OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove thie'checkout from your record. ' LIBRARY MichigunSm ' . U. .V This is to certify that the thesis entitled Parent Education and Child Delinquency: A Field Experiment presented by Vincent J. Hoffman has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Psychology M//fl% Date OQ/d 1/77 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to Book drop to remove thié'checkout from your record. yahAAAA“’ MAY31'87“ . 6 flag . .9 *0 .' 2/, , ‘ a r x {a PARENT EDUCATION AND CHILD DELINQUENCY: A FIELD EXPERIMENT By Vincent Joseph Hoffman A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1979 ABSTRACT PARENT EDUCATION AND CHILD DELINQUENCY: A FIELD EXPERIMENT By Vincent Joseph Hoffman Parent attitudes and behavior toward the child in turn affect the child's behavior. This research reviews the lit- erature to identify some specific parental behaviors and attitudes related to child behavior, and through an experi- mental manipulation, change them. It is hypothesized that not only parental behavior and attitudes would be altered but that there would be a positive behavioral change in the child. Parents of children in trouble were involved in an experimental educational program through which the parents were made aware of a child's developmental needs and the parent's part in fulfilling those needs. Referred parents were randomly assigned to treatment (education) or no treat- ment groups following administration of pretests measuring parent attitude and behavior toward parenting and the child and parent perception of the child's behavior. Four months after the educational intervention the same measures were administered to all the parents as a posttest; and, in addi- tion, personnel from the child's school completed measures Vincent Joseph Hoffman on their perception of parent and child behavior. A simple two cell research design was developed to examine any hypothesized changes in parent behavior and attitude over the period of time between pre- and posttests. Results indicate the treatment parents perceived posi- tive change both in their child's behavior in the community and their own behavior toward the child. No significant changes were found by school personnel in either the parent's behavior toward the child's schooling or in the child's behavior toward school. Various recommendations were made for parent educa- tion program implementation and for future research in parent education as affecting development in the child. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Lou Tornatzky, John McKinney, Bob Trojanowicz, and Bill Davidson, my committee members - thank you for the great learning experience. Mary and Eli - thank you for having such confidence in me. Linda and Dave - thank you for efforts which could not be covered by any contract. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION. Children in Trouble: The Problem. The Present Study. . . . Parental Effect on Child Socialization . The Parent and the Child in Trouble. Parental Antecedents to Maladaptive Behavior in the Child . . . . . . . . . Controls. Discipline. Inconsistent or Capricious Discipline Rejection Aggression. Treatment for Children in Trouble. Parent Education Effective Parent Education Program. Developmental Psychology and Parent Education. . . . Parent Education and Delinquency Prevention . The Present Research. . . An Educational Intervention . Education in Developmental Principles Discussion Component of the Course. Experimental Hypotheses METHODS AND PROCEDURES. Design . Sample Adult Subjects. Child Subjects. Referral Procedures and Screening. Referrals . Initial Interview . . Note of Intention and Scholarship Release of Information Form . Parent-Child Data Sheet iii Page vi H r—u—a 1—: mm Homoo ox 4:.me HI—J \l\l NNNNNI—J #NNHOW N U1 NN mm N U1 26 Page Outcome Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Intervention: Parent Education Classes. . 35 Class Notification. . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Class Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Instructors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Course Content. . . . . . 37 Classroom Procedure and Environment . . . 38 Course Grading. . . . . . . . . . 38 Post Intervention Interview . . . . . . . 39 Certificate of Completion . . . . . . . . 39 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Unit of Analysis . . . 41 Equivalence of the Treatment and No Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Reliability of Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Dependent Measures Analysis: Questionnaire Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Analysis of Covariance. . . . . . . . . . 43 Parent Attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Parent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Parent- Child Behavior . . . . . . . . . 44 Analysis of Variance. . . . . . . . . . . 46 Parent-School-Child . . . . . . . . . . 46 Child-School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Dependent Measure Analysis: Parent Interview Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Parent Interview. . . 48 Parent Knowledge of Child Development . 48 Parent Behavior Change Toward the Child. 48 Parent Attitude Change Toward the Child. 49 Results and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Impact of the Education Intervention. . . 61 Parent Visibility to Community Agencies . 63 Social Reinforcements for the Parent. . . 63 Time Frame Between Pretest and Posttest . 64 Relationship Between Attitudes and Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Implications. . . 65 Involvement of the School or Other Com- munity Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 iv Orientation of Involved Professionals to Parental Strengths. The Parent as Peer. . . . . . . . A Series of Parent Education Courses. Future Research. Community Support Measure Rigorous Instrumentation. Nota REFERENCES. APPENDICES. Page 67 69 69 70 71 73 82 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Problem Comparisons of Children of Program Participant Parent with Children of Parents who Declined Participation . . . . . 29 2 Cronbach's Alpha Analyses of Outcome Measures (Mehrans and Ebels, 1967) . . . . . 43 3 Analysis of Covariance for Parent Attitude Change Toward Child- -Rearing (Parent Attitude). . . . . . . . . . . 45 4 Analysis of Covariance for Parent's Per- ception of His/Her Interaction with the Child Regarding the Child's School Activity (Parent Behavior) . . . . . . . . 45 5 Analysis of Covariance for Child's Behavior Toward Others as Perceived by the Parent (Parent-Child Behavior). . . . . . . . . . . 46 6 Analysis of Variance for School's Perception of Parent Behavior with the Child as Regards School (Parent-School-Child) . . . . . . . . 47 7 Analysis of Variance for School's Perception of Child Behavior (Child-School) . . . . . . 47 8-1 Parent Knowledge of Child Development. Item 1: Most Difficult Thing About Child Raising. . . . . . . . . . . . 49 8-2 Parent Knowledge of Child Development. Item 4: Cause of Situation (Child Rearing Difficulty) Development. . . . . . . . . . . 50 8-3 ParentKhOWledge of Child Development. Item 9: Parent as Most Effective Toward the Child. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 8-4 Parent Knowledge of Child Development. Item 10: How Parent Accounts for His/Her Effecive- ness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 vi Table Page 8-5 Parent Knowledge of Child Development. Item 12: How Parent Feels Most Ineffective as a Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 8-6 Parent Knowledge of Child Development. Item 24: Characteristics Most Important to be a Good Parent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8-7 Parent Behavior Change Toward the Child. Item 2: How Parent Attempted to Solve Problem With the Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8-8 Parent Behavior Change Toward Child, Item 8: What is Most Pleasing in Being a Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8-9 Parent Attitude Change Toward Child, Item ' 11: What Parent Worries Most About as Parent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8-10 Parent Attitude Change Toward the Child, Item 19: Where Trouble Usually Occurs in the Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 8-11 Parent Attitude Change Toward the Child, Item 20: Parent Members Most Often Involved in Family Trouble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 The Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2 Subject Routing Through the Parent Education Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 viii INTRODUCTION Children in Trouble: The Problem The criminal actions of juveniles are one of the major problems confronting society. Slightly less than half the persons arrested for serious offenses are under Sixteen years of age. Arrests of young people have doubled in the last decade (Uniform Crime Report, 1976). Recent studies suggest that the social and demographic correlates of delin- quency are expanding to include female, middle class, majority, and rural juveniles as well as male, lower class, minority and urban youth (Williams and Gold, 1972). The probate courts, set up to deal with the delinquency problem seem unable to cope with it effectively (Pink and White, 1976), and this has motivated other agencies to develop programs which have as their purpose, the diversion of youthful offenders from formal involvement with the court. Research focusing on problems of youth more often than not discovers family environment, and, in particular, parental attitudes and behavior, as casual antecedents to the child's problems in the community (Peterson et al, 1965; Glueck, 1970). Some researchers feel the issues here may go beyond the delin- quency question or even beyond whether the individual child deve10ps as is its right. At issue may be the welfare of the family structure as it is known today (Gil, 1975; l\) Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1974). In our culture, as yet, the family is the only structure we possess in which children may develop (Noshpitz, 1974). The Present Study The present study deals with delinquency prevention, and is an attempt to show the particular importance of parental knowledge about the child-rearing process on the parent's ability to influence the behavior of their child. More specifically, the study is a research project involving a parent oriented education intervention with a developmental format, (i.e., one which presents the parent with information about child development). The object of the intervention is to change parental attitudes and behavior toward childrearing and the child, and, through the parent, effect change in the child's behavior. This introductory section deals first with the parent's effect on the child's normal development, and second, looks at the parent's relation to the child as a delinquent. Finally, the role of parenting education is outlined, and this leads to the presentation of the research. Parental Effect on Child Socialization The development of a child's personality, its socializa- tion, or the ability of the child to interact appropriately with its environment, is closely related to parent involvement and interaction (or lack of it) with the child (Love, 1974; Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964; Bandura and Walters, 1963; Kagan and Moss, 1962; Shulma, 1949). More specifically, studies of the parent-child relationship suggest thatuthe child's adjustment to its environment is related to the child's perception of its relationship to the parent (Seret and Teevan, 1971)f Some assert that the parent is the primary force affecting the child's motivation (anios, 1967), and others have found that child-rearing practices have a direct effect on the child's personality and constitution (Sears, 1957; Ames, 1967). There is research to support the contention that the majority of a child's personality characteristics can be significantly predicted from child-rearing practices, and that this especially applies to the effect of the mother's parenting actions on the child's behavior (Barton, et a1, 1977). There is abundant evidence showing the parent-child rela- tionship as not only related to the child's development but is effective in promoting normal development in the child. The parent's attitudes are not only communicated to the child but, as will be shown, these attitudes are actually reproduced in the child. The parent's attitudes as projected in their behavior have a profound effect on the child's perception of reality and strongly determine the child's mode of interaction with its environment, whether for good or ill. The child does not simply imitate but experiments con- tinuously by interacting with "important other" adults. The adult is the stimulus for the child and vice versa. The child's own behavioral adaptiveness emerges from the give and take of such ongoing interaction. Love and Kaswan (1974) have found that interactions in settings other than the home are "ad hoc" in nature. Behavior in those settings is affected by the child's home environment and the settings need the support and stimulation which comes from the home in promoting relevant child behavior. Moreover, recent studies have confirmed there is a reciprocity in the parent-child interaction, such that the child affects the parents' behavior just as the parent affects the child's. This reciprocal relationship includes important interaction sequences whereby the youngster influences the parent's gregariousness, use of space, dominance, and even sexual behavior (Bell, 1977; Sears et al, 1957). The present study will enter this circular interaction from the point the parent initiates behavior in the child. The Parent and the Child in Trouble Studies on the etiology of delinquency nearly always show parents as involved (Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, 1967; Pettit, 1970; Reckless, 1961). Others have found that the more thorough the study of delinquency, the more emphasis must be placed on the family (i.e., the parents) as not just related to the problem, but central to it (Shafer and Knudten, 1970; Jeffery and Jeffery, 1967). One explanation given for the average child getting into trouble is that he or she is seeking attention from the parents by inappropriate means or by expressing other needs in un- acceptable ways. The child in trouble is usually from a family in which the parents are giving unintended messages to the child. While the parents do not intend by their actions to teach the child, or to be an example to action for the child, in fact, the child is watching closely and imitates the parent behavior (Sears et al, 1957). Further, parent indifference toward the child, lack of supervision of the child, and harsh or inconsistent discipline on the part of the parent, all negatively affect the child's social and behavior development (Travvett, 1972). Others (Bowlby, 1960; Peterson et a1, 1959) show the child's behavioral problems as mainly related to general maladjustment of the mother, or they place at least equal responsibility on the father (Audry, 1960; Whiting, et a1, 1958). Glueck (1962) showed that characteristic of the delinquent family, antisocial behavior was so potent an example to the child it compelled the child to be delinquent, and he added that without family support the child might well succumb to outside influences which promote deviant behavior. Later Glueck (1974) and Ganzer (1973) found that deviant behavior could be predicted from the seriously disorganized family and Travvett (1972) added lack of family cohesiveness to this litany. Parental antecedents to maladaptive behavior in the child. the following variables relating to the parent-child relation- ship are highly correlated to the child's becoming delinquent. These variables are presented as an introduction to discussion of the preventive intervention employed in the present study. Controls. Related to confusion in the family is the child's need for controls. The child needs controls to aid him in knowing the limits or boundaries of his behavior. These boundaries are a base in and from which the child moves with confidence to become competent in using experiences to make the world intelligible to him or her (Pickerts and Fargo, 1971). Many researchers (Glueck, 1950; Nye, 1958; Rosenquist and Megargee, 1969) have found these controls missing from the majority of delinquents' lives. Bronfenbrenner (1960) mentions this dimension in terms of parental authority over the child; he notes that control is essential to facilitate effective psychological functioning in the child and is one of the ante- cedents of responsibility and leadership ability in adolescence. Bell and Vogel (1968) see controls (and this includes negative controls) as an important aspect of security in the child, and Glueck (1968) found that parents who use firm but friendly controls had by far the fewest delinquent children. Discipline. As an instrument of control, discipline seems to have an important relationship to child behavior. Glueck (1950) found that a boy is more likely to become actively aggressive if his mother does not discipline him with kindness and firmness, and if discipline is not based on reason. Hoffman and Satzstein (1967) found that moral development of the child is associated most consistently with infrequent use of power assertion (the parent using his or her physical advantage or higher status position in the family unit), and love withdrawal (parent rejection of the child) as a form of discipline. These researchers contend that, though unqualified power assertion must sometimes be used to protect a child, those who use it excessively can frustrate task completion for the child, ignore the child's need for autonomy to form internalized controls, and cause the child, out of frustration, to use power assertion toward those individuals with low power assertion. Singer (1975) notes that the borderline or early delinquent comes from the lenient punishing parent who is restrictive in behaviors allowed, but is loose in enforcing controls; this combination, according to Singer, caused antisocial behavior in the youth. On the other hand, the parent who listens and takes time to explain to the child the effects of his or her actions (this is referred to as induction), may aid the child in developing cognitive and behavioral resources to examine his or her actions independently and take responsibility for the acts (Aronfreed, 1961; Bandura and Walters, 1963). Glueck's (1962) research showed that poor discipline (extreme permissive, over-strict, or inconsistent) was char- acteristic of delinquents' mothers (ninety-five percent in delinquents and thirty-four percent in nondelinquents). .§i'the child is subjected to overstrict parental practices he or she feels hostile; if the parent is too permissive the child perceives itself as isolated; and if parental discipline is erratic or inconsistent the child is low in conscienuousness and feels useless:§ Heiburn (1964) notes that too harsh or too lax discipline combined with an irregular home routine, results in socialized delinquency (e.g., truancy, cooperative stealing); and Weinberg (1958) found that the interplay of affection-discipline dimensions affect the child's personality development,znnl:ifboth dimensions are weak there is a pre- disposition for the child to associate with other delinquents. If the child perceives in his parent a strong affection, cooperation, and discipline which is fair, the child shows reasonable conformity to norms (Slocum and Stone, 1963). Inconsistent or capricious discipline. This area of discipline needs special mention since it is insidious to the development of the child. Sanford et a1 (1943) describe what happens when the child is aroused to a high pitch through fatigue or overstimulation, after which the child is punished for the resulting behavior, or punished at one time and rewarded the next for the same type of behavior. As a result the child experiences anxious emotionality, low social feelings and low conscientiousness. Inconsistent and harsh discipline combine to foster dependence of the child on the parent and the child acting out when away from the parent (Adelson, 1959). Erractic discipline is related to delinquent traits of hostility, suggestability and lack of practicality, especially if a child (boy) is intelligent and introvertive (Glueck, 1962). In a study of the causes of aberration in youth, McCord (1959) found that consistent discipline (whether punitive or love oriented) was an insulator from crime, when correlated to family cohesiveness; and the mother's consistently love oriented‘ discipline offset father absence. Rejection. Parental rejection of the child is another factor in child maladaptive behavior which leads to a loss of contact between the child and the parent and promotes unsocial- ized aggression, e.g., assaulting another (Moles,et al, 1959). There is a correlation between maternal rejection and the child's overt aggression. The maternally rejected child shows a marked tendency to quarrel with, and an increased rejection of, adults (McCord, et a1, 1963; Updegraff, 1939). Bandura and Walters (1963) also found that rejection by father was characteristic of delinquent samples. Hoffman and Hoffman (1964) in discussing rejection and lax discipline, felt the two were related, in that lax discipline reveals a lack of attention toward the child. Cole (1966) found that parents of troubled youth tended to reject the child both before and after its misdeeds. 10 Cohesion of the family is related to rejection. Ganzer (1973) found that children were victims of indifference or hostility in families with poor cohesion. A number of variables related to poor family cohesion are: more family conflict, less family participation in leisure and other activities, parents lack of interest in and inadequate super- vision of the child in activities connected to the child's welfare (Reckless, 1957). Hewitt and Jenkins (1946) found that the lack of cohesiveness caused the child to feel frus- trated, inadequate, deprived. Consequently these children engaged in substitute (delinquent) behavior. In Love and Kaswan's study (1974) such children experienced constant turmoil in their families, and their parents did not consis- tently maintain their culturally expected roles. Rosenquist (1969) found that while there was no direct relationship between cultural conflict and delinquency, the delinquent felt there was less communication, more quarreling, more feelings of rejection and lack of cohesiveness in his family. Winder and Rau (1967) found ambivalence in parents of deviant pre- adolescents whereby they were alternately rejecting and showing affection toward their children. On the other hand, when the parent (especially the mother) was perceived as nurturing and loving there was better coping behavior on the part of the youth and positive socialization development (Ferguson, 1970; Rowland, 1968). Hirschi (1969) and Hindelang (1973) found that when parental values are ll anti-criminal and the child feels affection toward the par- ents, positive social conformity is evidnet in the children. Aggression. As seen above, many maladaptive behaviors of the child are at least related to, if not caused by, par- ent interaction with the child. In fact, these parent beha- viors seem interrelated even as the child's antisocial or other delinquent behaviors can be related, or as the child's unacceptable behavior may be related to several parental atti- tudes and resulting behaviors. Aggression in the child is an example of an unacceptable behavior related to several parental variables. It is dis- cussed separately here to clarify its relationship to the parent-child problems being addressed and because aggression may be one of the most unacceptable forms of acting out in the child (and the adult, for that matter). The parent as teacher or model can affect aggressive beha- vior in the child. Children, especially boys, become aggres- sive themselves in other situations by viewing aggression in the parents (Glueck and Glueck, 1950). Parents of delinquents seem to resort more to aggressive behavior for punishment than do non-delinquent parents (McCord, et al, 1961). Sears and Maccoby (1957) found that most aggression is produced in children by parents who while they disapprove of aggression in the child, proceed to discipline the child for the aggressive act by physical (aggressive) punishment. Winder and Rau (1967) found high correlations between parent and child aggression. 12 Punishment for aggression to parents, and child dependency are correlated (Yarrow et al, 1968). Parental rejection promotes unsocialized aggression in the child (Moles, 1959) and there is a correlation between maternal rejction and a child's overt aggression. The rejected child shows a marked tendency to quarrel and have an increased rejection of adults (McCord et al, 1963; Updegraff, 1939). Winder and Rau (1967) also found that mothers of socially deviant preadolescents make high demands for aggression in the child. Kagan and Moss (1962) noted that maternal hostility toward the child from three to six was related to the child's aggressive behavior toward peers at age ten, whereas maternal over- restriction toward the boy was predictive of adult aggression. Kendall et a1 (1976) found that parental restrictiveness or rejection led to a sense of "helplessness” in the child, whereby the child felt an inability to initiate change and perceived events as unalterable. There was a resulting high level of anxiety and low school motivation. This situation is related to aggression toward peers and adult figures (usually other than parents) and is probably a result of the frustration arising from the sense of "helplessness". It is clear that child aggression is related to parental behavior and attitude patterns. The child who acts out against self, parent, peers, or extra-familial authorities, is exhibit- ing behavior, the rationale for which lies in past or present interactions with one or both parents. 13 Treatment for the Child in Trouble In most cases behavioral problems which are recognized early (e.g., underachieving, truancy, inability to get along with others) are not accompanied by physiological impairment or psychosis (Schur, 1973). Cavan (1965) found that among full-blown deliquents few are psychotic or even neurotic. He concluded that psychotherapy seldom influenced the anti— social behavior of a delinquent. Still, unless help is forth- coming, the problems for such a child intensify and more serious behavioral problems often surface. Usually the child and parents use enormous amounts of energy to cope with the situation while not knowing what is to be done, or, worse yet, assuming the state of affairs is normal. Direct counseling has failed to bring about significant change in either a child's self concept or school achievement according to fBrookover et a1 (1963), who suggest working through parents on these problems. Guerney (1970) showed that using parents as primary agents is not only essential but more economical and practical. Patterson (1970) cites evidence to show that parental involvement may have a more permanent effect than professional counseling. Earlier Glueck (1962) found that changing the behavior of children with problems is dependent on more than the manipula- tion of the general environment, since such change is involved with structuring the child's integrated personality and whole- some character during the formative years; and such structuring 14 takes place largely in the home with the parents. He saw the parents as not only selective filters of the culture but bearers of it. Love and Kaswan (1974) hold that the type of problems the child manifests outside the home, such as, in the school, is the result of the child's interpersonal development at school, his socio-cultural background, and especially speci- fic parenting patterns. They suggest that if the child has behavioral problems focus should be on the parents rather than on the child in counseling. They conclude that child therapy often does not succeed because responsibility which is placed directly on the child for adaptive behavior is too heavy a responsibility for the child, and essential attention from the parents cannot be replaced quickly by a relationship with a therapist in a clinic. Kantor and Lehr (1975) state that when parents focus on the child's difficulties and work to ameliorate the child's environment, improvement for the child results. Guerney (1971), Stollak (1966), Authier et a1 (1975), all offer educational models supplementing the traditional medical model in psychotherapy, especially when intervening in the parent-child relationship. In the case of delinquent behavior Balch (1975) contends the medical model helps con- ceal abuses of the juvenile justice system and has "hampered preventive and correctional efforts (for the child in trouble) because of undue emphasis given to the problems of the indi- vidual delinquent...(p. 116)." 15 Parent Education Researchers have found that a rather large segment of the parent population is vague on concepts of mental health for the child (Brim, 1959). In a study done at Stanford University (Stolz, 1967), it was discovered that the following values were held by a sample of parents: responsibility regarding teaching the child, giving him emotional security and setting up controls. However, the parents evidenced little understand- ing of what it is to be a "child-person", and had misconceptions concerning fundamental aspects of child development, e.g., individual differences, sex ethnocentric ideology. The parents were not knowledgeable about adolescence or were misinformed about it. They saw little relation between the use of reward and punishment in helping the child learn new tasks; they relied more on control and obedience as a means of obtaining what they desired in the child, and laid less stress on the useful- ness of expressing affection for, and interest in, the child. Significantly little attention was paid to the importance of parental example, and the parents seemed unaware of the subtle influence they have as a model. Stolz found that though the parents rarely read a book on child development or attended lectures on the same, they had strong convictions concerning goals and purposes of parenting. The parents expressed strong values on child-rearing but not necessarily ones which would be in the best interest of the child. Stolz found a base from which the parents are 16 able to do an adequate job of parenting if they are given some basic principles of development which they are able to use. Stith (1974) and Pickarts and Fargo (1971) urged that educa- tion for parents be given top priority in all agencies of the community. Stith phrased it: One of the great needs in our society is an emphasis on parent education...perhaps nothing we can do is more vital...parents have come to feel powerless as forces in the lives of their children. Rapid change has left a void in knowledge and learning abilities" (p. 441). Pickart and Fargo suggested they hold that parent education has developed in response to widespread confusion and a reaching our for guidance (by parents) of primarily middle class families who are struggling with the impact of cultural change on tradi— tional patterns of behavior. This includes lower class parents who also want to know how to help their children. The authors feel that parents need a set of problem-solving and growth- nurturing concepts and skills that will decrease their general uneasiness in the face of overwhelming complexities of life and their powerlessness in the modern world. Brim (1965) discusses the fact that parent education has not seemed to show results thus far in proportion to the number of courses that have been produced over the past 50 years. He feels that the courses could have been better researched, because, though parent education may well produce changes, the changes are so subtle they escape detection or are delayed. Both Brim and Hardy and Cull (1974), stress that parent education is necessary 17 for encouraging parents to provide a consistent and clear model of what they believe to be appropriate behavior for the child. Effective parent education program. Brim and others (Hereford, 1963) hold that in setting up an education program for parents the course content should not consist in telling parents the "correct" way to raise the child (i.e., a 'how to' program should not be utilized), but instead the program should aid the individual parent to grow in the way that is apprOpriate for the parent and his or her relationship with the child. Such an educational plan assumes the individual parent has potential and limitations, unique traits and a basic capacity to grow and develop as a parent. Other parent education courses have been predicated on this same philosophy of parental capability and desire to educate their child (Guerney, 1977; Fein, E., 1972; Stollak, 1966; Shapiro, 1., 1956). Develppmental psychology and parent education. The need for parent enlightenment through education is apparent and psychology has something in the way of knowledge and expertise to offer: "Developmental psychology has accumulated knowledge about how children think and learn, how they are influenced by punishments, incentives, knowledge, and how environmental conditions influence their motives, values, and achievements. This knowledge is directly relevantznulapplicable to family living... Although this knowledge has had wide effect, glaring gaps exist between what is known and what is utilized. For example, more is known about the psychology of learning than is practiced in education, and...teachers, lawyers, l8 judges...parents...are daily deciding the fates of children, deciding on parents for them, punishments, rehabilitation, but have never had training in developmental psychology (p. 113, Segal, J. (Ed) A Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication, #(ADM) 75-236, 1975.” Several courses, past and present, have proven successful including: "Changing Parental Attitudes Through Group Discussion", Hereford, 1963; "School for Parents", Jalkotzy, 1973; "Parents Learn Through Discussion: Principles and Practices of Parent Group Education", Auerbach, 1978; "Being a Good Parent", Crow and Crow, 1966; "Changing Children's Behavior", Krumboltz, 1972; "Learning to Communicate , With Children", Stollak, 1975; "Relationship Enhancement",= Guerney, 1977; and as noted above, the last two authors mentioned are part of an emerging number of psychologists who advocate the learning model as a possible substitute for the medical, or treatment, model in clinical psychology, especially in treatment of children's problems. Parent education and delinquency prevention. The Task Force Report On Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime (1967) discussed increasing the family's ability to foster internal controls of the child through parent education. The Report noted the potential of such programs, but found that few had been evaluated up to that time. There was also the fear that such programs might label children and families before the fact, if they participated in such programs. Nonetheless, parent education was stressed as a preventive measure if the above problems could be overcome. 19 Tefferteller (1959) described a project of parent education in New York City which seemed to aid parents successfully in gaining control over their predelinquent children. Thomas Gordon (1976) recently offered a modified form of Parent Effectiveness Training for prevention of juvenile crime, and Kifer, et a1, (1974) researched program development for training predelinquent youths and their parents to negotiate conflict situations. All of these programs have in common a face-to-face interaction between parent and youth. Empey (1974) and Pearl (1972) emphasize the need for parent education in prevention and for accompanying research. Empey urges such programs emphasize positive growth instead of avoiding recidivism alone. Pearl suggests that the studies for parents provide information known to be important to normal and positive development in the child. Besides the positive aspects to be stressed, both authors would have the program work for modest expectations both for easier implementa- tion and for more beneficial results. James (1970) and Braithwaite (1970) in advocating prevention programs of parent education insist that the family is the base from which the child's problems extend, and that if the youth enters the formal system (the courts) for being in trouble he is treated badly and not "treated" effectively. Such education seems a viable and endorsed attempt at prevention, and it (along with other prevention programs) has received impetus from the national Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention which holds as its major objective 20 for the future that the (criminal justice) system will not be the dumping ground for troubled youth (Luger, 1977). Many of the studies cited have to do with preschool or early grade school children. But as Yarrow et a1 (1968) state, the influences of parental behavior on the child are not limited to any single age, so too, "early environments that are not beneficial to psychological growth do not produce permanent deficits which cannot, under more benign conditions be reversed...in a benevolent family context (Kagan and Kline, 1976, p. 78)." These authors go on to say that experience during later childhood can be as influential or more influential than maternal treatment experienced during the first three years. Bronfenbrenner (1977) notes that junior high school years are most critical in terms of destructive effects on a young person's development. He stresses parental presence as crucial to the avoidance of such effects. The Present Research The present research was an experimental program of education for parents of children in trouble. These youth exhibited maladaptive behavior which parents, school, or police authorities attempted unsuccessfully to change, and they perceived such behavior as serious enough, that if not corrected, the child could become involved with the juvenile justice system formally. 21 An educational intervention. Intervention was directed to the parents and, unlike some therapy approaches, the educa- tional technique attempted to arouse conscious beliefs and conscious motives. There was no attempt to work through the pathology of the parent-students. The course was oriented to stress positive aspects of development in the child which would decrease anxiety of the parents in their role, and aid them in carrying out their obligations as parents. The attempt to differentiate between somewhat traditional therapeutic approaches and education was seen as vital to the research, since it has been found that parents generally do not see themselves or their child as mentally "sick". They are poorly motivated, and actively resist in many cases, attending sessions, or having their child participate at a mental health clinic; whether rightly or wrongly they perceive this as stigmatizing and excessive. It was felt that the education model not only utilized the strengths and capacities of the parent and raised his self-esteem, but avoided further loss of parental self-esteem which could result from mental health counseling. Both Hereford (1963) and Brim (1965) consider this issue in their programs. Program focus was on the parents and their gaining knowledge which they could utilize to change their own attitudes and behavior toward the child with a hoped-for positive effect on the child's problem behavior. The assumption was that the parent is not only more effective than others in the child's environment to aid in his development, but is 22 also the most invested in the child, and is therefore most motivated to socialize him or her effectively. Education in developmental principles. The education course attempted to recognize the individuality of the parent as well as his or her desire and capacity for competence in the parental role. Thus, it was not a "how to" experience in parenting but an education in certain develOpmental principles of psychology. The parents were motivated to learn principles of child development and apply these principles in their situation through educational techniques which were utilized in the course. Discussion component of the course. In addition to a warm, interested, and knowledgeable instructor imparting the principles, there was feedback through class group discussion of parent initiated examples to which the principles could be applied. Reports were made by the individual parent to the instructor or the class after the first week of class of instances at home when principles were translated to behavior, and the parents received support from the knowledge that they were not alone in their plight. Kraft (1973) postulated that most parents in need of help for a problem child often have feelings of guilt and hopelessness, and though they might express the idea that their child needs to be "straightened out", they somehow feel they have a very important part in the way the child is acting. Source and strength of motivation of the parents to take the course and enact what they learn was of importance. 23 Since most parents were referred from different community agencies because of children in trouble, they may have come because they genuinely were looking for information, or came as a means of fending off the pressures of the referring agencies. If this latter reason was the prime motive it was assumed there would be at least initial rejection of the course. If parents attended who know they needed help and had expressed that need, their motivation would be high. Course content focused on a specific number of develop- mental principles of growth for childhood and early adolescence. Criteria for these principles came from the reaction to what has been discovered in the parent-child relationship and which is applicable to normal child growth. Stress was thus given to the Chi1dii_n§§d_for.nurturanceLgcgppgols, discipline+mconsis- tency in interaction with the parent, acceptance, open communica- tipn. In addition there were sessions on the parenpigfirole asgteacher and giver offexample as Opposed to being soley a precept giver, the need of the parent for communication, social interaction and supporpj The course did not communicate to the parents that they are the "bad guys", but, as noted, assumed the parents do have strengths and potential for parenting. The educational epxerience was geared to promote the parent's self-esteem. The course syllabus is presented in Appendix A. 24 Experimental Hypotheses As has been stressed previously, the parent affects the child, and the experimental intervention, though aimed directly at the parent, should indirectly affect change in the child. Therefore, one hypothesis of the six offered below predicts change in the child. The hypotheses are: 1. The participating parent will express a more positive attitude about the parental role. The participating parent will be more actively involved in the community as regards the child. The child will show a positive change in behavior toward others. The participating parent will have an increased knowledge of child development as offered in the course. The participating parent will show behavior which is more positive and growth-producing toward the child. The participating parent will show a more positive attitude toward the child. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Design The research design consisted of a simple two cell experiment with subjects randomly assigned to either a Parent Education (treatment) condition or to a No Treatment (control) group. The design is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1: The Research Design Parent Education Control Treatment No Treatment Group Group p = 44 p_= 43 N = 87 Sample Subjects were drawn from families in which a child exhibited problem behavior as reported by a community agency, or by the parents themselves. All subjects were residents of a mid-sized (55,000 pOpulation) midwest city. Adult subjects. A total of one hundred and seventeen children, all of whose parents were volunteers, were initially 25 26 referred to the study. The referrals were made to the police youth services unit by middle school counselors, and by grade school principals. The final sample, after screening and attrition, of parent subjects consisted of eighty-seven (N=87) mothers. A parent was defined as the natural or legal guardian of a child. Since one or both parents could participate in the program, fathers were also invited to be involved, and eight participated, although they were not a part of the data base, thus "parents" as a descriptive term describes only the mother of the child in this and following sections. Child subjects. Eighty-seven (N=87) children of the parent subjects were the final sample of child subjects. Involved were fifty-eight boys and twenty-nine girls, all between the age of six and fourteen years, and all students of city schools. Each child exhibited unacceptable behavior which had resulted in a referral of the parent to Parent Educa- tion, but at the time of referral the child's behavior was not a matter for which the juvenile court authorities would take formal action. No more than one child from each family was identified for the study. Referral Procedures and Screening Referrals. The experimenter received the referral ini- tially through the city police youth services unit. This unit's officers were assigned to all schools of the district and had direct contact with students, school officials and the student 27 families. The chief of police had agreed to have the police department be the main operation base for the program, both for moral support and police cooperation, and also to accept administrative responsibility for receiving any grant funds to supporttfimeproject. Local school administration, in turn, represented by the assistant superintendent in charge of instruction, had agreed to provide office space and the aid in acquiring school personnel cooperation with the referral process. (See Figure 2 for a diagram of the entire referral and screening process.) Youth services unit officers and school officials had thus been made aware of the study during its planning stages. When the study was initiated, referral forms (see Appendix B) were provided to the schools for the program. If the officer or school official felt that a parent could profit from the parent education program, a referral was sent through the youth services unit to the experimenter. In ninety-seven percent of the cases the experimenter con- tacted the parent within three days of receiving the referral. Three percent of the initial responses required five days to complete. In all cases an attempt was made to contact the parent the same day the referral was made, but in some situations the parent would be working, the house had no phone, or for some other reason contact was made difficult. At this point in the referral process some parents de- clined to participate in the program. Of the one hundred and Figure 2: 28 Subject Routing Through the Parent Education Program Time (weeks) 24 Treat Group I Education Subject (parent) referral from school or other source to Police Youth Services Unit which notifies experimenter \l/ Initial contact of experimenter with parent subject ‘~\\\‘ Subject referred l ///,/;T elsewhere Initial interview and assign- ment of parent subject to /l\ ment No Treatment Group Intervention Finis Education h of Intervention ér””//” \ Final Interview of parent subject, and school feedback on parent and chiId 29 seventeen parents referred, thirty parents, or twenty-six percent, decided not to take advantage of the program. Unfortunately, aside from the names and the child's problem title, no other data on these thirty families was available. Chi Square analysis of attritors and non-attritors by the category of child offense, showed no significant differences on this variable. (See Table 1 below.) Table 1: Problem Comparisons of Children of Program Participant Parent with Children of Parents who Declined Participation Child Behavior Non-Attriters Attriters Total Truancy 44 15 59 Fighting 22' 7 29 Incorrigible 21 8 29 Total 87 30 117 Chi-square = .096 df=2 P = NS Initial contact with referred_parent. The parent, usually the mother, was initially contacted by phone. After identifying himself as a person working with the schools, the interviewer read a prepared statement (see Appendix C) which identified the source of the referral, and indicated that the Parent Education program might be of service to the parent. There followed a short explanation of the program, its length, purposes, time of classes, and what the course did or did not emphasize (e.g., no 30 counseling or 'how to' sessions, and the option for college credit and scholarships). If the parent volunteered to participate, a short explana- tion was given on the need for the Interview Schedule and its purpose. An appointment was made to interview the parent at his or her convenience at home, or in an office at the Adult Education Center. ‘ Initial interview. The parent's usual preferred time for the interview was in the afternoon between twelve noon and four, although fifteen percent of the interviews were conducted in the evening. The interview format was straightforward. After entering the house (a phone call had been made to the parent about an hour before the interview for confirmation of the time), the interviewer and parent sat at a table. Both parent and interviewer used a c0py of the forms to be filled out; and as the interviewer read aloud their contents, either the parent or the experimenter completed the following forms: 1. Note of Intention and Scholarship (Appendix D), was read to, and signed by the parent. 2. Release of Information Form (Appendix E), was read to and signed by the parent. This document permitted the experimenter to approach the appropriate community agency for information on the child's behavior status. 3. Parent-Child Data Sheet (Appendix F), was filled out by the experimenter after eliciting personal and demo- graphic information from the parent about the family. 31 Outcome Measures During both the initial interview and after termination of the parent education course the following measures were administered: 1. Parent attitude toward his or her role as parent (Parent Attitude). The scale consists of twenty- five questions, each a four point Likert-type item, measuring the parent's attitudes about child rear- ing. This scale was administered during the Initial Interview, and twenty weeks later. A copy of the scale is presented in Appendix G. This measure and the other measure scores were analyzed for scale reliability using Cronbach's alpha analysis (Mehrans and Ebel, 1967). Cronbach's alpha computed for the Parent Attitude scale was found to be .77. 2. Parent activipy with the child relating to the child's community contacts (Parent Behavior). This is a seven item scale with each item score being the number of timestflmeparent perceived him or herself exhibiting appropriate behavior vis-a-vis the child. This scale was administered during the Initial Inter- view, and twenty weeks later. Cronbach's alpha com- puted for this measure was found to be .66. A copy of the scale is presented in Appendix H. 3. The child's behavior as perceived by the parent (Parent-Child Behavior). This scale consists of 32 ten items, each a five point Likert-type item, which measured the parent's perception of the child's behavior toward others. This scale was administered during the Initial Interview and twenty weeks later. Cronbach's alpha computed for this measure was computed and found to be .73. The scale is presented in Appendix I. In addition to these paper and pencil questionnaires the parent was also asked at the Initial Interview, and at the termina- tion of the parent education course, to participate in a semi- structured Parent Interview. The protocol for the Parent Inter- view consisted of twenty-four items developed by Hereford (1967) and presented in Appendix J. A few of the questions involved simple assignment of answers into a Likert-type coding scheme, (e.g., items 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 18 and 22). See the interview code in Appendix K. Most of the other items were essentially open-ended items, and demanded that the responses be assigned to one of several nominal categories (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24). All such items were subsequently subjected to blind rating by two inde- pendent raters. The percentage of perfect agreement of assign- ment to nominal categories ranged from 95 to 100 percent, with the mean percentage of agreement being 98 percent. No attempt was made to group these individual items into empirical scales and each item was subsequently analyzed individually. However, the items could be groupedixlvarious conceptual categories, as follows: 33 4. Parent knowledge of child development. Items 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 24 were used to measure the parent's knowledge of child development. These questions are included in the Parent Interview presented in Appendix J. 5. Parent behavior change toward the child. Items 2 and 8 elicited information identifying the parent behavior changes vis-a-vis the child. These ques- tions are included in the Parent Interview presented in Appendix J. 6. Parent attitude change toward the child. Items 11, 19, and 20 elicited information on changes in the parent's attitude toward the child. These questions are included in the Parent Interview presented in Appendix J. From the Parent Interview only the above noted items were utilized for data analysis. The remaining items were necessary in drawing out information from the parent in the areas apropos of the data required for the present study, but these items were subsequently discarded. In addition to the data collected directly from the parent, two scales were administered, posttest only, to school personnel. They were: 7. Parent-child-school interaction as perceived by the school (Parent-Child-School). This scale measured the parent-child interaction as in number 34 two above, but from an outsider's (the school) perception. The scale consisted of five Likert- type items, with each item having five points, which elicit the school's perception of the parent's behavior related to the child's endeavors in school. Cronbach's alpha computed for this measure's scale reliability was found to be .89. This measure can be found in Appendix L. 8. Child-school interaction as perceived by the school (Child-School). This scale measures the child's interaction with others as in number three above, but from an outsider's (the school) perception. The scale consists of five Likert-type items each having five points, which elicit the school's per- ception of the child's behavior toward others in school. Cronbach's alpha computed for this measure's scale reliability was found to be .88. The measure is presented in Appendix M. Before terminating the interview the interviewer indicated that because of the experimental nature of the program, parent's names would be "drawn from a hat" to decide whether an indiv- idual parent would be assigned to classes immediately (actually, within two weeks) or to classes which would not begin until several weeks in the future. The parents were told that they would be notified within two weeks as to which class assignment they had received. They were also informed that in the future, an interview similar to the one just completed would be conducted 35 with all parents involved in the program. The Initial Inter- view lasted approximately seventy-five minutes. The Intervention: Parent Education Classes Developmental concepts which portrayed a child's needs, as well as the parent's role in fulfilling these needs, were the substance of the parent education classes. The goal of the classes was to present the parent with options to change his or her attitudes and behavior toward the child, through exposure to the course matter and the atmosphere of the class setting. Much of the course content has been previously dis- cussed on pages 5 to 11 and page 23 in the introductory chapter. The developmental concepts, and the classroom environment in which these concepts were presented to the parent, then, represented the intervention. Arrangements were made with the local community college to place a parent education course in the college curriculum, and the college allowed the study to use its own specific course material as well as the instructors the study recruited. College officials desired to see the results of the study and use the data as an aid in setting up parent education courses. Class notification. Interviewed parents were assigned via random number tables to either experimental or control groups. The experimental parents were assigned to attend class immediately, and the control parents were assigned to a waiting list status of twenty weeks. 36 Notification of the parents as to their assignments to a class data or to a waiting list was made via a short phone call. At this time the parents in the experimental group were also informed that the class instructor would be in contact prior to each class day, as well as on each class day, in order to encourage attendance. Following this notification, the participants were contacted by the instructor who intro- duced him or herself, and further explained the class schedule. Class schedule. The class schedule called for the sessions to be conducted in the evening for two and one half hours once a week, for six weeks. Five separate sections were set up, each beginning on different, staggered dates, as referrals to the program were processed. The first section of the parent education class began during the first week of November, and ended the second week of December. The remaining four sections began on a staggered schedule through. the early part of January. The initiation of each class section was contingent on the number of referrals received for the program through the police youth services unit during a given time period. For each twenty referrals received and processed, a Parent Education classsectionmof nine to eleven parent students began, and the counterpart control, or no treatment, group of nine to eleven parents were placed on the "waiting list". Classes were scheduled to begin for the no treatment parent group after all parents, in both conditions, had completed the second interview session. 37 Instructors. An effective teacher is not only knowledge- able of the subject matter and expounds it clearly, but is also perceived by the student as a warm and accepting person (Rosenshine and Barak, 1970). These traits seem especially apropos for a teacher of the Parent Education course, since the parent-students as a group had not had a great deal of recent educational experience. In addition, the majority of parents were not high school graduates, and many had scholastic problems which would cause student apprehension. The five instructors, two men and three women, were chosen as reflecting the above traits in teaching. In addition, all were at the masters degree level in the behavioral sciences or education, and all had a strong professional background working with parents, children and families. After being exposed to eight hours of orientation sessions on the teaching method, and the course content, the instructors were randomly assigned to teach a particular class session. At the end of each course period the instructors met and gave in- put as to course objectives and about strong and weak points of the course in the light of its objectives. Course content. The lecture portion of each class was devoted to a presentation and explanation of handout materials. The goal of this portion of the session was to impart knowledge of normal child development, developmental needs, and the parental role in this developmental process. In particular, the presentation addressed itself to specific areas and factors 38 of child development considered especially relevant for this group of parents (e.g., the child's attention needs, controls and consistency in discipline, and the parent as a teacher). Appendix A describes the course matter in detail for each class section. The second. portion of each class was used for discussion of the material previously presented, with appropriate examples drawn from the individual parent's experiences. This discussion period seemed very important for the parents, and was often used as a forum for discussion of particular problems the parents were having with the child. Classroom_procedure and environment. Each class section contained nine to eleven students seated in a circle of chairs with the instructor. The atmosphere was reasonably informal, and the classrooms were provided by the local high school where other college courses were in session at the same time. Access to hot and cold beverages was made available in the classroom at all times. Feedback sheets were distributed as an introduction to each session commencing with the second session. The student was asked to give written feedback as to application of material from the previous session relating to the home environment. More extensive feedback sheets were utilized both at the end of the course and the second interview. Coursegrading. Students were graded according to college marking protocol. If the student, for whatever reason, could not be evaluated for a grade an audit mark was posted. 39 Post-intervention interview. Sixteen weeks after the last class session of a treatment group section, this group of parents and their counterpart parent subjects in the no treatment group were contacted for administration of the posttest measures. The parents were contacted by phone and an appointment was made for this second interview. The second interview was conducted in the same manner and under the same conditions as the first. Posttest Measures administered at this time were those which had been given at the initial interview: Parent Attitude Scale, Parent Behavior (with the child and school), Parent-Child Behavior Measures, and the Parent Interview. In addition, the treatment group parents who had attended the education classes completed a Feedback Sheet. This list of questions attempted to appraise the parent student's feelings as to the effectiveness of the course and if he or she desired more such courses. This Feedback Sheet is presented in Appendix N. As noted above, two additional measures were to be ad- ministered to school personnel to assess their perception of both the parent and the child's behavior. These measures are described above with the other outcome measures and are the school personnel appraisal of: Parent Behavior with the Child (Parent-Child-School) and the Child-School Interaction (Child— School). These measures were administered at the school to the school person who referred the parent to the program. A Certificate of completion was presented at this time to treatment group parents who had attended a minimum number 40 of class sessions. A copy of this certificate is presented in Appendix 0. At this time too, the no treatment parents were assigned to parent education classes, and these classes began immediately. During the four month interval between the initial and the second interviews given the parents, the attrition rate was zero. Phone number changes and disconnections, changes of residency, were, however, obstacles to meeting the parents. The no treatment group parents seemed less trustful and showed some resentment at the second interview if they had not remembered the program procedures whereby they were to be interviewed the second time before beginning class. RESULTS Unit of Analysis The basic unit of analysis was the family unit (parents and the child in trouble), though only data from mothers and the child in trouble were used in the actual analysis. Demo- graphic data on all fathers was available and utilized where appropriate, but outcome variables for the fathers were not analyzed because too few fathers (ten percent) actively participated in the study. The no treatment control subjects could be readily con- sidered as independent experimental units since no formal intervention was imposed on them either collectively or individually. These subjects also had no contact with each other or with subjects in the treatment group. On the other hand, Parent Education subjects were exposed to a classroom intervention, and were accordingly separated into groups of seven to nine persons for a class section. This raised the questions of whether the assumption of independence necessary for analysis of variance had been sufficiently violated to necessitate considering the treatment condition as comprising a class—within-cell nesting (Winer, 1964). As a means of determining whether the treatment group parents should be analyzed as separate individuals, or as a distinct series of groups, one way analyses of covariance were 41 42 performed on the treatment subjects. In this analysis class sections became the independent variable, posttest outcome measure scores were the dependent variable, with the correspond- ing pretest scores as the covariate. Analysis of variance was also performed by class section on the school measures of parent and child, since these measures were administered but once. Results indicated that there were no differences on any of the dependent measures as a function of class section. The tables presented in Appendix P show the results of these analyses. Thus, the determination was made to consider individuals as the unit of analysis in both treatment and no treatment groups in subsequent analyses. This yielded a total N of eighty-seven for the treatment (p=44) and no treatment (p=43) groups. Eqpivalence of the Treatment and No Treatment Groups A series of t-tests were run on thirty demographic variables comparing the treatment and no treatment subjects. The results are presented in Appendix 0. There were no significant dif- ferences between the groups on any of the variables, and it was assumed that the groups were equivalent at the time of subject assignment to condition. Reliability of Measures All paper and pencil outcome measures were analyzed for 43 scale reliability using Cronbach's alpha analysis (Mehrans and Ebel, 1967), and the results are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Cronbach's Alpha Analyses of Outcome Measures (Mehrans and Ebels, 1967) Measure Standardized Alpha Parent Attitude .77 Parent Behavior with Child and School .66 Parent-Child Behavior .73 School Perception of Mother .89 School Perception of Child .88 Dependent Measure Analysis: Questionnaire Data The five principle outcome measures derived from the questionnaires generally showed only modest correlations with each other, with the mean absolute correlation being .29 (see Appendix R). Because of this, and since each measure represented a measurement domain of distinct conceptual interest to the experimenter, for purposes of analysis they were considered as independent dimensions. Analysis of covariance. Analyses of covariance were per- formed on three of the questionnaire measures. This analysis is a conservative tool giving a strong measure of differences between the treatment and no treatment groups while, at the same time, utilizing the pretest-posttest correlation to minimize the mean 44 square error (Porter and Chibucas, 1974). The corresponding pretest of each measure was used as the covariate. Tables 3 through 5 on pages 45 and 46 are a presentation of the results of these analyses: 1. For the measure of the parent attitude change toward the parent role (Parent Aptitude) the results were not significant (p=.l7). The results are displayed in Table 3. 2. The measure of the parent's perception of his/her interaction with the child regarding the child's school activity (Parent Behavior) showed treatment mothers significantly different (p=.007) from no treatment mothers, i.e., the treatment mothers reported more interaction with their child on this measure after the education intervention. The results are presented in Table 4. 3. The measure of the child's behavior toward others as perceived by the parent (Parent-Child Behavior) showed the treatment mothers perceiving a positive change in their child's behavior to a degree that approached significance (p=.06). The results are shown in Table 5. 45 Table 3: Analysis of Covariance for parent attitude change toward child-rearing (Parent Attitude). Treatment Group No Treatment Group Cell means 59.66 52.74 Source of Variation Sum of DF Mean F Signif squares Square of F Covariate (pretest) 1897.183 1 1897.183 6.58 .012 Main Effect (group) 564.104 1 564.104 1.89 .173 Explained 2443.286 2 1221.643 4.23 .018 Residual 24234.645 84 288.508 Total 26677.931 86 310.209 Table 4: Analysis of Covariance for parent's perception of his/ her interaction with the child regarding the child's school activity (Parent Behavior) Treatment Group No Treatment Group Cell means 22.50 14.74 Source of Variation Sum of DE Mean F Signif squares Square of F Covariate (pretest) 2469.038 1 2469.038 24.98 .001 Main Effect (group) 761.071 1 761.071 7.70 .007* Explained 3230.108 2 1615.054 16.34 .001 Residual 8303.225 84 98.848 Total 11533.333 86 134.109 *p .05 46 Table 5: Analysis of Covariance for child's behavior toward others as perceived by the parent (Parent-Child Behavior) Treatment Group No Treatment Group Cell means 28.07 24.00 Source of Variation Sum of DF Mean F Signif squares Square of F Covariate (pretest) 1002.978 1 1002.978 14.63 .001 Main Effect (group) 246.412 1 246.412 3.59 .061 Explained 1249.391 2 624.695 9.11 .001 Residual 5757.322 84 68.540 Analysis of Variance. As noted above (Methods and Procedures Section) two scales were administered only as a posttest to school personnel. These measures attempted to show, through comparison of treatment and no treatment groups, change in the child's behavior as regards school from the perception of school personnel, as well as change in the mother's behavior toward the child's schooling as perceived by school personnel. The data for both measures was subjected to analysis of variance with treatment and no treatment groups by posttest; and the results are presented in Tables 6 and 7 below for these measures as they are described in the following: 4. Parent behavior with child relating to school as perceived by school personnel (Parent-School-Child), while showing a slight difference between groups in the predicted direction, the difference was not significant. See Table 6. 47 5. The child's behavior as perceived by school personnel (Child-School) did not approach acceptable levels of significance. Table 6: See Table 7. Analysis of Variance for school's perception of parent behavior with the child as regards School (Parent- School-Child) Treatment Group No Treatment Group Cell means 10.91 9.65 Source of Variation Sum of DF Mean F Signif squares Square of F Main Effect (group) 34.41 1 34.41 1.9 .17 Explained 34.41 1 34.41 1.9 .17 Residual 1529.40 85 17.99 Total 1563.81 86 Table 7: Analysis of Variance for school's perception of child behavior (Child-School) Treatment Group No Treatment Group Cell means 23.02 22.16 Source of Variation Sum of DE Mean F Signif squares Square of F Main Effect (group) 16.08 1 16.08 .23 .63 Explained 16.08 1 16.08 .23 .63 Residual 5888.84 69.23 Total $904.92 85 48 Dependent Measure Analysis: Parent Interview Data The Parent Interview which consisted of open-ended ques- tions, obtained answers assigned to one of several nominal categories. As noted above (Methods and Procedures Section) the questions were grouped conceptually as a response to partic- ular hypotheses in the present study. Using chi-square analysis, each question within a particular set was analyzed separately with the treatment-no treatment groups as the independent variable and the item answers as the dependent variable. The analysis includes both pre- and posttest results by group. Results of the analysis related to the specific hypo- thesized concepts are presented in Table 8-1 through Table 8-11 on pages 49 t057, as applicable to the following outcome groupings: 6. Parent knowledge of child develppment (Items 1, 4, 9, 10, 12l and 24). For the pretest no significant differences were noted between the treatment and no treatment groups. See Tables 8-1 through 8-6. For the posttest significance was found only for item 9 (p=.05), Table 8-3. Inspection of the table indicates that the treatment parent became aware of the impor- tance of sharing with the child (this was stressed in the course material). 7. Parent behavior change toward the child (Items 2 and 8), For both pretest and posttest on these items no 49 significant differences were noted. See Tables 8-7 and 8-8. 8. Parent attitude change toward the child (Items 11, 19, and 20). For both pretest and posttest on these items no significant differences were noted. See Tables 8-9 to 8-11. Table 8-1: Parent Knowledge of Child Development. Most Difficult Thing About Child Rearing Item 1: Pre-test No Posttest No Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Problem Group Group Group Group Child 27 19 23 22 Related Environmentally 4 5 6 4 Related Parent 12 13 14 10 Related Not 1 6 1 7 Applicable Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square = .472, df = 3, p = NS chi-square = 1.10, df = 2, p = NS 50 Table 8-2: Parent Knowledge of Child Development, Item 4: Cause of Situation (Child Rearing Difficulty) Development Pre-test Posttest No No Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Problem Group Group Group Group Child 11 8 14 6 Related Environmentally 9 11 7 12 Related Parent 13 14 15 14 Related Not 11 10 8 11 Applicable Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square - .71, df = 3, p = NS chi-square = 5.3, df = 3, p = NS Table 8-3: 51 Parent Knowledge of Child Development, Item 9: Parent as Most Effective Toward the Child. Pre-test Posttest No No Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment In Areas of Group Group Group Group Guidance, 35 29 35 30 directing Taking care 1 3 1 1 of child Sharing with 6 5 7 3 the child Not 2 6 l 9 Applicable Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square = 1.34, df = 3, p = NS chi-square = 8.28, df = 3, p < .05 52 Table 8-4: Parent Knowledge of Child Development, Item 10: How Parent Accounts for His/Her Effectiveness Pre—test Posttest No No Source of Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Effectiveness Group Group Group Group From Others 30 27 28 28 Love, Interest 10 7 9 4 Not Applicable 4 9 7 11 Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square = .57, df = 3, p = NS chi—square = 5.32, df = 3, p < .10 (NS) Table 8-5: Parent Knowledge of Child Development, Item 12: How Parent Feels Most Ineffective as a Parent. Pre~test Posttest No No Source of Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Ineffectiveness Group Group Group Group Lose Temper l3 8 20 10 Inconsistent 15 20 18 17 Discipline Not Applicable 16 15 6 16 Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square = 1.22, df = 2, P = NS chi-square = 4.1, df = 2, P = NS Table 8-6: Parent Knowledge of Child Development, Item 24: Characteristics Most Important to be a Good Parent. Pre-test Posttest No No Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Characteristic Group Group Group Group Patience 24 21 17 18 Honesty l3 9 12 12 Love 1 1 7 2 Moral Values 2 3 3 2 Not Applicable 4 9 5 9 Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square = 3.41, chi-square = 3.75, df = 5, P = NS 54 Table 8-7: Parent Behavior Change Toward the Child, Item 2: How Parent Attempted to Solve Problem With the Child Pre-test Posttest No ’ No Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Behavior Group Group Group Group Toward Child 20 21 20 21 Attitude 6 8 10 6 Change Sought 15 8 11 6 Outside Help Not Applicable 3 6 3 10 Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square = 2.25, df = 3, P = NS chi-square = 5.43, df = 3, P = NS Table 8-8: 55 Parent Behavior Change Toward Child, Item 8: What is Most Pleasing in Being a Parent. Pre-test Posttest No No Source of Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Pleasure Group Group Group Group Receiving 25 23 18 15 from Child Meeting 15 14 23 18 Child's Needs Interesting 3 l 3 1 Experience Not Applicable 1 5 l 8 Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square = 4.88, df = 3, P = NS chi-square = 4.1, df=3,P=NS Table 8-9: 56 Parent Attitude Change Toward Child, Item 11: What Parent Worries Most About as Parent. Pre-test Posttest ' No No Source of Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Worry Group Group Group Group Child 26 31 30 23 Environment 3 2 1 4 Outside Home Parental 4 2 3 1 Adequacy Not Applicable 11 8 10 15 Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square 3.82, df = 3, P < NS chi-square = 4.72, df = 3, P =‘Ns Table 8-10: 57 Parent Attitude Change Toward the Child, Item 19: Where Trouble Usually Occurs in the Family. Pre-test Posttest No No Source of Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Trouble Group Group Group Group Child Behavior 39 32 35 32 Parental 4 4 6 4 Disagreements Not Applicable 1 7 3 7 Total 44 43 44 43 chi-square = 3.17, df = 2, P = NS chi-square = 2.43, df=2,P=NS Table 8-11: Parent Attitude Change Toward the Child, Item 20: Parent Members Most Often Involved in Family Trouble. Pre-test Posttest No No Participants Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment In Trouble Group Group Group Group Children 38 36 36 30 Parents 6 7 8 13 Total 44 43 44 43 chi—square = 1.21, df = l, P = NS chi-square = 1.72, df = l, P = NS 58 Results and Hypotheses Below, as a way of summarizing the data, we have restated each hypothesis, the related measure or measures, and the appropriate results. Hypothesis 1. The participating parent will express a more positive attitude about the parental role. Results bearing on this hypothesis were the following: The Parent Attitude measure showed no significant difference (p = .17) between the treatment and no treatment parents. Hypothesis 2. The participating parent will be more actively involved in the community as regards the child. Data bearing on this were the following: The Parent Behavior measure tapped degree of parent interaction, as perceived by the parent, regarding his or her interaction with the child's school activity. Significant results (p = .007) were found, that is, treatment parents reported more involvement with their child in his or her school activity. The Parent-School-Child measure which measured changes in parent behavior as regards the child's activities as perceived by school personnel, showed no significant differences. Hypothesis 3. The child will show a positive change in behavior toward others. Data bearing on this are the following: 59 The Parent-Child Behavior measure was utilized to measure child behavior as perceived by the parent. Results approached significance (p = .06) in the predicted direction. The Child-School measure which tapped the child's behavior as perceived by school personnel, show no significant differences between treatment and no treatment groups. Hypothesis 4. The participating parent will have an increased knowledge of child development as offered in the Parent Education course. Data bearing on this are the following: Parent knowledge of child development (Parent Interview items 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 24) tested this hypothesis. Only item 9 showed significant differences between treatment and no treatment groups on this dimension in the predicted direction. Hypothesis 5. The participating parent will show behavior which is more positive and growth producing in the child. Data bearing on this are the following: Parent behavior change toward the child (Parent Interview items 2 and 8) tested this hypothesis. No significant differences were found between treatment and no treatment groups, though change was in the predicted direction. 6O Hypothesis 6. The participating parent will show a more positive attitude twoard the child. Data bearing on this are the following: Parent attitude change toward the child (Parent Interview items 11, 19, and 20) were utilized to test this hypothesis. No significant change between treatment and no treatment groups were found on this dimension. DISCUSSION Summary The study comprised the development and evaluation of an experimental delinquency prevention program which focused on the parents of the children in trouble. The parents participated in a Parent Education course which stressed developmental con- cepts relating to the effect of parental attitudes and behavior on that of the child. Parent behavior and attitude change were predicted outcomes, as were positive changes in the child's behavior. Parents in the treatment condition perceived a definite change in their behavior toward the child; and to a degree approaching significance, these parents also perceived a positive behavioral change in their child. School personnel directly involved with the child did not share the parents' perceptions and saw no significant change in either the parent or child's behavior. Measures of parent attitude change toward the parental role and toward the child, while in the right direction, showed no significant differences between treatment and no treatment parents. There are a number of possible interpretations for these disparate findings as explained in the following: Impact of the education intervention. The intervention was designed to be a low key intervention for participating 61 62 parents. The rationale for this was that the population of children involved were not in serious enough trouble to warrant an intervention with more of an impact. It was also felt that the parents would be threatened by anything which smacked of treatment. The educational intervention tapped parental as well as individual motivation in the parent, for example, the love of parent for the child and the high value the parent placed on education. At the same time the treatment was such that the parent possibly felt a minimum amount of pressure forcing him or her to change. Nonetheless, during the period of the Parent Education sessions the course instructors reported most parents as highly motivated and making strong efforts to implement what was learned through the class. On the other hand, pressures operative in the home environment, the school, as well as in the personal life of the parent, may have coalesced to weaken the parent's resolve for change and for making the effort needed to aid the child in changing its behavior. Thus, once the parent left the sup- portive and encouraging environment of the classroom interaction after six weeks of sessions, he or she was overwhelmed by these negative pressures. Outcome measures would reflect what was happening both in the parent's attitude and especially in his or her interaction with outside agencies like the school. In summary, the independent variable in this experiment - namely parent education classes - may have simply been too subtle, or weak, to overcome powerful exogenous variables. 63 Parent visibilipy to community agencies. A related limitation of the research design was that the experimenter had no contact with the parent from termination of the educa- tional intervention until the second interview several months later. During this time period no formal interaction of any kind was initiated by the Parent Education program to motivate the parent to increase his or her visibility with the school or with other public agencies involved with the child (though such parental action had been encouraged through the educa- tional intervention). In addition, the schools neither knew which referred parents were involved in the educational inter- vention nor how the intervention promoted parent action with the child's school environment. Thus, there was no ongoing encouragement to the parent in his/her attempts to let the school know of the parent's increased interest in the child's schooling. If the school had been cognizant of, and actively involved in, supporting the family's endeavors, a more dis- criminate judgment of changes in the child may have resulted. Moreover, the parent's presence, both physically and morally, would have been perceived by the school, and this might have affected the school's reaction to the parent involvement out- come measure. Social reinforcements for the parent. One assumption of the research was that the child does not behave in a social vacuum. The present study assumed the same principle applied for parents' behavior, at least in the classroom setting. That 64 is, the parent needs proper reinforcement for behavioral changes just as the child. During the Parent Education class sessions the parent students received support and motivation from the group, but unless ongoing contacts had been made with classmates during the months between class sessions ending and the second interviews (instructors of the classes purposely kept a low profile during this period and other agencies in the community were ignorant of a particular parent's educational endeavors), the parent's internal motivation for behavior change had to suffice. It may well be that the personal motivation of the parent was insufficient to effect long lasting, visible-to-the- community changes of behavior. To the degree this conclusion is relevant to the lack of predicted change in both parent and child would be reflected in the outcome measures. Time frame between_pretest and posttest. Another limita- tion of the research was the relatively short span of time (4 months) before measures of difference were made on parent at- titudeznuibehavior change, and, even more importantly, on the child's behavior change. One can surmise that were it possible for change measures of the child's behavior to be administered over a longer span of time, a more realistic appraisal of change could be made. The link between the parent affect on the child and the child's possible behavior change, though real, can be characterized as diffuse and does not lend itself to sharp, quick change effects. Relationship between aptitudes and behavior. Of course, the generally weak nature of the findings may also be attributed 65 to the oft-observed minimal relationship between different domains of behavior. In effect, the educational intervention here had the implicit assumption that cognitive and attitudinal changes induced in the classroom would generalize to parent child interaction in the home, which in turn would translate into alterations in the child's behavior in the school and community. Given what is known about the situational specif- icity of behavior (Mischel, 1968), and the marginal relation- ships between attitudes and behavior (Wicker, 1969), these assumptions seem questionable. Perhaps even in the best of circumstances the ultimate effect of educational interventions on target behaviors (in this case, delinquency) can only be marginal, and only be of practical significance when aggregated over several educational interventions over a lengthened time perspective. In short, one could argue for more classes over more months. Given the minimal intervention and the restricted time frame, at the current study it is noteworthy that any efforts as all were observed. Implications The findings of the study are mixed with some measure of success for its objectives at least in the subjective opinion of mothers involved in the study. The lack of any significant results on the more objective assessments by school personnel involved with the child's development outside the home not only showed how these personnel viewed the amount of parental 66 involvement, but the important part they may play in the parent- school interaction. It was the general impression of both experimenter and Parent Education course instructors that the average parent involved in the study felt alienated or defranchised as regards the school (though this often applied equally to other community agencies). That is, there was a breakdown in the parent-school relationship. The present study's design sought to remedy this problem, but placed the onus on the parent to change the situa- tion, and, in effect, allowed the school no way of actively reinforcing the parent's efforts. Parents noted on feedback reports that one of the most appreciated and profitable aspects of the Parent Education course was the presence and support of fellow class members. Instructors verified the importance of group support for an individual parent's endeavors and reported how much effort the parents made to learn and implement what they learned. It seems the school could add an important dimension to this support system which would re- inforce the parent's efforts outside the parent's class, and more importantly, after the class ceases. In light of this the following suggestions are made. Involvement of the school or other community agency. When the Parent Education courses are initiated a liaison should be set up with the parent by the school (or other agency) involved with the child. 67 Specifically, the agency would be made aware of the parent's involvement in the class as well as class content and interactions. For example, complementary to the course content which encourages the parent to be involved with the school, the parent might be encouraged by the school to confer with a teacher or counselor about what the parent had learned in class and what material the parent felt was related to the child's situation. If school personnel are aware of a parent's participation, they might be more sensitive to budding changes in the child's, or parent's behavior. The parent could be encouraged to formulate some plan of action for the child and the school person promote the parental endeavors. Just as the Parent Education course structure tended to reinforce parent initiative and successes for both parent and child, school personnel could also be a source of reinforcement for the parent. Orientation of involvedyprofessionals toyparental strengths. Lemert's (1967) explanation of the detrimental effects in labeling youth in trouble might also be extended to the parents of these youth. There is a tendency by professionals in the com- munity to categorize such parents as "good" or "bad" as a means of dealing with the parent. The result of such a judgment is a tendency of social agency personnel to arbitrarily intervene into the troubled youth's life without taking seriously the parent's views on the situation. The outcome of the intervention is often of no profit to the child and worse, lessens the parent's actual and perceived effectiveness with the child. 68 Thoughtful and varied strategies should be developed for working with the parent. The strategies should be such as to minimize manipulation of the family situation from the outside even while seeking out the strengths of the parent in the parent-child interaction. The parent as peer. Vital to the parent-school inter- action would seem to be the professional's acceptance of the parent as a peer in regard to the child's education activities. The professional may not fully agree with parental proposals for the child and so be moved to take over the initiative for the child's welfare. Professionals tend to operate in this fashion and it may account for the experimenter's impression that parents interviewed for the study felt defranchised in regards to their input in the area of the child's development outside the home and especially in the schools. In such a situation not only is the professional working aginst the innate parent-child ties and not utilizing the strength of the relationship, but is missing the opportunity to profit from valuable parental knowledge of its child. The parent education program could be a good medium for aiding those outside the family in relating to the parent. Both parent and professional value education and this offers a point of contact between both parties for initiating the cooperation and trust necessary if they are to help the child, and for the professional to gain respect for the parent's input. 69 A series of_parent education courses. As indicated above there are good conceptual reasons for expanding this type of intervention rather than casting it aside. If there were a reasonable expansion of the course material used during the experimental period into several courses, the parents involved would have more in-depth exposure to the developmental principles involved, more opportunity both to discuss these principles with members of the class and to derive profit from classmates' sup- port. Almost all parents who participate in the Parent Educa- tion courses requested that more courses be offered with more in-depth coverage on specific subjects, (e.g., adolescence). Consideration might also be given to special orientation for instructors of parent courses, so that they not only know the type of information to give the parent, but be accepting of the parent's life situation. Though seemingly a small matter, it would be well to increase the classroom time allotted to a specific course, not only for the increased opportunity it would give for parent to parent interaction and support, but because parent students (like all students) are motivated in part for their efforts by an increase in credit hours earned. Future Research By the experience derived from both the process of carry- ing out the research and the results obtained, the following are suggested for further research. 7O Communipy support measure. In order to measure the impact on the parent of effects outside the Parent Education classroom, a second treatment group might be added to the research design. This group would not only be exposed to the classroom intervention, but, additionally, the school (or other community agency) would be involved as an added reinforc- ing agent for the parent of this group. Such a change in strategy would necessarily involve an expanded set of measures that were employed in the present research for measuring the intervention effects. Instruments which tapped more specific behaviors in parent and child, as well as specific, codifiable reports from instructors, could be developed. Rigorous instrumentation. As noted above, instruments which measure more specific behavior of the participants in the experiment seem necessary for this rather "soft" type of intervention. More systematic within-classroom-evaluation instruments measuring parent understanding of the material presented, as well as evaluation of parent efforts to imple- ment the information, should be developed. This type of evalu- ation was played down in the present research because projections of the subject populations' lack of formal education seemed to preclude such evaluations. As it turned out, the education level of the parents was relatively high (11% years) and the parents were quite at ease writing. Several parents, often the least educated, requested that in future program courses, written evaluation be utilized as a motivator to the parent to learn. 71 Nota Bronfenbrenner's views on the parent's positions vis a vis the child's psycho-social development (1975) were con- firmed, though anecdotally, by the experimenter through the experience of conducting this research. It is apparent that the only person in the community who must, and usually wants and needs to, spend 24 hours a day, year after year, with the child, is the parent. Likewise, the only person in the com- munity who can be, and usually is, motivated to invest sub- stantially in the child over such a span of time, is the parent. Parental motivation may be varied and seemingly at odds with what others involved with the child deem as important. Still, in the majority of cases parental motives are more enduring and supportive of the child. Though the theories for it are varied, most observers agree on the fact that the child's desire is to be with and guided by the parent, and that the child usually loves the parent and needs interaction with him or her. The child generally perceives the parent as not only good but good for it (the child). The child is probably right. The Massachusetts deinstitutionalization experiment (Wilson, 1970) which emptied the juvenile detention facili- ties of that state and substituted community based treatment programs for delinquents, has shown that such a radical step was one in the right direction for the child. After experi- mentation with various treatment modes in the community, 72 the authorities have come full circle to conclude that the thrust of preventive, diversion and rehabilitation program efforts for youth in trouble should be to "tap the strength of the family and utilize and identify the natural advocacy of parents (p. 28).” The rationale for, and findings from, the current research are congruent with that view. By providing the parent with opportunities through educa- tion to be informed and knowledgeable of the child and uniting this parent learning with the parental strengths noted by Wilson, it would seem the sources for aiding the child in healthily conforming to society's demands would be maximized. REFERENCES REFERENCES Ackerman, N. "Adolescent problems: a symptom of family disorder," Family Processes, 1, September, 1962, pp. 202-213. Adelson, J. Identification and Delinquency, a discussion with M. GoId, AZ Moles, S} Withey, January 2, 1959, University of Michigan. Amos, W. and Wellford, C. Delinquency Prevention: Theory and Practice. Englewood Cliffs,—N. J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. Aronfreed, J. "The nature, variety, and social patterning of motor responses to transgression," J. of Abnormal and Social_Psychology, 1961, pg, pp. 223-241. Aubry, R. Delinquency and Parental Pathology. London: Methuen, 1960. Auerbach, A. Parents Learn Through Discussion: Principles and PractiEe of Parent Gropp Education. New Yofk: Wiley 8 Sons,I1968. Authier, J., Gustafson, K., Guerney, B., Jr. 8 Kasdorf, J. "The psychological practitioner as a teacher: a theoretical-historical and practical review," Ipe Counseling Psychologist, 1975, 5, pp. 31-50. Balch, R. "Medical model of delinquency - theoretical, practical, and ethical implications," Crime and Delinquency, 1975, 21(2), pp. 116-130. Baldwin, A., Kalhorn, J., and Breese, F. "Patterns of parent behavior," Psygholpgy Monograph, 58 (3), 1945, pp. 71-80. Bandura, A., and Walters, R. Adolescent Aggression: A Study of the Influence of Child TraInIng Practices, and Famin Inter-reIationships. New York: PonaId, 1959T Bandura, A, and Walters, R. Social Learning and Personalipy Development. New York: Hold,‘Rinehart 8 Winston, 1963. Barton, K., Dielman, T., Cattell, R. "Child rearing prac- tices related to child personality," J. of Social Psychology, 1977, 101, pp. 79-85. 73 74 Baumrind, D. "Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior," Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 23) pp. 43-88. Becker, W., Peterson, D., Lauria, A., Shoemaker, D., and Hellmer, L. "Relations of factors derived from patient interview ratings to behavior problems of 5 year olds," Child Development, 33, 1962, pp. 509-539. Bell, R. "A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization," Psychological Review, 1965, 13, pp. 81-95. Bell, R. Q. and Harper, L. Child Effects on Adults. New York: Lawrence Eribaum, 1977: Bowlby, J. "The nature of the child's tie to his mother," International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1958, 33, p. 350. Braithwaite, L. "Delinquency emerges from family pathology," unpublished paper (Children's Charter of the Courts of Michigan, Inc.), 1970. Brim, 0. Education for Child Rearing. New York: Russell Sage FoundatIOn, 1965. Bronfenbrenner, U. "Nobody home: the erosion of the American family," Psycholognyoday, May, 1977, pp. 41-47. Bronfenbrenner, U. "The origins of alienation," Scientific American, August, 1974, pp. 53-61. Bronfenbrenner, U. "Some familial antecedents of responsibi- lity and leadership in adolescents," In L. Petrillo and B. Bass, (eds.), Studies in Leadership, New York: Holt, 1960. Cavan, R. "What is delinquency?," In E. McDonough and H. Simpson, (eds.), Social Problems: Persistent Challenges. New York: Holt, Rinehart,IE'Winston, Ific., 1965: pp. 415-424. Cole, H. and Hall, H. Psychology of Adolescence (6th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, E Winston, Inc., 1966, p. 437. Conger, J. "A world they never knew: the family in social change," in J. Kagan and R. Coles, (eds.), Twelve to Sixteen: Earl Adolescence. New York: Norton 8 Co., Inc., 1972, pp. 197-230. 75 Dembo, T., Festinger, L., and Sears, P. "Levels of aspira- tion," in J. Hunt (ed.), Personality and the Behavior Disorders. New York: RonaId’Press Co., 1944, pp. 33-378. Deur, J. and Parks, R. "Resistance to extinction and con- tinuous punishment in humans as a function of partial reward and partial punishment training," Psychonomic Science, 1968, 33, pp. 91-92. Empey, L. T. "Delinquency theory and recent research," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1967, 3, pp. 28-42. Empey, L. "Crime Prevention: the fugitive utopia?," in D. Glaser (ed.), Handbook of Criminology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1974. Fein, E. "Motivating attendance in parent education," Social Work, 1972,.11: pp. 105-108. Ferguson, L. "Dependency motivation in socialization," in R. Hoppe, G. Milton, E. Simmel, (eds.), Early Experi- ences and Processes of Motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1970, pp. 59-77. Forsyth, R. P. and Fairweather, G. W. "Psychotherapeutic and other hospital treatment criteria: the dilemma," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1961, 33, pp. 598-604. Ganzer, V. "Variables associated with recidivism among juvenile delinquents," J. of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 1973, 19, pp. I-9} Giffin, M. "The transmission of superego defects in the family," in N. Bell and E. Vogel (eds.), The Family. New York: Free Press, 1968, pp. 671-672. Gil, D. "Unraveling child abuse," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1975, 43_(3),’346T356. Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Commonwealth—Fund, 1960. Glueck, S. and Glueck, B. Family Environment and Delinquency. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962. Glueck, S. and Glueck, E., (eds.) Identification of Pre- delinquents: Validation Studies and Some Suggested Uses. New York: Intercontinental Médical Book Corp., 1977'. 76 Glueck, S. and Glueck, E. Of Delinquency and Crime: A Panorama of Years of Search and—Research. Springfield, 111.: C. C. Thomas, 1974. Gold, M. Status Forces in Delinquent Boys. Ann Arbor: University Of MiChigan Institute for Social Research, 1963, pp. 147-150. Gold, M. and Williams, J. "From delinquent behavior to official delinquency," Social Problems, 1972, 39, pp. 209-228. Gordon, T. Parent Effectiveness Training in Action. New York: Wyden Books, 1976. Guerney, B., Jr. Relationship Enhancement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass PublISHers, I977. Guerney, B., Jr., Guerney, L., and Stollack, G. "The potential advantages of changing from a medical to an educational model in practicing psychology," Interpersonal Development, 1971/1972, 3, pp. 238-246. Guerney, B., Stover, L. and Andronico, M. "On educating the disadvantaged parent to motivate children for learning: a filial approach," Community Mental Health Journal, 1967, 3, pp. 66-72. Hardy, R. and Cull, J. Problems of Adolescents: Social and Psychological Approaches. SpringfIEId,IIIl.: Thomas Publications, 1974, p. 54. Heiburn, A. "Parental model attributes, nurturant reinforce- ment, and consistency of behavior in adolescents," Child Development, 1964, 33, pp. 151-167. Hereford, C. Changing_Parental Attitudes Througp_Group Dis- cussion. Austin, Texas: UK of Texas Press, I963. Hewitt, L. and Jenkins, R. Fundamental Patterns of Malad- justment. Springfield, II1.: State of IlIinois, 1946. Hindelang, M. "Causes of delinquency: a partial replication and extension," Social Problems, 1973, 39, pp. 471-487. Hirschi,T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: U. of Calif- ornia Press, 1969. Hoffman, M. and Satzstein, H. "Parent discipline and the child's moral development," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 3, pp. 45-57. 77 Hoppe, R., Milton, G., Simmel, E. (eds.), Early Experience and the Socialization Process. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Horrocks, J. "The adolescent," in Carmichael (ed.), Manual of Child Psychology, 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley, 9 pp' ' ' Hyman, R. Ways of Teaching. New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1970, p. I29. James, H. Children in Trouble: A National Scandal. New York: McKay Co., 19792 ‘— Jeffery, C. and Jeffery, I. "Prevention through the family," in W. Amos and C. Wellford (eds.), Delinquency Preven- tion. Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1967, pp. 96-97. Johnson, A. ""Sactions for superego lacunae of adolescents," in K. Eissler (ed.), Searchlights on Delinquency. New York: International Universities Press, 1949, pp. 225-245. Johnson, D. and Bommarito, J. Tests and Measuremens in Child Development: A Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1971, p. 349. Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime: Task Force Report. Washington, D) C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Kagan, J. "Socialization of aggression and the perception of parents in fantasy," Child Development, 1958, 33, pp. 311-321. Kagan, J. "New Views on Cognitive Development," J. of Youth and Adolescence, 1976, 3, pp. 113-129. Kagan, J. and Klein, R. "Crosscultural perspectives on early development," American Psychologist, 1973, 33, pp. 947-961. Kagan, J. and Moss, H. Birth to Maturity: A Study in Ppycho- logical Development. New York: Wiley, 1962, p. 49. Kantor, D., and Lehr, W. Inside the Family. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. Kendall, P., Finch, A., Jr., and Mahoney, J. Factor specific differences in locus of control for emotionally dis- turbed and normal children," J. of Personality Assess- ment, 1976, 33, pp. 43-47. 78 Kifer, R., Lewis, M., Green, D., and Phillips, E. "Training predelinquent youths and their parents to negotiate conflict situations," J. of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 3, pp. 357-364. Klein, M. (ed.) The Juvenile Justice System. London: Sage Publications, 1976. Lemert, E. Instead of the Court: Diversion in Juvenile Justice. Center fer Studies ofICFime and Delinquency. National Institute of Mental Health. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. Love, L. and Kaswan, J. Troubled Children: Their Families, Schools, and Treatments. NEwIYpik: Wiley, 1974. Luger, M. "Memorandum to all state SPA directors,” Juvenile Justice Digest, 1977, 3, p. 5 McCord, J. and McCord, W. "Familial correlates of aggression in non-delinquent male children," J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 33, pp. 79593. McCord, J. and McCord, W. and Howard, A. "Family interac- tion as antecedent to the direction of male aggressive- ness," J. of Abnormal and Social Psyghology, 1963, 33, pp. 238-242. McCord, W. and McCord, J., and Irving, Z. Origins of Crime: A New Evaluation of the Cambridge Somerville YouthIStudy. New Ybik: Columbia U. Press, 19591 McFarlane, J. "Perspectives on personality consistency and change from the guidance study," Vita Humanae, 1964, 3, pp. 115-126. McKeachie, W. "Research in teaching: the gap between theory and practice," in B. Calvin and T. Lee (eds.), Improving College Teaching. Washington, D. C.: Printed by the American Council on Education, 1967. Mehrens, W. A. and Ebel, R. L. Principles of Education and Psychological Measurements. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. Mischel, W. Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968. Moles, O., Lippitt, R., Withey, S. Selective Review of Research and Theories Concerning the Dynamics of Delin- quency. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute or ocial Research, 1959. 79 Monahan, T. "Family status and the delinquent child," Social Forces, 1957, 33) p. 258. Noshpitz, J. "From slogans to concepts - basis for change in child care work - comment," Child Care, 1974, 3 (1), p. 25. — Nye, F. Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. New York: Wiley, I958? Patterson, G. and Cobb, J. and Ray, R. "A social engineering technology for retraining agressive boys," in H. Adams and L. Unikel (eds.), Georgia 3ymppsium in Experimental Clinical Psychology, Vol. II,—Pergamm Press, 1970. Pearl, A. The Atrocity of Education. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1972. Peterson, D. and Becker, W. "Family interaction and delin- quency," in H. Quay, (ed.), Juvenile Delinquenqy: Research and Theory, Princeton, N.9.: VanNostrand Co., 1965, pp. 63-99. Peterson, D., Becker, W., Helmer, S., Shoemaker, D. and Quay, H. "Parental Attitudes and child adjustment," Child Development, 1959, 33, pp. 119-130. Pickerts, E. and Fargo, J. Parent Education Toward Parental Competence. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971, p. 16. Pink, W. and White, M. "Delinquency prevention: the state of the art," in M. Klein (ed.), Delinquency Policy, London: Sage Publications, 1976. Platt, A. M. The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Polier, J. W. "Future of the juvenile court," Juvenile Jus- tice, 1975, 33, pp. 3-10. Polk, K. and Schafer, W. Schools and Delinquency. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hail, 1972. Porter, A. C. and Chibucas, T. R. "Selecting analysis strat- egies," in Evaluating Educational Programs and Products, G. D. Borich (edI). —EnglewoodIC1iffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1974, pp. 415-464. Power, M. and Sirey, E. "Delinquency and the family," British Journal of Social Work, 1974, 3, pp. 13-38. 8O Reckless, W. The Crime Problem. New York: Appleton-Century, 1961. Reckless, W., Dinitz, S., and Kay, B. "The self component in potential delinquency and non-delinquency,” American Sociological Review, 1957, 33) pp. 566-570. Robins, L. Deviant Children Grow Up: A Sociological and Psychiatric Study of Sbciopathic Personality. BaItimore: WiIliams and—Wilkins, 1966, p. 161. Rose, 8. "A behavioral approach to the group treatment of parents," Social Work, 1969, 33, pp. 21-29. Rosenquist, C. and Magargee, E. Delinquency in Three Cul- tures. Austin: U. of Texas Press, 1969. Rosenshine, R. and Barak, O. "Enthusiastic teaching: a research review," Social Review, 1970, 33, pp. 499-514. Rosenshine, R. and Barak, 0. "Juvenile offenders - grouping with parents," Canadian J. of Criminology and Correc- tions, 1974, 3, pp. 68-76. Rowland, T. Mother-Son Interaction and Coping Behavior of Young Boys. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, 1968, Michigan State University. Sanford, R., Adkins, M., Miller, R., and Cross, E. "Physique, personality and scholarship: a cooperative study of school children," Mono raphs of Social Research in Child Development, , 3, RI. Schlossman, S. T. Love and the American Delinquent. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1977. Schoeppe, A. and Havighurst, R. "A validation of develop- ment and adjustment-hypotheses of adolescence," J. of Educational Psychology, 1952, 33, pp. 339-355. Schur, E. Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem. Englewood Cliffs, N331: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Sears, R., Maccoby, E., and Levin, H. Patterns of Child Rearing. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. Serot, N. and Teevan, R. "Perception of the parent-child relationship and its relation to the child's adjust- ment," Child Development, 1961, 33, pp. 373-378. 81 Shafer, S. and Knudton, R. Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Random House, 1970. Singer, M. "The borderline delinquent: the interlocking of intra-psychic and interactiona] determinants," Interna- tional Review of Ppychoanalysis, 1975, 3, pp. 429-440 Shulma, H. "The family and juvenile delinquency," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, CCEXI, January,—l941, pp.—2I-3l. Smith, H., PersonalityDevelopment. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1968, pp. 420:42II Spergel, I. "Community-based delinquency prevention programs: an overview," The Social Services Review, 1973, 33, pp. 16-31. Stanfield, R. "The interaction of family variables and gang variables in the etiology of delinquency," Social Problems, 1968, 33, pp. 411-417. Stollak, G. "Learning to communicate with children," Children Todpy, 1975, 3, pp. 12-15. Stollak, G. Filial Therapy and the Use of Non-Professionals as Therppeutic Agents. “Milwaukee: U} of Wisconsin Press, 1966} Stolz, G. Influences on Parental Behavior. Stanford, Ca1if.: Stanford U. Press,71967, pp. 280-293. Sullivan, C., Grant, M., and Grant, D. "The deve10pment of interpersonal maturity: application to delinquency," Psychiatry, 1957, 33, pp. 373-385. Szurek, S. "Notes on the genesis of psychopathic personality trends," Psychiatry, 1942, 3, pp. 1-6. Tanner, J. "Sequence, tempo, and individual variation in development of boys and girls aged 12 to 16,” in Kagan, J. and Coles, R. Op. cit., pp. 1-24. Tefferteller, R. "Delinquency prevention through revitali- zing parent-child relations," Annals, 1959, 322, 69078. Travvett, N. "Implications for delinquency prevention in Glueck research findings,” in S. Glueck and E. Glueck (eds.), Identification of Predelinquents. New York: Intercontinental Medical Book Corp., 1972, p. 91. 82 Updegraff, R. Influence of parental attitudes upon child behavior," J. of Consulting_P§ychology, 1939, 3, pp. 34-40. United States Government. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, Puhlic Law 93-415, S 821, September 7, 1974. United States Government. Programs to Prevent Delipquency. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Novem- ber, 1976. Walters, R. and Parke, R. "The influence of punishment and related disciplinary techniques on the social behavior of children: theory and empirical findings," in B. Maher (ed.), Progress in Experimental Personalipy Research, 1967, pp. 179-228. Weinberg, S. "Sociological process and factors in juvenile delinquency," in J. Roncek, Juvenile Delinquenqy. New York: Philosophical Library, 1958, pp. 113-132. Weiner, I. Ppychological Disturbances in Adolescence. New York: Wiley-Interscience, I970. Whiting, J. and Child, L. Child Training and Personality: A Cross-cultural Study. NewIHaven: Yale University Press, 1958. Wickert, A. J. "Attitudes and action: Relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects," J. of Social Issues, 1969, 33) pp. 41-78. Williams, J. and Stith, M. Middle Childhood Behavior and Development. New YorkzIMacMiIlanICo., I974, p. 448. Wilson, R. "Massachusetts: the legacy of Jerome Miller," Corrections Magazine, 1978, 3, pp. 12-18. Winder, C. and Rau, L. "Parental attitudes associated with social deviance in preadolescent boys," J. of Con- sulting and Clinical Psychology, 1967, 33, pp. 441-451. Winer, B. Statistical Principles in Eyperimental Design. San Francisco: MCGraw-HilI Book Co., 1962. Winter, G., and Nuss, E. The Young Adult: Identity and Awareness. New York: Wiley, I967. 83 Yarrow, M. and Campbell, J. and Burton, R. Child Rearing: An Inquiryinto Research Methods. San FranCisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968} APPENDICES APPENDIX A 84 Parent Education Course Session No. 1 (Instructor Only) II. III. IV. Introduce one's self as an instructor who works with children and parents as part of one's job and life history. Introduction process: partners sharing ideas; trying to know one another. Explain course schedule: six classes, once a week for six weeks. First hour of each class will have to do with learning some developmental principles by the students and teacher. Course involves no writing, heavy reading or homework, but ask that students read over the notes handed out each week. The teacher will call each student twice before each class period to announce the next session. Emphasize the "we will learn together" approach. We are going to go over a few facts about how the child grows and how important parents are to the child. We don't have anyone in our culture who can take the place of parents in helping the child grow and be happy. Children are so important and valuable, as are their parents, and this course will, hopefully, help us learn more about how necessary it is for the child to be appreciated, as well as how important it is for that person we call the parent to be appreciated and feel positive about his or her critical role as parent. Parenting should be a generally happy experience, and be rewarding to us, the parents. Parenting should be a real aid in helping us parents grow as individuals, aiding us in fulfilling our own human potential. The class will teach us some facts, not opinions, about how children grow, how parents affect that growth, how children affect their parents, and, as one child scientist Martin Hoffman, said: "How really effective (successful) a child will become as a member of society really depends, in the last analysis, on how the parent(s) affect the socialization of the child...no matter what kind of personality the child is born with." Stress how important the parent is to the child's growth. Parent Education Course Session No. 1 VI. VII. 85 (Instructor Only) All parents need some help, some knowledge at least, in the raising of the child because: --we don't have the support of other family members as in the old days; --don't always have the support of the stable neighbor- hood community, strong church or school affecting our lives as parents as in old days: --one parent is often trying to do the job of parenting alone; --so many cultural and technological changes putting pressure on the family unit; --we now know some things about child development which are universal in their application and can use these bits of knowledge as part of a solid base of truth from which the parent can work. We know that children affect parents, and this is not a bad thing...just a fact...but parents must recognize it and know what to do with it. 86 Parent Education Course Session I 1. Normal development in the child (yours or anyone's child.) Since about 20 years ago developmental psychologists (whose jobs it is to study how people develop and grow from the time a person is conceived) have found that: a. All children, all of us, are programmed by nature to develop—ii an orderly, positive way, to become mentally healthy and morally good, and to physically advance (assuming there is not physical damage to our bodies). For example, all children at the same age, give or take a few months: 1. Mentally...learn to "conserve" matter, to smile. 2. Psychologically...become less egocentric gradually and a child being egocentric at an early age is not a bad thing. 3. Physically...learn to crawl, walk, "go to potty" alone (sphincter muscle deve10pment). b. Development is the keyword. The child is not a small adult. There is a process of maturation that takes place at scheduled times in the child's life...and not before. Thus, for example, the baby, the toddler and even older children do not do immoral acts on purpose at these early ages; as in lying, they may not know the moral evil of lying since they do not know what harm lying can do to their relationships with others...the child may lie to please the parent because he/she feels that is what the parent wants to hear...and NO ONE! (thinks the child) should hurt one's parent. So, we don't want to judge the child's actions as if he/she were an adult---even as WE TEACH him/her what actions we feel should or should not be done. c. Developmental needs of the child...the things the child needs to grow in every weay. (We will talk about some of these developmental needs as we proceed in the classes.) Examples of the developmental needs of babies and young children are food, warmth, pr0per stimulation, attention, and learning situations. Developmental arrest...if the child does not have needs met there is a lack of development in an area of his personality and his behavior. (We say "the child is not being socialized well".) 87 Parent Education Course Session I (cont) For example, the baby's need for interaction with elders, the need for consistent adult reaction to the baby's cries...the need for a significant other and how a baby can actually die from lack of this interaction. d. We parents should feel positive about what we have just learned, namely that: 1. There is some order, something common to all children as to how they grow and deve10p, and... 2. The child's growth is not all our responsi- bility, that is, in the right environment the child grows along a certain healthy path...in fact, the child grows toward independence of us parents. 3. On the other hand, it is so very important that we interact with the child to give him/her support and attention they need. 4. We will learn about the developmental needs of our children, AND, by the way, if there has been some delay in the healthy develop- ment of our child, we can set up changes in the environment and the child will grow and change fine. It is rarely ever too late! 11. Feedback Let's think of examples of mental, psychological, and physical developmental patterns in children we know. Can we think of any examples of development arrest? 88 Parent Education Course Session II I. Remembering what we learned last week abou the child as DEVELOPING, that by nature the child will grow along healthy lines if he/she is in the proper life situation, let's proceed to: A. DEPENDENCE TO INDEPENDENCE, as a part of develop- ment in the child. 1. We know: (a) at birth the human baby is very dependent on the parent both physically (for food, shelter) and psychologically (for emo- tional support)...more than most animals; (b) the baby (and later on, the child), as a born learner, strives for competence, to do well what it learns. It will strive to do something over and over again until it learns it well, then go on to something else to learn. Competence is related to independence, being able to do things without another person taking over, and the resulting joy of having accomplished something... all of us feel this at any age! So, the baby, the child, moves toward independence very early; for example, the "NO!" period of develop- ment in the second year of life...the baby says "no" to everything: "Let's go to bed." Ans: "No."; "Let's have some ice cream." Ans: "No." (even as the baby is reaching toward the ice cream dish). EVEN WHILE THE BABY IS VERY MUCH DEPENDENT ON PARENTS (AND EVEN AS THE CHILD IS DEPENDENT ON THE PARENT) THEIR DEVELOPMENTAL IENDENCIES ARE TO MOVE TOWARD INDEPENDENCE IN BEHAVIOR. B. THE INFANT (THE CHILD) HAS DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS, AND THEY ARE IN PART: 1. To be dependent, get some basic needs met (food, shelter, attention), feel they can depend on mom and dad, or at least on one of the parents as being there in fulfill- ing those needs; the child has A SOLID BASE TO MOVE FROM. 2. To become independent, doing things on their own, testing out reality, whether it be a simple thing like feeling water run out of a faucet to moving out of the physical sight of the parent at times. 89 Parent Education Course Session II (cont) SO, WE ARE SAYING THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SECURE ATTACHMENTS TO PARENTS ARE A PRE-CONDITION TO SELF- DIRECTED BEHAVIOR IN THE CHILD (a bit of a contradic- tion: dependence leads to independence). C. HOW DO PARENTS AFFECT THE CHILD'S MOVEMENT FROM DEPENDENCE TO INDEPENDENCE? 1. Giving the child adequate attention; listening to what the child has to say (really listening, paying attention to the child). For example: Child: "Look at what I did, Mommy!" Ans: Parent continues reading the newspaper and grunts that he/she heard the child; or the parents set up a bulletin board on Which they display what the child learned in school. 2. Paying attention to the child's behavior even when the child does not request it: the parent takes the initiative to praise a child when it sees the child do something well. THIS MEANS WE PARENTS INTERACT (BE WITH) THE CHILD AT HIS/HER LEVEL...AGAIN, REMEMBERING THE CHILD IS NOT A LITTLE ADULT, BUT DEVELOPING TOWARD BEING AN ADULT. This interaction makes the child realize that he/ she is important becuase his/her actions are important to the parent. The feeling of importance gives a feeling of value to the child, the feeling that what he or she does has an effect on people and things outside him or herself... and from this comes a feeling of SECURITY. From the SECURE base and the feeling of being competent, the child moves toward INDEPENDENCE (SELF- DIRECTED BEHAVIOR). 3. The parent as one who is mimicked or imitated by the child. We will go into this much more later when we talk about the parent as a teacher, but, for now, some re- search says that part of the dependence need of the child is that the child imitates the parent as a sort of substitute form of contact with the parent, for example, in playing with toys the child takes the role of the parent...and through this limitation the child is learning to act in certain situations. 90 Parent Education Course Session II (cont) When the parent is angry and hits things...the child will imitate, and will act thus in similar situations it finds itself. When the parent tries to be patient in a situa- tion, the child will imitate. WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT THE CHILD IS WATCHING THE PARENT ALL THE TIME AND LEARNING FROM THE PARENT'S BEHAVIOR...we can't be perfect peOple, we parents, but we should realize what an effect we have on our children. 4. The parent as a POWER-ASSERTOR over the child. We should be beginning to understand now that we parents have a great deal of power to effect our child, more than anyone else in the child's life. At times we need to use this power...a great number of times when our child is a baby (we keep it away from hot stoves, from falling downstairs, eating or drinking dangerous potions), and less often as the child grows. At other times we do not assert our power because the child needs to experiment with things and people around him we watch, try to keep our mouths shut, and are prepared to move in if the child tries too much. We can move in too often...or not move in enough on the child's actions...either extreme is not healthy for the child. The key is PAYING ATTENTION TO THE CHILD, BEING THERE, LETTING HIM/HER KNOW WE CARE ABOUT WHAT HE/SHE IS DOING...LETTING THEM KNOW THAT WE THINK THEIR BEHAVIOR IS IMPORTANT. Probably no one can substitute for the pareanin this situation. SUCCESSES: With our power we can set up situations where the child learns what success is about...we set up games or problems or situations where the child is able to do a good job. If we are doing some work (wash- ing the dishes, writing a letter, raking the lawn) we allow the child to be involved to the extent he/she is able, and we are patient with the child in doing as much as they are able...and PRAISE the child for what he/she is able to do. We PAY ATTENTION to them when they ask for an attentive reaction to what they are doing...all this takes is time and investment in the child's behavior...and it is SO IMPORTANT, that is WE, AS PARENTS, are so important. 91 Parent Education Course Session II (cont) II. a. So, we do not interact with the child to show him/her how smart WE are (at least not very often), but to teach the child how smart it can be. b. We think about why we are controlling the ' child's behavior...are we doing it for THEIR good or because it makes US feel good. If it is because it makes US feel good, at least we should tell the child that is the reason we are controlling him/her. c. We should be aware that our child does need controls, needs guidance that is not over- powering. ATTENTION needs to be paid to what the child is doing. d. How we use our power: In a way that is con- sistent (generally the same over a period of time) and not overcontrolling; this helps the child develop INTERNAL CONTROLS (that is, learn how to act the proper way even when we are not around to oversee how he/she acts). MAYBE WE CAN SEE HOW PARENTING BECOMES A TYPE OF CREATION...ALLOWING THE CHILD TO GROW ALONG THE LINES HE OR SHE IS INTENDED TO GROW, BUT THE SAME TIME WE ARE TEACHERS WHO THE CHILD CANNOT DO WITHOUT: neither to twist or break but gently stroke and groom; be a fence around the child's life situation, but have the field wide enough that the child can explore. Let's talk about developmental needs and the child's move from dependence to independence...can we think of examples of this? Let's look at how we affect our children as regards this dependence-independence. Do we spend time helping our child have successes? At any age of his/her development? 92 Parent Education Course Session III 1. Last week we talked about how the child tends toward independence even as it is dependent on the parent; and how important it is for the parent to interact (be active) with the child, and how powerfully our acting with the child affects him or her. A. PARENTING 8 THE PARENT'S PRESENCE AS AFFECTING THE CHILD. 1. We know: That parenting is the part the parent plays in helping an individual child grow and develop into a grown person, the type of person the child is supposed to become according to its potential. That our child is an individual just as we, as a parent, are an individual. Our chiId, though not a grown up adult, is a real individual person who is moving away, gradually, from being the "son" or "daughter" of you or me only, but also an individual in his or her own right (but is still not on his or her own two feet as yet). That the person (you or me) who does the parenting is very important to the child because our child needs attention, security, acceptance, trust to try being on his/her own. We "important others" (parents) provide these things. Parent interacting with ('being with') our child: Passively 'being with' our child: just sitting with a son or daughter at times. 'Doing' with the child: let the child help pick out the food at the store (we are talking about very young children too), picking with you where to sit at McDonalds, doing the dishes with, cleaning the house with, reading the book With...our child. 'Listening' to the child when he or she speaks. When an adult (our mother, husband, wife, dear friend, someone next to us in the car) speaks to us and we ignore the adult, keep talking to another, or tell the adult to 'shut up', that behavior is considered 93 Parent Education Course Session III (cont) an insult to the adult, and we certainly do not want anyone to do such a thing to us. BUT how often do we ignore our childfwhen it is speaking to us about something which is very important to the child (in most cases). The child is a person just as much as an adult. The child has a right to be heard, and is insulted (made to feel unimportant and as if his words are not important) when not heard. When we cannot listen we can ask their pardon for not listening; explain to them then (if not later) why we can't listen. They are smart enough at even age 3 to understand! 'Listening' means paying attention to what our children are saying: (1) we can learn what their needs are; and (2) we can become real experts on parenting because they will show us how to fulfill their needs; and (3) they can say such wise and amusing things most of the time! OF COURSE, our child has to learn when is the most opportune time to speak, learn not to interrupt unnecessarily, not to talk too loud or too soft, to speak clearly; and our job as parent-teacher is to teach our child how to do these things...and few teachers, if they are good ones, teach by saying things like: "shut up!", "be quiet!", "speak when you are spoken to!" Much of young and older children's "nasty” behavior is for getting attention when they are ignored, or reacting to the insult of being ignored "Being with our child" is not so much being there all the time or even a lot of the time...many of us work, have to pay attention to others (child- ren and adults), be away at times. It is not how much time we spend with the child (after a base minimum amount), but the QUALITY of our time spent with our child, i.e., what we do with our time with our child, really listening in reaction to a child's question, not ignoring, and other negative things. 94 Parent Education Course Session III (cont) We don't have to interact as "boss" all the time. It is impossible to be a boss all the time, and so uninteresting! Being a friend to our child is great too; not just a friend, but a PARENT WHO IS A FRIEND. The parent is needed to give order to the child's life. B. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILD AS AFFECTING THE PARENT??!! We parents: Are persons with individual needs; we were not born parents. Husbands and wives need to be together at times as lovers; single parents may need to date with members of the opposite sex, a parent may be married to a step-parent of the child. It becomes a question of the parent's rights versus the child's rights, at times. Need to tell our child about our needs as persons; we should give credit to the child in understanding our needs...they DO understand if we tell them clearly and take time to understand and fulfill the child's needs. Get help from the child in how to balance us parent's and the child's rights of attention and our own rights to things. This teaches the child that he has to think of others...the child has to learn (and this begins in earnest in early adolescence) that the parent is a person with personal needs... parents should not hide this need from the child even as they are trying to fulfill the needs of the child. Can compare our needs to the child's needs and it teaches us that they are individuals and not just a "son" or "daughter"...and this aids them in becoming independent from us eventually. Need to enjoy parenting, enjoying the expertise of being a mother or father, and SEE THIS PARENTING AS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT TO LIFE... OURS AND THE CHILD'S. 95 Parent Education Course Sessiqnlll (cont) 11. Let's talk about our children as individuals and how we interact with them, listen, do things with them. Let's talk about understanding the child's needs as important and at the same time assessing our (we parents) needs as important too, because both the child and parent are persons. Let's talk abcnt sitting down and talking over mutual needs with the child, always realizing that we have more options to behavior, more expertise to act than our growing child. We are not equals in being able to fulfill our needs; the child is much more dependent on us than we are on the child. Do we really enjoy parenting? If not, why not? 96 Parent Education Course Session IV In the last session we discussed our child's need to have us pay attention to him/her, our actively interacting with the child and passively listening and paying attention to our child. THIS WEEK: I. WE PARENTS AS TEACHERS (...OR, OUR CHILD PAYS CLOSE ATTENTION TO US) The parent foster child behavior. The baby, the young child, is very dependent on the parent for nearly everything, and so: 1. The child spends a great deal of time observing the parents very closely; for example: the baby being held and concetrating its vision on the mother's eyes and upper face area (and our eyes and face area often express our emotions); or the child watching the parent express anger (watching 333 the parent expresses anger). From the parent the child learns when to express or show behavior, for example, when to cry, smile, show anger (and how to show it). The child learns WHEN to express the emotions, or when to cover the expression of emotions. For instance, the oriental parent may teach its child to cover outward expressions of emotion. The child learns HOW to express emotion--fear, saddness, joy, or show fear with anger or with a smile. The child learns (to some extent) WHAT to be afraid of, for instance, it may learn fear of lightning from watching the reaction (fearful) of the parent to seeing lightning. THE PARENT DOES NOT GIVE THE CHILD ANY FORMAL TRAINING IN THIS MATTER, BUT THE PARENT'S ACTIONS ARE WATCHED AND THE CHILD SUBTLY, AND DEEPLY TAKES IN THE PARENT BEHAVIOR AND IMITATES IT. B. The parent fosters value development in the child. We mean by 'values' what the parents hold as important in life, be it money, status, altruism, freedom, thoughtfulness, material objects, a sense of justice, and the like. 97 Parent Education Course Session IV (cont) Our child has a close relationship with us parents (we call it love), and so, what the parent does is imitated, accepted, followed. The parent is modeling behaviors all the time. The child remembers what it sees, and uses that behavior when situations come up similar to those times when it was the parent use the behavior. So, the child will avoid facing problems in the same way we do as parents, and when we are angry and show it by hitting someone or some- thing, so will the child; if we show an interest in education (and that can be in the form of getting actively involved with the child in his schooling situation) so will the child. If we show love, nurturance, patience, good humor, try to organize our lives, so will the child. THAT IS, TO A GREAT EXTENT, WHAT WE WANT OUR CHILD TO HOLD AS VALUABLE IS CLOSELY RELATED TO WHAT WE SHOW THE CHILD BY OUR BEHAVIOR. C. Parents foster behavior options in the child. 1. If we express our emotions in a number of ways, then we are teaching our child different ways of acting in the same situation. For example, we may show anger or impatience at times by hollering or hitting; but if we think about it, if we know ahead of time that we are going to get angry, we can plan how we will act, and more effectively show our anger...by talking it out... telling the child why we are angry. Talking it out with the child will help us figure out really why we are angry - then the child can and will try to avoid situations which make us angry. "Do as I say, and not as I do," says the parent. Be wary of this saying...the child may do what the parent SAYS IN FRONT OF THE PARENT, and do as the parent DOES away from the parent; for example, the parent shows aggressive anger in front of the child, but forbids the child to act aggressively, and the child may take 98 Parent Education Course Session IV (cont) out his aggressive behavior on the school playground, or toward the teacher, or toward siblings. We are not saying aggression is wrong; we are saying that the child will do what he sees the parent do. 11. THE CHILD AND CONTROLS A. Controls are the parent's expression of the limits on the child's behavior which he feels are necessary... controls are also the limits a child NEEDS in order to know what is expected, in his or her own behavior. B. The child wants these control limits even as he/she complains about them. One problem is that at times the parents are not consistent or clear on the controls. C. Parents should view controls as positive, and teach their children about them as positively. D. The controls should be wide enough (give enough "space") to allow the child to experience things, but not so wide that the child is not clear as to what is expected of him or her. The average child in trouble has not enough controls, and the controls are inconsistently enforced. Too few controls or too many controls negatively affect the child. All we are learning about the child's needs helps us to know how strict we should be on controls for our child (how narrow or wide the controls should be). In general, the child should be given wider control areas as it gets older, and at the same time be given experiences under supervision of the parent to give it "practice” in freedom. We should be slow to assume that if the child is given freedom it will do wrong. We should give them chances to try things on their own, things which match their age. At the same time we want them to know we are interested in what they are doing because: Parent Education Course Session IV (cont) 1. We are interested in them. 2. They want our attention. 3. We want them to know we feel they are competent. 4. We are their teachers and want to help them learn. III. DISCIPLINE; ENFORCER OF CONTROLS A. Discipline is the means of showing the child the limits of its behavior and keep it within those limits. The child has to learn gradually about what are the limits of its behavior. The young child does not do the "wrong" thing on purpose, that is, it does not want to do evil, but because it needs attention or through ignorance (we'll talk more about this later regarding older kids). The child GRADUALLY learns to behave in an acceptable ("good") way AS TAUGHT BY MOM AND DAD, and evantually they will act in an acceptable way even when the parent is not present. What discipline is best?...spanking, threatening, grounding, withholding privileges, talking it over with the kid? (We will talk about this next week! Think about it.) 1. Do you realize how effective you can be as a teacher to your child? Do you know how important you are to the child because you are THE teacher, and no other teacher can take your place? 2. Are emotions evil; are the expression of them evil?? 3. Give some feedback to each other on just how you view controls. 100 Parent Education Course DISCIPLINE (continued) Session V We continue the discussion of discipline, or how we parents attempt to keep our child within the limits of behavior we set for the child. I. WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DISCIPLINE A CHILD? From our interviews with parents it seems that they know what type of discipline is best for the individual child; still we should remember the following items concerning discipline: A. Before punishing the child we should be sure it is really doing something deserving of punishment. The child may not know it is doing wrong, may not know there is a rule that it has broken. The child is learning priorities in behavior, for example, has to make a choice between disobeying mom or pleasing a friend; or skips school to avoid looking stupid in class because it doesn't know the class material well, is being kidded because he or she is not clean (but knows that he or she should be in school). The child may even think: "Mom or dad don't really care if I go to school since they don't pay much attention to what I do at school."). B. We parents should be rational in our discipline, that is, know why we are punishing... l. A Valid "WHY" is: NOT because I am tired someone other than the Would I accept another must because the other or angry (possibly at child I am punishing. adult hollering at me adult is tired or frustrated at something or someone else?). NOT because someone who is not responsible for my child tells me I must punish the child. BECAUSE our child needs order and limits in its life, and discipline emphasises these limits. BECAUSE our child needs to know there are certain behaviors a parent cannot allow, and that other people also have rights. 101 Parent Education Course Session V (cont) Rational discipline also means that we spend time telling our child why the behavior is demanded or forbidden, and we LISTEN to the child's reason for its behavior...children have intelligence and understand a good reason for acting properly...and children want to please us parents. If the messages our child receives from us are clear and consistent obedience will usually follow. Punishment usually hurts the child's body or feelings, so it seems reasonable that we parents use reason when administering discipline. 2. Consistency. How we are feeling at the time should not dictate whether we punish or not, that is, to punish when we are in a bad mood and not to discipline when we are in a good mood; to smile at misbehavior at one time and frown on it at another time according to how we feel. The poor child! He or she is getting double messages from us and becomes quite confused about what are the real control limits we expect of him or her. On the other hand, when we are consistent the child learns from his parent teacher that one does not act or behave just because of feeling or the mood of the moment. Our child needs to see ORDER in his world if he or she is able to cope with, and grow in, the world. Consistency shows order, and consistency, order---both begin in the home. C. Aggression in discipline. When we are consistently aggressive in punishing our child, we are teaching the child to act aggressively, and we may be unnecessarily frightening our child. D. Discipline and the child's age. The child's age affects how much control our child needs and how much control-we can enforce. For example, to discipline a 14 year old by spanking or hitting will have little, if any, positive effect, and possibly set up the child to hit back (especially if such behavior has been shown in the past by the parent). SO...CONTROLS FOR THE CHILD ARE NEEDED, AND PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO ENFORCE CONTROL LIMITS 102 Parent Education Course Session V (cont) WITH DISCIPLINE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUNISHMENT AND CONTROL: SOME CONTROL IS ALWAYS NEEDED: PUNISHMENT IS NOT ALWAYS NEEDED TO CONTROL THE CHILD..TALKING AND LISTENING TO THE CHILD IS A BIG AID IN CONTROL. II. ADOLESCENCE. A. What is it? 1. Physically, the child has entered puberty; the girl has begun menstruation and breasts enlarge. Both sexes' pubic and axillary hair appear and the boy's voice changes. The girl begins this period earlier than the boy. Mentally, the youth begins to think about abstract things like goodness or evil (and becomes very righteous about OTHERS, especially authority--represented by the parent, teachers, police, God)...and the youth will test truths, test authority limits. HE/SHE IS TESTING THE LIMITS, BUT STILL NEED AND WANT THE LIMITS. IF WE PARENTS DO NOT HAVE A VERY RATIONAL REASON FOR OUR OWN BEHAVIOR, OR THE BEHAVIOR WE DEMAND OF THE YOUTH IS NOT REASONABLE, our youth will question us, and often not follow what we demand. Psychologically. Because the youth is looking at, and expected to act, in part, as an adult (but having little experience of such acting), he or she becomes confused at times ("HOW should I act in this situation?"). Inside he feels awkward, ineffective, BUT, OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE KID-STUFF FOR HIM/HER TO ASK US ADULTS FOR ADVICE..and we often refuse to look into the "why" of their actions. The adolescent may feel sad and depressed and not know the cause. This may be part of the reason why he/she often answers our questions with "I don't know". The youth are naturally tending strongly toward freedom, independence. We expect them to act independently more often, but our adolescent often does this to extremes, especially if we have not given him/her much practice at it earlier in life, or if our past reasons for controlling the youth didn't make much sense all along. 103 Parent Education Course Session V (cont) Our adolescent demands independence from we parent authorities, but we do not dare NOT demand controls or limits on his/her actiEns or the youth will scream that we do not love and appreciate him/her. In fact, our adolescent wants us to say we love him/her and are proud of the youth (just as when he/she was small), BUT OF COURSE, the youth is not sure at times if it is adult of him/her to receive our affec- tionate advances as when they were small. B. What do we parents DO with our child's adolescence: l. CONTINUE BEING A TEACHER. A GOOD teacher drops a few facts, watches the reaction (mostly to see if the student understands) and part of this watching is LISTENING. (WE PARENTS USUALLY DO SOOOOOO MUCH TALKING TO OUR ADOLESCENT.) Our message should be CLEAR, understandable, and then we must accept the fact that our child has brains and has heard what we said, and repeating our message is useless for making the message clearer. What will our message consist of? a. Our values on education, sex, duty, cleanliness, the youth's part in keeping the family functioning (remembering always our youth is learning to be an adult and will make mistakes). b. That we parents are human beings and not JUST parents (most parents fear to tell their child that the parent was not born a parent); we parents have human needE—just as the youth, our adolescent has needs. This means, of course, that we have to give up the heavy control of a parent over our youth. They are beginning to move away from us even as they hold on to us, and as they begin to realize our human needs. c. That the adolescent's behavior has an effect on others (this can be taught from age 5), and that there are consequences of his/her behavior over which weparents have very little control. If we can't control them we had better let our youth know clearl what can happen to him/her as a result of BeEavior. By the way, we just 104 Parent Education Course Session V (cont) confuse the issue if we tell our adolescent that he/she will break our heart (as well might be true) by doing a certain act, or that we won't love them if they do a certain act (which is probably not true). They know the facts; a good teacher (parent) is most effective when the parent gives FACTS (what will really happen when one behaves a certain way). 2. NEGOTIATE. Our youth needs to learn to negotiate if he or she is going to make it in the real world. Let's give our adolescent some practice at home. He/she loves to practice it anyway. A parent can negotiate time, clothes, duties, study, that is, trade off these things in part for things that the youth wants, e.g., YOUR listening ear, YOUR understanding, love, and patience, YOUR praise, YOUR being there. (WE'LL CONTINUE THIS NEXT TIME.) III. FEEDBACK A. B. Can we parents be always consistent? Can we EVER get angry at our children? or can we ever hit them? Let's talk about some rewards we parents get from our adolescent. 105 Parent Education Course Session VI Adolescence (continued) I. We have talked already about the adolescent youth's normal desire to be more independent. Let's go on to other facts about the normal adolescent. A. Normal adolescent facts and adolescent needs: 1. Self-doubt. Our adolescent may act "cool", reject advice of us parents, (that is, cover up his/her self-doubt), but he/she lacks experience and is under pressure from peers (who are in the same boat of self-doubt BUT covering) which causes the adolescent to make mistakes BUT forge ahead (well, not always ahead); the parent can see extremes of acting like an adult and a shift to acting like a child...all a part of self-doubt, not being sure what to do as an adolescent. Need for attention (from parents). Remember how we learned that babies and young children need attention? This is the same for the adolescent, but we parents must be more subtle, less obvious in our attention, not be too pushy. Now our child needs more "listening" attention, and a fewer directive statements from us. Need for honest interaction with parents. The youth will feel often isolated from peers and society; he/she needs parents open to the adolescent. The adolescent needs to talk about experiences, about his/her job future, study hopes and failures, and this is in order to learn about his/her options. We parents are the proper "experts" in this area. A parent can and should understand the adolescent's fear of failure and doubts. The parent is sensitive to the need for the adolescent to receive encouragement and praise in any success (big or small). We parents may not know the answer to the adoles- cent's problem or hope, but we can call the school counselor, Youth Services Unit, the principal of a school, a possible employer. Like ANY 106 Parent Education Course Session VI (cont) GOOD TEACHER, WE parents may not have the knowledge at our fingertips but we have the experience to call or get in touch with someone who can help us help our child. It might be a help to our adolescent and ourselves for us to take some formal education courses (as we are now in this class). B. PEERS (same age group friends) 1. C. SEX Peers are important to the adolescent, but only increase in importance insofar as we parents do not have time to be with our adolescent. The parent is still the value giver to the youth (even as the youth may object to the values!); the kind of clothes they wear, the language they use are the only two things that the adolescent usually gets from peers. Our adolescent goes to peers to learn about crucial matters only insofar as he/she cannot get if from the parent. For an adolescent to be forced to work out basic values with peers is a case of the "blind leading the blind". On the other hand, we parents have to give our adolescent a chance to gain experience with peers; we have to place trust in them. At the same time we have to be interested in what the adolescent is doing, pay attention to him/her, listen to them. Our adolescent may know the mechanics of sex, that is, "how to do it", but we shouldn't assume this is true. We parents need to explain our values on, and the facts about, sex, remembering our biases (for instance, if we feel sex is dirty, we may need some help from a teacher on factual sex). There is a deep emotional part to sex and our adolescent has a difficult time handling it. He/she has guilt feelings, feels inadequate when first interacting with members of the 107 Parent Education Course Session VI (cont) opposite sex or listening to peers brag (but most likely lying) about their sexual successes. Again, our objective knowledge and understanding are so important to the adolescent. 3. Studies show that the adolescent learns about his/her sexual values primarily from us parents. It seems obvious that we should give honest, clear messages on our sexual values. We parents should think: How some see sex as exploitation of another; some young women see themselves only as sexual objects and secondly as a person. It means they will be used by sexual partners. About the joy and pleasure of healthy sexual relationships. That our sexual activity should be as responsible as possible, both to protect our own self esteem and that of others. That beauty in personality is at least as valuable as that of the body. D. CONTROLS The last thing we will discuss on adolescence is the need for controls for our adolescent. We have discussed it already, but will expand on it a bit as a bridge to the next item we study. Our adolescent resents controls usually, unless he/she imposes them on him or herself. This is a good attitude in a way, because our youth must learn to act properly when we parents are not around, and so needs practice in acting independently of us. BUT our youth will never be entirely independent. There are people outside of our home to take our place: teachers, principals, police, neighbors, store clerks, and others. They can be a help or a hindrance to us and our youth. The more we know about them, the more they know us. As persons, as people who love our children and want the best for them, the more help they can be to us and our youth. We cannot simply say, "It's their job to control my kid when he/she is out there." If this is 103 Parent Education Course Session VI (cont) our attitude then those outside-the-home authorities may well think we don't care about our child or the teacher (parent). Most of these authorities are there to give services to us and our child; maybe we should get to know them as much as possible. For instance, THE SCHOOLS. When our child is younger and if in care of a babysitter, we do not allow the sitter to take over our child's life with no consultation as to what the sitter is to do with the child. Our child spends at least half of its waking hours in school under the control of teachers who take an important part in preparing our child for the future. The teachers control and teach values to our child, yet we spend little time with the teacher, the principal, the counselor, unless something "goes wrong". It seems logical that we would spend a great deal of our time helping that everything goes RIGHT for our child. Our school personnel are trained to teach and handle children, but there is no teacher capable of (or who has the right to) take on full responsi- bility of control and education of our child! IF the teacher or principal if forced into a situation like this, the CHILD suffers and often fails, our child loses the natural motivation to learn, feels out of place and not fitted to school; tries hard to please the parent and the school by attending; but gets far behind in studies and, finding him/herself in an impossible (no-win) situation, gives up. SO, LET'S THINK ABOUT THE FOLLOWING IDEAS: We parents are the primary teachers of our children; if we show an active interest in their schooling, their interest Will be there too. The schools want us parents involved, attend school functions, ask teachers how our child is doing, studying, getting along. The school needs volunteers like us to spend a few hours working with younger children in our school (where our child attends) and to spend time with the child looking at his/her schoolwork. This may be boring at first, but we will become interested in it for no other reason than the positive reaction we receive from our child. 109 Parent Education Course Session VI (cont) III. Spend time talking with the child about each day; and we have to listen closely to what our child says about school. Our teachers are models too, for our child; let's get to know the teacher(s) a little, as well as the principal and counselor...they are peOple just as parents are people. They need encourage- ment once in a while, need praise from us, and some thanks when they do a good job with our child. The praise helps them and helps our child...and will change our child's feelings for the teacher. OBJECTIONS TO THE ABOVE: As a parent I am not enough educated. But our study shows that our parents are not as uneducated as they think. We parents are more "educated" to the needs of our child then anyone else. We, as good teachers know that we can ask for help in our helping our child--the important phrase here is OUR HELPING; again, the schools want us to be involved; and finally, we have the right and DUTY to be involved, since school is so important to our child's success. INSTITUTIONS IN THE COMMUNITY SET UP FOR US. A. B. The School (above) The Youth Services Unit (police: primarily works in the school to prevent the child from getting into heavy trouble; these officers with to help the parent help the child. We can go to them: phone 788-4108). Family Services 6 Beth Moser: If the family needs counseling. The Juvenile Court: sees the child as a non-adult and wishes to help if at all possible. State department of Social Services, Catholic Social Services, the Salvation Army: These agencies and other like them, are set up to serve us. 110 Parent Education Course Session VI (cont) WE BELIEVE IN PARENTS, THAT IS, WE FEEL THAT PARENTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYONE WHEN IT COMES TO THE CHILD. WE ARE PROUD OF PARENTS, NO ONE CAN REALLY TAKE THE PARENT'S PLACE. WE'LL BE IN TOUCH WITH YOU DURING THE MONTHS THAT FOLLOW. PLEASE CONTACT US IF WE CAN AID YOU TO AID YOUR CHILD. APPENDIX B 111 PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM Referral Form PARENTS Father Mother Address / /Phone / Phone Yes/No / (In contact with another social agency? Which ones?) Child Age Sex Living with (the one having the problem) (which parent) School School contact person REFERRED BY of Phone Date The child's problem (reason parent is being referred, e.g., child is truant, stealing, incorrigible, etc.) Additional information which may aid in interviewing the parent (e.g., Does the parent seem to want help; does she (he) blame the child; are other children in the family having problems). Please send referral to , Youth Service Unit or to , Public Schools, --can phone , at or APPENDIX C 112 Initial Contact Statement First Contact with Referred Parent (via phone conversation) "I am Vince Hoffman, from the schools, and I was told by , that I might be of help to you." As a result of efforts by the Youth Services Unit, the Schools, and the Probate Court, an experimental program to aid a parent in helping his or her child who is in trouble because of truancy, running away, and other unacceptable acts on the child's part, and the child not yet being formally involved with the court. Through referral from the school, the Youth Services Unit, and Probate Court Intake, the parent of a child (between age 6 and 14) can be directed to take part in a didactic-discussion education course offered at college level and for college credit; the course presents parents with knowledge about child behavior along developmental lines, the effects of the parent on the child's behavior, the role of parent as teacher in the home; and there is an opportunity for the parent to discuss these principles as applied to his or her own situation. Part of the course also acquaints the parent with the different agencies in the community which are at the service of the parent, along with the explanation of those agencies' purpose. The short term course (one session a week for a total of six weeks) are being offered at different intervals over the next few months, and will have about 10 parents to a class. For those parents who need financial help to attend the course tuition scholarships are being offered by the Parent Education Program. I am the project director and can be reached through the school attendance office, the Youth Services Unit or the Intake Section of the Court. As a result of research being done on the program it is hoped that recommendations can be made for an ongoing Parent Education Program which fits the needs of the parents in our community. So you will be helping not only yourself but other mothers and children. (If parent wants the interview, a specific date, time and place are agreed on for conducting the interview.) 113 Interview Procedure INTERVIEW-MEASURE PROCEDURE Interviewer does the initial contact and sets up the appointment for the first interview and administration of the measures. Items: --dress nice but not distinctive —-during interview be in control but open, loose, accepting, cheerful --Interviewer position during the administration of the interview and measures: --Interviewer will have and reads from his own copies of the measures, and the instructions and the questions should all be read to the parent. I. The Interview After the introductions interviewer opens the interview with: "You have had an explanation of the program but I would like to go over it again with you so that everything is clear." --The class is an education class, not counseling; --It is for college credit / a scholarship available; --Read the scholarship form to the parent; first write in the time spread (i.e., today's date to April 30, 1978); --Have parent sign the intent section - we can sign the scholar- ships section 1ater...and send the parent the original after we copy it. - not a high school grad? ..no problem - in-class writing is not emphasized or homework...listen to principles and discuss them with other students. --Course: 6 classes, one night a week for six weeks; 2% hours/ session; 9-11 students in a class; each class if one hour teaching and the rest discussion at to applying the principles. --Course will begin sooner or later for the parent by luck of the draw. 11. Child not involved, but interviewer will be in touch with the child's school, Youth Service Unit (police), possibly another agency to let them know you are taking the course, and a YSU person or school counselor will fill out (later) a questionnaire on the child...without interviewing the child in any way. 114 Interview-Measure Procedures (continued) III. Release of Information Form Read it to the parent and have her (him) sign it, and interviewer signs it and dates it...fills in school name, YSU and other agency name if needed before the parent signs the paper. IV. The Measures - (administer in the order they are set up) read all instructions and questions to the parent. --Given to see if the course is going to be a success and aid in setting up a course later of for the whole community's parents. 80 the parent is helping other parents even as he/she is being helped. --"Okay, now for the measures. We have read them together. (Try not to give examples other than those in the text.) -—Be consistent over parents. --Explain that a similar interview will be done a few months in the future. V. Explain that parent will be notified in a few days as to when the course will begin. APPENDIX D 115 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY l)!zl‘»\R'l‘\l|-..\”I OF PSYCHOLOGY EAST LANSING ' MICHIQA\ ' 4882-1 ()1 [)5 ”Al I. SCHOLARSHIP AUTHORIZATION for PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM I intend to participate in the Parent Education Program for the period beginning and ending . I understand that participation in this program involves my attending and participating in classes on the assigned dates of the schedule and filling out of questionnaires given by the director of this program. I further understand that I am free to withdraw from the program at any time. Signed student has been awarded a scholarship which covers tuition and any reading material used by this student during the Parent Education Program course. Signed Vincent J. Hoffman Director Parent Education Program Dated APPENDIX E 116 Release of Information Form RELEASE OF INFORMATION Child's Name As the legal parent/guardian of the above named child I hereby give my permission for Vincent J. Hoffman to receive information from 9 , pertaining to this child's behavior (conduct), studies, study habits, the child's relationship to the agency and other agencies. I understand that this information will be used only to aid in the analysis of the Parent Education Program during the period of the study, and any personal information will be destroyed at the end of this period. I also understand that any information obtained will ramin confidential and will not be used to identfy my child or members of my family except to gather data for evaluation of the Parent Education Program. At the completion of this program I may receive a report of the program's results. My signature properly witnessed beting the above agencies' authority to give this information. Signed Date Witness APPENDIX F 117 Parent-Child Data Sheet Grp. # Date / / Mother Father I . NAME / Child with ( ) ( ) Both ( ) Marital (Together, living with new spouse, etc.) Age /Race /Education / / (W,B,other) (in years) Working / / / Yes/No Occupation Children / / / / / / (age; sex-m,f; natural-n, step-s, adopted-a) Problem (Identify by age: CIRCLE the child who is the occasion of the referral) Parent: Local born ( ); Resident ( ) years/ ( ): ( ) Contact: / / ; / / / / ; / / (with other community agencies/which/how long) II. Address Home Order III. CHILD P.E. Intent form: Name /Age /Sex /Grade INFORMATION REL: / (Yes/No/Date) School: ; Contact: Title: Other: ; Contact: Title: Health: Normal ( ); Problems: Physical ( ); Other ( ): Problem Its duration ; Cause Parent's months/years relation to None/Yes APPENDIX G 118 Parent Attitude measure We are asking these questions to find out how parents feel about being parents. Instructions: To the right of each statement are 5 choices from which you choose ONE by placing a X on the line under your choice. There arE—ho "right" or WWFong" answers...mark as you feel it should be marked. Strongly Unde- Dis- Strongly Agree Agree cided agree Disagree 1. Parents have to sacrifice every- thing for their children. 2. Parents should help children feel they belong and are needed. 3. When you come right down to it, a child is either good or bad, and there's not much you can do about it. 4. The earlier a child is weaned from his/her emotional ties to its parents the better it will handle its own problems. 5. Most parents aren't sure what is the best way to bring up a child. 6. There is no reason why a child should not learn to keep his/her clothes clean very early in life. 7. A child should be allowed to try out what he/she can do at times without the parents watching. 8. It's hard to know what to do when a child is afraid of something that won't hurt him/her. 9. A child who wants too much affection may become a "softie" if it is given to him/her. 10. Family life would be happier if parents made children feel they were free to say what they think about everything. 119 Parent attitude measure (continued) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Strongly Agree Children must be told exactly what to do and how to do it or they will make mistakes. I feel I am faced with more problems than most parents. A child who misbehaves should be made to feel guilty and ashamed of himself/ herself. Children don't realize that it mainly takes suffering to be a good parent. Some children are so naturally headstrong that a parent can't really do much about them. A child's ideas should be seriously con- sidered in making family decisions. Why children behave the way they do is too much for anyone to figure out. Few parents have to face the problems I find with my children. If you let children talk about their problems they end up complaining even more . Children should be toilet-trained at the earliest possible time. Children have a right to activities which do not include their parents. If a child is born bad there's not much you can do about it. Children should have a share in making family decisions just as grownups do. Children who are not watched will get in trouble. Talking with a child about his/her fears most often makes the fear look more important than it is. Children have no right to keep anything from their parents. Some children are just naturally bad. Unde- Agree cided Dis- Agree Strongly Disagree APPENDIX H 120 Parent Behavior (Parent behavior with the Child and School) These questions have to do with you you, your child, , and the school are relating. Instructions: After reading carefully the question please write the number you feel applies in the ( ) at the end of the question. Answer what you really think; there are no right or wrong answers to the questions. 1. How many times in the past month have you gone to school functions such as, a play, a ballgame, which apply to your child? ( ) 2. How many times in the past month have you sat down with this child to talk about his/her school successes, for example, how he/she did well on a test, the liking for some subject he/she is studying, praise for the child from the teacher? ( ) 3. In the~ past month how many times have you contacted the school about how this child is behaving there, such as relating with other children and the teacher, being on time for class? ( ) 4. In the past month how many times have you contacted the school about how your child is studying, for example, how he/she is doing on homework assignments, paying attention in class? ( ) 5. How many times in the past month did you sit down with this child and talk over a school problem such as, difficulty in doing homework, failing a test, having trouble with schoolmates? ( ) 6. How many times in the past month have you sat with this child and talked about what he/she wants to do in the future, for example, the child might mention to be a teacher, a plumber, attend college? ( ) 7. In talking over school with this child how many times in the past month have you spoke to him/her encouragingly such as, "keep trying", "you are going to do well", "keep-5p the good work", and the like? ( ) APPEND IX I These questions have to do with how you think your child, 121 is doing. Instructions: Answer what you rally think. right or wrong answers. 10. PE In general how well does this child get along with you? In general how well does he/she get along with your other children? In general how well does he/she get along with neighborhood friends? In general how well does he/she get along with kids at school? . How cooperative is this child in doing chores at home? . How well does he/she listen and understand what you have to say? . lknv well does this child use his/her fullest abilities in school work? In general how well does this child obey home rules? . Considering his/her age how emotion- ally mature is this child? How Well does this child express himself/herself or talk openly with you? Date Parent-Child Behavior measure There are no Poor Fair Average After each question are five choices from which you choose ONE by making a X under your choice. Good can Excellent APPENDIX J 122 Parent interview questionnaire These questions are asked to learn how parents handle everyday things which come up at home. I'll ask the questions and will write down the answers you give. Answer what you really think, as there are no right or wrong answers. 1. All parents have some difficulties in raising children. In general, what has been the hardest thing about child-rearing for you? a. What have you done to help the situation? b. How has this worked out? c. (If nothing on causation) What do you think caused this situation to develop? d. How common are situations like this with other parents and children you know? e. Have you ever sought outside help in this matter? (talked it over with a friend, physician, guidance center, teacher, etc.) f. How did this work out? 2. A parent is expected to do many things--make many decisions--as a part of the job of raising children. Some of these things are fun, some are not so much fun. As you think about it, what are the things that please you most about being a parent? (What advantages do you have over a person without children?) a. (If not already answered) In what way do you feel that you are most effective as a parent? (In what way are you best as a parent?) b. How do you account for this? (Any other causes?) (What made you this way?) 3. What are the things that worry you most about being a parent? (What worries do you have that a person without children wouldn't have?) a. What brings them (these things about), causes them to happen? b. (If not already answered) In what way do you feel most ineffective as a parent? (In what way are you worst as a parent?) c. How do you account for this (ineffectiveness)? 4. Sometimes it's hard to know just where to draw the line with children. How much freedom do you allow your children? (Strict? Lenient? Flexible?) a. Can you give some examples? (Activities, responsibility for school, allowance, choice of playmates, etc.) b. How do families in the neighborhood handle situations like this? c. Are there some children you would prefer he or she didn't play with? (if so, why?) d. How does he or she feel about this? 123 Parent interview questionnaire (continued) 5. Sometimes it's necessary to punish a child. What method of punish- ment do you usually use? a. b. c. d. Any others (if necessary). What kinds of things do you usually have to punish your child for: How do these methods work? How often do you have to punish your child? 6. Most all families have trouble getting along from time to time. Where does the trouble usually occur in your family? a. b. C. d. (If not already answered) What kinds of situations seem to cause the most trouble in your family? (If not already answered) What members of the family are most often involved (or cause the trouble)? Is there anyone outside the family who regularly has much to do with the care and upbringing of the children? (If so, who?) Does this relation ever cause any problems? (If answer is yes, how or what kind of problems?) 7. None of us are perfect, of course, and neither are our children. But what do you consider to be the ideal characteristics of a child about the same age as yours (most desirable qualities, the "perfect" child)? CLOUD) What about behavior (if not already mentioned)? What about getting along with others (if not already mentioned)? What about relations with parents (if not alreadn mentioned)? What do you think are the most important characteristics a person should have to be a good parent? APPENDIX K 124 PARENT INTERVIEW CODE Identification: Copy identification number from interview exactly Code Looouoxmh com—1 0 Question 1. Difficulties in raising children No information, or not covered by code Discipline--minding, obeying, making child do something, etc. Sibling rivalry, problems between children (Interpersonal--getting along with others (Responsibility Normal adjustment or (Passivity--shy, won't fight back developmental problems (Aggressiveness--rowdy, noisy (Dawdling (Other (Thumbsucking (Wetting or soiling (Eating problems Specific symptoms (Nailbiting (Withdrawal, extreme shyness (Extreme destructiveness or aggression (Phobias or fears (Other Physical health or illness, safety Financial (Inadequacy (Indecision Problem within parent (Inconsistency between parents (Lack of patience (Other States that he has no problem Question l-a. How problem handled No information, or not covered by code (Corporal--spankings, beatings, etc. Punishment (Noncorporal--withdrawl of privileges, etc. (Not specified Rewards, inducements, bribes, prizes Discussed with child, explained, reasoned, lectured, etc. Manipulated environment in some manner Changed own behavior or attitude Sought outside help of any nature or kind Has done nothing Interview Code 1 25 PagelWo Code macaw—to tochnU'I-inN-IO mpwmdo LOCDNOSU'Iwa-‘O gum—JO Question l-b. How solution worked out No information, or not covered by code Made matters worse No change Slight improvement Improvement Great improvement Question l-c. Causation No information, or not covered by code Inherited Inherent characteristic of child or children in general Physical or health Age relation--oldest, youngest, close together, only child, etc. Normal development or growth--"stages," etc. Environmental situation Culture, society--"changing times," etc. Parent's behavior or attitudes Does not know Question l-d. Commonness of problem No information, or not covered by code Unusual, unique, special situation Occasional, but not unusual Common, or fairly common Very common, quite common Present in all families, universal, widespread Question l-e. Outside help for solving problem No information, or not covered by code No outside help Mother of parent Member of family (other than mother) or relative Friend or neighbor Teacher or other school personnel Physician Individual specialist or practitioner other than physician Professional agency (Guidance Center, Family Service, etc.) Yes (not specified) Question l-f. Effectiveness of outside help No information, or not covered by code Negative evaluation Neutral evaluation Positive evaluation Interview Code 126 Page Three Code moo \IO‘U'l-b wN—‘O $0me U'I-bOON —‘O m-bWN-JO Question 2. What parents like about parenthood No information, or not covered by code Companionship Recieiving love and affection from child Achievement by the child-~growing up, development, learning (Affection or emotional Meeting child's needs, (Education, learning giving to child (Physical, health, cleanliness (General or not specified Interesting, meaningful experience, important job Help or contribution from child Question Z-a. Parental effectiveness No information, or not covered by code Guidance, direction, teaching (Physical--food, shelter, clothing, etc. Providing for, (Emotional--security, love, etc. taking care of child (Spiritual—-church, religion, etc. (Other, or not specified Supervision, discipline, control Participation with child, sharing activities, companionship Don't know Not effective Question 2-b. How account for effectiveness No information, or not covered by code Experience, practice Learned from own parents, own childhood Learned from sources other than own parents or childhood Love, material feeling, interest Don't know, just am, Just happened Interview Page Four Code mummth—‘O Code 127 Question 3. Parental worries No information, or not covered by code Behavior of child--obedience, manners, quarreling, selfishness, etc. How child will "turn out," outcome Character development Education, school grades Physical--illness, accidents, injuries Finances Separation--leaving child alone, when child is away from home Activities of child Adolescence, teen-age problems Specific symptoms--nerviousness, nailbiting, wetting, etc. Unwholesome or undesirable influences Sex education Religious or spiritual Environmental situations--moving, father's job, etc. Own adequacy Nothing, no worries Broken home--separation or divorce Omit Question 3-a Question 3-b. Parental ineffectiveness No information, or not covered by code Impatience, lose temper, cross, lack of patience, etc. Not enough time, too busy, too many outside activities Discipline--too lenient, too strict, can't make child mind Inconsistency Lack of closeness, can't "talk to" or "reach" child Lack of knowledge, education Nerviousness, easily upset Doesn't feel ineffective Omit Question 3-c Interview Page Five Code \ncnm-b wN—J O -' O‘U‘l-wa—JO \lmU'I-DWN-JO (JON-HO COde 1 2 a Question 4. Amount of freedom No information, or not covered by code Very strict Moderately strict Average, about the same as others Moderate amount of freedom Lots of freedom Varies with situation Omit Questions 4-a and 4-b Question 4-c. Parental restrictions on playmates No information, or not covered by code Yes No Omit Question 4-d Question 5 and 5-a. Methods of punishment No information, or not covered by code (Spanking, beating, whipping Corporal punishment (Use of paddle, belt, switch, etc. (Other Withdrawal of privileges, TV, cookies, etc. Confinement-~send to room, to bed, sit in chair, can't go out, etc. Verbal-~talk to, lecture, threaten Does not punish Question 59b. What parents punish for No information, or not covered by code Disobedience, not minding, not doing as told Unfairness, unkindness Lying, telling stories, untruthful Carelessness, forgetting, lack of attention, thoughtlessness Insolence, talking back, sassy Aggressiveness, fighting, fussing, quarreling Does not need punishment Question 5-c. How well punishment works No information, or not covered by code Not effective Effective (qualified) Very effective, effective Omit Question 5-d Interview Code 129 Page Six Code mooumm-wa—ao osmth—Io \IONU‘I-wa-JO (JON—'0 Questions 6 and 6-b. Family troubles No information, or not covered by code Behavior of child or children Getting ready to go out, going to bed, dawdling Family agreement on activities, where to 90, etc. Differences in age of children Physical or health Parental disagreements Lack of time, rushed, long working hours, not home enough Finances No troubles Question 6-a. Who involved No information, or not covered by code Child or children Mother Father Parents All family Others, relatives _ Others, not relatives Question 6-c. Outsiders for child care No information, or not covered by code No Yes (unspecified) Grandparent or grandparents Relative other than grandparent Unrelated individual-—neighbor, friend Agency, school, child-care center, etc. Question 6-d. Problems caused by outsiders No information, or not covered by code No Yes Equivocal Interview Code 130 Page Seven Code Questions 7, 7-a, 7-b, 7-c. Ideal child No information, or not covered by code Good interpersonal relations--gets along with others, friendly, sociable, cooperative, likes others Obedience, well-behaved Compassion, understanding, kind, considerate Intelligent, smart, educational effort and achievement Emotionally well-adjusted Respect for parents, elders, authority Honesty, fairness, truthfulness Independent, dependable, self-reliant, responsible Assertive--stands up for self, says what he thinks Appearance, grooming, neatness, cleanliness Punctuality Physical well, healthy Don't know Happy, contented Question 7-d. Ideal parent No information, or not covered by code Understanding Patience Honesty Love children, like them, want them, interest in them Moral values, religious, spiritual, right and wrong Tolerance, broad-minded, open-minded, respect others Perseverance, fortitude, emotional strength Well-adjusted, good or sound personality Sense of humor Consistency Physically well, healthy Set a good example Don't know APPENDIX L 131 Parent-Child-School (School personnel interview on the parent) Date # Child School a a z a a o H o o n a H H o. m m v-a on ._. (‘D (D :3 ('0' 1. How does this student's parent cooperate with the school in ful- filling his/her obligations to the student's schooling? 2. How is this parent's active interest in the student's general school situation? A? , agree In the past two months have you noticed a g. 3 fi 3 9. change in the parent's behavior regarding: r. :3 R S m (D 3 contacting the school regarding school functions? 4. contacting the school regarding the student's attendance? 5. contacting the school regarding the student's studies? APPENDIX M 133 Child-School (School personnel interview on the child) Date Child School 3’ a“? 3 8' E? o w- o o o H H H o. o a: H 0:: v—o (D (D = r? 1. Generally how cooperative is this student in obeying school rules? 2. How well does this stduent generally get along with fellow students? 3. In general how well does this student apply him/herself to classroom work? 4. How well does this student study in relation to his/her ability? 5. How do school personnel view this student basically as a student? 6. How well does this student generally get along with school personnel? 7. How well does this student act in the classroom (conduct)? 8. How well does this student act outside the classroom? 9. How is this student's attendance record for the past six weeks? (days absent) (10) (3) (l) (0) 10. How is this student's promptness in getting to school on time the past six weeks? (times tardy) (10) (3) (1) (O) APPENDI X N 133 Feedback Sheet Parent Education Course Last Session Date Student Name Section # 1. Could you tell us that part of the course which seemed most important to you; write it here 2. What do you feel was best about the course? 3. What did you dislike most about the course? 4. Do you think the course helped you understand your child better? 5. Do you think the course would be a help to all parents? 6. Would YOU like more courses like this? . If "Yes", do you think Yes/ho the courses should be set up like the one you have just finished? THANK YOU FOR BEING INVOLVED WITH YOUR CHILD SO MUCH THAT YOU ATTENDED CLASS THESE DARK, COLD NIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Vincent Hoffman APPENDIX 0 134 . . _\‘ ‘/ u I ‘5‘. . c I e... H Swazi as an e. 25.55.... fan... i. 1‘ a .II OIIiiilllnal .y..‘. .1 lg .. .... . .. . . . . . . ... .. . .n .. 'l“ 'Illn'.‘ -I’ INP’III I .. . .3. ‘ p a" .3»,- APPENDIX P 135 TEST FOR POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE AMONG PARENT SUBJECTS (MOTHERS) OF THE TREATMENT GROUP AS A FUNCTION OF STUDY CLASS SECTION. Analysis of covariance for Treatment Group Class Sections with Mother Attitude on Child-Raising (Parent Attitude) —'_7 ‘- Source of Variation Sum of DE Meant '_F Sighif Squares Square of F Covariate 8.08 l 8.08 .031 .860 Main Effect (class sec) 922.24 4 230.56 .892 .479 Residual 9559.41 37 258.36 Total 10489.73 42 249.75 Analysis of covariance for Treatment Group Class Sections with Mother's Perceived Behavior of Herself and the Child Regarding School (Parent Behavior) Source of Variation Sum of DE Mean F Signif Sguares Sguare of F Covariate 1918.25 1 1918.25 14.2 .001 Main Effect (class sec) 204.81 4 51.20 .38 .822 Residual 4994.71 37 134.99 Total 7117.77 42 169.47 Analysis of covariance for Treatment Group Class Sections with Mother's Perceived Be- havior of the Child (Parent-Child Behavior) ‘- ‘— f Source of Variation Sum of DE 'tuMean F Signif quares Sguare of F Covariate 424.85 1 424.85 13.60 .001 Main Effect (class sec) 212.47 4 53.12 1.70 .171 Residual 1155.83 37 31.24 Total 1793.15 42 42.69 136 Analysis of Variance for Treatment Group Class Sections with the Child-School Interaction as Perceived by the School (Child-School) Source of Variation Main Effects (class sec) 192.37 4 Residual Total Sum of DE Mean F Signif Squares Square of F 48.10 .901 .473 2028.60 38 53.38 2220.97 42 52.88 Analysis of Variance for Treatment Group Class Sections with the Parent-Child-School Interaction as Perceived by the School (Parent-Child-School) Source of Variation Sum of DE Mean F Signif Squares Square of F Main Effect (class sec) 48.06 4 12.02 .686 .606 Residual 665.94 38 17.53 Total 714.00 42 17.00 APPENDIX Q 137 T-TEST ON DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES BY EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS Experimental Control T Signif Group Group Value of T Std Std # Demographic Variable Mean Dev Mean Dev 1 Age of mother 36.9 7.9 37.6 8.6 -.41 -- 2 Race of mother (a) 1.1 .36 1.1 .39 -.31 -— 3 Educational Level of Mother (b) 11.1 1.6 10.4 1.6 1.9 -- 4 Marital Status of Mother (c) 2.1 1.3 2.2 1.2 -.62 -- 5 Does mother work (d) 1.7 .47 1.6 .50 1.2 -- 6 Is mother actively studying (e) 2.9 .31 2.8 .66 1.7 -- 7 Location of mother's birthplace (f) 1.6 .81 1.6 .84 .08 -- 8 Number of years mother in the community (b) 28.5 12.1 29.7 12.1 .45 -- 9 Number of children mother has 4.3 1.9 4.6 2.0 .90 -- 10 Social Economic Status of mother (g) 2.8 1.2 2.7 1.0 .53 -- 11 Age of Father 41.5 9.5 40.8 8.5 .42 -- 12 Race of Father (a) 1.1 39 1.1 .48 .52 -- 13 Educational level of father (b) 10.0 2.0 10.1 1.8 .28 -- 14 Marital status of father (c) 2.7 1.1 2.3 1.2 1.5 -- 15 Does father work (d) 1.1 1.2 2.7 3.9 0.3 -- 16 Is father actively studying (e) 2.9 32 2.8 .64 1.1 -- 17 Location of father's birthplace (f) 2.0 .82 1.7 .88 1.5 -- 18 Number of years father in the community 27.0 14.6 28.0 16.1 .35 -- 19 Is father living (d) 1.1 32 1.1 30 .31 -- 20 Did father participate in the study (d) l 9 21 1.9 15 - S6 -- 21 How often father has contact with child (h) 2.7 1.1 2.4 1.2 .86 -- 22 Is the child subject agrandchild (d) 1.9 .25 1.9 .25 .03 -- 23 Age of child 11.1 2.2 11.3 2.1 -.45 —- 24 Sex of child (i) 1.3 .45 1.3 .45 -.O7 -- 25 School level of child (b) 5.8 2.3 5.9 1.8 -.35 -- 26 Child's school contact (3) 1.6 .62 1.6 .5 .27 ~- 27 Child's school (k) 2.3 1.4 2.3 1.3 -.24 -- 28 Child's problem (1) 3.0 1.8 3.2 1.8 -.47 -- 29 Number of years child has problem 1.9 1.1 2.0 1.1 -.40 -- 30 Parent sees self as part of problem (d) 1.8 73 2.1 86 -l.4 -- KEY: a (l=white, 2=black); b (in years); c (l=alone, 2=w/child's father, 3=w/2nd hhsband, 4=w/another partner, 5=widoWed); d (l=yes, 2=no); e (l=high school, 2=college, 3=no); f_(l=local, 2=other); g_(1=1ow, 2=low middle, 3=middle, 4=upper middle); h (l=never, 2=often, 3=sometimes, 4=rare1y); i_(l=male, 2=fema1e); j (l=piincipal, 2=counselor, 3=police, 4=other); k (1: , 2= , 3=_’ , 4= , 5= , 6= ); l (l=truancy, 2%fighting, 3=incorrigible, 4=stealing, 5=other). '— APPENDIX R 138 Correlation Between Outcome Measures Measure 1 2 3 4 S l. Parent-Child Behavior --- .40 .61 .14 .26 2. Parent Behavior with Child and the School --- .38 .11 -.03 3. Parent Attitude -- .15 .29 4. Parent-Child-School -- .51 . Child-School "I71111111111111.1111“