Target stores gift certiﬁcate; one name will be randomly selected.

If you are willing to participate, please fill out and return the attached consent letter and surveys in
the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided. Parents who fill out and return the consent letter
and surveys will have their name entered to win a $25 Target stores gift certiﬁcate!

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. This means that you are free to choose whether or not you
want to participate, and you are he to withdraw at any time without consequence. You may also refuse to
answer certain questions without consequence. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. Choosing not to participate will not affect your child’s schooling in any way.

If you have any questions or concerns about participating in this study, or if questions arise, please feel free
to contact me, Jennifer Barr (Michigan State University; 401 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824; 517-
432-4081; barrjcnl@msu.edu), or my advisor, Dr. Evelyn Oka (Michigan State University; CEPSE 451
Erickson Hall; East Lansing, MI, 48824; 517-432-0843; evoka@msu.edu). If you have any questions or
concerns about your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact - anonymously if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-
4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, NI] 48824.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by signing below.

Signature: Date:

 

Child’s name (please PRINT):

 

PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN THIS COPY

98

APPENDIX D

PARENT INVOLVEMENT IN STUDENT LEARNING
CONSENT LETTER

Dear Parent/Guardian of Alta Vista Elementary Student,

Parent involvement in children’s learning matters! I am completing a study to learn more about how
parents are involved in their child’s learning as part of my school psychology doctoral research at Michigan
State University. I am inviting parents of students at Alta Vista Elementary School to participate.
Participating involves ﬁlling out three short surveys. The ﬁrst survey asks for background information
about your child The second survey asks about your involvement in your child’s school and learning. The 7..
third survey asks about your views of your child’s school. Filling out the surveys will take about 15-20
minutes. If you have more than one child at Alta Vista Elementary, I would like you to please ﬁll out only
one survey on your oldest child in elementary school.

I am also asking for your permission to look at your child’s achievement data. This data will be
obtained from your child’s school ﬁle and will not require any of your time. All information will be kept
conﬁdential, or private. 1 will assign each parent-child pair a code, and no names will be used. If you
would like to see the results of this study, I can send them to you upon request. I have attached a copy of
this form for your records. In appreciation of your time, your name will be entered into a drawing for a $25
Target stores gift certiﬁcate; one name will be randomly selected.

 

If you are willing to participate, please fill out and return the attached consent letter and surveys in
the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided. Parents who fill out and return the consent letter
and surveys will have their name entered to win a 825 Target stores gift certiﬁcate!

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. This means that you are free to choose whether or not you
want to participate, and you are free to withdraw at any time without consequence. You may also refuse to
answer certain questions without consequence. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law. Choosing not to participate will not affect your child’s schooling in any way.

If you have any questions or concerns about participating in this study, or if questions arise, please feel the
to contact me, Jennifer Barr (Michigan State University; 401 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824; 517-
432-4081; banjenl@msu.edu), or my advisor, Dr. Evelyn Oka (Michigan State University; CEPSE 451
Erickson Hall; East Lansing, MI, 48824; 517-432-0843; evoka@msu.edu). Ifyou have any questions or
concerns about your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact - anonymously if you wish — Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-
4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

You indicate your volrmtary agreement to participate in this study by signing below. Participation includes
access to your child’s achievement data.

 

 

 

Signature: Date:
Child’s name (please PRINT):
PARENT COPY:
FOR YOUR RECORDS

99

APPENDIX E

About My Child

Please complete the following information.
Relationship to Child: Mother

Father

Grandmother _

Grandfather

Legal Guardian

Other (please specify:
Sex of Child: M F
Grade of Child: grade
Age of Child: years old
Child’s Race: American Indian/Alaskan

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

Does your child currently receive special education services?
If so, please specify special education category:
Does your child currently receive free/reduced lunch (at school)?

What would you like to see your child doing in 15 years?

100

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

APPENDIX F

Parent Involvement Survey

Please circle how often you engage in the following types of activities.
How often do you...

1. Attend parent-teacher conferences?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
l 2 3 4 5

2. Attend school-based concerts, performances, assemblies, or special events?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
1 2 3 4 5

3. Review and discuss the completed work your child brings home (help clean out backpack or
work folder, etc.)?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
1 2 3 4 5

4. Participate in a Parent Teacher Organization or other parent organizations?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
l 2 3 4 5

5. Enroll your child in community-based programs for school-age children (YMCA/YWCA,
Boys/Girls Club, Boy/Girl Scouts, etc.)?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
l 2 3 4 5

6. Read books, magazines, or other resources and/or view videotapes on parenting?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
1 2 3 4 5

7. Attend Back-to-School nights or Open Houses at your child’s school?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
l 2 3 4 5

8. Assist in your child’s classroom (tutor, grade papers, chaperone ﬁeld trips, etc.)?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
1 2 3 4 5

9. Help your child with schoolwork or seek extra help for your child (tutoring, etc.)?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
l 2 3 4 5
- Continued on Back Side -

101

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

Participate in your school’s advisory council, improvement team, or other committees?

Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always

1 2 3 4 5
Enroll your child in school- or community-based sports teams?
Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always

l 2 3 4 5
Participate in parent education programs or training for parents offered by the school?
Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always

1 2 3 4 5
Communicate with your child’s teacher (in addition to parent-teacher conferences)?
Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always

1 2 3 4 5
Assist in your child’s school (monitor halls, work in the library, work in the cafeteria, etc.)?
Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always

1 2 3 4 5
Help your child set learning goals (number of books read per month, etc.)?
Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always

1 2 3 4 5

Vote in school or local elections on school-related issues (school board members, millages,
etc.)?
Never Rarely Sometimes Ahnost Always Always
1 2 3 4 5
Obtain information on how to support your child’s learning at home?
Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
l 2 3 4 5
Read the school newsletter?
Never Rarely Sometimes Almost Always Always
1 2 3 4 5

102

 

APPENDIX C

Parent Views of School
Please circle the answer that best describes your views of your child’s school.

1. This school has high standards.

Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
2. This school puts children first.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
3. This school always does what it is supposed to do.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
4. This school sometimes tries to hide things.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
5. My child gets a good education at this school.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3

6. This school keeps me well informed.
Strongly Agree

1 2 3
7. This school invites suggestions.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3
8. I really trust this school.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
9. Children at this school are well cared for.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4
10. This school runs like a clock.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4

103

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

Strongly Disagree
5 6 7 8

- Continued on Back Side -

 

11. This school is always honest with me.

Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
12. This school doesn’t hide behind rules.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
13. This school does a terrific job.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
14. This school is a very good place to learn.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
15. This school has high standards for all children.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
16. This school is always ready to help.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
17. I never worry about my child when he/she’s at school.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
18. Sometimes things fall through the cracks at this school.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
19. At this school, I know I’ll be listened to.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
20. Parents are respected at this school.
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

104

Strongly Disagree
8

Strongly Disagree
8

Strongly Disagree
8

Strongly Disagree
8

Strongly Disagree
8

Strongly Disagree
8

Strongly Disagree
8

Strongly Disagree
8

Strongly Disagree
8

Strongly Disagree
8

 

Bibliography

Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family-school relationship:
Examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary and seconde grades.
Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 477-497.

Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (1998). Differences in parent and teacher trust levels:
Implications for creating collaborative family-school relationships. Special
Services in the Schools, 14(1/2), 1-22.

Ames, C. (1993). How school-to-home communications inﬂuence parent beliefs and
perceptions. Equity and Choice, 9(3), 44-49.

Becher, R. M. (1984). Parent Involvement: A Review of Research and Principles of
Successful Practice. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early
Childhood Education.

Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher
practices. Elementary School Journal, 83(2), 85-102.

Calabrese, R. L. (1990). The public school: A source of alienation for minority parents.
Journal of Negro Education, 59(2), 148-54.

Baier, A. C. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, (96), 231-260.

Bermudez, A. B., & Padron, Y. N. (1988). University-School Collaboration that
Increases Minority Parent Involvement. Educational Horizons, 66(2), 83-86.

Burton, T. (2004, April 26). Teachers say they need more face time with parents. The
Lansing State Journal.

Chavkin, N. F. (1989). Debunking the myth about minority parents. Educational
Horizons, 67(4), 119-23.

Christenson, S. L., Hurley, C. M., & Sheridan, S. M. (1998). Parents’ and school
psychologists’ perspectives on parent involvement activities. The School
Psychology Review, 26(1), 11 1-130.

Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., & Gomey, D. (1992). Family factors and student
achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success. School Psychology
Quarterly, 7(3), 178-206.

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential
connections for learning. New York: The Guilford Press.

105

Cochran, M., & Dean, C. (1991). Home-school relations and the empowerment process.
Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 261-169.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Comer, J. P. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach.
Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 271—77.

CTB/McGraw-Hill (2001). T erraNova technical report. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-
Hill.

CTB/McGraw-Hill (n.d.). T erraNova, the second edition. Retrieved June 16, 2004,
from the CTB McGraw-Hill Web site: http://www.ctb.com

Cummings, L. L., & Bromily, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (0T1):
Development and validation, in Kramer, R. and Taylor, T. (Eds), Trust in _
Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. '

 

Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in
inner-city elementary and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and
schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53-71). Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.

DiCamillo, M. P. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Linking theory
to practice. In Hiatt-Michael, D. B. (Ed), Promising practices for family
involvement in schools (pp. 153-83). Information Age Publishing: Greenwich,
CT.

Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion.
Human Relations, 13, 123-139.

Deutsch, M. (1973). Ihe Resolution of Conﬂict: Constructive and Destructive
Processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dunst, C.J., Johnson, C., Rounds, T., Trivette, C.M., & Hamby, D. (1992).
Characteristics of parent and professional relationships. In S.L. Christenson &
J .C. Conoley (Eds), Home-School Collaboration: Enhancing Children 's
Academic and Social Competence (pp. 157-174). Colesville, MD: NASP.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early
adolescent years. Teachers College Record, 94(3), 568-587.

Epstein, J. L. (1984). School policy and parent involvement: Research results.
Educational Horizons, 62(2), 70-72.

106

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 710-712.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing
educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Epstein, J. L., & Becker, H. J. (1992). Teachers’ reported practices of parent
involvement: Problems and possibilities. Elementary School Journal, 83(2), 103-
13.

Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997). School,
family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent
involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School
Journal, 91, 289-303.

Epstein, J. & Spann, M. B. (1993). School-home connection. Primary Place, 103(3), 15-
27, 22-23.

Erdos, P. L. (1983). Professional mail surveys. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Kreiger.

Falbo, R., Lein, L., & Amador, N. A. (2001). Parental involvement during the transition
to high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(5), 511-529.

Fine, M. J. & Simpson, R. L. (Eds) (1999). Collaboration with Parents and Families of
Children and Youth with Exceptionality (2“d ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.

Forsyth, P.B., Adams, C.M., & Barnes, LL. (2002). Parental T rust of School: Scale
Development. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association annual meeting: New Orleans, LA.

Hao, L., & Bonstead-Burns, M. (1998). Parent-child differences in educational
expectations and the academic achievement of immigrant and native students.
Sociology of Education, 71(3), 175-98.

Henderson, P. A. (1987). Effects of planned parent involvement in affective education.
School Counselor, 35(1), 22-27.

Hoy, W.K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). The Conceptualization and Measurement
of Faculty Trust in Schools: The Omnibus T -Scale. Unpublished manuscript.

107

Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical
conﬁrmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184-
209.

Hiatt-Michael, D. B. (2001). Promising Practices for Family Involvement in Schools.
Family School, Community, Partnership Issues, Volume I. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publications, Inc.

Holmes, J .G., & Rempel, J .K. (1989). Trust in close relationships: In C. Hendrick (Ed),
Close relationships (pp. 187-220). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s
education: Why does it matter? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310-31.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and
philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403.

Jacob, S. & Hartshome, T. (2003). Ethics and law for school psychologists (4th Ed. ).
New York: Wiley.

Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217-
230.

Kanner, L. (1971). Follow-up study of eleven autistic children originally reported in
1943. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 1, 119-145.

Kanner, L., & Eisenberg, L. (1955). Notes on the follow-up studies of autistic children.
In P. Hoch & J. Zubin (Eds.), Psychopathology of childhood (pp. 143-150). New
York: Grune & Stratton.

Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (3“1 ed.).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kramer, J .J . & Conoley, J .C. (Eds.). (1992). The eleventh mental measurements
yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Laureau, A. (1989). Home advantage. Philadelphia, PA: F ahner Press.

MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1992). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests, third
edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Masten, A. S. (2003). Developmental psychopathology as a unifying context for mental
health and education models, research, and practice in schools. School
Psychology Review, 32(2), 169-173.

108

Mattingly, D. J ., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L. & Kayzar, B. (2002).
Evaluating evaluations: The case of parent involvement pro grams. Review of
Educational Research, 72(4), 549-576.

McCullough, V. (1992). Testing and your child: What you should know about 150 of
the most common medical, educational, and psychological tests. New York:
Plume.

Michigan Department of Education. (n.d.). Michigan educational assessment program
(MEAP) frequently asked questions — Winter 2004. Retrieved May 11, 2004 ﬁ‘om
http://www.michigan.gove/mde

Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In R.
Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Myers, DR. (2000). Knowledge and family involvement in special education: The
effects of video-based training on verbal behavior, perceptions of competence,
and satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon,
Eugene.

National Association of School Psychologists (1992). Position Statement on Home-
School Collaboration. Bethesda, MD: Author.

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) http://nces.ed.gov/

Phelen, P., Davidson, A. L., & Yu, H. C. (1998). Adolescents ’ worlds: Negotiating
family, peers, and school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ramiriz, A. Y. (1980). Survey on teacher’s attitudes regarding parents and parent
involvement. School Communication Journal, 9(21), 21-39.

Redd, Z., Brooks, J ., & McGarvey, A. M. (2002). Educating America ’s Youth and What
Makes a Diﬁ’erence. Child Trends Research Brief Washington, DC: Child
Trends, Inc. (http://www.childtrends.org/pdf/k4/Brie£pdi)

Rempel., J .K., Holmes, J .G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 93-112.

Roades, M. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1998). Parent training and consultation: An
analysis of a homework intervention program. School Psychology Quarterly,
13(3), 241-64.

Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality, 35, 651-665.

109

Rotter, J .B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American
Psychologist, 35, 1-7.

Scanzoni, J. (1979). Social exchange and behavioral interdependence. In R. L. Burgess
& T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. New York:
Academic Press.

Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal
of Organizational Behavior. 15(5), 393-398.

Schweigert, W. A. (1994). Research methods and statistics for psychology. Paciﬁc
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Scott Stein, M. R., & Thorkildsen, R. J. (1999). Parent involvement in education:
Insights and applications from the research. Phi Delta Kappan International:
Bloomington, IN.

Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent
involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 301 -3 16.

Sheridan, S. M. (2003). Home/School/Community Collaboration: Connections for Kids.
Presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School
Psychologists. Toronto, CA.

Simon, B. S., & Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships:
Linking theory to practice. In Hiatt-Michael, D. B. (Ed.), Promising practices for
familyinvolvement in schools (pp. 1-24). Information Age Publishing:
Greenwich, CT.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S., Evelo, D. L. (1998). Dropout prevention for youth with
disabilities: Efﬁcacy of a sustained school engagement procedures. Exceptional
Children, 65(1), 7-21.

Smrekar, C. (1996). The impact of school choice and community (in the interest of
families and schools). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Spector, PE (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in organizational behavior
research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385-392.

Swinth, R. L. (1967). The establishment of the trust relationship. Journal of Conﬂict
Resolution, 11, 335-344.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and
empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334-352.

110

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisclipinary analysis of the nature,
meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-
593.

Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1990). Families, Professionals, and Exceptionality:
A Special Partnership (2"‘1 ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.

United States Department of Education (n.d.). Parent involvement: Title I, Part A non-
regulatory guidance. Retrieved December 1, 2004 from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/parentinvguide.doc

Vosler-Hunter, R.W. (1989). Changing roles, changing relationships: Parent and
professional collaboration on behalf of children with emotional disabilities.
Portland, OR: Portland State University, Research and Training Center on Family
Support and Children’s Mental Health.

Ysseldyke, J ., Dawson, P., Lehr, C., Reschly, R., Reynolds, M., & Telzrow, C. (1997).
School Psychology: A blueprint for training and practice II. Bethesda, MD:
The National Association of School Psychologists.

Zand, D. E. (1971). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust, power. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Zins, J. E., & Erchul, W. P. (1995). School consultation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology — III (pp. 609-624). Bethesda, MD:
The National Association of School Psychologists.

111