University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Parent compacts in urban charter schools: an exploration of contents and processes

(USC Thesis Other)

Parent compacts in urban charter schools: an exploration of contents and processes

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PARENT COMPACTS IN URBAN CHARTER SCHOOLS: AN EXPLORATION OF
CONTENTS AND PROCESSES

by

Chuan Ally Kuzin

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFRONIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Chuan Ally Kuzin
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful first and foremost to Penny, who believed in the completion of this
dissertation more than I did myself. Thank you for your unwavering support and faith.
Thank you for your guidance and expert advice. Thank you for your patience and
understanding. In addition to Penny, I am also grateful to the CEG staff and my
dissertation committee members – Janelle, Gib, Adrianna, Jo and Cassandra – for their
encouragements. You have all taught me lessons on how to be a better student, scholar,
and person.
To my parents, who came to this country with dreams of a brighter future for their
only child; none of this is possible without you. To my wonderful husband, who dried
my tears and paid my tuition, thank you for keeping me sane and reminding me of the big
picture when I feel like failure is inevitable and any efforts futile. To my sister, Desiree,
who read and re-read my chapters more than anyone else, thank you for going above and
beyond familial duties and making my dissertation better with every suggestion. To
Ethan and Emma, who fueled my resolve to finish what I started, I did this to make you
proud.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Statement of the Problem 1

Introduction 1
The Many Dimensions and Benefits of Parent Involvement 4
The Role of Charter Schools 10
Parent Compact as Policy Solution 16
The Purpose of the Study 19
Organization of the Dissertation 20

Chapter Two: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 22

Rationale for Using Honor Code and Ethic Code Literatures 22
Studies of the Content of Codes 26
Studies of the Implementation Process 31
Studies of Code Supporting Contextual Variables 36
Application to the Study of Parent Compact 39

Chapter Three: Research Method 43

Study Design 43
Data Collection 44
Phase I Content Analysis 45
Sampling 45
Parent Compact Collection 46
Phase II Site Visit 48
Sampling 48
Interviews 50
Document Collection 52
Data Analysis 53

Chapter Four: Research Findings 57

Demographics of Sample Districts and Schools 57
The Contents and Formats of Parent Compact 62
iv

School Mission and Parent Compacts 63
Content and Format 65
Four Case Studies: Exploring Implementation Processes 71
Contextual Variables 87

Chapter Five: Revisiting the Research Model and Implications for 95
Policy and Practice

Study Propositions 95
RQ1 Proposition 96
RQ2 Proposition 97
RQ3 Proposition 99
Study Implications 106
Recommendations for Future Research 109

References 114

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Epstein’s model of school, family, and community partnership 5

Table 1.2 Parent-related charter legislation across the states 13

Table 2.1 Studies of content analysis 28

Table 2.2 Classification of the content of ethic codes 30

Table 2.3 Code processes that influence code effectiveness 35

Table 3.1 Largest urban school districts by number of charter schools 46

Table 3.2 Sample matrix 50

Table 3.3 Interview participants 52

Table 4.1 Los Angeles Unified School District profile 58

Table 4.2 Oakland School District profile 69

Table 4.3 San Diego School District profile 61

Table 4.4 Types of involvement found in parent compacts 67

Table 4.5 Case study school profiles 2009-2010 73

Table 4.6 Case study charter school compact profiles 74

Table 5.1 Finding comparison of the Becker et al Study and the current study 97

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Achievement Gap: Various Years, 1990-2007 2

Figure 2.1 Research Model for the Study of Parent Compacts Based on the 41
Work of Kaptein and Schwartz (2008)
Figure 3.1 Coding Schemes 55

Figure 5.1 Revised Research Model for the Study of Parent Compacts 105

vii

ABSTRACT

Research has shown that parent involvement activities, as outlined by Epstein
(2001), are positively associated with student achievement. In urban areas, however,
schools often face challenges in the area of parent involvement. Charter schools, as
laboratories of innovation, often utilize parent compacts as tools for parent involvement.
The goal of parent compacts is to increase parent involvement activities that support and
contribute to student achievement.
This study utilizes a qualitative case study approach to examine charter schools’
use of parent compact as a tool for parent involvement. A research model for the study of
parent compact is employed to assess the implementation processes of parent compacts.
Findings revealed that parent compacts can be utilized by schools of various sizes, ages,
grade levels, and locations as a tool for parent involvement. The contents of parent
compacts currently being used by urban charter schools included much of the activities
outlined by Epstein. Findings also showed that the proper implementation, namely the
communication, implementation, and enforcement of parent compacts along with
contextual variables such as organizational culture are keys to compact success.
This research has implications for charter school operators seeking to increase
parent involvement, as well as for policymakers who shape legislation that can mandate
and facilitate the use of parent compacts.

1

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
In an increasingly competitive global economy, helping students achieve
academically is not only a goal for parents, educators, researchers, and policy makers but
the key to America’s economic future. Unfortunately, despite efforts to boost student
achievement, results from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMMS) show that students in the United States are still being outperformed by their
peers internationally. In mathematics, 4
th
and 8
th
grade students in the United States are
ranked eleventh and ninth respectively, well below countries like Singapore, Japan, and
England (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009). Nationally, the picture is
equally grim. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for 2007
reports that merely 33% of 4
th
graders and 31% of 8
th
graders performed above the
proficient achievement level on reading. Similarly, only 40% of 4
th
graders and 32% of
8
th
graders performed above the proficient achievement level in math (National Center
for Educational Statistics, 2009). In other words, less than half of all public school
students in the United States are proficient in reading and mathematics.
Even more striking is the persistent achievement gap that exists between white
and black students and between white and Hispanic students. When the same NAEP data
is disaggregated by race, black and Hispanic students perform significantly below their
white counterparts. Figure 1.1 illustrates the achievement gap over the span of almost
two decades and shows that an over 20 point difference persists between the reading and
mathematics scores of white and black/Hispanic students (National Center for
2

Educational Statistics, 2007). In addition to standardized test scores, this disparity also
exists when we compare dropout rates, enrollment in advanced placement classes, and
college attendance (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Rumberger, 1995). All of these
indicators translate to a future workforce that is unprepared for the demands of the global
market. It is clear that an urgent need exists for research-based educational policy
interventions.
Figure 1.1. Achievement gap: various years, 1990-2007

Over the years, scholars have offered a variety of explanations for the existence of
the achievement gap. Some of these explanations include the effects of socio-economic
conditions such as poverty (Barton, 2003), the influence of institutional factors such as
curriculum and instruction (Apple, 1990), and the impact of teacher quality (Zechner,
2002) on student outcomes. But social and institutional factors only offer part of the
answer.
3

Parents are the earliest educators in their children’s lives and the role of parent
involvement cannot be ignored. While establishing a causal link between parent
involvement and student achievement has always been challenging, a large body of
research exists that shows positive and significant effects of parent involvement on both
academic and behavior outcomes (Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2005, 2007). The
achievement gap, at least in part, can be explained by the differences in the levels of
parent involvement (Lee & Bowen, 2006; Scribner, Young, & Pedroza, 1999; Tinkler,
2002). Floyd (1998) and Moles (1993), in their study of parent involvement, found that
minority parents were less involved compared to their white counterparts. Similar results
were reported by Nzinga-Johnson, Baker, & Aupperlee (2009) after surveying over 431
teachers of racially diverse kindergarten students. Lareau (2003) found that low-income
parents favored a parenting style she termed the “accomplishment of natural growth”,
where parents tend not to have a visible presence at their children’s schools. Lee and
Bowen (2006) sampled 415 elementary school students and observed that the
achievement gap is accurately predicted by race and poverty. Along with various other
researchers, the authors saw parent involvement as a possible strategy for mediating the
effects of poverty and narrowing the achievement gap (Manz, Fantuzzo, & Power, 2004;
Schreiber, 2002; Waanders, Mendez, & Downer, 2007).
Like researchers, policy makers are also interested in engaging parents in the
education of their children. In New York City, the department of education instituted a
series of reforms targeted specifically at parent engagement both individualistically and
collectively. Around 2007, Parent Coordinators were placed in every single school to
4

work with parents directly and the positions of District Family Advocates were created to
address parent concerns outside of local schools (Henig, Gold, Orr, Silander, & Simon,
2011). To better communicate with parents, an online platform, called ARIS Parent
Link, as well as P311, an extension of the city’s government and information services
telephone hotline, were established. Through these communication channels, parents
were informed about student progress and connected to classroom teachers. In addition,
parent surveys were conducted district wide and responses were published and used to
evaluate a school’s overall performance. All of these reform efforts were aimed to
involve parents and better serve students.
More recently, policy makers in California put in place a “parent trigger” law to
not only involve parents in their children’s education but harness that power to create
change. The law states that if a majority of parents (51%) with children attending failing
schools sign a petition (the trigger), that petition will result in one of four options for the
school board: 1) firing the principal, 2) bringing in an entirely new staff, 3) closing the
school, and 4) handing over the school to a charter school operator. Legislators in Texas,
Mississippi and Connecticut have already replicated California’s efforts to put more
power in the hands of parents.
The Many Dimensions and Benefits of Parent Involvement

Types of Parent Involvement
Parent involvement has largely been understood as a set of behaviors adopted by
parents in support of their children’s education. Researchers define parent involvement
by the locations of involvement (Barnard, 2004; Manz, et al., 2004), types of activities
5

(Epstein, 1995, 2001), or both (Lee & Bowen, 2006). Epstein’s (2001) model of parent
involvement is the most commonly utilized and arguably the most comprehensive
typology in the literature. Based on the theory of overlapping spheres of home, school,
and community influences that shape children’s learning and development, Epstein
classifies parent involvement into six categories: 1) basic obligations of families, 2) basic
obligations of the schools, 3) involvement at school, 4) involvement at home, 5)
involvement in decision-making, and 6) collaboration with community organizations. In
2011, Epstein updated names of each type of involvement and termed them 1) parenting,
2) communicating, 3) volunteering, 4) learning at home, 5) decision making, and 6)
collaborating with the community (Epstein, 2011). The definitions of each type remain
consistent with the older version. Examples of each type of involvement are summarized
in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1. Epstein’s (2011) Model of School, Family, and Community Partnership
Types of involvement Definitions and examples
Type 1 Parenting Type 1 activities include providing children with
basic needs such as health and safety.
Type 2 Communicating Type 2 activities include communications between
school and family such as memos, phone calls,
report cards and parent teacher conferences.
Type 3 Volunteering Type 3 activities include parents assisting teachers
in the classroom or attending school events.
Type 4 Learning at home Type 4 activities include helping children with
homework.
Type 5 Decision making Type 5 activities include parents serving on the
parent-teacher associations (PTA), committees and
other leadership positions.
Type 6 Collaborating with the
community
Type 6 activities include connections with
organizations that share responsibility for children’s
education such as after school programs, health
services and other resources.
6

Recent scholarship, bringing a more critical lens to the understanding of parent
involvement, has called Epstein’s definition into question. Auerbach (2007) critiques
Epstein’s model of parent involvement by pointing out the undue emphasis on school-
based involvement. She points to the structural constraints on parents’ actions and
relations with schools. For Auerbach, parent involvement is socially constructed and
politically contested through the lenses of race, class, culture, and gender. She presents
an alternative model by placing involvement activities on a continuum for minority
parents that range among “Moral Supporters”, “Ambivalent Companions”, and
“Struggling Advocates”. Auerbach defines moral supporters as parents who encourage
their children without making appearances at the school. On the other end of the
continuum, struggling advocates describe parents who are trying to fulfill their role
according to traditional expectations but face barriers when they try to be present at the
school. In the middle of the continuum are parents who want their children to do well but
do not make efforts to advocate on their behalf.
This strand of research, focusing attention on urban, minority, and low-income
parents shows that often educators may be unaware or unappreciative of the invisible
strategies that parents use to support their children’s education, such as making sacrifices
so children can attend better schools or limiting children’s chores to allow for study time
(Mehan, Hubbard, Villanueva, & Lintz, 1996). Lee and Bowen (2006) suggest that in
addition to homework help, home-based interactions such as parent-child educational
discussions and parents’ educational expectations represent significant examples of
involvement activities. Lopez (2001) also recommends that transmission of socio-
7

cultural values, such as “translating the lessons of working hard in the field into lessons
for working hard in school” to their high achieving children, be recognized as legitimate
parent involvement (p. 433). In addition, Delato-Gaitian (1994) shows that the cultural
narrative, “consejos”, are a way of involvement that is not recognized by traditional
models. These authors argue for an expanded conception of parent involvement that
gives value to the actions of minority parents.
While these critiques problematize Epstein’s model, it does not render it obsolete.
The basic typology can still be useful if conceptualized to include a broader array of
parent activities. For example, limiting chores to allow study time can be categorized as
Type 1 (basic obligations of the families) while transmission of cultural values (Delgado-
Gaitan, 1994; Lopez, 2001) can fall under Type 4 (involvement at home) of the Epstein
model. Instead of focusing purely on homework help, educational discussions between
parents and children can also be categorized as a Type 4 involvement activity. For the
study of parent compacts, Epstein’s model of parent involvement will be used as a
general guideline for defining parent activities while allowing flexibility to incorporate
recent critiques and expanding the list of parent activities that fall under the typology.
Benefits of Parent Involvement
Fan and Chen (2001) analyzed 25 empirical studies and concluded that the
average correlation coefficient for the relationship between parent involvement and
student achievement is close to .30. The authors point out that while this effect may
appear to be low; in the social sciences it is considered a medium effect size. Jeynes’
(2007) meta-analysis of 52 empirical studies echoed the findings of Fan and Chen (2001)
8

and showed the overall effect of parent involvement on achievement to be .53. When
Jeynes reviewed studies that sampled all minority students or mostly minority students,
the correlation was found to be .46 and .53 respectively. The authors concluded from his
analysis that parent involvement has a significant impact on the achievement of all
students regardless of race. These meta-analyses offer strong evidence in favor of parent
involvement. However, they are limited to reviewing existing literature and selecting few
variables for analysis. Empirical research on parent involvement provides a more
detailed look and offers a more nuanced understanding of the issue.
Research that found positive effects of parent involvement ranges from across the
board positive correlations to individual indicators of achievement. Astone &
McLanahan (1991), for example, compared the parent involvement of two-parent
families and single parent families and concluded that involvement practices are related
to a host of school achievement indicators, including grades, attendance, attitudes,
expectations, school retention, and degree completion. An analysis of 51 studies
conducted by Henderson and Mapp (2002) revealed that students with above-meridian
parent involvement had academic achievement rates that were 30% higher than those
students with below-medium parent involvement.
Research focused on individual indicators of achievement found that parent
involvement contributed to higher grades (Gutman & Midgley, 2000), increased
achievement in reading and an increase in positive attitudes toward literacy (Dearing,
McCartney, Weiss, Kreider, & Simpkins, 2004; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002), increased
achievement in math (Izzo, Weissberg, Kasprow, & Fendrich, 1999), higher rates of
9

homework completion (Cancio, West, & Young, 2004), and higher state assessment
scores (Sheldon, 2003). Parent involvement also accounted for other desirable academic
outcomes like lower dropout rates (Rumberger, 1995) and fewer retentions and special
education placements (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999).
In addition to grades and test scores, parent involvement appeared to have
positive effects on students’ behavior. Specifically, Brody, Flor & Gibson (1999) found
that parenting practices contributed to students’ increased ability to self regulate
behavior. Higher levels of social skills and improved overall behavior were also
documented. In a study of American Indian students, for example, researchers found that
a parent intervention approach reduced students’ classroom problem behaviors and
students were less aggressive and withdrawn after parent participation in the program
(Kratochwill, McDonald, Levin, Bear-Tibbetts, & Demaray, 2004). Using data from the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Childcare and
Youth Development, El Nokali, Bachman and Votruba-Drza analyzed 1,364 teacher and
parent surveys and found that children with highly involved parents had enhanced social
functioning and fewer behavior problems (2010). Other studies have documented the
ways in which parent involvement supports children’s social competencies in school (Hill
et al., 2004; McWayne, Hampton, Fantuzzo, Cohen, & Sekino, 2004).
Not only does parent involvement have short-term effects, but three longitudinal
studies showed long-term effects as well. These studies are unique among parent
involvement research as they attempt to trace the effects of parent involvement in early
childhood to educational outcomes later in life. Barnard (2004) examined the
10

significance of parent involvement on indicators of academic achievement nearly a
decade later and found a significant association between parent involvement in early
school and long-term school success. Specifically, the author found that parent
involvement in elementary school correlated with lower dropout rates and higher rates of
high school completion. Dearing et al. (2004) analyzed longitudinal data for 167 low-
income children to determine how family involvement during kindergarten through fifth
grade impacts students’ literacy performance. Using a sample consisting of students at
risk of educational failure, the authors found an association between higher levels of
involvement and higher levels of literacy performance. LeFevre and Shaw’s (2011)
recent analysis of data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88)
focused on the longitudinal effects of parent involvement both in school and at home.
The authors found that both forms of support were significant predictors of student
achievement.
The Role of Charter Schools
Charter schools are publicly funded schools that may be established by
individuals or groups of individuals including teachers, parents, and community
members. These founding members are given free rein to build the charter school from
scratch, physically, philosophically, and practically. They decide on the educational
mission of the school, select the governance structure, and hire a staff that shares their
vision and commitment. In exchange for this level of autonomy, the charter school
promises to deliver the “goods” by agreeing to stricter demands of accountability
(Vergari, 2002).
11

Foremost, as a form of educational reform, charter schools seek to improve
student achievement. It is the mechanisms through which charter schools propose to
accomplish this goal that distinguishes it in the educational landscape. The main
components of the charter school theory of action, according to Bulkley and Wohlstetter
(2004) are autonomy, choice and competition, and accountability. Autonomy refers to
the greater freedom charter schools have from regulations and the ability to make
governance decisions based on local needs. Instead of having a one-size-fits-all model of
education, charter schools provide a variety of options to consider. Although the level of
autonomy varies across state lines, they share a common philosophy of localized decision
making. The second element, choice and competition, refers to the alternatives charter
schools provide to the educational market. Parents used to have only the choice of public
or private schools when considering where to send their children. Those that could not
afford private schools had only the assigned school to attend. Magnet schools have
added some degree of choice to the public school system but charter schools offer open
enrollment where selection of students is often by lottery. This increases the number of
choices parents have and empowers them as consumers. If parents are not satisfied with
the school their children are attending, other public options now exist where they did not
before. This increased freedom, brings increased accountability. The competition charter
schools bring to the education system is a way for the market to control the quality of the
services provided. Charter schools that do not show adequate academic outcomes are at
risk of losing parental support and thus losing its student population. Charter schools are
also accountable to charter school authorizers, the official agency for monitoring
12

performance. A charter, which is a contract between the school and the authorizing
agency, details ways in which the school plans to carry out its educational agenda. When
a charter needs to be renewed, usually after 3-5 years, charter schools must show that
they have met their obligations in order to continue operation. While autonomy, choice,
and accountability are the main aspects of the charter school theory of action, there is also
the hope that innovations will result. Given the freedom and incentive to produce an
attractive product for consumers, it is thought that charter schools will be laboratories and
lighthouses of innovation that can ultimately improve the quality of public education in
charter and non-charter schools alike (Lubienski, 2003).
The rise of the charter school movement has been seen as an opportunity for
urban parents to play a more central role in the education of their children. Parent
involvement is sometimes referred to as the “cornerstone of many charter school visions”
(Murphy & Shiffman, 2002). A large number of charter schools have been established in
urban areas that disproportionately serve minority and low SES students (e.g. students
qualifying for free or reduced price lunch), with parents that typically have not been
highly involved in public education in the past. As such, urban charter schools have been
touted as a setting in which the traditional barriers to involvement can be alleviated, since
charters are typically small “community schools” often with multi-lingual staff. In this
vein, charter school laws in many states include providing opportunities for parent
participation as one goal behind the adoption of the law. To this end, many charter
schools are established by a founding group that includes parents (Center on Educational
governance, 2008). Table 1.2 summarizes the parent-related clauses in charter legislation
13

across the nation. Many states stress the importance of involving parents in leadership
positions and communicating with parents regularly. The greater autonomy enjoyed by
charter schools theoretically should encourage innovative parent involvement strategies
but as Becker, Nakagawa, and Corwin (1997) found in their study, using parent compacts
was one of the few strategies that distinguished parent involvement efforts in charter
schools from parent involvement efforts in traditional public schools. Beyond the fact
that charter schools utilize parent compacts, little is known about their content or
implementation process.
Table 1.2 Parent Related Charter Legislations across the States
State Support
required
for
application
Parent
involvement
plan required
Parent
involvement
the intent of
the law
Regular
communic
ation
required
Governing
board must
include
parents
Alaska X
Arkansas X X
California X X
Colorado X X
Connecticut X
Delaware X
Florida X X
Georgia X
Hawaii X X
Idaho X
Illinois X X
Indiana X X
Iowa X
Kansas X
Louisiana X
Massachusetts X X
Mississippi X
Missouri X
New
Hampshire
X
New Jersey X X

14

Table 1.2 (Continued)

State Support
Required
for
application
Parent
Involvement
plan required
Parent
Involvement
the intent of
the law
Regular
Communi
cation
required
Governing
Board must
include
parents
New York X
North Carolina X X
Pennsylvania X X
Rhode Island X X
South Carolina X X
Tennessee X X
Texas X
Utah X X
Virginia X X X
Washington,
DC
X X X
Wisconsin X
Wyoming X X

Becker et al. (1997) published the first and only empirical study on parent
compacts (the term parent contract was used in Becker et al.’s study). The authors
surveyed charter schools in California and found that 79% of them employed parent
compacts. Content analysis showed that compacts generally included specific provisions
agreed upon by parents and often detailed consequences for noncompliance. Unlike the
parent compact detailed in the Title I legislation, charter school compacts centered parent
involvement on school-based activities and often did not describe the school’s
responsibilities. In addition, survey responses showed that charter schools with parent
compacts and charter schools without parent compacts reported similar levels of parent
involvement. From this finding, the authors concluded that parent compacts do not
impact the level of involvement. The study by Becker et al. is exploratory in nature and
has several limitations. First the survey design provided no contextual data about the
15

charter schools. When comparing charter schools, it is unclear whether urban charters
were being compared with non-urban charters; large charters with small charters, and
newly established charters with mature charters. In addition, Becker et al.’s study did not
address how parent compacts were created, implemented, and enforced, and whether
these processes impacted the efficacy of parent compacts. Their study is also less
relevant today since the charter school landscape has changed dramatically. Since this
research was conducted in the early 90s, during which time the charter school movement
was still in its infancy, the sample consisted largely of conversion charters (schools that
were converted from existing schools) and did not include new-start charter schools, or
charter schools affiliated with Charter Management Organizations (CMOs).
More than a decade later, research conducted by USC’s Center on Educational
Governance (CEG) found that parent compacts continue to be a popular strategy utilized
by charter schools to improve parent involvement (National Resource Center on Charter
School Finance and Governance, 2008). Yet no additional research exists. The influence
of parent compacts on parent involvement behavior is still largely unknown. A 2007
survey of charter leaders in three states found that parent involvement is one area in
which charter school leaders lack confidence and struggle to translate intent into practice.
Twenty-nine percent of the leaders report “major challenges” with engaging parents and
an additional 43% indicate involving parents was a “minor challenge” (Gross & Pochop,
2007). Recent works on promising parent involvement practices in charter schools by the
CEG unearthed techniques charter schools have used to involve parents (National
Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance, 2008), but strategies that
16

help encourage and support minority and working-class parents are still relatively
unknown. One of the only studies on urban charter school parent involvement was
conducted by Smith, Wohlstetter, Kuzin and De Pedro (2011) and found that parent
compact is one strategy utilized by urban charter schools. By specifying expectations
while offering accommodations and alternatives to parents, charter schools were able to
not only increase parent involvement but also sustain the level of enthusiasm and
commitment.
Parent Compacts as a Policy Solution
Despite the large body of research that shows the positive impacts of parent
involvement and the need to narrow the achievement gap, policy support for parent
involvement in recent years has been extremely limited. The No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB), an educational reform effort that sought to increase achievement of all
students through assessments, largely ignored the role of parents in regards to student
achievement. Today, President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative similarly overlooks
the potential of parent involvement to boost academic performance. One of the few
efforts on the federal level to involve parents, more specifically low-income, minority
parents, is the use of parent compacts as stipulated by the Title I grant. Although NCLB
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of which Title I is a part, the
requirement for parent compacts is not a new element in the law (Moles, 2005).
Title I grants provide financial assistance to schools for the education of low-
income students. Grants are designated to go to schools that have large percentages of
low income students (at least 40%) and are designed to provide assistance programs that
17

“use instructional strategies based on scientifically based research and implement parent
involvement activities” (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). In the parent involvement
section of the Title I Act, it states that each school, with input from parents, should jointly
develop a “compact that outlines how parents, the entire school staff, and students will
share the responsibility for improved student achievement and the means by which the
school and parents will build and develop a partnership to help children achieve the
State’s high standards” (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The legislation continues
on to outline the content of the compact to include schools’ responsibility and ways in
which parents are expected to participate. Specifically, the compact should describe
ways “each parent will be responsible for supporting their children's learning, such as
monitoring attendance, homework completion, and television watching; volunteering in
their child's classroom; and participating, as appropriate, in decisions relating to the
education of their children and positive use of extracurricular time” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2008). The compact, according to the legislation, should also establish a plan
for regular communication between teachers and parents, provide parents with reasonable
access to staff, opportunities to volunteer, and participate in their child’s class. Although
Title I outlines specific guidelines on what to include in the parent compact, little
attention is given to their implementation or enforcement. Apart from involving parents
in the creation of the compact, how the compacts are communicated, implemented and
enforced is left to the discretion of the schools.
The effort to involve Title I parents is well intentioned and its recommendations
are supported by parent involvement research. Studies have shown that parent
18

involvement both at school and at home impacts student performance (LeFevre & Shaw,
2011). While some researchers favor parent involvement at home, especially parents
discussing school activities and helping children plan their programs (Ingram, Wolfe, &
Lieberman, 2007; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996; Van Voorhis, 2003), other researchers stress
the importance of involvement at school (Epstein, 2001; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, &
Brissie, 1987; Lee & Bowen, 2006). Since low-income parents tend to be less involved
at schools (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Lee & Bowen, 2006) and low-income students are
more at risk for academic failure, the hope that increasing parent involvement will
increase student achievement is clear in this section of the law.
The mandated parent compact also serves to outline clear expectations for
involvement. Studies have shown that parents consistently report higher levels of
involvement compared to teachers’ reports, presumably due to different conceptions of
what constitutes involvement (Barnard, 2004). In one study, parents describe
involvement as keeping their children safe and getting them to school punctually, while
teachers expect parents to be present at the school helping in the classroom. While both
teachers and parents felt that involvement was important, the lack of coherence in
perceptions of what constitutes parent involvement has caused teachers to blame parents,
and parents, in turn, to feel underappreciated (Lawson, 2003). On the other hand,
DePlanty, Coulter-Kern, & Duchane (2007) found in their survey that parents do know
the activities expected of them, such as attending school events, but they may not know
the benefits of such involvement. Given the lack of common understanding between
19

school staff and parents regarding the expectations and benefits of involvement, parent
compacts provide much needed clarity.
While the Title I parent compact tackles these ambiguities by setting out clear
expectations for parent involvement, it does not address the barriers urban parents
encounter in their efforts to get involved nor does it outline how compacts should be
implemented and utilized. Past research has shown that for low-income, minority, and
working class parents, language barriers, work schedules, and a sense of
disenfranchisement have generally resulted in lower levels of parent involvement
(Delgado-Gaitan, 1994; Desimone, 1999; Lott, 2001). The mandate for parent compacts
rests on the individual school’s ability to work within its parameters and adapt the
compact for each environment. Although no research has been conducted on the
effectiveness of parent compacts in Title I schools, it is doubtful that traditional public
schools, encumbered by rules and regulations, are able to creatively utilize parent
compacts. Charter schools, on the other hand, are schools of choice designed to facilitate
more direct parent involvement in their children’s education. In addition, charter schools
have authority and autonomy that enhances their capacity for innovative practices.
Parent compacts, as a strategy to involve low-income parents, has great potential in the
charter school setting. Unfortunately, research on parent compact use in charter schools
(or traditional schools) is extremely limited.
The Purpose of the Study
The existing research offers limited insight on how parent compacts can be
utilized to increase parent involvement in urban schools. The current study fills that gap
20

by providing new empirical data regarding the contents of parent compacts. As
established earlier, parent involvement activities, as outlined by the Epstein model, are
positively associated with student achievement. A parent compact that encourages and
supports these involvement activities is one policy solution to the lack of student
achievement in urban charter schools. A better understanding of how compacts work is
essential to the effective use of this policy tool. The purpose of this study is to examine
the content of parent compacts, establish a typology, and investigate in successful charter
schools (as measured by student achievement), the processes of creation, implementation,
and enforcement of their parent compacts as well as contextual variables that support
code effectiveness. This study is significant because it will provide much needed data
that informs policy makers and educators on how to better involve parents in urban
charter schools. The analysis conducted in this study will propose policy
recommendations on the use of parent compacts. Additionally, for schools already
employing parent compacts, this study will offer insights into ways to better implement
compacts.
Organization of the Dissertation
The present study examines parent involvement in urban charter schools and the
use of parent compacts as a tool for improved parent involvement. This dissertation is
organized into five chapters. Chapter One, the introduction, details the types and benefits
of parent involvement, the rise of charter schools as a place of innovation where low-
income minority parents have increased opportunity for involvement, and parent
compacts as a prevalent tool in charter schools and a possible policy solution to low
21

levels of parent involvement. After establishing the rationale for the study, relevant
literature will be reviewed and theoretical framework provided in the second chapter.
Due to the lack of existing research on parent compacts, Chapter Two explores literature
in two separate fields (ethic codes in business and honor codes in institutions of higher
education) and discusses the applications of findings to the study of parent compacts.
Chapter Three focuses on research methods and delineates the research questions, the
design of the study, the data collection and analysis procedures. Chapter Four presents
and discusses the findings of the study and Chapter Five will offer conclusions, policy
implications, and recommendations for future research.

22

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Given that the literature identifies parent involvement as an important contributor
to student achievement, and that the use of parent compacts is suggested as a promising
strategy to better involve parents, it is important to understand what is included in parent
compacts and how they can be utilized effectively. Unfortunately, apart from the earlier
cited study by Becker et al. (1997), no empirical research of parent compacts exists. As a
result, this literature review section consists of articles on the use of academic honor
codes in institutions of higher education and business ethic codes in corporations as a
surrogate for research on parent compacts. First, this chapter will provide the rationale
for using honor code and ethic code research to inform the current study. Second, a
review of existing honor code and ethic code literature will be presented with specific
attention to research that focuses on content, process, and contextual variables that
contribute to code effectiveness. Finally, the applications of honor code and ethic code
research to the current study will be discussed.
Rationale for Using Honor Code and Ethic Code Literature
Honor codes, ethic codes, and parent compacts share several important
characteristics. First, codes and compacts are responses and attempts to address a
specific problem. Although businesses and schools have different missions and purposes,
the motivations behind the adoption of a code/compact are similar. Parent compacts seek
to increase the level of parent involvement while honor codes appeal to students’ sense of
honor and integrity and ethic codes urge for more responsibility among employees.
23

Parent compacts, like honor codes and ethic codes, are written policies that outline
expectations for desired behavior and encourage individuals to take more ownership in
maintaining and improving the organizations of which they are a member (Melendez,
1985).
Second, the use of honor codes, ethic codes, and parent compacts are similarly
widespread. Despite the popularity enjoyed by codes, however, questions remain about
how to utilize them effectively. Becker et al.’s (1997) skepticism over the impacts of
parent compacts is shared by code researchers who challenge the usefulness of codes
(Kelley, Agle, & DeMott, 2005; Trevino, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). Supporters of
codes have suggested that the processes of code creation, implementation, and
enforcement are important factors contributing to code effectiveness (Kaptein &
Schwartz, 2008).
Finally, a power differential exists between a charter school and parents, a
university and students, a corporation and employees. These dynamics directly influence
the way codes are received and followed. According to the Principal-Agent Theory, an
agreement (code/compact) between the principal (company/college/charter school) and
the agent (employee/students/parents) is influenced by self-interest and risk aversion at
the individual level and goal conflicts and information asymmetry at the organizational
level (Eisenhardt, 1989). Since in most businesses and schools, the principals do not
have a perfect knowledge of agents’ behavior, contracts are created to incentivize the
agent to produce the desired behavior or outcomes. The use of codes and compacts are
not unlike the employment of contracts illustrated by the Principal-Agent theory in their
24

attempt at behavior modification. These shared traits and complexities make honor code
and ethic code research a good surrogate for the study of parent compacts.
In reviewing the honor code and ethic code literature, only a handful of honor
code research exists compared to a substantial number of studies devoted to ethic codes.
Early honor code researchers were interested in unearthing the causes of academic
dishonesty among students and various studies pointed to the influences of gender, grade
point average, personality, and self-esteem (Bower, 1964; Perry, Kane, Bernesser, &
Spicker, 1990; Ward, 1986). These findings provided insight into why students chose to
cheat but did not offer solutions. As McCabe and Trevino (1993) pointed out, these
“findings are not particularly useful to the university administrator searching for effective
institutional responses to issues of academic dishonesty” (p. 524). More recent research
has moved from studying the causes of cheating to evaluating the use of honor codes.
McCabe and Trevino (1993) surveyed over 6000 students from 31 U.S. colleges and
universities and compared the responses from institutions with honor codes (14 schools)
and institutions without honor codes (17 schools). The results showed that students at
non-honor code schools reported significantly higher levels of academic dishonesty
compared to students at honor code schools. A replication of the study was conducted in
1997 by the same researchers. This time, 9 public universities were included and 1793
surveys were analyzed. The results confirmed that honor codes significantly impact a
student’s decision to cheat (McCabe & Trevino, 1997).
Like honor code research, early ethic code studies focused on causes of unethical
behavior and conducted analysis of code content. While a number of authors published
25

articles offering recommendations on how to craft the code, the bulk of ethic code
research is focused on the issue of code effectiveness. Studies of code effectiveness
typically concluded with findings that fall in three categories: code found to be effective,
code found to be ineffective, and code found to have mixed results. Stevens (2007)
reviewed 12 empirical studies published since 2000 and concluded that enough evidence
now exists to establish the effectiveness of codes. Kaptein and Schwartz (2008) cast a
wider net and included 79 empirical studies related to code usage and found similarly
mixed results. Of the 79 studies analyzed, 35% found codes to be effective, 33% found
no relationship between codes and behavior, 16% found weak relationships, and 14%
found mixed outcomes. Although Kaptein and Schwartz’s literature review is the most
comprehensive to date, its contributions are mitigated by an unfortunate amount of
inaccuracies and mistakes. Specifically, there were instances where authors’ names were
misspelled (e. g. Cleek & Leonard, 1998), the wrong journal title was cited (e. g. Finegan
& Theriault, 1997), the incorrect journal year was cited (e. g. Valentine & Barnett, 2003),
articles that found codes to be ineffective were categorized among studies that found the
codes to be effective (Embse, Desai, & Desai, 2004; Weaver, 1995), and vice versa (Snell
& Herndon, 2000). Despite the amount of errors, both literature reviews showed large
percentages of empirical studies finding ethic codes to be a significant contributor to
ethical behavior.
Survey research was the most common methodology for ethic code researchers.
Comparisons of survey responses from companies with codes and companies without
codes showed in general a positive relationship between codes and the perception of
26

ethical behavior (Ferrell & Skinner, 1988; Pierce & Henry, 1996; Somers, 2001). Studies
also found that employees in code organizations were less aware of wrongdoings
(Somers, 2001), thought their organizations were more ethical (Valentine & Barnett,
2003), and believed codes were associated with a more ethical climate (Peterson, 2002).
Although studies on code effectiveness provide important empirical basis for the
use of codes, it does not inform researchers and practitioners on how best to employ
codes as a policy tool. Honor code and ethic code researchers also agree that codes do
not work in isolation but the effects of codes are mediated by code content, processes,
and other contextual variables (Adams, Tashchian, & Shore, 2001; Kaptein & Schwartz,
2008; McCabe, 1993). Based on what is known about honor codes and ethic codes, it is
reasonable to expect that parent compacts can have a positive impact on the level of
parent involvement in urban charter schools. The purpose of this study is to explore the
content, processes, and contextual variables that contribute to the impact of parent
compacts. The next sections synthesize literature on code content, code processes, and
code-supporting contextual variables. Application of the honor code and ethic code
research to the study of parent compacts is discussed and a research model for the study
of parent compacts is introduced.
Studies of the Content of Codes
In the early 1990s, Duke University established the Center for Academic Integrity
(CAI) in response to rampant cheating on college campuses. The CAI, a consortium of
more than 300 institutions of higher education worked to encourage academic integrity
through the use of honor codes that stress fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness,
27

respect, and responsibility (McCabe & Trevino, 2002; McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield,
2002). The efforts of the CAI have to an extent standardized honor code contents to
include positive statements on expected behaviors rather than a litany of prohibited ones.
As a result of their general uniformity, there are no studies that focus exclusively on the
content of honor codes. The only study that differentiates the various types of honor
codes was conducted by McCabe and colleagues in 2002. The authors distinguished
between “modified honor codes” and traditional codes. The modified honor codes
include much of the emphasis on academic integrity but lacked the degree of student
involvement that traditional honor codes often require. For example, a modified honor
code does not involve a student judiciary that examines cases of academic dishonesty nor
does it place the responsibility on students to report the cheating behavior of their peers
(McCabe, et al., 2002).
Unlike honor codes, contents of ethic codes vary widely. Many corporations
adopt model codes without significant changes (the borrowed approach) as opposed to
creating their own unique codes (the tailored approach) (Svensson & Wood, 2007).
Stevens (1994) reviewed 8 ethic code studies, 6 of which were content analyses. These
content studies revealed that companies are most likely to use ethic codes to emphasize
unethical and illegal behaviors such as conflict of interest, gifts, and misuse of company
information (C. Matthews, 1987; Snell & Herndon, 2000; White & Montgomery, 1980).
Since employees’ illegal activities often lead to monetary loss for the company, it is not
surprising that compliance would be the initial focus of ethic codes. For example,
Sanderson and Varner’s (1984) analysis of 39 codes from the top Fortune 500 companies
28

revealed that 70% of codes address conflict of interest issues followed by political
contributions (72%), accuracy of records (59%), antitrust (59%), equal employment
(48%), product safety (44%), trade secrets (41%), and theft by employees (31%).
Similarly, Cressey and Moore’s (1983) review of 119 corporate codes found that conflict
of interest issues were the most commonly mentioned. More recent reviews of ethic code
content showed that codes have broadened in scope and now include descriptions of
product quality and addresses environmental concerns (Kaptein, 2004). Table 2.1
illustrates content analysis studies and their major findings.
Table 2.1. Studies of Content Analysis
Authors Codes
Analyzed
Main findings
White &
Montgomery
(1980)
30 corporate
codes
Conflict of interest (73%), compliance with federal
laws (67%) and misuse of corporate assets (67%)
Chatov (1980) 281 corporate
codes
12 broad ethical dimensions: extortion, gifts, and
kickbacks led the list of prohibited employee
behaviors followed by conflict of interest, illegal
political payments, violation of laws in general,
use of insider information, and bribery
Cressey and
Moore (1983)
119 corporate
codes
Conduct against the firms was discussed more
frequently than conduct on behalf of the firm.
Integrity of financial books and records was
discussed less than half the time
Sanderson and
Varner (1984)
39 fortune 500
codes
Compliance to federal law (75%), Political
contributions (72%), Conflict of interest (70%),
Accuracy of records (59%), Antitrust (59%),
Equal employment (48%), Product safety (44%),
Trade secret (41%), Theft by employee (31%)
Matthews
(1987)
202 fortune 500
codes
Firms emphasized employee misconduct against
the firm and illegal activities and spent little time
talking about quality, product safety, and the
environment

29

In addition to studies that describe content, there are efforts to categorize ethic
codes in the literature. Gaumnitz and Lere (2004) created a classification scheme that
distinguishes among aspects found in codes of ethics: length, focus, level of detail, shape,
thematic content, and tone. Unfortunately, these dimensions add nothing new to the
traditional content analysis of codes and consequently are not utilized by ethic code
researchers. Farrell and Cobbin (2002), on the other hand, categorized codes as either
value-based (broad principles) and rule-based (detailed rules). According to Lefebvre
and Singh (1996), most codes are rule-based and commonly include three elements: 1)
general information, 2) types of conduct to be addressed, and 3) enforcement and
compliance procedures, including penalties for unethical behavior. Other authors have
found that the enforcement aspect of codes tends to be weak in most codes. Sanderson
and Varner’s (1984) study, for example, shows only half of the codes reviewed included
a section on enforcement. Those that mentioned enforcement did so in a vague manner
that did not describe how the codes were to be enforced. Researchers also tried to
categorize codes not by content but by function. Brinkmann and Ims (2003)
recommended that ethical codes be created to have three central functions: to be
educational, regulatory, and aspirational. Table 2.2 summarizes the types of ethic codes
found in the literature and organizes them by authors and classification.

30

Table 2.2 Classification of the content of ethic codes
Authors Classifications Details
Gaumnitz and Lere (2004) 6 dimensions Length, focus, level of detail,
shape, thematic content, tone
Farrell and Cobbin (1996) 2 categories Value-based, rule-based
Lefebvre and Singh (1996) 3 elements General information, Types of
conduct to be addressed,
enforcement and compliance
procedures
Brinkmann and Ims (2003) 3 functions Educational, regulatory,
aspirational

Based on what is known about code content, parent compacts can also be
expected to fall under categories of valued-based, rule-based, or a combination of both.
Like ethic codes, compacts may include some of the following elements: general
information (broad statements of school mission and goals), types of parent involvement
activities expected (school-based and home-based), ways of monitoring and enforcement,
and finally, incentives for compliance and penalties for failing to meet requirements.
Findings from several code effectiveness studies also suggest that a more detailed code
may prove more effective. Ferrell and Skinner (1988) found in their survey of ethical
behavior in marketing firms that when ethic codes are formalized or standardized in
organizations as opposed to focusing on general ethical guidelines, employees report
greater perceived ethical behavior at significantly higher levels. Pierce and Henry’s
(1996) survey study of 356 data management professionals also confirmed Ferrell and
Skinner’s conclusion that a formal code that details company policy has more impact on
ethical decision making than a statement of broad principals. Schwartz’s (2004) study
31

interviewed employees and found that as users of the code, employees appreciate codes
that contain relevant examples of what constitutes unethical behavior. These examples
facilitate comprehension of the code and improve employees’ application of the code.
Content analysis is the first step in understanding the workings of parent
compacts, but how parents receive a compact will depend on the way in which it is
created and communicated. As Stevens (1994) points out in her review of code content
studies, researchers have largely focused on the wording of codes and ignored the context
and processes involved in implementing codes. It is unclear from the code content
whether codes evolve with company expansion, respond to leadership changes, or adapt
to address additional concerns. So, in the case of parent compacts, do newly established
charter schools adopt a more valued-based approach but grow to include more rule-based
documents? Are smaller charters more likely to adopt unique compact content than
larger charters? Research that analyzes the contents of parent compacts is clearly needed.
In order to understand how codes work, additional research is needed that focuses on how
codes are communicated implemented and enforced. The next sections will discuss the
processes of code implementation that contribute to code effectiveness.
Studies of the Honor Code Implementation Process
McCabe and Trevino (1993) surveyed over 6000 students from 31 U.S. colleges
and universities and compared the responses from institutions with honor codes (14
schools) and institutions without honor codes (17 schools). In addition to looking at the
overall effects honor codes have on academic integrity, the authors hypothesized that
academic dishonesty will be inversely related to 1) understanding and acceptance of the
32

honor codes, 2) perceived certainty of being reported by a peer, 3) perceived severity of
penalties, and positively related to 4) perceptions of peers’ academic dishonesty. The
result of the study shows that all above factors influence students’ decision to cheat. The
authors concluded that “an institution’s ability to develop a shared understanding and
acceptance of its academic integrity policies” may be the key to influencing student
behavior (p. 533). Researchers of ethic codes also found that codes alone are not enough
to bring about the desired behaviors in any organization (Adam & Rachman-Moore,
2004; McCabe & Trevino, 1993, 1997), especially when they are imposed by
management in a top-down fashion (McKendall, DeMarr, & Jones-Rikkers, 2002; Snell
& Herndon, 2004; Trevino, Weaver, Gibson, & Toffler, 1999). Some research goes as
far as concluding that “if the codes have any influence on behavior, this influence is not
explained by the codes themselves, but by the processes that the codes symbolize”
(Marnburg, 2000, p. 208). If codes are to have utility in decreasing unwanted behavior
(cheating or unethical conduct) or increasing desired behaviors (parent involvement),
proper implementation is critical.
Unfortunately, there is a dearth of research in the area of code implementation
(Adam & Rachman-Moore, 2004; Weaver, 1995). However, anecdotal information
exists for how honor codes are implemented. For example, Burnett (2002) reports that at
Duke University, students participate in public “signing ceremonies” to show their
commitment towards academic integrity. At Washington and Lee University, prospective
students are informed of the honor code as part of the admission process (McCabe &
Trevino, 2002). The limited research regarding ethic code implementation did point to
33

stakeholder involvement in code creation (Schwartz, 2004), clear communication of code
(Weeks & Nantel, 1992), regular discussion of expectations (Trevino, et al., 1999), and
proper enforcement (Ferrell & Skinner, 1988) as important processes that impact code
effectiveness.
Code creation. Schwartz’s (2004) in-depth interviews revealed that participation
of employees in the creation of the code and the signing-off to signify that the employee
has read, understood, and agreed to the code were all significant. Input from employees
not only increases buy-in but also ensures that the content of the code is relevant to code
users. As Pierce and Henry (1996) point out, codes that are written by corporate
attorneys and legal departments often contain language that is not accessible to
employees. Ethic codes that are created collaboratively, however, are the exception
rather than the rule. For most corporations, it is just too time consuming and
cumbersome to gather input from all stakeholders in the creation process. Many
administrators develop ethic codes without any input from the staff (Montoya & Richard,
1994).
Code implementation. When codes are created in a top-down manner containing
language that is legalistic and irrelevant, code communication inevitably suffers. It is not
difficult to see the link between poor communication of the code and poor outcomes.
Students and employees cannot follow the code without knowing of its existence and
without understanding its content. Conversely, a code that is well-established and well-
communicated has been found to influence ethical behavior (Weeks & Nantel, 1992). In
fact, Chonko, Wotruba and Loe (2003) show in their study that a significant and positive
34

correlation exists between the familiarity of content and usefulness of the code. In other
words, the more that respondents know about the code content, the more likely they will
be to make ethical decisions. Even though the importance of communication is clearly
established, most corporations disseminate codes only through handbooks and manuals
(Stevens, 1999). This measure does not ensure that employees actually read or
comprehend the code. In addition, Adam and Rachman-Moore (2004) found that after
the code has been communicated initially, continued open discussion is necessary to
create awareness around the code particularly during times when ethical dilemmas arise.
Using the ethic code to resolve ethical issues and communicating ethical decisions to all
stakeholders establish not only the utility of the code but also create precedent for future
application of the code.
Code enforcement. In addition to the processes of code creation and
implementation, research shows that strong enforcement measures have a significant and
positive impact on ethical behavior (Boo & Koh, 2001; Ferrell & Skinner, 1988; Weeks
& Nantel, 1992). Singhapakdi & Vitell (1990) found that an individual in an
organization with a code of ethics that is enforced will tend to perceive ethical problems
as more serious than will an individual in an organization that does not have a code of
ethics. McDonald’s (2009) literature review of ethic codes list incentives, rewards, and
punishments as methods of enforcement and suggest that the existence of a code
combined with enforcement are likely to have an impact on behavior.
One honor code study showed that stakeholder participation in enforcement may
contribute to code effectiveness. McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield (2002) compared
35

schools with traditional honor codes, where students are expected to take part in
disciplinary proceedings as well as policing fellow students, schools with modified honor
codes, where student participation was not required, and schools with no honor code at
all. The authors found that modified honor codes had more impact on academic
dishonesty than having no honor code but had less impact when compared to traditional
and stricter honor codes. Enforcement is one of the most difficult aspects of
implementing codes (Molander, 1987). The hope is to create clear and relevant codes
that are communicated effectively, discussed regularly and enforced rarely.
In order to implement codes in such a way, Stevens (2007) recommends a five-
step plan. This process includes: 1) a collaborative process to create codes, 2) frequent
discussions of codes, 3) using codes to resolve ethical issues, 4) communicating ethical
decisions to all members of the organization, and 5) rewarding people who follow the
codes. Table 2.3 summarizes and synthesizes the above research findings and organizes
the various recommendations under three code processes: code creation, code
implementation, and code enforcement.
Table 2.3. Code processes that influence code effectiveness
Processes Studies
Creation Collaborative process to create code (Molander, 1987; Montoya &
Richard, 1994; Schwartz, 2004; Stevens, 2007)
Implementation Clear communication of codes (Chonko & Hunt, 1985; 2003;
Weeks & Nantel, 1992)
Frequent discussions of codes (Adam & Rachman-Moore, 2004;
Stevens, 2007; Trevino, et al., 1999)
Using codes to resolve ethical issues (Stevens, 2007)
Communicating ethical decisions (Stevens, 2007)
Enforcement Proper enforcement (Boo & Koh, 2001; Ferrell & Skinner, 1988)
Rewarding people who follow codes (Stevens, 2007)
36

Researchers of code effectiveness agree that the implementation processes are
critical but contextual variables also play a role. In fact, researchers have referred to
these variables as “code-supporting variables” (Boo & Koh, 2001). These variables
include organizational characteristics such as size, structure, and culture (Schminke,
2001) as well as personal characteristics such as age and gender (Finegan & Theriault,
1997). Since as McCabe suggested earlier, findings regarding personal characteristics are
not particularly useful to researchers and practitioners interested in institutional responses
to unethical behavior, the next section will discuss contextual variables that support the
implementation and effectiveness of codes.
Studies of Code-Supporting Contextual Variables
Schminke (2001) examined the relationship between organizational size, structure
and predisposition for ethical behavior and found that organization size is a significant
factor. He concluded that members of larger organizations are more likely to behave
ethically. Conversely, Ford and Richardson’s (1994) literature review showed that with
the increasing size of an organization, individual ethical behavior decreases. In the study
of honor codes, Arnold, Martin, Jinks & Bigby (2007) also found that students from
smaller campuses, where there is a stronger sense of community, were less likely to cheat
than students from larger campuses. Faculty response is another influence to code
success. McCabe (1993) conducted a study where 189 faculty members in 16 institutions
responded to surveys regarding honor code and academic dishonesty. Faculty members
appear to be more willing to comply with the letter of the law regarding academic
dishonesty when an honor code is present but are generally reluctant to report cheating
37

behavior. The author argued that having a code does not mean that faculty members will
enforce it and having supportive faculty improves code implementation. In addition to
size and faculty response, researchers also investigated the effects of other organizational
characteristics such as bureaucratization (2001), the type of organizations (public versus
private) and industry (Embse, et al., 2004) and the level of formalization and
centralization (Ferrell & Skinner, 1988; Pfeffer, 1991). Clearly, multiple factors
influence the efficacy of honor codes and ethics codes. The contextual variables that are
most frequently cited as having the strongest impact on code effectiveness, however, are
leadership, peer behavior and organizational culture.
Trevino et al. (1999), in a study of six large U.S. companies, found that the role of
leadership is one of the most influential factors that impact code efficacy. Kezar
(forthcoming) called the type of leadership that creates an ethical community
transformational leadership. She believes that leadership is an inherently ethical practice
and is the key to creating a culture where codes can have an impact. This type of strong
leadership establishes and reinforces the message of the codes. Adam and Rachman-
Moore (2004) noted in their study that managers that set an example by behaving
ethically had a stronger effect on employee ethical behavior than ethics training. Other
researchers also noted that ethics codes failed to prevent unethical behavior when
supervisors’ expectations contradict the formal statement (Schwartz, 2001; Sims & Keon,
1999).
Just as leaders model desired behavior and strengthen the message delivered by
codes, peer behavior also plays a role in supporting code effectiveness. McCabe and
38

Trevino’s earliest honor code study revealed that of the contextual variables analyzed, the
perception of peers’ behavior was the most influential (1993). A replication of the first
study was conducted in 1997 by the same researchers. Findings from this new sample of
schools confirmed that peer behavior is significantly correlated to student cheating. In
fact, when comparing the impacts of honor codes and peer behavior on a student’s
decision to cheat, peer behavior had the stronger influence. In other words, despite the
existence of honor codes, students quickly learn of other students’ cheating behavior and
this knowledge often serve as an endorsement of cheating behavior. Perception that
others in the same organization, particularly those in leadership positions, conduct
themselves unethically causes code users to disregard the code, and in turn, creates an
unethical culture within the organization.
In the corporate world, there are many examples of companies where ethics codes
send one message to the world and unethical culture within the company creates a
different message for its employees. Enron is perhaps the most famous case (Sims &
Brinkmann, 2003). McCabe and Trevino (1993) found similar evidence that
organizational culture influences the efficacy of codes. One of the schools the authors
sampled that reported low levels of academic dishonesty did not have an honor code;
however, it had a culture that encouraged academic honor. Specifically, the authors
found that the “institution is strongly committed to the concept of academic honor.
[Academic integrity is a] major topic of discussion in its student handbook and at
orientation session for incoming students, where [the university] goes to great length to
ensure that its policy is understood and that academic honor is the obligation of every
39

member of the campus community” (p. 534). Similarly, Hall and Kuh’s (1998)
qualitative study found that the mere existence of an honor code did not deter cheating,
and students were more likely to cheat when they felt the campus culture tolerated
cheating. These authors suggest, based on their research that creating a campus culture
where students disapprove of cheating and where incoming students rarely see examples
of cheating among peers is key. An honor code is one approach to set the tone of
integrity.
Leadership, peer behavior, and organizational culture are all code-supporting
contextual variables in the study of codes. They are interrelated and influence one
another. A transformational leader that models ethical behavior inspires employees to
conduct themselves ethically, which in turn creates an ethical culture within the
organization. Honor codes and ethic codes can be a step towards creating such a culture
but it cannot be successful as a lone measure.
Application to the Study of Parent Compacts
The study of ethic and honor codes applies to the study of parent compacts in
several ways. First, findings support and strengthen the case for the use of parent
compacts on parent behavior. Studies have shown that codes have the ability to modify
cheating behavior in students and unethical conduct in employees. Parent compacts,
similarly, can create higher levels of parent involvement by modifying parent behavior.
Second, codes that are created with stakeholder input, communicated clearly and
regularly, and enforced fairly are more likely to be effective. We can hypothesize that
parent compacts that follow such implementation processes will lead to a more successful
40

use of compacts. Finally, research points to the importance of contextual variables such
as leadership, peer behavior, and organizational culture in influencing code effectiveness.
The study of parent compacts must also take into account these contextual variables in its
analysis.
Taking all these factors into account, Kaptein and Schwartz’s (2008) integrated
research model for the study of code effectiveness appears to be the most relevant for the
current study. Instead of using past models that focus on ethical behavior and ethical
decision making, the authors synthesize findings from their literature review and create a
model that includes the creation, implementation, and enforcement processes of codes.
In addition, Kaptein and Schwartz place the code processes within the context of the
organization as well as the larger policy environment. Since honor codes and ethics
codes operate in similar ways as parent compacts, an adaptation of the Kaptein and
Schwartz’s model can also be applied to the study of parent compacts.
Figure 2.1 shows the adapted model for the study of parent compacts in charter
schools. First, the policy environment impacts the degree of interest schools show on the
issue of parent involvement. Charter schools are monitored by authorizers and must
follow charter laws. Laws that include terms regarding parent involvement in general
and parent compacts specifically directly influence schools’ commitment to the issue of
increasing parent involvement. A successful parent compact begins with the school’s
desire to address and improve parent participation, followed by a collaborative process of
content development. Once the content of the parent compact is agreed upon, it is then
communicated, implemented, discussed regularly, and enforced. The ultimate goal is for
41

the proper implementation and enforcement of the compact to lead to an increased level
of parent involvement and student achievement.
Figure 2.1. Research model for the study of parent compact based on the work of Kaptein
and Schwartz (2008)

Since the purpose of this study is to understand the content and process of parent
compacts in urban charter schools, the above research model addresses both processes
and context. Although parent compact is only one strategy schools employ to increase
parent involvement, it is the most concrete, straightforward, and widespread. The review
of literature shows a gap in knowledge about code processes in business and higher
education. In the case of parent compacts, there is a need for research that addresses both
content and process. A better understanding of parent compacts will allow for proper
Inter-
organization
al context
Student Achievement
(size, years in operation,
School Characteristics
(Size, Years in Operation, Grade level, etc.)
External Factors (Laws and Regulations, Federal Title I Schools,
Authorizer Requirements)

Implementation
of Compact
(Communi-
cation,
Discussion,
Enforcement,
Rewards, etc)

Formal
Code
Content
of Parent
Compact

Conduct
of
School
Staff
and
Parents

Develop
-ment
Process
of the
Compact

School
Objective
with
Parent
Compact

Contextual
Variables
(Organizational
Culture,
Leadership and
Peer Support)

42

implementation and lead to increased parent involvement and student achievement. The
following section describes the research methods for this study by outlining the sampling,
data collection, and data analysis procedures.

43

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter describes the research methods for the present study examining the
use of parent compacts in urban charter schools. First, the study design, including the
research questions, is presented, followed by a description of data collection procedures.
The two sources of data for the study –review of parent compacts and conduct of school
site visits – are discussed. As explained in detail, later in this chapter, the review of
parent contracts involved collecting and analyzing the contents of a sample of urban
charter school compacts. During site visits to a sample of charter schools, educators were
interviewed and focus groups were held with parents. Data analysis techniques are then
explained, detailing the coding schemes applied over multiple iterations, to the interview
and focus group transcripts.
Study Design
Despite the prevalence of parent compacts in charter schools, there has not been
an adequate examination of either the content or process of compacts. Parent compacts
need to be more closely studied to determine their value in the context of educational
reform. The research reported here examines the processes of implementing parent
compacts from the development and communication of the contents to the monitoring
and enforcement processes.
As an exploratory study focused on the processes of implementation, a qualitative
case study approach was used to gain insight on parent compact use. The case study
method is appropriate because it provides an in-depth description about the process of
44

how four elementary charter schools implemented parent compacts. According to
Merriam (2001), case study design allows the focus to be on the “process” rather than the
outcomes. In addition, Patton (2002), similarly believes that case study is particularly
fitting for the study of new phenomenon, in this case the use of parent compacts, and
describes the purpose of case study as the gathering of “comprehensive, systematic, and
in-depth information about each case of interest” (p. 447). To this end, the specific
research questions guiding the study were:
I. How does compact use vary across charter schools?
II. What elements/provisions/requirements are found in urban charter school
parent compacts?
III. How do the processes of creation, implementation, and enforcement
support compact effectiveness?
Data Collection
In order to examine the above research questions, a two-phase study design was
adopted. Phase I of the study addressed the first two research questions regarding the
content of parent compacts. The research model for the study (see Figure 2.)
hypothesized that the content of compacts would directly influence the implementation
and enforcement of compacts. Thus, the first step of this study was to collect a sample of
parent compacts from charter schools in order to analyze their contents. The content
analysis of the compacts and the resulting typology of parent compacts provided the basis
upon which the sample of charter schools was selected. Consideration in choosing
schools was also given to school characteristics, such as the age and size of the school,
45

since such demographic data was expected to influence the content and implementation
of the parent compacts. Each phase of the two phases of the study design is described
below.
Phase I: Content Analysis of Charter School Parent Compacts
Sample selection. In 1994, when Becker et al. (1997) collected charter school
data for their study, only 57 charter schools were in operation. A majority of these
schools had been converted from traditional public schools to charter schools. The
authors selected 45 site-based (as opposed to arrangements for home-schooling) charter
schools serving elementary and middle grades for their survey study and 26 compacts
were included for review. As of September 2010, the total number of charter schools in
California has grown to 912, the largest number of charters per state in the country.
Unlike the charter school sample from the previous study, conversion charters were in the
minority. This large number, however, made it impossible to include all urban charter
schools for the current study. Instead, three of the largest urban school districts in
California were included.
Table 3.1 shows the ten largest urban school districts in California and the number
of charter schools in each district. From this list, the top three districts with the largest
number of charter schools (Los Angeles Unified, San Diego Unified, and Oakland
Unified) were selected for the study. Since researchers have found that levels of
involvement naturally decreases as students reach higher grades (Izzo, et al., 1999), only
charter schools serving elementary age students were included. For this reason, Table 3.1
also tallies the number of elementary charter schools.
46

Table 3.1. Largest urban school districts by number of charter schools 2009-2010
Urban School Districts Elementary Charters Total #of Charters
Los Angeles Unified* 77 191
San Diego City* 19 41
Oakland* 13 32
San Francisco 1 11
Sacramento City 5 10
Fresno 2 9
San Bernadino City 2 7
Stockton 1 7
Santa Ana 3 5
Long Beach 2 5
*figures have been updated to 2010-2011 school year
Adding the total number of elementary charter schools in the three largest school
districts, a total of 109 schools were found for the 2010-2011 school year. Since the
focus of this study was urban charter schools where parent involvement is most needed,
the list of 109 schools was further narrowed to 90 schools by selecting urban schools
defined as serving large numbers of minority students (over 50%). When available,
additional data on the percentage of students categorized as socially and economically
disadvantaged were also considered.
Parent compact collection. The sample of 90 charter schools was contacted
individually by email and then followed up with phone calls by the researcher. Multiple
47

rounds of emails and phone calls were conducted to ensure the maximum response rate
possible. The data collection started in September, 2010 and ended in December, 2010.
Of the 90 schools, 39 schools reported having parent compacts, 22 reported not having
parent compacts, and 28 schools were either unavailable or declined to participate in the
study. Of the 39 schools that reported having compacts, 27 compacts were collected via
fax and email and imported into Atlas ti, a qualitative software, for storage and analysis.
In addition to parent compacts, school characteristics were collected from school
websites, state charter school office websites, School Accountability Report Cards
(SARCs), USC’s School Performance Dashboard and other online resources.
Specifically, the size of the schools and years in operation were of interest since research
shows that these variables may influence compacts in significant ways (McCabe &
Trevino, 1993). SARCs were reviewed for schools’ academic performances. More
specifically, Schools’ Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and base Academic Performance
Index (API) data were recorded. According to the research model, if school compacts
were effective in increasing parent involvement, then the higher levels of involvement
should ultimately lead to student achievement. The school performance data, although
far from a perfect measure of student achievement, is one indicator of academic success.
Theoretically, schools with high levels of parent involvement would have corresponding
levels of performance data.
Phase II: Site Visits
In order to understand how parent compacts work in urban charter schools, a
collective, multi-case study is necessary. Different types of parent compacts will lead to
48

different implementations and elicit different responses. As a multi-case study, each case
will be examined as an independent unit before cross-case analysis can be conducted.
Multiple cases are often considered more compelling and robust because of the amount of
data collected and analyzed (Yin, 2009).
Sample Selection. Sampling of cases was purposeful and done by maximum
variation because the goal was to show how different types of parent compacts are
implemented. Maximum variation sampling involved selecting cases with as much
diversity among them as possible. This is done according to Creswell (1998), to
“represent diverse cases to fully display multiple perspectives about the cases” (p. 120)
and to allow for the discovery of “important shared patterns that cut across cases and
drive their significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity” (Patton as quoted in
Merriam). While this method of sample selection has benefits, generalizability is limited
to theoretical propositions (Merriam, 2001). Sample selection was also affected by
schools’ willingness to participate in the study.
Since the content of parent compacts is an integral part of the research model, it
was important that the cases selected include schools with various types of compacts. As
a result, school selection was based on data collected during Phase 1 of the study.
Specifically, Phase I identified two types of compacts: those with compliance clauses and
those without. Schools employing both types of compacts were selected for site visits.
Additionally, individual schools were selected based on the following criteria:
1. Schools must be in operation for five or more years. This was important
because “mature” charter schools are more likely to have had the adequate
49

time to properly create, implement, and enforce compacts, thus providing seen
results from their efforts to involve parents. Mature charters are also more
likely to have experienced challenges during the implementation process and
learned valuable lessons regarding the use of parent compacts.
2. A small school (enrollment under 300) and a large school (enrollment above
300) were selected for each type of compact. This was important because the
research model guiding the study shows that size, as a contextual variable,
impacts the implementation process of parent compacts. An enrollment
number of 300 was used based on the average size of charter schools in the
larger sample.
3. Since the research model suggests that an effective compact with proper
implementation results in increased student performance through increased
parent involvement, student achievement as an outcome and ultimate goal of
parent involvement is the last sampling variable. 5 years of API data was
collected and analyzed using linear regression. Schools with the highest
scores were contacted first to participate in the study.
Since the study only included mature charters that have been in operation for
more than five years, 15 of the original 27 schools were eliminated. As shown in Table
3.2, the remaining 12 schools met the selection criteria set out above. Displayed in a
form of matrixes, Table 3.2 displays the breakdown of charter schools. Schools are listed
by their identification numbers; later pseudonyms were user for easy recognition. After
50

several rounds of phone calls, School 26, School 11, School 40, and School 21 agreed to
participate in the case study.
Table 3.2. Sample matrix
Compact Types Schools with Compliance
Clauses (Strong
Enforcement)
Schools without Compliance Clauses
(Weak Enforcement)
School Size

Small
(under 300)
Large
(above 300)
Small
(under 300)
Large
(above 300)
School ID (5
year API gains
based on linear
regression)
School 26
(34.99)
School 11
(11.46)
School 3 (47.3),
School 20 (11.87),
School 40 (7.99),
School 36 (1.95),
School 37 (-5.69)
School 5 (31.39),
School 34 (27.41),
School 22 (22.9),
School 21 (19.32),
School 28 (5.3)

Although the sample schools achieved the overall desired distribution, with
variety across each selection criteria, distribution was not arrived perfectly. For example,
School 3 had the highest achievement scores of the group but declined to participate.
Since it was important to investigate schools that have a degree of success, the four
schools selected all had a positive academic trajectory.
Interviews. During Phase II of this study, in-depth interviews with charter school
administrators and parents were conducted on-site to uncover elements in the creation,
implementation, and enforcement of parent compacts based on the integrated research
model of compact effectiveness presented in Chapter Two.
Interviews were conducted between May 23 and May 26, 2011. Each interview
lasted approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour and 30 minutes, based on the extent of the
51

participants’ involvement in the implementation of parent compacts (interviews with
charter school administrators tended to be longer than with parents). The interviews were
semi-structured to elicit information that addressed the research question while open-
ended enough to allow respondents to reflect on their experiences and perceptions.
Probes and follow-up questions were used to provoke thought and elaboration on points
important to the study. Two separate interview protocols were used during the site visits,
one for the school staff who most frequently implements the parent compact and one for
the parents who are on the receiving end of the compact. Both protocols focused on the
staff and parents’ experiences with creation, implementation, and enforcement of the
compact. The parent questionnaire concentrated on individual perceptions of the
compact while the staff interviews generated answers that were more global and larger in
scope.
The on-site interviews provided useful data for the research question regarding
the implementation of parent compacts. Both charter school leaders and parents provided
information that helped with the identification of different strategies in implementing
parent compacts.
The number of interview participants for each of the four charter schools included
in the present study is outlined in Table 3.3 below. Most school staff and parents spoke
openly and candidly about their experiences with the parent compacts, measures were
taken to protect the confidentiality of the study participants. The names of the schools
listed in Table 3.3 have been changed in an effort to protect participants’ identities.

52

Table 3.3. Interview participants
School Code School
Pseudonym
Preliminary
Phone
Interviews
Charter School
Administrators
Charter School
Parents
26 Science
Academy
1 2 3
11 Mosaic
Academy
1 2 2
40 New Era
Academy
1 2 3
21 Freedom
Academy
1 3 Focus group
with 3 parents
Total 22

Document collection. During the site visit in Phase II, a series of documents were
collected. While the available documents varied by school (for instance, not all schools
had parent newsletters), common documents collected included the charter application,
parent compacts, parent handbooks, and event flyers. The charter applications were used
to provide information about the schools’ mission, its organizational capacities, and the
role of parents. Parent compacts, which were reviewed in Phase I of this study, were
reviewed with a more detailed understanding of the specific context of each school.
The documents collected helped identify any inconsistencies between official
policy regarding parent involvement and actual enforcement. For example, a parent
compact may require a number of volunteer hours from parents each school year and
consequences are listed for non-compliance. Interviews with parents would be used to
confirm the requirement and on occasion, interviewee responses disputed the reality of
53

any consequences. All relevant documents were collected and stored in confidential and
locked files arranged by school ID.
Data analysis. All data from reviews of the charter school parent compacts and
interviews were input into computer files, identified by school ID, and coded and
analyzed using the qualitative analysis program, ATLAS ti 6.2. Hard copies of the parent
compacts and transcribed interviews were also stored as a backup.
According to Boyatzis (1998), there are three ways to develop thematic codes.
Codes can be theory driven, prior research, and data driven or inductive. For the content
analysis of parent compacts, codes first emerged through prior research. Epstein’s
typology of parent involvement: 1) basic obligation of families, 2) basic obligation of
schools, 3) involvement at school, 4) involvement at home, 5) involvement in
governance, and 6) collaboration with community organizations served as one source of
codes for analysis of parent compacts. When compacts listed specific requirements such
as attending special events or homework help, these references were coded as
involvement at school and involvement at home respectively.
In addition to codes based on prior research, data driven or inductive codes were
also developed. As new themes emerged through close readings of the text, they were
noted as potential codes and applied to the rest of the sample. For example, Becker et
al.’s (1997) survey found that most compacts detail expectations for parents but fail to
mention the roles of school and staff in serving students and involving parents.
Compared to Becker et al’s results, the current content analysis found an increase in
parent compacts that included not only parent responsibilities but also school/staff
54

responsibilities. As a result, codes for “school responsibilities” and “staff
responsibilities” were created to document the occurrences of such references.
Similarly, a combination of a priori coding and open coding methods were used to
organize data from the interviews into categories that described similar ideas or themes
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Prior to the coding process, codes were established based on
the literature review and the theoretical framework of this study. Data that addressed the
implementation of compacts were coded as “compact creation”, “compact
communication”, and “compact enforcement”. Where specific parent involvement
activities were discussed, codes based on the Epstein model of parent involvement, also
used in the content analysis, were applied. “Parent involvement at home”, “parent
involvement at school”, and “parent involvement in governance” were the most
commonly occurring codes in the interviews.
Some prior data driven codes were modified and subcodes were created. For
example, the code “volunteer hours” was created to record incidences where compacts
detailed the number of volunteer hours required of parents. Although volunteering falls
under Epstein’s type 3 involvement activities, the code “involvement at school” did not
capture the specificity of this requirement. As one of the few ways involvement can be
quantified, “volunteer hours” was coded separately for analysis.
Other codes were deleted based on applicability. Farrell and Cobbin (1996)
categorized business ethic codes as either rule-based (codes with detailed rules) or value-
based (codes with broad principles) in their content analysis. These data driven codes,
rule-based compacts, and value-based compacts, were applied to the sample compacts but
55

failed to adequately capture the emerging differences among the sample parent compacts.
All parent compacts could be categorized under rule-based since they all describe “rules”
parents should follow. Some compacts also included broad principles such as school
missions but never to the exclusion of parent expectations. One of the clear distinctions
between compacts was the existence of what Becker et al. termed a “fail-to-comply”
clause (1997). These clauses informed parents of the consequences of not fulfilling the
agreements outlined by the compacts and were coded as a “compliance clause”. The
presence of a “compliance clause” became a distinguishing characteristic among
compacts and consequently coded as a defining characteristic. The codes “rule-based”
and “value-based” were subsequently deleted from the code list because their
applicability diminished. Figure 3.1 lists the sample coding categories for the study.
Figure 3.1. Coding schemes

Summary
Research suggests that qualitative data analysis is an iterative process, with codes
and themes evolving as data are synthesized (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). As part of this
evolution, some codes were eventually deleted (as was the case for rule-based and value-
Implementation Process
Compact creation
Compact communication
Compact enforcement
Challenges and
recommendations

Parent Compact Content
Basic obligatioBasic obligation of school
Parent involvement at home
Parent involvement at school
Parent involvement in governance
School/Staff responsibilities
Volunteer hoursn of family

Contextual Variables
School culture
Teacher role
Parent center/coordinator role
Special parent involvement
events
56

based compacts), others were combined (such as school and staff responsibilities), and
still others were re-conceptualized and broken down into smaller codes (volunteer hours).
The above chapter outlined the qualitative method used to conduct the study on
parent compacts. Study participants were defined and data collection and analysis
procedures were detailed. Although previous research on parent compact did explore
compact contents, no empirical data has been gathered regarding the implementation
processes. The current study, which investigates the content and processes of creation,
implementation, and enforcement, updates and adds much needed empirical knowledge
to the use of parent compacts as a tool to increase parent involvement.
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase consisted of reviewing
parent compacts to examine the types of activities required of parents and types of
enforcement used. During the second phase of the study, site visits were made to four
charter schools to gain a deeper understanding of the creation, implementation, and
enforcement of parent compacts. The four charter schools selected for the present study
varied according to four criteria: type of compact used, years in operation, size, and
academic performance.
The next chapter, Chapter Four, provides an overview of the content and types of
parent compacts. Findings regarding the implementation processes of parent compacts
are also presented and contextual variables that influence implementation discussed.

57

CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
The previous chapters defined the parent compact as a written agreement that
outlines how schools and families will share the responsibility of supporting student
achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2001), and reviewed the extant research on
compacts, identifying the need for deeper examination of parent compacts as a tool for
parent involvement. The purpose of this chapter is to build an understanding of the types
of parent compacts currently being used by a sample of urban charter schools in
California and how four charter schools implemented and enforced their parent compacts.
The first section of the chapter, utilizing quantitative data and archival documents,
explores demographics of the sample districts and schools, compares compact usage
across districts, and presents findings regarding parent compacts (content/format,
involvement activities, and the use of an enforcement clause). The second section of the
chapter presents qualitative case studies, based on site visits to four charter schools. In
this section, the findings focus on the implementation processes of parent compacts and
the roles of contextual variables in supporting the implementation of parent compacts.
Demographics of Sample Districts and Schools
The three urban school districts in the sample were selected for the large number
of charter elementary schools operating in each district (see Chapter 3). Actual district
names were used since all statistical data collected were available and easily attainable
through the California Department of Education website (www.cde.ca.gov). Data on
58

parent compacts were collected from Los Angeles Unified School District, Oakland
Unified School District, and San Diego Unified School District Unified School District.
Table 4.1. Los Angeles Unified School District Profile (2009-2010)
Category Demographic data
Size of district 667,251 students
Student population by race/ethnicity
Hispanic 73.6%, Black 10.3%, White 8.9%,
Asian 6.1%, Others 1.1%
Students classified as ELL and on free/reduced
meals
ELL 31.2%, Free/Reduced meals 76.4%
Number of Charter Elementary Schools 77 (14% of total charter elementary schools)
Number of K-12 Charter Schools 191 (21% of total K-12 schools)
Number of students served by K-12 charter
schools
87,013 (13% of total enrollment)

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), operating 915 K-12 schools, was
the largest school district in the state of California in 201, and the second largest district
in the U.S. Not too surprising, LAUSD dwarfs the other two districts in the study sample.
It was home to more than 191 charter schools, including 77 charter elementary schools,
serving 87,013 students (13% of total enrollment). As Table 4.1 illustrates, the largest
student ethnic group in LAUSD was Hispanic (73.6%), many of whom were also
categorized as English Language Learners (31.2%). The district had a large number of
students who were socioeconomically disadvantaged, as evidenced by the large
percentage of students who received free and reduced meals (76.4%).
Thirty-seven schools in Los Angeles responded to the study inquiry, and 28 (76%)
utilized parent compacts and 9 (23%) did not. School size ranged between 56 and 1,237
students (N = 36; M = 421.75; SD = 282.21). Ages of the schools ranged between 1 and
17 (N = 36; M = 6.67; SD = 18.74). Number of grades served ranged between 2 and 11
59

(N =37, M = 6.41, SD = 4.03). A multiple regression analysis showed that school size,
years-in-operation, and number of grades served were not significant predictors of
compact usage among respondent schools. All three predictors produced R
2
= .115, F =
1.34, p > .01. In other words, smaller charter schools were just as likely as larger charter
schools to adopt parent compacts. Similarly, brand new charter schools were just as
likely as mature charter schools to utilize parent compacts as a tool for parent
involvement. The next tables in the section profile Oakland and San Diego school
districts and present findings from similar analyses.
Table 4.2. Oakland Unified School District Profile (2009-2010)
Category Demographic data
Size of district 46,584 students
Student population by race/ethnicity Hispanic 39.8%, Black 31.5%,
Asian/Pacific Islander 15.2%, White 8%,
Others 5.3%,
Students classified as ELL and on free/reduced
meals
ELL 26%, Free/Reduced meals 70.4%
Number of Charter Elementary Schools 13 (18% of total elementary schools)
Number of K-12 Charter Schools 31 (23% of total K-12 schools)
Number of students served by charter schools 7894 (17% of total student enrollment)

Oakland Unified School District operated 133 of schools and served
approximately 47,000 students during the 2009-2010 school year. Compared to the
LAUSD, which was 14 times larger by enrollment, Oakland was a small school district.
But as a percentage of all schools in the district, charter schools played an equally
significant role. In fact, 18% of elementary schools in Oakland were charter schools
(compared to 14% in Los Angeles) and, as a whole, charter schools served 17% of the
student population (as opposed to 13% in Los Angeles). Table 4.2 shows that when it
60

comes to student demographics, Oakland’s largest minority groups were Hispanic
(39.8%) and Black (31.5%) compared to Los Angeles’ much larger Hispanic student
population (76.2%). The percentages of students participating in free and reduced meal
programs were similar between the two districts (70.4% in Oakland and 76.4% in Los
Angeles) as were the percentages of students categorized as English Language Learners
(31.2% in Los Angeles and 26% in Oakland). In the fiscal year 2009-2010, Oakland
spent approximately $900 more per student than Los Angeles, based on average daily
attendance.
There are 13 elementary charter schools in Oakland. Of the 10 schools that
responded to the study inquiry, six out of ten (60%) used parent compacts and four (40%)
did not. Respondent school sizes ranged between 122 and 475 students (N = 10, M =
269.4; SD = 120.58). School ranged in age from 2 to 15 years (N = 10, M = 7.2, SD =
3.91). Number of grades served ranged between 3 and 10 (N =10, M = 7.4, SD = 2.41).
A regression analysis showed that the overall model fit for the regression is significant (F
= 63.93, p < .01). In Oakland, grades served significantly affected compact usage. The
larger the number of grades served, the more likely a school adopted a parent compact (t
= 12.11; p < .01). In other words, in Oakland, charter school serving grades K-8 were
more likely to utilize compacts compared to charter schools serving grades K-5.
Although school size and school age were not significant according to the predetermined
alpha of p < .01, they are marginally significant at p = .029 and p = .052 respectively. As
a whole, the predictors account for 97% of the variance in the model.
61

The San Diego Unified School District’s student enrollment was three times that
of Oakland but it was still small compared to LAUSD. As illustrated by Table 4.3, with
19 charter schools serving 15,614 students in the district, San Diego shared the same
percentages as Los Angeles. Charter schools represented 14% of the total number of
schools and served 12% of the total students enrolled, which was slightly lower than that
of Oakland. Like Los Angeles and Oakland, San Diego had a large minority student
population with 45.6% of the students identified as Hispanic, 11.3% Black, and 15.2%
reported Asian. Compared to the other two districts, San Diego had the lowest rates of
participation in the Free and Reduced Meals program, suggesting that poverty was not as
high as the other two districts. San Diego also had the lowest total dollars spent per
student at $9,855 per year compared to $10,958 in Oakland and $10,015 in Los Angeles.
Table 4.3. San Diego Unified School District profile (2009-2010)
Category Demographic data
Size of district 131,784 students
Student population by race/ethnicity
Hispanic 45.6%, Others 28.3%, White
23.9%, Black 15.2%, White 8.9%, Asian
4%, Others 1.1%
Students classified as ELL and on free/reduced
meals
ELL 64.6%, Free/Reduced meals 76.4%
Number of Charter Elementary Schools 19 (14% of total charter elementary schools)
Number of K-12 Charter Schools 41 (18% of total K-12 schools)
Number of students served by K-12 charter
schools
15,614 (12% of total enrollment)

Of the 19 elementary charter schools, 9 (47%) responded to the study inquiry
regarding the use of parent compacts. These 9 schools ranged in size from 53 to 566
students (N = 9; M = 250.56; SD = 152.07). The age of the schools ranged between 1 to
62

18 years (N = 9; M = 6.33; SD = 5.52). The number of grades served ranged from 3 to 9
grades (N = 9; M = 7.33; SD = 2). The results of regression analyses showed that the
school size, school age, and grades served were not significant predictors of compact
usage in San Diego (R
2
=.60, F = 2.48, p > .01). In other words, school characteristics
such as size, age, and grade served did not influence school’s adoption of parent
compacts.
The data from the three individual districts suggested that school size, school age,
and grades served (with the exception of Oakland) were not significant predictors of
compact usage. In order to understand the impact of location on the adoption of
compacts, the data from all three districts were combined and additional multiple
regression analyses were conducted with the addition of location as a predictor. Taken as
whole (N = 39), the combined data showed that school size, school age, grades served,
and location were not significant predictors of compact usage (R
2
= .165, F= 2.413 p>
.01). Since school characteristics did not appear to determine the adoption of parent
compacts, these findings suggested that schools of various sizes, ages, grade levels, and
locations can adopt parent compacts as a tool for parent involvement.
The Contents and Formats of Parent Compacts
In this section, differences and similarities across all the sample parent contracts
are discussed. Thirty-nine schools reported using parent compacts to involve parents, and
27 of the 39 (69%) compacts were collected for examination. In terms of contents, there
was variation in the extent to which the school missions and parent contracts were inter-
related. Formats across the sample contracts were similar, although the level of
63

specificity varied somewhat. Looking at the sample as a whole, the types of parent
involvement activities that were included in parent compacts was similar across
jurisdictions and schools. Finally, the sharpest distinction between parent compacts was
the inclusion (exclusion) of an enforcement clause. In the remainder of this section, these
finding are explained in more detail
School Missions and Parent Contracts
Since the school mission/vision statement describes not only the “personality” or
purpose of the school but also encapsulates important school values, the statements were
collected in order to identify specific references to parent or family involvement.
Interestingly, of the 39 schools that employed parent compacts, only 12 (30%) mentioned
parents in their mission statements. Non-compact schools included parents and family in
their missions at about the same rate (29%). The fact that schools with or without parent
compacts mentioned families in mission statements is surprising, since the inclusion of
families in the school mission suggests a conscience effort on the school’s part to involve
families in the education of their children. The findings from the sample, however,
suggest the contrary: including parents and families in school missions was not associated
with the adoption of parent compacts. Since no other study has examined the relationship
between school missions and the adoption of parent compacts, the findings reported here
are still exploratory.
Format of Parent Contracts
The analysis of the 27 sample of parent contracts showed that parent compacts,
like honor codes and ethic codes often adopted similar formats (Svensson & Wood,
64

2007). Most compacts (22) were a one-page, stand-alone document, but some spanned
multiple pages and were included in the schools’ parent handbooks. Parent compacts
were titled “home/school compact”, “parent agreement”, and “parent contract”. Even
though “parent” was the most commonly used term to refer to the adult in charge of
caregiving, most compacts acknowledged extended families, legal guardians, and any
stakeholder who was involved in the supporting the child academically, emotionally and
socially.
Schools also referred to compacts as “pledges”, “our commitment to the future”,
and “commitment to excellence”. Beneath the titles, compacts generally opened with a
statement of purpose that explained the reasons for the parent compact. These purpose
statements commonly referred the importance of shared goals: “Together, the school and
parents agree to do everything possible to ensure a healthy, safe, stimulating learning
environment for the children who attend the school. To maximize each child’s potential,
we commit to initiating and maintaining open, honest and respectful communication
between the school and home” (Compact 9, p. 1). In addition to stating the purpose of a
compact, the opening lines frequently reiterated parents’ responsibilities and commitment
upon signing the compact: “By signing this compact, a parent agrees to participate in the
following school-organized Parent/teacher Involvement Program. This program will help
me learn how to support my child’s education at his/her school and to encourage me to
participate in my child’s school” (Compact 22, p.1).
After the introductory section, the compacts identified specific areas of agreement
which included: volunteer hours, school responsibilities, and family responsibilities,
65

including types of involvement activities... The contents of each of these will be
discussed in detail in the following section. Once the areas of agreement were specified,
compacts usually concluded with parent signatures, which served both as an
acknowledgment of the compact and as a promise to fulfill the terms. Several schools
ended the compacts with concluding statement that stressed (again) parent
responsibilities. For example, one school concluded with the statement, “My/Our
signature below represents my/our understanding and full commitment to the above
conditions for the school year. I/We have also discussed the Parent Agreement with
my/our child” (Compact 2, p.1). In compacts where school responsibilities were
outlined, school staff/principals also signed the compacts. Of the 27 sample compacts
collected, 16 (60%) required signatures.
Contents of Parent Compacts
Like the format of parent contracts, the contents also was similar to honor codes
and ethic codes, popular in the non-profit and private sectors (Svensson & Wood, 2007).
The analyses, which follow, examine expectations for parents and schools, both in terms
of the amount of time required and the types of parent activities.
V olunteer hours was one of the few quantifiable items in the parent compacts,
schools often required parents to fulfill a specific number of hours in the compact. Of the
27 compacts in this study, 12 (44%) compacts included specific number of hours parents
must contribute. The requirement ranged from 10 hours to 40 hours for the school year.
Some schools also stipulated that the hours must be spread out through the year such as
“3 hours per month” or “9 hours by November” (Compact 2 and 25). According to the
66

interviews, the stipulated time frame was put in place to encourage parent participation
throughout the school year, and also to deter parents from cramming all the volunteer
hours into the last month of the school (Personal communication, May 23, 2011).
As mentioned earlier, parent contracts identified responsibilities for both partners
– schools and families. Charter schools promised to provide quality education to students
and open communication with parents. In addition, many schools pledged to create safe
and welcoming environments, providing instructional leadership, and meeting the social,
emotional, and educational needs of students and parents. Several parent compacts
specifically mentioned providing educational opportunities for parents in order to ensure
that parents had the tools to support students’ academic progress. For instance, one
compact promised to “help parents develop parenting skills to meet the basic obligations
of family life to foster conditions at home which emphasize the importance of education
and learning: provide parent education workshops, field trip learning experiences, and
opportunities for leadership through participation on the school site council.” Another
compact specified, “The school will provide appropriate training and workshops for
parents on student academic achievement and parent topics” (Compact 2, p.1).
From the parent perspective, compacts delineated the expectation for parents to
participate in parent education. For example, one compact asked parents to “identify
parent needs and take advantage of educational opportunities offered” by the school
(Compact 9, p. 1). In 6 out of 27 compacts, parents agreed to “attend parent workshops”
during the school year. One compact even included a possible list of monthly workshops
taught by teachers and volunteers that included topics such as parent-child relationships,
67

math skills made fun, reading to a child, basic nutrition, how to obtain social assistance,
anger management, and disciplinary methods (Compact 22, p. 1). Instead of focusing on
the basic needs of the child, these workshops concentrated on the educational needs of
parents. Parents cannot effectively support students or schools without possessing the
knowledge and skills necessary to navigate the educational system. The requirement for
parent education in the compacts reflects the awareness among urban charter schools that
in order to involve parents, schools must provide the tools necessary to support parents in
their involvement (Redding, Murphy, & Sheley, 2011).
In considering the types of parent activities that “counted”, nearly all of the
involvement activities (with the exception of parent training just described) coincided
with Epstein’s model of parent involvement, described in Chapter Two (see p. 5). As
illustrated in Table 4.4, below, all but one type of involvement in Epstein’s typology was
used by the sample charter schools.
Table 4.4. Types of involvement found in parent compacts
Epstein’s Typology of
Parent Involvement
Occurrences in
compacts (% of
sample (n= 27)
Examples from sample charter compacts
Type 1
Parenting

26 compacts
(96%)
“Ensure that my child goes to bed early and rises early
to have time for a breakfast at home or at school”
“Dress my child in appropriate school/uniform attire”
“I agree to send my child to school every day, on time
and prepared to work”
“Make sure student gets adequate sleep and has a
healthy diet”

68

Table 4.4 (Continued)

Type 2
Communicating

26 compacts
(96%)
“Attending and participating at mandatory parent
meetings”
“I will establish a communication network between
my child, my child’s teacher and myself”
“Maintain accurate and current records of persons to
whom the school may release students”
“Read school updates”
“Allow planned in-advance home visits throughout the
year”
Type 3
Volunteering

20 compacts
(74%)
“I will participate and or volunteer in
classroom/school activities”
“I will complete my 15 hours at school”
“Support school events and activities”
Type 4
Learning at home
23 compacts
(85%)
“I will review and discuss homework assignments and
school events with my child each day”
“I will limit my child’s television viewing time and
encourage positive uses of out-of-school time”
“I will ensure that my child reads at home every night
for at least thirty minutes”
“Provide a quiet place and time for homework”
Type 5
Decision making
4 compacts
(15%)
“Attend at least 4 parent council meetings”
“Participating in decisions related to the education of
their own children or the total school program as
appropriate”
“Serving on policy advisory groups”
Type 6
Collaborating with the
community
0

Of the involvement activities mentioned in the sample of parent compacts,
parenting (Type 1), communicating (Type 2), volunteering (Type 3), and learning at home
(Type 4) were high frequency items that appeared in almost all the compacts reviewed.
Collaborating with the community, Type 6 of the Epstein (2011) model, was not
mentioned in any of the compacts. Epstein defined this type of involvement as
connections with organizations that share responsibility for children’s education such as
after school programs, health services and other resources.
69

In examining the rates of frequency, charter schools emphasized parent duties,
such as preparing students for school, monitoring attendance, helping with homework,
attending conferences, and volunteering at the school. Only four out of the 27 sample
compacts included clauses that encouraged or expected parent involvement in school
governance (Type 5).
Although the literature review suggested that in the business arena, codes can be
categorized as rule-based or value-based (B. J. Farrell & Cobbin, 1996), most sample
compacts fell under the rule-based category, with a focus on expectations for parent
involvement. The few compacts that did emphasize school missions (value-based) did not
do so to the exclusion of “rules”. As a result, charter school parent compacts can be
divided clearly into two types: compacts that included a non-compliance clause (strong
enforcement compacts) and compacts that did not include a non-compliance clause (weak
enforcement compacts).
Some parent compacts in the sample included strategies to ensure accountability,
but the review of compacts as a whole revealed that enforcement was weak to non-
existent. In the sample of charter schools, only 8 (30%) of the 27 compacts included a
“failure-to-comply” clause. Of the 8 compacts with such clauses, 5 included language
that suggested disenrollment as a possible result of non-compliance. The other 3
compacts listed meetings with school staff as a consequence for non-compliance. The
language for the enforcement clause in compacts varied from “I acknowledge that failure
to complete my volunteer hours may result in my family not participating in all of the
70

benefits of the [charter school]” to “failure to [complete requirements] could result in
dismissal”(Compacts 11 and 19).
While some charter schools included enforcement clauses monitoring
enforcement rested largely on the schools’ ability to track the number of parent volunteer
hours. Of the 12 compacts that required volunteer hours, only 2 schools, described a
system of monitoring and enforcement. Instead of tracking volunteer hours, however,
both schools adopted a system of units where each parent task was assigned a number of
units. For example, if a student was tardy-free for the quarter, parents earned 2 units. If a
student completed all homework for the quarter, parents earned 3 units. Each volunteer
hour and conference meeting equaled 1 unit. Parents serving on parent committees also
earned 1 unit for their participation. Since the tracking of volunteer hours typically
captured parent involvement at school (Type 3 of the Epstein (2011) model), the unit
system allowed for the accounting of other types of parent involvement activities such as
parenting, parent involvement at home, communicating with the school, and involvement
in school governance. In addition to monitoring involvement, the two schools with
enforcement clauses also included a non-compliance clause in the compact that
delineated the consequences for not fulfilling the compact.
Summary
The demographic data on urban charter elementary schools in Los Angeles,
Oakland, and San Diego provided an overview of the types of charter schools currently
using parent compacts as a tool to involve parents. Statistical analyses suggested that
school size, years-in-operation, school location, and grade served were not significant
71

predictors of parent compact adoption. Analyses of parent compacts, based on the study
sample, suggested that compacts across schools and jurisdictions were similar in format
and content. Compacts frequently included similar language regarding parent
responsibilities and types of involvement activities. Parenting activities, open
communication with the school, volunteering at the school, and helping their child learn
at home were at the center of most compacts.
Although charter school compacts stressed expectations, some compacts included
enforcement clauses. The inclusion of an enforcement clause, however, did not usually
entail details with regard to how compliance would be monitored and enforced. In
addition to document analysis, case studies were conducted in four charter schools to
deepen understanding of how parent compacts are implemented. These findings are
presented in the next section.
Four Case Studies: Exploring Implementation of Parent Compacts in Charter Schools
The previous sections discussed the types of schools that adopted parent compacts
and the format and content of the charter school compacts. This section reports research
findings from site visits to four urban charter schools. At each case study school, parents
and school staff most knowledgeable about parent involvement activities were
interviewed individually in order to gather information regarding the implementation of
parent compacts. Parents and staff members were informed of the anonymous nature of
the data collection process and asked to be candid with their answers. A total of 11
parents and 9 administrators (including principals/directors at each school) were
interviewed.
72

Two categories of findings emerged from the analysis of interview data collected
from school administrators and parents. First, as previous research on honor codes and
ethic codes suggested, the findings demonstrated that parent compacts were most
successful when implemented with clear communication, regular monitoring, and strong
enforcement and rewards (Chonko & Hunt, 1985; Chonko, et al., 2003; Ferrell &
Skinner, 1988; Stevens, 2007; Trevino, et al., 1999; Weeks & Nantel, 1992). Of the
processes described in the literature review - creation of the compact, communication,
monitoring, and enforcement of the compact --the latter two appeared to be the most
challenging yet crucial elements. Second, in addition to implementation processes,
contextual variables such as school leadership and organizational culture that focused on
the needs of parents and students played key roles in supporting the success of parent
compacts. These findings are discussed in detail after profiles of the case study schools
and parent compacts are presented.
School Profiles
Four urban charter schools were visited for the case study phase of the research.
The case study sites were selected to maximize sample variation. School selection was
also based on the convenience of school locations and schools’ willingness to participate
in the study (see Chapter 4). The sample included 2 compacts with enforcement clauses
and 2 compacts without enforcement clauses. In addition to variation on the types of
enforcement, case study schools differed in terms of years-in-operation, size, and
academic performance. Los Angeles Unified School District is home to 19 of the 27
schools in the larger sample; three of the four schools visited were located in Los
73

Angeles. The fourth case study site was located in San Diego. Table 4.5 profiles the four
participating charter schools in detail.
Table 4.5. Case Study School Profiles (2009-2010)
School Home
District
Year
Opened
Size Grades
Served
API
growth*
Race/Ethnicity ELL/Free and
Reduced Meals

Freedom
Academy
LA 1993 990 k-5 11.46 Hispanic 89.5%,
Black 7.1%,
Asian 2.1%,
White .8%
ELL 36.9%,
Free/Reduced meals
100.3%
Mosaic
Academy
LA 2001 332 k-8 19.32 Hispanic 73.5%,
Others 14.1%,
White 9%,
Black 2.4%,
Asian .9%,
ELL 33.7%,
Free/Reduced meals
56.9%
New Era
Academy
SD 1997 299 k-6 7.99 Hispanic 11.5%,
Black 82.8%,
Others 3.8%,
Asian 2%,
ELL 0%,
Free/Reduced meals
81.6%
Science
Academy
LA 2004 155 k-5 34.99 Hispanic 89%,
Black 16%,
White 1%,
ELL 39.4%,
Free/Reduced meals
98.7%
*API growth – based on 5 years of Academic Performance Index data 2004-2009
Overview of Case Study Parent Compacts
The four case study schools included compacts with enforcement clauses
(enforcement strong) and compacts without enforcement clauses (enforcement weak) The
theoretical framework, based on the literature review of codes mostly in other sectors,
suggested that what is contained in the compact will influence how the compact is
implemented. The four schools required similar types of parent involvement activities.
Only one of the four schools, Science Academy (pseudonym) stipulated a required
number of volunteer hours (or parent participation points). Parents at Mosaic Academy
were expected to volunteer 30 hours per school year, but this requirement was not
74

included in the parent compact and was not enforced by the school. Table 4.6 displays
the shared and divergent contents of the case study compacts.
Table 4.6. Case Study Charter Schools: Compact Profiles

Parent Compact Freedom
Academy
Mosaic
Academy
New Era
Academy
Science
Academy

Content/Format
Enforcement clause X X
School responsibility section X X X
Student responsibility section X X
Requires parent signature X X X X
Requires volunteer hours X* X X
Offers parent education X X X
Types of activities
Parenting) X X X X
Communicating X X X X
Volunteering X X X
Learning at home X X X X
Decision making X

*At Mosaic, there is an unofficial requirement of 30 hours.
Evolution of Parent Compacts
Past research has suggested that involving stakeholders in the creation of
compacts ensure not only relevance but also ownership of the document (Schwartz,
2004). In the case study group, the findings suggested that parents did not participate in
the creation or the revision processes. School administrators created and edited the
compacts and no parent input was solicited by any of the schools during the creation
process. Nevertheless, all the parents interviewed agreed that the compacts were clearly
stated and included reasonable expectations. Although most of the parents interviewed
felt the compacts did not impact their own level of involvement personally, the parents
75

believed that having a compact was necessary and important. All four case study charter
school compacts asked parents to formalize their familiarity and agreement with the
compact by requiring parents’ signatures.
Of the four schools, Science Academy’s parent compact underwent the greatest
transformation. When Science Academy began operation in 2004, the parent compact
required 50 volunteer hours from parents per school year. Once implemented, the school
staff quickly realized that as parents came to fulfill their volunteer hours, teachers were
overburdened with the tasks of 1) providing work for parent volunteers, 2) training and
monitoring parent work, and 3) keeping track of hours volunteered. Parents sometimes
brought their younger children with them when they volunteered in the classroom, which
added to the difficulty and complexity of organizing and managing a volunteer
workforce.
The following year, Science Academy drastically reduced the required hours from
50 to 20. In addition, parents at school meetings and conferences were given hours for
their attendance. During the third year, parents were encouraged to earn volunteer hours
by taking their children to museums, libraries, festivals, and other educational events.
School staff compiled a list of free community resources for parents and parents
submitted brochures or ticket stubs as evidence of attendance. According to interview
with school administrator, these changes reduced the number of classroom volunteers and
improved the parent involvement program dramatically. While these opportunities
helped parents fulfill their volunteer hours, monitoring and tracking hours became
increasingly difficult. As a result, Science Academy created the Family Support Card
76

which served as a monitoring and tracking system (discussed in detail later in the
section).
V olunteer hours proved to be the most commonly amended requirements in parent
compacts. Like Science Academy, New Era also reduced volunteer hours from the initial
40 hours to the currently stated 10 hours per school year. According to an administrator
at New Era:
We weren’t being realistic for 40 hours a year. We weren’t prepared if all the
parents showed up to do their hours. We are just trying to be flexible and make it
achievable for parents and make sure we can handle it. But it also was the non-
compliance; many parents weren’t doing anything. (Personal communication,
May 26, 2011)
According to administrator interviewed, the difficulty in enforcing the volunteer
hours was one reason Mosaic Academy chose not to include specific hours in the parent
compacts. Even though Mosaic expected parents to volunteer 30 hours for each school
year, it was not included as a requirement in the compact and thus never officially
monitored or enforced. Very recently, however, the parent organization took on the
responsibility of creating a system of accounting for and rewarding parent efforts. Like
Mosaic Academy, Freedom Academy also had no mandated volunteer hours. As the
largest school visited, administrators generally felt such requirements were too time-
consuming to monitor and enforce. Parents interviewed at Freedom Academy agreed that
unlike private schools, charter schools did not really have any recourse when parents
failed to meet specific requirements in the compact:
77

I remember this year when my nephew went to the private school. Parents had to
pay if they didn’t make the 30 hours volunteering. I think that’s too much. We
did discuss that in one of our meetings and we are like, ‘we can’t mandate’. They
don’t show up then what? What’s the penalty? We can’t have fee charges. Let’s
say we say 30 hours a year. How do we enforce that? There is no way. (Personal
communication, May 25, 2011)
V olunteer hour requirements are not the only part of compacts that have seen
changes. Mosaic also adjusted the content of the parent compact to address issues
relevant to their parent population. The initial draft of the parent compact was based on
the school charter petition, However, over time, school administrators found the need to
be more specific about how families needed to fulfill students’ basic needs.
As one administrator explained:
We were realizing kids were not sleeping enough hours or eating well, so we had
to be more specific in the compact about getting students ready for school… that
means they had a good night of sleep, and they have been fed breakfast, and they
are clean and ready to go. (Personal communication, May 23, 2011)
Communicating to the School Community
After creating the parent compact, communicating it to the larger school
community was the next important step in implementation (Ferrell & Skinner, 1988). All
four schools provided hard copies of the parent compact to families and explained the
contents during orientation meetings with reminders during the school year.
78

At Mosaic, the school staff focused on introducing the compact to families of
incoming kindergarteners during the initial school tour and meeting. Mosaic is a
bilingual school and in order to ensure proper acquisition of both Spanish and English,
almost all new incoming students begin at the kindergarten level. Since all kindergarten
families must attend a mandatory meeting prior to the start of the school year for
orientation and assessment purposes, the parent compact was introduced to parents during
those meetings. School staff felt that because these parents were hearing about the parent
compact for the first time, it was crucial to stress the importance of parent involvement
and explain the school’s expectations for involvement. As one parent at Mosaic
expressed, “In general, there is the idea that you are a team…you have some investment
in this too” (personal communication, May 23, 2011). Returning parents heard about the
parent compacts again at orientation and received their copy to review and sign but less
emphasis was placed on explaining the purpose and requirements of parent compacts.
Similarly, Science Academy staff focused attention on families of incoming
kindergarten students by explaining the parent involvement program, in detail, and the
Family Support Card in particular. The staff at Science Academy believed that making
certain new parents knew the expectations before school began was the key to parent
participation (personal communication, May 25, 2011).
Like Mosaic Academy and Science Academy, parents at other case study schools
also learned about parent compacts and received their copies during orientation.
According to school staff at Mosaic and New Era, efforts were made to collect and keep
100% of the signed parent compacts on file. When parents did not return a signed copy
79

of the compact, school staff typically followed up with parents through phone calls. At
New Era Academy and Freedom Academy, parents not only heard about the compact
during orientation, but also discussed the contents during classroom meetings with
teachers. Since teachers interact with parents more frequently throughout the school year
and know the families more intimately, Freedom Academy decided to have the teachers
collect and keep parent compacts and, in turn, monitor parent compliance.
Another strategy case study schools adopted was to involve students in
communicating the compacts to parents. This was particularly relevant to compacts that
included a student responsibility section, such as the ones used at Mosaic Academy and
New Academy. At Mosaic Academy, parents were asked to read the parent compacts
with their children yearly. This approach not only encouraged parent-child interaction at
home, but also demonstrated the importance of everyone working together towards
common goals. Parents sometime utilized the compact to stress the importance of
following rules and demonstrating good behavior. As one parent shared her experience of
going over the compact with her child:
So the school says to read it with your child and I tell him, this is part of my thing.
I am not just on you for no reason. As a parent, this is what I need to do. Look at
what the school tells me. I am agreeing to this and you are agreeing to this too.
(Personal communication, May 23, 2011)
Monitoring and Enforcement
For most schools, monitoring and enforcing the parent compact were the most
challenging aspects of implementation. Not only did monitoring place demands on staffs’
80

time, it also required precise data keeping and accounting -- counting hours and tracking
parent attendance).
Of the four charter schools visited, Science Academy and New Academy had
specific requirements on volunteer hours. Mosaic Academy suggested verbally that
parents should volunteer 30 hours per school year and Freedom Academy had no
volunteer hour requirements in the parent compact (refer to p.75). Previous research
noted that the inclusion of volunteer hours or attendance at meetings was particularly
important because other types of parent involvement, such as limiting students’
television, were not observable and often difficult to monitor (Auerbach, 2007; Mehan, et
al., 1996). Not too surprising the case study schools tended to monitor school-based
activities and with the exception of Science Academy, other types of involvement
activities, such as parent-child interactions at home, were not monitored. On the other
hand, volunteer hours and meeting attendance were at the core the monitoring process.
Sign-in sheets were the most common way for schools to monitor volunteer hours
and meeting attendance. At three of the four case study schools, staff members were put
in charge of collecting and accounting parent involvement data. At New Academy,
parents signed in at the front desk for all involvement activities throughout the year. At
Freedom Academy and Science Academy, designated school staff tracked parent
participation. At Mosaic, however, parents took on the responsibility of monitoring
parent involvement, even though the requirement was unofficial and not part of the
compact. In the last two years, the parent council, comprised of only parents, decided to
help school staff by creating a tracking system to hold parents accountable. The parent
81

council first experimented with computer programs where parents can input their hours
but found the system unreliable due to user error and other technical difficulties. In 2011,
a simple index card system was instituted where parents log in hours at the front office to
account for their involvement. The hours were then tallied by the parent council
members for reporting purposes. Although the school administrators interviewed felt the
parents’ efforts were needed and helpful, they were unsure of the accuracy and
consistency of the volunteer data being collected.
Of the four schools, Science Academy had the most elaborate and comprehensive
monitoring system known as “Family Support Cards”. The Family Support Card
included five categories: student attendance, uniform, parent enforcement of student
behavior, homework habits, and family participation at school. Families were rated on a
number scale from 1 (below expectations) to 4 (exceeds expectations) for each category.
The ratings captured parent involvement at home and at school. Instead of recording
number of hours, the Family Support Cards required parents to fulfill four participation
points during each two-month reporting period. Activities included: attendance at parent
conferences (2 points), parent council meeting (1 point)and school assemblies (1 point),;
and chaperoning a field trip (1 point) and taking a family field trip (1 point), In addition,
there were other activities in which parents could participate to earn points. Every two
months, the operations coordinator tallied up the points and gave each family a rating on
a scale of 1-4 for the Family Support Card and sent it home with students. Unlike
monitoring systems at other schools, the Family Support Card allowed Science Academy
to account for a wide range of parent involvement activities beyond volunteering. For
82

example, when parents received points for students’ homework completion, the Family
Support Card captured parents’ involvement at home. Similarly, when parents received
one point for attending a parent council meeting, they were also participating in the
governance of the school.
The Family Support Card at Science Academy not only provided an accounting of
parent involvement, it was also central to the enforcement of the compact. The Family
Support Card was designed to visually mirror student report cards. As such, students
quickly recognized that a one in any category denoted poor performance while a four
meant excellence. Like the student report cards, the Family Support Card was also color
coded (1-red, 2-yellow, 3 and 4-green). Students learned to equate the Family Support
Cards with report cards for parents and regularly questioned parents when the color red or
yellow appeared on the card. As a result, parents were motivated to serve as good
examples for students, and students in effect served as the enforcers of the parent
compact. One parent reported her kids saying “Mom, why don’t you go to that meeting,
we are getting a 3 or a 2” (personal communication, May 25, 2011). In addition, parents
took pride in knowing that they were supporting their children’s education. One parent
described an encounter with a fellow parent, “The other day, I ran into a parent and we
were talking. She had the report card in her purse and she was showing off her report
card. She was talking to other people about the school, and she showed off the report
card to them also” (personal communication, May 25, 2011).
A more common way that schools enforced the compact was to refer to it
regularly during parent meetings and conferences, where school staff explicitly reminded
83

parents of the compact and their commitment to be involved. Schools also encouraged
parents to attend specific events and requested volunteers for field trips and festivals.
Parents at Mosaic, for example, mentioned that school staff “reinforces [the compact]
constantly” and remarked about the mantra “bring your child timely to school and
volunteer frequently while at school.”
When parents failed to fulfill the compact, the first step was typically a reminder
to parents of the obligations to which they agreed. At Freedom Academy, staff reported
contacting the parents of students who accrued multiple unexcused absences to remind
the parents of the compact section on attendance. Parent compacts, in these cases, served
“as a tool for when parents were lacking in [compliance].” Near the end of the school
year, when a parent still had not fulfilled his or her participation requirements, staff at
Mosaic Academy called the parent directly and extended an invitation to volunteer at
some of the end-of-the year events. For the principal at New Academy, positive
reinforcement was her strategy. Instead of reminding parents of their compact
responsibilities, she thanked every parent she met on campus and stressed to them “your
presence makes a statement to your child and also makes a statement to the staff”
(personal communication, May 26, 2011).
The charter school staff interviewed described their parent involvement goal was
to help parents fulfill their agreed-upon responsibilities -- get involved and stay involved.
To achieve this goal, schools offered flexibility in time, place, and activities in order to
cater to parents’ schedules and needs. Freedom Academy sponsored parent workshops on
Saturdays when parents typically do not have to work. Similarly, Science Academy set
84

various meeting times throughout the school year to ensure parents could attend some, if
not all, of the meetings. An administrator at Science Academy discussed the various
efforts to create flexibility in meeting times so that “the parents can’t say they can’t
come” (personal communication, May 25, 2011).
Consequences: Rewards and Penalties
When parents failed to meet their agreed upon obligations, parents and
administrators alike mentioned that the compact could often feel heavy-handed and not in
the spirit of the schools’ commitment to serve parents. As mentioned previously, charter
schools strove to provide opportunities and support for parents to fulfill their
responsibilities. In addition, school staff reinforced positive behavior by showing
gratitude to parents who supported school activities in any way. In the cases where non-
compliance of the compact continued, the enforcement served more as a way to discover
reasons for inactivity and an opportunity for accommodations rather than the time for
harsh penalties.
All four schools stressed that expressing appreciation for parents’ involvement
and rewarding parents were the preferred forms of encouragement. At Mosaic, school
staff organized parent appreciation luncheons where parents who had volunteered and
helped the school were invited to attend. A list of parent names was circulated to every
staff person to ensure that everyone who had volunteered was invited to the event. Staff
worked hard to make the banquet a formal affair. Invitations were mailed home. The
banquet included catered food, prize giveaways, and a slide show presentation. Parents
85

also received hand-written thank you notes from every staff member for whom they had
volunteered throughout the school year.
Mosaic was not the only school that hosted a reward banquet. At New Academy,
all volunteers were invited to attend a dinner. The students of the school provided the
entertainment and parents received a certificate of appreciation for their commitment to
the school. The parent with the most hours of service received a trophy and a $100 gift
card. One of the parents who had received the award raved, “The award was so pretty
and it had my name on it. It was really cool” (personal communication, May 26, 2011).
Banquets and dinners were nice gestures that parents appreciated but they were
time-consuming to organize and costly to host. Schools also utilized simple but strategic
rewards to show appreciation and motivate parents. Since Mosaic was renting a building
from a church, parking spaces were at a premium. A designated parent-volunteer-of-the-
month parking spot was created for the parent who volunteered the most hours that
month. V olunteers who completed 30 hours of service were also featured on an “honor
roll” in the school newsletter. Like Mosaic, New Academy also tried to incentivize
parents using simple methods that did not require a large amount of resources. One of the
strategies adopted by the school was to offer students a free homework pass or a free
dress pass if their parents attended a specific event, such as the parent-teacher conference.
At a school where uniform policies are strictly enforced, students were motivated to
remind parents to attend the required meetings.
When parents consistently failed to meet the requirements of the parent compacts,
schools applied consequences in different ways. Enforcers of the compact included
86

school administrators, parent council or organizations, and school community review
boards which consisted of both administrators and parents. Science Academy and
Freedom Academy both had compacts that included strong enforcement clauses. For
Science Academy, the compact stated that “continued non-adherence to the
Parent/Guardian Agreement as indicated in a family’s Family Support Card may result in
a family being asked to meet with the school administration and/or parent council”
(Compact 7, p. 1). At Science Academy, the parent council consisted of elected parent
representatives and served as the first defense on the rare occasion that issues of non-
compliance arose. Once a family exhibited sub-par involvement, the parent council
contacted the family to better understand their barriers to involvement. Often, addressing
the barriers resolved the issue. For one particular family at Science Academy, distance
from the school made it difficult to attend meetings; the school staff worked on building a
car pool system to help meet the needs of the family. A staff member at Science
Academy reinforced this approach, remarking “We are not thinking of ‘oh the parents are
not coming because they don’t want to.’ we take the time to find out why” (Personal
communication, May 25, 2011).
At Freedom Academy, the parent compact used more extreme language:
“Continued non-adherence to the home-school contract will result in a review by the
school-community review board. The board may recommend disenrollment from the
charter school” (Compact 19, p.1). Like Science Academy, however, the strong
enforcement clause in the parent compact was rarely applied. But unlike Science
Academy’s, the compact at Freedom had no required volunteer hours and no systematic
87

way of monitoring parent involvement. Apart from adding up volunteer hours of parents
who regularly came to school functions and special events, Freedom had no way to
monitor compliance. Not too surprising, school staff did not recall an occasion where the
School Community Review Board was involved in a case of parent compact non-
compliance. However, there were consequences. First parents received a “not-in-
compliance” letter from the school that reiterated the agreement made in the parent
compact. After the warning letter, parents were given additional opportunities to fulfill
their agreed-upon commitment (often with accommodations). Although Freedom
academy’s compliance clause included the consequence of disenrollment, the director
admitted that legally public school students cannot be dis-enrolled on such grounds.
For Mosaic and New Academy, there were no stated consequences for non-
compliance. As one parent from Mosaic reflected, “I never felt like if I didn’t do
something in the compact, somebody would be mad at me or whatever. I do think school
staff reinforces the compact constantly… but there are no real consequences other than
you are not doing the best you can for your kid. I really feel like it is encouraging
participation versus mandatory participation” (personal communication, May 26, 2011).
The Role of Contextual Variables in Supporting Compact Implementation
Previous studies noted the importance of contextual variables, such as leadership
and organizational culture, on the effectiveness of honor codes and ethic codes (Adam &
Rachman-Moore, 2004; Arnold, et al., 2007; Boo & Koh, 2001; Schminke, 2001;
Trevino, et al., 1999). Similarly, findings in the current study also suggest the importance
of school leadership and school culture to effective implementation. School leaders
88

supported parent involvement by keeping the lines of communication open, respecting
and responding to parent input, and creating school events and activities that addressed
the needs/interests of both students and parents. School leaders also helped create a
campus culture that was inviting and safe for students and parents. In terms of school
culture, parents were always welcome to come and express their opinions about what
they liked and didn’t like at the school. The open door policy was further evidenced by
schools hiring community representatives and parents as integral members of the school
team. The culture of the school also did not assume parents knew how to contribute and
so, as discussed previously, schools provided training for parents through parent
education classes. Finally, schools were also very cognizant of parents’ interests – their
children. Several of the case study charter schools created special events highlighting
student accomplishments.
School leadership. The interviews with school administrators who worked
closely with parents revealed that many of the school staff grew up in the school
community, and several were parents of children who attended or were still attending the
charter school. In fact, of the nine school administrators interviewed, four were from the
community and three were charter school parents. Their knowledge of the neighborhood
and community proved to be invaluable when school-based educators were working with
parents. As the administrator at Science Academy explained, “I grew up here. I have no
kind of educational background; I didn’t go to college. But I grew up here. I understand
how other parents feel and that the school’s responsibility is to recognize that we are all
doing as much as we can.” These staff members were more likely to cross the cultural
89

barriers that prevent parent involvement. As Mosaic’s operations director expressed, “I
know I can get parents to help me like this (snap fingers). You have to communicate
differently with these [parents]” (Personal communication, May 23, 2011).
At all four schools, the school principals and directors created a school
environment that was welcoming to parents. Several school administrators planned
special days where parents could have open conversations with school leaders. Morning
meetings and coffee with the principal of Science Academy occurred every other month.
Not only did these opportunities provide time for parents to dialogue with the principal,
they also helped accommodate families who may not be available in the evening, when
most school meetings were held.
At Mosaic, the executive directors met with parents during Second Cup of Coffee
every Wednesday. During these meetings, school leaders answered questions from
parents and addressed their concerns. Parent feedback, for instance, suggested that
homework was busywork. In response to this, a new homework policy was developed.
As one of the school directors explained:
Once parents realized we were willing to listen and that we were actually willing
to create a plan for change, that changed parents’ mindsets for the rest of their
time here. Even better…the next time a challenge comes up, it will not be an
attack on either the parents or us. It will be a question… conversation. I think it
changes the school-parent relationship and I think that the new perspective leads
to more volunteerism, because parents feel this is an organization that listens to
them and that they want to support. (Personal communication, May 23, 2011)
90

The need to really listen to parents and respond to their concerns was on the mind
of all school leaders. At New Academy, the principal created an event where a parent
panel shared with teachers their expectations for their children. “I wanted the teachers to
see”, declared the principal that “these people care about their children… They love their
children as much as any parent does. I know that because I am one of these people -- I am
a native. I wanted the parents to communicate to the teachers and talk about what their
dreams and expectations were for their children” (personal communication, May 26,
2011).
School culture. One major barrier to parent involvement, according to a Mosaic
Academy administrator, was parents’ lack of knowledge about how schools operate and
their role in supporting student learning. The administrator expressed her belief that most
uninvolved parents feel they lack knowledge and skills: “Parents don’t know how and
what to contribute. At the school, parents see people with lots of education and good
communication skills – may be in a language different from their own. I don’t think they
see themselves as capable of contributing” (Personal communication, May 23, 2011).
The New Academy principal expressed similar sentiments from parents at her school:
“Some parents are intimidated. Some say, ‘I am not able to help on that level. I don’t
know how to write’” (Personal communication, May 26, 2011). The lack of knowledge
proved to be a roadblock for many parents in the case study charter schools.
The culture at these schools was to not only empower parents in their
communities, but also to offer parent education classes. At Freedom Academy, the parent
center was the gathering place for parent education. Throughout the school year, parent
91

classes took place while students were in school. Topics were selected based on parents’
interests and needs. The parent center coordinator arranged for experts from the
community to come and teach parents about home loans, citizenship, social benefits, drug
and alcohol prevention, and sexually transmitted diseases. With a student population that
was 89% percent Hispanic, one of the most popular classes was English as a Second
Language. Teachers also sponsored workshops (mainly on Saturdays) that helped parents
learn to use the school website and emails, so that they could access information about
student homework and grades; how to read and do math with kids; and how to provide
well-balanced, nutritional meals. At New Academy, parents attended Parent University
where different subject matter was taught every month. Parents attended workshops
based on the grade level of their child. A curriculum was developed for each grade level
to share things with parents on how they could help their children in each of the academic
areas. One parent recalled an especially useful math class where the instructor showed
parents how to use M&Ms to help children learn fractions and multiplication. Some
monolingual English parents at Mosaic Academy wanted Spanish classes in order to
better support bilingual students at the school. As a result, Spanish instruction was
offered, in addition to the typical reading and math workshops. Mosaic Academy also
mandated a 6-week training course for parents of students between kindergarten and first
grade. A Parent Expectation Support Achievement (PESA) program was offered twice a
year (once in English and once in Spanish), and focused on child development theories
and building parenting skills. One parent at Mosaic Academy reported not only learning
useful information from the PESA program, but also building relationships with fellow
92

parents. Similarly, Science Academy offered workshops that informed parents of what
students were learning at school and gave parents tools to help their children at home.
Parents interviewed expressed appreciation for the supportive school culture. As one
Science Academy parent explained, “There is no excuse not to come and participate in
whatever the school provides for us to learn so you can better help your kids” (personal
communication, May 25, 2011).
Parent education opportunities also came as a response to parents’ concerns with
school operations. When Mosaic grew from elementary grades to middle grades, parents
questioned their children’s readiness for middle school, and whether big kids and little
kids sharing space was a good idea. In response to parent concerns, Mosaic hosted fifth-
grade parent breakfasts where middle school teachers discussed with parents the
curriculum and organization of middle school, answered questions, and led parent tours
through middle school classrooms. The opportunity for parents to gather and talk openly
about major school changes eased parents’ concerns and also demonstrated the schools’
responsiveness to parents (Lubienski, 2003).
Schools also tried to accommodate parents by planning events early and making
events child-centered. At Mosaic, staff finalized school events for the following school
year by June of the previous year. As a result, before the current school year was over,
parents already knew of volunteer opportunities for the coming school year. Schools also
worked hard to plan events that parents would want to attend. To accomplish this, New
Academy created events focused on the students and their families. Understanding that
busy lives often prevent families from spending quality time together, New Academy
93

invited families to Muffins with Mom and Donuts with Dad, early morning rituals where
students could spend time with their parents and parents can socialize with school staff in
a non-threatening environment. New Academy also offered monthly student award
ceremonies highlighted student achievement and encouraged parents to come to the
school for events that were positive in nature. Similarly, at Mosaic, one of the largest
events of the year was Math & Science Night, where students were put in charge of
presenting math and science projects to parents. Parents learned through the
presentations what their own children were working on, and also received a preview of
middle school by attending presentations by students in the upper grades.
Summary
Across the sample of 58 urban charter elementary schools that responded to the
initial survey, almost 70% utilized a parent compact to involve parents. The content
analysis of the compacts revealed that compacts were similar in expectations of parent
involvement activities, but were divergent in terms of their approaches to enforcement.
Some compacts included enforcement clauses that outlined consequences while others
did not.
Interview data collected from the site visits suggested that similarities between
charter school parent compacts and honor codes and ethic codes, based on research
outside of schools. The implementation process included creating the compact,
communicating the compact to the school community, and monitoring and enforcement
of the parent compact. Findings from site visits to the case study schools also suggest
that contextual variables played a role in supporting the overall success of parent
94

compacts (Boo & Koh, 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Schminke, 2001; Trevino, et al.,
1999). The final chapter, Chapter Five, provides returns to the research questions, and
offers study propositions, policy implications and recommendations for future research.

95

CHAPTER FIVE
STUDY PROPOSITIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Empirical studies suggest that parent involvement positively impacts student
achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2005, 2007). In order to gauge the utility of
parent compacts in increasing parent involvement, this study examined the content and
implementation of parent compacts in urban charter schools in California. This final
chapter discusses several propositions that emerged from the study findings. The
discussion is arranged by relevance to the three research questions guiding the study.
Implications for policy and practice are then provided, followed by recommendations for
future research.
Study Propositions
As noted in Chapter Three, the purposive sampling technique employed in this
study limits generalizability to theoretical propositions, rather than statistical conclusions
of cause and effect that can be applied to the entire population (Creswell, 1998). In this
section four propositions, organized by research question, are presented.
RQ1: How does compact use vary across charter schools?
In response to Research Question, the study explored through the descriptive
statistics, urban charter schools that employed parent compacts. As reported in Chapter
Four, almost 70% of the responding charter elementary schools in Los Angeles, San
Diego, and Oakland utilized parent compacts as a strategy to involve parents. This is
similar to the previously rate (79%) reported in a 1997 study of California charter schools
96

(Becker, et al., 1997). Proposition one examines the characteristics of schools with and
without parent compacts.
Proposition 1: School characteristics do not predict the adoption of parent compacts
The findings in Chapter Four suggested that charter schools adopted parent
compacts regardless of the school’s size, years in operation, grade served, or geographic
location. Charter school demographics were analyzed first by district and then as a
whole. The statistical analyses showed that none of the variables were significant
predictors of compact usage. In other words, charter schools in Los Angeles were no
more likely to utilize parent compacts than charter schools in Oakland or San Diego.
Similarly, brand new charters with a small population of students in early grades are just
as likely to adopt parent compacts as a mature charter school serving large populations of
students K-8. Parent compacts appeared to be an easily adaptable tool to any school
interested in improving parent involvement.
RQ2: What elements/provisions/requirements are found in urban charter school
compacts?
The second research question investigated the format and content of parent
compacts. Previous content analysis of charter school parent compacts suggested that
compacts represented uneven exchanges between schools and families in which parents
bared the bulk of the burden. In the study conducted by Becker et al. (1997), the
researchers cited the small percentages of compacts that included school duty clauses and
the high percentage of compacts that included volunteer hours and fail-to-comply clauses
97

as evidence for their assertions. The proposition related to this research question arose
from data that updated and contradicted Becker et al.’s (1997) analyses.
Proposition 2: Parent compacts represent a more balanced exchange than previously
reported
In Becker et al.’s (1997) study, 8 out of 23 compacts (35%) included school duty
clauses. In contrast, 13 of the 23 compacts (57%) included fail-to-comply clauses in
which parents were informed that failure to fulfill the agreement would lead to students’
dismissal from the charter school. In addition, researchers in the earlier study found that
compacts with non-compliance clauses were also more likely to include requirements for
specific volunteer hours. These findings prompted the authors to critique parent
compacts for what they saw as practices of exclusion, especially for urban parents.
In the current sample of charter schools, all of which were located in urban areas
and serving urban population of students, almost half (48%) of the compacts included a
section detailing school and/or staff responsibilities. When it came to enforcement, only
8 (30%) of the 27 compacts included a “fail-to-comply” clause. Of the 8 compacts with
such clauses, 5 included language that suggested disenrollment as a possible result of
non-compliance. The other 3 compacts listed meetings with school staff as a
consequence for non-compliance. 3 of the 8 compacts with enforcement clauses (38%)
required volunteer hours as opposed to 9 out of 19 compacts without enforcement clauses
(47%). These findings contradicted Becker et al.’s (1997) assertion that compacts with
non-compliance clauses were more likely to require volunteer hours compared to
compacts without non-compliance clauses.
98

In addition, the current study found that compacts required parent involvement in
the governance of the school (Type 5 of Epstein’s model). This type of involvement was
not found in the study conducted by Becker et al. (1997). In the current sample of
compacts, the amount of involvement expected in school governance varied from
“serving, to the extent possible, on policy advisory groups” (Compact 2, p.1) to “attend at
least 4 parent council meetings a year” (Compact 25, p. 1).
These new data showed that parent compacts have become more equalized in
contractual terms since the last study. Parent compacts in the current sample were more
likely than before to include school responsibility clauses, resulting in a more equal
partnership between the school and parents in the education of students. Parent compacts
in the current sample were also less likely to include enforcement clauses and stipulate
volunteer hours. Table 5.1 summarizes the key statistics and differences between the
Becker et al. (1997) study and that of the current study.
Table 5.1. Finding comparison of the Becker et al. (1997) study and the current study
Sample Characteristics and Findings Becker et al
(1997)
Current Study
Types of schools All K-12
charters in CA
Urban charter elementary
schools in Los Angeles,
San Diego, and Oakland
Total number of compacts in the sample 23 27
Compacts with school responsibility clause 8/23 (35%) 13/27 (48%)
Compacts with volunteer hour requirements 13/23 (57%) 12/27 (44%)
Compacts with “fail-to-comply” clause 13/23 (57%) 8/27 (30%)
Compacts included parents in school governance No Yes

RQ3: How do the processes of creation, implementation, and enforcement support
compact effectiveness?
99

The last research question was concerned with how compacts were implemented.
Site visits to four urban charter schools yielded data regarding the creation,
implementation, and enforcement processes of parent compacts. One main proposition
emerged around the findings for this research question: that processes of parent compact
implementation were not fundamentally different from the implementation processes of
honor codes and ethic codes. For example, the research on ethic codes in corporations
suggested that clear communication of the code to employees decreased unethical
behavior (Chonko & Hunt, 1985; Weeks & Nantel, 1992). The clear communications of
parent compacts also contributed to parents’ knowledge and participation in school
events. Similarly, ethic code research showed the use of proper enforcement encouraged
employee compliance (Boo & Koh, 2001; Ferrell & Skinner, 1988). The findings from
the current study also suggested that enforcement of parent compacts increased the
overall success of compact implementation. As such, the research model, presented in
the findings chapter, based on the work of code researchers, applied to parent compacts in
public schools.
Proposition 3: Parent compact implementation processes are similar to other codes
The findings of this study showed that the implementation processes of parent
compacts exhibited the characteristics of ethic codes and honor codes. Compacts and
codes, regardless of the sector, went through the creation process, communication
process, and monitoring and enforcement process. This suggested that, on a fundamental
level, parent compacts did not operate differently from codes in other arenas.
100

Creation and content. All four schools began with the creation of their parent
compacts followed by communicating these compacts to the school community.
Although none of the schools in the case study involved parents in the creation of their
compacts, the lack of parental input did not appear to affect the implementation or the
impact of the compacts at each of the school sites. As reported in the finding chapter,
parents interviewed generally felt that compacts were clear in language and necessary as
a guideline for parents.
The site visits included two charter schools with enforcement strong compacts
(Science Academy and Freedom Academy) and two schools with enforcement weak
compacts (New Academy and Mosaic Academy). The inclusion of enforcement clauses
at Science Academy and Freedom Academy meant that plans had to be in place in the
event of non-compliance. In the case of Science Academy, a clear method of monitoring
and enforcement was clearly described in the parent compact. As a result, school staff
worked to inform all parents of the importance of involvement and the use of the Family
Support Card. Parents were informed of how units of involvement could be accumulated
through participation as well as the consequences of non-compliance. For Freedom
Academy, the compact included only an enforcement clause that stipulated that continued
non-compliance would lead to a review by the School-Community Review Board.
Because the compact did not include a method of monitoring, Freedom Academy
struggled with keeping track of parent participation and, consequentially, the proper
enforcement of its compact. According to a school administrator at Freedom Academy,
although the non-compliance clause was included in the compact, no one had ever been
101

brought to the School-Community Review Board for non-compliance to the compact
(personal communication, May 24, 2011). For the two charter schools that utilized
compacts with no enforcement clauses, no consequences existed for non-compliance. In
communicating their compacts, school staff stressed the importance of involvement and
tried to supply incentives to encourage compliance.
More than the inclusion of an enforcement clause, the presence of a clearly
outlined enforcement procedure made proper implementation more likely. This was in
accordance with findings from the literature review, in which code language specificity
instead of generality contributed to better comprehension of the code and led to more
effective implementation (Pierce & Henry, 1996; Schwartz, 2004). As illustrated above,
Freedom Academy’s strong enforcement clause was ineffective when no system of
monitoring existed.
Implementation. In accordance with previous research, the current study found
that compacts or codes alone were not enough to bring about the desired behavior
(Adams, et al., 2001; Kaptein & Schwartz, 2008; McCabe, 1993). Proper implementation
was the key to successful usage compacts. More specifically, the monitoring and
enforcement of the compacts were critical.
As reported in the findings, all schools made efforts to communicate the contents
of the compacts to all parents both in English and most frequently in Spanish. All parents
received hard copies of the compact and were reminded of them regularly throughout the
year. Once the parent compacts were communicated, compliance varied across the
schools. Each of the sample schools had a small group of dedicated parents who had a
102

strong school presence. Many of the parents interviewed were part of this group at their
respective charter schools. School staff continued to report challenges in reaching
parents who were not already involved. Of the four schools visited, only one school,
Science Academy, reported having widespread involvement and almost 100% compliance
to the parent compact.
In comparing the implementation processes of the sample schools, it became clear
that one reason for Science Academy’s success was the use of monitoring and
enforcement strategies. Not only did Science Academy communicate the parent compact
to parents early and discuss involvement expectations regularly, the use of the Family
Support Card allowed for proper monitoring and enforcement of the parent compact. As
discussed in Chapter Four, the Family Support Card captured a wide range of parent
involvement activities beyond simply contributing volunteer hours. The enforcement of
the Family Support Card came not only from the Parent Council, which was comprised of
fellow parents, but also from students who monitored the Family Support Card along
with their own academic report cards.
Of the four schools visited, Science Academy was the only school that had both a
system of monitoring and a system of enforcement. Other schools had either a system of
monitoring but no system of enforcement or vice versa. New Era Academy employed
neither a system of monitoring nor enforcement. In sum, parent compacts were not
properly implemented in three of the four schools. Some schools in the sample appear to
have benefited from utilizing parent compacts as a tool for involving parents in school
activities. These compacts included clear expectations for parent involvement; however,
103

the findings suggest that parent compacts also need monitoring provisions, in order to be
effective in encouraging parent involvement. As an administrator at Freedom Academy
put it, “it’s all about follow-through” (personal communication, May 24, 2011).
Contextual variables. In addition to proper implementation of the parent
compacts, findings revealed that contextual variables played important roles in
supporting the effectiveness of parent compacts. Specifically, the role of school leaders
in opening channels of communication with parents, the use of community members as
school staff, the planning of student-centered special events, and the offering of parent
education workshops were named in the findings chapter as important contextual
variables. These findings corroborate previous research on the implementation processes
of codes.
Taken as a whole, the contextual variables created a school community that was
welcoming, informative, and relevant to students and families. School administrators
practiced an open-door policy that allowed parents to answer their questions, address
grievances, and give input. More importantly, as the examples in the findings chapter
demonstrated, school leaders responded to parents’ concerns by changing school policies.
Parents felt heard and understood and part of the school community when they saw their
suggestions become reality. The schools’ efforts to hire staff from the school community
and often even from among involved parents allowed school administrators to break
down the cultural barriers that often existed between staff and parents.
School staff who lived in the school community and had children attending the
charter school often took a no-nonsense approach to communicating with parents.
104

Because they personally experienced and understood the challenges and obstacles faced
by parents, these school staff members were able to reach out to less active parents and
get them involved. School staff that grew up in the community also possessed local
knowledge that contributed to the successful planning of events which were culturally
relevant for families. To tackle parents’ insecurities about helping their children
academically and contributing to the school community, schools offered parent education
workshops covering a wide range of topics. These educational programs at the school
site provided parents with the knowledge and skills necessary to be able to truly act as
partners in the education of their children. These workshops and classes not only
educated parents, they also gave parents the confidence to participate at the schools
Contextual variables like school and staff leadership, school culture, and parent
education addressed the specific barriers and concerns urban parents often have when
dealing with schools. A welcoming school, like a welcoming university or corporation,
provided the foundation for the implementation of parent compacts and supported their
effectiveness (McCabe & Trevino, 1993).
Revised Research Model for the Implementation of Parent Compacts
Research on honor codes and ethic codes focused heavily on content (Chatov,
1980; Cressey & Moore, 1983; C. Matthews, 1987; Sanderson & Varner, 1984; White &
Montgomery, 1980). The current study contributed to the research model by examining
the implementation processes of compacts.
The data from this study suggested that parent compacts evolved and adapted to
address concerns that arose during implementation. In addition, the contextual variables
105

such as organizational culture played a significant role in the successful implementation
of the compacts. Figure 5.1 shows an updated research model that reflects these new
findings from the current study. The original model developed by Kaptein and Schwartz
(2008) showed a one-directional relationship from implementation to contextual variables
to behavior change. The new arrows reflect the finding that the development and revision
of the parent compact occurred as a response to the implementation of compacts. Instead
of the unidirectional arrows from the previous model that showed implementation leading
to change in the contextual variables that contributed to staff and parent behavior, the
contextual variables are now shown in the diagram as influencing the implementation and
the conduct of school staff, and in turn, influencing the culture of the schools.
Figure 5.1. Revised Research Model for the Study of Parent Compacts

School Characteristics
(Size, Years in Operation, Grade Level, etc)
Student Achievement
(size, years in operation,
Contextual Variables
(Organizational
Culture, Leadership
and Peer Support)

External Factors (Laws and Regulations, Federal
Title I Schools, Authorizer Requirements)
School
Objective
with
Parent
Compact
Develop
-ment
Process
of
Compact
Formal
Code
Content
of Parent
Compact
Implementation
of Compact
(Communication,
Discussion,
Enforcement,
Rewards, etc.)
Conduct
of
School
Staff and
Parents
106

Study Implications
This study is relevant to a range of constituents – policymakers, educators, and
researchers. The ways in which the findings can be useful to this diverse audience are
detailed in the following section.
Legislation can Facilitate the Use of Parent Compacts
As noted in Chapter Two, legislation in many states already required charter
schools to provide a plan for parent involvement (see Table 1.2). For the most part, such
requirements did not specify how charter schools are to involve parents. In the case of
urban schools, which served large population of disadvantaged students, the federal
government provided financial support through Title I grants (U.S. Department of
Education, 2001). Parent compacts were a requirement for grant recipients. Although the
legislation provided sample compacts for schools to use as a model, it did not provide any
support or information on how to properly implement compacts or how to address
barriers faced by urban parents and schools. Findings from this study can be used as a
starting point for the development of a guide on the implementation of parent compacts
both at the state and federal levels.
State policymakers who are interested in fostering parent involvement can provide
incentives through both legislation and the support of technical assistance. For example,
legislation can mandate that charter school applications include a description of how a
parent compact will be developed and what will be included in the compact. Further,
policymakers can adopt legislation that offers direct incentives such as operational grants
that could be given to charter schools (or traditional public schools) with parent compacts
107

to help defray the administrative costs of monitoring and enforcing the compact. Finally,
states could provide financial support to charter school resource centers or charter school
researchers specifically for the purpose of facilitating the adoption of parent compacts.
This support could go toward state charter conferences or to fund visits to successful
charter schools by those interested in implementing parent compacts.
The Compact Implementation Model can Inform Practice
The sample schools for the current study were all charter schools. As schools of
choice, charter schools have some advantages over traditional public schools in the area
of parent involvement. First, charter school parents must make the necessary step to
select and apply for admission. Although choosing a school does not necessarily lead to
active participation, the act itself suggests a level of commitment to and ownership of
selected schools. Second, charter schools often begin with a vision of a school
community that works closely with families and charter legislation regularly demands
parent involvement. Finally, charter schools enjoy a degree of autonomy when it comes
to implementing innovative practices such as new strategies to involve parents. In
comparison, traditional public schools have few incentives to implement a
comprehensive strategy, like the parent compact, to increase parent involvement.
Despite the many advantages charter schools have to involve parents, challenges
still exist. The urban charter schools in the sample served large percentage of families
categorized as high poverty. The myriad challenges faced by urban parents in charter
schools (language abilities, immigration statuses, demanding work schedules, and
institutional barriers) are the same as urban parents everywhere (Floyd, 1998; Lareau,
108

2003; Moles, 1993). To combat these challenges, charter schools in the current study
offered clarity, variety, and flexibility in the implementation of parent compacts. In other
words, urban parents in the study were provided clear expectations for involvement,
various ways of fulfilling the compact, and offered accommodations when difficulties
arose. The study findings suggest that it is possible to involve urban parents successfully
in their child’s education through the use of compacts.
If parent compacts can be implemented successfully in urban charter schools, the
current study raises the issue of whether compacts can prove to be an asset in suburban
charter schools serving more affluent families, or in other schools of choice, such as
magnet schools. Although traditional schools are less incentivized to increase parent
involvement, there is no reason to believe that parent compacts cannot be a useful tool in
a traditional public school setting. The findings from the study, as a whole, suggest that
regardless of school characteristics and student demographics, parent compacts can be
adopted and implemented successfully.
Schools interested in increasing parent involvement can utilize the research model
presented in Chapter Two and revised in Chapter Five (Figure 5.1) as a guide when
considering adopting or revising a parent compact. They should consider questions such
as… What will the content of the compact include? What types of parent involvement
activities will be required? Will it include volunteer hours and enforcement clauses?
Schools may also consider drafting a plan for implementation that addresses both how the
compact will be communicated to parents, how it will be monitored, and how it will be
enforced. Finally, schools interested in adopting parent compacts need to reflect on the
109

school culture and establish clear goals to create an open and inviting campus where
parents feel welcomed and valued. Serious consideration of each element in the research
model will provide schools the best roadmap for implementing parent compacts.
The Compact Typology can Inform Research
The current study contributes to the research on parent compacts by providing
new empirical data regarding both the content and implementation of compacts. The data
from the study confirmed earlier findings that parent involvement activities continue to
be more school-centered rather than home-centered although the trend is slowly moving
towards a broader conception of parent involvement (Auerbach, 2007; Lee & Bowen,
2006; Mehan, et al., 1996). The data also contradicted an earlier study that suggested
parent compacts marginalize urban parents by placing unreasonable demands for
involvement (Becker, et al., 1997). The current study showed numerous examples of
how urban charter schools expect and accommodate the specific needs of urban parents.
Whether it was through flexible meeting times, various involvement opportunities, or
opportunities for parent education, urban charter schools in this study found a variety of
effective ways to embrace parents and encourage their involvement.
Recommendations for Future Research
This research sheds new light on what is known about the use of parent compacts
across California. While many studies have evaluated the merit of charter schools and
parent involvement, few studies have focused on parent involvement in charter schools.
Although researchers found parent compacts to be a promising practice unique to charter
schools, only one other study has examined parent compacts thus far. The Becker et al
110

(1997) study provided the first glimpse into the use of parent compacts across charter
schools and the requirements detailed in the compacts. The current study contributes to
the research on parent compacts by detailing the implementation processes and the
influence of contextual variables. These findings are a beginning rather than an endpoint.
More research is needed to test the study propositions outlined earlier in this chapter. In
addition, research is needed in four main areas to further the findings reported here. First,
future studies should assess the impact of parent compacts on student achievement and
parent/teacher behavior. Second, longitudinal studies are needed to assess the evolution
of parent compacts in real time. Third, the use of parent compacts at the middle and high
school levels need to be further researched. Finally, the use of compacts in traditional
public schools as well as new forms of schools needs to be investigated.
The Need to Assess the Impacts of Parent Compacts
Although school leaders noted the success of parent compacts in increasing parent
involvement and improving students’ academic performance, few presented student
achievement data to substantiate their claims. Past research on parent involvement has
shown that increased parent involvement contributed to student achievement. In urban
charter schools, parent involvement has long been a challenge (Gross & Pochop, 2007).
Parent compact, as demonstrated in research, was and continues to be a popular strategy
utilized by charter schools to improve parent involvement. Additional research is needed
to ascertain whether there is a connection between a well-implemented parent compact
and higher academic performance. For the current study, only schools with an upward
academic trend were selected for case study but it was unclear if the upward trend was a
111

result of parent compacts. Case studies of urban charter elementary schools that
employed parent compacts but have a downward academic trend may reveal limitations
in parent compacts. Additionally, comparative case studies that examined the differences
in parent involvement in compact schools versus non-compact schools may lead to better
understanding on the impact of parent compacts on student achievement.
In addition to investigating the impacts of parent compacts on student
achievement, studies are also needed to explorer the impacts of parent compacts on
parents and teachers. Parent participants in the current study all supported the use of
parent compacts but the way in which compacts effect change in parent and teacher
behavior is unclear. Studies that interviewed parents and teachers who work closely on a
daily basis will also contribute to the understanding of the impacts of parent compacts.
The Need to Assess the Evolution of Parent Compacts in Real Time
The charter schools in the study sample had all been in operation for at least five
years. This purposeful sampling was done to ensure that charter schools had enough time
to implement and reflect on the use of parent compacts. Unfortunately, this also meant
that staff turnovers were present at many of these schools. At Freedom Academy, for
example, none of the original school administrators who created the parent compact were
present at the school for interviews. The data collection relied on retrospective reports of
implementation processes. A study that followed a charter school from the initial
creation, communication, monitoring, and enforcement of parent compacts over the span
of multiple years would yield richer information about the reception and the evolution of
parent compacts.
112

The Need to Assess the use of Parent Compacts in Middle and High Schools
The current research focused on the use of parent compacts in elementary charter
schools. Past research has shown that parents are involved differently at the middle and
high school levels (Izzo, et al., 1999). As students become increasingly self-sufficient,
teachers no longer need parent volunteers in the classroom or large numbers of chaperons
for field trips. This presents challenges to schools interested in increasing parent
involvement. A study that looks into the use of parent compacts in charter schools
serving middle and high school students may reveal additional information on the types
of involvement activities for parents of older students, and how parent compacts can be
implemented for this age group. For example, are compacts in the upper grades more
focused on parent involvement at home? What types of involvement activities do parents
participate in at school? Are compacts for middle and high schools more likely to include
a student responsibility section? Studies on the use of parent compacts in middle and
high schools may add to the understanding of the proper implementation of parent
compacts and help provide additional strategies on how to involve parents.
The Need to Assess the use of Compacts in Other Types of Schools
The current study focused on the use of parent compacts in urban charter schools.
Traditional public schools receiving the federal Title I grant are also required to
implement parent compacts. Research is needed to examine the differences between
mandated compacts (as a result of Title I regulations) and compacts adopted voluntarily
by schools to address the need for increased parent involvement. Research comparing the
implementation processes, parent responses, and school cultures between schools that had
113

mandated compacts versus schools with voluntary compacts will serve to inform the
policy makers and researchers on how parent compacts should be introduced to schools.
In addition to investigating the use of compacts in Title I schools, research is also
needed to uncover ways in which compacts might be used in alternative forms of
schooling such as hybrid schools and cyber schools where students work more
independently. Parent involvement in these new forms of schooling may require
adjustments in the content and implementation of the parent compacts.
Conclusion
The present study has provided more information on the content, processes, and
contextual variables that contribute to the impact of parent compacts. By offering a
model for the study of parent compacts, the present study also extends existing theory on
implementation of codes and compacts. As the need for better parent involvement
strategies grows, the findings from this study can serve as a guide for policymakers and
educators alike, and as a foundation for future research.

114

REFERENCES
Adam, A. M., & Rachman-Moore, D. (2004). The methods used to implement an ethical
code of conduct and employee attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 225-244.

Adams, J., Tashchian, A., & Shore, T. (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 199-211.

Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Arnold, R., Martin, B. N., Jinks, M., & Bigby, L. (2007). Is there a relationship between
honor codes and academic dishonesty? Journal of College & Character, 8(2), 1-
20.

Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family strcuture, parental practices and high
school completion. American Sociological Review, 56(3), 309-320.

Auerbach, S. (2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates: Reconceptualizing
parent roles in education through the experience of working-class families of
color. Urban Education, 42(3), 250-283.

Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational
attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(1), 39-62.

Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Baseline for tracking progress.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing services Policy Information Center.

Becker, H. J., Nakagawa, K., & Corwin, R., G. (1997). Parent involvement contracts in
California's charter schools: Strategy for educational improvement or method of
exclusion? Teachers College Record, 98, 511-536.

Boo, E. f. H. Y., & Koh, H. C. (2001). The Influence of Organizational and Code-
Supporting Variables on the Effectiveness of a Code of Ethics. Teaching Business
Ethics, 5(4), 357-373.

Bower, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Bureau of
Applied Social Research, Columbia University.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Trasnforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Brinkmann, J., & Ims, K. (2003). Good intentions aside: Drafting a functionalist look at
codes of ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(3), 265-274.
115

Brody, G. H., Flor, D. L., & Gibson, N. M. (1999). Linking maternal efficacy beliefs,
developmental goals, parenting practices and child competence in rural single-
parent African American families. Child Development, 70, 1197-1208.

Bulkley, K. E., & Wohlstetter, P. (Eds.). (2004). Taking account of charter schools:
What's happened and what's next? New York: Teachers College Press.

Burnett, S. (2002). Dishonor and distrust. Community College Week, 14(24), 6-8.

Cancio, E. J., West, R. P., & Young, K. R. (2004). Improving mathematics homework
completion and accuracy of students with EBD through self-management and
parent perception. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(1), 9-22.

Center on Educational governance. (2008). Enhancing charter schcools through parent
involvement. from
http://www.charterresource.org/promising_results.cfm?category=28

Chatov, R. (1980). What corporate ethics statement say. California Management Review,
22(4), 20-29.

Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (1985). Ethics and marketing management: An empirical
examination. Journal of Business Research, 13(4), 339-359.

Chonko, L. B., Wotruba, T. R., & Loe, T. W. (2003). Ethics code familiarity and
usefulness: View on idealist and relativist managers under varying conditions of
turbulence. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 237-252.

Cleek, M. A., & Leonard, S. L. (1998). Can corporate codes of ethics influence behavior?
Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 619-630.

Cressey, D., & Moore, C. A. (1983). Managerial values and corporate codes of ethics.
California Management Review, 25, 53-77.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dearing, E., McCartney, K., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H., & Simpkins, S. (2004). The
promotive effects of family educational involvement for low-income children's
literacy. Journal of School Psychology, 42(6), 445-460.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1994). "Consejos": The power of cultural narrative. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 25(3), 298-316.
116

DePlanty, J., Coulter-Kern, R., & Duchane, K. A. (2007). Perceptions of parent
involvement in academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,
100(6), 361-368.

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking Parent Involvement with Student Achievement: Do Race
and Income Matter? Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-30.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.

El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent Involvement and
Children's Academic and Social Development in Elementary School. Child
Development, 81(3), 988-1005.

Embse, T. J. v. d., Desai, M. S., & Desai, S. (2004). How well are corporate ethics codes
and policies applied in the trenches? Information Management & Computer
Security, 12(2), 147-153.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 701-712.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators
and improveing schools. . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators
and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental Involvement and Students' Academic Achievement:
A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.

Farrell, B., Cobbin, D., & Farrell, H. (2002). Can codes of ethics really produce
consistent behavior? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 468-490.

Farrell, B. J., & Cobbin, D. M. (1996). A content analysis of codes of ethics in Australian
enterprises. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(1), 37-55.

Ferrell, O. C., & Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in
marketing research organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), 103-
109.

Finegan, J., & Theriault, C. (1997). The relationship between personal values and the
perception of the corporations code of ethics. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28, 708-724.
117

Floyd, L. (1998). Joining hands: A parent involvement program. . Urban Education,
33(1), 123-135.

Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the
empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205-221.

Gaumnitz, B. R., & Lere, J. C. (2004). A classification scheme for codes of business
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 329-335.

Gross, B., & Pochop, K. M. (2007). Leadership to date, leadership tomorrow: A review
of data on charter school directors. NCSRP working paper #2007-2, Seattle, WA:
Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Gutman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the
academic achievement of poor African American students during the middle
school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 233-248.

Hall, T. L., & Kuh, G. D. (1998). Honor among students: Academic integrity and honor
codes at state-assisted universities. NASPA Journal, 36(1), 2-18.

Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual Synthesis,
2002. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab.

Henig, J. R., Gold, E., Orr, M., Silander, M., & Simon, E. (2011). Parent and community
engagement in New York City and the sustainability challenge for urban
education reform. In J. O'Day, C. Bitter & L. Gomez (Eds.), Education reform in
New York City: Ambitious change in the nation's most complext school system
(pp. 33-54). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.

Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, N., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., et al.
(2004). Parent Academic Involvement as Related to School Behavior,
Achievement, and Aspirations: Demographic Variations Across Adolescence.
Child Development, 75(5), 1491-1509.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1987). Parent involvement:
Contribution to teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school
characteristics. American Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 417-435.

Ingram, M., Wolfe, R., & Lieberman, J. (2007). The Role of Parents in High-Achieving
Schools Serving Low-Income, At-Risk Populations. Education and Urban Society
39, no. 4.

118

Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal
assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children's education
and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817-
839.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority
children's academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Urban
Secondary School Student Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis (Vol. 42,
pp. 82-110).

Kaptein, M. (2004). Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say? Journal of
Business Ethics, 50(1), 13-31.

Kaptein, M., & Schwartz, M. (2008). The effectiveness of business codes: A critical
examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research
model. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 111-127.

Kelley, P. C., Agle, B. R., & DeMott, J. (2005). Mapping our progress: Identifying,
categorizing and comparing universities' ethic infrastructure. Journal of Academic
Ethics, 3(2), 205-229.

Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Bear-Tibbetts, H. Y., & Demaray, M. K.
(2004). Families and schools together: An experimental analysis of a parent-
mediated multi-family group program for American Indian children. Journal of
School Psychology, 42, 359-383.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Los Angeles:
University of California Press.

Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions
of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38, 77-133.

Lee, J.-S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent Involvement, Cultural Capital, and the
Achievement Gap Among Elementary School Children (Vol. 43, pp. 193-218).

Lefebvre, M., & Singh, J. B. (1996). The content and focus of Canadian corporate codes
of ethics. International Journal of Management, 13(2), 156-170.

LeFevre, A. L., & Shaw, T. V. (2011). Latino Parent Involvement and School Success:
Longitudinal Effects of Formal and Informal Support. Education and Urban
Society.
119

Lopez, G. R. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons on parent involvement from an
(im)migrant household. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 416-437.

Lott, B. (2001). Low-income parents and the public schools. Journal of Social Issues,
57(2), 247-259.

Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in Education Markets: Theory and Evidence on the
Impact of Competition and Choice in Charter Schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 40(2), 395-443.

Manz, P. H., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Power, T. J. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of
family involvement among urban elementary students. Journal of School
Psychology, 42(6), 461-475.

Marnburg, E. (2000). The behavioral effects of corporate ethical codes: Empirical
findings and discussion. Business Ethics: A European Review, 9, 200-210.

Matthews, C. (Ed.). (1987). Codes of ethics: Organizational behavior and misbehavior
(Vol. 9). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Matthews, M. C. (1987). Codes of ethics: Organizational behavior and misbehavior.
Research in Corporate Social Performance, 9, 107-130.

McCabe, D. (1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student
honor codes. Research in Higher Education, 34(5), 647-658.

McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other
Contextual Influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522-538.

McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic
dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3),
379-396.

McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. K. (2002). Honesty and honor codes. Academe, 88(1), 37.

McCabe, D., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other
contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to
modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357-378.

Mcdonald, G. M. (2009). An anthology of codes of ethics. European Business Review,
21(4), 344-372.

120

McKendall, M., DeMarr, B., & Jones-Rikkers, C. (2002). Ethical Compliance Programs
and Corporate Illegality: Testing the Assumptions of the Corporate Sentencing
Guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(4), 367-383.

McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y. (2004). A
multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic
competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 379-
402.

Mehan, H., Hubbard, L., Villanueva, I., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success:
The consequences of untracking low achieving students. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Melendez, B. (1985). Honor Code Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for
disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379-
402.

Molander, E. A. (1987). A Paradigm for Design, Promulgation and Enforcement of
Ethical Codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(8), 619-631.

Moles, O. C. (1993). Collboration between schools and diadvantaged parents: Obstacles
and openings. In N.F.Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society
(pp. 21-49). Albany: State University of New York.

Moles, O. C. (2005). School-famiy relations and student learning: Federal education
initiatives. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weissberg, S. Redding & H. J. Walberg
(Eds.), School-family partnership for children's success (pp. 131-147). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.

Montoya, I. D., & Richard, A. J. (1994). A Comparative Study of Codes of Ethics in
Health Care Facilities and Energy Companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(9),
713-717.

Murphy, J., & Shiffman, C. D. (2002). Understanding and Assessing the Charter School
Movement New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Trends in the achievement gaps in
reading and mathmatics. Retrieved Retrieved August 2, 2008:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2008/section2/indicator16.asp#info
121

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). Highlights from TIMSS 2007:
Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students
in an international context. Retrieved March, 9, 2010, from
http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.asp

National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance. (2008). Enhancing
charter schools through parent involvement. Retrieved from
http://www.charterresource.org/promising_results.cfm?category=28

Nzinga-Johnson, S., Baker, Jean A., & Aupperlee, J. (2009). Teacher ‐Parent
Relationships and School Involvement among Racially and Educationally Diverse
Parents of Kindergartners. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 81-91.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Perry, A. R., Kane, K. M., Bernesser, K. J., & Spicker, P. T. (1990). Type A behavior,
competitive achievement-striving, and chearting among college students. .
Psychological Reports, 66, 459-465.

Peterson, D. K. (2002). The Relationship between Unethical Behavior and the
Dimensions of the Ethical Climate Questionnaire. Journal of Business Ethics,
41(4), 313-326.

Pfeffer, J. (1991). Organizational theory and structural perspectives on management.
Journal of Management, 17(4), 789-740.

Pierce, M. A., & Henry, J. W. (1996). Computer ethics: The role of personal, informal,
and formal codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 425-437.

Redding, S., Murphy, M., & Sheley, P. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook on family and
community Engagement. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.

Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of
students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 853-625.

Sanderson, R., & Varner, I. I. (1984). What's wrong with corporate codes of conduct.
Management Accounting, 66, 28-35.

Schminke, M. (2001). Considering the business of ethics: An exploratory study of the
influence of organizational size and structure on individual ethical
predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(4), 367-381.

122

Schreiber, J. B. (2002). Institutional and student factors and their influence on advanced
mathematics achievement The Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 274-286.

Schwartz, M. (2001). The nature of the relationship between corporate codes of ethics
and behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3), 247-262.

Schwartz, M. (2004). Effective corporate codes of ethics: Perceptions of code users.
Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 321-341.

Scribner, J. D., Young, M. D., & Pedroza, A. (1999). Building collaborative relationships
with parents. In P. Reyes, J. D. Scribner & P. Scribner (Eds.), Lessons from high
performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning communities (pp. 36-60).
Williston, VT: Teachers College Press.

Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of
children's reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73,
445-460.

Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban
elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. The Urban Review, 35,
149-165.

Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron Ethics (Or: Culture Matters More than
Codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 243-256.

Sims, R. R., & Keon, T. (1999). Determinants of ethical decision making: The
relationship of the perceived organizational environement. Journal of Business
Ethics, 19, 393-401.

Singhapakdi, A., & Vitell, S. (1990). Marketing ethics: Factors influencing perceptions of
ethical problems and alternatives. Journal of Macromarketing, 10, 4-18.

Smith, J., Wholstetter, P., Kuzin, C. A., & De Pedro, K. (2011). Parent involvement in
urban charter schools: New strategies for increasing participation. School
Community Journal, 122 (4), 777-784.

Snell, R. S., & Herndon, N. C. (2000). An evaluation of Hon Kong's corporate code of
ethics initiative. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17(3), 493-518.

Snell, R. S., & Herndon, N. C. J. (2004). hong Kong's code of ethics initiativve: Some
differences between theory and practice? Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 75-89.

123

Somers, M. J. (2001). Ethical codes of conduct and organizational context: A study of the
relationship between codes of conduct, employee behavior and organizational
values. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(2), 185-195.

Stevens, B. (1994). An analysis of corporate ethical code studies: “Where do we go from
here?”. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(1), 63-69.

Stevens, B. (1999). Communicating ethical values: A study of employee perceptions.
Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 113-120.

Stevens, B. (2007). Corporate ethical codes: Effective instruments for influencing
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 601-609.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic qualitative reserach: Techniques and processes
for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of Parental Involvement on Eighth-Grade
Achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126-141.

Svensson, G., & Wood, G. (2007). Strategic approaches of corporate codes of ethics in
Australia: A framework for classsification and emprirical illustration. Corporate
Governance, 7(1), 93-101.

Tinkler, B. (2002). A Review of Literature on Hispanic/Latino Parent Involvement in K-
12 Education: For full text:
http://www.buildassets.org/Products/latinoparentreport/latinoparentrept.htm

Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing ethics
and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management
Review, 41(2), 131-151.

Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in
organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951-990.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act Retrieved March 6,,
2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Final Regulations for Title I. Retrieved March
6, , 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2003). Ethics code awareness, perceived ethical values, and
organizational commitment. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
23(4), 359-367.
124

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effect on family
involvement and students' science achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research, 96, 323-339.

Vergari, S. (Ed.). (2002). The Charter School Landscape. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.

Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic
stress and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool
children's education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(6), 619-636.

Ward, D. A. (1986). Self-esteem and dishonest behiaovr resvisited. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 126, 709-713.

Weaver, G. R. (1995). Does ethics code design matter? Effects of ethics code rationale
and sactions on recipients' justice perceptions and content recall. Journal of
Business Ethics, 14, 367-385.

Weeks, W. A., & Nantel, J. (1992). Corporate codes of ethics and sales force behavior: A
case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 753-760.

White, B., & Montgomery, B. (1980). Corporate codes of conduct. California
Management Review, 23(2), 80-87.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications.

Zechner, K. M. (2002). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to
recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teacher College
Record, 105(3), 490-511.

Zimmerman, J. (2001). The effects of bureaucratization on corruption, deviant and
unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(Spring),
119-128.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Research has shown that parent involvement activities, as outlined by Epstein (2001), are positively associated with student achievement. In urban areas, however, schools often face challenges in the area of parent involvement. Charter schools, as laboratories of innovation, often utilize parent compacts as tools for parent involvement. The goal of parent compacts is to increase parent involvement activities that support and contribute to student achievement. ❧ This study utilizes a qualitative case study approach to examine charter schools’ use of parent compact as a tool for parent involvement. A research model for the study of parent compact is employed to assess the implementation processes of parent compacts. Findings revealed that parent compacts can be utilized by schools of various sizes, ages, grade levels, and locations as a tool for parent involvement. The contents of parent compacts currently being used by urban charter schools included much of the activities outlined by Epstein. Findings also showed that the proper implementation, namely the communication, implementation, and enforcement of parent compacts along with contextual variables such as organizational culture are keys to compact success. ❧ This research has implications for charter school operators seeking to increase parent involvement, as well as for policymakers who shape legislation that can mandate and facilitate the use of parent compacts.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A study of promising practices in two California charter schools: using technology to increase parent involvement

PDF

The impact of parental involvement on student achievement

PDF

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

PDF

A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

Examining parent involvement activities in two mmigrant-impacted schools: a comparative case study

PDF

Writing across the curriculum: exploring promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement: a comparison of educational organizations

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to disadvantaged students

PDF

A benchmark analysis of Hardy Brown College Prep

PDF

Home and school factors and their influence on students' academic goal orientation and motivation

PDF

Scaling up charter management organizations: understanding how policies, people and places influence growth

PDF

How and why does a district network schools?

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools

PDF

Investigating promising school leadership practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Charter schools, data use, and the 21st century: how charter schools use data to inform instruction that prepares students for the 21st century

PDF

Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools

PDF

Contracting for special education: a case study of a charter school contract for special education

PDF

Social reproduction theory and parental involvement in Head Start: investigating the parent's perspective

PDF

School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

Asset Metadata

Creator Kuzin, Chuan Ally (author)

Core Title Parent compacts in urban charter schools: an exploration of contents and processes

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/26/2012

Defense Date 05/10/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag charter school,OAI-PMH Harvest,parent compact,parent involvement

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member), Wong, Janelle (committee member)

Creator Email ckuzin@usc.edu,thekuzins@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-67766

Unique identifier UC11290323

Identifier usctheses-c3-67766 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KuzinChuan-1010.pdf

Dmrecord 67766

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kuzin, Chuan Ally

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA