PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THEIR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION ON THE JUNIOR HIGH LEVEL IN URBAN ‘ SCHOOLS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT (AS INDICATED BY GRADE POINT AVERAGE, RATES OF ATTENDANCE, AND CITIZENSHIP AVERAGE); TO PARENTAL STATUS; TO DISTANCE OF THE HOME FROM SCHOOL; AND TO THE PARENT’S SEX Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FRANK HUNTER‘WILSON 1976 LIBRARY I“ ...‘ -.-n ¢*-.".\ t' ,j-' {i} l.| 4, I 8“ L . O “3“ ‘39”: .i"_.-‘.""‘ Ufi; I $.-'£.J..‘a' This is to certify that the PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT VITH THEIRCDIIILEIIRENvS EDUCATION ON THE JUNIOR HIGH LEVEL IN URBAN SCHOOLS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT (AS INDICATED BY GRADE POINT AVERAGE, RATES OF ATTENDANCE AND CITIZENSHIP AVERAGE) :TO PARENTAL STATUS: To DISTANCE FROM THE HOME TO THE SCHOOL: AND TO THE PARENTS SEX presented by Frank H. Wilson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Secondary Education And Curriculum 25 15%; Major professor Date April 269' 1976 0-7639 ItIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAIN \ W; A I "24' . TL! I (Ea-45? 4/ MAR o 6 2003 :31 5'} ii”- fl f5? ABSTRACT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION ON THE JUNIOR HIGH LEVEL IN URBAN SCHOOLS AND ITS RELATIONSHIPGK) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT (AS INDICATED BY GRADE POINT AVERAGE, RATES OF ATTENDANCE AND CITIZENSHIP AVERAGE); To PARENTAL STATUS: TO DISTANCE FROM THE HOME TO THE SCHOOL; AND TO THE PARENT'S SEX by Frank Hunter Wilson The major objective of the study was to determine if there exists significant relationships between parental involve- ment and (1) student achievement (i.e., grade point average, rates of attendance, and citizenship average); (2) parental status (one or two parent home); (3) distance from the home to the school; and (4) the parent's sex. The population consisted of parents who had children attending the five junior high schools in Lansing (Otto, Walter French, Gardner, Rich and Pattengill). The sample consisted of parents of 280 eighth and ninth grade children who were selected from among the students attending each of the five schools. A questionnaire was used to obtain parental responses to gather data to determine the relationships with independent variables. The data gathered were analyzed by multiple re- gression and analysis of variance. The unique feature of the present study is its analysis of "parental involvement" into five levels as suggested by Ira Gordon: (a) bystander, (b) Frank Hunter Wilson teacher of the child, (c) school volunteer, (d) trained worker, and (e) decision-maker. Major Findings 1. It was found that differences in parental involvement are related to high or low achievement among children. Analysis of data shows a relationship between parental involvement and student achievement. However no conclusion can be made on the basis of the demonstrated relationship that if parents get in- volved with their child's education their child's grade point average will go up. 2. The results of the data analysis failed to indicate any relationship between parental involvement and one-parent or two-parent households. 3. It was found that there is a relationship between distance fromthe home to the school and parental involvement. However the only significance was found in the subscore for the level of parents as volunteers. There did not appear to be significance in the other subscore levels. The study did not go into depth on the independent variable distance and no con- clusions can be drawn on how distance affects parental involve- ment. 4. There is evidence in the data results that indicate that there is a relationship between parental involvement and the sex of the parent. Recommendations l. Elaborate the present study to determine the Frank Hunter Wilson relationships between minority parental involvement and in- dependent variables. 2. Develop a study, based on the present study's review of literature and findings, to determine more precisely the ,nature of the relationship between involvement and the success their children have in their school experiences. 3. Develop a study to determine more precisely why parents are motivated at different levels to become involved with their child's education. 4. Examine further the interrelationships between "low achievement" children, family size and parental level of edu- cational attainment. 5. Conduct a study to determine if busing effects parental involvement. (Parental involvement at varying levels, as de- fined in the present study.) 6. Develop studies using the five levels of involvement employed in the present study and other variables not included in the present study but which also might contribute to differ— ences among the levels of achievement in the child's education. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION ON THE JUNIOR HIGH LEVEL IN URBAN SCHOOLS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT (AS INDICATED BY GRADE POINT AVERAGE, RATES OF ATTENDANCE, AND CITIZENSHIP AVERAGE) ; TO PARENTAL STATUS; TO DISTANCE OF THE HOME FROM SCHOOL; AND TO THE PARENT'S SEX ' ‘ by Frank Hunter Wilson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1976 O God, my heart is fixed; I will sing and give praise, even with my glory. Psalms 108:1 ii to my mother and father who embedded the seed that grew into the realization that you cannot get anywhere without an education iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Great appreciation is expressed to Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, my committee chairman, for his direction, guidance, valuable coun- sel and criticisms throughout, and to Dr. Howard Hickey, Dr. Albert E. Levak, and Dr. Dale Alam for their help and encourage- ment. A warm expression of thanks goes to Dr. Richard Benjamin, Director of Research for the Lansing schools, whose help made this study possible. Special thanks is extended to the principals of the five junior high schools for their cooperation. Special thanks go to Ms. Gali Edon for her assistance in research design and analysis. Finally, a special word of appreciation to family and friends, especially Mary Susa, who withstood the ups and downs and whose constant encouragement helped me to complete the study. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Need for the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Specific Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Limitations of the Study. . . . . . 14 Overview of the Organization of this Study. 14 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . 16 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Present Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Problems of Parental Involvement. . . . . . 22 Proposals and Models. . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Desirable Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Description of Lansing Community. . . . . . 38 Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . . 46 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample . 51 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Distributions of the Five Subscores . . . . 69 Analysis of Multiple Regression . . . . . 83 Restatement of the Research Hypotheses of the Study and Examination of the analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . 92 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Discussion of Findings. . . . . . . . . . . 105 Further Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 V Table of Contents cont'd. Recommendations Comments. . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . u APPENDICES A. QUESTIONNAIRE, QUESTIONNAIRE . B. LETTER TO PRINCIPALS C. D. FOLLOW-UP CARDS. . . E. FOLLOW-UP LETTER . . LETTER ENCLOSED LETTER TO PARENTS FROM PRINCIPALS. vi Page 108 109 111 118 135 136 141 142 Table 3-01 3-02 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-20 LIST OF TABLES Student breakdowns in each of four of the junior high schools . . . . . . . Student breakdowns in one of the junior high schools . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaires returned by schools; Fathers- Questionnaires returned by schools; Mothers- Years lived in the City of Lansing; Fathers- Years lived in the City of Lansing; Mothers- Own or rent home; Fathers- - . . - - - - - - Own or rent home; Mothers- - - - - - . - - - Employment rates of Fathers- - - - . . . . - Employment rates of Mothers- - - - - . - . - Primary source of income; Fathers- - - - - . Primary source of income; Mothers- - - - - - Kind of occupation; Fathers- . . - - . . - . Kind of occupation; Mothers- - - - - - - - Number of children; Fathers- - - - - - . . . Number of children; Mothers. . . . . . . . . Educational level completed; Fathers . . . . Educational level completed; Mothers . . . . Attended the Lansing public school; Fathers. Attended the Lansing public school; Mothers- Rate the kind of education your child is receiving; Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rate the kind of education your child is receiving; Mothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page . 47 . 48 50 . 50 . 52 . 52 . 53 . 53 . 54 . 54 . 55 . 56 . 56 . 57 . 57 . 58 . 59 . 59 . 60 . 60 . 61 . 61 LIST OF TABLES cont'd. CTables 3-21 4-6 4-7 Compare your child's junior high school to others in the district; Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compare your child's junior high school to others in the district; Mothers . , . . . . , , How does your child get to school; Fathers How does your child get to school; Mothers One-parent or Two-parent; Fathers One-parent or Two-parent; Mothers Identity; Fathers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L Identity; Mothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of children now attending Lansing public SCh001 ; Fathers 0 O I O O O O O O O Q 0 O . O O O 0 Number of children now attending Lansing public school; Mothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five levels of parental involvement according to subscores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected independent variables. . . . . . . . . . . Sub-score 1 Parental Involvement (Audience, By— stander Observer) Distribution of I Scores from Mothers Sub-score 1 Parental Involvement (Audience, By- atander Observer) Distribution of Scores from Fathers Sub-score 2 Parental Involvement (Teacher of the Child)£fistribution of Scores From Mothers . . . . . Sub-score 2 Parental Involvement (Teacher of the Child)Efistribution of Scores From Fathers . . . . . Sub-score 3 Parental Involvement (Volunteer) Distribution of Scores From Mothers , , , , , , , , Sub-score 3 Parental Involvement (Volunteer) Distribution of Scores From Fathers , , , , , , , , viii Page 62 62 63 63 64 65 65 66 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 7A 75 76 LIST OF TABLES cont'd. Tables 4-9 4-10 4-17 4-18 4-19 4-20 4-21 4-22 4-23 4-24 4-25 4-26 4-27 Sub-score 4 Parental Involvement (Trained WCrker) Distribution of Scores From Mothers , Sub-score 4 Parental Involvement (Trained Worker) Distribution of Scores From Fathers . Sub-score 5 Parental Involvement (Decision Maker) Distribution of Scores From Mothers . . . . . . Sub-score 5 Parental Involvement (Decision Maker) Distribution of Scores From Fathers . . . . . . Total of Sub-score Distribution of Scores From Mothers. . . . . . Total of Sub-score Distribution of Scores From Fathers . . . . . . Five regression equations for five subscale scores. SC 1 Parents score as Bystander—Observer . . . SC 2 Parents score as Teacher of the child . . SC 3 Parents score as Volunteer . . . . . . . . SC 4 Parents score as Trained worker . . . . . SC 5 Parents score as Decision maker . . . . . Summary of one-way analysis of variance with 5 subscores Independent variable achievement . . Mean subscale scores for high--low achievement Summary of three-way analysis of variance (sex, distance and parental status) with 5 subscores Mean subscale scores for status of parent (singleL Summary of three-way analysis of variance (sex, distance and parental status) with 5 subscores Mean subscale scores for distance. . . . . . . Summary of three-way analysis of variance (sex, distance and parental status) with S subscores ix 0 Page 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 LIST OF TABLES cont'd. Tables 4-28 4-29 4-30 4-31 Page Mean subscale scores for sex of the parent. . . . . 99 Understood the operation of the Code of Conduct Distribution of responses from Fathers. . . . . . . 100 Understood the operation of the Code of Conduct Distribution of responses from Mothers. . . . . . . 100 Whether they thought the Code of Conduct was fair to the student. Distribution of responses from Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Whether they thought the Code of Conduct was fair to the student. Distribution of responses from Mothers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Introduction "What will become of this twelve year old of mine, of mine? A twelve year old with a mental age of nine, of nine. With an 1.0. of 74 at best who never passed an algebra test Must he always go through life depressed Then stand in a welfare line? At the age of six the law can be so cruel, so cruel. With a mental age of four and a half he went to school. With social promotion, he failed and failed As through the primary grades he trailed Till now on his heart a sign is nailed 'A fool, a fool.’ We plant seeds in early March And some we plant in May But kids are planted in school at six Right after Labor Day. Without regard for the varying vine, The honeysuckle or pumpkin kind. A farmer would never be so inclined To plant his seeds that way. God has given girls and boys to me and you To raise in the very finest way we knew, we knew. We've done our best both day and night To bring our little boy up right. But now he had afademic blight What can we do?" The strength of a society lies in its children. If a society wants to be strong, it will concern itself with the 1Louise Bates Ames, Clyde Gillespie and John W. Streff, Stop School Failure, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, E72)! p. 2700 1 kind of education its youth will have available to them. Furthermore, it will be concerned that all of its Children, whatever their race, color, creed, nationality or sex wlll receive the best education_possible. There are important questions to be asked and important questions to be answered by all who are involved with the educational system. Has serious thought and review by those involved been given to their position in the school? Is everything possible being done to see to it that the school is providing the best education to all who attent? Are those involved with the educational system physically and emotionally able? What are the attitudes of the educators? These ques- tions also hold relevance for the parent. Because, regardless of the degree of parental involvement with their children or with the school system, parents can have an impact on their children's education. The questions are important because they concern our children, and our youth, who all too soon have enormous responsibilities placed upon them. How they deal with their responsibilities, their failure or success, will be significantly influenced by the kind of education they have received. Urban public schools are the only means thousands of children -- black and white -- have of getting a formal education. Yet, "our large city school systems are on the verge of complete collapse...The National Assessment of Educational Progress reveals that achievement in the schools of the inner city has fallen even below that in schools of the rural South, traditionally the nation's inferior schools."2 It will be the major purpose of this study to explore how parental...involvement relates to...such factors as achieve- ment, attendance rates, and incidence of crime in the urban city school.3 Restoring the public's faith in the public schools is becoming a national priority. There is a great deal of criticism that our schools have not done their job. John Holt says that one of the reasons our schools (particularly the urban city schools) have not done their job is because the schools have not met the needs of all the children: There is no use any longer in talking about the American Way of Life - that way has excluded too many for too long. It is time to think of American Ways of Life, of sharply separated and perhaps widely different cultures existing in this country in mutual respect and under the protection of the law. In addition to the "exclusion" of some of our children from our schools, educational folklore has contributed to the public's lack of confidence in the schools. Although schools 2Charles F. Kettering Foundation, The Reform of Secondary Education, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), pp. 8-9. 3See, for instance, "Parent Patrols are Scaring Would-be Vandals," American School Board Journal, July 1974, p. 38, where examples are gIVen of how parents can help in the fight against vandalism: some groups establish 'patrol' schedules, making sure they don't settle into patterns that vandals can recognize easily. 4John Holt, The Underachieving School (New York: Pitman Publishing Corp., 1969), p. 123. have made some changes in recent years, "educators still base many practices upon the convictions of the past."5 A classical example is the way minority groups, who now protest for better schools, are treated by some educators with the same disdain that was displayed against the communist witchhunters of the 1950's. Other examples of fallacious folk- lore are: 1. Persons who start 'school fights' want to harm schools. 2. Organized minority groups enjoy power and deliberately harass educators. 3. A majority in the community approves the schools; there is only dissatis- faction among minority groups. 4. Professional people in the community are best qualified to serve on school boards. 5. School boards should serve in an advisory capacity only. - 6. Given an opportunity, laymen will encroach unduly upon the work of the professional educators. The minority public who have children attending urban schools need to become increasingly articulate about school affairs. Because of a lack in understanding present day black life styles, on the part of the white middle class, minority groups are beginning to seek a greater voice in educational matters in order to improve the educational oppor- tunities for their children. In the case of black, Chicano, Indian, Puerto Rican and poor white children who attend schools not designed to serve their own cultural, social, and political interests, it is an obligation and . necessity that parents/families 9e involved in shaping the educational process. L sMilan B. Dady, "Improving School-Community Relations," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, WIHter, 1972, p. 93. 61bid., p. 93. 7Preston Wilcox, "Parental Decision-Making: An Educational Necessity," Theory_into Practice, Vol. XI, No. 3, 1974, p. 180. One important function of parental participation Few middle Americans have conditioned their minds and hearts to respect blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, Indians, and poor whites as human beings. Both the opportunity to guard and guide the development of their own children and the ensuing capabilities that flow from such opportunities make a differential contri- bution to student achievement.8 The present era of great educational uncertainty points up the importance of American people having confidence in their public schools. The schools can help restore confidence by allowing the public to participate in school affairs. But it is the parents who hold the key. Vito Perrone feels "parents are not dealt with seriously. They have few opportunities to engage in intense educational discussion." Perrone also feels that "most school officials have little knowledge about parental interests in education."9 He further indicates that urban schools could better serve the students if its officials listened to the parents. Perrone's statement that follows holds true for the urban school as well as for any school in more affluent suburban locales. I am more certain than ever that parents have much to contribute to the schools by assisting teachers in establishing goals, contributing directly to the instructional program, and evaluating educational outcomes.1 is that of guarding the right of all children to be treated as human beings. 81bid., p. 182. 9Vito Perrone, "Parents as Partners", The Urban Review, November, 1971, p. 40. Ibid., p. 40. 10 This study will examine parental involvement with their children's education and attempt to determine in what manner their involvement affects their education. The focus is on parents who have children attending urban schools on the junior high school level. The study will be based on a population drawn from the five junior high schools of Lansing, Michigan. The Problem Efforts to change and improve curricula have been occurr ing as long as there have been schools. However, though administrators, teachers, and curriculum directors have tried new techniques, new concepts, and new materials, nevertheless there still persist among students, high rates of absenteeism beyond acceptable reasons, dropouts, poor achievement in learning, unmotivated learners, disruptive learners, and seemingly disinterested parents. Furthermore, in spite if directed change, too often there are indications of increases in these problems. Educators continue to pursue the possibi- lity that curriculum improvements might help alleviate these difficulties, and they continue to ask questions about their own practices. One question appears well worth exploring: to what extent does parental involvement have an impact? “For many years schools have operated apart from parents, involving them in school affairs only through a few PTA meetings or a visit to school....As soon as these contacts are over, the staff generally feels a great sense of 11 relief and says, 'now we can get to work'." 11Jerry L. Abbott, "Community Involvement: Everybody's Talking About It," National Elementary Principal, Vol. 52. January, 1973, p. 561 "Separating the public school from the parent does not help to close the generation gap."12 13 "But all of this is changing." School officials through— out the country are becoming newly aware that parents must become involved to a much greater degree in the education of their children. As a result of this awareness programs for more intensive parental involvement have been implemented. While at the New School, University of North Dakota, Perrone wrote: that the New School staff has found that parents and their children are our principal supporters (in fostering alternative educa- tional approaches in the schools). In the process they have become, at least in many of the communities in which we've been working, active participants on the educational scene. Indifference about what goes on inside school classrooms is rapidly being replaced by serious interest. School officials also are aware that an unfavorable environment hinders a child's progress at school. Therefore there is a great need to help parents of disadvantaged boys and girls become aware of the requirements for success at school and to encourage their involvement in their Children's educational progress. 12Arthur H. Rice, "Squeeze the Parents out of School and See What We Get," Nation's Schools, Vol. 85, April, 1970, p. 18. Abbott, op.cit., p. 53. What is changing is the gap between parents and schools. More and more educators and parents are trying to work together in the interest of the child. 13 14Perrone, op.cit., p. 35. 15See "Home Visitation and Parent Involvement,“ Today's Education NEA Journal, October, 1971, p. 10. Improved communication between home and school is imperative if we are to meet these goals. 6 Changes are happening because a "new breed of parents has 17 come on the scene." These parents feel the job of education is too big to leave to the professionals alone. They are not survival or goal oriented parents; rather they are identity or role oriented. They see themselves and their children tossed and thrown about by the industrial state--rapidly becoming the super- industrial state—-and they don't like it. They wonder if the schools are meeting the needs of their children and there is only one way that they can find out: Get involved. Increasingly, parents are saying that they want to be more actively involved. Urban parents, despite the talk to the contrary. as implied by Calvert Smith, are interested in their children's education. Parents in the inner city are not interested in how profession- als serving them accomplish their tasks, they merely want their 19 Smith also observes that: children educated. One of the gravest problems of all faced by school systems with large concentration of inner city students...is a deeply ingrained belief...that such children have less ability to learn than other children....The attitude that large numbers of children are uneducable gives teachers an easy out if they work where most of their students score in the bottom fifth if the nation on standardized reading tests. 16 17 18 19 Ibid. Abbott, op.cit., p. 57. Ibid., p. 57. Calvert Hayes Smith, "Prerequisites to Successful Teaching in Inner-City Communities," Education and Urban Society, Vol. 4, November, 1971, p. 50. 20 Ibid., p. 42. £“““' 0 ‘ 9 Whereas a large percentage of urban school teachers believe that the students are intellectually inferior to other students, a far larger number ascribe the failures of education in these situations to some kind of social pathology existing 21 in the life style of students and their parents. Smith suggests that the "new breed of parent" is changing this situ- ation. They are having an impact. They have demonstrated they can have an impact just by demanding a voice in their children's education. Teachers in the inner city must understand and accept the fact that they are servants of the community.22 They are working with that community's most valuable commodity, its children; therefore, community peOple have a right to question the teachers' performance and activities and the teacher has an obligation to respond.23 In summary, the problem to which this study will be addressed is the problem of effective parental involvement in the education of urban school children. As indicated in the passages cited above, parents apparently want to become more involved, and benefits appear to result when they do become involved. It may be that some school officials have too little knowledge of parental interests, but it appears that officials are becoming increasingly aware of the need for and advantages of increased parental involvement. The purpose of the present study will be to explore the relationship between parental in- volvement with their children's education in five urban schools 21Ibid. 22 23Smith, op.cit., p. 48. Ibid. 10 and its relationship to student achievement (as indicated by grade point average, rates of attendance, and citizenship average); to parent status; to distance of the home from school; and to the parents' sex. Need For The Study The Kerner Commission wrote: Education in a democratic society must equip the children of the nation to realize their potential and to participate fully in American life. For the community at large, the schools have discharged this responsibility well, but for many minorities, and particularly for the children of the racial ghetto, the schools have failed to provide the educational experience which could overcome the effects of discrimination, deprivation, and institutional racism.24 Wilson Record also writes: We can no longer postpone confrontation of our failure and of its victims. The high school dropout (or is it shove-out, or counsel-out) will no longer drop unprotestingly into the common labor market. People in ghetto-like confinements in our central Cities have complained more and more since World War II that they are being shortchanged in the schools. The urban schools have by now well-known statistics of increased number of dropouts, low reading scores, overcrowded classrooms, low aspiration levels, and high frequencies of disciplinary problems. Statistics also 24Otto Kerner, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: Bantam Books, 1968), p. 424. Wilson Record, "The White Professional Educators and the Black Ghetto Schools," The Journal of Negro Education, 1971, p. 45. 25 11 show that urban schools have old facilities, and high teacher turnover rates.26 Apparently there is, therefore, a need to bring together into more effective interaction all those persons involved in education. This study will investigate if more effective parental involvement in the urban school can result in a better education for the learner in the urban school. It would be good for all concerned in the education of our youth to remember the observation by Kenneth Clark, "Children who are treated as if they are uneducable invariably become unedu- cable,"27 along with a statement by Lincoln, "when you have extinguished his soul in this world and placed him where the ray of hope is blown out...you have destroyed the mind."28 Specific Purpose The present study is an attempt to examine parental in- volvement with their children's education and to determine whether there is a relationship between parental involvement and independent variables. The focus is on parents who have children attending urban schools on the junior high school level. The specific purposes will be to study: 26"It almost appears that in public schools today, the teacher is afraid of the superintendent; the superintendent is afraid of the school board; the board is afraid of the parents; the parents are afraid of children; and the children are afraid of nobody." Clemont E. Vontress, Our Demoralizing Slum Schools, Publisher Detroit,l965,p.56. Kenneth B. Clark, Dark Ghetto (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1965), p. 128. ‘ Tim.Haskins, Black Manifesto for Education (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1973), p. 10. 27 28 12 1. Whether there is a significant relation- ship between parental involvement and student achievement (as indicated by grade point average, rates of attendance, and citizenship average). 2. Whether there is a significant relation- ship between parental involvement and parent status (one or two parent home). 3. Whether there is a significant relation- ship between parental involvement and the distance from home to urban school. 4. Whether there is a significant relationship between parental involvement and the sex of the parent. Definition of Terms For purposes of the present study "parental involvement" (the dependent variable) shall be defined on five levels: Level One. Level Two; Level Three Level Four Level Five Bystander ‘ Participation by parents in their children's education as an audience, getting the mes- sage and listening to the word, or involved as bystanders and observers. Teacher of the child Participation by parents in their children's education as a direct and active teacher of the child. Volunteer Participation by parent in their children's education as aides and volunteers. Trained worker Participation by parents in their children's education in non-professional, sub-profes- sional or semi-professional roles for which the parent has received some training. Decision maker Participation by parent in their children's education as participant decision makers regarding school policies and programs. The Independent Variables of the study are defined as follows: 13 "Sexl" Refers to the sex of the parent (male/ female). "Sex2" Refers to the sex of the Child (male/ female). "Distance" Refers to the distance from home to school and is broken down into four "distances.” (Walks over 10 blocks, Walks over 5 blocks, Walks under 5 blocks, Rides school bus). "Achievement" Refers to high or low academic performance as indicated by three combined measures (a) grade point average, (b) attendance rates, (c) citizenship. "Type of Refers to the status of the parents (one- Household" parent or two-parents residing in the household). The three measures combined in "achievement" need to be further defined: (a) "High grade point average" means 3.7 (4.0 is perfect) or above while "Low grade point average" means 1.9 or below. (b) "Good attendance" means five or fewer absences per year and "Poor attendance" means fifteen or more absences. (c) "Citizenship is rated by the school on individual student records on a scale as follows: l-Excellent, 2-Good, 3-Average, 4-Poor, and 5-Failure. These three dimensions of "achievement" were used in a combined way to select the children of parents who were invited to participate in this study. Half the invited parents were those of children who had "high achievement" (at least 3.7 grade point average, no more than five absences, and a citi- zenship rating of "good" or better). The other half of parents invited were children who had a grade point average below 1.9, more than fifteen absences, and a citizenship rating of "poor" or worse. 14 Subjects who participated in the study: The parents were selected from the names of 280 eighth and ninth grade children attending the five junior high schools in Lansing. Childrens names were entered on a list divided into high and low achievement. High and low achievement was deter- mined as defined above by grade point average, rates of attendance, and citizenship. Instrument used: The questionnaire was comprised of six sections designed around five levels of involvement as defined above. The first section consisted of questions about general characteristics of the samples. Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 pertained to the five levels of involvement. The last three questions of the ques- tionnaire pertained to what parent felt about their child's school, and a space was provided for comments. (Refer to Appendix A). Limitations of the Study The limitations of the study include the following: 1. Only eighth and ninth grade student data were used. 2. Student data were based on 1974-75 records. 3. Five junior high schools in only one geographical location c00perated in this study. 4. Representation of minorities was not identified. 5. The study is concerned only with the significance of certain independent variables and the relationship between them and parental involvement. Other variables have not been studied. Overview of the Organization of this Study The balance of this study is organized into four chapters. Chapter Two: Review of Literature -- In this chapter literature, including research, theory and thought which relate to the area of this study, is reviewed. Chapter Three: The Lansing community is described, the population and sample is defined, the design, and development 15 of the instrument and the methodology are explained. Chapter Four: Contains the findings of the statistical techniques and analysis of the data. Chapter Five: Summary and Conclusion -- The chapter is a summary of the study and a discussion of the conclusions from the findings from the analysis of the data. CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE In this chapter, educational literature pertaining to parental involvement in their children's education will be reviewed. The purpose is to discover evidence indicating that parental involvement in their children's education can have an impact on student achievement, attendance and citizen- ship. This chapter will look into the nature of the present situation and changes taking place. It will look into the nature of specific problems of parent, child, and school involvement and will look into proposals and models suggested on how to correct or cope with the problem and situation. Desirable outcomes will be reviewed. Present Situation Parents have too often left the responsibility of the education of their children to the schools. Their role has in the past been very limited. The present situation finds their role still very limited but parents are now speaking out when asked about their children's education. In a report1 on the education of the children of the poor, Robert Cooke writes that parents should be involved both for their own and their children's benefit.q Many of them have deep feelings of IRobert Cooke, "Report to Sargent Shriver, Office of Economic Opportunity, on Improving the Opportunity and Achieve- ments of the Children of the Poor", Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. (Mimeographed) l6 17 love and aspiration for their children which can be capital- ized upon in this program. These parents - have many of the same feelings and attitudes of their children - need individualized attention - need success experiences along with their children Maynor2 states that "it is a great mistake to assume that ghetto parents want less than the best for their children... The parent, deprived of opportunity in his own youth, might have no more than the dimmest understanding of his duty to the child...Out big job often is not with child, but with the child's parent." Cuban3 points out that on the one hand there are parents who are serious about the education of their children and on the other hand there are schoolmen who believe that parents and community are hostile to their efforts. The fundamental reason for facilitating parent and child interaction is to enable the child to achieve the maximum level of his abilities. The literature is replete with evidence of the parent's role, in particular the mother's role, in determining the child's achievement. Most research assumes that there is a direct and dis- cernible relation between the parent's be- havior and personality.4 2Dorothy Maynor, "Why Should Whitey Care About The Ghetto?" NASSP Bulletin, November 1969, p. 5. Larry Cuban, "Teacher and Community;" Harvard Educational ReView, 39, no. 2, Spring 1969, p. 254. 3 4Audrey Simmons-Martin, "Facilitating Parent-Child Inter- actions Through The Education of Parents", Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, I975, p. 96. 18 Schwartz, Fascione and Hayman5 conducted a survey for the school district of Philadelphia on the attitudes of parents. This survey is an integral part of the school district's effort to increase communication between the school admini- stration and its pupils and parents, teachers and the com- munity at large. A janitor: 'I want my son to do better than I - something more than a broom jockey.‘ A mother of six: 'I hear so much about freedom and justice. Do peOple really know what's happening to us while all this talk goes on?" Tenth-grade dropout: 'Go to school for what, man? Where's the payoff? People south of the tracks don't get good jobs. People think we're fools.‘ One can glean from these typical comments by inner-city parents certain messages of frus- tration and hopelessness, a desire for children to succeed and a questioning of the sincerity of Amerécans in wanting to realize the American Creed". Marion J. Rice7 wrote an article on concept learning. The author states: Most parents intuitively teach their children, and thus lay the foundation of success in formal school. Children of poor families are 5Schwartz, Fascione, and Hayman, "Overbrook Cluster Parent Survey", E.R.I.C. Document #ED. 031-817, April 1969. Schwartz, Fascione, and Hayman, Ibid. 7Marion J. Rice, "How Parents May Use The Physical and Cultural Environments To Teach Others", Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1975, p. 82. 6 19 at a disadvantage not because their environments lack objects with which to associate language, but because their parents and other relatives lack the skills--linguistic and organizational-- with which to teach. Institutional efforts to compensate for such a handicap have been en- couraged. Money should be reallocated to the develOpment of programs which focus on parents as home teachers, notwithstanding the fact that early childhood educators typically favor inter- vention away from the home. All parents, even the least skillful, teach. Certainly,there must be some means to help all parents become more effec- tive home teachers. Concept learning, the found- ation of intellectual development, begins in the home. Analysis of research by Beach8 found: 1. There is confusion in terminology in reference to the culturally disadvantaged child. 2. There is an agreement that race is but one factor to be considered in identification of the culturally- deprived child. 3. There is a variation in approaches to bridging the educational gap of the culturally—deprived child. 4. The community and its racial components have an effect on the needs of the pupil population. 5. The teachers are representative of the national teacher population in reference to experience, training, and distribution by sex, except for the factor of race. 6. The pupils are lower in achievement than expected from indicated ability. 7. There is a lack of organized programs of follow—up for both graduates and dropouts. 8. Little evidence is found of flexibility of pro- gramming to meet individual needs. 8Edward Stanley Beach, "A Study of a Community — Its Needs and Its Problems and Their Implications for Improvement in School Organization and Curriculum" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, George Washington University, 1968). 20 9. There is need for parental involvement in both school and-community affairs. 10. There is a need for cohesive community_action involving all agencies serVing the COmmunipy. These last two findings (underlinings added) are worthy of note. The National Urban League prepared a handbook as a guide for parents who want to improve systems and change schools. The handbook advises why parents should visit the school and how to prepare for a visit; it advises about school discipline and the child, including laws and procedures; there is a section on curriculum, what your Child learns in school; a fourth section deals with the evaluation of teachers; the fifth section deals with school records and the parent's right to see them; and the sixth section explains Title I programs.9 According to the Report of the Superintendent's Committee on Achievement: The first task to be carried out at every local school is the identification of problems, goals and needs. For this task more than others, it is important that the pprents and the students be involved along with teaching staff and the school admIfiistration. Such involvementIincludes participating in decisions about which goals have highest priority and which needs or problems are of greatest concern.IU In the 1960's Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis started projects that included special school-community coordinating teams to 9 Office of Education, "Parent Power and Public Schools: A ' Guide for Parent Advocacy", E.R.I.C. Document #ED. 1 081-876, 1972. (Report of Superintendent's Committee on Achievement, Detroit .Board of Education, March 1973, p. 47. Underlining by the author. ' ‘ ' 21 integrate efforts of teachers, students, parents, employers .and labor organization, as well as social agencies. Common to all the projects, as it appeared to Conant, was that there seemed to be a direct concern with enlisting community support and motivation for better education along with upgrading the instructional program.11 Alexander12 suggests that educators have ignored or are unaware of the significance of parent and community involvement in curriculum improvement. He suggests two principles to follow: First, community involvement is most widespread and effective when the issues are real and personal. Parents for example are concerned about the educa- tional progress of their own children. Second, community involvement is most real and personal at the individual school level. Wilcox with his "The Parent Implementation Follow-Through Model" recognized the "necessity for parental decision making and problem solving...Parent participation is not viewed as a mere privilege or as a legal right. Rather it is perceived as a natural right, non-negotiable in form".13 When we discuss goals and evaluation with parents, they have tended to look upon individuality as something that ought to be encouraged in the school; they are supportive of the goal of independence. They are concerned - even though they might not use the language this way - about learning how to learn, 11 James B. Conant, Slums and Suburbs (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961), pp. 60-61. William M. Alexander, "Community Involvement in Curriculum", Educational Leadershlp, May 1972, pp. 655-656. Preston Wilcox, "Changing Conceptions of Community", Educational Leadership, May 1972, p. 683. 12 13 22 about the kinds of commitments their children are making and the ways in which they carry out these commitments: they are concerned about . their youngsters' ability to take responsibil1ty,14 which deals with the area of evaluation as well. School officials and parents are aware that parents must be involved with education. Both know that "parents can be influential in closing the gap between traditional ways of teaching in most schools and new, improved ways of helping youngsters learn how to learn and how to direct their own lives'?.15 Problems of Parental Involvement Some of the literature reviewed pointed out specific problems involving parental involvement in their children's education. For instance, there seems to be a lack of trust by parents of school officials. There is evidence that youngsters are not being prepared to serve productive roles in society. Other problems pointed out were that some teachers as well as some administrators seem to feel that parents are not qualified to become involved in their children's education; schools generally do not appear to be responsive to the community; parents seem to remain uninformed; and the differen ces in cultural patterns in life styles create difficulty in ’14Vit0 Perrone, "Parents as Partners", The Urban Review, November, 1971, p. 38. 15 Dr. Fletcher O. Chasteen, "Parental Insight in Quality Education", School and Community, December, 1972, p. 8. 23 establishing common goals or coordinating youngsters' edu- cation. Parental involvement in their own children's education has recently become an educational, political, and cultural necessity.16 The failure of school systems to effectively provide educational justice to black, Spanish-speaking, Indian, and poor white children shifts the exercise of parental decision-making from a right and responsibility to an absolute necessity.17 Parents are beginning to demand a voice in the education of their children. Parents have thought that a major function of a school has been to prepare youngsters for jobs. As Calvert Smithl8 writes, "Since America has become an industrialized society, the main purpose of urban schools has been to serve a managerial function, to prepare youngsters to serve productive roles in society." Statistics do not have to be presented to learn that urban schools are not doing this. "But, when most Black, Spanish-speaking, and Indian youngsters served by the schools are not prepared to function productively in society, we must conclude that there is a problem." Smith further states: When the percentages of 'minority group' youngsters composing the unemployed roles far outnumber their percentage of the total population, and fewer than half the youngsters in inner-city communities entering high school actually graduate, alternative approaches must be considered. 9 igPreston Wilcox, op.cit., p. 178. I Ibid., p. 179. 18Calvert Hayes Smith, "Prerequisites to Successful Teaching in Inner-City Communities," Education and Urban Society, 19 V01. 4, November, 1971, p. 44. Calvert Smith, p. 45. 24 Ghetto schools often appear to be unresponsive to the com- munity. Communication has broken down, and parents are dis- trustful of officials responsible for formulating educational policy.20 The era of citizens' support and confidence in the public schools which has been based on 'blind faith' in the professional educator has ended. _Parents no longer will tolerate a state of 'hopelessness and helplessness' as the educa- tional deterioration of their children goes unabated.21 A study by Frank Brown22 provides strong evidence that black students and parents desire a school curriculum that includes the teaching of basic skills, reading, writing, spelling, speech, arithmetic, and the basic social sciences. Black parents have expressed a strong desire for parental participation in school matters. Willigen, Spence and Sadker,23 in their article "Parents and Schools: Participation," feel that parental involvement can have an impact. Parents can feed back to the schools evaluation of school programs (in order for the schools to meet community needs). 20"The Report of the High School Study Commission." DetrOit Board of Education, June 1968, p. 5. Ibid., p. 4-5. Frank Brown, "What Should Constitute the Curriculum of Black Schools and How Much Parent Participation?" E.R.I.C., Document #ED. 093-652, April, 1974. Dr. John van Willigen, Allyn G. Spence and D. David Sadker, "Parents and Schools: Participation," School and Community, November, 1972, p. 21. 21 22 23 25 Sharing responsibilities encourage parents and staff to cooperatively search for solutions to problems. They continue: School programs can be enriched beyond that permitted by the school budget. The potential contribution of parents seems greatest in com- munities where the school staff differs from the student body in both cultural and economic background. Involvement increases the parent's knowledge of school operations thus making them less dependent on the knowledge and special training of professionals. Parents increase their abilities to deal with a wide range of problems. Patricia Adkins24 writes that it is time that the goals of the parents and the goals of the teachers be correlated and co- ordinated. She quotes Dr. Samuel G. Sava, Director of the Institute for Development of Educational Activities as saying, "An involved group of parents with an up-to-date understanding of how children learn is one of the strongest forces for improvement in any school." Adkins goes on to say: When parents become involved in helping in the schools, they provide more opportunity for individualized learning. As they enhance the development of their children, they may have a tremendous impact on changing education. Today in the public schools there are developing more parent advisory councils. There is a need for (parents, who know their own children best, to become involved in planning for their education and in implementing the program. For parents to help their children, they must be involved in the schools and liaison, possibly through bilingual media- tors, must be established to permit them to express their 24Patricia G. Adkins, "Parent Involvement In The Classroom; Boon or Bane," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1975, p. 3. 26 grievances and problems.25 Heisler and Crowley26 concluded that analysis of the data they collected indicated that the beneficial effect of enlisting parent participation in the education of their Children in a depressed area on the latter's academic achievement will be discernible only after several years of concerted effort, and will not produce any large, immediate, educational improvement. 27 feel that: Merle Karnes and R. Reid Zehrback one of the critical problems in working with parents today is to involve them in deciding what they really want and expect of their child. Many parents, as previously reported, want their child to be successful in school. But, many neither have appro- priate expectations nor know how to help their child develop. Home climates containing the elements described in the preceding section would seem to be prerequisite. But, what if parents manifest attitudes that are contrary to those that would lead the child to be successful in school? It seems clear that techniques and procedures need to be developed to protect the rights of the parents and children, yet at same time, make certain that the parents have all needed facts and attitudinal experiences before they make such an important decision. 25Richard J. Margolis, "The Losers: A Report on Puerto Ricans and the Public School", E.R.I.C. Document #ED. 023 770, May 1968. Florence Heisler, Francis Crowley, "Parental Participation: Its effect on the First-Grade Achievement of Children in a Depressed Area. Final Report", E.R.I.C. Document # ED. 039 265, July 1969. Merle B. Karnes and R. Reid Zehrback, "Parental Attitudes and Education In the Culture of Poverty," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1975, p. 52. 26 27 27 In an article regarding "Home Background and School Achievement of Black Urban Ghetto Children," Judith W. Greenberg and Helen H. Davidson point out the following: In a Home and family variables were investigated for 80 high and 80 low achieving fifth-grade black children from lower-class urban families. Parents of high achievers were rated significantly higher in concern for education, awareness of child as an individual, general social awareness, use of rational discipline, and structure and orderliness in the home.28 report by Bullock: Attendance, grades, number of retainments, and participation in school activities were identi- fied as the characteristic elements of dropout behavior, or attendance status. It was found that school records and family structure variables apparently predict early school leavers better, and that the parental involvement and personal-social relations variablSs appear to predict the late leavers better. 9 In a study on "Parental Relationship and Value Orientation as Factors in Academic Achievement," Samuel A. Christopher states: In counseling with students and parents it has been noted that the strength of the parent- child relationship varies widely and appears to affect the attraction of the child toward his parents and, therefore, the cohesiveness of the family unit. These factors, it is postulated, are related both to achievement motivation and to the fact of achievement.30 28 29 30 Judith W. Greenberg and Helen H. Davidson, "Home Background and School Achievement of Black Urban Ghetto Children," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42(5), October 1972, p. 803. Henry Allen Bullock, "The Prediction of Dropout Behavior among Urban Negro Boys", E.R.I.C. Document #ED. 013 847, June 1967. Samuel A. ChristOpher, "Parental Relationship and Value Orientation as Factors in Academic Achievement", Personnel and Guidance Journal, May 1967, p. 921. 28 The data gathered for this study also revealed differences between males and females: ....ma1es of high intelligence who perceive neither high nor low differences between parents and ideal parents are found to earn the highest grades in school. This may be explained as an objectification of the parent-child relationship which suggests that the tenth and eleventh grade males in this study no longer employ the family group as a referent for their achievement behavior. Such a finding seems consistent with the view that adolescence brings a severing of familial ties. There is, however, clear evidence of a relation- ship between perceived parental valuing of achieve- ment and the fact of achievement. This finding suggests that family values persist through the adolescent period, are internaliZed by the males studied, and bear a functional relationship to achievement. Perhaps it is true that while the parent-child relationship may be strained or objectified during adolescence, parental values continue to be acknowledged and to serve as 31 referents for the male achievement orientation. Most school officials are aware that parental involvement is a valuable goal. However this goal is not one that is shared by all. There are some teachers for instance, who feel that parents "are not qualified" to be involved. In a newspaper article by Dr. Max Rafferty. (Chronicle-Telegram, Elyria, Ohio, 5-11-75, p. A-5) a project coordinator was asked why test results would not be released. When asked why not, he managed in one simple sentence to sum up the whole tragedy of our time in regard to teacher-parent relations: 'Because parents are not qualified to look at the data...‘ Even for those teachers why may feel parents are not qualified and would not agree that parents could have an impact, parents 31Samuel Christopher, Ibid., p. 924. 29 do have an impace by simply demanding a voice in school pro- gramming. Parents who have children in urban schools are very often concerned about the problems of the school. They are concerned about the dropout rate, the disciplinary problems, and perhaps most of all the unemployment rate. Even the single parent, who works and whose time is very limited, is not going to sit back "hopeless and helpless" while the problems continue. Parents want their children to receive an education that will enable them to get jobs, to receive an education so that their children can "fulfill themselves". In some cases, parents have made tremendous sacrifices to make education available to their children. No longer will the schools be able to keep parents out. Proposals and Models Review of educational literature shows that various pro- posals to solve the problem of limited parental involvement in their children's education have been suggested or imple- mented. Conant32 concludes that: More teachers and perhaps more pay for teachers are necessary for schools in the slums than in either the high-income districts of the large cities or the wealthy suburbs. Special training programs for teachers in slum schools are needed. No effort should be spared in slum areas to en- list the support of parents in the education of their children. To this end, adult education programs should be improved and expanded. Big cities need decentralized administration in order to bring the schools closer to the needs of the people in each neighborhood and to make each school fit the local situation. 32James B. Conant, op.cit., pp. 146-7. 30 Involvement in an educational enterprise depends upon having school staffs share a sense of common purpose which lifts them above daily crises and interpersonal squabblings.33 Lack of purpose and being denied involvement in really important decisions combine to prevent full participation in the school.34 School officials must allow both teachers and parents "partici- pation rights" in formulating policy. People need to be in- volved in the process of planning the curriculum in order to change their beliefs attitudes and behavior regarding it.35 The schools must work with the public and "have orderly pat- terns for its participation."36 Once parental involvement is accepted as a valuable goal by parents and educators,37 school officials should become leaders in implementing parental involvement. In a study by Henry Acland,38 there are four features of parent involvement programs, some or all of which must be present for them to work: 1. The fact that mothers cannot, or do not want to, attend training sessions and keep appointments must be taken into account. Some compensation for inconvenience or loss of working time must be used. 33William W. Wayson, "Organizing Urban Schools for Responsible Education," Phi Delta Kappan, February 1971, p. 344. Ibid 0 C. Glen Hass, "Who Should Plan the Curriculum?" Educational Leadership, Vol. 19, No. 1, October 1966, p. 4. Ibid. Dr.-John van Willigen, Allyn G. Spence and D. David Sadker, "Parents and Schools: Participation," School and Community, November 1972, p. 21. Henry Acland, "Does Parent Involvement Matter?" New Society, September 16, 1971, p. 508. 34 35 36 37 38 31 2. Personnel must be appointed whose main responsibility is to work with the parents, and who are trained to do so. 3. Contacts with parents should be weekly, in order to maintain continuity. This implies a high staffing ratio. 4. The objectives and methods should be specific rather than general. It is clear that programs differ markedly in the degree of specificity in this matter. In the Detroit's "Report of the High School Study Commission,” it is recommended that: There should be a vigorous involvement of parents in the program and activities associated with every school in the Detroit System. Parents should understand that informal and formal involvement is an expectation held by students, teachers and community members, for without parents' interest and support the schools have difficulty providing a program of quality integrated education. Parents must be knowledgeable about the school, including school practices and offerings. Con- sequently, test results, evaluative and other descriptive information must be distributed regularly to members of the local school community. All staff members at each high school, junior high school and elementary school should perceive them- selves as responsible for school-community relation- ships and have an important role in evolving sound, positive school-community relations. Teachers and administrators need to understand that the community holds them accountable for their professional performance.39 David Lillie4o points out that: For years many programs have found that parents make excellent volunteer aides. Under the direction of the teacher or child worker the parent aide can be involved in such activities as providing learning 39The Report of the High School Study Commission, June 1968, pp. 309-10. David Lillie, "The Parent In Early Childhood Education," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8o.No. 2, p. 10. ' 40 32 experiences for children, monitoring and assisting in lunch and snacks, assisting in taking off and putting on heavy wraps, constructing learning materials and providing transportation. Parent participation programs should be designed so as to l. assist in planning the program of the center; its hours, location, etc. 2. help in acquainting the neighborhood with the services for children offered by the center. » 3. deepen understanding on the part of the center's professional staff of the life of the neighborhood. 4. participate in the parent education program of the center's which should, in part, help parents deal with general and specific problems of child- rearing and home-making 5. provide supervision for other children of parents who are assisting in the center or are visiting the center as part of a parent education prOgram 6. fill many of the non-professional, sub-professional, and semi-professional roles necessary for accomplish- ing the above purposes and for the general conduct of the program such as a. teacher aides for l. liaison with parents 2. escorting children to and from the center 3. conducting small groups of three to five children on trips 4. adding specialized skills like singing, playing musical instruments, painting 5. general assistance b. constructing and repairing equipment, toys, etc. c. maintenance 41 d. cooking and serving food. Ira J. Gordon42 in his document, "Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education," explores parental involvement and what it means. He lists five levels of participation or in- volvement. The first level means that parents will either be an audience getting the message and listening to the word, or will be involved as bystanders and observers visiting the school, or the day care center, or nursery, to see what the 41 42 Robert Cooke, cp.cit. Ira J. Gordon, "Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education," E.R.I.C., Document #ED 039 954, 1968, p. 27 33 teacher does. The second level moves one step higher and seek to involve the parent as a direct and active teacher of the child. At the third level parents are involved in active roles in the school as aides and volunteers. The fourth level is that of a trained worker. The last and fifth level Gorden lists is to honor the right of the parents to control the school board and school system. He states that it is far too soon to be able to say which models work best under what given conditions. 43 The value of parental involvement is becoming increasingly apparent to educators and parents. However, many problems exist in coordinating and correlating common goals between parents and schools. Implementing parental involvement in urban schools can even be more difficult because of the differences in values and patterns of living betweenthe middle class school teacher and the working class and lower class family. In summary, though there are problems centered around parental participation, proposals and models have been suggested that indicate that participation by parents can lead to im- proved education. As the Detroit study pointed out, "without 'parents' interest and support the schools have difficulty providing a program of quality integrated education." Desirable Outcomes Some of the literature on parental involvement suggests that parents can provide the system with a new link to the 43Ira J. Gordon, p. 28. This model of Gordon's is the one adopted for use in structuring the present study. 34 child. Academic and social outcomes of the schools are often related to the degree to which parents understand and reinforce the schools. The parents often provide an atmosphere in the home which either thwarts or fosters learning. Adkins says:44 While education as a discipline has traditionally supported the important role of parents in all aspects of child development, it has been reluctant to subscribe to the involvement of parents in the classroom.... Parental involvement in the school is extremely important to the effectiveness of the educational program in meeting the needs of children and youth. The degree of meaningful involvement and parent education will be critical to the education of the child. The beliefs of parents and the effect of these beliefs on their children are inextricably woven into the learning potential.... Most parents interact positively when their children please them. Parents are invariably pleased by watching their children develop well and, thus, offer them more social reinforcement. Edith Brotberg4S states that there is a direct relationship between children's achievement and the expectations and aspirations of their parents. She expresses the opinion that, as parents become involved in programs for their children and learn how to apply newly acquired knowledge and skills, they can better foster children's develOpment and learning abilities. Parents are able to free the teacher from tasks that most often take time away from the professional roles of the teacher. 46 Massey and Myers also point out that the classroom assistant 44 45 46 Adkins, 0p.cit., p. 2-3. As quoted in Adkins, Ibid., p. 3. Jeanne H. Massey, Jean Davis Myers, "Volunteer Mothers As Tutors In the Classroom," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, 1975, p. 60. 35 does any task that will free the teacher to work with the children. According to them: Today, as never before, the nation's educational institutions are being challenged for solutions to new problems emerging from technological and sociological changes. In order to solve such problems, school districts must find new ways to strengthen their educational methods and pro- cedures. The Volunteers in Public Schools program is one approach to two basic goals of our times: that of extending to every child the best possible educational opportunities, by means of bettering the adult-child ratio within the school; and that of increasing a two-way communication between the schools and the citizens of the school district. Parental involvement with their children's education does appear to have an impact on the inner city schools. In the report of Willigen, Spence and Sadkerly7 two questions are asked and answered. For each question they give six answers. The first question is, Why is involvement in schools valuable? Answer 1 Parental involvement can make schools and their proqrams more appropriate to the needs of the community. Answer 2 Parental involvement increases community independence. Answer 3 Parental involvement increases the sharing of responsibility in school administration. Answer 4 Parental involvement yields increases resources for school activities. Answer 5 Parental participation increases community 'competence. Answer 6 Increased parental participation makes the school more approachable to other members of the community. The second question asked in the report is, If Parental involve- ment is valuable, how may it best be achieved? _; 47Willigen, Spence and Sadker, op. clE., p. 21 and 78. 36 Answer 1 Community members must be made to feel a need to participate. Answer 2 To participate, parents must know how to participate. Answer 3 Participation cannot be expected if no appropriate rOles for parents exist. Answer 4 For effective participation, sustained activities must be provided. Answer 5 For effective participation, the participants should be rewarded. Answer 6 Real participation means having the right to fail. To say that parental involvement can have an impact on schools cannot be doubted. Whether the impact the parents have is effective or non-effective depends upon the programs, developed to help parents become involved. The parents and community can provide a reality base for the educators. It is the parents who can best articulate the goals and values of the inner- city population. It is they who can suggest tech- niques or approaches to make the program of the schools personally valid and economically useful to the student from the ghetto.4 Summary School officials should be leaders in implementing parental involvement programs. All efforts and considerations should be made to parents with children in inner city schools to allow and to encourage them to become involved. Parents can be a great force for change in our schools. Parents desire that their children become productive members of society. They can have a tremendous influence on their child's achievement. They can also influence their child to help foster a successful school experience. In most cases 48Wilson C. Riles, The Urban Education Task Force Report, (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970), p. 267. 37 where parents were actively involved in their child's education their children's performance improved. Parents can be influ- ential in closing the generation gap and the gap between tradi- tional ways of teaching in most schools and new, improved ways of helping youngsters learn. CHAPTER THREE: PROCEDURES Pur ses The investigator's purposes in this chapter are (a) to describe the Lansing community in which the study took place, (b) to explain the design of the study and the develOpment of the instrument employed to gather data, (c) to explain the methodology that will be used in the presentation and analy- sis of the data in Chapter Four and Chapter Five, (d) to define the population of the study and procedures used in selecting the respondents, (e) and finally, to present the demographic characteristics of the sample. Description of Lansing Community The city of Lansing had its beginning in the mid 1830's when Detroit was still the capitol of Michigan. A New York businessman, James Seymour, had acquired vast land holdings from the government for speculation. He established a tiny settlement, a mill and a dam site in the Grand River in Ingham County. Because of Detroit's proximity to Canada, there was con-' siderable support for the idea of getting the capitol re- moved from Detroit. When the time came to pick a new capitol, Seymour lined up interior legislators who couldn't agree 38 39 among themselves as to one of their communities, and his site, Lansing, won. That was in 1847. It took twelve years for Lansing to gain sufficient growth to become incorporated with 1,500 residents. Today Lansing has grown to a population of 134,000. Railroads and small industries helped to merchandize Lansing farms. But Lansing's biggest start in industry was given by Pliny F. Olds and his son, Ransom Eli Olds. He thought he could turn out a horseless carriage and the result was the Olds Motor Car Company in 1897. Today, Oldsmobile Division is one of the several General Motors units in Lansing. Michigan farmers were not standing still. In 1850, they had formed the Michigan Agricultural Society, reasoning it was time the farmers had a hearing in Lansing's legislative halls. The majority of Michigan's pioneers, the farmers, had a high regard for education. They emphasized agricultural education and desired a school for that purpose. 1 In the book by Blair and Kuhn they write that the people of Michigan were a progressive people. A progressive people means an enquiring people, and so, along with agricultural sciences which they were to be taught, they also had need of being well versed in the liberal arts & sciences. This was the basic philosophy, the true reason for the foundation of Michigan State. 1Lyle Blair and Madison Kuhn, A Short History_of Michigan State, (East Lansing: Michigan State University College Press, 1955), p. 6. 40 Four or five years prior to 1850, Congressman Morrill was advocating educational development for the nation. He wished to see established in each state at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and inclu- ding military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.2 In 1862, President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act. At the time of the signing of the act, Michigan State College had been in ex- istance as a state-supported institution for some seven years.3 A tract of 676 acres had been obtained three miles east of Lansing and in 1855 Michigan Agricultural College was chartered. It was logical that Michigan State should become a beneficiary of the federal land- grant systems, and therefore, it can in many ways count itself the first of the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities as we know them. In 1923 it became Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Sciences, and began expanding into non-agricultural fields. In 1955 it became Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences. Today it has a total of 17 colleges and an enrollment of over 40,000 students. Lansing covers an area of approximately 33.50 square miles with a pepulation of well over 134,000, and an average family income of about $12,000. 2 3 4 Ibid., p. 12. Ibid., p. 12-13. Ibid., p. 13. 41 The Lansing School District was established in 1847 by the combining of three separate sections of the town, which later became the core of the metropolitan area of Lansing. The school system and the city grew slowly during its early years and in 1949, the school system had an area of 11 square miles. The most significant period of growth was between 1958 and 1965. Today a look at the school system reveals that its present area covers 50 square miles... ....approximately 33,000 students are enrol- led in the school system. Of this total figure, 4,600 or 14% are Black, 2,400 or 7% are Spanish-American, and 0.3% are American Indian.6 The management of the school system is governed by a nine member board. The members of this board are elected for a six year term. The terms are staggered so that there are always six incumbent members presiding. The operating budget that they oversee for the school system to finance the kinder- garden through twelfth grade programs was $46 million dollars for 1975-1976. The expenditure to provide support for the K-12 grades is $1,345 per pupil. The number of schools oper- ating within Lansing School District consists of forty-eight elementary schools, five junior high schools, and four senior high schools.7 6The State Journal, Advertisement, Wednesday, January 7, 1976, (printed in Lansing Michigan) pp. 4 & 7. 7 ... . . . . InformatIOn obta1ned from the Lans1ng School D1str1ct Information services. 42 Design The study was a predictive survey using selected schools. It provided information regarding five varying levels of parental involvement. The findings were examined in relation to the purposes of this study, as stated in Chapter One. Multiple regression was used to (l) predict the impact on selected student variables and (2) to predict selected student variables from the distance from home to school. Analysis of variance with the measure of parental involvement as dependent variable was used with the design variables: 1. Sex 1(Father or Mother) 2. Sex 2(Sex of child male/female) 3. Distance of home from school 4. Achievement (as specially defined for this study) 5. Type of household (two or one parent household) The two statistical approaches used were multiple re- gression and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple regression was used to determine relationships (correlations) among variables and for prediction of selected variables of interest from other variables. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether differences existed between groups (such as one and two-parent families) on certain dependent variables. The reliability of the instrument was determined by the re- liability coefficients in the sample. The overall reliability coefficient was .871. reliability coefficient was .627. reliability coefficient was .707. reliability coefficient was .747. reliability coefficient was .600. reliability coefficient was .672. For Subscore For Subscore For Subscore For Subscore For Subscore mount- 43 The following four general research hypotheses were examined in the study. 1. There is no significant relationship between parental involvement and student achievement as indicated by grade point average, rates of attendance, and citizenship. 2. There is no significant relationship between parental involvement and one parent or two parent household. 3. There is no significant relationship between the distance from home to school and parental involvement. 4. There is no significant relationship between parental involvement and the parent's sex. Multiple regression and analysis of variance were used to analyze the data generated from a questionnaire. Findings and recommendations were drawn from the information obtained. The examination and interpretations made from the data, as related to the objectives of this study, are in Chapters Four and Five. Procedures An instrument (questionnaire-See Appendix A) designed along lines suggested by Gordon8 was developed for the pur- poses of this study. This instrument was administered to selected parents, and the results were used for the purpose of correlating relationships between parental involvement and data from student files. Gordon9 proposes that parent 8 E.R.I.C. Document #ED. 039 954, 1968, pp. 27-28. 9Ibid. Ira J. Gordon, "Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education, 44 participation runs the gamut of five levels of involvement: 1. Audience; bystander-observer (parent getting the message and listening to the work, or will be involved as observers visiting the school.) 2. Teacher of the child 3. Volunteer 4. Trained worker 5. Participation in decision making Five scales of between eight to fourteen items per scale were developed to measure degrees of involvement on these several levels. Subscore 1 Parent participation in their children's education measured on this subscale showed involvement of the following sorts: audience, pystander-observer (parents getting the message and listening to work, involved as an observer in the school). On Sub-score l the maximum number of points a mother or father could score was 41 points, and the minimum was 9 points. Subscore 2 Sub-score 2 reflected the amount of parental involvement in terms of helping the child (e.g., through facilitating the use of various forms of mass media as might be suggested by the school). In addition this-score measured the amount of help the parents gave to the child in the home setting. The maximum possible points in this area was 70 points. The mini- mum was 14 points. 45 Subscore 3 This area centered around volunteer work by the parent. Various types of volunteer work were considered, such as in the school office or classroom, in community service, and in neighborhood groups. The maximum that a person could score was 49 points. The minimum was 11 points. Subscore 4 This measured the amount of parental participation in school sponsored adult training or in various areas of paga- professional work in the classroom or school office. Scoring for this area carried a maximum of 34 points and a minimum of 9 points. Subscore 5 Sub-score 5 examined to what extent the parents had been involvedjxrgritical decision making in relationship to the operation of the school, for example, in the hiring of person- nel, in giving suggestions for solving school problems, and in evaluating programs. The maximum number of points that could be scored in this section was 43 points. The minimum was 9 points. Also included in the questionnaire was a sixth part con- taining personal questions about the parents' occupation, level of education completed, and so forth. Characteristics of the sample, which come from this latter set of questions are given in Tables 3-3 through 3-28 below. These data may serve to help define the nature of the group of respondents. 46 Pppulation and Sample The population for this study were parents who had children attending the five junior high schools in Lansing (Otto, Walter French, Gardner, Rich and Pattengill). The sample consisted of parents who were identified from 280 eighth and ninth grade (children who in turn were selected from among the students attending each of the five schools. Members of these parental groups were also identified as having the characteristics of being members of either a one-parent family or two-parent family residing in this urban setting. Letters (see Appendix B) were sent to the principals of the five junior high schools stating the nature of the study and requesting c00peration in obtaining data from student files. Parents were selected on the basis of data obtained from the student files. Criteria for selecting the parents were based on the students' grade point average, on the students' attendance records, and on data identifying citizenship ratings. (See definitions of "citizenship," "grade point aver- age" and "attendance" in Chapter One.) In each of the five junior high schools, files were reviewed by the present writer and names of the students were selected on the basis of high or low grade point average, attendance and citizenship. A list of student names from each school served as the basis for parent selection. In four of the junior high schools 60 students were identified; half (30) representing high attendance, high grade 47 point average and good citizenship rating and the other half (30) representing low attendance, low grade point average and poor citizenship rating. breakdowns are included in Table 3-01. Additional student Table 3-01 Student breakdowns in each of four of the junior high schools. High attendance, High grade average, and Good citizenship rating. Low attendance, Low grade average, and Poor citizenship rating. Two-parent Families 10 Male Students 10 Females Students Two-parent Families 10 Males Students 10 Females Students One-parent Families 5 Males Students 5 Females Students One-parent Families 5 Males Students 5 Females Students In one school 40 students were identified; half (20) representing high attendance, high grade point average, and good citizenship rating and the other half (20) representing low attendance, low grade point average and poor citizenship rating. 3-02. Additional student breakdowns are included in Table 48 Table 3-02. Student breakdowns in one of the junior high schools Two-parent Families One-parent Families High attendance, 7 Males Students 3 Males Students High grade average, and Good citizen- 7 Females Students 3 Females Students ship rating. Two-parent Families One-parent Families Low attendance, Low 7 Males Students' 3 Males Students grade average, and Poor citizenship 7 Females Students 3 Females Students rating. The reason why one school provided only 40 student files came about as follows: the researcher originally intended to use only 40 files from each school and gathered this number from the first school. The principal, however, subsequently cautioned the researcher to get larger numbers from the other schools. So 60 files were gathered from each of the remaining four schools. Because of insufficient updating of the parent status of several "one-parent" families, the investigator found it difficult to definitely identify a group based on that characteristic. This was due to the schools' not being noti- fied by the parents of changes in their status. After visiting each of the five junior high schools to obtain the names and addresses of students' parents who met the criteria of the study, a roster of names was collected. It took the investigator about four weeks to compile data 49 from all the names and addresses. All the information was kept confidential. The Board of Education approved the letter and question- naire to be mailed to the parents in the study. The principals of each school sent a letter to the parents who were in this research study, asking for their COOperation. (See Appendix C). Packages of material were put together and the parents selected for the study were mailed the following material: a. letter from the investigator b. letter from the principal c. two questionnaires (one for the mother and one for the father) d. business reply return envelope The total number of packages mailed to the parents was 280. The total number of envelopes returned were 207 out of which 10 envelopes were returned to the investigator for one of the following reasons: a. wrong address - 4 envelopes. b. had moved - - - 2 envelopes. c. did not want to take part in the study - 4 envelopes Seventy-three envelopes were not returned. Each parent was to respond to the questionnaire and to check the questionnaire which identified if he or she was the father or mother of the student. The total number of question- naires returned were 317. There were 186 responses from mothers and 129 responses from fathers. The distribution of responses is shown in the following Tables 3-1 and 3—2. 1." TI I I 50 111 Father, Child male, High Achievement 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement I'M-1"- Table 3-1 Questionnaire responses returned by schools (school names are not given) Questionnaire responses Total returned by schools Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent School A 9 3 ll 5 28 22 School B 9 2 11 2 24 18 School C 4 1 4 l 10 08 School D 10 9 14 7 40 31 School E 15 l 8 3 27 21 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-2. Questionnaire responses returned by schools (school names are not given) Questionnaire responses Total returned by schools Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent School A 12 6 15 7 40 22 School B 12 6 15 6 39 21 School C 6 4 8 2 20 11 School D 12 13 17 8 50 27 School E 13 5 10 9 37 19 51 The following is a log of the investigator's sequence for compiling data: October Appointment was set-up with the Director of Research for the school system. A letter was sent to the principals of the five junior high schools concerning the study. A meeting with all the principals was set-up to talk about the study. Appoint- ments were set-up with the principals or his representative at each of the schools. November School Board approved the study, along with a letter and questionnaire to be sent to the parents selected for the study. Questionnaire was mailed to the parents. Follow-up cards were mailed to the parents. (See Appendix D.) December Second follow-up mailed to parents and second set of questionnaires were mailed to the parents selected for the study. (See Appendix E.) Demographic Characteristics of The Sample The study shows that over 75% of the sampled parents had lived in the city of Lansing for more than ten years, and that over 80% of the parents own their own homes. (Refer to Tables 3-3 through 3-6.) This would indicate that there is a fairly high degree of stability in the population. 52 111 Father, Child male, High Achievement 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement 121 Father, Child Female, High Achievement 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement I‘d-*fl' Table 3-3. Years lived in the City of Lansing Total Fathers (N=129 Years lived in the city 111 112 121 122 No. Percent Less than one year 0 0 0 0 O 0 One to four years 4 l 4 3 12 9 Five to ten years 6 1 4 4 15 12 More than ten years 36 14 41 11 102 79 No response . 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-4. Years lived in the City of Lansing Total Mothers (N=186) Years lived in the city 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Less than one year 0 0 0 0 0 0 One to four years ~ 4 5 5 4 18 10 Five to ten years 8 3 5 9 25 13 More than ten years 43 26 55 19 143 77 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 * 111 Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-5. Own or rent home Total Own or rent home Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122' No. Percent Own 45 15 45 10 115 89 Rent 2 1 3 " 8 14 11 No response 0 0 0 0 0 O * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-6. Own or rent home Total Own or rent Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Own 50 .28 57 19 154 83 Rent 5 5 7 13 30 16 No response 2 0 0 0 2 l Table 3-8 indicates that 89% of the fathers were employed full-time with only 7% not employed at the time of the survey. In the case of the mothers (Table 8) 34% were employed full- time while 47% were unemployed at the time of the survey. 54 * lll Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-7. Employment rates of fathers Employment Rates of Total Fathers Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent Yes, full time 44 13 46 12 115 89.1 Yes, part time 2 0 1 2 5 3.9 No, not now employed 1 3 l 4 9 7.0 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-8. Employment rates of mothers Employment Rates of Total Mothers Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Yes, full time 17 15 20 12 64 34 Yes, part time 13 3 l3 4 33 18 No. not now employed 24 16 31 16 87 47 No response 2 0 0 0 0 l 55 The primary source of income and classification of occupation are found in Tables 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, and 3-12. 82% of the fathers' income is the primary source of income as indicated by the fathers (Table 3-9) while the mothers in- dicated that 60% of the fathers' income was the primary source of income for the family (Table 3-10). Table 3-11 points out that 67% of the fathers were "Professional-Skilled" while 50% of the mothers are Housewives or Homemakers (Table 3-12). * 111 Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-9. Primary source of income Primary source Total of Income Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 no. Percent Father's 42 12 41 11 106 82 Income Mother's 0 0 0 l 1 1 Income Both 5 3 7 3 18 14 Other 0 1 0 1 2 1.5 No response 0 0 0 2 2 1.5 56 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-10. Primary source of income Primary source Total of income Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Father's 41 13 45 11 110 60 Income Mother's 4 l3 8 7 32 17 Income Both 7 3 8 3 21 11 Other 2 3 3 9 17 9 No response 3 3 0 0 6 3 * lll Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-11. Kind of Occupation Father's kind Total of occupation Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent Professional- 36 6 37 7 86 67 skilled Self-employed 5 3 6 5 19 15 Housewife- 1 0 0 l 2 l Homemaker Un-skilled 5 6 6 5 22 17 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-12. Kind of occupation Mothers' kind Total of occupation Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Professional- 18 10 24 7 59 31 skilled Self-employed 2 l 3 2 8 4 Housewife- 26 14 34 17 91 50 Homemaker Unskilled 8 7 3 4 22 12 No response 3 0 2 l 6 3 Tables 3—13 and 3-14 show that the average number of children residing in the home is three. * 111 Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-13. Number of Children Number of children Total ' Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent One 1 0 0 0 0 .7 Two 16 2 ll 2 31 24.0 Three 15 3 l9 4 41 32.0 Four 6 7 l 21 16.3 Five or More 5 ll 11 35 27.0 No response 0 0 0 0 0.0 58 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement *I-I'fi' Table 3-14. Number of Children Number of children Total Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent One 1 l 2 2 6 3 Two 17 7 15 3 42 23 Three 18 ll 30 5 64 34 Four 9 7 7 5 28 15 Five or More 10 8 ll 17 46 25 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 In Tables 3-15 and 3-16 the level of education completed by parents is shown. Fifty percent of the fathers had attained between 10 and 12 years of education. Sixty-six percent of the mothers surveyed had completed 10 and 12 years of formal education. A higher percentage of fathers had obtained additional eduCation beyond high school. In both groups, less than 2 percent had less than a sixth grade education. 59 * 111 Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-15. Educational level completed Educational Total level completed Fathers (N=129) ‘ 111 112 121 122 No. Percent K-6 elementary 0 0 0 3 3 7-9 junior high 1 6 4 12 10-12 senior high 25 9 21 9 64 50 College 21 O 26 1 48 37 No response 1 l l l 2 2 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-16. Educational level completed Educational Total level completed Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent K-6 elementary 0 l 0 3 4 7-9 junior high 0 2 0 9 11 10-12 senior high 36 29 40 17 112 66 College 20 2 24 2 48 26 No response 1 0 0 0 l 0 The response from the parents indicated that 36 percent of the fathers had attended the Lansing public school system and 40 percent of the mothers had attended the Lansing public school system. (Refer to Tables 3-17, 3-18.) Sixty-two 60 percent of the fathers and sixty-two percent of the mothers rated the kind of education that their child receives ad good. (Refer to Tables 3-19, 3-20.) Also, in comparing their child's junior high school to others in the school system, the perceived their child's school as being the same. (Refer to Tables 3-21 111 Father, 112 Father, 121 Father, 122 Father, *fi'fl'l- Table 3-17. Attended and 3-22.) Child male, High Achievement Child male, Low Achievement Child female, High Achievement Child female, Low Achievement the Lansing public school Attended Lansing Public school Total Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent Yes 14 6 22 4 46 36 No 33 10 27 13 83 64 No response 0 O 0 0 0 0 211 Mother, 212 Mother, 221 Mother, 222 Mother, I'M-I'M: Table 3—18. Attended Child male, High Achievement Child male, Low Achievement Child female, High Achievement Child female, Low Achievement the Lansing public school Attended Lansing Public school Total Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Yes 21 15 27 ll 74 40 No 35 19 37 20 111 60 No response 1 0 0 0 l 0 61 111 Father, Child male, High Achievement 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement ‘1'}!- Table 3-19. Rate the kind of education your child is receiving Rate kind of Total education child Fathers (N=129) is receiving 111 112 121 122 No. Percent Excellent 7 0 6 l 14 11 Good 30 9 31 10 80 62 Fair 10 14 ll 4 29 22 Poor 0 3 0 3 6 5 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-20. Rate the kind of education your child is receiving Rate kind of Total education child Mothers (N=186) is receiving A 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Excellent 7 l 5 1 l4 7 Good ' 37 16 49 15 117 62 Fair 12 15 9 11 47 25 Poor 0 2 0 5 7 4 No response 1 0 0 0 l 0 lll Father, 112 Father, 121 Father, 122 Father, I'M-I'd- 62 Child male, High Achievement Child male, Low Achievement Child female, High Achievement Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-21. Compare your child's Junior High School to others in the district 'Compare your child's Junior High School to others in the school district. Total Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent Better than 13 l 17 1 32 "25 About the 27 13 26 17 83 64 same as ‘ a Not as good as 3 l 0 0 4 3 No response 3 3 2 2 10 8 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-22. Compare your child's Junior High School to others in the school district Compare your child's Junior High School to others in the school district. Total Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent . Better than 21 4 15 9 49 26 About the 27 26 44 20 117 63 same as Not as good as 3 2 l 3 9 5 No response 4 2 0 5 ll 6 63 * lll Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-23. How does your child get to school How does your child Total get to school Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent Walks over 9 6 12 0 27 21 10 blocks Walks over 7 3 8 6 24 19 5 blocks Walks under 3 2 2 1 8 6 5 blocks Rides school 28 5 26 ll 70 54 bus No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-24. How does your child get to school How does your child Total get to school Mothers (N=l86 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Walks over 10 8 18 7 43 23 10 blocks Walks over 8 9 9 6 32 17 5 blocks Walks under 7 6 4 6 23 13 5 blocks ' Rides School 30 ll 34 13 88 47 bus No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 As to whether the households were two-parent or one- parent families, 97 percent of the fathers responded as being part of a two-parent family (see Table 3-25). Seventy three percent of the mothers indicated that they resided in a two- parent household (see Table 3-26). Tables 3-27 and 3-28 have breakdowns of ethnic groups comprising the study. The sample was comprised of Whites, Black, Spanish-American, Indians and others. The majority of the people surveyed were white. In Tables 3-29 and 3-30 it is indicated that the modal number of children per family attending school in the Lansing school system was two. * lll Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-25. One-parent or Two-parent One-parent or Total Two-parent Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent Two-parent household 46 .15 48 16 125 97 One-parent household 1 1 0 2 4 3 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement iii-I: Table 3-26. One-parent or Two-parent One-parent or Total Two-parent Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent TWo-parent household 46 18 54 18 136 73 One-parent household 10 15 ll 14 50 27 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 lll Father, Child male, High Achievement 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement I'd-*1; Table 3-27. Identity Identity - Total Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent White 45 13 45 8 111 86 Black 0 2 ' o 5 7 5 Spanish American 0 0 l 4 5 3 Indian 0 l 0 1 2 2 Other 1 0 l 0 2 2 No response 1 l ; 0 0 2 ‘2 66 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mbther, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-28. Identity Identity Total Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent White 55 22 61 16 154 83 Black 1 9 1 7 18 10 Spanish-American 0 l 0 6 7 4 Indian 0 l 0 2 3 1.5 Other 0 0 0 l 1 0.0 No response 1 l 1 0 3 1.5 * 111 Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 3-29. Number of children now attending Lansing public schools Number of children , Total now attending Lansing Fathers (N=129) public schools 111 112 121 122 No. Percent One 9, 3 6 0 l8 14 Two 16 l 20 6 44 34 Three 14 3 19 4 40 31 Four 6 3 2 l7 13 Five or more 2 5 10 8 No response 0 0 0 67 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement I'M-1" Table 3-30. Number of children now attending Lansing public schools T f Number of children Total now attending Lansing Mothers (N=186) public schools 211 212 221 222 No. Percent One 9 5 9 3 26 14 Two 18 8 26 8 60 32 Three 18 8 26 7 59 32 Four 8 10 3 3 24 13 Five or more 3 3 l 10 17 9 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary In the present chapter, the Lansing Community was briefly described and information on the Lansing schools was provided. An explanation of how data was compiled and an explanation of the instrument and its administration was provided. Demo- graphic characteristics of the sample were shown in Tables 3-3 thru 3-30. Information on the type of study and the measures used to interpret data was also included. CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter includes the findings of the statistical analyses which will be presented in the following manner: 1. Distribution of the five subscores 2. Analysis of multiple regression 3. Restatement of the research hypotheses of the study and examination of the Analysis of Variance 4. Summary I The major objective of this study was to conduct an in- vestigation to determine whether parental involvement has significance in their child's education. The specific purpose was to determine if significant relationships exist between levels of parental involvement and selected independent vari- ables. This was accomplished by grouping parental involvement and corresponding parent sample data into five levels of parental involvement and examining the relationship between parental involvement are shown according to subscores. In Table 4-2 the selected independent variables are shown. The distribution of scores for the responses of the parents to the questionnaire according to sex of the parent and accord- ing to subscore are shown in Tables 4-3 through 4-14. 68 69 Table 4-1 Five levels of parental involvement according to subscores Subscore Level Involvement as 1 l bystander-observor 2 2 teacher of child 3 3 volunteer 4 4 trained worker 5 5 decision maker 70 Table 4-2 Selected Independent Variables Variable Description Sex1 Sex of parent male/female Sex2 Sex of child male/female Distance Walks over 10 blocks, Walks over 5 blocks, Walks under 5 blocks, rides school bus Achievement As indicated by grade point average, rates of attendance and citizenship. Type of Household Status of parent - one or two parent household w—u— 71 Table 4-3 Sub-Score 1 Parental Involvement (Audience, Bystander Observer) Distribution of Scores From Mothers Scores Frequency 8 2 9 10 10 ll 20 12 20 13 27 l4 18 15 12 16 5 17 13 18 ll 19 10 20 5 21 8 22 9 23 4 24 5 25 l 26 1 29 l 31 1 Total 186 Mean score 15.40 72 Table 4-4 Sub-score 1 Parental Involvement (Audience, By- stander Observer) Distribution of Scores From Fathers Scores Frequency 6 1 8 5 9 17 10 13 ll 16 12 14 13 16 14 8 15 6 16 4 l7 7 18 8 19 3 20 5 24 l 25 l 27 1 28 1 29 1 32 1 Total 129 Mean score 13.44 73 Table 4-5 Sub-score 2 Parental Involvement (Teacher of the Child) Distribution of Scores from Mothers Scores Frequency 17-21 13 22-26 38 27-31 ‘ 50 32-26 53 37-41 9 42-46 15 47-51 4 52-56 3 57-61 0 62-66 1 Total 186 Mean score 31.42 74 Table 4-6 Sub-score 2 Parental Involvement (Teacher of the Child) Distribution of Scores From Fathers Scores Frequency 15-19 11 20-24 14 25-29 44 30-34 24 35-39 21 40-44 8 45-49 3 50-54 1 55-59 1 60-64 1 65-69 1 Total 129 Mean score 30.50 75 Table 4-7 Sub-score 3 Parental Involvement (Volunteer) Distribution of Scores from Mothers Scores Frequency 9-11 48 12-14 60 15-17 36 18-20 16 21-23 10 24-26 7 27-29 2 30-32 1 33-35 2 36-38 1 39-41 3 Total . 186 Mean score 15.31 76 Table 4-8 Sub-score 3 Parental Involvement (Volunteer) Distribution of Scores from Fathers Scores Frequency 7-10 24 11-14 65 15-18 23 19-22 8 23-26 3 27-30 2 31-34 0 35-38 2 39-42 1 43-46 1 Total 129 Mean score 14.31 77 Table 4-9 Sub-score 4 Parental Involvement (Trained Worker) Distribution of Scores from Mothers Scores . .Frequency 5 4 6 l 7 6 8 8 9 13 10 14 ll 17 12 33 13 22 14 29 15 12 16 8 l7 7 18 4 l9 3 20 3 21 l 27 1 Total 186 Mean score 12.52 78 Table 4-10 Sub-score 4 Parental Involvement (Trained Worker). Distribution of Scores from Fathers Scores Frequency 1 l 5 2 6 3 7 7 8 7 9 10 10 12 ll 12 12 14 13 20 14 13 15 ll 16 3 l7 3 18 5 l9 2 20 4 Total 129 Mean score 12.00 79 Table 4-11 Sub-score 5 Parental Involvement (Decision Maker). Distribution of Scores from Mothers Scores Frequency 1 4 13 10 23 ll 37 12 l4 13 12 14 15 15 17 16 7 17 10 18 4 l9 4 20 3 21 2 22‘ 4 23 4 24 3 25 2 27 l 28 l 29 2 32 2 37 1 Total 186 Mean-score 14.13 80 Table 4-12 Sub-score 5 Parental Involvement (Decision Maker). Distribution of Scores from Fathers Scores Frequency \OGJNUI (Jul-JP 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 25 27 28 32 34 35 H UN omooo h‘td N Paid filth died N hJ\D ».¢> m Total 129 Mean score 13.68 81 Table 4-13 Total of all Sub-scores. Distribution of Scores from Mothers Scores Frequency 56--65 10 66--75 37 76--85 45 86--95 38 96-105 29 106-115 11 116-125 8 126-135 4 136-145 1 146-155 2 156-165 0 166-175 0 176-185 0 186-195 1 Total 186 Table 4-14 82 Total of all Sub-scores. Distribution of Scores from Fathers Scores Frequency 54--60 61--67 68--74 75--81 82--88 89--95 96-109 103-109 110-116 117-123 124-130 131-137 138-144 145-151 152-158 159-165 166-172 180-186 10 14 27 20 20 I-‘ ox woooomowmbww Total 129 83 Multiple regression analysis was used to determine which variables are more closely related to the parental responses to the questionnaire, and which are not related. Parent's responses were obtained as five subscale (refer to Table 4-1) which served as five criterion variables. The other character- istics, Sexl, Sex2, Distance, Achievement and Type of House- hold (refer to Table 4-2) were the predicting variables. Prediction equations were established for all five sub- sclae scores. In Table 4-15 five regression equations are shown for the five subscale scores. Table 4-15 Five regression equations for five subscale scores Predicted Scales - Sub. l SCLSCR l = ll.7+2.l Sexl + .57 Sex2 - .18 Distance - .04 Achievement - .57 Type of Household Predicted Scales - Sub. 2 SCLSCR 2 = 30.8 + 1.3 Sexl + 1.6 Sex2 - .02 Distance - 2.75 Achievement - .67 Type of Household Predicted Scales - Sub.3 SCLSCR 3 = 17.5 + 1.5 Sexl + .72 Sex2 - .7 Distance - 1.3 Achievement - 1.95 Type of Household Predicted Scales - Sub. 4 SCLSCR 4 = 12.6 + .52 Sexl + .14 Sex 2 - .69 Distance - .86 Achievement + .19 Type of Household Predicted Scales - Sub. 5 SCLSCR 5 = 12.2 + .55 Sexl - .27 Sex2 - .56 Distance + 1.23 Achievement - 184 Type of Household. 84 Let us examine the prediction equation for Subscore 1. SCLSCR 1 = 11.7 + 2.1 Sexl + .57 Sex2 - .18 Distance - .04 Achiev. - .57 Type of Household. Sex of the parent has the highest relative Beta weight (B = 2.073) which happens to be the only one significant in Table 4-16. Sex of the child and marital status have the same Beta weights but with opposite sings. (B1=.57) (BZ= -.57) The weights in this prediction equation allow us to decide that knowing the sex of the parent will aid the most in deter- mining his or her score on the "bystander-observer" level of parental involvement. Also, the marital status is inversely related to the "bystander-observer" level of parental involve- ment. Let us examine the prediction equation for Subscore 2. SCLSR 2 = 30.8 + 1.3 Sexl + 1.6 Sex2 - .02 Distance - 2.75 Achiev. - .67 Type of Household. In predicting Subscore 2 (the teacher of the child), achievement has the highest relative Beta weight (B = 2.748) which happens to be the only one significant in Table 4-17. Beta weights for sex of the parent and sex of the child have the same sign and are close to the same size. (B1 = 1.3) (B2 = 1.6) The weights in this prediction equation allow us to decide that knowing the achievement of the child will aid the most in determining the parent's (his or her) score on the "teacher of the child" level of parental involvement. Also, the marital status and achievement are inversely related to the 85 "teacher of the child" level of involvement. This suggests that the more the child needs help at home the more the parent plays the "teacher" role and that this role is needed more when the child comes from a single parent home. Let us examine the prediction equation for Subscore 3. SCLSCR 3 = 17.5 + 1.5 Sexl + .72 Sex2 - .7 Distance - 1.3 Achiev. - 1.95 Type of Household. In predicting Subscore 3 (the Volunteer) distance has the lowest relative Beta Weight (B = - .692) which happens to be the most significant in Table 4-18. Sex of the parent and achievement are closely related but with opposite signs. (B1 = 1.5) (B2 = -l.3) The weights in this prediction equation allow us to decide that knowing the sex of the parent, and marital status, and distance which the parent lives from the school will aid us in determining his or her score on the "VOlunteer" level of parental involvement. Also, the marital status and achieve- ment are inversely related to the "Volunteer" level of involvement. Let us examine the prediction equation for Subscore 4. SCLSCR 4 = 12.6 + .52 Sexl + .14 Sex2 - .69 Distance - .86 Achiev. + .19 Type of Household. In predicting Subscore 4 (the trained worker), achievement has the highest relative weight (B = - .8612) which happens to bethe only one significant in Table 4-19. Sex of the child and marital status have the same sign and are closely related. 86 (B1 = .14) (B2 = .19) The weights in this prediction equation allow us to decide that knowing the achievement of the child will aid the most toward determinining the parent's (his or her) score on the "trained worker" level cf parental involvement. Adso, achievement is in- versely'related to the ”trained worker" level of involvement. Let us examine the prediction equation for Subscore 5. SCLSCR 5 = 12.2 + .55 Sexl = .27 Sex2 - .56 Distance + 1.23 Achiev. - .84 Type of Household. In predicting Subscore 5 (decision maker) achievement has the highest relative Beta weight (B = 1.2263) which happens to be also the only coefficient which comes close to being significant in Table 4-20. Sex of parent and distance are nearly equal Beta weights but have opposite signs. (B1 = .55) (B2 = -.56) The weights in this prediction equation allow us to decide that knowing the achievement of the child will aid the most toward determining parent score on the ”decision maker” level of parental involvement. Also, marital status is inversely related to the ”decision maker” level of involvement. In summary, it is seen that the sex of the parent has high Beta weights in four of the five prediction equations. (Refer to Table 4-15.) The only equation in which parental sex has a low value is for Subscore 5 (decision maker). All of the signs for the weights for this variable are positive. The sex of the child has a low Beta weight in four of the five 87 prediction equations. The only equation in which it is high is Subscore 2 (teacher of the child). All of the signs are positive except for Subscore 5 (decision maker). The distance variable has low Beta weights for Subscore l (bystander), Subscore 2 (teacher of child) and Subscore 3 (volunteer), and somewhat higher Beta weights in Subscore 4 (trained worker) and Subscore 5 (decision maker). All of the signs are negative. The achievement variable has high Beta weights for Subscore 2 (teacher of the child), Subscore 3 (volunteer), and Subscore 5 (decision maker) and low Beta weights for Subscore l (by- stander) and Subscore 4 (trained worker). All of the signs are negative except for Subscore 5 (decision maker). The type of household has a high Beta weight for Subscore 3 (volunteer). Its other Beta weights are much lower. All of the signs are positive except for Subscore 4 (decision maker). In Tables 4-16 through 4-20 the independent variables that contribute to the predictions are shown with the amount of variance in the subscale scores which is accounted for by the five independent variables. Table 4-16 SCl - Parents' score as bystander-observer Variable B Sig. Multiple R R2 R2 change Sex1 2.073 .000 .21194 .04492 .04492 Sex2 .567 .261 .22120 .04893 .00401 Distance -.180 .375 .22593 .05104 7.00211 Achiev. -.410 .942 .22647 .05129 .00025 Household -.S74 .431 .23065 .05320 .00191 88 In Table 4-16 all the five independent variables account for 5.3% of variance in the parent's score as bystander- observer (subscore 1). Out of these, the sex of the parent accounts for 4.5% of variation in the parent's score. It is obvious that the other four independent variables do not con- tribute significant additional information about that parent's category standing and could have been omitted from this equation. Table 4-17 SC2 - Parents' score as teacher of child Variable B Sig. MultipleR R2 R2 change Sex1 1.296 .174 .05636 .00318 .00318 Sex2 1.650 .065 .12062 .01455 .01137 Distance -0.227 .950 .12180 .01484 .00029 Achiev. -2.748 .006 .20604 .0425 .02762 Household -O.665 .605 .20804 .04328 .00083 In Table 4-17 the five independent variables account for 4.3% of variance in the parent's score. Out of these achieve- ment of the child accounts for 2.8% of variation in the parent's score. The other four independent variables do not contribute any significant information about the parent's category standing and could have been omitted. 89 Table 4-18 SC3 - Parents' score as volunteer Variable :B Sig. Multiple R ' R2 R2 change Sexl 1.504 .031 .08393 .00705 .00705 Sex2 .718 .269 .10632 .01130 .00426 Distance -.692 .009 .16864 .02844 .01713 Achiev. -1.332 .068 .21586 .04659 .01815 Household -l.946 .038 .24440 .05973 .01314 In Table 4-18 the independent variables account for 5.9% of variance in the parent's score as volunteer. Out of these the variable distance accounts for 1.7% variation in the parent's score. The variable Sexl (sex of the parent) accounts for .7% variation in the parent's score and the variable house- hold (status of the parent) accounts for 1.3% variation in the parent's score. The variables Sex2 (sex of the child) and achievement do not contribute significantly to the parent's category standing and could have been removed from this equation. 90 Table 4-19 SC4 - Parents' score as trained worker Variable B Sig. Multiple R R2 R2 change Sexl .5207 .202 .06686 .’00447 .00447 Sex2 .1429 .708 .07075 .00501 .00054 Distance -.6895 .654 .07278 .00530 .00029 Achiev. .8612 .045 .13775 .01898 .01368 Household .1930 .972 .13777 .01898 .-0°0°° In Table 4-19 the five independent variables account for 1.90% of variance in the parent's scores. the child accounts for 1.4% of variation in the parent's score Achievement of and the other four independent variables do not contribute information that is significant about the parent's category standing and could have been omitted. Table 4-20 SCS - Parents' 91 score as decision maker Variable B Sig. Multiple R R2 R2 change Sex1 .5476 .389 .04182 .00175 .00175 Sex2 .2659 .964 .04186 .00175 .00000 Distance .5634 .814 .04293 .00184 .00009 Achiev. 1.2263 .066 .10243 .01049 .00865 Household -.8442 .326 .01358 .00308 .11651 The five independent variables in Table 4-20 account for 1.3% of variance in the parent's scores. child accounts for parent. Achievement of the .9% of variation in the score of the The other four variables do not contribute signifi- cantly to the parent's category standing and could have been removed. 92 Hypothesis 1 The investigation of the relationship between parental involvement and student achievement (as indicated by grade point average, rates of attendance and citizenship) was hypothesized in the null form as: There is no significant relationship between parental involvement and student achievement (as indicated by grade point average, rate of attendance and citizenship). The analysis involved classifying the subjects into two groups according to their child's achievement - high or low. Analy- sis of variance of these two achievement groups with the five subscale scores as the dependent variables is shown in Table 4-21. Table 4-21 Summary of one-way analysis of variances with 5 subscores - Independent variable: Achievement Dependent Mean df F p Variables Square Scl 67682.7 1 3200.72 .0001 error 21.146 315 Sc2 304699.0 1 4856.05 .0001 error 62.746 315 SC3 70249.0 1 2065.39 .0001 error 34.012 315 SC4 48079.54 1 4203.86 .0001 error 11.437 315 Sc5 61517.53 1 2243.10 .0001 .error 27.425 315 h— 93 The table reveals that there is a significant difference be- tween the high and low achievement groups for each one of the five subscale scores, (p‘<.0001). In Table 4-22 one can see the mean subscale scores for the two groups. We see that four of the subscores of parents of high achieving children have higher mean scores than parents of low achieving children. Based on the Analysis of Variance results, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. Table 4-22 Mean subscale scores for high - low achievement Subscore Mean High Mean Low achievement achievement Scl .14.63 ‘ 14.57 Sc2 31.94 i _ 28.98 Sc3 15.37 13.84 SC4 12.59 11.72 Sc5 13.60 14.64 Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 were treated collectively in a 3-way MANOVA, with the 5 Subscores as the dependent variables. The subjects were classified into 3 independent groups with respect to Sex of the Parent, Distance, and Parental Status. The results were displayed in three tables, 4-23, 4-25, 4-27 (one for each independent factor) for the sake of clarity. 94 Hypothesis 2 The null hypothesis investigated for the relationship between parental involvement and type of household (one or two parent households) was: There is no significant relationship between parental involvement and one parent or two parent households. The analysis involved classifying the subjects into two groups according to their status as parents (one parent or two parent household). Analysis of variance of these two parent groups with the five subscale scores as the dependent variables is shown in Table 4-23. Table 4-23 Summary of three-way multivariate analysis of variance (Sex, Distance, and Parental Status) with 5 subscores. Single Three-way analysis of variance sex, distance and parental status with 5 subscores Subscore Mean df F p square Scl 20.5120 1 1.0234 .3126 error 20.043 303 Sc2 79.2111 1 1.2184 .2706 error 65.013 303 Sc3 184.7797 1 5.5181 .0195 error . 33.49 303 SC4 1.2345 1 .1064 .7446 error 11.603 303 Sc5 3.4220 1 .1230 .7261 error 27.826 303 95. The Table 4-23 shows that the only significant difference was located in Subscore 3 (volunteer). The overall test of significance did not show any significant difference between the two status groups (with F=l.3097 and p <.2598). The fact that being a single parent appears to influence the volunteer scale the most might simply indicate that one parent has less time to volunteer. As a result Hypothesis 2 could not be rejected. Looking at the means for Subscore 3 (volunteer) for the two groups in Table 4-24, one can see that two parent house- holds have a higher mean score than one parent households. Table 4-24 Mean subscale scores for status of parent (single) Two parent household Total No. of parents N=261 Subscore Mean SCl 14.55 SC2 31.23 SC3 15.18 SC4 12.34 SCS 13.98 One parent household .Total No. of parents N=54 Subscore Mean SCl 14.83 SC2 30.13 SC3 13.56 SC4 12.30 SCS 13.76 96 Hypothesis 3 The null hypothesis examined for the relationship between parental involvement and distance from home to school was: There is no significant relationship between the distance from home to school and parental involvement. Hypothesis 3 was rejected. The analysis involved classifying the subjects in four groups according to the distance from home to school. The distances used were: a. Walks over 10 blocks b. Walks over 5 blocks c. Walks under 5 blocks d. Rides school bus. Analysis of variance of these four distance groups with the five subscale scores as the dependent variables is shown in Table 4-25. Table 4-25 Summary of three-way multivariate analysis of variance (Sex, Distance and Parental Status) with 5 subscores. Distance Three-way analysis of variance sex, distance and parental status with 5 subscores Subscore Mean df F p square SCl 22.3076 3 1.1129 .3441 error 20.043 303 SC2 20.6486 3 0.3176 .8127 error 65.013 303 SC3 92.0770 3 2.7497 .0430 error 33.486 303 SC4 9.0223 3 0.775 .5073 error 11.603 303 SCS 62.4385 3 2.2439 .0833 error 27.826 303 97 The Table 4.25 shows that the only significant difference 'was located in subscale score 3 (volunteer). The overall test of significance showed a significant difference between the four groups according to the distance from home to school with F = 1.8255 and (p‘<.0276). The fact that distance in- fluences the volunteer scale the most might be explained by the fact that it is probably harder to volunteer the greater the distance one lives from school. Scheffe's post hoc comparisons were used to compare the distance of over 10 blocks, over 5 blocks, under 5 blocks and rides a bus. The test is not sensitive enough to show the exact location of significant differences (i.e., between 5 and 10 blocks or between under 5 blocks and bussing distance). A more sensitive test (Tukey) could not be used because of unequal cells. Looking at the means for Distance in Table 4-26 we see that walking under 5 blocks has a much lower mean in all five subscores than the other distances. Table 4-26 Mean subscale scores for distance No. of parents No. of parents No. of parents No. of parents N=69 N=55 N=31 N=160 Walk over Walk over Walk under Rides 10 blocks 5 blocks 5 blocks school bus SCl 14.49 15.53 15.10 14.22 SC2 31.03 30.96 29.94 31.29 SC3 16.33 15.44 13.39 14.39 SC4 12.29 12.82 11.74 12.30 8C5 13.32 15.33 12.71 13.98 ii I] i .l. 1!} in I II III .. . I 98 Hypothesis 4 The null hypothesis investigated for the relationship between parental involvement and sex of the parents was: There is no signifiCant relationship between parental involvement and the parent's sex. Analysis of variance of these two groups with the five subscores as the dependent variables is shown in Table 4-27. Table 4-27 Summary of three-way multivariate analysis of variance (Sex, Distance and Parental Status) with 5 subscores. SEX 1 Three-way analysis of variance sex, distance and parental status with 5 subscores Subscore Mean df F p square SC1 291.42 1 14.5394 .0002 error 20.043 303 SC2 63.83 1 0.9819 .3226 error 65.013 303 SC3 76.43 1 2.2827 .1319 error 33.49 303 SC4 16.08 1 1.3857 .2401 error 11.603 303 SC5 15.210 1 0.5466 .4603 error 27.826 303 Table 4-27 reveals that the only significant difference was found for Subscore 1. The overall test of significance showed a significant difference between the two sex groups with F 3.2022 and (p <.0079). From the fact that the sex of the parent influences the bystander scale the most, one could say that the sex of the parent could predict the amount 99 of involvement in the bystander scale. As a result Hypothesis 4 was rejected. Looking at the means for Sex of the parents in Table 4-28 we see that mothers have a much higher mean in all five sub- scores than the fathers. Table 4-28 Mean subscale scores for sex of the parent Subscale Fathers (N=129) Mothers (N=186) SCl 13.44 15.40 SC2 30.50 31.42 SC3 14.31 15.31 SC4 12.06 12.52 SC5 13.68 14.13 Tables 4-29 through 4-32 are in regard to the knowledge the parents have about the code of conduct used in their child's school and whether they thought the code of conduct was fair to the student.' In Table 4-29 78% of the fathers responded that they understood the code of conduct and in Table 4-30 we see that 91% of the mothers responded that they understood the code of conduct. In Tables 4-31 and 4-32 it is shown that 61% of the fathers responded yes to whether the code of conduct was fair to the student while 66% of the mothers responded yes to whether the code of conduct was fair to the student. » *u-* Table 4-29 111 112 121 122 Father, Father, Father, Father, 100 Child male, High Achievement Child male, Low Achievement Child female, High Achievement Low Achievement Child female, Understood the operation of the Code of Conduct. Distribution of responses from Fathers Understood the operation of the Code of Conduct Total Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 - No. Percent Yes 40 11 38 11 100 78 No 7 5 10 7 29 22 No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 4-30 Understood the operation of the Code of Conduct. Distribution of responses from Mothers Understood the operation of the Code of Conduct Total Mothers (N-186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Yes 54 28 63 24 169 91 No 2 5 1 7 15 8 No response 1 l O 0 2 1 101 * 111 Father, Child male, High Achievement * 112 Father, Child male, Low Achievement * 121 Father, Child female, High Achievement * 122 Father, Child female, Low Achievement Table 4-31 Whether they thought the Code of Conduct was fair to the student. Distribution of responses from Fathers. Whether the Code of Conduct was Total fair to the student Fathers (N=129) 111 112 121 122 No. Percent Yes 32 8 29 9 78 61 Usually 10 5 13 3 31 24 No 0 2 l 5 8 6 No response 3 3 0 6 12 9 * 211 Mother, Child male, High Achievement * 212 Mother, Child male, Low Achievement * 221 Mother, Child female, High Achievement * 222 Mother, Child female, Low Achievement Table 4-32 Whether they thought the Code of Conduct was fair to the student. Distribution of responses from Mothers. Whether the Code of Conduct was Total fair to the student Mothers (N=186) 211 212 221 222 No. Percent Yes 38 17 47 20 122 66 Usually 17 12 17 5 51 27 No l 3 l 6 ll 6 No response 1 0 1 0 2 1 102 Summary The results of the analysis of data were presented in this chapter. Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 3, and Hypothesis 4 were rejected in their null form while Hypothesis 2 could not be rejected in its null form.. Findings derived from the analysis of Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 indicate a relationship between parental involvement in their child's education and student achievement, and distance from the home to the school. The finding derived from the analysis of Hypothesis 2 failed to indicate any relationship between parental involvement and one-parent or two-parent households. Conclusion and implica- tions which might be drawn from these findings are presented in the following chapter. .“-‘ '1! I'll CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS This chapter includes and summary and discussion of the findings of the study. It also includes implications for further research. Summary The study was conducted in Lansing, Michigan, an industrial city and also the State capitol. While most ethnic backgrounds were represented, the highest number of parental responses were identified as "white." The study sample was drawn from parents who had children attending the five junior high schools in Lansing. Names of 280 eighth and ninth grade children meeting the criteria for the study were obtained from school records. A major objective of this study was to investigate parental involvement in their child's education. Review of literature revealed that parents can have a tremendous in- fluence on their child's education. Parents can help their children foster a successful school experience. Literature also revealed that school officials should be leaders in implementing parental involvement programs. All efforts and considerations should be directed to parents with children in urban schools to allow and to encourage them to become involved. Parents can be a great force for change in our 103 104 schools. Further surveys of the many books, articles and periodicals on parental involvement indicates that parental involvement is valuable and can be achieved. Literature re- vealed that parents and the community can provide a reality base for the educators and it is the parents who can best articulate the goals and values of the urban population. There appears to be a need to bring together into more effective interaction all those parents involved in education. Benefits appear to result when parents do become involved. It would appear that the question "Does parent involvement matter?" must be answered in the affirmative. The specific purpose of the present study was to deter- mine if significant relationships exist between levels of parental involvement and selected independent variables. The design of the study was a predictive survey using selected schools. A questionnaire was utilized for the purpose of obtaining parental responses to gather data to determine the relationships among variables. The questionnaire was designed along lines suggested by Gordon,who proposes that parent participation runs the gamut of five levels of involvement. The five levels of involvement used as the dependent variables in the study were: 1. Involvement as bystander-observer (subscore l) 2. Involvement as teacher of child (subscore 2) 3. Involvement as volunteer (subscore 3) 4. Involvement as trained worker (subscore 4) 5. Involvement as decision maker (subscore 5) 105 The first level of participation or involvement means that parents will either be an audience getting the message and listening to the word, or will be involved as bystanders and observers visiting the school, or the day care center, to see what the teacher does. The second level moves one step higher and includes involvement ofjthe parent as a direct and active teacher of the child (e.g., helping the child with homework). At the third level, parents are in- volved in active roles in the school as volunteers. The fourth level is that of trained worker who helps out with the school program on some regular, formal basis. The fifth level involves the parents' participating in the decision making of the school, for example, in the hiring of personnel, in evaluating programs, or in giving suggestions for solving school problems. Discussion of Findings The study was concerned only with the significance of certain independent variables and their relationship with parental involvement on five levels as indicated above. To investigate parental involvement in further depth was out of the scope of this study. No attempt was made to evaluate parental involvement and their child's performance. Only eighth and ninth grade student data information was used and this data was based on 1974-75 school records. 106 Findings Hypothesis 1 There is no significant relationship between parental involvement and student achievement as indicated by (grade point average, rates of attendance and citizenship average). Hypothesis 1 was rejected. It was found that achievement of the child results in a difference in parental involvement and low or high achievement children. Analysis showed a relationship between parental involvement and student achievement. However, we cannot con- clude on the basis of the demonstrated relationship that if 'parents get involved with their child's education their child's grade point average will go up. Further research is needed as to whether involvement fosters achievement or achievement fosters involvement. Hypothesis 2 There is no significant relationship between parental involvement and one-parent or two- parent households. Hypothesis 2 could not be rejected. The results of the data analysis failed to indicate any relatiOnship between parental involvement and one-parent or two-parent households. The relationship between two-parent households and parental involvement as volunteers is higher than one-parent households. It was also found that mothers are more involved in Subgroup l (bystander-observer) than the fathers. The relationship is not significant between the independent variable "household" (parental status) and the 107 other levels of involvement, bystander-observer, teacher of the child, trained worker and decision maker, and the data results do not allow acceptance of the hypothesis. Hypothesis 3 There is no significant relationship between the distance from home to school and parental involvement. Hypothesis 3 was rejected. It was found that there is a relationship between distance from home to the school and parental involvement. The signifi- cance was found in the subscore for the level of parent as volunteer, but there did not appear to be significance in the other subscore levels. Hypothesis 4 There is evidence in the data results that indicate that there is a relationship between parental involvement and the parent's sex. Therefore, the hypothesis was rejected. It seems clear from information obtained that the parent's sex does effect parental involvement. It was found that mothers are more involved in Subgroup 1 (bystander-observor) than the fathers. Further Findings Although not directly related to the specific research for this study, there is evidence in the data which suggests no differences in the mothers' occupation at the unskilled level for high or low achievement. A slight tendency seemed 108 to exist for "low aChievement" children to come from larger sized families and there was a slight pattern appearing of low achievers coming from parents of relatively lesser educational attainment. The data also revealed-that the fathers perceived their income was the primary source of income (82%) for the family but the mothers estimated that 60% of the fathers' in- come was the primary source of income for the family. Conclusions 1. Student achievement (as indicated by grade point average, rates of attendance and citizenship), is a significant variable in determining whether or not parents are involved with their child's education. 2. One-parent or two-parent households is not asignificant variable in determining whether or not parents are involved with their child's education. 3. It was found that there is a relationship between dis- tance from the home to the school and parental involvement. How- ever the only significance was found in the subscore for the level of parents as volunteers. There did not appear to be sig- nificance in the other subscore levels. The study did not go into depth on the independent variable distance and no conclu- sions can be drawn on how distance affects parental involvement. 4. There is evidence in the data results that indicate that there is a relationship between parental involvement and the sex of the parent. Recommendations 1. Elaborate the present study to determine the 109 between minority parental involvement and independent variables. 2. Develop a study, based on the present study's review of literature and findings, to determine more precisely the nature of the relationship between parents' involvement and the success their children have in their school experiences. 3. Develop a study to determine more precisely why parents are motivated at different levels to become involved with their child's education. 4. Examine further the interrelationships between "low achievement" children, family size, and parental level of educational attainment. 5. Conduct a study to determine if busing effects parental involvement. (Parental involvement at varying levels, as defined in the present study). 6. Develop studies using the five levels of involvement employed in the present study and other variables not included in the present study but which also might contribute differ- ences among the levels of achievement in the child's education. Comments It is the investigator's belief that parental involvement is vital to a child's education. It is also felt that the school and community should encourage the parent to be in- volved, as parental involvement together with the school and community can assure that the child will receive the best education possible. From the review of literature, collected data and observations, it is felt that (1) The five levels 110 of parental involvement used in this study have practical implications for school policy and practice in the education of the child. (2) Educators should initiate parental involve- ment programs to develop the interest parents have in their child's education. (3) Parents who are involved as bystanders, teachers of the child, volunteers, trained workers, and those who are involved with the decision making process can together with the educators build strong families, help to develop children to be more capable, develop positive attitudes towards school, and in this manner contribute to raising the quality of community life. It is hoped that this study will contribute to this realization and generate further research into the area of parental involvement with their children's education. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Ames, Louise Bates, Clyde Gillespie and Streff, John W., StngSchool Failure, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972. Babbie, Earl R., Survey Research Methods, Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973. Barzun, Jacques & Graff, Henry F., The Modern Researcher, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1970. Borg, Walter R., & Gall, Meredith D., Educational Research An Introduction, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971. Broudy, Harry S., The Real World of the Public Schools, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972: Carnoy, Martin, Schooling In A Corporate Society, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. Clark, Kenneth B., Dark Ghetto, New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1965. Conant, James B., Slums and Suburbs, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961. Conant, James B., The American High School Today, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. Davis, Allison, Social-Class Influences Upon Learniggj Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Ufiiversity Press, 1948. Gittell, Marilyn, Hevesi Alan G., The Politics of Urban Education, New York: Praeger PubliShers, 1970. ' Gordon, Ira J., Parent Involvement in Compensatory Education, University of'Illinois Press, I968. Gross, Beatrice, Gross, Ronald, Radical School Reform, New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1969. Haskin, Tim, Black Manifesto for Education, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1973. Holt, John, The Underachieveing School, New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1969. 111 112 Isaac, Stephen, Handbook In Research and Evaluation, San Diego, California: Robert R. Knapp Publisher, 1971. Kerber, August, Bommarito, Barbara, The Schools and The Urban Crisis, Detroit, Michigan: 1965. Kerner, Otto, Report of The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, New York: Bantam Books, 1968. Kettering, Charles F. (Foundation) The Reform of Secondary Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. Koerner, James D., Who Control American Education A Guide For Laymen, Boston: Beacon Press, 1968. Lichter, Solomon 0., Rapien, Elsie B., Seibert, France M., Sklansky, Morris A., M.D., The DrOp-Out, New York: The Free Press, 1962. Lurie, Ellen, How to Change The Schools, New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Morrison, A., McIntyre, Schools and Socialization, Great Britain: Penguin Books, 1971. Passow, Harry A., Education In Depressed Areas, New York: Teacher College Press, 1963. Passow, Harry A., Goldberg, Mirian, Tannenbaum, Abraham J., Education of the Disadvantaged, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wifiston, Inc., 1967. Riles, Wilson C., The Urban Education Task Force Report, New York: Praeger Publisher, 1970. Siberman, Charles E., Crisis In The Classroom, New York: Vintage Books, 1971. Toffler, Avin., Future Shock, New York: Bantam Book, 1971. Wright, Jr., Nathan, Black Power and Urban Unrest, New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc. PERIODICALS Abbott, Jerry L., "Community Involvement: Everybody's Talking About It," National Elementary Principal, Vol. 52 (Jan- uary 1973), p. 56. Acland, Henry, "Does Parent Involvment Matter?", New Society, (September 16, 1971), p. 508. 113 Adkin, Patricia G., "Parent Involvement In The Classroom; Boon or Bane," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, (1975). P. 2. Bluford, David F., and Erlandson, David A., "The Inner-City Experience: A Guide for New Principals, " NASSP Bulletin, (March 1975), pp. 1-8. Brieve, Fred J., "Secondary Principals as Instructional Leaders," NASSP Bulletin, (December 1972), pp. 11-15. Buell, Clayton E., "Guideline for Curriculum Development," Educational Leadership, (December 1968), p. 293. Chasteen, Fletcher 0., "Parental Insight Into Quality Education," School and Community, (December 1972), p. 8. Cheyneym, Arnold B., "Teachers of the Culturally Disadvantaged," Exceptional Children, (October 1966), pp. 83-88. Christopher, Samuel A., "Parental Relationship and Value Orientation as Factors in Academic Achievement," Personnel and Guidance Journal, (May 1967), p. 921. Cole, Henry P., and Harty Harold, "Generalized Roles of Students and Community in Planned Educational Change Efforts," High School Journal, Vol. 57, (December 1973),_ p. 97. Costa, Arthur L., "Synergism: Administrative Involvement of the Curriculum Worker," Educational Leadership, (February 1968), P. 418. Cuban, Larry, "Teacher and Community," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, (Spring 1969), P. 254. Cunningham, Luvern I., "Community Involvement in Change," Educational Leadership, (January 1970), p. 364. Dady, Milan B., "Improving School-Community Relations," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, (Winter 1972) p. 93. Diamond, Isreal J., "Improving Elementary Curriculum," School and Community, (December 1964), p. 11. Erlandson, Dave A., "The Principal: Power or Pawn?", NASSP Bulletin, (December 1972), pp. 1-10. Estes, Sidney H., "Instruction Inner City: Where It's Really At," Educational Leadership, (March 1975), PP. 384-387. 114 Fliegel, Seymour, “Practices that Improved Academic Perfor- mance in an Inner-City School," Phi Delta Kappan, (February 1971), p. 342. Frost, Joe L., and Rowland, G. Thomas, "The Seventies: A Time for Giant Steps," The Educational Digest, (February 1970). PP. 1-4. Greenberg, Judith W., and Helen H. Davidson, "Home Background and School Achievement of Black Urban Ghetto Children," American Journal Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 42, No. 5, (October 1972), p. 803. Gregg, Russell T., and Stephen J. Knezevich, "The Superin— tendent: What Makes Him," American School Board Journal, (June 1971): pp. 12-13. Hanson, Mark and Dyer, Larry, "Educational Policy Priorities and the Multi-Cultural Curriculum," The Journal of Negro Education, (1975), p. 468. Hass, Glen C., "Who Should Plan the Curriculum?" Educational Leadership, Vol. 19, No. 1, (October 1966), p. 4. Herman, Jerry J., "Why Every Superintendent Should Teach In His Own Schools," American School Board Journal, (March 1974), p. 43. House, James E., "Urban Educational Problems: Whose Responsibility?", Educational Leadership, (April 1975), p. 437. Karnes, Merle B., and R. Reid Zehrbach, "Parental Attitudes and Education in the Culture of Poverty," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, (1975), p. 52. Lillie, David, "The Parent In Early Childhood Education," Journal of Research and Development in Education, V01. 8' NO. 2’ (1975)! po 10. Mann, David, and Gold, Martin, "Delinquency As Defense," American Journal orthopsychiatry, 42 (2), (April 1972), p. 470. Marland, Sidney P. Jr., "The Changing Nature of the School Superintendency," Educational and Public Policy, (July-August 1970). PP. 365-371. Martin, Audrey Simmons, "Facilitating Parent-Child Interaction Through The Education of Parents," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, (1975), p. 96. 115 Massey, Jeanne H., Myers Jean Davis, "Volunteer Mothers As Tutors In The Classroom," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, (1975). P. 60. Maynor, Dorothy, "Why Should Whitey Care About The Ghetto?" NASSP Bulletin, (November 1969). P. 5. North, George E., and Buchana, Lee 0., "Teacher Views of Poverty Area Children," The Journal of Educational Research, (October 1967), pp. 53-55. Parkay, Forrest, "The Inner-City High School," School Review, (May 1974). PP. 468-485. Perrone, Vito, "Parents as Partners," The Urban Review, (November 1971), p. 40. Poole, Carl N., "How Can Schools Use Community Resources," Educational Leadership, (April 1975). p. 444. Record, Wilson, "The White Professional Educators and the Black Ghetto Schools," The Journal of Negro Education, (1971), p. 45. Rice, Arthur H., "Squeeze the Parents Out of School and See What We Get," Nation's Schools, Vol. 85, (April 1970), p. 18. Smith, Calvert Hayes, "Prerequisites to Successful Teaching in Inner-City Communities," Education and Urban Sociepy, Vol. 4, (November 1971), p. 50. Telfer, Richard G., "Staff Involvement Key to Curriculum Improvement," The Clearing House, (May 1969), pp. 539-542. Warren, Morrison F., "How Parents View Urban Education," Educational Leadership, (October 1967). p. 28. Wayson, William W., "Organizing Urban Schools For Responsible Education," Phi Delta Kappan, (February 1971), p. 344. Wear, Pat W., "Supervisor Coordinator of Multiple Consultation, Educational Leadership, (May 1966), pp. 652-655. White, Louise R., "Effective Teachers for Inner City Schools," The Journal of Negro Education, (January 1974), pp. 308-314. Wilcox, Preston, "Changing Conceptions of Community,"Educa- tional Leadership, (May 1972), p. 683. Willigen, John Van., Spence Allyn G., and Sadker, David, "Parent and School; Participation," School and Community (November 1972), p. 21. 116 OTHER DOCUMENTS Brown, Frank, "What Should Constitute the Curriculum of Black Schools and How much Parent Participation?" E.R.I.C. Document #ED 093-652, April 1974. Bullock, Henry Allen, "The Prediction of Dropout Behavior Among Urban Negro Boys," E.R.I.C.,Document # ED 013-847, June 1967. Heisler, Florence, Crowley, Francis, "Parental Participation: Its Effect on the First-Grade Achievement of Children in a Depressed Area. Final Report," E.R.I.C., Document #ED 039-265, July 1969. Margolis, Richard J., "The Losers: A Report on Puerto Ricans and the Public School," E.R.I.C.,Document # ED. 023-779, May 1968. Schwartz, Fascione, and Hayman, "Overbrook Cluster Parent Survey," E.R.I.C., Document # ED. 031-817, April 1969. Office of Education, "Parent Power and Public Schools: A Guide for Parent Advocacy," E.R.I.C., Document # ED 081-876, 1972. REPORTS Cooke, Robert, "Report to Sargent Schriver, Office of Economic Opportunity, on Improving the Opportunity and Achievements of the Children of the Poor," Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. (Mimeographed). Detroit Board of Education, Report of Superintendent's Committee on Achievement, 1967. Fact Sheets on Institutional Racism, Change Inc., (July 1974), pp. 10-13. The Report of the High School Study Commission, (June 1968), pp. 309-10. Vontress, Clemmont B., Our Demoralizing Slum Schools, Detroit, 1965. 117 UNPUBLISHED WORKS Beach, Edward Stanley, "A Study of a Community Its Needs and Its Problems and the Implication for Improvement in School Organization and Curriculum," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, George Washington University, 1968. Bertsch, Donald P., An Analysis of Factors Related to Perceived Parental Influence On College Freshmen and Parent-Student perception of Central Michigan University, Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. Boozer, Raymond L., A Study of the Voting Publics in Grand Rapids, Michigan, To Provide the Basis for Planning and Conducting Future Publics School Operating Millage Elections in That District, Unpublished Doctor's disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1969. Carter, Paul D., "Perceptions of Classroom Teachers and School Administrators Concerning Curriculum Development in a Suburban School System," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Wayne State University, 1955. Erlach, Joseph William, "Influences on Policy Making for Urban Curriculum: A Case Study," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford University, 1972. Flaaten, Wayne Richard, "The Role of the Elementary School Principal, Teacher, and Parents in the Area of Curriculum Improvement," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1972. Halliday, Malcolm Frank, "An Investigation of Parent Attitudes and Teacher Morale in Relationship to Community Unrest," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. McIntosh, Walter Cordell, "Adjustment of the Curriculum to the Needs of Black Ghetto Students," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Columbia University, 1972. Seretny, Albert Andrew, "The Secondary School Principal's Role in Curriculum Development in New Haven, Connecticut, 1940-1970," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1971. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE LETTER ENCLOSED WITH QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire was designed so that the maximum number of points a person could score on the questionnaire was 267 points. The minimum was 52 points if all questions were ans- wered. Points ranged from a scale of 1 to 5. One was assigned to the value of no involvement and 5 was assigned to represent total involvement. 118 119 Dear Parent: The attached questionnaire concerned with parental involvement with their children's education is part of a study being done to determine if parental involvement has an impact on their children's education. We are very interested in obtaining your responses because as parents, you contribute significantly toward the education of your children. Your responses to this questionnaire will assist in providing information about parental involvement which we feel is an important area of education. If you are a two- parent family, it is essential that both of you complete a questionnaire. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your use in returning the completed questionnaire. You do not have to sign your name because your responses will not be individually identified. It will be appreciated if you will complete the questionnaire before December 1, 1975. We would be happy to send you a summary of questionnaire results upon request. Thank you for your help and cooperation. Sincerely, Frank Hunter Wilson 120 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS In two-parent families each parent responds to a questionnaire. Please check the one that identifies you. Father__ Mother__. Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. Section I. 1. How many years have you lived in the City of Lansing? a. Less than one year b. One to four years c. Five to ten years d. .More than ten years. 2. Do you own or rent your home? a. Own b. Rent 3. Are you employed? a. Yes, full time b. Yes, part time c. No, not now employed 4. Who is the primary source of income in your family? a. Father's income b. Mother's income c. Both d. Other 5. What kind of work do you do? a. Professional-skilled b. Self-Employed c. Un-Skilled d. Housewife 6. Circle the letter of the number of children you have. a. One b. Two c. Three d. Four e. Five or more 121 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 7. Circle the letter of the school your children attend. a. French Junior High b. Gardner Junior High c. Rich Junior High d. Otto Junior High e. Pattengill Junior High 8. Circle the letter that includes the highest grade completed so far by any of your children. a. 7-9 Junior High b. 10-12 Senior High c. College 9. Circle the letter that includes the highest grade which you completed. a. K-6 Elementary b. 7-9 Junior High c. 10-12 Senior High d. College 10. Did you attend the Lansing Public Schools? a. Yes b. No 11. How would you rate the kind of education your child is getting? a. Excellent b. Good c. Fair d. Poor 12. How would you compare your child's Junior High School to others in the school district? a. Better than b. About the same as c. Not as good as 122 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 13. How does your child get to school? a. Walks over 10 blocks b. Walks over 5 blocks 0. Walks under 5 blocks d. Rides school bus 14. Is yours a one-parent or two-parent household at the present time? a. Two-parent household b. One-parent household 15. Circle the letter that identifies you. a. White b. Black c. Spanish-American d. Indian e. Other 16. Circle the number of children that you now have attending Lansing Public Schools. a. One b. Two c. Three d. Four e. Five or more 17. Do you understand the operation of the code of conduct at your son or daughter's Junior High School? a. Yes b. No 18. Do you know the code of conduct at your son or daughter's Junior High School? a. Yes b. No 19. Do you think the code of conduct at your son or daughter's Junior High School is fair to the students? a. Yes, most of the time b. Usually c. No. very little of the time 123 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. Section II 20. How many times did you visit you son or daughter's Junior High School classroom during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2thms d. 1 time e. 0 times 21. How many times did you talk to your son or daughter's Junior High School teacher during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time 22. How many times did you attend a P.T.A. meeting at the Junior High School during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0thms 23. How many times did you attend a Junior High School play during the last four years? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 24. How many times did you attend a Lansing School Board metting during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 124 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 25. How many times were you invited by the school to help plan classroom activities during the last five years? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 26. Has your Junior High School made it clear how you can effectively communicate any complaints you may have? a. Yes b. No 27. How many times did you go with a Junior High School class on a field trip during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2thms d. 1 time e. 0 times 28. How many times did you talk to your son or daughter's Junior High School principal during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3thms c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0thms SECTION III 29. How many times did the Junior High School send home material for you and your child to work on together at home during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time ‘e. 0 times 125 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 29a. How much time did you spend with your child on the material sent home by the school? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 30. How many times did you receive a suggestion from the Junior High School of specific T.V. programs to view with your child during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3thms c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 30a. How many times did you watch specific T.V. programs with your child which were suggested by the school? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 31. How many times were you encouraged by the school to attend with your child certain Junior High School functions during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0thms 31a. How many functions did you attend during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times Ill lllllll .1 I i llll III I 1 Ii: ! l'l‘ IFr... 126 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 32. How many times were you encouraged by the school to attend with your child certain community events during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 32a. How many community events did you attend during the last school year? a. 4 or more events b. 3 events c. 2 events d . 1 event e. No events 33. During the last school year how much time did you spend with your Junior High School son or daughter helping with school work? a. 4 or more hours per week b. 3 hours per week c. 2 hours per week d. 1 hour per week e. 0 hours per week 34. During the last school year how many times did your Junior High School son or daughter bring school work home? a. 4 or more times per week b. 3 times per week c. 2 times per week d. 1 time per week e. 0 times per week 35. Approximately how many books did your son or daughter read during the last school year? a. 4 or more books b. 3 books c. 2 books d. 1 book e. 0 books 127 Directions: Please answer every question. Please-circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 36. During the last school year how many times did you tell your son or daughter that getting an education is important? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 37. During the last school year how many times did you receive suggestions from the Junior High School of specific magazine articles for your son or daughter to read? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 37a. How many times did you encourage your son or daughter to read specific magazine articles suggested by the school? a. 4 or more times per month b. 3 times per month c. 2 times per month d. 1 time per month e. 0 times per month Section IV. 38. How many times did you volunteer your time to the Junior High School during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 128 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 39. During the last school year how many times did you assist in the Junior High School classroom as a volunteer? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 40. How many times did you participate on Junior High School committees during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 41. How many times have you very actively participated in a community political campaign regarding school matters? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. '0 times 42. How many times did parents in your neighborhood get together to talk about the Junior High School during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 43. How often did the Junior High School encourage volunteer work during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 129 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 43a. How many times did you volunteer during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 44. How much time did you spend conferring with the Junior a. b. c. d. e. 46. a. b. 47. High School teacher during the last school year? more than 2 hours about 2 hours about 1 hour about 30 minutes less than 15 minutes How many times did your neighborhood parent group volunteer their time to help the Junior High School during the last school year? or more times times times time times Ol—‘NWk Did the school show adequate recognition to parents for their volunteer services during the last school year? Yes No Did you participate in evening adult activities provided for you by the Junior High School during the last school year? Yes No 130 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. Section V. 48. How many times did you enroll in adult evening activities at your Junior High School during the last school year? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 49. Were there programs at the school to train parents for teacher-aide activities during the last school year? a. Yes b. No 49a. If so, how many programs for teacher-aide activities did you attend during the last school year? a. 4 or more programs b. 3 programs c. 2 programs d. 1 prOgram e. 0 programs 50. During the last school year were any workshops held for parents? a. Yes b. No 50a. How many workshops for parents did you attend during the last school year? a. 4 or more workshops b. 3 workshops c. 2 workshops d. 1 workshops e. 0 workshops 131 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 51. Approximately how much time did you give to the Junior High School during the past year? a. 4 or more hours per month b. 3 hours per month c. 2 hours per month d. 1 hour per month e. 0 hours per month 52. During the last school year did you feel you were a part of the Junior High School? a. Yes b. No 53. Do you feel you know what is going on in your son or daughter's school? a. Yes - most of the time b. Sometimes c. No - very little of the time 54. During the last school year how many school newsletters did your Junior High School send out to keep you informed? a. 4 or more letters b. 3 letters c. 2 letters d. 1 letter e. 0 letters Section VI. 55. a. b. c. d. e. How many times have you helped in recruiting and screening any school employees during the last five years? or more times times times time times OI—‘NWA 132 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 56. How many times did you assist in the evaluation of school programs during the last five years? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 57. How many times during the past year did you or other parents feel you got double talk from school officials? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 58. How often during the past five years did any school where your children attended allow parents to help decide on what would be taught in school? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 59. During the last five years how many times were responsi- bilities shared by you and other parents working with school officials to search for solutions to problems? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 60. How often did you blame the school for your child's failure during the last five years? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 133 Directions: Please answer every question. Please circle the letter in front of the answer that best fits you. 61. Are you satisfied with the relationship you have with your child's Junior High School? a. Yes - well satisfied b. Could be better c. No - not at all satisfied 62. How many times have you been asked by the school to help solve or give suggestions on a school problem during the last five years? a. 4 or more times b. 3thms c. 2 times d. 1 time e. 0 times 62a. How many times did you help solve or give suggestions on a school problem during the last five years? a. 4 or more times b. 3 times c. 2thms d. 1 time e. 0 times 63. From the choices given, please list three things that you believe the Lansing Schools do well: (letter a. should be what you think they do best). Equal Opportunity for all a. Discipline b. Curriculum c. Teachers Facilities Parents are interested participants Up-to-date teaching methods Good administration Good student teacher relationships Nothing good 64. From the choices given, what do you consider the three most serious problems in the Lansing Schools? (Letter a. should be what you think is the most serious problem.) Integration/Segregation a. Dope & Drugs b. Finances c. Illll: Ill!!! ' 134 Discipline Teachers Curriculum Pupil's lack of interest Teachers' lack of interest School administration Vandalism We have no problems Thank you for completing this questionnaire and returning it promptly. Feel free to include below any additional comments that you may have about the Junior High School you son or daughter attends. APPENDIX B LETTER TO THE PRINCIPALS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 135 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION . EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION'AND CURRICULUM ERICKSON HALL As a doctoral student at Michigan State University, I am conducting a study which may provide some additional information to the junior high school on parent involvement. This study will focus on five major kinds of parent involvement activities, each of which may benefit the school, parent and child. Parent partici- pation runs the gamut of five levels of involvement: (1) Audience; bystander-observer (parent getting the message and listening to the word, or will be involved as observers visiting the school) (2) Teacher of the child (3) Volunteer (4) Trained worker (5) Participation in decision-making To explore this involvement, parents of 280 children will be selected on the basis of student grade point average, student attendance records and data identifying citizenship "problem" adolescents. There is need for the cooperation of the counselors in obtaining data from student files. All information will be kept confidential. At this time, I would like to express my appreciation to you for cooperating and helping in this worth-while education research. Thank you. Sincerely, Frank H. Wilson APPENDIX C LETTER TO PARENTS FROM PRINCIPALS LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT LANSING. MICHIGAN C. W. OTTO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 500 E. THOMAS STREET VERN D. CHAPMAN pamcuut Dear Parent: Over the past few years, the Lansing School District has attempted to increase the amount of parent involvement in the schools. This was done in an effOrt to help us identify needs of students and to implement programs to meet those needs. I The enclosed questionnaire is part of a study designed to help us know more about parent involvement in schools and itsgeffect on student learning. Mr. Frank Wilson is con- ducting the study in each of Lansing's Junior High Schools. He will report the results and make recommendations concern- ing parent involvement based on those results. Please help us in our attempts to better serve you by come pleting the questionnaire and mailing it in as requested. Thank you very much. Sincerely, UMO VL‘TW VERH 0. CHAPHAN Principal VOC/jlw 140 APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP CARDS 141 Recently you received a questionnaire from me asking about parental involvement. If you have already returned the completed questionnaire, I should like to thank you. If you have not done so, it would be appreciated if you would complete it and return it as soon as possible, because we are going to begin compiling the results on December 18, 1975. If you have misplaced it or you cannot IOCate it, please call 332-0239. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, F.H.,Wilson Recently you received a questionnaire from me asking about parental involvement. If you have already returned the completed questionnaire, I should like to thank you. If you have not done so, it would be appreciated if you would complete it and return it as soon as possible. Thank you. Sincerely yours, F.H. Wilson APPENDIX E FOLLOW-UP LETTER 142 Dear Parent: Several weeks ago you received a questionnaire regarding parental involvement in their children's education. In the event that you have lost it, we are sending another questionnaire. By taking a few minutes to complete it now, you will help us to make an accurate evaluation of the questionnaire for the study. Thank you. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Frank H. Wilson 1v. LIBRnRIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4181 ll 38 nICHIGnN STATE UN IIIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIWI"III 31293102