FAMILY RESOURCES USED IN SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HELEN ELIZABETH BELL 1973 ‘wx- \a. I. This is to certify that the _ » thesis entitled k. -. . FAMILY RESOURCES USED p _ IN SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES presented by Helen .Elia‘a'beth Bell has been accepted towards fulfillment .of the requirements for __r.h.D.._——- degree in MILES-logy 1 / M’mréw , Major professor LIBRARY Michigan Sum University ABSTRACT FAMILY RESOURCES USED IN SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES By Helen Elizabeth Bell This study was an investigation of family resources used when the family's first child was in first grade and of relationships of resources used to selected family characteristics. The child‘s education was viewed as a mutually-shared goal between family and school. Family resources used in carrying out joint functioning with other social systems have received little research attention. The study sample was comprised of mothers of children in 21 first grades in five elementary schools and their teachers. Names of children from intact families who were the first children to be in first grade were secured from school records. Ninety—seven interviews with mothers of families meeting the specified criteria were completed. About three-fourths of the families were in social class groups III (lower-middle) and IV (upper-lower). Median educational level of both mothers and fathers was 12 years. Estimates of frequency and extent of time use were sought to describe parental time inputs in school—related activities. Questions were asked about use of family money to provide items related to children's education. Parental involvement was greater in activities carried out at home than at school. It was also greater in activities directly related to children's learning than in those supplementary Helen Elizabeth Bell to schools' educational programs. Ninety-nine percent of the parents used time to discuss the schoolday with their children. Ninety-eight percent used time to assist children with schoolwork. The least involvement (27 percent) by parents was in helping with activities at school. In most families, parents helped children arise and dress before school. Most mentioned breakfast as part of the before-schoolday routine. While over three-fourths of the parents provided money for lunch and milk at school, less than half provided for their purchase every schoolday. Three-fourths of the parents bought reference materials for children's use at home. About half supplied treats for special occasions at school and items for school fund-raising events. School-related activities were arranged in three groupings which served as indicators of parental interest in helping further children's education. Point values were assigned grouped activities by the nature 03 frequency and extent of parental time inputs. From them, parental school involvement scores were computed for each family. A null hypothesis of no difference among families stratified by social class and parental school involvement scores was supported. A null hypothesis of no difference among families grouped by selected family characteristics and parental school involvement scores was re- jected. Statistically significant differences resulted when sub-score II (helping children learn) and total parental school involvement score were tested with family income. The need for further investi- gation of the relationship of family income to parental school involvement is indicated. Helen Elizabeth Bell Marginal relationship was obtained when sub—score III (helping with activities at school) was tested with families grouped by fathers' education. None of the results of parental school involve- ment scores tested with fathers' occupation, mothers' education, mothers' employment, mothers' membership in groups, sex of the first graders and number of other children in the families indicated relationships. Mothers' responses to an Open-ended question of help they thought schools wanted from parents were not related to the activities parents carried out. Nor were relationships found between mothers' and teachers' responses when each group was asked the help they thought schools wanted from parents. Findings indicated that parents were serving as co—educators with schools. Their help was aimed at learning-related activities. No attempt was made to measure quality of time parents used. Investiga— tion of quality of time use is needed. Public school educators need to plan ways of helping parents carry out the educative function effectively. Parents did not think of physical preparations for the children's schoolday as being school-related. Family management educators need to help parents plan for children's physical readiness for educability. Additional study of other factors such as parental values toward education, parental attitudes toward education and toward schools, personality factors that may be related to parental school involvement is indicated. FAMILY RESOURCES USED IN SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES By Helen Elizabeth Bell A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1973 OI \ 04 as To my mother who did not live to rejoice in the completion of this study but whose faith helped make it possible. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is expressed to the advisory committee members: Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, chairman, for her insightful guidance and counsel during all stages of the develOping study, to Miss Esther Everett for encouragement during the beginning phases of the study, to Dr. Jean Davis Schlater and Dr. Jay Artis who offered valuable criticisms, help and encouragement throughout; and, to Dr. E. Jane Oyer who willingly replaced Miss Everett on the committee and offered her support as the study drew to conclusion. Gratitude is expressed for the interest shown and wholehearted cooperation extended by Dr. Charles H. Walters, Dr. Luther B. Sowers and other school personnel in the School District of the City of York; and, to the parents of the first graders in York, Pennsylvania who graciously consented to be interviewed. Special thanks go to James Thomas, Director of the Statistical Laboratory in the College of Agriculture at The Pennsylvania State University, and his staff for assistance with coding, computer pro- gramming and analysis of data. Finally, a special word of appreciation to family and friends who persisted in encouraging and helping in many ways to make it possible that this study continue over the years it was being deveIOped and carried to completion. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................ LIST OF FIGURES ............................................... LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................ Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... Background of the Study ............................ Objectives ......................................... Assumptions ........................................ Hypotheses ......................................... Definition of Terms ................................ Conceptual Framework ............................... Limitations of the Study ........................... II. R—EVIEW OF TflE LITERATURE O...0.00000COOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO Family Resource Use O...0.0.0000000000000000000000CO Family-SChOOl RelationShj—ps O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O C O O O O O O O O Family-SChOOl Linkage O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O summary OOOOOOOOOCCCOOO0.0......O'COIOOOOOOOOCCCOOCO III. PRmEDURE 0.0...000......IOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOCOOOO0.000.... Selection and Description of the Sample ............ DeveIOpment and Description of the Instruments ..... Data COlleCtion 0.0.00.0...00.0.0...OOOOOOCOCIOOOCOO Data AnalySis OOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000000IIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IV. FINDINGS 0.00.00...00.0.0000...COCOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Part1 00.00.0000...00......OCOOCOOOOCOOIOCCCOOOOOOO Part 2 00......00......OOOOOCOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOCOO... V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS ................. summary Of the Study 0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOC iv Page vi xi xii \OOOVUIU'l-P'H I-' I—" O 10 21 29 55 55 55 1+8 54 60 61+ 61+ 95 118 118 REFERENCES APPENDICES DiscuSSion Of the StUdy .0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOCC Implications OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO Page 121 129 138 145 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. LIST OF TABLES Social Class Positions of Population .................. Fathers' Occupations .................................. Parents' Educational Attainment ....................... Occupations of Mothers in Paid Employment ............. Ages of Mothers and Fathers ........................... Schools, Classrooms and First Grade POpulation ........ Teachers Responding to Questionnaires ................. Number of Other Children .............................. Care Provided Younger Children When Parents Visited Schools ............................................... Mothers' Membership in Groups ......................... Family Income ......................................... Analysis of Data ...................................... Maximum Extent of Parental Involvement in School- related ACtiVitieS .0...’.......CCOCCCOCCCOCOOOOCOOCOOO Extent of Parental Involvement in School-related ACtiVitieS at Home OOOOOOOOO0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Parental Time Used for Two At-home School—related ACtiVities 00....OOOOCOOOOCOCCOCOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO Frequency With Which Parents Assisted With Schoolwork . Parental Time Used for Assisting Children With SCh001work OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO vi Page 1+0 41 L+2 43 43 1+5 45 1+6 47 1+8 62 65 66 67 68 69 Table 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 25. 21+. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 31+. 55. 36. Help Given Children in Preparing for the Schoolday .... Breakfast Before the Schoolday ........................ Number and Frequency of Parents Providing Lunch and Milk Money 0.......0.000000000000000000000000.0.0.0.... Each Time and Annual Costs of Providing Lunch and Milk Honey OCCCOOOCCOCOIOOOOCOOOOO00.00.000.000...0.... Handling of Childrens' Handiwork at Home .............. Extent of Parental Involvement in School-related ActiVities at SChOOl COOCOOOOCOOOIOOOOOOCCOO0.000000... Parental Time Used for Conferring with Teachers ....... Parental Time Used for Visiting Classrooms ............ Frequency With Which Parents Attended Special Programs at SChOOl 0.0.0.0.....CCOOOOOOOCCCOOC000...... Parental Time Used for Attending Special School Programs .............................................. Mothers Who Helped At School .......................... Mothers' Use of Time for At-school Activities ......... Frequency and Number of References Parents Supplied ... Approximate Annual Cost of Supplying References for Use at Home O....0.0.00....OOOOOOOCOCOOCCOOOOO0.0.0.... Frequency With Which Parents Sent Items to School Relating to a Unit Being Studied ...................... Frequency With Which Families Sent Treats to School ... Approximate Costs of Providing Treats for Special occaSionS 00......0.0..00.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOCCOOIOOOO... Frequency With Which Families Provided Items for SChOOl FMd-raiSing Events 00......OOOOOOOOOCOCOOCOCOOO Approximate Costs of Providing Items for School Fund- raiSing Events .0.COCOCOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0...0.. vii Page 69 7O 71 72 75 71+ 75 76 77 77 78 78 79 79 8O 81 82 82 83 Table 37. 38. 39. 1+0. #1. 1+2. 43. 45. 46. 1+7. 1+8. [+90 50. 51. 52. 53. 5A. Mothers' Expressed Ideas of the Help Schools Wanted From Parents O..0..0...COO...OOOOOCOOCOOOOOCOOCOOOOO... Teachers' Expressed Ideas of Help Schools Wanted From Parents OOIOOOCOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO Parental School Involvement Sub-score I .‘O............ Parental School Involvement Sub-score II Parental School Involvement Sub-score III ............. Parental School Involvement Total Score ............... Correlation Matrix for Twelve Variables ............... Summary of Means and Standard Deviations of Twelve Variables Measured Summary of One-way School Involvement Summary of One-way School Involvement DLSD Test of Means for 97 Families OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO Analyses of Variance: Parental and Family Social Class ............ Analyses of Variance: Parental and Family Income Categories ....... of Family Income Categories and Parental School Involvement Sub-score II .............. DLSD Test of Means of Family Income Categories and Parental School Involvement Total Score ............... Summary of One-way School Involvement Summary of One-way School Involvement Summary of One-way School Involvement Summary of One-way School Involvement Summary of One-way School Involvement Summary of One-way School Involvement Analyses of Variance: Parental and Fathers' Occupation ............ Analyses of Variance: Parental and Fathers' Education ............. Analyses of Variance: Parental and Mothers' Education ............. Analyses of Variance: Parental and Mothers' Employment ............ Analyses of Variance: Parental and Mothers' Membership in Groups .. Analyses of Variance: Parental and Sex of First Grade Children .... viii Page 85 87 90 91 92 94 96 97 98 101 102 103 101+ 104 105 106 106 107 Table 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 690 Summary of One-way Analyses of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Number of Other Children in Families OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO0..I.0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCO Chi Square Test of Parents Providing Supplementary Items and Selected Family Characteristics ............. Chi Square Test of Six Variables ...................... Chi Square Test of Mothers' Response: "No Help Wanted" and Parental Involvement in School-related ACtiVitieS COOOCOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00 Chi Square Test of Mothers' Response: "Assist With Learning" and Parental Involvement in School-related ActiVitieS .0...OOOOCCOOOOOOO0.0000000000COOOOOOCOCOIOO Chi Square Test Comparing Mothers' and Teachers' Responses to Question of What Help Schools Wanted From Parents 0..0......0.00....OOOOOOOIOCCOOOOOOCQOOOOO Summary of Activities Grouped for Parental School IHVOlvement score 0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00...0.. Scores Assigned Sub-score I, Question 2: Discussing the SChOOlday .0.0......OOCOOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOOO0.000.... Scores Assigned Sub-score I, Question 3: Visiting Classrooms 0....00......0..0..0......IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOICO Scores Assigned Sub-score I, Question 9: Sending Items for Study 00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Scores Assigned Sub-score I, Question 29: Helping Child Prepare for SChOOlday 00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO... Scores Assigned Sub-score I, Question 32: Items Made at SChOOl and Brought Home .0...‘................. Scores Assigned Sub-score II, Question 4: Conferring with Teacher About Schoolwork .............. Scores Assigned Sub-score II, Question 7: Assisting With SChOOlwork 0......OCOQOOOOOOOCOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Scores Assigned Sub-score II, Question 8: Reading to Child OOOOOOOOCCOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00 ix Page 107 110 112 113 114 116 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 Table 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. Scores Assigned Sub-score II, Question 19: Provided Materials for Special Projects ........................ Scores Assigned Sub-score II, Question 20: References Provided for Use at Home ................... Scores Assigned Sub-Score III, Question 6: Attending Programs at SChOOl .CODOCOCCCODCCCCOOOCCCCC.COCOCCOCOOO Scores Assigned Sub—score III, Questions 10-16: Helping at school .C...C...........‘C..............C... Scores Assigned Sub-score III, Question 1?: Sending Treats to SChOOl 00.0.0000...OOOCOOOCOOOOO0.00.00.00.00 Scores Assigned Sub-score III, Question 18: Sending Items for Fund-raising Events ..~...................... Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Family Social Class ................... Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Family Income Categories .............. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Fathers' Occupation ................... Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Fathers' Education .................... Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Mothers' Education .................... Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Mothers' Employment ................... Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Mothers' Membership in Groups ......... Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Sex of First Graders .................. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Number of Other Children in Families .OCOOOOCOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000... Page 166 167 168 169 170 170 172 172 173 174 175 175 176 177 177 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Model for Study of Family Resources Used in Sharing Educative Function With Schools and Relations to Family Characteristics ................................ 6 xi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Correspondence and Instruments ........................ 145 B. Parental School Involvement Scores .................... 156 C. Tables 0.0.0.0....OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO 171 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Tasks fundamental to the survival of a family are called func- tional requirements (Broderick, 1970). They are derived from the fact that no family can survive without a minimum level of order and morale among its members. Nor can a family survive unless able to manage its resources to support material needs and to keep the family Operating. Functional requirements have to do both with internal functioning of the family and with its relationship to the larger world. Home management helps a family create an environment in which members can perform, grow and deve10p as individuals and at the same time c00perate in attaining group goals (Paolucci, 1966). Management is generally regarded as a series of dynamic processes by which family members c0pe with ever-changing demands reflecting individual and group goals. One basic management process is the organization and utiliza- tion of the family's resources. Family use of resources for specified goals has been a tOpic of research by students of family management for many years. Money, time and energy have been the resources most often studied. The major emphasis has been upon their use for internal family maintenance activities. Studies of money, time, and energy used by families were begun when household production made an important economic con- tribution to family welfare. Deve10pment of manufacturing made domestic production not economical even for home consumption, according to Winch (1963). The shift from family farms to giant corporations as society's major productive units helped change the economic unity of the family. At the same time that economic interdependency was shifting, other family functions were being transferred to outside agencies. Education was one of them. Winch (1963) said, "As the practice of formal education grows in a society, the function of the family shifts from that of providing education to providing the Opportunity to be educated (p. 122)." As the system of public-supported education for all children develOped, most parents were content with a subordinate role. They thought that school personnel were the experts who knew best how to educate their children. The White House Conference on Children (1970) reported a move toward reciprocal functioning between families and social organizations rather than a subordinate relationship. Litwak and Meyer (1967) explored the idea of shared functions between family and school. They suggested that the family carries out aspects of the educative function it is best equipped to do and that the school carries out other aspects for which it is best equipped. Primary socialization of the next generation has and continues to take place within the family environment. But today's family is not equipped to provide the formal education needed by individuals who will move into the specialized activities of our technological society (Bell and Vogel, 1968). At a prescribed age, the family sends its child to school. The family and school then share responsibility for growth and development of the child. School attendance is a family goal, decided for the family by society but one in which most families concur. They want their children to go to school and to succeed in school. Because of compulsory attendance laws, some degree of OOOper- ation is required when children reach school age. The nature and extent of that OOOperation is likely to vary among families. According to Havighurst and Neugarten (1957), when a child enters school, the school will wield tremendous influence and will change his behavior in numerous ways but the school always Operates in some kind of relation to the family. Winch (1963) stated that the family provides the Opportunity to be educated. How? What do families do when providing this opportu- nity? DO they manage family resources to this end? If so, what resources and in what ways are they used? An investigation of the reciprocal functioning between family and school would supply infor- mation essential to helping families make more effective use of private resources. It could also lead to more adequate understanding of and use of the family's share of the public resources supporting schools. ;Sharing of the educative function by family and school offered an Opportunity to explore family resource input in one reciprocal rela- tionship. What resources did a family use? What school-related activities did parents carry out? Did parents share in school-related activities? What help did families think schools wanted of them? What help did teachers want from parents? Was there any difference in resource use attributable to a family's social class? What family characteristics were related to resources used for school- related activities? This study was designed to explore and describe the nature and extent of resources that mothers reported parents using in school- related activities and to determine relationships with selected family characteristics. OBJECTIVES The major Objective Of the study was to describe the utilization of family resources for school-related activities when sharing with the school the educating of first children to be in first grade and to investigate relationships with selected family characteristics. From this general statement, specific Objectives were formulated: 1. TO describe human and non-human resources families used in school-related activities when first children were in first grade . 2. To determine differences among families in social classes of resources used for school-related activities. 3. To determine relationships among resources used for school- related activities and selected family characteristics. #. TO describe the help mothers thought schools wanted and relationships to mothers' reported school-related activities. 5. To describe the help teachers said they wanted from parents and relationships to the help mothers thought schools wanted. Figure 1 presents the model for the study. ASSUMPTIONS Parents want children to succeed in school. School—related activities in which parents use family re- sources are family managerial activities. Parents make resource inputs into education in addition to taxes paid for support of schools. Teachers want help from parents Of children they teach. Mothers are knowledgeable about and are able to report use of family resources for school-related activities. Frequency and extent Of time used for school-related activities are indicators Of another human resource, parental interest in helping educate children. HYPOTHESES There is no difference in resources used for school-related activities among parents of social class groups. There is no difference in resources used in school-related activities and selected family characteristics. There is no relationship between provision of supplementary school items and selected family characteristics. There is no relationship between help mothers said they thought schools wanted and parental involvement in school- related activities. Objectives: To describe use of family resources in helping educate its first child. To determine differences in resource use by selected family characteristics. . . , . I Educating Family 5 Child To determine relationships I Teacher [f Parents of parental involvement in school-related activi- ' ties and selected family i 1 characteristics . Teachers' Mothers' statements statements Expectations 49' Expectations H Resource Use 1, Time Time as indicator Of interest Money t Group Frequencies *? Selected J, Family Character- Parental School (9 istics Involvement Scores Figure 1. Model for Study of Family Resources Used in Sharing Educative Function With School and Relations to Family Characteristics 5. There is no relationship between help mothers said they thought schools wanted and help teachers said they wanted from parents. DEFINITION OF TERMS School-related activities were defined as those specific acts identified by mothers which mothers and/or fathers carried out that were directly related to school attendance and to the pro- grams, both educational and supplementary, of the schools their children were attending. 3. Those school-related activities directly related to the schools' educational programs included: dis- cussing the schoolday, visiting classrooms, assisting children with schoolwork at home, conferring with teachers about children's schoolwork, reading to or listening to children read, sending materials to be used for special school projects, serving as teachers' aides, attending parents' nights and other programs at school. Those school-related activities supplementary to the schools' programs included: providing reference materials for children's use at home, accepting and displaying items at home that children made at school, helping children get ready for the schoolday, sending treats for school social functions, serving as room mothers, chaperones on field trips, cafeteria or playground assistants, taking part in a parent-teacher organization and helping with its activities.‘ 2. Resources used for school-related activities were defined as both human and non-human. a. Human resources were time and interest Of parents which were indicated by extent and frequency Of time used as measured in units of occurrences, hours, and minutes. b. Non-human resources were material goods and money parents chose to use to provide school-related items. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Our complex, technological society and the changing nature of family functions have led to interchanges with other social organi— zations. Reciprocal functioning between family and other social organizations is part of family managerial activities which contri- bute to the totality Of family living. The conceptual framework of this study combined two theoretical viewpoints, one from family management and the other from sociology. The family management viewpoint was stated by Paolucci (1966) when she said that home management centers its attention on the totality of living in the home, on individual and group goals of family members, and on alternative ways in which activities and resources can be organized and utilized for the achieving of those goals. A major group goal Of the family is the growth and develOp- ment Of individual members. The sociological theory dealing with linkages between two social systems was most relevant. Specifically, the theoretical viewpoint was that prOposed by Litwak and Meyer (1967) which they called the "balance theory Of coordination (p. 532)". They sug- gested that relations between primary groups and bureaucratic organizations may not be conflicting, as viewed by many sociologists, but rather are complimentary and that at some midpoint, the comple— mentary contributions of each are maximized. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 1. Frequency and extent of family resource use was estimated in this exploratory study. 2. Only quantity Of resources used were approximated. NO attempt was made to assess quality of resource use. 3. School-related activities were chosen arbitrarily to serve as indicators Of parental interest in helping children with their education. A. Only first grade children in one school district were included in the sample. 5. No effort was made to relate family resource use to children's school achievement. 6. NO information was sought as to taxes paid by families which help support the public school system. 7. Mothers were not asked about school clothing purchased, medical or dental check-ups provided, or other family expenditures that may have been prompted by school attendance. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE FAMILY RESOURCE USE Family centered purposive behavior by which means are used to achieve ends is a generally accepted definition Of management. The behavior is comprised Of a series of dynamic, interacting processes. Emphasis upon means or ends has shifted over the years, even though the definition has remained fairly constant. Resource use is one concept that has long been accepted as basic to family management. This core concept was explicated by the home management committee which convened to define the cognitive content of the field (Home Economics Seminar, 1961). The committee's classification of resources included: technological, social, and personal. Resources are means, recognized and evaluated as Offering utility to some end, requiring direction. The ends, or goals, are those outcomes desired by individual members and by the family as a group. Maloch and Deacon (1970) spoke Of goals and events as the demands to which a family responds by using its resources. Events were defined as pertinent occurrences to which one responds. Changing Nature of Family Resource Use At one time, home management served to direct a family's means toward the end Of physical maintenance activities benefitting the 10 11 family. Fitzsimmons (1950) said, "In the home, management is con- cerned with the acquisition, use and care Of resources in homemaking activities such as cooking, cleaning, baking, washing, ironing, care and education Of children, and general maintenance Of the home (p. h)". However, twenty years later, Nichols (1970) summarized the changing purpose and outcome Of resource use to that of family welfare. The goal not limited to housekeeping and physical maintenance of indi- vidual needs but a general statement of family welfare which reflects a broadened philOSOphical stance.- Schlater (1967) emphasized the broadened sc0pe and human- centeredness Of management; Management Operates in all aSpects Of the home and family situation. The sphere of home management was once viewed as confined to the work of the household; it was task-centered. Today we recognize that management is Operative in all aspects Of the home environment and in its relationships with the wider community of which the home is a part. The emphasis now is human-centered (p. 93). In this statement, Schlater recognized the interrelatedness Of home and community. Liston (1964) spoke of shared functioning with other social institutions as adding to family welfare, "As the family manages it is concerned not only with what goes on within the four walls Of the home but also with the functioning of the family in OOOperation with other social institutions toward the general welfare Of all (p. 56)". Gross and Grandall (1963) stated their belief that the aim of effective management was to use the family's resources in a way that would bring the greatest satisfaction to the family. These authors 12 added that it was important to recognize and use all kinds of re- sources, including community resources, in the achievement of family goals. Paolucci (1966) considered management to be Operational in the totality Of living, but limited it to home-centered spheres: Home management centers its attention on the totality Of living in the home; on the composite, plural, and common goals of members and the alternative ways in which home members and re- sources can be organized and utilized for the realization of home-centered goals (p. 338). Gross (1966) summarized when she said, The home economist in home management must see the handling of resources in the home as a human problem based on knowledge of human motivation and behavior. Without losing sight of the every day activities Of the home manager, she must be able to apply this knowledge to living in families (p. 452). Liston (196R) put it succinctly: Family management must be interpreted in social perspective because the family does not manage and human beings do not grow and develOp in a social vacuum (p. 55). Review Of these statements indicated general agreement that management encompasses the determination of family goals and the recognition, evaluation, and allocation of family resources toward achievement of the goals. There was indication that family activities outside the home were apprOpriately included in family managerial behavior. There were signs that managing toward the totality Of family living extended beyond that Of physical maintenance of the family. There were a few studies exploring a new emphasis upon the ends which evoke family managerial behavior. 13 Broderick (1970) saw a four-fold set Of functions a family must find ways of performing to survive. He presented a conceptual frame- work of interacting relationships among management, family relations, economics, and sociology. Using the social scientists' grouping of tasks into expressive and instrumental, Broderick differentiated into necessary internal and external interlocking sets Of functional re- quirements or tasks. As one example, he elaborated: One task that is uniquely focal to the family is the socialization of children . . . Although this task cuts across the instrumental—expressive line and involves significant transaction with the larger society, it may be assumed primarily to be one Of the chief jobs to be done in the family with young children (p. 2). Broderick described education as one Of the external tasks which the family related instrumentally. He said the family searches for ways to protect itself from demands of society or to use segments of it to implement the family's own internal tasks. The school, for example, aids in socialization of children. Ater and Deacon (1972) reported research in which they investi- gated the association between interpersonal relationships among family members and managerial behavior. The managerial behavior they defined was standards and accompanying satisfaction with re- sources allocated tO selected household tasks. The family relation- ship variables were marital agreement and social-emotional activity. Their findings supported the hypothesized association and indicated leads for other useful studies of the areas of intermesh between family management and family relationships. 14 Davey (1971) investigated the relationship of family interaction with family environment. Family interaction was defined as specified episodes Of shared activity which involved two or more family mem- bers. Davey found significant relationships existing between percentage of time mothers shared with their children and family interaction. Family interaction was not significantly increased by fathers' time shared with children. Davey also found that variables such as school time, time of day, weekend days and school vacation season were significantly related to total family interaction scores. Baker (1970) conceptualized a managerial - develOpmental frame- work. She examined managerial behavior as indicated by family resources used in creating an environment for educability of pre- school children. She viewed the family environment as a pervasive mix of economic, sociological, psychological and social psychologi- cal factors. Familngesource Use for School-related Activities Included in the review of family resource use studies are those in which investigation Of school-related activities was reported. According to Nolan and Tuttle (1959),"In the not too distant past, primary goods were produced as well as consumed in the home. The homemaker served an important economic function as a direct contributor to the production of the necessities Of living for the family (p. 1)". Investigation of time used for household activities has been a recurring research theme for 50 years. Walker (1969) compared time 15 used for household work by urban homemakers as indicated by studies covering a span of #0 years; total time was not lessened during those years. Walker (1969) said, "Families seem to have changed the 'mix' of their time use but have not really reduced total work time (p. 622)". A similar comparison was reported by Hall and Schroeder (1970) with similar conclusions. The time studies by Walker (1969), Wiegand (195#) and Warren (1940) in New York state were based upon a task-oriented, house- keeping interpretation Of homemakers' activities. Both Wiegand and walker included homemakers employed in the labor force. They measured effect of the hours worked away from home upon homemaking work time and practices. The three New York studies, as well as time use studies done elsewhere, included measures of time used for physical care Of family members. Warren (19#0) found so much time being used for care of young children that she included questions about the ages at which mothers started teaching routine activities such as drinking from a cup, undressing and brushing teeth. Wiegand (1954) said that her measured "care Of family members" was interpreted as including physical assistance to children and adults. "The care of children included dressing, feeding, bathing, putting them to bed, taking them to and from school or the doctor's Office, and helping them with lessons. It did not include such activities as playing with them or reading to them (p. 29)". Walker's (1969) study was built around the major hypothesis that time used for household work by the homemaker varies with the total number Of children in the family and with their ages. She 16 found that both variables do affect total time used by homemakers for household work. Walker's findings, not yet reported completely, indicated that activities with and for their children affected mothers' use of time. It is possible to interpret Walker's (1969) definition of household work as indicating a need for exploring time use for other than housekeeping tasks and physical care of family members. She said: Household work has been broadly defined for the study to mean those activities which enable the family to Operate as a family in today's world, or those household activities performed to pro- vide the goods and services which the family uses (p. 621). Going out from the family's home to take part in the work of the world, whether it be paid employment, school, providing goods and services for family use, or community involvement, then returning to gain support and encouragement from other members of the family is one way of enabling the family to Operate in today's world. Another research approach has been to study family task allo- cation among family members. Johannis (1957) found that child care was the family activity shared by parents more than any other activity. He found that about 45 percent of mothers and fathers shared in helping children with their school work. Mothers, primarily, saw to it that their children arose on time in the morning although some fathers also assumed this responsibility. Parker (1966) looked at task distribution within the family and found that mothers and fathers shared responsibilities in the area 17 of child care. Among the families, 30 percent of both mothers and fathers supervised schoolwork. The Nolan and Tuttle (1959) study Of employed wives explored the assistance parents gave children with their lessons. When wives were employed, husbands were more likely to assist children with lessons. Husbands in farm families were less likely to help children with lessons than were either non-farm husbands or those Of employed wives. While school-related activities were not listed per se, Ketchum (1961) found that mothers mentioned time used for such activities. She sought the values underlying reported family activities. Ketchum found school-related statements in two value classifications. One value classification was helpfulness. Mothers' statements class- ified for helpfulness were: "Getting children Off to school,P and, "Bathing children so they'll be clean and ready for school." A second value classification was family life. Mothers' statements classified for family life were: "I like to be interested in children's schoolwork," and, "He needs encouragement with his schoolwork (Ketchum, 1961, p. #1)." Three studies of historical importance to the management field explored a mix Of factors that were thought to be aspects of managerial practices. Dickens (1943) looked at the effects Of good household management on family living and found that specified characteristics of the "good" manager did relate positively to levels of family living. Those wives who were rated as the better managers belonged to more educational clubs and sought information from outside sources more Often than did wives rated as less 18 effective managers. Children Of better managers belonged to more educational clubs than did children of less effective managers. Gross and Zwemer (1944) investigated the influence Of selected factors upon the management Of material and human resources in the home; they considered both present use and long time plans for use Of resources; they looked at families in three economic groups. Among the 382 families surveyed, five-sixths Of them had plans for children's formal education; higher education was probably their intent. These plans were held by 90 percent of the families in the comfort income group, by 86.5 percent Of the medium income group, and by 72.6 percent Of the low income group. VanBortel and Gross (1954) investigated similarities and dif- ferences in managerial practices between upper and lower socio- economic group homemakers. School activities were mentioned by both groups in the daily time records each homemaker kept for one week. The average weekly time Of 49.2 minutes used by upper group homemakers was greater than the weekly average Of 16.2 minutes used by lower group homemakers. There was a statistically significant difference between the number of women who participated in school activities, the upper group having more women who did participate than the lower. More upper than lower group women indicated college education for children as part Of their plans for the future. VanBortel and Gross (1954) sought information about homemakers' participation in community affairs: P.T.A. was selected as a specific organization to represent a typical community activity whose membership was Open equally to both groups. In direct questioning, 14 lower and 19 upper group women reported participation in P.T.A. (p. 33). 19 Indirect measures revealed that more homemakers from the lower socio- economic group than from the upper said participation in community affairs was important but did not follow through by actually partici- pat ing 0 A study by Honey, Britton, and Hotchkiss (1959) investigated decision making and family financial resource use. It was carried out in a rural area consisting of both farm and non-farm homes. 0f the 426 families included, 25 percent reported plans for the educa- tion of their children. It is assumed that higher education was their intent. There is limited research relative to school-related expendi- tures when children are in elementary and secondary schools. According to Gross and Crandall (1963): In most studies of use of income, expenses for education are grouped in "other" and "miscellaneous" and so are not available for study . . . . Elementary and secondary education in America are examples Of the tremendous con- tribution the community makes to the total real income of individual families. . . . The amount spent for edu- cation (by the family) is not in proportion to its significance; compulsory education laws indicate more accurately the importance American families place upon formal education (pp. 172-173). While the data are not now available, the assumption remains that families choose to make expenditures for items they feel will help their children while at elementary and secondary school levels. In summary, over the years home management research has included studies of use Of single resources for family maintenance activities. Those resources most frequently studied were money, time, and energy. Research focus has been to learn patterns of resource use by families or individuals. 20 Deacon (1962) presented a rationale for the home management research focus when she said that money, time, and energy are evalu- ative and permit the study of interrelationships: Money and time permit comparisons of various uses for resources in terms Of alternative costs; they also provide a basis for evaluating all resources which are available to a family and measurable in terms of time or money (p. 761). None of the studies reviewed investigated time used for school- related activities, per se. Several included a category of time use called care Of family members; its intent was that Of physical care. There were indications, however, that time used in activities with children was an important component of homemakers' total time use. Some studies of family tasks allocation mentioned school-related activities but did not specify beyond general statements Of helping with homework. Child care has been found to be one activity that parents shared. Studies that investigated a mix Of managerial prac- tices of homemakers included a few clues to school-related activities. There was little evidence of expenditures for school-related items when children were in elementary and secondary schools. Research findings and management literature supported the use of time as a measurement of human resources invested by families. Lack Of findings suggested the need to investigate allocation of money re- sources for school-related expenditures when children are in elementary grades. Students of family management encouraged an ex- panded interpretation of family managerial activities including reciprocal relationships with other social organizations. 21 FAMILY-SCHOOL RELATIONSHIPS The family holds primary importance as a socializing agent but at age five or six, it sends its child to school where he becomes involved with another important socializing agent, the school. The child is primarily a product of his family's training when he enters school (Havighurst and Neugarten, 1957). Whether or not there is active, direct communication between school and family, they share in the child's school participation. The school's influence is always carried out in relation to the influence of the family. From an historical perspective, said Havighurst and Neugarten (1957), the school as a social institution has had an ever-enlarging set Of functions to perform in the socializing process and an increasingly important place in the life of the child. As they viewed it, the American school system performs two essential functions. One of them is interpreting and transmitting the values Of society and inducting children into their society. The second is to improve society by promoting its ideals and by helping children make their maximum contributions to the community. Educating its young is probably a society's second most funda- mental task, second only tO the problem of organizing itself to carry out actions as a society. Once organized, if society is to maintain itself, the young must be shaped to fit into the roles on which society's survival depends (Coleman, 1961). According to Williams (1960), a complex, technologically advanced society, greatly dependent upon science and rapidly changing, requires an 22 elaborate system of instruction and indoctrination if it is not to regress to simpler levels. As viewed by Bell and Vogel (1968), rise of the elaborate system of instruction necessitates a functional interchange between family and school: The nuclear family is becoming almost exclusively responsible for primary socialization and sociali- zation for family participation, but it does not provide the formal education to equip a person for more specialized activities outside the family (p. 8). In exchange, the family expects its children to be adequately pre- pared for entrance into the mainstream of American life. Such inter- changes between family and other social organizations are always two- way processes, although they may not be exactly balanced in the short run (Bell and Vogel, 1968). Schultz (1971) expressed a greater return than accommodation to society's survival. He suggested that industrialized societies' in- vestment in human capital has grown at a much faster rate than investment in non-human capital and that this growth may well be the most distinctive feature of modern economic systems. Two Of the five categories of activities Schultz identified as improving human capital are the formally organized system of education at elementary, second- ary, and higher levels; and informal study programs for adults. Within this strong value commitment, American society has created a system of tax-supported public education available to all and en- forced by compulsory attendance laws. Control Of a community's schools remains in the hands Of locally selected governing groups. 25 Local control leads tO vast differences in school systems but they do, generally, reflect the dominant values of the community. School districts have become large bureaucratic organizations as tasks have increased in complexity and as student enrollments have grown. One indication of the shift from small community school dis- tricts to large, formal organizations, is the decline of one-teacher schools from over 10,000 in 1929 to 241 in 1960 in Pennsylvania (Governor's Committee on Education, 1960). In that same period, almost 20 percent more pupils attended one— third as many schools. At the end Of the 1945 school year, Pennsyl- vania had a net school enrollment of 1,539,680 pupils in 2,544 school districts possessing 9,301 school buildings. By the end of the 1965 school year, there were 2,213,099 pupils in 1,870 school districts possessing 4,633 buildings (Pennsylvania Statistical Abstract, 1967). While the educational system has arisen from a belief in its importance, Bell and Stub (1968) thought that Americans often paid lip service to the broad values Of education but were really only inter- ested in the short run, practical payoff. It may be that community members, and in particular parents, feel as though they don't under- stand the structured bureaucracy that schools have become, they may feel remote from schools, or that they are lacking in the ability tO know what schools should be doing and consequently leave the school policy and programs to the "experts". Frankena (1970) considered it important that we conceive Of the family as educative in function. He said it is likely that some of the trouble today is due to the fact that parents have slighted this function leaving it tOO much to the schools. 24 Parents have remained passive for decades, assuming that the school "experts" knew best what educational methods to use. Presently, however, many parents are actively urging school reforms that they feel are essential. Turmoil in the 1960's arose over the educational system and its inability, as viewed by many critics, to meet the changing needs Of society. Fantini (1969) found actions by a group of parents Of East Harlem in the fall Of 1966 to be a significant turning point in parent-school relationships. They effectively prevented the Opening Of one New York city school. Their action became a symbol against the insensitivity and unresponsiveness of a large school bureaucracy to the concerns and aspirations of a community. From that beginning has come a different approach to urban school reform which Fantini expres- sed as a rekindling of principles that have long been held as central to quality education. As he described, "They are public accounta— bility and control of education. It is the public that decides on policies and Objectives for the school; it is the public that delegates to the professional the role Of implementer and reserves for itself the role Of accountant (p. 26)." One working group in the White House Conference on Children (1970) stated its belief that school plays a central role in the lives of children and their parents. The school is in a position to enhance or weaken the relationship between children and adults. One Of their recommendations was, "That the school, and more specifically, teachers should assume central responsibility for establishing and maintaining meaningful relationships between children and adults in all walks of life (p. 246)." Another urged that parents and children be actively 25 involved in formulating school policies and curricula . . . after all, "American schools are public institutions (p. 247)." Parents have long been involved in their children's education. An extensive literature reported investigations into parental influence upon children's achievement in school and upon children's aspirations for additional schooling. Differences in school achievement and aspiration related to families' social class positions have also been studied. These reports will not be elaborated here. Most investi— gators found significant relationships between parental attitudes and values regarding school and academic achievement of their children. Most studies also found significant relationships between social class indicants and other variables measured (e.g. Hillard and Roth, 1969; Sewell, Haller and Portes, 1969; Herriott, 1963; Strodtbeck, 1961; Rosen, 1961; and Kahl, 1953). A few studies assumed that neighborhood schools reflected the socio-economic status of families living in the neighborhood and in- vestigated achievement or aspiration of youth attending those schools (e.g. McDill, Rigsby and Meyers, 1969; McDill, Meyers, and Rigsby, 1967; Boyle, 1966; and Krauss, 1964). One longitudinal study was based on the assumption that parents were "significant others" in the lives of their school-aged children and that interaction between parents and their children had an effect upon children's school achievement and upon expectations for additional schooling (see Joiner, Erickson and Brookover, 1969; and Brookover, Erickson and Joiner, 1967). 26 In one phase Of this study, parents were educated in ways Of relating to their children in the role Of "significant other". The results indicated a significant increase in grades of children in the experimental group (Brookover, LePere, Hamachek, Thomas, and Erickson, 1965). Baker (1970) explored the family as environment for educability. She hypothesized that resources defined as Objects, events, activities, or persons within the home are available and may be used as ways Of helping prepare the preschool child for successful participation in the education system. From her study, Baker conceptualized a profile Of family resourcefulness for educability made up Of three groupings of resources considered to be necessary in three environmental prOperties Of relevance to educability. In a study of mother's role in socializing her child into the behavior expected Of pupils in an urban school Hess and Shipman (1966) said: The social and cultural distance between home and school is sometimes taken to indicate a lack of effort on the part Of teachers or a lack Of motivation on the part Of parents. It seems more likely that neither is true and that attempting to fix the blame on either evades and confuses the more fundamental problems in the structure of society (p. 3). Hess and Shipman (1966) concluded that the images mothers hold of school and probably transmit to their children come from the fact that mothers regard school as a distant and formidable institution with which they have little interaction and over which they exercise little control. 27 This study and others that came into being during the 1960's resulted from serious questions raised about the failure Of the schools to make education relevant to children disadvantaged by race, place Of residence and/Or family background. Societal concern led to programs of compensatory education funded by the federal government. According to Kerckhoff (1968), "Consistent with American values, a major approach to society's campaign against poverty is directed at the children Of the poor and utilizes the mechanisms of education (p. 346)." Reports Of pilot efforts in schools in many parts Of the nation are to be found in the educational research literature. And, guides to school administrators and teachers are being published, as illustrated by one Office Of Education publication (Meeting Parents Halfway, 1970). One current trend is the direct involvement Of parents in the schools and in their children's education. It seems, however, that one group of parents has been singled out. Wilkerson (1970) analyzed the programs of compensatory education as an expedient alternative to school integration. Most if not all Of these special programs have been undertaken to provide school experiences designed to compensate for supposed inadequacies in the early develOpmental experiences Of children from impoverished homes. Wilkerson found that almost all programs stressed community involvement through home visits by teachers, parental participation in field trips, meetings of parents and teachers, and use of special school-community coordinators serving as gO-betweens to family and school. 28 Operation Headstart is an example of a pOpular action program. Announced in February, 1965, it was launched Officially in July Of that year. It was intended as a summer experience to stimulate pre- school children's intellectual and creative abilities. Plans were included fOr involvement of parents in the total educational effort. Kerckhoff (1968) said there has been increasing recognition that the value of good work with children is depreciated if parents do not cooperate with the program of the school. Kerckhoff (1968) reviewed the programs that had, to date, been based on teaching parents to teach their children. Those programs included guided Observations by parents Of their children in inter- action with teachers in preschool situations; use Of a "Parents' Pledge of COOperation" which asked parents to promise to provide certain educational aids and support to their children; lists Of activities they should carry out at home; and sessions at which parents were presented materials and ways to use them which they, in turn, were supposed to use with their children. Kerckhoff concluded that a review of these programs raised problems in addition to methodological ones. His questions pertained to parents as teachers of their own as well as other parents' children or as teachers of other parents. In summary, a working relationship between family and school has been viewed as desirable, benefitting both children and society. Costs to families of carrying out the relationship have not been in- vestigated. Until the recent past, parental cooperation with schools has been limited to informal visits, attendance at school programs, 29 conferences with teachers, participation in parent—teacher organi- zations and their activities. Parental COOperation has been sought as a way of increasing schools' effectiveness. Recently, educators have been moving from a locked—door to an Open-door policy indicating an awareness that maximum education is more likely to occur where family and school are brought closer to- gether (Litwak and Meyer, 1967). They are coming to realize that a child's motivation to learn is an important part of his ability to receive education and that everyday continual encouragement is also necessary if he is to be well educated (Litwak, 1968). The turmoil of the 1960's led to infusion of vast amounts of federal money into programs of compensatory education. These pro- grams brought about an involvement Of parents in school activities not tried before. The aim was to help make successful the special education programs designed for their children. Often parents singled out for involvement were those considered to be disadvan- taged in some way: economically, socially, culturally, by race, by sex, or by middle-class standards. FAMILY-SCHOOL LINKAGE Families have long been involved in their children's education. For most families the involvement has been informal and from the sidelines. Societal changes have helped pinpoint the need to in- volve parents formally and directly in schools' educational programs. Schools are seeking ways to do so effectively. Students of the family must be able to help families prepare to meet these new . demands. The White House Conference on Children (1970) reported 30 that: One significant research finding of the past decade on emergent family forms and activities in a rapidly changing society is that families function more in a reciprocal than a subordinate relationship with existing social organizations and that institutions are expecting more recipro- city in such dealings (p. 231). The idea of the reciprocal relationship was supported by literature from family sociologists studying the linkages between social systems. In particular, develOpment of ideas about linkages between primary groups and bureaucratic organizations. Talcott Parsons (1959) ad- vanced the belief that structure Of the isolated nuclear family was necessary for the survival Of a complex industrialized society. He thought that a nuclear family was free to move when an employment Op- portunity Offered by a bureaucratic organization made it necessary. As industrialized society developed, so did division Of labor. Family and formal organization functioned each in its own sphere and did not interfere with the functioning of the other. Social sci- entists also believed that while the functions assigned the family were reduced, those remaining were highly specialized and essential to both family and societal maintenance. Litwak (1968) suggested that Parsons' structural analysis did not go far enough. Rather than a primary group and bureaucratic organi- zation functioning at different poles, he prOposed that they function on a continuum with both working toward achievement Of a common goal. Litwak (1965) looked at family structure and suggested that the family was not limited to performance of a few specialized functions. He believed that the family actively intervened in many, if not all, functions important to it. It did, however, contribute only part in 31 each area to the achievement of the goal; the other part was contri- buted by a formal organization. According tO Litwak (1968), the bureaucratic organization was ideally suited to deal with problems requiring technical knowledge and a concentration Of resources. It Offered trained experts with maximum knowledge and experience which could be brought tO bear on a problem. In some situations the trained expert was needed and in others, the trained expert could Offer little advantage over one un- trained. The primary group could best handle problems requiring little technical knowledge. The primary group was best equipped to deal with a complex situation where technical knowledge could not be put together in time, or where knowledge was so limited or lacking that the untrained was as well able to act as was the trained exPert. Litwak and Meyer (1967) proposed calling uniform those areas in which the bureaucratic organization could best Operate and nonuniform the areas in which the primary group was most effective. Further, they argued that both uniform and nonuniform tasks were to be found in most areas Of social endeavor; therefore, both primary and bureaucratic group organizational forms were involved. While close COOperation between the two is necessary for achiev- ing goals, the primary group and bureaucratic organization do have antithetical atmospheres (Litwak, 1968). Their very difference in form accounts for the differential efficiency with which they deal with tasks. It seemed to Litwak and Meyer (1967) that there is a midpoint somewhere on the continuum at which the complementary con- tributions of both organizations are maximized. They gave this 32 theoretical viewpoint the name "balance theory of coordination" and prOposed it as an alternative to linkage theory that views relations between social forms as conflicting (p. 532). Litwak and Meyer (1967) explored an application Of their "balance theory of coordination" to the school and family. Linkage between family and school arose from their common goal, that Of education Of children. Sussman (1969) accepted the Litwak and Meyer conceptualization and said that most work done, to date, was a study Of the bureau- cratic organization's portion Of the continuum. He believed it necessary to look at the reciprocal relationship from the family's point of view. Sussman suggested that linkage is both a process and condition; if viewed as a state of being then it can be described. He believed that the family may be viewed as both dependent and in- dependent variable, adapting and influencing behavior of its members and outsiders simultaneously. At another writing, Sussman (1968) said that one cannot generalize about the adjusting posture of the family or any other social institution with which it interacts. At best, one can identify problems, the positions assumed, and the mechanisms employed to achieve accommodation. An investigation and description of the family's input to a linkage with a social organization will serve as a necessary first step. Sussman (1971), continuing to develop his ideas around the Litwak and Meyer viewpoint said, "The families which 'make it' are those which have become aware of and use Options and develOp suc- cessful linkages with nonfamily organizations (p. 47)." Families 53 function with varying degrees Of proficiency. Included in their main tasks, as Sussman (1970) viewed them were: to develop the ability to socialize children; to enhance the competence of family members to cape.with the demands of organizations in which they must function; and, to utilize those organizations. According to Sussman, the com- petency of the family in managing these societal relationships is becoming increasingly important. SUMMARY Litwak, Meyer, and Sussman wrote from the belief that the family is actor more than being acted upon in interaction with formal or- ganizations. Their conceptualizations imply action by families. Those family activities which make possible the reciprocal relationships with other social organizations make up part of the totality of family living. Determination of use Of family resources is an element of family managerial behavior. Empirical testing of family resources used when family and school share the educative function will add to the information students of family management need when helping families improve managerial behavior. The literature supported the contention that it was appropriate to explore what parents and teachers thought parents could contri— bute to their joint effort of educating children. Additionally, to investigate what resources parents used in carrying out the school- related activities they thought necessary to children's school parti- cipation. Indications Of differences in school-related attitudes among families in different social classes supported the search for 34 relationships among social class positions, selected family charac- teristics and resource use. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE This study is an exploratory investigation of family resources used in school-related activities when a family's first child was in first grade and Of the relationships between resource use and selected family characteristics. It is descriptive in that it summarizes the nature and extent Of the resource use reported by mothers. Five first grades in one school district made up the study sample. School records were made available to the investigator who sought names of first children to be in first grade. Only names of children and parents constituting intact families were used. A total of 116 names were recorded. From that total, 97 useable schedules were obtained when mothers were interviewed. Teachers from 21 classrooms in the five first grades were surveyed by questionnaire which was made up of questions similar to those asked Of mothers. Their teaching service ranged from one to 38 years. Procedures followed for the study will be discussed in the following sections: selection and description of the sample, develOpment and description Of the instruments, data collection, and data analysis. 35 36 Selection Of the Sample The sample was a non-probability, purposive one selected to con- form tO established criteria. It was selected within one school district encompassing a moderate-sized Pennsylvania city of 50,335 total pOpulation. Intact families whose first child was in first grade during the spring of the year following the child's entrance to first grade were specified. One school district sufficiently large to include young families across social class strata was sought. Specification Of one school district was considered to be a control Of variables. It was thought that administrative policy regarding Open or closed-door philoSOphy and availability of such things as school lunch in all schools, workbooks, and other school supplies to all children at no additional expense to parents would be constant. Families whose first child was in first grade were specified to maintain equality between families and to utilize the impact of first experiences. Since previous experience may lead tO habitual responses, it was thought that first experiences with formal school organizations would make more evident to parents changes in patterns of family resource use due to school attendance. Census data were searched for areas of population concentration. County and City Data Book (1967), a compilation of 1960 census data, was consulted. Total county pOpulations by age were noted. POpulation counts for those six and seven years Old in areas Of pOpulation density were recorded. Median family incomes for each county and percentage Of those having family incomes under 33,000 and 310,000 and over were recorded. Counties having a moderate-sized 37 city, with a proportion of young families sufficiently large to suggest a sample Of 100 first children in first grade were noted. Count of families evidencing fairly equitable distribution among the two census income categories was recorded. One other consideration, accessibility, was important to the investigator. It was as a result Of the second contact made with a school district late in 1971 that study plans were initiated. An affirmative answer was received from the Superintendent Of Schools of the School District Of the City Of York, Pennsylvania. The Educational Programs Committee of the city's school directors had approved the investi- gator's request to use the York City School District as study locale. Full cOOperation was Offered within school district policy. 1970 census data gave the York, Pennsylvania city pOpulation as 50,335 (U. S. Department of Commerce, August, 1971). The city constituted about 41 percent of the total urbanized area. None of the schools in suburban areas were included in the school district. The city Of York covered a 4.5 square mile area (Pennsylvania Industrial Census Series, 1970). Manufacturing constituted the second largest group Of business enterprises in York COunty being surpassed only by agriculture. The greatest concentration of industry was around the city Of York where the city, plus two boroughs and four townships surrounding it contained 299 plants. Those plants employed 34,411 workers at total wages and salaries of $261.7 millions of dollars in 1970 (Pennsylvania Industrial Census Series, 1970). 38 Per capita income in York County in 1968 was 33,439, somewhat higher than Commonwealth per capita income which was 33,413. The unemployment rate in York County was a little over'two percent of the Commonwealth's total unemployed in 1970 (Pennsylvania Industrial Census Series, 1970). Within the boundaries of the school district, there were eleven elementary schools with 37 classrooms containing first grade students. As of February, 1972, there were 852 first graders attending the city schools. At the discretion of school administrators, five schools with 21 first grade classrooms were assigned to the study. They were chosen by an assistant school superintendent on the basis of size and social class composition. At a second visit to the school district's administrative Offices, copies of the tentative interview schedule and letter to be sent to parents were presented for review and suggestions. The school superintendent and his assistant superintendent who was working most closely with the study reviewed the instruments. A time schedule for collecting information concerning families and a tentative schedule for the interviewing were discussed. Early in April, 1972, two and one half days were spent visiting the five schools. The assistant superintendent Of schools introduced the investigator to school principals and authorized access to school records. In each school, full cooperation was extended, the records were made available and a place provided where they could be perused. One hundred sixteen names that seemed to fulfill the specified criteria were recorded. Names of families' first children entering first grade, names, addresses and phone numbers of parents and 39 and employers of parents were recorded where the information was available on the school's cumulative records. Visits to the schools by the investigator were of benefit in addition to collecting names. School principals were interested in learning about the study and the rationale for its design. The investigator was able to explain procedures to be followed in subse- quent contacts with the school and with parents. Several principals reported phone calls from parents after receipt of introductory letters to assure themselves that the study was approved by school officials. Principals were asked if letters and questionnaires might be left in mail boxes for first grade teachers Of those classrooms included in the sample. Permission was granted in each school. In two of the schools, principals escorted the investigator to first grade rooms where she was introduced to the teachers, giving her the Opportunity to explain the study to teachers as well as to collect records from them. Description Of the Sample Hollingshead's Two Factor Index of Social Positions (1957), was used to determine social class positions of families in the study. The area within the boundaries Of the school district encompassed the central city. The study's sample was primarily working class families. However, there were 11 percent in the two upper class groups and 15 percent in the lowest indicating a trend toward the spread Of social class strata intended in the study design. 40 Table 1 summarizes social class positions of the families. Table 1. Families' Social Class Based on Factors of Fathers' Education and Occupation POpulation Social Glass Range of Computed (N = 97) Groups Scores No. Percent I (upper) 11-17 5 5.2 II (upper-middle) 18-27 6 6.2 III (lower-middle) 28-45 18 18.6 IV (upper—lower) 44-60 55 54.6 V (lower-lower) 61-77' 15 15.5 Hollingshead devised the index Of social class positions on educational attainment and occupation of father. sample fathers fell into three occupational groups. Over half of the Fathers' occupations are shown in Table 2. Educational attainment Of both mothers and fathers are summarized in Table 3. 41 Table 2. Fathers' Occupations Fathers (N = 97) Occupations NO. Percent Higher executives and major professionals 5 5.2 Business managers, lesser professionals, 5 5.2 proprietors of medium-sized businesses Administrative personnel, minor professionals 17 17.5 small independent businesses Technicians, clerical and sales; owners of 17 17.5 small businesses Skilled manual employees 31 32.0 Machine Operators and semi-skilled 17 17.5 employees Unskilled employees and unemployed 5 5.2 42 Table 3. Parents' Educational Attainment Mothers Fathers Education (N = 97) (N = 97) Completed No. Percent NO. Percent less than 8 years -- ---- 2 2.1 8 up to 12 years 20 20.6 21 21.6 12 years 58 59.8 48 49.5 12 years plus some college, 12 12.4 16 16.5 vocational or technical courses 4 years college 5 5.2 1 1.0 4 years college plus 2 2.1 8 8.2 graduate study NO answer -- ---- l 1.0 About 60 percent of the mothers were high school graduates. Fifty percent of the fathers were high school graduates. More fathers than mothers had some education beyond high school. About twenty percent of both mothers and fathers stOpped their education short of earning a high school diploma. Two percent of the fathers had less than eight years of schooling. NO mother had that few years of school attendance. When interviewed, 38 percent of the mothers were working at paid employment. Of those, 18.6 percent were employed full-time and the remaining 19.6 percent were working part-time. Classification by type Of mothers' employment is shown in Table 4. 43 Table 4. Occupations of Mothers in Paid Employment Employed mothers (N = 37) Occupations NO. Percent Lesser professionals 3 3.1 Technicians, clerical and skilled manual 22 22.7 Sales 7 7.2 Unskilled 5 5.2 Ages Of parents were secured as part of demographic data. Parents' ages are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Ages Of Mothers and Fathers Mothers Fathers (N = 97) (N = 97) Age Groups NO. Percent No. Percent 20-29 72 74.2 36 37.1 30-39 24 24.7 52 53.6 40-49 1 1.0 8 8.2 50-59 -- ---- 1 1.0 Criteria for selection specified that a family's first child be in first grade, but sex of the child was not specified. The pOpulation included 53.6 percent boys and 46.4 percent girls. 44 The schools, by number Of classrooms and number of first grade pupils meeting study criteria, are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Schools, Classrooms and First Grade Sample First Grade Classrooms First Grade Students (N = 21) (N = 97) School NO. NO. Percent A 5 28 28.9 B 4 6 6.2 c 5 8 8.2 D 4 19 19.6 E 5 36 37.1 Questionnaires were completed and returned by 13 teachers at the time the interviews were conducted. All four teachers in School B responded. Shortly after the start of the school year in the fall of 1972, letters and questionnaires were sent to first grade teachers in the other four schools. They were asked to complete and return questionnaires if they had not done so the previous spring. Two additional questionnaires were received. Fifteen of the 21 teachers returned questionnaires, a 71 percent return. Table 7 shows teachers who responded by school. 45 Table 7. Teachers Responding to Questionnaires First grade teachers Those returning (N = 21) questionnaires (N = 15) Schools No. NO. Percent A 5 4 80.0 B 4 4 100.0 C 5 2 66.6 D 4 2 50.0 E 5 3 60.0 Number and ages Of other children in the family were thought to have some effect on mothers' ability to participate in school-related activities, especially those that took them away from home. Table 8 shows number of other children. Table 8. Number of Other Children Families (N = 97) Number No. Percent 3 7 7.2 2 23 23.7 1 52 53.6 0 . 15 15.5 Eighty-four percent of the families had at least one other child. Number of other children ranged from none to three and their ages 46 from a few weeks to six years. There was a total Of 118 other children in the study families. Sixteen percent of the families had no younger children and care was of no concern when parents visited schools. One mother gave no response when asked how younger children were cared for when she went to school for some activity. Table 9 summarizes arrangements families made for care of younger children when parents went to school. Table 9. Care Provided Younger Children When Parents Visited Schools Care provideda No. Percent Took younger child(ren) along 27 27.8 Relative cared for child(ren) 21 21.6 Hired babysitter 20 20.6 One parent stayed with child(ren) 15 15.5 Traded babysitting with friend 9 9.3 or relative Friend cared for child(ren) 8 8.2 Visited school when younger 3 3.1 child(ren) in nursery school or kindergarten a Some mothers specified more than one way of caring for younger children Three percent of the mothers said they made no school visits this year. Twenty percent Of the mothers said they sometimes hired babysitters. Cost Of hiring a babysitter for one school visit ranged from less than 81.00 to 35.00. 47 ‘It was thought that mothers' membership in groups would serve as one indicator of her interest in participating in school-related activities away from home. Table 10 records mothers' memberships in groups. Table 10. Mothers' Membership in Groups. Mothers Number Of (N = 97) Groups NO. Percent 5 1 1.0 4 4 4.1 3 10 10.3 2 32 33.0 1 45 44.5 0 2 2.1 NO response 5 5-2 Each mother was asked to indicate an income group which included her family's income. Family incomes are shown in Table 11. About 67 percent of the employed mothers were in families in income groups of $10,000 to 812,999 and 813,000 and over. 48 Table 11. Family Income Families (N = 97) Income groups NO. Percent 815,000 and over 18 18.6 310,000 to $12,999 50 50.9 8 8,000 to 3 9.999 32 33.0 8 5,000 to 3 7.999 10 10.5 Under $5,000 5 5.2 NO response 2 2.1 In summary, the study sample consisted Of young, working class families in one school district in an industrialized, moderate-sized city. The sample was drawn from five elementary schools which in- cluded 21 first grade classrooms. Only about one-third of the mothers were employed away from home at the time of the study. Most of the families had younger children. Most mothers participated in at least one community or- ganization. About two-thirds of the families had incomes in the $8,000 to 813,000 range. Mothers were interviewed assuming that they would realistically report use of resources by both parents. Teachers were surveyed by questionnaire. DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENTS Collecting statements that led to the interview schedule began several years ago. The questionnaire develOped for use with teachers was an adaptation Of mothers' interview schedule. 49 Mothers' interview schedule sought demographic data about the families. Two Open-ended questions to elicit mothers' free responses with no prompting were used. The remaining questions were structured around specific activities related to school which had been secured from several sources of information. Questions investigating frequency and extent Of school-related activities asked about time used both at home and at school. Ques- tions were included about those activities thought to be directly related to schools' educational programs and those supplementary, but nonetheless important, to the total educational effort. Questions investigating aspects of money allocation were part of the schedule. Questions about costs Of purchase of school lunch and milk were included. In addition, questions were included to learn about families discretionary Spending to provide items related to school attendance but not required. Mothers' Interview Schedule It was first in extension meetings with groups of homemakers that the impact of school time demands upon mothers was heard fre— quently enough to attract the investigator's attention. When Opportunities presented themselves, discussions were stimulated among groups of homemakers about ways in which their time was being used to assist children with school-related activities. Questionnaires were used during extension meetings in two counties comprising suburban areas around metropolitan centers. Questions were asked about school-related activities and frequency with which they Occurred. Mothers reported activities such as: 50 helping children dress for school, packing lunches, helping with homework when needed, visiting school and conferring with the teacher, attending parent-teacher organization meetings, helping with school plays and parties, taking them to meetings and school activities, serving as room mother. On another occasion, a homemaker who was involved in many acti- vities with family and community, was asked for an interview. The homemaker was an elected representative to the area school directors board. The interview was recorded on tape and subsequent playback as well as notes taken were useful in preparation Of first drafts of the interview schedule. A helpful in-depth interview was held with a first grade teacher who has had many years of experience. She emphasized the importance Of parents' attitudes toward school and education. Attitudes re- vealed, Often unconsciously, by acceptance or rejection Of items the children make at school and take home, for example. The first grade teacher's comments resulted in a question about parents sending artifacts from home when such items contribute to a unit being studied in school. Literature was searched for statements by educators and for research findings which indicated parental involvement in school- related activities. A recurring theme in the literature is the importance of early develOpment of verbal ability. Parents who spend time with their children, read to them, and provide them books have been shown to affect children's cognitive develOpment. Repre- sentative of this literature is a review presented by Freeberg and Payne (1967). 51 Bloom (1964), concluded that the first five to seven years of life may be the most significant for the growth and develOpment Of the stable characteristics used as general measures Of human attributes. Measurement of intelligence is one attribute Bloom considered and from pertinent studies concluded that by age four, an individual has developed 50 percent of his mature intelligence as measured at age 17. From ages four to eight, he develOps another 30 percent. Bloom stressed the need for more study of the environment and components in it leading to maximum individual growth and develOpment. The stress upon verbal skills and language develOpment found in the literature led to questions investigating parental time used for reading to the child, spending time with him assisting with schoolwork, and supplying enriching materials for his use. Questions about a child's environment were basic to studies reported by Baker (1970) and by Hess and Shipman (1966) who explored environment for educability Of preschool aged children. The programs of compensatory education of which Headstart may be the most widely known, are built upon the basic premise of overcoming environmental deficiencies in the early years of a child's life. They do so through experiences planned to foster cognitive develOpment. In an Office of Education publication entitled, Meeting Parents Halfway: A Guide for Schools (1970), there is a lengthy list of activities that may be suggested to parents as ways they can support their children's school efforts. And, in a volume by Reeves (1963), there are normative statements pertaining to parental involvement in schools. He said: 52 The school, partly unavoidably, forces responsi- bilities upon the home. Parents are required to send their children to school and on time . . . Children must be sent to school clean, but the school does not assume responsibility for sending them home clean . . . Parents must provide their children a noon meal, either funds to buy or a packed lunch . . . The teacher, without authority but in the name of COOperation, assigns duties to mothers such as preparing costumes for the school play, preparing food for a school picnic, sending money to buy new records or books, or for a charitable fund drive . . . Most parents comply to avoid any possible embarrassment to their children and because they want to cOOperate (pp. 103-104). Reeves included a list of ways in which parents can help schools. Those pertinent to elementary grades were noted and used in develOping questions pertaining to school-related activities. Statements of school-related activities in which parents were involved began to emerge. Lists Of statements were grouped and major areas of involvement were noted. Broad, Open-ended questions around the groupings of activities were formulated. These questions were used to interview five mothers Of school- aged children. Three Of the mothers were considered to be from middle social class groups and two Of them were mothers of Headstart children chosen as representatives of a lower social class position. The interviews were analyzed as were ways in which mothers responded to the questions. One activity volunteered by all five mothers was their use Of time during the day to discuss the schoolday with their children. Mothers recognized the importance of this activity and provided time for it; mothers Of several children said they planned such time with each child. On the basis of this infor- mation, a question about discussing the schoolday was included. 53 Responses to this pre-test were evaluated and discussed. It was decided that using Open-ended questions exclusively might present problems to the interviewers and surely would present problems in coding answers. Therefore, it was decided that questions should be stated in more structured form, keeping two Open-ended questions to elicit free responses from mothers. A trial effort was made in the three middle-class homes to inter- view the children; children Of the Headstart mothers were not available. There was no effort made to secure first graders for these pre-test interviews. The three children included one Of kindergarten age, one in first and one in second grades. Information gained from the children did not seem to warrant pursuing that idea and no more thought was given to interviewing children. A revised version Of the interview schedule was used in another pre-test with five mothers of first children in first grade Of one elementary school. On the basis of this pre-test, the mothers' inter- view schedule was revised and prepared for use in the study (Appendix A). The Teachers' Questionnaire It was decided to adapt the structured questions phrased for the mothers' interview schedule and use it as the teachers' questionnaire (Appendix A). NO demographic data were elicited from teachers. Re- eponses sought from teachers were specifically related to parent- school interactions. In summary, mothers' interview schedule was develOped primarily from two sources Of information: from a search Of the pertinent 54 literature and from activities reported by mothers in conversation and in pre-test interviews. Pre-testing of the instrument led to content and format of the instrument used. The teachers' questionnaire was adapted from questions included in the mothers' interview schedule. Structured questions pertaining to school-related activities were paired with questions asked of mothers so that relationships might be tested. NO background infor- mation was sought from teachers other than the name of the school in which they were currently teaching. DATA COLLECTION Following initial visits to schools to obtain names of first graders and their parents meeting criteria Of the study, lists Of the names were compiled. A map Of the city was used to locate street addresses and homes grouped in proximity to each other. The letter to be mailed to parents had been approved by adminis- trative Officers of the school district. It was next checked and approved by an Assistant Director of the Cooperative Extension Service of The Pennsylvania State University since letterhead and professional title Of the investigator were to be used (Appendix A). The letter to be distributed to first grade teachers, along with the survey questionnaire, were checked and approved by both school district Officials and those Of the Cooperative Extension Service (Appendix A). Duplication of interview schedules, questionnaires, parents and teachers letters was initiated and envelOpes prepared for mailing. 55 Parents letters were mailed 12 days before scheduled interviewing was to begin. Two experienced interviewers were hired. They had previously done survey work for the Department Of Rural Sociology Of The Pennsyl- vania State University and their names were given the investigator by a faculty member who had worked with them. The investigator trained the interviewers in one meeting. Inter- view schedules were presented tO the interviewers and discussed. Lists of parents' names and addresses were divided between them. They were instructed to phone or request permission for each interview in advance when possible. On that same day, a visit was made to the administrative Offices Of the school district where the assistant superintendent Of schools met with the investigator and the interviewers for a review Of procedures to be followed. A tour of the city showed interviewers school locations. Names Of school principals were given them, and they were instructed to introduce themselves to principals before starting interviews in a school locality. One school principal happened to be on the sidewalk in front of his school. The interviewer assigned that school intro- duced herself, and later that afternoon, began making contacts with parents of children in that school. The interviewers were given packets of envelOpes addressed to first grade teachers in each school to which they were assigned. They were asked to leave the envelOpes to be put into first grade teachers' mailboxes when stOpping at schools to introduce themselves to principals. Each envelOpe contained a copy Of the letter to the 56 teacher, a OOpy Of the questionnaire, and an envelOpe prepared for returning the questionnaire to the investigator. The county extension home economist was invited to attend part Of the interviewers' day of orientation. While she was not involved in the study, the investigator was working in her county. Letters to parents and teachers would identify the study as being done by a member Of the Cooperative Extension staff. It was desirable that she be informed of extension activities being carried out in the county. It was essential that the county extension home economist meet the interviewers and know that they were about to carry out the field phase of the study. A date was set with the interviewers for another meeting in one week at which time the investigator would collect completed schedules, discuss situations theinterviewers had encountered, and determine what additional procedures were needed. With a final check to make sure each had the investigator's phone number and address and a final reassurance that a collect call would be welcome at any time, the investigator left and the field work was launched. Data were collected in late April, 1972. Within a two-week time span, 106 interviews had been completed. The interviewers encountered few problems. There was only one refusal by a mother to grant an interview. One family had moved and no forwarding address was avail- able. Five mothers were not found at home upon repeated attempts tO contact them. Three mothers had so little use Of the English language that the interview was considered to be impossible and not completed. Nine interviews were completed but schedules later set aside because the interview revealed that parents were separated or 57 that there was an Older child in school. Ninety-seven mothers were interviewed and schedules considered to be useable. That was 91 per— cent Of the families meeting study criteria. One interviewer com- pleted 42 interviews; the other completed 55. The schedules of one interviewer contained more detailed information than did schedules of the second. Both interviewers collected the basic information sought with each question. Develgpment Of Parental School Involvement Scores Procedures for develOpment of parental school involvement scores were considered. Frequency and extent Of time use were sought in order to describe parental involvement in school-related activities. In addition, it was planned that parental school involvement scores were tO be used in testing relationships with the independent vari- ables chosen for study. Frequency and extent of parental time use were assumed to serve as indicators of another human resource, parental interest. Reported use of family money was not included when determining scores since range of family incomes precluded similar possibilities for choice in assigning money for school-related uses. A more equitable possibility for choice in using time existed since the bounds of a 24-hour day were the same for all. The parental school involvement score was determined by rating three aspects Of parental involvement: (1) parental interest in and encouragement of children's education; (2) parental interest in help- ing children learn; (3) parental interest in helping at school. Each was assigned a specific score. The total parental school involvement 58 score carried a maximum point value of 99. Sub-score I. Those school-related activities which indicated parental interest in and encouragement Of children's education were grouped. School-related activities included in sub-score I were: discussing the schoolday, visiting the classroom, sending items re- lated to a unit being studied, helping children with physical preparations for the schoolday, and accepting and displaying items made at school and brought home. A possible total score of 36 points was determined for sub-score I with the highest score assigned families in which both parents were involved in the activity and the frequency and.extent Of time use reported was the maximum reported for that activity. A score Of zero was designated as that to be assigned families in which neither parent carried out that activity and no time for it was reported. Decreasing scores were designated as extent of time reported for the activity decreased and as two parent involvement shifted to one parent carrying out the activity (Appendix B). For two of the activities: helping children prepare for the schoolday and disposition of items made at school and brought home, frequency and extent of time use were not reported. Mothers' responses were studied and judgments made when establishing scores which re- flected ways the activities were carried out within families (Appendix B). Some mothers explained, when asked the question, that there were reasons for not having carried out a school-related activity. Some said the activity had not been requested nor encouraged by the school. It was decided to assign a higher score to a family that gave an 59 explanation than to those in which no answer had been given or an answer Of "no" given with no explanation when asked the question. Sub-score II. The school-related activities indicating parental interest in helping children learn were grouped. Included were: con- ferring with the teacher about schoolwork, assisting with schoolwork at home, reading to children, providing materials for special school projects, and supplying reference materials for children's use at home. For three Of the school-related activities: conferring with teachers about schoolwork, assisting with schoolwork at home, and reading to their children, mothers reported frequency and extent of time used for each activity. For the other two activities included in sub-score II, providing materials for special projects at school and supplying references for children's use at home, scores were de- termined primarily on the basis Of frequency with which parents supplied materials and references. Estimations Of the number of different references provided and the nature of materials for special projects were also used. A total score Of 40 was possible for sub-score II. The highest score was designated for assignment to families in which both parents were involved in the activity and the frequency and extent of time use were the maximum reported for that activity. Decreasing scores were determined on the basis Of shift from both parent to one parent in- volvement in the activity and on the decreasing frequency and extent Of time reported for that activity (Appendix B). Sub-score III. Grouped together in sub-score III were those activities which took place at school and were primarily supplementary 60 to schools' educational programs. They were defined as indicating interest in helping at school. Included were: attending special programs at school, helping with activities at school, sending treats for special occasions, and sending items for school fund-raising events. The helping with at-school activities category included: chaperoning field trips, serving as room mothers, cafeteria, library, or playground assistants. A total point value Of 23 was assigned sub-score III. Involve- ment by parents and frequency and extent of time used to attend special school programs were established as criteria for determining scores. Number and frequency of at-school activities and contributions Of treats and items for fund-raising events at school were given point values determined by frequency during the year. It was decided to add one point to an assigned score when mother gave an explanation for not carrying out one of the activities included in sub—score III. She may have said that younger children at home prevented helping at school, or that the school had not asked nor encouraged sending treats to school (Appendix B). DATA ANALYSIS Frequency analysis led to description of the study variables. Frequencies were used to compute parental school involvement scores for each family. One—way analysis of variance tests were applied to determine differences in parental school involvement by selected family characteristics. Chi square tests were used to determine relationships between mothers' responses Of help they thought schools wanted and parental involvement in school-related activities; and, to 61 determine relationships between mothers' and teachers' expectations Of help each group thought schools wanted from parents. Table 12 summarizes purpose Of analysis, data and statistical procedures used in the analysis. Table 12. Analysis of Data 62 Purpose of Analysis Data Method of Analysis Description Of families Demographic Frequency distribution data with descriptive statistics: Subpro- gram Fastmarg Description of families' Mothers' Frequency distribution resource use responses with descriptive statistics: Subpro- gram Fastmarg Description Of teachers' Teachers' Fre uency distribu- ideas Of desirable responses tion parental help Intercorrelation among variables Test of Hypothesis 1 Differences in parental school involvement among families in social classes Test of Hypothesis 2 Differences in parental school involvement among families grouped by selected family characteristics Calculation of all possible comparisons among series of means Test of Hypothesis 3 Relationships between resources used to supplement school programs and selected family characteristics Test Of Hypothesis 4 Relationships between ideas of help wanted and reported parental school involvement Demographic data and parental school involvement scores Social class positions and parental school involvement scores Demographic data and parental school involvement scores Computed means used in testing Hypothesis 1 and 2 Demographic data and mothers' responses Mothers' responses Pearson product-moment correlation coeffi- cient0 One-way analysis of variance One-way analysis Of variance Duncan's Least Signi- ficant Difference Test (DLSD)e Chi Square: Subpro- gram Fastabs Chi Square: Subpro- gram Fastabs Table 12. (continued) 63 Purpose of Analysis Data Method Of Analysis Test Of Hypothesis 5 Relationships between mothers' and teachers' ideas of help schools wanted from parents Recalculation of signi- ficant Chi Square tests Mothers' and Teachers' responses Frequency distribution tables used in testing Hypotheses 3, 4 and 5 Chi Square: Subpro- gram Fastabs Frequency Analysis with Chi Square '(Fchs)g a Norman H. Nie, and C. Hadlai Hull. Social Sciences: Update Manual. Statistical Package for the National Opinion Research Center, 1971 b Hand calculated c David J. Wright and Jeremy D. Finn. Chicago; University of Chicago, Multivariance - Univariate and Multivariate analysis of Variance and Covariance: Fortran IV program; Occasional Paper NO. 8. Michigan State University: College of Education, Office Of Research Consultation, 1970. (Mimeographed.) d Nancy C. Daubert. A Statistical Package Program: Anoves/Anovum (rev. ed.). The Pennsylvania State University: Computation Center, August, 1971. e Douglas Garwood. Contributed Program: (Mimeographed.) Duncan's Least Significant Difference Test. The Pennsylvania State University: Computation Center, 1970. (Mimeographed.) f Norman H. Nie, Dale H. Bent, and C. Hadlai Hull. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: g Carlfred B. Broderick and W. H. Verity. Program (rev. ed.). (Mimeographed.) McGraw Hill, 1970. Statistical Package The Pennsylvania State University: Computa- tion Center, May, 1968. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Findings are divided into two major parts presented in relation to the study's objectives and hypotheses. A major Objective was to investigate the nature and extent of resources families used when their first children were in first grade. Frequency analysis of the data resulted in the descriptive information presented in the first part of this chapter. Findings pertinent to relationships among variables is reported in the chapter's second part. Hypotheses stated no relationships between parental involvement in school-related activities when first children were in first grade and selected family characteristics. Results of the testing Of hypotheses are reported in the second part of this chapter. PART 1 Resources Used in School—related Activities Table 13 summarizes parental involvement in school-related activities by families. Maximum extent Of reported involvement includes participation by mothers and fathers. 64 65 Table 13. Maximum Extent of Parental Involvement in School-related Activities Parental Involvement School-related activities No. Percent Discussing the schoolday 96 99.0 Assisting with schoolwork 95 98.0 Helping children prepare for 90 92.8 schoolday Supplying money for lunch at school 85 87.6 Conferring with teacher about 84 86.6 children's schoolwork Visiting children's classroom 83 85.6 Reading to children 82 84.5 Displaying items children made 79 81.4 at school and brought home Attending special programs 77 79.4 at school Supplying reference materials 73 75.3 Supplying money for milk at school 73 75.3 Sending items to school relating 70 72.2 to unit being studied Providing treats for school 57 58.8 parties Providing materials for 44 45.4 special projects Providing items for fund- 43 44.3 raising events Taking part in activities 26 26.8 at school 66 Six of the school-related activities carried out by more than 80 percent of the families were primarily at-home activities. Table 14 summarizes extent Of parental involvement in three Of them. Table 15 summarizes the frequency and extent Of parental time used in dis- cussing the schoolday and in reading with children. Table 14. Extent Of Parental Involvement in School-related Activities at Home Activities Both parents Mother only, Neither_parent at home NO. Percent NO. Percent NO. Percent Discussing schoolday 80 82.5 16 16.5 1 1.0 Assisting with 73 75.3 22 22.6 2 2.1 schoolwork Reading to Children 60 61.9 22 22.6 15 15.5 67 Table 15. Parental Time Used for Two At-home School-related Activities Discussing schoolday Reading to with children childrena Approximate time each occasion NO. Percent NO. Percent Daily 30 to 60 min. 15 15.5 11 11.3 20 to 29 min. 10 10.3 9 9.3 10 to 19 min. 51 52.6 8 8.2 5 to 9 min. 11 11.3 -- ---- Several times a week 50 to 60 min. -- —--- 25 25.8 20 to 29 min. 1 1.0 5 5.2 10 to 19 min. 5 5.2 8 8.2 5 to 9 min. 3 3.1 -- ---- Weekly or less Often 30 to 60 min. -- ---- 6 6.2 20 to 29 min. -- --—- 5 5.2 10 to 19 min. -- --—- 4 4.1 5 to 9 min. -- ---- -- ---- Time not used 1 1.0 15 15.5 a One mother made no estimate Of time use Use of time estimated by mothers was interpreted as parental time used for an activity in each family. Mothers were not asked to differentiate time use by mothers and by fathers. About 90 percent of the families reported using time every schoolday to discuss the schoolday with their children. Over 50 percent of the parents used from 10 to 20 minutes each day for dis- cussions about the schoolday. While in 62 percent Of the families both parents used time for reading to their children, 15 percent Of the families did not use time for this school-related activity (Table 14). Thirty-four 68 percent of the mothers said their children preferred to read to themselves and to their parents now that they had learned to read. Over one-third Of the families used from 30 to 60 minutes each time parents and children read together. Table 16 summarizes the frequency with which parents assisted children with schoolwork. The schoolwork with which they most fre- quently helped was reading and mathematics. Four mothers said it was fathers in their families who gave most assistance with schoolwork. Time used for assisting with schoolwork is summarized in Table 17. Table 16. Frequency With Which Parents Assisted With Schoolwork Parental involvement Frequency NO. Percent Daily 58 59.8 Several times a week 24 24.7 Weekly or less Often 13 13.4 Time not used 2 2.1 69 Table 17. Parental Time Used for Assisting Children With Schoolwork Parents Approximate time each occasion NO. Percent 30 minutes or more 43 44.3 20 to 29 minutes 21 21.6 10 to 19 minutes 31 32.0 Time not used 2 2.1 Table 18 summarizes the help given children to get ready for the schoolday. Help included awakening him, laying out clothes, helping with dressing and hair combing. Table 18. Help Given Children in Preparing for the Schoolday Mothers' responses Who helped NO. Percent Both parents 9 963 Mother 65 64.9 Father 3 3-1 Child doing most, mother 15 15.5 giving some help Child on his own 6 6.2 NO reSponse to question 1 1.0 In about 77 percent of the families, parental time was used in helping children with before schoolday preparations. In 65 percent of the families, mothers were the ones primarily responsible. 70 Some mothers mentioned other activities their children carried out before the schoolday started. Six mothers said their children read in the morning, some reading with a parent. Five mothers said their children carried out assigned chores. Twenty—three mothers mentioned recreational activities such as television, coloring, playing with siblings or pets. Table 19 indicates the inclusion of breakfast as a part Of the before schoolday routine. Table 19. Breakfast Before the Schoolday Mothers' responses Who prepared NO. Percent Breakfast mentioned but 55 56.7 not elaborated Mother prepared 28 28.9 Father prepared 2 2.1 Child prepared own 5 5.2 Child fed elsewhere 2 2.1 NO mention of breakfast 5 5.2 In two families where children were fed breakfast away from home, both parents reported for work so early that they could not feed their children at home. One child was taken to a day care center, the other to a babysitter where breakfast was provided. One question was intended to determine parental involvement in regular transportation Of children to school. Most children walked. A school bus transported 21 Of them to their assigned school which 71 was several miles from their neighborhood. Six parents regularly drove children to school. Table 20 summarizes the frequency with which parents provided money for purchase of lunch and milk at school. Three mothers said lunches were usually packed for their children. In 87 percent Of the families money was provided for children to buy lunches at school. However, almost 40 percent of the families did not give children money for lunch every schoolday. Seventy-five percent of the families provided money for milk with 48 percent giving their children money each schoolday. About 27 percent gave their children money for milk less Often than daily. Table 20. Number and Frequency of Parents Providing Lunch and Milk Money Parents who Frequency provided . daily several times occasionally a week NO. Percent No. % No. % NO. 96 Lunch 85 87.6 47 48.5 28 28.9 10 10.5 Milk 73 75.3 47 48.5 15 15.5 11 11.5 Extrapolating from frequency and each time costs, estimates Of annual costs for lunch and milk were computed (Table 21). 72 Table 21. Each Time and Annual Costs of Providing Lunch and Milk Money Parents Costs NO. Percent Lunch Each time: 30 cents 47 48.5 35 cents 38 39.2 Annual: dailya 350.00 to $65.00 55 54.6 several times a weekb $25.00 to 349.99 18 18.6 occasionallyc less than $24.99 14 14.4 NO cost 12 12.4 Milk Each time: 5 cents 69 71.7 10 cents 4 4.1 Annual: dailya 89.00 to $18.00 4 4.1 several times a weekb 89.00 45 44.5 occasionallyC - less than 39.00 26 26.8 NO cost 24 24.7 a Calculated on basis of 180 schooldays in school year b Calculated on basis Of three times a week for 36 weeks c Calculated on basis of once a week for 36 weeks in school year 73 Acceptance and handling of items children made at school and brought home was one indication of parental interest in the child's efforts. Table 22 summarizes ways in which families handled these items. Table 22. Handling of Children's School Handiwork at Home Mothers' responsesa Method of handling' NO. Percent DiSplayed in general area 57 58.8 Of family home Showed to family members, 11 11.3 discussed, displayed, then saved or shared DiSplayed in child's own 22 22.7 room or area designated as his Items saved 42 43.3 Items evaluated to determine 3 3.1 further handling NO response to question 2 2.1 a Where mothers gave more than one response, all were coded Among the school-related activities in which parents were in- volved, the largest prOportions were those carried out at home. Discussing the schoolday and assisting with schoolwork were almost universally carried out by families. Both mothers and fathers were involved in three-fourths or more Of the families. It may be that these two activities were readily recognized as school-related and parents saw them as helping to advance their children's education. 74 Parents also helped with at-home activities that may have been less easily recognized as adding tO their children's chances for success in school. They were: reading with children and accepting and displaying the items children made at school and brought home. These two activities were carried out in more than 80 percent of the families. Parents helped children get ready for the schoolday, more mothers than fathers were involved in this activity. Parents made provisions for lunch and milk at school, but not all the parents and not on every schoolday. Generally, parental involvement was not as great in at-school as in at-home school-related activities (Table 13). The proportion Of parents who shared in at-school school-related activities was not as great as prOportion of parents who shared in school-related acti- vities at home. Yet, well over one-third Of both mothers and fathers went to school for some activity. Table 23 summarizes parental in- volvement in three Of the at-school activities. Table 23. Extent of Parental Involvement in School-related Activities at School Both parents Mother only Neither parent Activities at school NO. Percent NO. Percent NO. Percent Visiting classrooms 43 44.3 40 41.2 14 14.4 Attending Special 39 40.2 38 39.2 20 20.6 programs at school Conferring with 36 37.1 48 49.5 13 13.4 teacher about schoolwork 75 Table 24 summarizes the frequency and extent of parental time used for conferring with teachers. Mothers were asked if they con- ferred with teachers about both schoolwork and non-schoolwork. Table 24. Parental Time Used for Conferring With Teachers Conferred about Conferred about schoolworka non-schoolwork Approximate time each conference No. Percent No. Percent Five or more times this year 1 hr. or more 2 2.1 -- ---- 30 to 59 min. 5 5.2 3 3.1 10 to 29 min. 7 7.2 4 4.1 Two to four times this year 1 hr. or more 2 2.1 l 1.0 30 to 59 min. 6 6.2 6 6.2 10 to 29 min. 42 43.3 22 22.7 One time this year 1 hr. or more' -- ---- 2 2.1 30 to 59 min. 3 3.1 4 4.1 10 to 29 min. 16 16.5 6 6.1 Time not used 13 13.4 49 50.5 a One mother made no estimate Of time used Eighty-seven percent Of the parents conferred with teachers about children's schoolwork and half of them conferred with teachers about non-schoolwork. Health and behavior were the non-schoolwork problems most frequently mentioned. Most Of the parent-teacher con- ferences were from 10 to 30 minutes in length. Table 25 summarizes parental time used for visiting classrooms. 76 Table 25. Parental Time Used for Visiting Classrooms Parents Approximate time each visit NO. Percent Four or five times this year 1 to 2 hrs. 1 1.0 30 to 59 min. 5 5.2 10 to 29 min. 6 6.2 Two or three times this year 1 to 2 hrs. 16 16.5 30 to 59 min. 11 11.3 10 to 29 min. 25 25.8 One time this year 1 to 2 hrs. 10 10.3 30 to 59 min. 6 6.2 10 to 29 min. 3 3-1 Time not used 14 14.4 Over half the parents visited children's classrooms two or three times during the school year. In about 25 percent Of the families, each visit lasted from 10 to 30 minutes. Table 26 summarizes the frequency with which parents attended special pro— grams at school. 77 Table 26. Frequency with Which Parents Attended Special Programs at School Parental involvement Frequency NO. Percent Four or more times 14 14.4 Three times 12 12.4 Two times 31 32.0 One time 20 20.6 Time not used 20 20.6 In 40 percent of the families, both parents attended special school programs. In another 40 percent, mothers attended programs alone. The remaining 20 percent of the parents did not carry out this school-related activity (Table 23). Table 27 summarizes parental time used for attending Special school programs. Table 27. Parental Time Used for Attending Special School Programs Parents Approximate time each occasion NO. Percent Two or more hours 39 40.2 One hour to 1 hour 31 32.0 and 59 min. 15 to 59 min. 7 7.2 Time not used 20 20.6 78 Table 28 indicates the number Of activities with which mothers helped at school. Table 29 summarizes the amount of time mothers estimated having used to help with activities at school. Mothers said they were the ones who helped at school. NO mother said the child's father had helped with at-school activities. Table 28. Mothers Who Helped at School Mothers Number of activities this year NO. Percent Four or five 1 1.0 Two or three 8 8.2 One 17 17.5 None 71 73-3 Table 29. Mothers' Use Of Time for At-school Activities Mothers Time used this year No. Percent 10 to 20 hours or more 2 2.1 2 hours to 9 hours and 59 min. 14 14.4 30 to 119 minutes 10 10.3 Time not used 71 73-3 79 Twelve mothers said they helped with fund-raising events at school. Eight served as room mothers, seven went to school to assist with parties, six chaperoned field trips, and five mothers served as assistants in the library or cafeteria, as teacher's aides, or as block parents. Table 30 summarizes parental provision Of references for the children to use at home. Table 31 includes the approximate annual costs to parents of providing references for children's use at home. Table 30. Frequency and Number Of References Parents Supplied Times this year Number of references Several One or two Three or Two One Parents who four supplied NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. % 75 45 46.4 28 28.9 11 11.5 10 10.2 52 55.6 Table 31. Approximate Annual Cost of Supplying References for Use at Home Approximate Annual Cost Over 325 to 310 to $1 to Less than Parents who 3100 3100 325 310 31 supplied NO. % NO. % NO. % NO.’ % NO. % 73 3 3.1 p 11 11.5 15 15.5 27 27.8 17 17.5 Parents were occasionally asked to provide materials for use in special projects at school. In thirty-five percent of the families such materials were supplied infrequently; another 10 percent sup- plied them several times during the year. Most were items readily found at home such as milk and egg cartons, baby food jars, plastic 80 bottles, and cans. In eight percent of the families, materials were purchased. Half of those families who purchased items Spent less than 81.00 and half spent more than 31.00 but less than 34.00. Fourteen percent of the parents had not been asked to supply materials for special school projects. Parents were occasionally asked to send items to school relating to a unit being studied. Table 32 summarizes the frequency with which parents sent items to school. Table 32. Frequency With Which Parents Sent Items to School Relating to a Unit Being Studied Parents Number of times this year No. Percent Weekly (36 times) 6 6.2 Every two weeks or monthly 14 14.4 (9 - 18 times) 5 to 6 times 12 12.4 3 to 4 times 20 20.6 1 to 2 times 18 18.6 Items not sent 27 27.8 Those items sent to school which related to a unit being studied included mementos from trips, pictures, books, records, collections, Sporting and recreational items. Two other activities not directly related to educational programs, but supplementary to total school programs, were investigated. They were sending treats to school for special occasions and contributing 81 items for fund-raising events held to benefit schools. Table 33 summarizes the frequency with which families sent treats to schools. Table 33. Frequency With Which Families Sent Treats to School Families Number of times NO. Percent Eight to ten times 5 5.2 Five to seven times 2 2.1 Two to four times 26 26.8 One time 24 24.7 Treats not sent 40 41.2 Table 34 summarizes the estimated costs each time a treat was provided. Based upon reported frequencies, an approximate annual cost for providing school treats was computed. 82 Table 34. ApprOximate Costs of Providing Treats for Special Occasions Mothers' responses Costs NO. Percent Each time: 82.00 to $6.00 15 15.5 $1.00 to 92.00 28 28.9 Less than 31.00 14 14.4 Annual: 35.00 to 312.00 9 9.3 33.00 to $5.00 21 21.6 Less than $3.00 27 27.8 Table 35 summarizes the frequency with which families provided items for school fund-raising events. Table 36 summarizes the estimated costs of providing items for school fund-raising events. Based upon reported frequencies, an approximate annual cost to families for pro— viding items for school fund-raising events was computed. Table 35. Frequency With Which Families Provided Items for School Fund-raising EVents Families Number of times NO. Percent Two or three times 9 9.3 One time 34 35.0 Not provided . 54 55-7 83 Table 36. Approximate Costs of Providing Items for School Fund- raising Events Mothers' responses Costs NO. Percent Each time: 32.00 to 33.50 15 15.5 31.00 to 32.99 24 24.7 Less than $1.00 4 4.1 Annual: 84.00 to 321.00 5 5.2 32.00 to 33.99 15 15.5 31.00 to $2.99 19 19.6 Less than 31.00 4 4.1 More than two-thirds Of the parents were involved in some at- schOOl activities related to their children's schooling. Where fathers' participation decreased, that Of mothers-only increased. The activity which fewest fathers shared was conferring with teachers. However, in 37 percent Of the families, both parents did confer with teachers about children's schoolwork. Activities with the least parental involvement were those re- quiring help given at school. In only about one-fourth of the families was parental time used in going to school to help with activities. Mothers carried out the helping at-school activities. Several mothers said that younger children at home prevented it or that they had not been asked to help at school. 84 Discretionary use of money was reported for three activities: providing references for children to use at home, furnishing treats for Special occasions at school, and contributing items for school fund-raising events. More parents thought it important to provide references for children to use at home than to provide treats for special school occasions or to send items to school fund-raising events. Parents sometimes sent items that related to a unit the children were studying. Other parents hesitated tO do so saying that schools had not asked nor encouraged the sending of items to supplement the school's programs. Parents occasionally provided materials for Special projects at school. Materials most frequently sought were those readily found at home. Two Open-ended questions were included in the interview Schedule to elicit free responses from mothers. SO few answers were gained from the second question that its answers were coded with the first. It had been included mid-way through the schedule to allow mothers to volunteer additional ideas that may have been stimulated during the interview. The Open-ended question asked mothers what help they thought schools wanted from parents. Table 37 summarizes their answers 0 85 Table 37. Mothers' Expressed Ideas of the Help Schools Wanted From Parents Mothers' responsesa Categories of help wanted No. Percent TO belong to PTA and to help with 28 28.9 its activities To assist child with learning 20 20.6 TO help child "keep up" in school 16 16.5 To help child develOp his personal 15 15.5 abilities To Show interest, to encourage and 12 12.4 appreciate his efforts in school To help with activities at school 11 11.3 such as room mother, field trip chaperone, etc. To visit classroom 5 5.1 Think no help is wanted 11 11.3 Irrelevant answers to question 20 20.6 NO response to question 1 1.0 a Where mothers expressed more than one idea, each was coded Thirty—seven percent of the responses indicated that mothers thought schools wanted parents to help children with learning related activities. Twenty percent of the answers mentioned help with specific learnings such as mathematics, science, vowels, and reading. Sixteen percent Of the responses were general statements such as helping with schoolwork or helping children "keep up" with their schoolwork. Twenty percent of the free response answers were 86 irrelevant statements such as: "All the help I can give", "In any way I can", and "Help when I am able to.” Teachers were surveyed by questionnaire inquiring into what help they wanted from parents. Teachers' responses are found in Table 58. 87 Table 38. Teachers'Expressed Ideas of Help Schools Wanted From Parents Teachers' responsesa Categories of help wanted NO. Percent To confer with teacher about 15 'lO0.0 child's schoolwork To visit child's classroom 14 93-3 To read to child frequently or as 14 93.3 often as possible To attend Special programs at school 14 93.3 when held or when able to To help at school as needed as teachers' 13 86.6 aides, classroom tutors, playground assistants, etc. TO assist child with learning as he 13 86.6 needs it or asks for it TO Show interest in and to encourage 11 73.3 child's efforts in school To help develOp his personal abilities 8 53.3 through experiences supplementary to school To contribute to school parties for 8 53.3 certain occasions, when asked or when parents want to TO contribute to fund-raising events 8 53.3 when asked or when parents care to To guide development of the child's 3 20.0 personal habits: enough Sleep, breakfast before school, time for TV To know teacher and be familiar with 3 20.0 program of school child attends a All answers by teachers coded according toTthese categories 88 Teachers agreed about activities related to children's learning. Less agreement was found among activities supplementary to the schools' educational programs. All teachers said they expected parents to confer with them about children's schoolwork. Their answers indicated some difference of Opinion about the frequency of the conferences. Forty-eight percent said they expected parents to confer when they felt it necessary or wanted to. Thirteen percent of the teachers said conferences should be held at either parent or teacher request, and 20 percent said they expected parents to confer regularly with them. None Of the mothers Volunteered the idea that they thought schools wanted parents to confer with teachers (Table 37). Yet, 87 percent Of the families reported having conferred with teachers about schoolwork (Table 13). Ninety-three percent of the teachers' responses indicated ex- pectations for parental visits to classrooms. Five percent of the mothers said they thought schools wanted parents to visit classrooms (Table 37). In about 85 percent of the families, parents had visited their children's classrooms (Table 13). Ninety-three percent of the teachers said they expected parents to attend special programs at school. 'NO mother voluntarily said that attending programs was one way parents helped schools (Table 37). In 79 percent of the families one or both parents had attended Special programs at school (Table 13). Eleven percent Of the mothers said they thought schools wanted help from parents with activities at school (Table 37). Almost 27 percent of the families had helped with some at-school activities 89 (Table 13). Eighty—six percent Of the teachers said that they ex- pected at-school help from parents (Table 38). Parents were involved in school-related activities. Teachers eXpected certain kinds of parental involvement. Yet mothers' re- sponses indicated that they were not thinking of parental involvement in school-related activities as being of help to schools. Parental School Involvement Scores Frequency and extent of time used for school-related activities and parental involvement in them were used to determine parental school involvement scores (Appendix B). Three sub-scores were computed and the total Score added from the sub-score points for each family. Sub-score I consisted Of the school—related activities serving as indicators of parental interest in and encouragement of children's schooling. Included were: dis- cussing the schoolday, visiting the classroom, sending items to school relating to a unit being studied, helping children get ready for the schoolday, accepting and displaying items children made at school and brought home. Table 39 summarizes the distribution Of parental school involvement scores for sub-score I. 90 Table 39. Parental School Involvement Sub-score I Range and scores Frequency 0 — 2 0 3 - 5 0 6 - 8 4 9 - ll 5 12 - 14 26 15 - 17 16 18 - 20 25 21 - 25 13 24 - 26 6 27 — 29 2 50 - 52 0 33 - 35 0 36 - 38 O 97 Median - 18 Thirty-six points were assigned as the possible total for Sub— score I. Parental scores ranged from Six to 27. One family had a score Of six and two families had scores of 27. NO family had a score Of zero and none had a score Of 36. 91 Sub-score II consisted of the school—related activities which served as indicators of interest in helping children learn. Included were: conferring with the teacher about schoolwork, assisting with schoolwork, reading to children, providing materials for special school projects, supplying references for children to use at home. Distribution of parental school involvement scores for sub-score II are summarized in Table 40. Table 40. Parental School Involvement Sub-score II Range and scores Frequency. 0 - 2 l 3 - 5 0 6 - 8 1 9 - ll 3 12 - 14 6 15 - 17 11 18 — 20 16 21 — 25 10 24 - 26 19 27 — 29 ll 30 - 32 10 33 - 35 2 56 - 58 6 59 - 41 1 97 Median - 24’ 92 Forty points were assigned as the possible total score for sub- score II. When computed, one family had a score of one and one family had a score Of 40. NO family had a score Of zero. Sub-score III consisted of school-related activities considered to be indicators of parental interest in helping at school. Acti- vities which were supplementary to schools' education programs were grouped in sub-score III. It included: attending special programs at school, helping with activities at school, sending treats for special occasions, sending items for fund-raising events. Distribu- tion of parental school involvement scores for sub—score III are summarized in Table 41. Table 41. Parental School Involvement Sub-score III Range and scores Frequency 0 1 2 12 3 - 5 17 6-8 17 9 - ll 30 12 - 14 14 15 - l7 7 18 - 20 O 21 - 23 A O 97 Median -48 93 Twenty-three points were assigned as the possible total score for sub-score III. Scores ranged from zero to 17. Seven families had a score Of zero. One family had a score of 17. No family had a score of 23. The three sub-scores were added to arrive at the total score for each family. Distribution Of total parental school involvement scores are summarized in Table 42. 94 Table 42. Parental School Involvement Total Score Range and scores Frequency 20-22 0 25-25 2 26-28 1 29 - 51 6 52—54 4 35 - 37 7 38-40 9 41-45 8 44 - 46 9 47-49 7 50 — 52 6 53 - 55 11 56-58 6 59 - 61 8 62 - 64 5 65-67 6 68-70 0 71 - 73 2 74-76 0 77---99 O 97 Median — 48' 95 It was possible for a family to have a total score of 99. However, scores computed for families ranged from 23 to 72. Two families had total parental school involvement scores of 23. One family had a total parental school involvement score Of 72. PART 2 Tests of Hypotheses A correlation matrix for twelve variables is presented in Table 43. Few Of the variables were related. Level Of Significance chosen was p = 0.05 if the r was I 0.50. 96 oo.H 00.0. wu.o OJOOS {Biol oo.H mH.o oo.H m. m. 0.. 0.. . . S S O 3 O O J J 9 9 I I I I I ,mw.o os.o aH.o 00.H I OJOOS-qns mm.o mm.o dH.0 MH.0 00.H ewoout Attweg sanJS HI d; m. 3. H0. in. as. O. 0 0 0 0 00.H qsaeq nSJGHQOW iuewfotdwe C -IIISLU MH.0. w0.0 no.0 :H.0 mm.o wH.0 00.H .9J9440w wH.0:. HN.0I mo.on NH.0: wm.0: :H.o- mo.o 00.H uotqpsod SSBIO Inpoos 0N.0I HH.01 MH.0: mm.ou HH.0I $0.0 Hm.0 00.H uopqednooo ISJQHQEJ .mH.0, mm.o no.0 NH.0 mm.o mH.ou NH.0I mm.0: Nw.0 00.H uopqeonpe ,saeqqeg omo.o moo.o mwo.o moo.o sane 0N0.0 000.0 m:.on mm.ou mm.o 00.H uopqeonpe .SJeuqow om.o H.a ea no.0 u a .mw0.0 mmo.o who.0 wm0.0 mma.on mH0.0I mam.o- wao.on mmo.o- soa.o wma.0: 8. Kttwe; Jeqio ‘ON .4 HT USJPIIHO an n as oaoom Hmpoa HHH oncomlnsm HH whoomlnsm H whoomsnsm osoonfl mafismh mmsoaw as magmaonEoE .maospoz pOoShOHmso .maonuoz sowpwmom wmmHO Hafioom .cowpmmsooo .mASSSSh cosmesvo .maosumm GOHmedpo .mmonuoz assess ca mmhvawno honpo .oz moanmwnm> opaose Mom swabs: soapmaopboo .m: magma 97 Significant correlations were found between fathers' educational attainment and fathers' occupation; between fathers' occupation and social class position of families. There seems to be some relationship between fathers' and mothers' educational attainment. A summary of means and standard deviations for the twelve variables appears in Table 44. Table 44. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations of Twelve Variables Measured for 97 Families Standard Variables Means deviations NO. other children 2.155 0.763 in family Mothers' education 2.100 0.861 Fathers' education 3.211 1.106 Fathers' occupation 4.322 1.444 Social class position 3.655 0.962 Mothers' employment 1.600 0.804 Mothers' membership 2.711 0.940 in groups Family income 3.577 1.005 Sub-score I 18.333 4.743 Sub-score II 23.466 7.756 Sub—score 111 7.944 4.548 Total score 49.744 12-135 98 The level of significance chosen for rejection Of an hypothesis was the probability Of chance success of five percent (p = 0.05). It was used as the basis for rejecting or not rejecting each hypothesis. Hypothesis One There is no difference in resources used for school-related activities among parents in social class groups. Hypothesis one was not rejected. The pre-determined level Of Significance Of 0.05 was not reached in the one-way analysis of vari- ance testing of differences among means of family social class groups with each parental school involvement sub-score and total score. Analysis of yariance findings are summarized in Table 45. Table 45. Summary of One-way Analyses of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Family Social Classa Parental School Sum Of Mean F Involvement Scores squares df squares ratio p Sub-score I source 89.90 4 22.47 0.956 0.436 error 2162.56 92 23.51 Sub-score II source 319.4 4 78.86 1.334 0.263 error 5507.0 92 59.86 Sub-score III source 164.3 4 41.07 2.189 0.076 error 1726.2 92 18.76 Total score source 1330. 4 332.6 2.347 0.060 error 13038. 92 141.7 a Mean and variance summary found in Appendix C Table 76. 99 Family social class groups were: I (upper), II (upper-middle), III (lower-middle), IV (upper-lower), and V (lower-lower) as shown in Table 1. One-way analysis of variance testing did not reveal differences among means of family social class groups and parental school involve- ment at the pre-determined level of significance. There was movement toward significant relationships, however, in tests of means Of family social class groups, sub-score III and total parental school involve- ment score. Duncan's modified least significant difference test which tests homogeneity of the means was applied to these data. Duncan's test showed that none of the means Of family social class groups were sig- nificantly different from each other when tested with sub-score I and sub-score 11. When tested with sub-score III, means of social class groups II (upper-middle) and V (lower-lower) did differ Significantly from each other. Duncan's test of means of family Social class and total parental school involvement score showed homOgeneity Of means for social class groups I (upper) and IV (upper-lower). Means of those two groups did not differ from each other but differed significantly from means of social class groups II (upper—middle), III (lower-middle) and V (lower- lower) when tested with total parental school involvement scores. In a further test of possible relationships, a statistical measure (the Mann-Whitney U test) was applied to scores Of families in the social class groups at ends Of the continuum. Combined scores for the 11 families in social class group I (upper) and in group II 100 (upper-middle) were tested with those Of the 15 families in social class group V (lower-lower). NO significant statistical relationship was Obtained. Findings Of one-way analysis of variance testing of hypothesis one did not permit rejection of the hypothesis. Duncan's least signi- ficant difference test was applied to those results moving toward the 0.05 probability level. Hypothesis Two There is no difference in resources used in school- related activities and selected family characteristics. Hypothesis two was rejected. With two exceptions, no one-way analysis of variance test reached the pre—determined level of Signi- ficance. Significant probability levels (0.05) were Obtained, however, in the differences of means of family income categories and parental school involvement sub-score II. Differences also occurred in means of family income categories and total parental school involvement score. Table 46 summarizes the one-way analyses of variance testing of parental involvement in school-related activities and families grouped by family income. 101 Table 46. Summary Of One-way Analyses of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Family Income Categoriesa Parental School Sum Of Mean F Involvement Scores squares df squares ratio p Sub-score I source 114.3 4 28.57 1.260 0.292 error 2040.1 90 22.67 Sub—score II source 608.1 4 .152.02 2.685 0.056* error 5100.1 90 56.67 Sub-score III ~ source 124.5 4 31.13 1.617 0.177 error 1732.2 90 19.25 Total score - source 1663. 4 415.8 3.080 0.020* error 12149. 90 135.0 a Mean and variance summary found in Appendix C Table 77 * Significant at 0.05 level Means of family income categories (Table 11) were Significantly different (0.036) when tested with sub-score II, the grouping of school—related activities that indicated parental interest in helping children learn. A probability level of 0.02 was Obtained when means Of family income categories were tested with total parental school invOlvement scores. Duncan's least Significant difference test (DLSD) was applied to data to determine the Significant differences among means of family income categories. Findings are summarized in Tables 47 and 48. 102 Table 47. DLSD Test of Means of Family Income Categories and Parental School Involvement Sub-score II Income Categories . f N Meansa 4 (310,000 - 812,999) 30 26.4000 A 5 (315,000 and over) 18 22.7220 AB 3 (88,000 - 89,000) 52 21.6880 B 2 (85,000 - 87,999) 10 21.4000 B 1 (under 35,000) 5 17.000 B a Means followed by same letter are not significantly different from each other Duncan's test showed two homogeneous groupings Of means Of family income categories when tested with parental school involvement sub-score II. Means of income categories of 310,000 to 312,999 and Of 313,000 and over were not significantly different from each other. Means Of family income categories of under 85,000, $5,000 to 87,999, 88,000 to 39,999 and of 313,000 and over were not Significantly dif- ferent from each other. The significant difference in means was found to exist between income category 810,000 to 812,999 and those of family income categories below 310,000. Similar results were obtained when family income categories were tested with total parental school involvement score. The Duncan's least significant difference test results are summarized in Table 48. 103 Table 48. DLSD Test of Means Of Family Income Categories and Parental School Involvement Total Score Income Categories I N Meansa 4 (310,000 - 312,999) 7 50 54.1550 A 5 (315,000 and over) 18 50.5000 AB 3 (88,000 - $9,999) 32 47.4690 B 2 (35,000 - 37.999) 10 42.0000 B 1 (under 35,000) 5 41.6000 B a Means followed by same letter are not Significantly different from each other One-way analysis of variance tests were applied to the specified family characteristics Of fathers' occupation, fathers' education, mothers' education, mothers' employment, mothers' membership in groups, sex of first grade children, and number Of other children in the families. Summaries of the analyses Of variance testing are reported in the following tables. 104 Table 49. Summary of One—way Analyses of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Fathers' Occupationa Parental School Sum Of Mean F Involvement Score squares, df squares ratio p T Sub-score I source 88.0 6 14.67 0.610 0.722 error 2164.45 90 24.05 Sub-score II A 7 source 515.8 6 85.97 1.457 0.202 error 5310.6 90 59.01 Sub-score III source 185.5 6 50.92 1.652 0.147 error 1705.0 90 18.94 Total score 7 ' Source 1572. 6 262.0 1.843 0.100 error 12796. 90 142.2 a Mean and variance summary found in Appendix C Table 78 Table 50. Summary of One-way Analyses Of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Fathers' Educationa Parental School Sum Of Mean F Involvement Score squares df squares ratio p Sub—score I source 124.4 5 24.88 1.055 0.391 error 2123.1 90 23.59 Sub-score II source 83.31 5 16.66 0.274 0.926 error 5477.43 90 60.86 Sub-score III source 200.8 5 40.16 2.144 0.067 error 1686.0 90 18.73 Total score source 839.6 5 167.9 1.153 0.339 error 13109.9 90 145.7 a Mean and variance summary found in Appendix C Table 79 105 One-way analysis of variance testing Of means Of fathers' edu- cation categories (Table 3) did not Obtain results at the pre-deter- mined level of significance (0.05). There was movement toward significant relationship when means Of fathers' education categories were tested with parental school involvement sub-score III. Those were school-related activities indicating parental interest in helping at school. The Duncan's modified least significant difference test was applied to the data. One cell included one case and another included two. Therefore, caution is indicated in interpreting the findings. The means that were significantly different from each other when tested with sub-score III were those for education beyond high school and below attainment Of high school graduation. Table 51. Summary of One-way Analyses of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Mothers' Educationa Parental School Sum of Mean F Involvement Scores squares df squares ratio p Sub-score I source 61.42 4 15.36 0.645 0.632 error 2191.03 92 23.82 Sub-score II source 179.8 4 44.96 0.752 0.572 error 5646.6 92 61.38 Sub-score III source 85.13 4 21.28 1.085 0.369 error 1805.37 92 19.62 Total score 7 source 360.6 4 90.15 0.592 0.669 error 14007.8 92 152.26 a Mean and variance summary found in Appendix C Table 80 106 Table 52. Summary of One-way Analyses Of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Mothers' Employmenta Parental School Sum of Mean F Involvement Scores squares df squares ratio p Sub-score I source 49.48 1 49.48 2.094 0.151 error 2197.43 93 23.63 Sub-score II 7 source 29.23 1 29.23 0.501 0.481 error 5422.52 93 58.31 Sub-score III source 5.968 1 5.968 0.301 0.585 error 1845.022 93 19.839 Total score source 221.5 1 221.5 1.528 0.220 error 13482.9 93 145.0 a Mean and variance summary found in Appendix C Table 81 Table 53. Summary of One-way Analyses Of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Mothers' Membership in Groupsa lat Parental School Sum of Mean F Involvement Scores squares df squares ratio p Sub-score I source 178.6 5 35.72 1.599 0.169 error 1921.6 86 22.34 Sub-score II source 236.5 5 47.30 0.778 0.568 error 5227.8 86 60.79 Sub-score III source 474.0 _ 5 94.80 5.821 0.001b error 1400.5 86 16.28 Total score source 1178. 5 255.5 1.624 0.162 error 12477. 86 145.1 a Mean and variance summary found in Appendix C Table 82 b Variance could not be computed. One cell contained one case. It cannot be interpreted as significant. 107 Table 54. Summary Of One-way Analyses of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Sex of First Grade Childrena Parental School Sum of Mean F Involvement Scores squares df squares ratio p Sub-score I source 24.39 1 24.39 1.040 0.310 error 2228.06 95 23.45 Sub-score II source 102.6 1 102.57 1.702 0.195 error 5723.9 95 60.25 Sub-score III V source 8.415 1 8.415 0.425 0.516 error 1882.080 95 19.811 Total score source 5.234 1 5.234 0.035 0.853 error 14363.137 95 151.191 a Mean and variance summary found in Appendix C Table 83 Table 55. Summary of One-way Analyses of Variance: Parental School Involvement and Number of Other Children in Familiesa Parental School Sum of Mean F Involvement Scores squares df squares ratio p Sub-score I source 0.9426 3 0.3142 0.013 0.998 error 2251.5110 93 24.2098 Sub-score II source 198.3 3 66.09 1.092 0.357 error 5628.2 93 60.52 Sub-score III source 23.96 3 7.987 0.398 0.755 error 1866.53 93 20.070 Total score source 149.5 3 49.83 0.326 0.807 error 14218.9 93 152.89 a Mean and variance summary found in Appendix C Table 84 108 None of the one-way analyses of variance tests revealed dif- ferences in parental school involvement when tested with the specified family characteristics of: fathers' occupation, fathers' education, mothers' education, mothers' employment, mothers' membership in groups, sex of families first grade children, and number of other children in families. One-way analyses of variance tests did reveal significant dif- ferences when means of family income categories were tested with parental school involvement sub-score II and with total parental school involvement score. The pre-determined probability level of 0.05 was reached. Therefore, family income made some difference in parental involvement in those school-related activities serving as indicators of parental interest in helping children learn. To determine the significant differences among means of family income categories, the Duncan's modified least significant difference test was applied to the data. Mean of the family income category of 810,000 to $12,999 differed significantly from means of groups of family incomes falling below 810,000. Duncan's test revealed similar results when means of family income categories were tested with total parental school involvement score. The mean significantly different was that of the family in- come category of 310,000 to 312,999 and means of family income categories below $10,000. Since family income and parental school involvement sub-score II and total score did reach the pre-determined level of significance (0.05) when tested, hypothesis two was rejected. 109 Movement toward significant relationship (p = 0.067) was obtained when means of fathers' education categories were tested with parental school involvement sub-score III. The Duncan's modified least signi- ficant difference test was applied. Means of fathers' education categories differing significantly from each other were those where more than 12 years of education had been completed and those with less than 12 years of education. Hypothesis Three There is no relationship between provision of supple- mentary school items and selected family characteristics. Hypothesis three was rejected. Table 56 summarizes items parents provided supplementing their children's education and results of chi square testing of relationships with selected family characteristics. 110 Table 56. Chi Square Test of Parents Providing Supplementary Items and Selected Family Characteristics s -3 -8 m-p 2:3 88 :2 m. .c 5 od 0 .c 0 “° 88 13% :38 12.-H tum Chi Chi Chi square p square A_p square pp Items provided df=6 df= df=6 Treats for special 12.81 0.046* 4.789 0.442 7.009 0.319 occasions Items for school fund- 8.097 0.251 6.154 0.292 8.794 0.185 raising events Materials for special school 6.497 0.369 5.560 0.351 1.231 0.975 projects References for use at home 5.346 0.500 7.392 0.193 11.856 0.065 Hire babysitter when going to 18.772 0.004* 3.809 0.577 16.082 0.013* school * significant >0.05 111 Table 56. (continued) 0) .p '6 s a m .. o - a) H C! m-H m s was u-p a b: 4. n o m o o o p'u '3 S :3 7:2 x 231:} as as see Chi Chi Chi square pp square pp square p Items provided df=4 df=2 df=1 Treats for special 5.801 0.215 1.122 0.570 2.815 0.095 occasions Items for school fund- 5.911 0.206 0.771 0.680 0.352 0.553 raising events Materials for special school 5.187 0.269 10.284 0.0058* 1.752 0.186 projects References for use at home 4.965 0.291 1.185 0.553 0.089 0.765 Hire babysitter when going to 5.458 0.245 0.044 0.978 0.155 0.695 school * significant 7 0.05 112 The pre-determined level of significance (p = 0.05) was reached in the chi square test of providing a babysitter when parents went to school and fathers' occupation; in the chi square test of providing a babysitter and fathers' education; in the chi square test of sending treats to school and fathers' occupation; and, in the chi square test of providing materials for special school projects and mothers' employ- ment. For those findings where level of significance was reached, a second frequency distribution analysis was run with chi square. Row and column cells were collapsed to eliminate empty cells and those containing frequencies less than five where possible. Fewer degress of freedom resulted. Significant probability levels (0.05) were confirmed. Table 57 summarizes the findings of the second chi square test. 0n the basis of these findings hypothesis three was rejected. Table 57. Chi Square Test of Six Variables Supplementary Items Provided Hired baby— Sent treats Provided mater- sitter to school ials special projects Family chi chi chi character- square pp squarev p square pp_ istics df=3 df=4 df=2 Fathers' . education 13'93 0'00} Fathers' . t occupation 18.15 0.001 9.21 0.056 ! M°thers 10.284 0.006* employment * significant 0.05 113 Hypothesis Four There is no relationship between help mothers said they thought schools wanted and parental involvement in school-related activities. Hypothesis four cannot be rejected. Table 58 summarizes computed chi squares for mothers' response of, "No help wanted" and parental involvement in school-related activities. Table 59 summarizes mothers' response of "Assist child with learning" and parental involvement in school-related activities. Table 58. Chi Square Test of Mothers' Response: "No Help Wanted" and Parental Involvement in School-related Activities Mothers' response: "No help wanted" School-related Computed chi 1 activities square df=3 p Discussing schoolday 0.343 0.952 Assisting with schoolwork 3.945 0.268 Reading to children 2.436 0.488 Visiting classroom 1.544 0.672 Conferring with teacher 5.056 0.168 about schoolwork Attending special school 3.946 0.267 programs 114 Table 59. Chi Square Test of Mothers' Response: "Assist with Learning" and Parental Involvement in School-related Activities Mothers' response: "Assist with learning" School-related computed chi activities square df=1 p Assisting with schoolwork 0.068 0.794 Visiting classroom 1.428 0.232 Conferring with teacher 0.0016 0.968 about schoolwork Attending special school 0.055 0.814 programs Chi square was used to test for possible relationships between mothers' responses and school-related activities. The pre-determined probability level (0.05) was not reached in tests of mothers' response, ”Help children deve10p abilities," and parental involvement in assist- ing with schoolwork (chi square 0.118 and p = 0.732). Mothers' responses were tested by chi square with mothers-only involvement in school-related activities. Probability levels were not judged to be significant in tests of mothers' responses, "No help wanted," and discussing the schoolday (chi square 0.497 and p = 0.919); nor in the "No help wanted," response and reading to children (chi square 0.807 and p = 0.848). Mothers' response, "Assist with learning" was tested by chi square with mothers-only involvement in assisting children with school- work. The pre-determined level of probability (0.05) was not reached (chi square 1.084 and p = 0.582). When the "Assist with learning" 115 response was tested with mothers-only involvement in attending special school programs, the level of significance was not reached (chi square 0.729 and p = 0.393). Mothers' response, "Assist with learning,” was tested by chi square with mothers' involvement in visiting the classroom. A margi- nal probability level (0.062) was reached. However, findings cannot be accepted uncritically since responses from mothers were few and some of the cells contained less than five cases. Chi square testing of mothers' responses to the Open-ended ques- tion asking what help they thought schools wanted from parents and ‘ parental involvement in school-related activities led to findings that do not support rejection of hypothesis four. pHypothesis Five There is no relationship between help mothers said they thought schools wanted and help teachers said they wanted from parents. Hypothesis five cannot be rejected. Responses were tested by chi square to determine relationships between mothers' and teachers' responses. Findings are summarized in Table 60. 116 Table 60. Chi Square Test Comparing Mothers' and Teachers' Responses to Question of What Help Schools Wanted from Parents Chi Responses square df p Show interest in and 0.122 1 0.727 encourage children Help children develOp 2.594 3 0.459 abilities Assist children with 4.068 2 0.131 learning Confer with teacher 0.375 2 0.829 about schoolwork Help with activities 7.132 3 0.068 at school Help with school fund- 1.425 2 0.490 raising events Only one chi square test moved toward the level of probability pre-determined as significant (0.05). Responses from mothers and teachers indicated both groups thought schools wanted parents to help with at-school activities. Since none of the other responses indi- cated relationships, hypothesis five was not rejected. A statistically significant difference was found among families grouped by family income in parental involvement as indicated by family resources used in school-related activities. Parental involve- ment in school-related activities was not found to differ among families grouped by other selected family characteristics. There were a few statistically significant relationships between parental provision of items supplementary to school attendance and selected family characteristics. Fathers' education and fathers' 117 occupation were statistically significant when tested with hiring a babysitter. Fathers' occupation was related to sending treats to school. And, mothers' employment was related to providing materials for special projects at school. Mothers' ideas of the help schools wanted from parents were not found to be related to parental involvement. Nor were mothers' and teachers' ideas of the help schools wanted from parents found to be related to each other at the pre-determined probability level. Findings from the testing of hypotheses led to the acceptance of hypotheses one, four and five and rejection of hypotheses two and three. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter includes a summary and discussion of the study findings. It includes implications for additional research, for the family management educator and for the public school educator. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY The study was conducted in one school district in a Pennsylvania industrial city. While five social class groups were represented, almost three—fourths of the families were in groups III (lower-middle) and IV (upper-lower). The study sample was drawn from 21 first grades in five elemen- tary schools. Study criteria specified intact families whose first child had entered first grade that school year. Names of 116 children and parents meeting the criteria were obtained from school records. Ninety-seven useable schedules were obtained by interview- ing mothers out of a possible 106 families. A major objective of the study was to investigate and describe use of family resources. Descriptive findings contributed specific information about parental use of time and money when children were in first grade. .Parents used quantities of time in school-related activities. No attempt was made to measure quality of that time use. There were expenditures of money related to school attendance even 118 119 though the school district supplied most of the materials used in the schools' educational programs. Findings supported the assumption that parents wanted children to succeed in school and assigned family resources toward achievement of that goal. PrOportion of participation was greater in those school- related activities carried out at home than at school. Participation was also greater in those activities related to children's learning than in those supplementary to the schools' educational programs. Mothers estimated frequency and extent of time used for specific school-related activities. No attempt was made to differentiate mothers' and fathers' time use. In all but one of the families some time was used by parents to discuss the schoolday with children. In 98 percent of the families, some time was used by parents in assisting children with schoolwork. Least parental involvement (helping with activities at school) was reported by about 27 percent of the families (Table 13). Fathers were more involved in school-related activities carried out at home than in at-school activities. Three groupings of school-related activities were formulated on the nature of and the frequency and extent of parental time used. The three activity groupings served as indicators of parental interest in helping further children's education. Parental school involvement scores for each family were computed from point values assigned activities included in each group. Time use was the resource basic to the assignments, money use was not considered. Family scores were used to test an hypothesis that there was no difference in parental school involvement among families grouped by social class. The hypothesis was not rejected. 120 Family school involvement scores were used to test an hypothesis that there was no difference in parental school involvement among families grouped by selected family characteristics. The hypothesis was rejected. The pre-determined level of probability was reached when family income categories were tested with sub-score II (helping children learn) and with total parental school involvement score. Marginal relationship was reached in sub-score III (helping with activities at school) and fathers' education. None of the other tests of parental school involvement indicated relationships with selected family characteristics. Questions were posed to learn how parents helped children with physical preparations for the schoolday. Mothers most frequently called children and helped them dress. Breakfast was mentioned by most families. Parents provided money for children to buy lunch and milk at school although only about half the families provided for their purchase every schoolday. Where parents chose to use money resources for items supple- mentary to the schools' educational programs, more (75 percent) supplied references for children's use at home than sent treats to school (59 percent) or supplied items for school fund-raising events (44 percent). An hypothesis stating no relationship between providing items supplementary to the schools' programs and selected family character- istics was rejected. Some of the tests obtained results at the pre- determined probability level. 121 An hypothesis stating no relationship between mothers' responses to an Open-ended question of help they thought schools wanted from parents and parental involvement in school-related activities was not rejected. Few responses were obtained from the Open-ended question. Eleven percent of the mothers thought schools wanted no help. The single most frequent response was that mothers thought schools wanted parents to belong to parent—teacher organizations. Mothers' responses indicated that they were not thinking of helping the schools when helping children with school-related activities. Teachers' responses to an Open-ended question inquiring into the help they wanted from parents were tested with mothers' responses. The hypothesis stating no relationship between mothers' and teachers' responses was not rejected. Mothers' and teachers' responses indi- cated only one idea that approached significant relationship. Both groups expressed the idea that schools wanted parents to help with activities at school. DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY The study sample was selected by specified criteria and treated as a nonprobability sample. Findings cannot be generalized to other samples. Only first grade children in one school district were in- cluded. Schools were assigned at the discretion of school district administrators who considered family social class mix and school size when making the assignments. While they cannot be generalized, there is no reason to believe that different results would be obtained if the study were to be replicated in a school district serving an 122 industrial city of about 50,000 inhabitants. There was a consis- tency in estimates of frequency and extent of resource use which 1 caused the investigator to accept the findings as reliable estimates of family resource use related to school activities. Major conclusions from this study were: 1. That parents regularly used quantities of time in school- related activities. / 2. That parents wanted to help further the education of their children and that they were more involved in activities directly related to children's learning than in activities supplementary to schools' programs. 3. That parents were not aware of being co—educators with schools. 4. That there was no difference in parental involvement in school-related activities in families stratified in five social classes. 5. That there was some difference in parental school in- volvement in families grouped by family income, but that there was no difference in parental school involvement in families grouped by other selected family characteristics. 6. That teachers expected parents to help reinforce their educational programs. An indication of extent of annual time use in school-related activities was gained by extrapolating from estimated times reported by families. If maximum time had been used for each school-related activity for which such data were available, it is possible for a family to have used 553 hours, or 23 days, in school-related activi— ties in the school year. Minimum frequency and extent of time was calculated at 23.5 hours, or one day, used during the school year. Almost twice as many families reported maximum as reported minimum frequency and extent of time use. Time use fell between these extremes in most families. 123 Parents were serving as co-educators with schools as indicated by the nature of the activities and by frequency and extent of time used. They were not aware of the educative interaction with schools, however. That mothers were unsure of help to schools was indicated by the lack of answers, by responses that were meaningless, and by the thought expressed by 11 percent of them that schools wanted no help from parents when asked the help they thought schools wanted from parents. Chi square tests obtained no relationships between mothers' responses to the Open-ended question of help they thought schools wanted from parents and school-related activities parents carried out. Parents were young. Since it was their first child to enter the formal school setting, parents were inexperienced in interacting as parents with school personnel. Median educational level of parents was 12 years. These findings raise other questions. What comprised the educational activities parents carried out as they helped first grade children? What was the quality of time they used? Did they rely upon their own school experiences for educational guidelines? Did they seek advice from relatives, friends, and/or teachers? Parents conferred with teachers. What questions did they ask, or did they ask any? Did they receive help from schools in knowing how to perform as educators? Do schools want to utilize parental interest in the educative function? Were parent-teacher organizations effective channels for helping parents be educators? What were their attitudes toward schools? What attitudes toward schools were being conveyed to their children? Did parents think 124 they exercised any control over schools and educational programs? That parents wanted to help children's educational efforts was evident. Pr0portion of parental involvement was greatest in those activities directly related to schools' educational programs. In more than 80 percent of all families, parents discussed the school- day, assisted with schoolwork, conferred with teachers about school- work, visited classrooms, read to children, and displayed items made at school and brought home. Involvement was least in those activi- ties carried out at school. Yet, help with activities at school was the only response in which there was an indication that mothers and teachers shared an idea of the help both groups thought schools wanted from parents. Teachers' reSponses indicated their interest in having parents reinforce schools' educational programs. Teachers agreed (100 per- cent) that they wanted parents to confer with them about children's schoolwork. There was agreement among 93 percent of the teachers that they wanted parents to visit children's classrooms, to read to children and to attend special programs at school. Teachers were not asked in what ways they helped parents know what was expected of them. Did they recognize a need to educate parents as well as children? What help did they give parents during conferences or visits to school that parents could use when assisting children at home? Mothers reported time used in helping children with before schoolday preparations. The literature supports the idea that edu- cability includes a physical state conducive to learning as well as a 125 mental one. How did parents help children be prepared physically for school attendance? Breakfast was mentioned in all but five per- cent of the families. In another five percent, children prepared their own breakfast. How adequately prepared were these children for the start of a schoolday? Parents provided money for purchase of lunch (87 percent) and milk (75 percent) at school. Yet, only 47 percent of the families provided money for lunch and milk every schoolday. What provisions were made the other schooldays? Were parents aware of the importance of sufficient sleep, a nutritionally adequate breakfast, lunch and milk as aids to effective functioning in school? Parents also provided items supplementary to school programs which required use of money resources. Parental interest in rein- forcing schools' educational programs was again evident. In 75 percent of the families, parents chose to provide references for children's use at home. Fifty-nine percent of the families supplied treats for special occasions at school and 44 percent provided items for school fund-raising events. A few instances of statistical significance were found when chi square tests were applied to parental provision of supplementary school-related items and selected family characteristics. Fathers' occupation was significantly related to sending treats to school for special occasions and to hiring a babysitter. Fathers' education was significantly related to hiring a babysitter. Mothers' employment was significantly related to providing materials for special school projects. However, so few families participated in these 126 supplementary school-related activities that findings must be viewed cautiously. School-related activities were grouped to obtain parental school involvement scores. Scores were used to test for relation- ships with independent variables. The one-way analysis of variance test of parental school in- volvement sub-score II was statistically significant (p = 0.036) as was total parental school involvement score and family income (p = 0.02). Parental school involvement sub-score II consisted of activities related to helping children learn. It included: con- ferring with the teacher, assisting with schoolwork at home, reading to children, providing materials for special school projects, sup- plying references for children to use at home. Was the relationship between this group of activities and family income the result of parents' education? Did they want their children to learn because they had or had not? In this study, fathers' education and family 0.39. Correlation between income were positively related but at r 0.46) was greater (Table mothers' education and family income (r 43). Mothers' education was not found to be related to parental school involvement. A Duncan's modified least significant difference test showed that mean of the family income group $10,000 to $12,999 differed significantly from means of family income groups below 810,000. Families were almost evenly divided above and below the 810,000 income level. Amount of income may not be the significant variable. There are probably other factors Operating. Is the specificity of goals of the learning-related activities part of the explanation? 127 Is it possible that commitment to one's source of income and com- mitment to helping children learn are related? If so, does commit- ment to helping children learn reflect an attitude, or a personality attribute, that is the contributing variable? Differences in means of families stratified in five social classes and parental school involvement scores did not reach the pre-determined probability level. However, movement toward relation- ship was obtained in tests of sub-score III (helping with activities at school) and family social class (p = 0.076). Test of total parental school involvement score and family social class obtained a p = 0.06. Activities included in sub-score III were: attending special programs at school, helping with activities at school, sending treats for special occasions, providing items for school fund-raising events. Attending special programs at school was carried out by more families (79 percent) than helping with activities at school (27 percent), sending treats (59 percent), or providing items for school fund-raising events (44 percent). Attending special programs at school may have been imprOperly grouped with the other activities. It may have been interpreted as relating to learning rather than supplementary to the schools' educational programs. Sub-scores I and II, more directly related to the learning aspects of schools' programs, did not approach significance when tested with means of family social class groups. If attending special programs at school had been separated from others in this sub-score grouping, would results have differed? 128 Are all parents interested in helping advance their children's learning? Is it in a feeling of social inadequacy to deal with school personnel and other parents that social class differences are manifested? These indications of movement toward relationship of parental school involvement and social class suggest the need to look at other variables. What factors cause parents to participate, or not, in at-school activities? Hollingshead used fathers' education and occupation as the two factors in determining family social class position. There were five families in class I (upper) and six in class II (upper-middle). Unequal division of two social classes with the other three suggests caution in interpreting findings. Marginal relationship was obtained between parental school involvement sub-score III (helping with activities at school) and fathers' education (p = 0.067). A Duncan's modified least signifi- cant difference test was used. Means of groups of fathers that had completed more than 12 years of education were significantly dif- ferent from those that had completed eight up to 12 years of education. Fathers with higher educational attainment may have been more supportive of total school programs including providing treats for special occasions and items for school fund-raising events. It may be that fathers with higher educational attainment encouraged their wives to help with activities at school. Mothers' and fathers' educational levels were correlated at r = 0.55 (Table 45). 129 However, no relationship was found between parental school in- volvement and mothers' education, nor between parental school involvement and mothers' employment or her membership in groups. Analysis of variance tests of parental school involvement and sex of first grade children revealed no relationship; and, number of children in families was not found to be related to parental school involve- ment. Study findings contributed information about use of family resources when first children were in first grade. They obtained little evidence of relationships between school-related activities and selected family characteristics. Findings raised additional questions and suggested the need to explore other variables contri- buting to differences among families in parental involvement in school-related activities. IMPLICATIONS For Further Research Statistically significant differences among means of families grouped by family income when tested with parental school involvement scores suggest questions for additional study. The significantly different grouping of school-related activities (sub-score II) was that having to do with helping children learn. Why did that grouping of activities bear a relationship to income? Why did the other school-related activities grouped in sub—score I (interest in and encouragement of the child) and sub-score III (helping with activities at school) not show significant differences when tested 130 with means of family income groups? Was there movement toward sig- nificant relationship among these two groupings sufficiently strong to influence results when the total parental school involvement score was tested with means of family income groups? Additional testing of school-related activities grouped as they were in this study with other samples would be useful. It may also be useful to regroup school-related activities and test with family income categories in other samples. What is there about family income that makes the difference? Amount of income does not seem to offer the explanation. When dif- ferences among family income categories were tested, it was the mean of the 810,000 to 312,999 income group that differed significantly from income groups below $10,000. Mean of the 813,000 and over income group did not differ from means of groups under $10,000. Why? What other factors caused a significant relationship between one family income group and parental involvement in learning-related school activities? Does that income group include families that are competitively striving for_upward mobility? Fathers' education and occupation were factors used in determin- ing family social class position. Education and occupation are likely to affect family income. Means of fathers' occupational groups were not significantly different when tested with parental school involvement scores. Means of fathers' educational groups were not significantly different at the pre-determined probability level when tested with parental school involvement scores. Why did n0' relationship result when these family characteristics were tested 131 with parental school involvement scores, yet a statistically signifi- cant relationship resulted in sub-score II (help with learning), total score and family income? There was a marginal relationship obtained when fathers' educa- tion and sub-score III (helping at school) were tested. Sub-score III was also that component of the parental school involvement score for which marginal relationship was obtained when tested with means of family social class groups. What is the relationship between fathers' education and parental involvement in helping at school? Is educational level a more powerful determinant of parental interest in helping at school than fathers' occupation and family income? If so, why? Are parents' own educational backgrounds and attitudes in Operation in relation to this grouping of activities (sub—score III) that are supplementary to schools' educational programs? Additional study of educational backgrounds and of the values and attitudes parents hold toward education and toward schools is indicated. Some of the items parents chose to provide that were supple- mentary to their children's education were significantly related to fathers' occupation. They were providing treats for special occasions and hiring babysitters. Is the influential factor that of occupation, or is occupation as a contributor to family income the cause of the relationship? Fathers' education was significantly related to hiring a babysitter; why? Attitudes may be in Operation in determining whether or not to provide treats for special occasions at school. Study of parental attitudes toward schools' programs, both educational and 132 supplementary, would be useful. Study of parental attitudes toward V/ schools in relation to parents' education and occupation might also yield explanatory insights. Mothers' employment did not prove to be related to parental in- volvement in school-related activities. Yet, a significant probabil- ity level was reached when mothers' employment was tested with providing materials for special school projects. Time mothers used in school-related activities was not related to her employment. Is providing materials for special school projects one activity for which she does not have time? A more detailed study of working mothers of first graders is indicated. Additional testing of bases upon which parents choose to provide items supplementary to children's education needs to be done. Parental values and attitudes related to such decisions may be a fruitful field for study. Questions arise when considering the amount of time parents used in school-related activities. What is the meaning of this time use to the family? What patterns of interaction within the family does it foster? or hinder? Does it help promote a positive attitude, or a negative one, toward education among children? Does the time used by parents help children's school achievement? Does it help children create positive self-images? Or, are children torn by the need to satisfy both parents and teachers who view their educative functions differently? Interviews were conducted with mothers. What results would be obtained if fathers were interviewed? 133 What does parental time used for school-related activities do for teachers and schools? Do teachers view parents as co-educators? Do they want to? If so, how do teachers help parents prepare to carry out the educative function? Or, do teachers feel threatened by parents using time to help their children learn school—related cur- k ricula? Will parents use of time build bonds of support that teachers and schools accept or will it increase the possibility for antagonism between families and schools? Additional study of parents' perception of their educative function and of teachers' perception of parents' educative function is needed. Findings of this study suggest that a communications gap exists between families and schools. Before attempting to strengthen communications, study must be made of the communications links now used. Are parent-teacher organizations effective linkages? How do children serve as linkage agents between families and schools? How do parents serve as links? Parents visited schools and conferred with teachers. What did they discuss? Are parents willing to seek help for themselves as educators? Parents' interest seems to lie in helping their children learn; they aim to do more than socialize children for participation in schools. What is the relationship of parental time used to children's achievement in school? If parents were helped to use educative time more effectively, would it affect children's school achievement? There was no attempt made to measure quality of the time parents used in school-related activities. Search for a measure of quality of t] 134 time use needs to be undertaken. If no such measure now exists, then develOpment and testing of one is indicated. Present study data can have additional tests applied. There may be relationships among variables not yet determined. One-way analysis of variance tests resulted in some differences moving toward significance. If several marginally significant variables were tested with multivariate analysis, would significant differences be obtained? For the Family Management Educator Findings of this study showed parents to be using family re- sources for school-related activities. They were helping schools with learning-related activities?” Parents did not think of helping the schools; their aim was in helping their children who were in school. The family management educator needs to recognize the involve- ment of parents in their children's education. It was shown to be a part of family management activities when there was a child in first grade. Accepting the fact that parents are involved, the family management educator can then develOp ways of helping parents con- sciously accept their educative role and carry it out more effectively. The need to help educate young families was apparent from the study. Those having their first encounter as parents with schools were interested in helping and were doing so as they saw fit. No measurement of quality of time use was attempted. To be effectively used for school-related activities, time use requires guidance and 155 direction. Parents may be eager to learn how to become better edu- cators when first experiencing interaction with schools. This study found that money was used to buy items parents con- sidered to be important in supplementing schools' programs. Was that money well spent? How was its use planned in relation to other family goals? The family management educator can help families develOp the ability to define goals and to make decisions enabling their fulfillment. These family management learnings are particularly important to young families who are establishing patterns of family management. Families did not see the daily routine before the start of a schoolday as being school-related. The family management educator can help families accept and manage toward the measures guaranteeing a state of physical readiness for learning: being clean, dressed for weather conditions, having a nutritionally adequate breakfast and provisions for an adequate lunch, having sufficient sleep, and reflecting habits that include controlled television viewing, recre~ ation, and acceptance of tasks assigned at home as well as at school. The family management educator can help parents plan time for increasing their capabilities as educators as well as planning the time used in educating their children. The family management educator generally serves as a link between family and community and can help parents utilize community resources. In most communities there are resources from which parents may seek help in increasing their skills as educators. Recognition and acceptance of the importance of the educative function must come first. 136 The family management educator can help increase the effective- ness of linkages between schools and families by helping create ways for both groups to learn to know and understand each other. For the Public School Educator Programs of parent education, particularly for young parents, can be planned and carried out by the public school educator and family management educator working together. Each can contribute in helping families find more effective ways of managing the family educative function. Findings of this study showed that parents' interest was suffi- cient to cause them to use quantities of time in school-related activities. Those activities for which most parents used time were related to learning. School administrators and teachers can recognize parents as educators and can help them learn to be effective educators. Programs of parent education sponsored by their schools can help parents know what to include and how to carry out the educa- tive function at home so that it complements that of the schools. Understanding of the functions each carries out will be the founda- tions upon which to build programs of parent education. Parents wanted to help at school as well as at home but felt unsure of themselves in at-school activities. There was some indica- tion of agreement between parents and teachers about help with activities at school. Administrators and teachers can plan the activities that will be most meaningful to parents, to children's educatiOn, and to the schools. 157 Some parents thought that schools wanted them to belong to the parent-teacher organization. If a parent-teacher organization is an accepted channel for communication between parents and the school, then its programs can help educate both parents and teachers to the reciprocal function they are carrying out. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Journals Ater, E. Carolyn, and Deacon, Ruth E. Interaction of Family Relationship Qualities and Managerial Components. Journal of Home Economics, 34, 2 (May, 1972), pp. 257-263. Boyle, Richard P. The Effect of the High School on Students' Aspirations. American Journal of Sociology, 71, 5 (March, 1966), Deacon, Ruth E. Home Management Focus and Function. Journal of Home Economics, 54, 9 (November, 1962), pp. 760-762. Fantini, Mario D. Participation, Decentralization and Community Control. The National Elementapprrincipal, 48, 5 (April, 196977 pp. 25-31. Freeberg, Norman E., and Payne, Donald T. Parental Influence on Cognitive DevelOpment in Early Childhood: A Review. Child Development, 38, 1 (March, 1967), pp. 65-87. Gross, Irma H. Impact of Certain Basic Disciplines on Home Management in Family Living. Journal of Home Economics, 58, 6 (June, 1966), pp. 448-452. Hall, Florence Turnbull, and Schroeder, Marguerite Paulsen. Effects of Family and Housing Characteristics on Time Spent on Household Tasks. Journal of Home Economics, 62, 1 (January, 1970), pp. 23-29. Herriott, Robert E. Some Social Determinants of Educational Aspirations. The Harvard Educational Review, 33, 2 (Spring, 1963). PP- 157-175- Hilliard, Thomas, and Roth, Robert M. Maternal Attitudes and the Non-Achievement Syndrome. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 47, 5 (January, 1969), pp. 424:428. Johannis, Theodore B., Jr. Participation by Fathers, Mothers, and Teenage Sons and Daughters in Selected Child Care and Control Activity. The Coordinator, 6, 2 (December, 1957), pp. 31-32. 138 159 Joiner, Lee M.; Erickson, Edsel L.; and Brookover, Wilbur B. Socio—economic Status and Perceived Expectations as Measures of Family Influence. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 47. 7 (March, 1969). pp4’655-659. Kahl, Joseph A. Educational and Occupational Aspirations of "Common Man" Boys. The Harvard Educational Review, 23, (Summer, 1953), pp. 186-203. ' Kerckhoff, Richard K. Teaches Parents to Teach Children. Journal of Home Economics, 60, 5 (May, 1968), pp. 346-349. Krauss, Irving. Sources of Educational AspiratiOns Among Working Class Youth. American Sociological Reviep1 29, 6 (December, 1964), pp. 8674879. Litwak, Eugene. Technological Innovation and Theoretical Functions of Primary Groups and Bureaucratic Structures. The American Journal of Sociology, 73, 4 (January, 1968), pp.7468;481. McDill, Edward L.; Meyers, Edmund D., Jr.; and Rigsby, Leo C. Institutional Effects on the Academic Behavior of High School Students. Sociology of Education, 40, 3 (Summer, 1967), pp. 181-199. McDill, Edward L.; Rigsby, Leo C.; and Meyers, Edmund D., Jr. Educational Climates of High Schools: Their Effects and Sources. The American Journal of Sociology, 74, 6 (May, 1969), pp. 567- 586. Paolucci, Beatrice. Contributions of a Framework of Home Management to the Teaching of Family Relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 28, 3 (August, 1966), pp. 338:342. Parker, Frances J. Task Distribution Within the Family. Journal of Home Economics, 58, 5 (May, 1966), pp. 373-375. Rosen, Bernard C. Family Structure and Achievement Motivation. American Sociological Review, 26, 4 (August, 1961), pp. 574—585. Schlater, Jean Davis. The Management Process and Its Core Concepts. Journal of Home Economics, 59, 2 (February, 1967), pp. 93-98. Sewell, William H.; Haller, Archibald 0.; and Portes, Alejandro. The Education and Early Occupational Attainment Process. American Sociological Review, 34, 1 (February, 1969), pp. 82—91. Sussman, Marvin B. Family Systems in the 1970's: Analysis, Policies, and Programs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 396: (July, 1971), pp. 40—56. 140 Sussman, Marvin B. Adaptive, Directive, and Integrative Behavior of Today's Family. Family Process, 7, 2 (September, 1968), pp. 239-250. 4 Walker, Kathryn E. Homemaking Still Takes Time. Journal of Home Economics, 61, 8 (October, 1969), pp. 621-624. Books Bell, Norman W., and Vogel, Ezra F. (Eds.) A Modern Introduction to the Family. (Rev. ed.). New York: The Free Press, 1968. Bell, Robert R., and Stub, Holger R. (Eds.) The Sociology of Education. (Rev. ed.). Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1968. Bloom, Benjamin S. Stability and Change in Human Characteristics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. Coleman, James S. The Adolescent Sociepy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. Fitzsimmons, Cleo. The Management of Family Resources. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1950. Gross, Irma H., and Crandall, Elizabeth W. Management for Modern Families. New York: Appleton - Century - Crofts, 1967. Havighurst, Robert J., and Neugarten, Bernice L. Sociepy and Education. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, 1957. Litwak, Eugene, and Meyer, Henry J. The School and the Family: Linking Organizations and External Primary Groups. Lazarsfeld, Paul F.; Sewell, William H.; and Wilensky, Harold L. (Eds.) The Uses of Sociology. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967. PP. 522-543- Litwak, Eugene. Extended Kin Relations in an Industrial Democratic Society. Shanas, Ethel, and Streib, Gordon F. (Eds.) Social Structure and the Family. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1965. pp. 290-323. Meetipg Parents Halfway: A Guide for Schools. Washington, D. C. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Office of Education. Educational Resources Information Center, 1970. Nie, Norman H.; Bent, Dale H.; and Hull, C. Hadlai. Statistical Packaggpfor the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1970. V 141 Nie, Norman H., and Hull, C. Hadlai. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences: Update Manual. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. National Opinion Research Center, 1971. Parsons, Talcott. The Social Structure of the Family. Anshen, Ruth N. (Ed.) The Family: Its Functionpand Destiny. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. ' Reeves, Charles E. Parents and the School. Washington, D. C.: Public Affairs Press, 1963. Schultz, Theodore W. Investment in Human Capital. New York: The Free Press, 1971. Strodtbeck, Fred L. Family Integration, Values, and Achievement. Halsey, A. H.; Floud, Jean; and Anderson, C. Arnold (Eds.). Education, Economy, and Society. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. pp. 315-547. Wilkerson, Doxey A. Compensatory Programs Across the Nation: A Critique. Passow, A. Harry (Ed.). Reachlpg the Disadvantaged Learner. New York: Teachers College Press, 1970. Williams, Robin M., Jr. American Society. (2nd Ed. Rev.) New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960. Winch, Robert F. The Modern Famlly. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinSt on , 1963 0 Government Documents Bureau of Industrial DevelOpment. Pennsylvania Industrial Census Series: Release No. Mf5r70- Harrisburg: Department of Commerce, 1970. Bureau of Statistics. Pennsylvania Statistical Abstract: 1967. Harrisburg: Department of Internal Affairs, 1967. U. 8. Bureau of the Census. l970 Census of Population, Number of Inhabitants: Penneylvania. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Commerce, August, 1971. U. S. Bureau of the Census. County and City Data Book: 1967. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Commerce, 1967. 142 Reports and Proceedings Broderick, Carlfred B. The Interrelationships of Family Functions. The Family: Focus on Management. Washington, D. C.: American Home Economics Association, 1970. Brookover, Wilbur B.; LePere, Jean M.; Hamachek, Don E.; Thomas, Shailer; and Erickson, Edsel L. Self-concept of Ability and School Achievement.II. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, College of Education, Bureau of Educational Research Services, October, 1965. Brookover, Wilbur B.; Erickson, Edsel L.; and Joiner, Lee M. Self Concept of Ability and School Achievement. III. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Human Learning Research Institute, 1967. Dickens, Dorothy. Effects of Good Household Management on Family Living. Bulletin 380. State College, Mississippi: Mississippi State College, Agricultural Experiment Station, May , 19113 0 Governor's Committee on Education. E. Pluribus Unum: A Statistical Study of the Organization of Pennsylvania's School Districts in 1960. Educational Research Monograph No. 5. Harrisburg: December, 1960. Gross, Irma H., and Zwemer, Evelyn A. Management in Michigan Homes. Technical Bulletin 196. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College, Agricultural Experiment Station. June, 1944. Hess, Robert D., and Shipman, Virginia C. Maternal Attitude Toward the School and the Role of Pupil: Some Social Class Comparisons. Paper prepared for the Fifth Work Conference on Curriculum and Teaching in Depressed Areas. New York: Columbia University Teachers College. June 20-July 1, 1966. (U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. Microfilm ED018472) . Home Economics Seminar. French Lick, Indiana: July 24—28, 1961. Honey, Ruth R.; Britton, Virginia; and Hotchkiss, Alida S. Decision- Making in the Use of Family Financial Resources. Bulletin 643. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, March, 1959. Liston, Margaret I. Management in the Family as Social Process. Conceppual Frameworks: Process of Home Management. Proceedings of a Home Management Conference. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, June 17-20, 1964. pp. 52-72. 143 Maloch, Francille, and Deacon, Ruth E. Components of Home Management in Relation to Selected Variables. Research Bulletin 1042. Wooster, Ohio: Ohio Agricultural Research and DevelOpment Center, November, 1970. Nichols, Addreen. Research, Our Knowledge Base. The Family: Focus on Management. Washington, D. C.: American Home Economics Association, 1970. Nolan, Francena L., and Tuttle, Dawn H. Certain Practices, Satis- factions, and Difficulties in Families with Emplpyed Homemakers. Bulletin 655. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, August, 1959. Report to the President: White House Conference on Children. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. Van Bortel, Dorothy Greey, and Gross, Irma H. A Cemparison of Home Management in Two Socio-Economic Groupe. Techniéal Bulletin 240. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College, Agricultural Experiment Station, April, 1954. Warren, Jean. Use of Time in Its Relation to Home Management. Bulletin 734. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, Agricul- tural Experiment Station, June, 1940. Wiegand, Elizabeth. Use of Time by Full—time and Part-time Home- makers in Relation to Home Management. Memoir 330. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, Agricultural Experiment Station, July, 1954. Unpublished Materials Baker, Georgianne R. Patterning of Family Resources for Educability: Conceptualization and Measurement in Costa Rican Families. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Broderick, Carlfred B., and Verity, W. H. Statistical Package Program: Frequency Analysis with Chi Square. (Rev. ed.) Computation Center, The Pennsylvania State University, May, 1968. (Mimeographed.) Daubert, Nancy C. A Statistical Package Program: Anoves/Anovum. (Rev. ed.) Computation Center, The Pennsylvania State University, August, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Davey, Alice J. Relationship of Family Interaction to Family Environment. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. 144 Frankena, William. Toward a PhilOSOphy of the Family. Paper read before the Clara Brown Arny Symposium, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, March, 1970. (Mimeographed.) Garwood, Douglas. Contributed Program: Duncan's Least Significant Difference Test. Computation Center, The Pennsylvania State University. 1970. Hollingshead, August B. Two Factor Index of Social Positions. New Haven, Connecticut, U. S. A.: August B. Hollingshead, 1957. (Mimeographed.) Ketchum, Frances Nettie. A Study of Homemakers Values as Reflected in Time Used for Family and Personal Activities. Unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan State University. 1961. Sussman, Marvin B. Some Conceptual Issues in Family-Organizational Linkages. Paper given at the session on Family Bureaucracy, 64th meeting of American Sociological Association. San Francisco, California, September 1, 1969. (Mimeographed.) Wright, David J., and Finn, Jeremy D. Multivariance-Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance: Fortran IV Program. Occasional Paper No. 8. Michigan State University, College of Education, Office of Research Consultation, 1970. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE and INSTRUMENTS 145 146 The Pennsylvania State University College of Agriculture In cooperation with the U. S. Department of Agriculture University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE *‘I'I-I'fl'fl'l 310 Agricultural Administration Building April, 1972 Dear With the approval and COOperation of the School District of the City of York, I am carrying out a study among parents of children in first grade. Schools conduct the formal programs necessary to educate our children. But, parents help, too. I want to learn what school-related activities parents carry out when a child begins his formal education. To do so, I am asking to interview mothers of children in first grade this year. I hOpe you are willing to answer a few questions for me. The interview can be done in your home and will take about 30 minutes. An interviewer will contact you within the next few days to ask for your cooperation and to arrange a satisfactory time for the interview. Thank you for your willingness to COOperate. By answering these questions you give us information that will help us plan programs of adult education. Sincerely, Helen E. Bell Home Management Specialist HEB:dd 1. 3. Do you think the school wants help from you now that What kinds of help? is in first grade? Do you ? Discuss the schoolday with when he (she) comes home? COMMENTS Yes No 147 Interview No. School Date Interviewer If yes, how often? (child's name) For how long, Does your usually, at husband one time? help? Visit '8 classroom? COMMENTS Confer with the teacher about '5 schoolwork? COMMENTS Discuss child's problems other than schoolwork with the teacher? COMMENTS 7. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. COMMENTS 148 If yes, Do you ? Yes No how often? Attend special programs at school such as Parents' Nights, plays, musical and art events? For how long, usually, at one time? Does your husband help? COMMENTS Review lessons with ? Read books to ? COMMENTS Send items from home that relate to a unit being studied in school: mementos from trips, pictures, books , and such things? COMMENTS Help with activities at school: such as room mother? library assistant? cafeteria assistant? chaperone on field trip? 14. 15. 16. 17. l8. 19. 20. Do you? Yes No when there's a party at school? how often? For how long, Does your usually, at husband one time? help? work at fund-raising events at school? other (please specify) COMMENTS Send "treats" to school for special occasions? About how much does it cost each time? COMMENTS Send items for fund- raising events at school? About how much does it cost each time? COMMENTS Provide materials for special school projects such as art or science projects? COMMENTS If you have to buy them, do you? Yes No About how much have you spent this year? Supplement school's program by buying books, magazines, and other materials for to use at home? COMMENTS About how much have you spent this year? 21. 22. 230 24. 25. 26. 27o 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 150 Can you think of other activities related to '3 going to school that you have done this year? Do you give money to buy things at school? Yes No For: How Often? About How Much at One Time? Milk Lunch Workbooks Special readers, newspapers, etc. Crayons, paints or other supplies Other (please specify) Who gets ready for school in the morning? What is your usual routine on school mornings? How far from home is the school that your child attends? How does he (she) get there? When brings home something he (she) has made in school, what do you usually do with it? Now, please tell me about your family. In which group is your age? 34. Your husband's age? 20-29 ______20-29 ______30-39 ______30-59 p_____ 40-49 _____ 40-49 ______Over 50 ______50-59 Over 60 55. 36. 38. 39. 40. 1+1. 42. 43. 45. 46. 47. #8. 151 How many other children are there in your family? What are their ages? (If there are other children, ask) When you go to school for a program or conference with the teacher, what do you do with your younger children? If you hire a babysitter, about how much does it cost you each time you go to school? How many years schooling did you complete? How many years schooling did your husband complete? What is your husband's job? Please eXplain just what it is he does Are you working away from home now? Yes No If yes, are you working: part-time full-time At what kind of job are you working? Please explain just what it is you do? What kind of work does your husband's father do? What kind of work does your father do? Do you belong to any groups that meet regularly, such as: church extension homemakers' group union club other (please specify) social club Into which of these groups does your annual average family income fall? ' Under $5,000 35,000 to 37.999 38,000 to $9,999 310,000 to 312,999 313,000 and over 152 The Pennsylvania State University College of Agriculture In COOperation with the U. S. Department of Agriculture University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE ******* 310 Agricultural Administration Building April, 1972 Dear With the approval and COOperation of the administrators of the School District of the City of York, I am conducting a study among parents of children in York's first grades. I want to learn what school-related activities parents carry out as they COOperate with schools in the educating of their children. I am investigating the effect upon families of the interaction with schools in the hOpes that we may learn what families can do to help improve their children's partici- pation in formal schooling. The sample is to be drawn from parents whose first child is in first grade this year. I plan to interview mothers from the selected families. The interview will take about 30 minutes. Interviewers will contact the families after an introductory letter has been mailed to them. This letter is sent to acquaint you with the research plan, and also to ask your COOperation. In order to have a bench-mark measure of what the school expects, will you please fill out this questionnaire and return to me in the en- closed, self-addressed, stamped envelOpe. Thank you for your willingness to COOperate in this study of family- school interaction. Sincerely, Helen E. Bell Home Management Specialist HEB:dd Enclosures 153 The Pennsylvania State University College of Agriculture In COOperation with the U. S. Department of Agriculture University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE ******* 310 Agricultural Administration Building September 8, 1972 Dear First Grade Teacher: You may have filled out and returned a copy of this questionnaire last spring. If so, please forgive my second intrusion upon your time and disregard this letter. I have no record of teachers' names who did return questionnaires. I asked only that you identify your school. I am contacting teachers in the schools included in my study again since I'm anxious for as complete a return as possible. If you did not fill out and mail back one of these questionnaires last spring, will you please take a few minutes to do so now. Thank you. I appreciate your COOperation. Sincerely, Helen E. Bell Home Management Specialist HEB:dd Enclosures 154 School Date What help, with their child's education, do you expect from parents? (Please jot down the first things that come to your mind.) Do you want parents to ? 2. 10. Discuss the schoolday with the child when he (she) comes home? Visit their child's classroom? Confer with you about the child's schoolwork? Discuss a child's problems, other than schoolwork, with you? Attend special programs at school, such as Parents' Nights, musical and art events, plays? Reinforce your efforts by reviewing lessons with the child? Read books to the child? Send items from home that relate to a unit being studied in school: mementos from trips, pictures, books, arti- facts, and such things? Help with activities at school such as: room mother? Yes No If yes, how Often 155 Do you want parents to ? Yes No If yes, how often 11. library assistant? l2. cafeteria assistant? l3. chaperone on field trips? 14. parties at school? 15. fund-raising events? 16. other? (please Specify) 17. Send "treats” to school for special occasions? 18. Send items for fund— raising school events? 19. Provide materials for special school projects such as art or science projects? 20. Supplement the school's program by buying books, magazines, and other reference materials for the child to use at home? 21. Do you think of other school-related activities you believe parents can carry out to assist you in educating their child? If so, what are they? APPENDIX B PARENTAL SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT SCORES 156 157 Table 61. Summary of Activities Grouped for Parental School Involve- ment Score Questions and TOpics in Three Sub-scores Points Value Sub-score I Showing interest in and encouraging child's schooling Question Topic 2 discussing schoolday 10 3 visiting classroom 10 9 sending items for study 5 29 helping child get ready 6 for schoolday 32 accepting and displaying 5 items child made at school Total 56 Sub-score II Helping child learn 4 conferring with teacher 10 about schoolwork 7 assisting with school- 10 work at home 8 reading to child 10 19 providing materials for 4 special school projects 20 supplying references to use 6 at home Total 40 Sub-score III Helping with at-school activities 6 attending special programs 10 at school 10-16 helping at school 6 l7 sending treats 5 18 sending items for fund- 2 raising events Total 23 Total Parental School Involvement Score 99 158 Table 62. Scores Assigned Sub-score I, Question 2: Discussing the Schoolday Parental Involvement vs a 'U .H Q) O- .H to 'U.C vs rs Frequency and m 33'8 >. :3'8 m Extent of 4;: «p e: +> q 4;: Occurrence 8 8.3’8 8:3 8 a is 5.4.2 . '° a and m S.a ,s s m c .s 8 w :9 8 w a *5 t a: <5 a 0 <5 0 In a Daily for 10 7 6 30-60 min. Daily for 20-29 min. 9 6 5 Daily for 10-19 min. 8 5 8 Daily for Several times a week; 20 or more min. 8 5 3 Several times a week; 10—19 min. 7 4 2 Several times a week; 5-9 min. 6 3 1 Not done 0 159 Table 63. Scores Assigned Sub-score I, Question 3: Classrooms Visiting Parental Involvement 's A vs -:-l a) - -.-1 rs 'U.G '6 rs Frequency and m :8'8 >. :3'8 m Ebctent of 4E 4» w: 4):: 8 Occurrence 8 8.:‘8 8:3 8 2. is: W a Qu4 m 84% .2 a)m o .5 8 ”.8 we 88 00 Sec So one 4 or 5 times for 1 or 2 hours, or more 10 7 6 4 or 5 times for 30 to 59 min. 9 6 5 4 or 5 times for 10 to 29 min. 8 5 4 2 or 3 times for l or 2 hours, or more 9 6 5 2 or 3 times for 30 to 59 min. 8 5 4 2 or 3 times for 10 to 29 min. 7 4 3 1 time for 1 or 2 hours, or more 8 5 2 1 time for 30 to 59 min. 7 4 l 1 time for 10 to 29 min. 6 3 1 Not done 0 160 Table 64. Scores Assigned Sub-score I, Question 9: Sending Items For Study Frequency Score Parents sent: weekly 5 every 2 weeks or monthly 4 5 or 6 times this year 5 3 or 4 times this year 2 1 or 2 times this year 1 Parents did not send, gave reason 2 Parents did not send, gave no reason 0 161 Table 65. Scores Assigned Sub-score I, Question 29: Prepare for Schoolday Helping Child Parental Involvement Score Both parents helped. Mother or father prepared breakfast. Helped with reading or schoolwork before child left for school. Mother or father assisted child with arising, dressing. Breakfast mentioned. Parent helped by packing lunch or driving child to school. Child cared for by other adult if parents at work; care included breakfast. Mother or father assisted. Breakfast mentioned. Child carried out chores. Child arose himself, carried out most of his preparations with minimum help from a parent. Breakfast mentioned. Child arose, dressed and fed himself with little help; chose his own before-school activities. No help from parents indicated 162 Table 66. Scores Assigned Sub-score 1, Question 32: School and Brought Home Items Made at Parental Involvement Score Items child made at school were brought home, shown to family members, discussed. 5 Received with praise and encouragement; then displayed or saved Items displayed in some general area 4 of home Items displayed in child's own room or 3 in Space designated as his own Items were saved, stored in box, scrapbook 2 or in child's room Items were first evaluated by parents, if deemed worthy, were then displayed 1 or saved No response indicated no handling of 0 items by parents 163 Table 67. Scores Assigned Sub-score II, Question 4: Conferring with Teacher About Schoolwork Parental Involvement "d $4 rd °H I~ Q) ~- °H Frequency and .0 .3 fi 3 +2 'U Extent of 48 '6 O .5? .5 g +8 :1 44 v-r—i +> c: Occurrence g a >.m G'U o 2’. 'L‘ 8 2’. 6' ‘* 8. m m-H m 8. Que m Q.H .21 g (15 0) £1 3 0.8 we at an <5 9 0 <5 0 cm s 5 or more times for 1-2 hours 10 7 6 5 or more times for 50-59 min. 9 6 5 5 or more times for 10-29 min. 8 5 4 2 to 4 times for 1-2 hours 9 6 5 2 to 4 times for 30-59 min. 8 5 4 2 to 4 times for 10-29 min. 7 4 5 1 time for 1-2 hours 8 5 2 1 time for 1-2 hours 7 4 l 1 time for 1-2 hours 6 3 1 Not done 0 164 Table 68. Scores Assigned Sub-score 11, Question 7: Assisting With Schoolwork Parental Involvement rs A vs -H o . .H rs rs.s rs rs w-i-P w-l-P Frequency and m to o >. rs o m Extent of *5 +3“: 42:: E o s >.m G'U m Occurrence H 2.: 5 8:8 a 8 mm... m 8. Qn4 w o.a .s a cat .2 s. o a o o c-p o 0 a1 (3 h 0 <3 0 27; 8 U 5:) Occurrence 8, §r§.§ g;g 5‘ .3. o a, S o 60 8 o .s :‘3 +> o (g c o s-p o o m $4 0 O O m C: Daily for 30-60 min. 10 7 6 Daily for 20-29 min. 9 6 5 Daily for 10-19 min. 8 5 '+ 2 or 3 times a week; 30—60 min. 9 6 5 2 or 3 times a week; 20-29 min. 8 5 4 2 or 3 times a week; lO-19 min. 7 4 5 Once a week or less; 30—60 min. 8 5 2 Once a week or less; 20-29 min. 7 4 1 Once a week or less; 10-19 min. 6 3 1 Not done 0 166 Table 70. Scores Assigned Sub-score II, Question 19: Materials for Special Projects Provided Parental Involvement Score Items were frequently supplied for special projects at school. When needed, parents bought as well as sent things readily found at home. Items readily found at home were frequently supplied. Items were infrequently supplied; when they thought it desirable, parents did buy some things. Items were infrequently supplied and only those things readily found at home were sent. Parents did not send 167 Table 71. Scores Assigned Sub-score II, Question 20: References Provided for Use at Home Parental Involvement Score Parents purchased 3 or 4 different kinds of reference materials several 6 times this year Parents purchased 2 different kinds 5 of references several times this year Parents purchased 1 reference several 4 times this year Parents purchased 3 or 4 different kinds of reference materials one or 3 two times this year Parents purchased 2 different kinds of 2 references one or two times this year Parents purchased 1 reference, one or 1 two times this year Parents did not purchase references 0 this year 168 Table 72. Scores Assigned Sub-score 111, Question 6: Attending Programs at School Y2 Parental Involvement rs .H I 0 re vs C 'U -a o oH-p w to -H to o m .p m a +3 Frequency and 8 13’ >2 8 “E? .6 5 Extent of 8. 2: 2", 8 2:3 8.“ Occurrence 8H3 m 8.u 2 £1 % 0 >5 0) .C 4: o .Ora 0.: -P'U o g a) 4: H 5 +> o "-1 .a1 a o,m. o :nsn 4 or more times this year; 2 or more hours each time 10 9 8 4 or more times this year; 1-2 hours each time ‘ 9 8 7 4 or more times this year; 15-59 min. each time 8 7 6 3 times this year; 2 or more hours each time 9 8 7 3 times this year; 1-2 hours each time 8 7 6 3 times this year; 15-59 min. each time 7 6 5 2 times this year; 2 or more hours each time 8 7 6 2 times this year; 1-2 hours each time 7 6 5 2 times this year; 15-59 min. each time 6 5 4 1 time this year; 2 hours or more each time 7 6 3 1 time this year; 1-2 hours each time 6 5 2 1 time this year; 15-59 min. each time 5 4 1 No time this year 0 Table 73. at School 169 Scores Assigned Sub-score III, Questions 10-16: Helping Parental Involvement '7 +§ +;:= o o o s c m Frequency and .U ,5 g ,6 g Extent of :3 :3 g :3 H Occurrence g g g A g o m o .2 .2 m .c o t t :t t t 5: 2 b0 2: ho Helped with 4-5 activities; 10-20 hours 6 Helped with 4-5 activities; 2—10 hours 5 Helped with 4-5 activities; 30-119 min. 4 Helped with 2-3 activities; 10-20 hours 5 Helped with 2-3 activities; 2-10 hours 4 Helped with 2—3 activities; Helped with 1 activity; 10-20 hours 4 Helped with 1 activity; 2-10 hours 5 Helped with 1 activity; 30-119 min. 2 Did not help 1 Did not help 0 170 Table 74. Scores Assigned Sub-score III, Question 17: Sending Treats to School Parental Involvement Score Parents did 8-10 times this year 5 Parents did 5-7 times this year 4 Parents did 2-4 times this year 5 Parents did 1 time this year 2 Parents did not send but gave reason 1 Parents did not send; gave no reason 0 Table 75. Scores Assigned Sub-score III, Question 18: for Fund-raising Events Sending Items T Parental Involvement Score Parents did 2-3 times this year 2 Parents did 1 time this year 1 Parents did not send this year 0 APPENDIX C TABLES 171 172 Table 76. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Family Social Class Parental School Involvement Scores Family Social Sub-score I Sub-score II Sub—score III Total Class Positions mean var. mean var. mean var. mean var. I Upper (N=5) 17.8 26.7 22.6 50.5 8.6 14.8 49.0 98.0 11 Upper-middle (N26) 21.3 19.5 26.2 185.8 12.2 7.8 59.7 169.9 III Lower-middle (N=l8) 18.8 18.3 26.1 49.2 7.6 15.5 52.5 110.3 IV Upper-lower (N=53) 18.0 28.0 22.7 53.0 8.0 21.9 48.7 155.4 V Lower—lower (N=15) 17.0 15.6 20.5 61.7 6.1 15.9 45.6 151.4 Table 77. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Family Income Categories Parental School Involvement Scores Family income Sub-score I Sub-score II Sub-score III Total mean var. mean var. mean var. mean var. Under $5,000 (N=5) 18.4 15.8 17.0 59.5 6.2 15.2 41.6 62.8 35,000 to 87,999 (N=10) 15.4 24.9 21.4 66.7 5.2 19.5 42.0 167.1 38,000 to 89,999 (N=32) 17.9 27.2 21.7 55.4 7.9 18.4 47.5 166.4 310,000 to $12,999 (N=30) 19.2 22.0 26.4 56.7 8.6 15.9 54.1 151.6 813,000 and over (N=l8) 18.7 15.9 22.7 57.6 9.1 27.2 50.5 85.4 175 Table 78. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Fathers' Occupation Fathers' Occupation Parental School Involvement Scores Sub-score III Total Sub—score I Sub-score II mean var. mean var. mean var. mean var. Higher executives and major professionals (N=5) Business managers, lesser profes- sionals and proprietors (N=5) Administrative Personnel, lesser professionals, and small busi- ness owners (N=l7) Technicians, clerical and sales (N=l7) Skilled manual (N231) Machine Operators and semi-skilled (N=l7) Unskilled and unemployed (N=5) 17.8 26.7 22.6 50.5 20.6 20.3 27.0 227.0 19.5 22.3 27.1 44.0 18.4 26.9 21.1 48.9 17.8 28.1 25.0 54.5 17.4 19.1 22.1 70.1 16.8 10.2 19.2 8.7 8.6 12.8 7.6 8.2 7.9 7.4 4.6 14.8 607 17.8 15.9 23.2 19.1 19.8 49.0 60.4 54.2 47.7 48.7 46.8 40.6 98.0 208.5 74.6 147.5 164.1 186.7 27.5 174 Table 79. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Fathers' Education Parental School Involvement Scores Fathers' Sub-score I Sub-score II Sub-score III Total education mean var. mean var. mean var. mean var. Less than 8 yrs. (N=2) 14.5 4.5 18.5 4.5 6.5 0.5 59.5 0.50 8 up to 12 yrs. (N221) 16.9 20.9 22.9 54.1 6.3 17.2 46.2 117.9 12 years (N=48) 18.5 24.0 25.4 54.2 7.8 22.5 49.5 154.7 12 years plus additional training (N216) 20.2 27.4 24.2 81.8 10.0 14.7 54.4 145.9 4 years college (N=l) 19.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 49.0 0.0 4 years college plus graduate study (N=8) 18.1 22.9 25.4 88.5 10.1 10.1 51.6 184.8 175 Table 80. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Mothers' Education Parental School Involvement Scores Mothers' Sub~score I Sub—score II Sub-score III Total education mean var. mean var. mean var. mean var. 8-12 yrs. (N=20) 18.5 24.1 22.2 47.5 8.5 15.1 49.2 85.6 12 years (N258) 18.0 25.9 25.0 62.6 7.5 19.8 48.6 167.9 12 years plus additional . training 2! (N=l2) 19.5 19.5 26.5 85.7 7.5 27.7 55.1 201.2 4 years college (N=5) 15.8 2.7 21.0 60.5 10.4 17.5 47.2 147.2 4 years college plus graduate study (N=2) 21.0 52.0 24.5 12.5 12.0 18.0 57.5 4.5 Table 81. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Mothers' Employment Parental School Involvement Scores Mothers' Sub-score I Sub-score II Sub-score III Total employment mean var. mean var. mean var. mean var. Not employed away from home (N260) 17.7 25.5 25.6 68.5 7.7 18.6 47.9. 157.4 Employed full- time (N=l8) 18.5 25.8 25.2 49.1 7.8 25.9 49.5 154.2 Employed part- time (N=l9) 19.9 21.5 25.2 47.5 8.8 20.3 55.9 108.4 176 Table 82. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Mothers' Membership in Groups Parental School Involvement Scores Mothers' Membership Sub-score I Sub-score II Sub-score III Total in Groups mean var. mean var. mean var. mean var. Belonged to no group (N=2) 17.5 12.5 50.0 0.0 1.5 4.5 49.0 2.0 One group (N243) 16.9 25.2 25.7 55.5 6.6 16.5 47.2 140.5 Two groups (N232) 19.5 24.9 22.5 66.5 8.1 16.4 50.1 160.7 Three groups (N210) 19.5 14.5 25.0 80.7 12.5 18.5 55.0 157.1 Four groups (N=4) 21.5 11.6 28.8 66.9 11.5 9.0 61.5 62.5 Five groups (N=1) 17.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 58.0 0.0 177 Table 83. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Sex of First Graders Sex of children in study Sub-score I mean var 0 Parental School Involvement Scores Sub—score II Sub-score III Total mean var. mean var. mean var. Boys (N252) Girls (N=45) 17.8 18.8 24.2 22.8 24.2 60.9 7.7 15.5 49.6 149.1 22.1 59.5 8.2 25.0 49.1 155.6 Table 84. Mean and Variance Summary for Parental School Involvement and Number of Other Children in Families Number other children in Sub-score I Parental School Involvement Scores Sub-score II Sub-score III Total families mean var. mean var. mean var. mean var. None 7 (N=l5) 18.1 20.4 24.5 71.8 7.5 29.9 49.7 162.9 One (N=52) 18.2 18.7 22.0 52.1 8.1 19.5 48.5 128.6 Two (N=25) 18.4 58.1 25.5 54.1 7.6 17.5 51.5 198.7 Three (N=25) 18.1 28.8 22.6 129.5 9.5 15.2 50.0 167.7