Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Making the connection: The California urban superintendent and parent and community involvement
(USC Thesis Other)
Making the connection: The California urban superintendent and parent and community involvement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
MAKING THE CONNECTION:
PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND THE CALIFORNIA URBAN
SUPERINTENDENT
by
Amy Nguyen-Hernandez
_______________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2010
Copyright 2010 Amy Nguyen-Hernandez
ii
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this accomplishment to my family and friends. Without
the following individuals in my life, I would not be the person I am today, nor would I
have reached this summit in my education—with my sanity intact!
First, to my courageous parents, who dared to leave everything they knew to give
their children a better life. Their hard work and determination translated into living the
American Dream, not only for their children, but for themselves as well. Thank you,
Mom and Dad!
To my closest friends who have been there for me every step of this journey. For
Mandaman, your knowing support of me and allowing me a safe place to vent are even
more appreciated than I can express. For Jack, your presence has been both calming—
and when I’ve really needed it the most—comic relief. And for my newest friend, Tracy
(fellow USC doctor), this journey may not have happened when it did, and definitely
would not have been as much fun, without you and your thoughtfulness. Thank you, my
friends!
Finally, I dedicate this accomplishment to my husband, Sam. You are, and have
always been, my biggest fan. Your love and belief in me is beyond anything I have ever
received from any other person. Your fierce passion and protectiveness for your loved
ones is truly inspiring. Thank you for encouraging me to pursue all of my dreams. You
are my love, my true romance. I would not have been able to do this without you. Thank
you, Sammy!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to my very supportive and understanding
office staff and co-administrator. Cindy, Nancy, and Hugo, thank you so much for taking
such good care of me this past year, and especially in the final months of this journey.
Your gentle insistence that it was okay that I wasn’t “Superwoman” and your consistent
words of encouragement have meant so much to me!
I would also like to express my appreciation to my dissertation committee
members. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Rudy M. Castruita for being my committee
chairperson and guiding me through this entire process. I would also like to acknowledge
my committee members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Courtney Malloy, for your flexibility
and feedback. I am very excited to join each of you in the Trojan family!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study 1
Background 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 7
Research Questions 7
Significance of the Study 8
Assumptions 8
Limitations of the Study 9
Delimitations of the Study 9
Definitions of Terms 9
Overview of the Study 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 12
Students in Urban Schools in California 13
Federal and State Policies and Reforms 14
Elementary and Secondary Schools Act of 1965 14
Public Law 94-142: IDEA 15
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 and Goals 2000 16
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 17
Research on Parent and Community Involvement 18
Landmark Study 18
Overlapping Spheres of Influence 18
Framework by Joyce Epstein 19
Positive Correlation Studies 24
Barriers 27
The Role of the Superintendent 28
Historical Perspective of the Superintendency 28
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 30
Leadership Theory 32
Research on Superintendents 33
v
Theory of Action 35
Chapter Two Summary 37
Chapter Three: Research Design and Methodology 38
Chapter Three Introduction 38
Problem and Purpose Overview 38
Review of Research Questions 40
Research Design 40
Mixed Methods Methodology 41
Quantitative Methods 41
Qualitative Methods 42
Population and Sample 43
Population Subgroups for Interview 43
Instrumentation 48
Measure of Partnerships Survey 49
Semi-Structured Interview Questions 50
Data Collection 51
Data Collection Protocol 51
Ethical Considerations 52
Data Analysis 52
Chapter Three Summary 55
Chapter Four: Analysis of Data 56
Chapter Four Introduction 56
Organization of Data Analysis 56
Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents 57
Superintendents Beliefs 62
Rating of Current Practices 67
Type I- Parenting 68
Type II- Communicating 69
Type III- Volunteering 70
Type IV- Learning at Home 70
Type V- Decision Making 71
Type VI- Collaborating with the Community 71
Summary of Ratings 72
Superintendent’s Strategies and Roles 73
Relation to Student Achievement 83
Research Hypothesis Number One: District Size 84
Research Hypothesis Number Two: Superintendent 86
Characteristics
Research Hypothesis Number Three: District Accountability 88
Chapter Four Summary 91
vi
Chapter Five: Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 92
Chapter Five Introduction 92
Restatement of the Study 92
Findings 93
Research Question 1: Extent of Beliefs 93
Research Question 2: Rating of Current Practices 95
Research Question 3: Roles and Strategies 97
Research Question 4: Types of Practices Related to Student 100
Achievement
Implications 101
Recommendations for Practitioners 101
Recommendations for Policymakers 102
Future Research 104
References 105
Appendices
Appendix A: Permission For Use of Survey 111
Appendix B: Participation Letter 112
Appendix C: Email Reminder for Participation 113
Appendix D: Measure of School, Family, and Community Partnership 114
Survey
Appendix E: Interview Questions 118
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: District Information for More Successful Superintendents 45
Table 2: District Information for Less Successful Superintendents 46
Table 3: P-Value of District Information 47
Table 4: Case Processing Summary for Survey 49
Table 5: Cronbach’s Alpha for Survey 49
Table 6: District Enrollment Size of All Participants 58
Table 7: Mean Age, Experience, and District Size by District 60
Accountability
Table 8: P-Value for Mean Age, Experience, and District Size by 61
District Accountability
Table 9: Interviewed Superintendents 62
Table 10: Mean for Questions on Superintendent Beliefs 64
Table 11: Superintendent Beliefs Compared by District Accountability 64
Table 12: Mean by Types of Involvement for All Participating 68
Superintendents
Table 13: Mean by Types of Involvement by Groups of Superintendents 72
Table 14: Mean for Survey Question 4 by Groups of Superintendents 74
Table 15: Strategies for Parent and Community Involvement 79
Table 16: Roles for Parent and Community Involvement 83
Table 17: District Size (by Small and Large) Compared by 85
Involvement Type
Table 18: District Size (by 10,000 Increments) Compared by 85
Involvement Type
Table 19: Superintendent Age Compared by Involvement Type 87
viii
Table 20: Superintendent Gender Compared by Involvement Type 87
Table 21: Superintendent Experience Compared by Involvement Type 88
Table 22: P-Value for Type III: Volunteering Compared by 90
District Accountability
Table 23: P-Value for Type IV: Decision Making Compared by District 90
Accountability
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Epstein’s Framework for Parent and Community Involvement 20
Figure 2: Theory of Action 36
Figure 3: Data Analysis Plan 53
Figure 4: P-Value Interpretation 54
x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to redress the paucity of research regarding
superintendents and their role in implementing parent and community involvement
policies. Another aim was to examine which types of parent and community involvement
practices, if any, may be related to student achievement.
A mixed methods inquiry was applied. The Measure of School, Family, and
Community Partnership survey was sent out to 53 superintendents leading California
Urban K-12 Unified School Districts. Multiple notifications were conducted resulting in
a 71.7% overall response rate with a 62.3% overall participation rate. A one-on-one
interview was also conducted with six superintendents- two leading more successful
districts and four leading less successful districts. Additional data was gathered using the
California Department of Education web site and reviewing documents provided by the
participating districts.
Four research questions guided the study. It was found that superintendents who
were less likely to believe parent and community involvement related to student
achievement were less likely to make parent and community involvement a priority than
superintendents who indicated that they strongly believed in this relationship. Results
also indicated that superintendents rated the involvement practices of Type VI,
Collaborating with Community, as the most prevalent component of their districts’ parent
and community involvement plan while Type III, Volunteering, was the least prevalent.
Findings from the interview revealed nine strategies and five roles that Superintendents
used in executing their District’s parent and community involvement policies. Four of
xi
the strategies were identified as Type II, Communicating. Three of the roles were
identified as building a welcoming environment. Results of the final research question
found that there was strong evidence (p = .01) that an association existed between Type
III, Volunteering, as compared to student achievement and strong evidence (p < .01) that
an association exists between Type V, Decision Making, as compared to student
achievement.
This study concluded with implications for practitioners and policy makers and
suggestions for future research.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Background
The California Department of Education’s core purpose is to lead and support the
continuous improvement of student performance, with a specific focus on closing
achievement gaps (CA Dept of Ed, 2009). In the fifth annual State of Education Address,
delivered on January 22, 2008, Jack O’Connell, California State Superintendent, unveiled
a comprehensive plan aimed at closing California's pernicious achievement gap between
White students and students of color, as well as addressing problems with English
learners, students in poverty, and students with disabilities. One of his recommendations
was developing partnerships to close the achievement gap, noting that connecting schools
with educational organizations and parent groups is an important step toward developing
high-quality and inclusive educational programs (Executive Summary, 2008).
During the past three decades, researchers have positively correlated parent and
community involvement with increased student achievement (Desimone, 1999;
Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2005). Specifically, Lee and Bowen (2006) found
that parental involvement, in the form of helping with homework, positively correlated
with academic achievement for African American and Hispanic American students in
grades three through five. Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, and Carlson (2000) identified that
the dropout rate for high school students was statistically different (p < .01) between
students with high levels of parental involvement versus those with low levels of parental
2
involvement. They found that students with high levels of parent involvement—defined
by regular attendance at parent conferences or consistent communication with the school
when the student was in first grade and sixth grade—were more likely to graduate or be
on the traditional graduation track than students with low levels of parental involvement.
Based on the result of their studies, Lee and Bowen (2006) and Jimerson et al. (2000)
concluded that parental involvement in a child’s educational experience contributes to
student achievement and should continue to be an important focus of schools. Coleman,
Starzynski, Winnick, Palmer, and Furr (2006) not only found a strong link between
parent involvement and a child’s academic performance, but they also posited this link as
central to closing the achievement gap.
Policymakers have also recognized the importance of enlisting parents and
community members as essential partners in education. Likewise, educational reform
movements have encouraged, and current federal laws have required, school systems to
include parents. Legislation, such as Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, and Educate America Act of
2000 have built in support for sustaining educational changes by encouraging parents and
community members to become involved with the school system. The current federal No
Child Left Behind Act of 2002 identifies parent and community involvement as one of
the six targeted areas of reform and a requirement in Title I, Part A (Edsource, 2004).
Title I, Part A stresses the shared accountability between schools and parents for
increasing student achievement. As stated in the Parent Involvement: Title I, Part A
3
guidance document, “the involvement of parents in their children’s education and schools
is critical” (US Dept. of Ed., 2004, p. 1).
What exactly constitutes parent and community involvement? There are many
operational definitions of parent involvement (Epstein, 1995; Kohl, Lengua & McMahon,
2000; Patrikakou, 1997). Epstein (2001) of John Hopkins University developed a
typology of parental involvement predicated on the belief that overlapping influences of
family, school, and community bear positive influences on child learning. She defined
“involvement” as six types of actions: Parenting, Communicating, Volunteering,
Learning at Home, Decision Making, and Collaborating with the Community (Epstein,
2001). Below are details about the six types of involvement:
1. Type I, Parenting, is the help schools give families to establish home
environments that support children as students. Examples include suggestions for
home conditions that encourage learning, workshops on parenting and child-
rearing, and neighborhood meetings to help families understand schools.
2. Type II, Communicating, comprises effective methods of school-to-home and
home-to-school communications about school programs and student progress.
Conferences, weekly, or monthly folders of student work, and clear information
on all school policies, programs, and reforms are just some examples.
3. Type III, Volunteering, is recruiting and organizing parent help and support.
Examples are school and classroom volunteering programs and class telephone
trees or other networks that provide all families with needed information.
4
4. Type IV, Learning at Home, means providing information and ideas to families
about helping with homework and other curriculum-related activities, making
informed decisions, and effectively planning. Family math, science, and reading
activities at school, summer learning packets or activities, yearly family
participation in student goal-setting, and parent involvement in college planning
are some examples of learning at home.
5. Type V, Decision Making, means including parents in school decisions and
developing parent leaders and representatives. Examples of this type of
involvement are an active PTA (Parent Teacher Association) or other parent
organizations, district-level councils and committees for family and community
involvement, and networks to link all families to parent representatives.
6. The final type of involvement as identified in Epstein’s framework is Type VI,
Collaborating with the Community. This type of involvement identifies and
integrates resources and services from the community in order to strengthen
school programs, family practices, and student learning and development.
Service integration through partnerships involving school and other agencies and
the participation of alumni in school programs for students all represent examples
of collaborating with community.
Dr. Joyce Epstein developed this framework as a way of assisting educators in
developing school and family partnerships to help all children succeed in school and in
later life. Unfortunately, research has also indicated that often parents are unable to
participate effectively in their children’s education. Politis (2004) cited parent awareness
5
and intimidation of the school system as barriers, whereas Heymann and Earle (2000)
found that work schedules and economic status were obstacles. Though present, these
impediments, Mapp (1999) explains, do not mean that parents don’t want their children
to be successful--they just don’t know how to become involved in their education.
Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, and Davies (2007) reported that establishing beyond
a doubt the district’s firm commitment to creating and coordinating a serious, consistent,
systemic program of family and community engagement in any district requires senior
leadership, preferably at the superintendent level. Konnert and Augenstein (1990) also
found that superintendents played a significant role in empowering school leaders to
actively initiate parent and community programs. Yet, there remains a paucity of
research on the role that superintendents play in engaging parents and community
members to become involved in the educational system (Perry, 2006).
This lack of connection between the superintendent and parents and community
may be attributable to the changing role of the superintendent. The history of the school
district superintendent has had three distinct periods (Carter & Cunningham, 1997;
Kowalski, 2006). The first period was at the inception of the public educational system
from the 1800s to the early part of the 20th century. During that time, superintendents
were primarily data collectors and distributers of state funds: they did not need to interact
with parents or community members—in fact, they rarely interacted with school
personnel. In the second period, from the early 1900s to the mid-1960s, superintendents
were the most visible and powerful individuals in a school district. They were seen as
civic, not educational, leaders. The third period of the superintendency began in the mid-
6
1960s and continues today (Glass, 2007). With the civil rights movement, parents and
community members became more active as the public began holding schools and
superintendents more accountable. The release of the 1983 A Nation at Risk report, and a
myriad of other reports that followed heightened scrutiny, provoked keen attention to the
“crisis” in our schools (Goodlad, 2002). The 1990s saw a greater call for educational
leadership from the position, leading superintendents to become executive educators and
key players in the success or failure of the nation’s reform agendas (Glass, 2007).
Current federal and state reform movements are demanding that school districts
and school leaders do everything they can to ensure student success. Knowing that
federal law mandates parent and community involvement and understanding that such
participation presents an additional resource to increase student achievement outcomes,
superintendents need to serve as role models in developing and implementing strong
parent and community partnerships.
Statement of the Problem
Although significant research exists on the importance of parent and community
involvement and an equally robust amount presents research on superintendents, very
little scholarship actually addresses the role of superintendents in executing the policies
and strategies districts put into place to engage parents and community members in the
school system. Very few studies have sought to identify what specific parent and
community involvement practices relate to student achievement. Although many studies
have shown a positive correlation between parent and community involvement and
7
student achievement, few compare and contrast specific types of parent involvement as
they relate to student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to identify the role California urban superintendents
play in executing their districts’ parent and community involvement policies. The
secondary purpose is to examine which types of parent and community involvement
practices, if any, make a difference in student achievement. Due to the multitude of
definitions of parent involvement, the researcher uses Epstein’s framework of six types of
involvement to define parent and community involvement practices.
Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do California urban superintendents believe parent and community
involvement correlates to student achievement?
2. How do California urban superintendents rate their school districts’ current
practices in engaging parent and community involvement?
3. What roles and strategies are California urban superintendents currently using to
engage parent and community involvement?
4. Do the types of parent and community involvement practices, as defined by
Epstein, relate to student achievement?
8
Significance of the Study
This study will redress the dearth of research regarding superintendents and their
role in implementing parent and community involvement policies. The findings will
have direct implications for current and future superintendents as they execute their
districts’ parent and community involvement policies, as mandated by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2002. The information gained from this study may potentially assist
districts in making parent and community involvement policy-making decisions. Finally,
findings from this study may also influence policymakers as they update and formulate
procedures to help students achieve academic success. Positive correlations between
parent and community involvement policies, practices, and strategies to student
achievement may inform the decisions of policymakers and school boards as they
consider every resource necessary for fostering high academic achievement for all
students.
Assumptions
The results of this study are based on the assumption that all participants were
truthful in their responses to the survey and interview questions. It is also assumed that
the API data collected from the state are indicators of student achievement. Lastly, it is
assumed that the superintendents’ execution of the districts’ policies and strategies
impacts individual sites’ implementation of the policies.
9
Limitations of the Study
This study may be limited by the fact that superintendents reported on their
perceived roles in executing their district’s parent and community involvement policies.
Another limitation is the study’s design to identify a correlation, not causation, of parent
and community involvement with student achievement.
Delimitations of the Study
One delimitation of this study is its exclusive concern with urban superintendents
in California. Another delimitation is that it looks at parent and community involvement
policies for a district as a whole and not for individual schools. Thus, the strength of the
correlation between parent and community involvement and academic achievement will
be made on a district level.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined below.
Academic Performance Index (API): Measures the academic performance and
growth of schools and districts. A score of 800 denotes the proficiency level mandated by
state law.
Accountability: School ratings based on the scores students receive on the
California State Test (CST) and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
10
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Mandated by federal law, the AYP score
denotes the percentage of students that has scored minimal proficiency on the state
accountability assessment.
Attitude: Individual’s positive or negative evaluation of self-performance of the
particular behavior.
Behavior: Observable response in a given situation.
Belief: Individual’s belief that the behavior will produce a given outcome.
Community: A group of people or businesses sharing the same locality.
High-performing school district: For the purpose of this study, a high-performing
school district is one where at least 70% of all schools in the district has met its API
growth targets for at least two of the past three years.
Intention: An indication of an individual’s readiness to perform a given behavior.
Parent: Natural parent, legal guardian, or other person standing in loco parentis
(such as a grandparent, stepparent, or person legally responsible for the child’s welfare).
Parent and community involvement: A combination of a parent commitment to
and active participation in both the school and his or her children’s education.
School district: Local educational agency that operates schools or contracts for
school services in specific geographic areas.
Urban school district: For the purposes of this research study, an urban school
district is one with a population in which 50% or more of the students is minority, 50% or
more of the students receives free or reduced lunch, and the district has a minimum
population of 10,000 students.
11
Overview of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One gave an overview of
parent and community policies and the role of the superintendent. It also included the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the
study, limitations of the study, delimitations of the study, definitions of terms, and an
overview of the dissertation. Chapter Two is a literature review of parent and community
involvement policies and legislation, the role of the superintendent, and student
achievement as it relates to parent and community involvement. Chapter Three presents
methodology, population, and data collection and analysis procedures for the study.
Chapter Four presents the data of the study including the data collection process and
descriptive and statistical analysis of the data. Finally, Chapter Five summarizes the
findings and their implications for superintendents, as well as recommendations for
further research.
12
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Parents, families, educators and communities- there’s no better partnership
to assure that all students pre-K- to high school have the support and
resources they need to succeed in school and in life.—Dennis Van Roekel,
National Education Association President, 2008.
By 2014, all students are expected to attain minimum proficiency in
reading/language arts and mathematics (NCLB, 2002). Currently, only 46% of California
students has reached the proficiency mark in reading/language arts and even fewer—
43% of students in California— have reached proficiency in math. Students from low-
income homes and minority students attending urban schools are even further behind in
the goal of full student proficiency (CA Dept. of Ed., 2008). As the number of Title I and
Program Improvement Schools increase (EdSource, 2008) and with only four more years
until the target date 2014 arrives, researchers must explore all avenues to assist educators
in ensuring that every student reaches our national goal.
One area of educational research that has been shown to correlate with student
achievement is parent and community involvement (Desimone, 1999; Henderson &
Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2005). Fege (2000) has concluded that parents serve as a strategic
instructional resource for students, teachers, and principals and that an interdependent
relationship between parents and schools can make a positive difference in student
achievement. The Harvard Family Research Project (2008) synthesized three decades of
research on family involvement and found that committed leadership is fundamental to
building family involvement. It also reported that leadership development is a priority
13
for this field and that preparing leaders to value family involvement and invest in
evaluation continues to be vital in addressing the achievement gap.
The purpose of this review is to (a) examine the academic climate for California
students in urban schools, (b) provide a detailed look at policies and reform movements
that have recognized the importance of parent and community involvement, (c) highlight
existing research on parent and community involvement, as it relates to student
achievement, (d) examine the role superintendents play as leaders of a school district, and
(e) explain the theory of action framework.
Students in Urban Schools in California
In the 2007-2008 school year, over 6.2 million California students were enrolled
in kindergarten through 12
th
grade (CA Dept of Ed, 2009). A majority of those students
was enrolled in urban schools with a huge and growing population of students at serious
risk of experiencing school failure (Dearing, Simpkins, Keider, & Weiss, 2006). Even
with national attention focused on the educational system, for low-income students of
color and English learners, who constitute more than 60% of California’s public school
population, the outlook is grim (West Ed, 1999).
One recommendation from the 1999 California Superintendents Council on
Language, Culture, Poverty, and Race conference was to promote parent involvement and
capacity building (West Ed, 1999). This recommendation advocated both parental
involvement in their children’s education and providing resources and assistance to
empower parents as their children’s educational advocates. This recommendation is
14
congruent with the federal and state laws and the educational reforms of the past two
centuries.
Federal and State Policies and Reforms
Past and current policymakers have recognized the importance of enlisting parents
and community members as essential partners in education. Likewise, educational
reform movements have encouraged, and current federal laws have required, school
systems to include parents.
Elementary and Secondary Schools Act of 1965
Created in 1965 as an integral part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” the
Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA) of 1965 is the largest single source of
federal support for kindergarten through 12
th
-grade education. It was the first federal act
to allocate money directly to poor schools, communities, and children (Ed Gov, 2009).
By targeting federal aid to assist poor students and schools, ESEA addressed part of the
larger national agenda of confronting poverty and its damaging effects. Although it did
not have a direct connection with parent and community involvement, this original
federal act led the way to addressing the need for partnerships outside of the local school
system. ESEA created, for the first time, a partnership among federal, state, and local
governments and identified the need to address students who had been overlooked in the
past (Ed Gov, 2009).
15
Public Law 94-142: IDEA
From the beginning of special education legislation, families of children with
disabilities have been considered important partners in meeting the needs of those
children (The History of IDEA, 2004). Before the enactment of Public Law 94-142, the
fate of many individuals with disabilities was bleak. In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal
government, with strong support and advocacy from family associations, began to
develop and validate practices for children with disabilities and their families. The
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, also known as Public Law 94-142,
was renamed, in 1990, as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and
reauthorized in 1997. IDEA includes key principles to guide families and professionals
to work together to enhance the educational opportunities for their children. IDEA
requires active parent participation throughout the educational process, including the
development of the child’s Individualized Educational Program (IEP). The overall goal
of this law is to maintain an equal and respectful partnership between schools and
families (The History of IDEA, 2004).
The four purposes of IDEA are to (a) assure that all children with disabilities have
available to them a free appropriate public education, (b) assure that the rights of children
with disabilities and their parents are protected, (c) assist states and localities to provide
for the education of all children with disabilities, and (d) assess and assure the
effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities (CA Dept. of Ed., 2008).
IDEA has had a tremendous impact on parent involvement, not only strengthening the
role of parents in their child’s education, but also encouraging parents to advocate for
16
their children and to provide meaningful input for the course of their child’s education.
IDEA also supported parents and educators in working out differences through
nonadversarial means (The History of IDEA, 2004).
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 and Goals 2000
The ESEA of 1965 was reauthorized with the Improving America’s Schools Act
(IASA) of 1994. The focus of reauthorizing the ESEA was to change the way educators
deliver instruction, encourage comprehensive systemic school reform, strengthen
accountability, and promote the coordination of resources to improve education for all
children. The comprehensive school reform in this act was predicated on four key
principles: (a) high standards for all students, (b) better trained teachers to teach to high
standards, (c) flexibility to stimulate local initiative along with responsibility for results,
and (d) promoting partnerships among families, communities and schools (National
Education Goals Panel, 1995).
Although promoting partnerships among families, communities, and schools was
a founding principle of the reauthorization of ESEA, congress did not include a formal
goal focused on parental involvement until its reauthorization in 1994, when a seventh
and eighth goal was added to the existing six national educational goals. Goal 8 states:
“By the year 2000, every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental
involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth
of children” (National Education Goals Panel, 1995).
This added goal presented a significant set of challenges (Blankstein, 2004), as no
consensus was reached on whose responsibility it was to ensure parental involvement in
17
schools--parents, site-level, or district-level personnel. In addition, research has shown
that the relationship among school, family, and communities can be minimal or filled
with misunderstands, misinterpretations, or disagreements (Harvard Family Research
Project, 2008).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
The most recent reauthorization of the ESEA, in the form of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 continues to require schools to involve parents in school
programs. Parents are mentioned over 300 times in various parts of the No Child Left
Behind Act, with Title I, Section 1118 solely devoted to parent involvement (EdSource,
2004). Title I provides the core elements that incorporate many of the other parental
involvement provisions of NCLB. Moreover, for the first time in the history of the
ESEA, federal law contained a definition of parental involvement, which is:
the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication
involving student academic learning and other school activities including:
assisting their child’s learning; being actively involved in their child’s education
at school; serving as full partners in their child’s education and being included, as
appropriate, in decisions-making and on advisory committees to assist in the
education of their child. (NCLB, Section 9101.32, 2002)
Title I, Section 1118 also requires that school districts work in cooperation with their
Title I schools to build the capacity of parents and school staff for strong parental
involvement, with the understanding that this involvement will improve academic
achievement for underperforming and economically disadvantaged students.
18
Research on Parent and Community Involvement
Landmark Study
Known as the Coleman Report, this landmark study in education by Coleman et
al. (1966) titled Equality of Educational Opportunity was the first accountability report of
student performance. For the first time, researchers used test scores as an indicator of
equality instead of the traditional method of looking at school resources, such as funding
or books, for equality of opportunity. The Coleman Report concluded that student family
backgrounds—racial, economic, cultural, and community—have a greater influence on
children’s academic performance than their schooling experiences. This report set the
stage for discussions addressing the value of outside-school dynamics in education
(Hiatt-Michael, 2006) and for the previously discussed political actions and subsequently
presented educational research in parental involvement.
Overlapping Spheres of Influence
Research has established that student educational outcomes are influenced by a
myriad of contexts such as socioeconomic status, family education level, equal
opportunity, and racial discrimination (Garnier, Stein, & Jacobs, 1997; Henderson &
Mapp, 2002; Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007). These researchers have suggested
that because students live within multiple contexts, their possibility of improving
academic achievement does not lie solely within the school environment; instead, there is
a shared responsibility for children’s learning and development. Epstein (1997) labeled
these multiple contexts as overlapping spheres of influence, locating the student in the
center of a partnership among the school, family, and community. She posited that
19
children who felt cared for and encouraged to work hard as students are more likely do
their best to learn to read, write, calculate, and remain in school. Her overlapping spheres
of influence theory also recognized that some practices that schools, families, and
communities conducted jointly could positively influence children’s learning and
development.
Framework by Joyce Epstein
Based on many studies and years of working with educators and families in
elementary, middle, and high school, Dr. Joyce Epstein (2002) created a framework to
serve educators in developing school and family partnerships to help all children succeed
in school and in later life. Epstein’s framework and the language she used to describe
and define the six types of parent and community involvement has been instrumental in
shaping the language for goals, standards, and outcomes for parent and community
involvement. Sinn (2006) identified that Epstein’s framework was incorporated into the
National Standards for Parent Involvement (1996), The California Strategic Plan for
Parent Involvement in Education (1992), and the California Commission on Teaching
Credentialing report on Preparing Educators for Partnerships with Families (1998).
Figure, 1, below presents Epstein’s Framework.
20
Figure 1
Epstein’s Framework for Parent and Community Involvement
Her framework categorized six major types of involvement: Parenting,
Communicating, Volunteering, Learning at Home, Decision Making, and Collaborating
with the Community.
1. Type I, Parenting, is the help schools give families to establish home
environments that support children as students.
2. Type II, Communicating, comprises effective methods of school-to-home and
home-to-school communications about school programs and student progress.
3. Type III, Volunteering, is recruiting and organizing parent help and support.
4. Type IV, Learning at Home, means providing information and ideas to families
about helping with homework and other curriculum-related activities, making
informed decisions, and effectively planning.
Epstein's
Parent and
Community
Involvement
Framework
Type I:
Parenting
Type II:
Communi-
cating
Type III:
Volunteering
Type IV:
Learning at
Home
Type V:
Decision
Making
Type VI:
Collaborating
with the
Community
21
5. Type V, Decision Making, means including parents in school decisions and
developing parent leaders and representatives.
6. The final type of involvement as identified in Epstein’s framework is type VI,
Collaborating with the Community. This type of involvement identifies and
integrates resources and services from the community in order to strengthen
school programs, family practices, and student learning and development.
Epstein (2001) found that the effects of the specific types of involvement varied by level
of schooling and may have multiple outcomes such as improved attendance, attitudes,
behaviors, and grades. She also acknowledged that school leadership and communities
had choices regarding how each type of involvement was implemented in their
comprehensive plan to best influence their students’ performance.
Epstein (2001) identified targeted questions that school leadership could use when
considering their parent and community involvement policies. These questions were
taken directly from School, Family and Community Partnerships by Epstein (2001):
1. For Type 1 (Parenting): How are workshop topics selected, conducted, and
disseminated so that all families can obtain and apply information on topics
that are important to parents? What are the short and long-term effects for
parents, students, and schools of participation in the form of workshops on
parenting and child-rearing across the grades? How does information from
families about their children assist educators or other parents?
2. For Type 2 (Communicating): How are report cards explained so that all
families can understand them? How can families be helping to work with their
22
children and teacher if they believe that better grades are unattainable? What
are the results of these efforts on student report card grades? How can
conferences be designed, scheduled, and conducted to increase the attendance
of parents who work outside the home? How are students affected by parent-
teacher and parent-student-teacher conferences about student attendance,
behavior, attitudes, achievement, goal-setting, or other topics? How do such
discussions affect the patterns of choices that are made?
3. For Type 3 (Volunteering): How are volunteers recruited, welcomed, trained,
and evaluated? How are the skills and talents of volunteers identified and
matched with the needs of students, teachers, and administrators? How do
various volunteer programs and activities affect student learning, attitudes,
and behavior; teacher attitudes toward parents; parent attitudes and skills; and
other families?
4. For Type 4 (Learning at Home): In what forms can information about
students’ class work and homework be delivered to help families assist their
children with their responsibilities? How do activities at home that promote
student and family interactions affect students’ attitudes, skills, and
homework?
5. For Type 5 (Decision Making): How can all families give information to and
receive information from parent leaders who represent them on councils and
committees? How do family and community representatives on school-site
councils, school improvement teams, or committees alter the following: (a)
23
school improvement plans and activities or (b) the knowledge and attitudes of
all parents about the school?
6. For Type 6 (Collaborating with the Community): How can schools help
families obtain useful information about and access to community programs,
services, and resources that may benefit them and their children? Which forms
or approaches are most effective for sharing this information with all families?
What effects will these approaches have on student work in school? How can
schools, families, and students contribute to their communities, and with what
effects?
This study’s basis is founded within this parent and community involvement
typology. By using these six types of involvement, the researcher can categorize
districts’ parent and community involvement policies, practices, and strategies to explore
whether specific involvement types have an effect on student achievement.
Notably, some studies have shown that parent and community involvement have
no or even negative effects on student achievement (Fan & Chen, 1999; Shumow &
Miller, 2001). These studies indicated that parent involvement with homework and
parent-initiated contacts with school negatively related to classroom grades and test
scores. Shumow and Miller (2001) and Crosnoe (2001) explained this negative and/or
non-significant association between parent involvement in school and children’s
outcomes by arguing that a crosscutting influence of prior performance may not have
been accounted for in the results. These researchers argued that children who are
experiencing difficulties in school have parents who are more likely to schedule meetings
24
with teachers and become more involved, whereas children who are succeeding in school
may have parents who tend to relax their involvement in school. Fan and Chen found a
similar pattern. They also suggested that parents whose children have academic or
behavior problems tend to supervise them more and seek more help from the school.
Despite this idea of reverse causality bias (Fan & Chen, 1999), this researcher found and
was able to present many more studies that have shown positive correlations between
parent and community involvement and positive student achievement and outcomes.
Positive Correlation Studies
The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, citing the study published
by Mayers et al. (2000), titled Hope for Urban Education, found that high-performing
schools tend to have a combination of many characteristics— of which one is high levels
of parent and community involvement. Parent and community involvement that is linked
to student learning has a greater effect on achievement than more general forms of
involvement (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). These researchers found that the form of
involvement should be focused on improving achievement and be designed to engage
families and students in developing specific knowledge and skills.
In general, studies on parent and community involvement can be categorized into
three types of studies: studies on the impact of family and community involvement on
student achievement; studies on effective strategies to connect schools, families and
community; and studies on parent and community organizing efforts to improve schools
(Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Given the dual purpose of this study as stated in Chapter
One, research findings regarding the first two categories will be discussed.
25
Studies conducted on the impact of family and community involvement on student
achievement have focused on specific schooling years: birth to preschool, elementary,
middle, and high school. Some studies have shown that enhancing learning opportunities
at home have the strongest effect on student achievement (Catsambis, 1998; Dryfoos,
2000; Ingram, Wolfe, & Lieberman, 2007) while others found student achievement
improved when parents were actively involved in the school by volunteering and visiting
the classroom (Marcon, 1999). Still others found parents actively participating in
decision making groups (Comer & Haynes, 1991) had the greatest impact on student
achievement.
Jeynes’ (2005) meta-analysis of 41 studies which examined the relationship
between parental involvement and the academic achievement of urban elementary school
children found there was a significant relationship between parental involvement overall
and academic achievement. This relationship held true even after he disaggregated the
data by gender and racial minority status. Findings from his meta-analysis indicated that
parental expectation and style each demonstrated a strong relationship with scholastic
outcomes. Jeynes concluded that this finding indicated parents have a greater influence
on their child’s educational achievement then they may believe.
Studies on effective strategies to connect schools, families, and student achievement
have focused on both school-based and home-based involvement. School-based
strategies can be categorized as Epstein’s involvement types of communicating,
volunteering, decision making, and collaborating with the community. Home-based
involvement can be categorized as Epstein’s involvement types of parenting and learning
26
at home. Jeynes (2005) examination of urban parental involvement programs found that
these programs did increase parent involvement. A strategy schools have used to assist in
creating a stronger parent/school partnership and that has been researched for the past ten
years is the intervention program called Parent Institute for Quality Education (PIQE).
Chrispeels and Rivero (2000 & 2001) found that parents who completed this 9 week
parent involvement education program developed higher levels of engagement both with
their children and with the schools. Results from their study using a pre- post-evaluation
found a significant effect size (p < .01) in the amount parents read to their children,
volunteered at the school, and conferenced with their child’s teacher. Maruca (2002) also
found that parents who participated in PIQE were more likely to observe in the classroom
and hold a more positive belief that they could help their children with school work.
Another strategy schools have used to connect families to school is the use of
community schools (Nettles, 1991). Community schools is a program operating in a
public school building typically providing before- and after-school learning programs and
includes a family-support center. Findings from Dryfoos’ (2000) review of 49
evaluations of community school initiatives highlighted improvements in student
behavior and development, family well-being, and community life. Slightly more than
half of the programs reported increased parent involvement as measured by volunteer
hours. Epstein & Sanders (2000) findings give further evidence that families with less
education and lower incomes do become just as involved as better educated families if
schools have effective programs and strategies to engage them.
27
Barriers
Why are more parents not participating in their children’s schools? Nearly all
parents from low-income minority groups reported facing more barriers to becoming
involved in the schools than their low-income White counterparts (Turney & Kao, 2009).
Specifically, minority parents identified lack of childcare, transportation problems, and a
language barrier as reasons they did not become more involved in schools. Heymann and
Earle (2000) found that work schedules and economic status were also obstacles for all
parents.
However, the most frequently identified impediment to parent participation is
lack of awareness about how to support their child’s educational experience (Epstein,
2001; Politis, 2004; Turney & Koa, 2009). Smrekar and Cohen-Vogel (2001) found that
the dearth of parent involvement in a low-income, culturally diverse urban school in
Northern California did not reflect a parental lack of interest in their child’s development.
Instead, they found that parents were limited by the sense that their roles were distinct
from those of the school and that school personnel and leadership had not included them.
School personnel need to be aware of this perception and must avoid judgments based on
stereotypes or opinions, as research has shown that the cultural, racial, and economic
difference between school staff and parents often leads to false assumptions about why
certain parents are or are not involved (Mapp, 1997). Smrekar and Cohen-Vogel (2001)
concluded that replacing a singular idea of parent involvement with the idea of being
collaborative partners may “reframe the system of public education toward more
28
inclusive and interconnected relations that will benefit the learning potentials of all
students” (p. 98).
The Role of the Superintendent
The responsibility for building partnerships between school and home rests
primarily with school staff, especially school leaders (Mapp, 2002). Although the
previous statement may be widely agreed upon now, the history of the superintendency
comprises an evolution of responsibilities, which finally incorporate this idea.
Historical Perspective of the Superintendency
Expectations for the vital role of school district superintendent have evolved with
growing and competing demands (Edwards, 2007). From the early 1800s to the early
part of the 20th Century, superintendents spent most of their time as data collectors and
distributers of state funds. They did not need to interact with parents or community
members--in fact, they rarely even interacted with school personnel. School boards were
the ones who interacted directly with school employees such as teachers and principals
(Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000). Although some superintendents did supervise teachers,
their main duty was maintaining orderly school-houses. During this time,
superintendents were often teachers who had no formal training in managing people,
finances, or other material resources (Kowalski, 2006). Superintendents of this era would
not have been expected (nor likely have had the skill level) to build partnerships with
parents and communities.
29
From the early 1900s to the mid-1960s, superintendents became the most visible
and powerful individuals in the school district. Professors of education increased their
course offerings in administration, business management, finance, and efficiency
techniques. The superintendency became a position in and of itself as certification
requirements were established by state legislation (Kowalski, 2006). Superintendents
started establishing themselves as business mangers and gradually became viewed as
democratic leaders. They broadened their participation in educational decisions and were
recognized as educational experts of local school districts (Glass et al., 2000). Their
expert status afforded them great confidence from the public and their decisions were
rarely challenged— until the 1960s.
With the civil rights movement, parents and community members became more
active as the public began holding schools and superintendents more accountable. The
release of the 1983 A Nation at Risk report— and a myriad of other reports that
followed— intensified scrutiny and brought critical attention, to the “crisis in our
schools” (Goodlad, 2002). To combat this crisis, the public issued a greater call in the
1990s for educational leadership from the superintendency; this outcry lead
superintendents to become executive educators and key players in the success or failure
of the nation’s reform agendas (Glass & Franceschini, 2007). Superintendents today are
expected to be adept in the political process and in their interactions with state legislative
bodies and federal policymakers. They must also be expert in the art of internal and
external relations as they deal with demanding employees and an increasingly critical
public (Borba, 2003 & Edwards, 2007). Understanding these expectations of
30
superintendents today, and the federal laws as discussed previously, one can see how, as
Henderson and Mapp (2002) have suggested, the superintendent is a key player in
building partnerships with parents and community members.
Sharp and Walters (2004) found that the values and knowledge of the
superintendent have some bearing on every person in a given educational system.
Today’s superintendents are expected to be leaders first and managers second. They are
expected to make decisions about what to do to improve the organization.
Superintendents provide a key link between the community and the district’s schools.
Knowing the importance of this position, the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) created standards to provide benchmarks for improving the
selection, preparation, and development of superintendents. California’s Department of
Education adopted those standards for all educational leaders in California.
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL)
The California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL) provides
indicators of leadership action that contribute to meeting the standards. A school
administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success for all students by
enacting the following criteria (ACSA, 2007):
1. Standard 1: Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and
stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school
community.
2. Standard 2: Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and
instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
31
3. Standard 3: Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources
for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
4. Standard 4: Collaborating with families and community members, responding to
diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
5. Standard 5: Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional
leadership capacity.
6. Standard 6: Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political,
social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
Looking more carefully at the actions in Standard 4, one can see how these actions relate
to some of Epstein’s typology:
4.1 Recognize and respect the goals and aspirations of diverse family and
community groups.
4.2 Treat diverse community stakeholder groups with fairness and respect.
4.3 Incorporate information about family and community expectations into school
decision-making and activities.
4.4 Strengthen the school through the establishment of community, business,
institutional, and civic partnerships.
4.5 Communicate information about the school on a regular and predictable basis
through a variety of media.
4.6 Support the equitable success of all student and all subgroups of students by
mobilizing and leveraging community support services.
The actions in standard 4.1 can be measured as Epstein’s Type I, Parenting. The
actions in 4.2 and 4.5 can be measured by using Type II, Communicating. The action in
4.3 is an example of Type IV, Decision Making. Both standard 4.4 and 4.6 are examples
of Type VI, Collaborating with Community.
Kelly (2000) explored the ways in which policy produces performance. She
explained that policy makers communicated values and set agendas through policies and
32
that the real challenge for educational policy makers is to weave together discrete policies
that interlocked with one another to produce a clear vision of student performance. The
real challenge is for administrators to implement as effectively as possible policies,
programs, and practices that make it possible for critically identified parent, community,
and school relationships to occur (Henderson & Mapp, 2002).
Leadership Theory
What type of leader can effectively implement policies, programs, and practices?
Katz (1995), as presented in Northouse (2007), has suggested that effective leadership
depends on three basic personal skills: technical, human, and conceptual. Technical skill
means having competencies in a specialized area, analytical ability, and the capacity to
use appropriate tools and techniques. Human skill is knowledge about and the ability to
work with people; it involves being aware of one’s own perspective on issues and, at the
same time, of the perspective of others. Conceptual skill has to do with the mental work
of shaping the meaning of organizational or policy issues, understanding what an
organization stands for and where it is and should be going. Katz labeled this skills-
based model of leadership the “three-skill approach.” He believed that different levels of
management required differing proficiency levels in the three basic personal skills.
Based on field research in administration and firsthand observations of executives in the
workplace, Katz found that top managers, such as superintendents, needed less technical
skill than human and conceptual skill as compared to middle management (assistant
superintendents and directors) or supervisory management (site administrators).
Especially when executing district, federal, state, family, and community involvement
33
policies, superintendents need to have the conceptual skills to translate these policies and
goals into words and actions.
Research on Superintendents
Superintendents are expected to be agents of change (Hayes, 2001), play a key
role in helping to shape the cultural norms of the district, and set the agenda for school
reform (Studley, 2000). Superintendents must be familiar with the law and all of its
implementation components because the superintendent is not only the chief
spokesperson for the school district, but he or she must also be prepared at all times to
explain federal legislation that relates to public education (Hayes, 2001). As presented
earlier in this chapter, federal law requires school systems to include parents, so as
leaders of the school district, superintendents should play an active role in executing their
district’s parent and community involvement policies.
Giffin and Chance (1994) have found a link between superintendent practices and
activities and effective schools. Their study examined the significance of the
superintendent’s role in leading a school district to improving student achievement. They
concluded that the role of the superintendent was of vital importance and that
superintendents of an effective school district exhibited three characteristics: focus,
support for instructional activities, and beliefs. Their beliefs were the driving force in the
school system and these beliefs guided their practices. As posited by Henderson et al.,
(2007):
Before we can build strong and effective partnerships with families, we have to
believe not only that it’s important but also that it can be done--and that we can do
it. That means it’s necessary for school staff to hold a set of positive beliefs about
family engagement.” (2007, p.)
34
Chesser and McNeal (2000) found that it’s not just the beliefs of superintendents,
but also their actions, which have the ability to enhance parental participation. In the fall
of 1998, 900 community citizens in Arkansas and Oklahoma took part in the first
statewide-organized effort of public engagement on education in the United States using
Study Circles. Although Study Circles had been used in the past as a community-
involvement strategy for collaborative problem-solving on public issues such as race
relations, crime, and violence, this instance was the first time it was used statewide to
focus on public education. Chesser and McNeal found that the participation of
superintendents increased the number of parents who became involved. Parents believed
their participation was more important and valued when superintendents were
participating and encouraging them to participate. The researchers also suggested that in
Arkansas superintendents could be the catalysts for educational change to improve
community involvement and school performance.
Given the influence of the superintendent on the community, as highlighted in the
previous study, the research regarding the superintendent’s impact on parent and
community involvement policies, strategies, or programs is limited. Starr (1998)
concluded that although superintendents have a tremendous impact on the overall
acceptance and integration of parents in the district shared decision-making process,
current research does not provide direction to determine what specific aspects of shared
decision making should include parents. Using Epstein’s typology in research of 139
superintendents, Webb (1997) found that volunteering and parenting were areas in need
of more consideration from superintendents. Finally, in a study of 196 superintendents
35
from 15 states, Kesslar-Sklar and Baker (2000) determined that whereas 90% of the
superintendents reported having at least one district policy that supported parent
involvement, district policies designed to assist staff to work more effectively with
parents was grossly underrepresented.
Bennis and Namus (1997) study identified that effective superintendents are those
who have developed a strong sense of trust. They and other researchers (Glass, Bjork, &
Brunner, 2000 & Konnert & Augenstein, 1990) suggested that trust was an essential
component in connecting the leaders with their followers. Bennis and Namus indicated
that leaders set the moral tone for the organization by communicating a sense of purpose
for the organization and by reinforcing appropriate practices. To be trusted, leaders must
have a clear vision, clear positions, and their actions must be consistent with their
proclaimed views.
Theory of Action
Throughout this literature review, the idea of beliefs held by parents, community
members, and superintendents have been presented. Research has found that
superintendents of an effective school district exhibited strong beliefs and these beliefs
guided their practices (Giffin & Chance, 1994). Research has also indicated that parents
who held positive beliefs about their efficacy to influence their children’s education
seemed more likely to be involved (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). To better
understand how beliefs influenced practices, the conceptual framework of a theory of
action was used in this study.
36
For the past forty years, social psychologists have studied this link between beliefs
and behaviors of individuals. The theory of reasoned action developed by Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975) posit that external stimuli influenced attitudes by modifying the structure of
the person’s beliefs. These beliefs and attitudes then determined the behavioral intention
of a person, which resulted in the actual behavior or action. A meta-analysis on the
application of the theory of reasoned action showed that the model could produce good
predictions of choices made by an individual (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988).
For this study, research conducted by Fishbein and Ajzen (1974, 1980, & 2003) and
Argyris (1985) regarding beliefs, deliberate behavior, and learning were applied to this
study’s framework of the theory of action. Figure 2, below, illustrates the theory of
action.
Figure 2
Theory of Action
Belief
•Individual's belief that the behavior will
produce a given outcome
Attitude
•Individual's positive or negative evaluation of
self-performance of the particular behavior
Intention
•An indication of an individual's readiness to
perform a given behavior
Behavior
•Observable response in a given situation
37
Chapter Two Summary
This literature review provided a glimpse of the need for research to connect
parent and community involvement and the superintendent. The review began with an
examination of the academic climate for California students in urban schools and a
presentation of how state and federal laws have increasingly included parents and
community involvement in the school system with the understanding that this
involvement will improve academic achievement for underperforming and economically
disadvantaged students. The review then highlighted the connection between parent and
community involvement policies and student achievement. This literature review makes
clear that school superintendents need to take the lead in ensuring parent and community
partnerships with the school by presenting the evolving role of the superintendent which
has incorporated working more closely with parents and community members. This
chapter ended with an explanation of the theory of action, a framework which was used
to understand how to link beliefs and behaviors.
38
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Chapter Three Introduction
This chapter covers the methodology and procedures used in this research. The
chapter includes the following sections: problem and purpose overview, research
questions, research design, population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.
Problem and Purpose Overview
During the past three decades, researchers have positively correlated parent and
community involvement with increased student achievement. Not only has one study
found a strong link between parent involvement and children’s academic achievement,
but also these researchers (Coleman et al., 2006) posit that this link is key to closing the
achievement gap. The person who holds that key is the superintendent. Research by
Henderson et al. (2007) has established that a firm commitment to creating and
coordinating a serious, consistent, systemic program of family and community
engagement in any district requires senior leadership, particularly at the superintendent
level. Epstein (2009) agreed, further suggesting the necessity of understanding
systematic leadership and support for partnerships to see how all schools in a district—
not just one or two—may be assisted to engage all families in ways that support student
success.
39
Although research on the importance of parent and community involvement is
extensive, and an equally robust amount exists on superintendents, very few studies
connect these two topics. Even more limited is research regarding the role
superintendents play and the strategies they use in executing the policies, strategies, and
programs that their districts put into place to engage parents and community members in
the school system.
Due to the varied definitions of parent involvement (Epstein, 1995; Kohl, Lengua
& McMahon, 2000; Patrikakou, 1997), this study used Epstein’s framework to define
parent and community involvement (see Figure 1). Epstein (2002) defined
“involvement” through six types of action: Parenting, Communicating, Volunteering,
Learning at Home, Decision Making, and Collaborating with the Community. District’s
parent and community involvement written policies and practices were coded into these
six types of parent and community involvement categories for this research.
The purpose of the study is to identify the role California urban superintendents
play and the strategies they use in executing their districts’ parent and community
involvement policies and practices, as defined by Epstein. The secondary purpose is to
examine which types of parent and community involvement practices, if any, may
correlate with student achievement.
40
Review of Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do California urban superintendents believe parent and community
involvement relates to student achievement?
2. How do California urban superintendents rate their school districts’ current
practices in engaging parent and community involvement?
3. What roles and strategies are California urban superintendents currently using to
engage parent and community involvement?
4. Do the types of parent and community involvement practices, as defined by
Epstein, relate to student achievement?
Research Design
According to Cresswell (2009), qualitative research is a means of exploring and
understanding the themes and relationships ascribed to individuals or groups, whereas
quantitative research is a means for examining relationships among variables that can be
analyzed using statistical procedures. Cresswell defined mixed-methods research as an
approach to inquiry that uses the approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of the
study is greater than either qualitative or quantitative research alone. Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004) found that mixed-methods research can answer a broader and more
complete range of research questions because the researcher is not confined to a single
method or approach. They reported that, “qualitative and quantitative research used
together produces more complete knowledge necessary to inform theory and practice”
41
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 21). Research questions 2 and 4 can be best
explained using quantitative research, whereas research questions 1 and 3 can be best
explained using qualitative research. Due to the dual purpose of this research, a mixed-
methods approach was used to collect, analyze, and report data for this study.
Mixed-Methods Methodology
The mixed-methods approach used for this research was the embedded strategy
(Cresswell, 2009). Data was collected in two stages: survey and achievement data were
collected first; interview data and document reviews were collected shortly after. The
quantitative data collected addressed the relationship of parent and community
involvement to student achievement, whereas the qualitative data explored the beliefs,
strategies, and roles that the superintendents used to execute their district’s parent and
community involvement policies. Qualitative and quantitative data were concurrently
analyzed.
Quantitative Methods
To address research questions 2 and 4, a quantitative methodology was used to
obtain, interpret, and report the data. The survey design was used to generalize from a
sample to a population so that inferences could be made about some characteristic,
attitude, or behavior of this population (Babbie, 1990, as presented in Creswell, 2009).
The survey provided a quantitative description and ratings of the types of parent and
community involvement practices currently used by districts and superintendents to
engage parent, community, and school partnerships. To examine whether a relationship
42
could be found between the type of parent and community involvement practices and
student achievement, each district’s API data was collected from EdData, a data website
linked through the California Department of Education website. Information from the
survey and the information from EdData were then analyzed using statistical procedures.
Qualitative Methods
To address research questions 1 and 3, a qualitative methodology was used to
obtain, interpret, and report the data. According to McEwan and McEwan (2003),
qualitative research has three principal characteristics: it is naturalistic, descriptive, and
focused on meaning and explanation. This study was naturalistic in that superintendents
were interviewed in their district offices during their regular work hours. Secondly, the
study was descriptive and focused on explanation because the interview sought to
describe in detail how, when, and why superintendents used particular strategies and what
role they played to engage parent and community involvement practices. Whereas the
survey gave the researcher an initial understanding of the current parent and community
involvement practices, the interview allowed the researcher a greater understanding of the
role the superintendent played and the strategies the superintendent used in executing his
or her district’s parent and community involvement policies and practices. The interview
also allowed the researcher a better understanding of the superintendent’s beliefs and
attitudes toward parent and community involvement and student achievement.
43
Population and Sample
The population for this study was selected through purposeful sampling in order
to gain an in-depth understanding of the research topic (Patton, 2002). The targeted
population was California urban superintendents. For this research, urban districts were
defined as districts with at least 50% of the student population identified as part of a
minority group, at least 50% of the student population receiving free or reduced lunch,
and at least 10,000 students. To determine the targeted population, this researcher first
found out how many Unified School Districts in California served students in grades
kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) with at least 50% of the student population
identified as minority and at least 50% of the students receiving free or reduced lunch.
One hundred and thirty districts met these first two criteria; of those 130 districts, only 53
had more than 10,000 students. Superintendents of these 53 school districts became the
targeted population for this study and all were invited to participate in the survey; only
six of the superintendents who completed the surveys were chosen to participate in the
interview.
Population Subgroups for Interview
District student performance data for the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008
school years were retrieved using the California Department of Education’s Ed-Data web
site and analyzed for all 53 of the urban districts that met this study’s selection criteria.
Although the state standard for district success in terms of student achievement is
measured by making the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks, none of the 53
selected districts for this research had attained this benchmark. In fact, only eight of the
44
original 130 districts that met this researcher’s initial criteria made the AYP benchmark
of a successful school district, and only five of the eight made that benchmark for two or
more years during the 2005-2006 through 2007-2008 school years (EdSource, 2009).
These eight school districts averaged only 1,400 students, which would not classify them
as urban school districts.
Because this study was looking at the role of the urban superintendent in
California, an alternative benchmark was used to determine student achievement success.
Student success in terms of district accountability was determined by the percentage of
schools that met or exceeded their API (Academic Performance Index) growth targets.
Superintendents leading districts with at least 70% of their schools meeting or exceeding
their API growth targets for at least two of the three school years from 2005-2006
through 2007-2008 were categorized as more successful at improving student
achievement. In contrast, California superintendents leading urban districts in the study
population and who have less than 70% of their schools meeting or exceeding their API
growth targets for at least two of the three years were categorized as less successful.
The original intent was to interview three of the superintendents from the group
identified as more successful in terms of district accountability and the other three
superintendents chosen from the group identified as less successful. However, there were
twice as many superintendents leading less successful districts than leading more
successful districts in this study. Therefore, to maintain reliability, the number of
interviewed superintendents from each group—leading more or less successful districts--
was chosen in order to maintain a proportion reflective of the targeted population. Four
45
superintendents leading less successful districts were chosen for the interview, whereas
only two superintendents leading more successful districts were chosen for the interview.
More successful superintendents. Of the 53 superintendents invited to
participate in the survey, 12 met this researcher’s criteria for the category of more
successful at improving student achievement. Table 1, below, presents the descriptive
statistics for those districts categorized as being lead by more successful superintendents.
Table 1
District Information for More Successful Superintendents
Character N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
% Minority 12 70.2 97.7 86.825 8.3075
% Free/Reduce Lunch 12 50.3 90.5 66.267 12.7426
Enrollment Size 12 10368 88186 27479.33 22613.017
Valid N 12
*2008-2009 School Year
Less successful superintendents. Of the 53 superintendents invited to
participate in the survey, 41 met this researcher’s criteria for the category of less
successful at improving student achievement. Table 2, below, presents the descriptive
statistics for the districts categorized as being lead by less successful superintendents.
46
Table 2
District Information for Less Successful Superintendents
Character N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
% Minority 41 55.3 99.4 82.266 12.3509
% Free/Reduce Lunch 41 51.7 86.5 65.368 9.5243
Enrollment Size 41 10327 693680 45663.05 106028.167
Valid N 41
*2008-2009 School Year
Comparing the descriptive data of the districts lead by more successful or less
successful superintendents reveals that the mean percent of minority students and the
mean percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch are very similar.
Superintendents leading more successful districts had a slightly higher mean percent of
minority students and students receiving free or reduced lunch. The mean enrollment
size for superintendents leading less successful districts was higher than the mean
enrollment size for superintendents leading more successful districts; however, when the
means were compared, no significant difference could be found between more successful
and less successful districts. Table 3, below, presents the comparison of the means of the
descriptive data for the districts categorized by district accountability—more or less
successful.
47
Table 3
P-Value of District Information
Levene's
Test t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t Df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% CI
Lower Upper
%
Minority
Equal
variancea
ssumed
3.02 .08 1.19 51 .237 4.559 3.806 -3.083 12.201
Equal
variance
not
assumed
1.48 26.75 .150 4.559 3.077 -1.758 10.876
% Free
or
Reduced
Lunch
Equal
variancea
ssumed
1.35 .25 .26 51 .792 .898 3.381 -5.891 7.687
Equal
variance
not
assumed
.22 14.78 .824 .898 3.967 -7.569 9.366
Enroll
Size
Equal
variance
assumed
.64 .42 -.58 51 .560 -18183.71 31011.3 -80441 44074.1
Equal
variance
not
assumed
-1.02 49.08 .312 -18183.75 17799.0 -53950 17583.2
48
Instrumentation
This study combined the methodologies of survey, achievement data review, in-
depth interviews, and document review to address the research questions. The
instruments used in this study were the Measure of School, Family, and Community
Partnership survey (see Appendix D) based on the six types of involvement by Joyce
Epstein and semi-structured interview questions (see Appendix E). Permission was
granted from Epstein to use and modify the survey as needed by this researcher (see
Appendix A). The structured survey instrument of Epstein’s typology of involvement
has not only been field-tested in a myriad of research projects (National Network of
Partnership School, 2009), but has also been adopted by the national Parent Teacher
Association (PTA) to help educators develop school and family partnerships as a way to
assist all children to succeed in school and in later life. The items in the survey have high
internal reliability and have shown consistent patterns in other surveys and field studies
(Epstein, 2009). After adapting the original Measure of School, Family, and Partnership
Survey for this research study, the Cronbach’s alpha for the survey was calculated using
SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The reliability coefficient of the
Cronbach’s alpha was greater than .70, which indicates an acceptable reliability for the
survey (George & Mallery, 2003). Table 4, below, presents the case processing summary
for the Measure of School, Family, and Community Partnership survey, whereas Table 5,
below, presents the survey’s Cronbach’s alpha.
49
Table 4
Case Processing Summary for Survey
N %
Cases Valid 33 100.0
Excluded
a
0 .0
Total 33 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based
on all variables in the
procedure.
Table 5
Cronbach’s Alpha for Survey
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.738 6
Measure of Partnerships Survey
The survey consists of two sections: The first section was separated into six
subsections based on Epstein’s (2002) types of involvement. Each subsection contained
five to six questions, which required a 5-point Likert-scale response. The Likert Scale
options were (a) Not Occurring: strategy does not happen in our district; (b) Rarely:
clearly not emphasized in this district’s parental involvement plan; (c) Occasionally: not a
prevalent component of this district’s parental involvement plan; (d) Frequently: a
prevalent component of this district’s parental involvement plan; and (e) Extensively: a
highly prevalent component of this district’s parental involvement plan.
The second section of the survey asked for demographic information such as
gender, years of experience as a superintendent, and superintendent’s age. It also
included four statements regarding the superintendent’s belief and practices as they
50
pertained to parent and community involvement. The statements were: (a) I believe
parent and community involvement is related to student achievement, (b) Promoting
parent and community involvement is one of my priorities, (c) I believe one strategy to
improve student achievement is to increase parent and community involvement, and (d) I
know of strategies and programs that can increase parent and community involvement in
my district. Statements in the second part of the survey were presented using a 4-point
Likert-scale response: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree.
The survey ended by allowing the superintendents to decide whether they would be
interested in being considered for the follow-up interview stage of this research study.
Semi-structured Interview Questions
The semi-structured interview consisted of eight questions. To ensure
consistency and reliability, a semi-structured interview protocol was developed. The
standardized interview approach consists of a set of questions carefully worded and
arranged with the intention of taking each respondent through an identical sequence and
asking the same questions using essentially the same wording.
The benefits of the standardized interview approach include: (a) the exact
instrument used is available for inspection by those who will use the results of the study,
(b) the interviewer is highly focused so that the interviewee’s time is used efficiently, and
(c) the analysis is facilitated by making the responses easy to find and compare (Patton,
2002).
51
Data Collection
Data from the survey was collected by way of a mailed survey. Data collected
from the interview questions was completed during a 30 to 45-minute interview with
each superintendent. Data regarding whether students were achieving success was
gathered through the California Department of Education website.
Data Collection Protocol
Survey protocol. Background of the research (see Appendix B) and the research
survey (see Appendix D) were sent to all 53 targeted superintendents using the US postal
service. Each survey and returned envelope for the survey were coded with a number,
which helped the researcher identify which superintendents had responded to the request
to participate in the research. After three weeks, a reminder postcard was sent to the
superintendents who had not yet responded. After five weeks, superintendents who had
not completed and returned the survey were sent a final email reminder (see Appendix C)
asking for their participation. This multiple notification procedure was utilized to ensure
adequate participation for this research.
Interview protocol. The six superintendents chosen to participate in the interview
were chosen from the group of participants who had signaled interest in being
interviewed. Before choosing the superintendents to be interviewed, the researcher put
interested participants into two groups: superintendents leading more successful districts
or superintendents leading less successful districts, as defined earlier in this chapter.
Blocking the chosen participants for the interviews ensured representation by district
accountability. The researcher then scheduled the interviews, which were tape-recorded
52
with the permission of the participants. Tape recording allowed the researcher to listen
more adeptly and to engage in probing and follow-up questioning (Cresswell, 2009). All
recordings were transcribed to a word document for analysis and coding.
Ethical Considerations
To ensure the rights of the superintendents who participated in this study, the
following safeguards were utilized (Creswell, 2008):
1. The research objectives were clearly articulated so as to be understandable to
the participants.
2. Participants were informed of all data collection devices and activities.
3. Participants’ rights, interests, and wishes were considered first when choices
were made regarding data reporting.
4. Participant anonymity was guaranteed by the researcher.
Data Analysis
The qualitative data collected from the superintendent interviews and document
reviews and the quantitative data collected from the California Department of Education
website and from the Measure of School, Family, and Community Partnership survey
were used to address the research questions. Figure 2, below, presents the instruments
used and the data analysis conducted to answer the research questions.
53
Figure 3
Data Analysis Plan
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for all statistical
analysis of quantitative data. Descriptive statistical analysis, including mean and
standard deviation, was used along with general terms to analyze the response rate and
participation demographics. The statistical tests of Pearson Chi-Square, Fisher’s exact
test, and t-test were used to establish whether an observed frequency distribution differed
from the theoretical distribution (Robinson Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). The reason for
this analysis was to obtain the test statistics and their associated p-value. Figure 3, below,
shows the p-value numeral and its interpretation (Simon, 2006).
RQ 1:
Extent of
Superintendent
's Beliefs
Survey-Sect
2, statements
1-3 &
Interview,
question 7
Mean, t-test,
& Coding
RQ 2:
Rating Current
Practices by
Types of
Involvement
Survey-
Sect 1
Mean &
Standard
Deviation
RQ 3:
Superintendent
's Strategies
and Roles
Survey- Sect
2, statement
4 & All
Interview
Questions
Mean, t-test,
& Coding
RQ 4:
Involvement
and Relating to
Student
Achievement
Survey-
Sect 1 & API
data
Chi-Square &
Fisher's Test
54
Figure 4
P-Value Interpretation
The Fisher’s exact test was used when one or more of the data cells had an
expected frequency of five or less. Whereas the Chi-Square test assumes that each cell
has an expected frequency of five or more, the Fisher’s exact test does not hold the same
assumption and can be used regardless of how small the expected frequency is (Salkind,
2007).
The qualitative data obtained from the interview was evaluated by using
categorical and interpretational analysis. Information was coded by themes and
categorized by the typology of involvement framework introduced by Dr. Joyce Epstein.
The analysis of the open-ended responses was used to capture the points of view of other
people without predetermining those points of view (Patton, 2002).
•Significant
•Very strong evidence against null
hypothesis
p < .01
•Significant
•Moderate evidence against null
hypothesis
p < .05
•Not Significant
•Suggestive evidence against null
hypothesis
p < .10
•Not Significant
•Little or no evidendence against null
hypothesis
p > .10
55
Chapter Three Summary
This chapter presented an explanation of the mixed-methods research designed to
identify the role California urban superintendents play in executing their district’s parent
and community involvement polices and the relationship between parent and community
involvement practices and student achievement. The four research questions were
discussed and the participation of superintendents was described. The collection of data
and methods of analysis for each of the questions were outlined. Chapters Four and Five
will discuss results of the analyses of the qualitative and quantitative data and
recommendations for future research.
56
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Chapter Four Introduction
After synthesizing three decades of research on family involvement, The Harvard
Family Research Project (2008) found that committed leadership is fundamental to
building family involvement and that preparing leaders to value family involvement and
to invest in evaluation continues to be vital in addressing the achievement gap. This
chapter presents the data from a mixed-methods study to identify the role California
urban superintendents play and the strategies they use in executing their districts’ parent
and community involvement policies and to examine what types of parent and
community involvement practices, if any, correlate with student achievement. Data
collected in this study consisted of an Academic Performance Index (API) data review
using the California State Department of Education website, survey responses, interviews
of selected superintendents, and a review of documents from the districts of the
superintendents who were interviewed.
Organization of Data Analysis
Data from this research, as well as a detailed analysis and discussion of the data,
are presented in this chapter. This chapter is divided into five sections, beginning with a
comprehensive analysis of response and participation rates followed by descriptive and
statistical analysis of the surveys and interviews as they pertained to the research
57
questions. SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was utilized to present the
mean, standard deviation, cross tabulations, Chi-Square, and t-test results. The following
research questions guided this study:
1. To what extent do California urban superintendents believe parent and
community involvement correlates to student achievement?
2. How do California urban superintendents rate their school districts’
current practices in engaging parent and community involvement?
3. What role and what strategies are California urban superintendents
currently using to engage parent and community involvement?
4. Do the types of parent and community involvement practices, as defined
by Epstein, relate to student achievement?
Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents
All superintendents identified as leading large Urban K-12 Unified School
Districts in California were sent the Measure of School, Family, and Community
Partnership survey (see Appendix D). Of the 53 total surveys sent, 38 surveys were
returned, reflecting a 71.7% overall response rate. However, out the 38 total responses,
five respondents elected to decline participation in the survey, thus resulting in a 62.3%
participation rate.
Two of the five superintendents who declined to participate in the survey
explained that they did so because they were interim superintendents, whereas two of the
three remaining superintendents wrote that being in their first year as superintendent was
58
the reason they had declined to complete the survey. The final respondent who declined
to participate did not state a reason—she just wrote stating as such.
The participating superintendents were a diverse group leading urban K-12
Unified School Districts throughout California. Twelve of the participants, or 36% of the
total participants, were female, whereas 21 of the participants, or 64% of the total
participants, were male. They ranged from having one year to 32 years of experience on
the job. There was an age span of 24 years from the youngest participating
superintendent to the oldest. The districts the participating superintendents lead had a
student enrollment of at least 10,000 students to over 130,000 students for the largest
district. Although the ages and years of experience of the superintendents who did not
return the survey cannot be determined, no statistical difference existed in enrollment size
of the nonparticipating superintendents and participating superintendents (p = .58). Table
6, below, presents the data analysis of the participating superintendents in terms of mean
and standard deviation for each demographic characteristic.
Table 6
District Enrollment Size of All Participants
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Age 33 43 67 57.36 4.609
District Size 33 10,327 131,577 28,046.12 22,917.112
Experience 33 1 32 9.62 6.758
59
Participation data was also analyzed after categorizing superintendents by district
accountability—superintendents leading more or less successful districts—as described in
depth in Chapter Three. Superintendents leading the more successful districts were
responsible for 9 of the 33 participating surveys, accounting for 27% of the participating
responses, whereas 24 of the 33 participating surveys, 73%, of the participating responses
represented superintendents leading less successful districts. The mean age and
experience of the superintendents leading the more successful districts were not
statistically different (p = .521 and p = .937) than the mean age and experience for those
leading the less successful districts. The mean enrollment of the less successful districts
was 8,000 more students; however, if the one outlier district containing 131,577 students
was taken out of the average, the difference in mean student enrollment became less than
3,000 students. Even with the outlier district, no significant difference (p = .408) existed
between more and less successful districts in terms of mean district enrollment size.
These observations are summarized in Table 7 and 8, below.
60
Table 7
Mean Age, Experience, and District Size by District Accountability
Success N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error Mean
Age
Less 24 57.04 4.750 .970
More 9 58.22 4.353 1.451
Experience
Less 24 9.56 7.288 1.488
More 9 9.78 5.472 1.824
Size
Less 24 30,106.00 25,408.036 5,186.394
More 9 22,553.11 14,074.558 4,691.519
61
Table 8
P-Value for Mean Age, Experience, and District Size by District Accountability
Levene's
Test t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T Df
Sig. 2-
tailed
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% CI
Lower Upper
Age Equal
variances
assumed
.007 .935 -.649 31 .521 -1.181 1.818 -4.888 2.527
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-.677 15.656 .509 -1.181 1.745 -4.886 2.525
Experience Equal
variances
assumed
.384 .540 -.080 31 .937 -.215 2.684 -5.688 5.258
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-.091 19.224 .928 -.215 2.354 -5.138 4.707
Size Equal
variances
assumed
.934 .341 .839 31 .408 7,552.889 8,999.228 -10,801.2 25,906.93
Equal
variances
not
assumed
1.080 25.997 .290 7,552.889 6,993.499 -6,822.54 21,928.32
62
Of the 33 Superintendents who participated in the survey, six were chosen to
participate in an interview. Two out of the six total Superintendents, 33%, chosen for
interviews were leading more successful districts whereas the remaining four, 67%, were
leading less successful districts. One of the six total superintendents was female; the rest
were male. Each interviewed superintendent had varying amounts of experience as a
superintendent and lead different size districts. The interviewed superintendents’ districts
were located throughout California and, to maintain confidentiality, were reported using
pseudonyms. Table 9, below, lists the superintendents interviewed for this research.
Table 9
Interviewed Superintendents
Location Superintendent District Gender
1 Southern CA A Apple USD Male
2 Northern CA B Black Currant USD Male
3 Eastern CA C Clementine USD Female
4 Southern CA D Dragon Fruit USD Male
5 Southern CA E Elderberry USD Male
6 Central CA F Fig USD Male
Superintendents Beliefs
The first research question asked about the extent to which California urban
superintendents believed parent and community involvement correlates to student
achievement. To measure the beliefs of the participating superintendents, an analysis of
the three Likert-scale statements in the second section of the Measure of School, Family,
63
and Community Partnership survey (see Appendix D) were analyzed along with the
coded data from the interview question number 7 (see Appendix E). The three statements
in the survey were: (a) I believe parent and community involvement is related to student
achievement; (b) Promoting parent and community involvement is one of my priorities;
and (c) I believe one strategy to improve student achievement is to increase parent and
community involvement. Participants were asked to answer these statements using the
choice of “1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Agree, or 4-Strongly Agree”.
None of the superintendents participating in this research chose “Disagree or
Strongly Disagree” as their answer to any of these statements. All of the superintendents
from the more successful districts and the superintendents who were interviewed only
chose “Strongly Agree” to all three questions. Of the 33 participating Superintendents,
eight Superintendents leading less successful districts choose “Agree” to one or more of
the three statements regarding their beliefs about parent and community involvement and
student success. Superintendents leading more successful districts reported making
parent and community involvement a higher priority (M = 4.00) than superintendents
leading less successful districts (M = .371). Superintendents leading more successful
districts also reported a greater agreement to using parent and community involvement as
a strategy to improve student achievement (M = 4.00) than superintendents leading less
successful districts (M = 3.71). Table 10, below, presents the mean for all participants,
interviewed participants, participants leading more successful districts, and participants
leading less successful districts. Table 11, below, shows the results of the independent
64
samples t-test for the mean district accountability—more or less successful Districts—
compared to the mean of each question regarding superintendents beliefs.
Table 10
Mean for Questions on Superintendent Beliefs
All
Superintendents
Interviewed
Superintendents
Leading More
Successful
Leading Less
Successful
Q1
Valid N
3.94
3.7
33
4.0000
4.00
6
4.00
0
9
3.92
3.713.
24
Table 11
Superintendent Beliefs Compared by District Accountability
Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t Df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% CI
Lower Upper
Q1 Equal variances
assumed
3.720 .063 .877 31 .387 .083 .095 -.111 .277
Equal variances not
assumed
1.446 23.000 .162 .083 .058 -.036 .203
Q2 Equal variances
assumed
40.244 .000 1.866 31 .072 .292 .156 -.027 .610
Equal variances not
assumed
3.077 23.000 .005 .292 .095 .096 .488
Q3 Equal variances
assumed
40.244 .000 1.866 31 .072 .292 .156 -.027 .610
Equal variances not
assumed
3.077 23.000 .005 .292 .095 .096 .488
65
There is no significant difference (p = .387) between superintendents who lead
more successful districts compared to those who lead less successful districts for
statement 1. This finding would indicate that all the participating superintendents believe
that parent and community involvement relates to student achievement. However,
although all participants believe in a relationship between parent and community
involvement and student achievement, a significant difference (p < .01) exists between
superintendents leading more or less successful districts in terms of statement 2—
promoting parent and community involvement as one of their priorities and statement 3—
believing that parent and community involvement is one strategy to increase student
achievement.
Further information about the beliefs superintendents held regarding parent and
community involvement and student achievement was gathered during the interviews.
The seventh question during the interview was, “Do you believe parent and community
involvement relates to student achievement? Why do you believe this way?” All six
superintendents answered, “Yes.” All six superintendents cited research as one of the
reasons why they believed parent and community involvement relates to student
achievement. Superintendent B from Black Currant USD stated, “Research has alluded
to that,” whereas Superintendent F from Fig USD more definitely stated, “I’m not sure
there’s a study out there that doesn’t support that parent involvement supports student
achievement in one way or another.”
66
Four of the six interviewed superintendents shared anecdotal stories from their
district to explain why they believe parent and community involvement related to student
achievement. Superintendent D from Dragon Fruit USD explained:
There is absolutely a correlation between parent and community involvement and
student achievement. The reason I feel this way is primarily because once we
place in the hands of our parents and community this shared responsibility of
building an organization together, my sense and my experience is that they accept
that- and the support, encouragement and motivation starts to be developed at the
home and transfers to the school… For the last 4 to 5 years our API scores have
jumped from 507 to 756 and we know that it’s based somewhat on this connection
that we have been consciously making.
Likewise, Superintendent F shared, “it doesn’t take too many anecdotal stories to just
reinforce all the evidence that when parents are involved in school, there are greater
chances for student success.” However, he also cautioned, “obviously that doesn’t
guarantee student success, but it greatly increase the odds.”
Other reasons cited as why the interviewed superintendents believed parent and
community involvement related to student achievement were psychological and symbolic
benefit and personal family experiences. Superintendent B, Superintendent C, and
Superintendent E talked about the psychological and symbolic benefit that students may
feel when they see their parents taking an interest in school. Superintendent C stated,
“The model that parents show as they become involved may make kids think that
education must matter to Mom and Dad, so it matters to me too.” Superintendent E from
Elderberry USD also related much of his experience with parent and community
involvement and student success with his own experiences as a parent. He talked about
how involved he and his wife were with their children and how they continue to be
involved in his son’s high school experience and his daughter’s first year of college. He
67
stated, “I’ve watched my own kids and have seen how successful they are; and I see how
important my role was in assisting their schools in helping them in their success.”
Rating of Current Practices
Jack O’Connell, California’s State Superintendent, declared that connecting
schools with educational organizations and parent groups is an important step toward
developing high-quality educational programs and that this connection was one part of
his comprehensive plan aimed at closing California’s achievement gap (Executive
Summary, 2008). Given the appreciation of having strong parent and community
involvement, how did the superintendents in this study rate their districts’ current
practices in reaching out to involve parents and community members?
The instrument used to answer this question was an adaptation of the Measure of
School, Family, and Community Partnership survey based on the six types of
involvement by Dr. Joyce Epstein of Johns Hopkins University. Participants were asked
to respond to 31 items placed in six categories: Parenting, Communicating, Volunteering,
Learning at Home, Decision Making, and Collaborating with the Community. Each item
was answered using a Likert-type scale. The Likert Scale options were (a) Not
Occurring: strategy does not happen in our district; (b) Rarely: clearly not emphasized in
this district’s parental involvement plan; (c) Occasionally: not a prevalent component of
this district’s parental involvement plan; (d) Frequently: a prevalent component of this
district’s parental involvement plan; and (e) Extensively: a highly prevalent component
of this district’s parental involvement plan. Table 12, below, presents how all the
68
participating superintendents rated their districts’ parent and community involvement
practices.
Table 12
Mean by Types of Involvement for All Participating Superintendents
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
T I-Parenting
33 2.8 5.0 3.852 .5546
T II-Communicating
33 3.5 5.0 4.103 .4112
T III-Volunteering
33 3.0 4.6 3.824 .4969
T IV-Learning at Home
33 3.2 5.0 3.903 .4419
T V-Decision making
33 3.2 5.0 4.097 .4586
T VI-Collaborating
33 3.0 5.0 4.248 .5269
Epstein (2000) developed this framework of six types of involvement to illustrate
and organize ways in which educators can begin to conceptualize and implement
partnership activities. Epstein and Simon (2001) found that these six types of
involvement were essential for a “strong, diverse and balanced partnership program.”
The second research question attempted to find out how superintendents rate their
district’s current parent and community involvement practices.
Type I- Parenting
The parenting category was defined as the help schools give families to establish
home environments that support children as students. The average response of all
individual practices within this category was 3.85 (SD=0.55), denoting an average Likert
response for all practices between “Occasionally” and “Frequently.” The practice that
received the lowest overall Likert average was “asks families for information about
69
children’s goals, strengths, and talents.” The mean for this practice was 3.42, which
indicated an average Likert response between “Occasionally” and “Frequently.” The
practice that received the highest overall Likert average was “produces information for
families that is clear, usable, and linked to children’s success in school.” The mean for
this practice was 4.21, which indicated an average Likert response between “Frequently”
and “Extensively.”
Type II- Communicating
The communicating category was defined as the effective methods of school-to-
home and home-to-school communications about school programs and student progress.
The average response of all individual practices within this category was 4.10 (SD=0.41),
indicating an average Likert response for all practices between “Frequently” and
“Extensively.” The practice that received the lowest overall Likert average was “trains
teachers, staff and principals on the value and utility of contributions of parents and ways
to build ties between school and home.” The mean for this practice was 3.79, which
indicated an average Likert response between “Occasionally” and “Frequently.” The
practice that received the highest overall Likert average was “develops communication
for parents who do not speak English well, do not read well, or need large type.” The
mean for this practice was 4.67, which indicated an average Likert response between
“Frequently” and “Extensively.” This practice was also the highest mean average for any
single individual practice of all six types of involvement.
70
Type III- Volunteering
The volunteering category was defined as recruiting and organizing parent help
and support. The average response of all individual practices within this category was
3.82 (SD=0.50), indicating an average Likert response for all practices between
“Occasionally” and “Frequently.” The practice that received the lowest overall Likert
average was “provided transportation and/or childcare to reduce barriers to parent
participation.” The mean for this practice was 3.42, which indicated an average Likert
response between “Occasionally” and “Frequently.” The practice that received the
highest overall Likert average was “recognizes volunteers for their time and efforts.” The
mean for this practice was 4.03, or the equivalent of “Frequently” on the Likert scale.
Type IV- Learning at Home
The learning at home category was defined as providing information and ideas to
families about helping with homework and other curriculum-related activities, making
informed decisions, and planning effectively. The average response of all individual
practices within this category was 3.90 (SD=0.44), indicating an average Likert response
for all practices between “Occasionally” and “Frequently.” The practice that received the
lowest overall Likert average was “schedules regular interactive homework that requires
students to discuss what they are learning with a family member.” The mean for this
practice was 3.46, which indicated an average Likert response between “Occasionally”
and “Frequently.” The practice receiving the highest overall Likert average was “makes
parents aware of the importance of reading at home, and asks parents to listen to their
71
child read or read aloud with their child.” The mean for this practice was 4.58, which
indicated an average Likert response between “Frequently” and “Extensively.”
Type V- Decision Making
The decision-making category was defined as including parents in school
decisions and developing parent leaders and representatives. The average response of all
individual practices within this category was 4.10 (SD=0.46), indicating an average
Likert response for all practices between “Frequently” and “Extensively.” The practice
that received the lowest overall Likert average was “involves parents in revising the
school/district curricula.” The mean for this practice was 3.07, or the equivalent of
“Occasionally” on the Likert scale. This practice was also the lowest mean average for
any single individual practice of all six types of involvement. The practice that received
the highest overall Likert average was “includes parent leaders from all racial, ethnic,
socioeconomic, and other group in the school.” The mean for this practice was 4.58,
which indicated an average Likert response between “Frequently” and “Extensively.”
Type VI- Collaborating with the Community
The collaborating with the community category was defined as identifying and
integrating resources and services from the community in order to strengthen school
programs, family practices, and student learning and development. The average response
of all practices within this category was 4.25 (SD=0.53), indicating an average Likert
response for all Type VI involvement practices between “Frequently” and “Extensively.”
The practice that received the lowest overall Likert average was “provides a community
resource directory for parents and students with information on community services,
72
programs, and agencies.” The mean for this practice was 3.92, or nearly the equivalent of
“Frequently” on the Likert scale. The practice that received the highest overall Likert
average was “offers after-school programs for students with support from community
businesses, agencies, and volunteers.” The mean for this practice was 4.56, indicating an
average Likert response in between “Frequently” and “Extensively.”
Summary of Ratings
Overall, all superintendents who participated in this study rated their districts’
current parent and community practices of Collaborating with Community, Type VI, as
the most frequently used type of involvement practice. Type III, volunteering, was rated
as the least-used type of involvement practice by all participating superintendents,
superintendents leading more successful districts, and superintendents who were
interviewed. However, superintendents who lead less successful districts rated Type I,
parenting, as their district’s least used type of involvement. The results of each of the
groups of superintendent ratings for the types of involvement are in Table 13, below.
Table 13
Mean by Types of Involvement by Groups of Superintendents
All
Superintendents
More
Successful
Less
Successful
Interviewed
Superintendents
T I: P 3.85 4.00 3.80 4.13
T II: C 4.10 4.14 4.09 4.27
T III: V 3.82 3.80 3.83 3.70
T IV: H 3.90 4.04 3.85 4.07
T V: D 4.10 4.24 4.04 4.13
T VI: C 4.25 4.38 4.20 4.77
73
Superintendent’s Role and Strategies
The dearth of research regarding superintendents and their role in implementing
parent and community involvement policies was the researcher’s initial impetus for this
study. The third research question sought to answer, “What role and what strategies are
California urban superintendents currently using to engage parent and community
involvement?” Survey statement 4, “I know of strategies and programs which can
increase parent and community involvement in my district,” was asked to acquire general
background information about the participating superintendents’ knowledge of current
parent and community involvement strategies, whereas the interview questions (see
Appendix E) were used to obtain more specific information in answering this research
question.
None of the participating Superintendents answered, “Strongly Disagree” or
“Disagree” to the survey question 4. The mean average for this question was between the
Likert range of “Agree” and “Strongly Agree,” indicating that the participating
superintendents have knowledge of strategies and programs that they believe increase
parent and community involvement in their district. Superintendents leading more
successful districts had a slightly higher average, at 3.78 (SD .441), than Superintendents
leading less successful districts, with a mean of 3.67 (SD .482). Using an independent
samples t-test to compare the means, no significant difference (p = .551) was found for
the mean averages of more successful districts compared to less successful districts. The
mean average for each of the groups of Superintendents for survey question 4 is listed in
Table 14, below.
74
Table 14
Mean for Survey Question 4 by Groups of Superintendents
N Mean SD
All Superintendents 33 3.70 .467
Less Successful 24 3.67 .482
More Successful 9 3.78 .441
Interviewed Superintendents 6 3.67 .516
The interview questions (See Appendix E) were a means of exploring and
understanding the themes and relationships ascribed by the participants (Cresswell,
2009). Interview questions two and three were asked to gain more information about
strategies Superintendents were using to engage parent and community involvement,
whereas questions one and four were asked to attain more information about the role
superintendents played in increasing the partnership among the parents, community, and
school district. Interview question five elicited information about both roles and
strategies, depending on the way the superintendent answered the question.
The interview questions, “What are your district’s policies and strategies in regard
to parent and community involvement?” and “What strategies have you used to
encourage parent and community involvement?” were asked to give an opportunity for
the superintendents to elaborate upon the strategies they have used that may or may not
have been addressed in the Measure of School, Family, and Community Partnership
survey. All six superintendents stated that their parent and community involvement
policies have been influenced by the Federal No Child Left Behind mandates
encouraging parents to become involved in their child’s education. Superintendent A
75
shared that his district’s parent and community involvement policies were “more generic
in nature and that each school site had more specific policies which addressed each
school’s specific needs.” Whereas Superintendent F stated, “I know we have a number of
very specific parent involvement policies that are required by laws, but the policies are
nothing without the follow-through and the specific actions and strategies we put into
place.”
Strategies mentioned by all six superintendents were ensuring systematic
community outreach through the use of an automated phone system and district website
and engaging parents in becoming members of district and/or school-level advisory
committees. Even though all six superintendents stated their outreach efforts engaged the
use of technology, three of the superintendents stated that one of the major challenges
with their parent and community involvement success has been the fact that not all of
their families have access to computers, the Internet, or even a working phone. “We
continue to utilize those strategies the best we can, knowing that we will need to do more
to strengthen our lines of communication and outreach with our community,” stated
Superintendent A.
Five of the six superintendents identified having a district central office
administrator, either an assistant superintendent or a director in charge of meeting the
challenges of involving all families in different ways in order to strengthen the district’s
family and community partnerships. Superintendent F, the only superintendent who did
not have a central office administrator in charge of parent and community involvement
outreach, shared that three years prior, Fig USD had contracted a consultant who
76
specialized in community outreach. The consultant worked with the site principals and
parents in the community to try “to target how we can create a better environment for
parents and their participation.” However, due to the financial challenges of Fig USD,
Superintendent F stated, “we went into survival mode and the consultant was one of the
many things we had to cut.”
Five of the six superintendents also shared that their district focused on training
parents and/or staff to improve parent and community partnerships. The parent training
used by the five districts was Parent Institute for Quality Education (PIQE).
Superintendent B shared that he has had 250 parents graduate from the nine-week PIQE
training over the past five years. Superintendent E did not have a total number of parents
who had completed the training, but he did share that 24 of the district’s 43 schools have
had or were currently holding PIQE classes. For Superintendent C, this year was the first
her district was offering PIQE, and she stated,
[the] feedback from the fall class of graduates has been tremendous. We are even
more excited to see the results of these graduates sharing what they learned with
other parents and seeing if a trickle of interest can turn into a full waterfall.
Four of the six superintendents highlighted their district’s strategic plan/goals as
their strongest strategy to improve the partnership between parents and schools. After
doing a document review, the researcher found that the sixth goal in Black Currant
USD’s strategic plan stated “Design, develop, implement, improve, and evaluate parent
and community outreach partnerships that provide direct and indirect support to students,
staff and community.” Clementine USD had “School/Home/Community Partnerships
and Communication” as their fourth goal in their District’s plan. Dragon Fruit USD had
77
Community Engagement—“all stakeholders work together to take collective
responsibility for all students. All students, parents and staff have equal access to
information about the educational opportunities that are available” as their sixth goal in
their district plan. And Elderberry USD had Family and Community Involvement as one
of their District’s Six Essentials. Although Apple USD and Fig USD did not have
published strategic plans or goals, Superintendent A stated that one of his “expectations
and charges” for his principals was to ensure a partnership with the parents and
community members.
Four of the six superintendents shared that they provided transportation and/or
childcare for parents to attend site-level and district-level parent meetings. All four of the
superintendents who utilized this strategy stated they provided these services as a way to
mitigate some of the challenges to parents becoming involved. Four of the six
superintendents also shared that they had at least one parent center where parents could
go to do some volunteer work for the schools. The parent centers they described were as
simple as a place parents could do some copying, cutting, and creating materials for their
child’s classroom, to more elaborate ones at individual school sites and district sites,
which not only had materials for parents to use, but also references and parent education
information. Each superintendent described the parent centers as a place parents could
go, where they knew they would be welcomed and their services could be used.
Superintendent E shared that his District’s parent centers were:
78
A place parents have to go when to they go to campuses, where they congregate,
where they receive work and are given direction on where the support is needed.
It’s a place which allows for a systematic approach for using the parents who
want to help, but do not want to be in the classroom with their child or who do not
speak English, but still want to help in any way they can.
Table 15, below, presents the previously discussed strategies that superintendents
and their districts were using to improve parent and community partnerships.
79
Table 15
Strategies for Parent and Community Involvement
Superintendent
A B C D E F
Advisory/Decision Making Committee
Adult Education
Central Office Administrator
District Outreach using Technology
Parent Centers
Parent Training/PIQUE
Staff Training
Strategic Plan/Goals
Transportation and/or Childcare Provided
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
80
The questions, “What role do you play in executing the district’s parent and
community involvement policies?” and “To what extent are you personally involved in
decision-making groups which involve parents and community members?” were asked to
give an opportunity for the superintendents to describe their role and the extent to which
they interacted directly with parents and community members. Five of the six
superintendents stated their role was to “set the tone” for their district. Superintendent B
elaborated on this concept by sharing,
It’s a cultural and philosophical banner that I have to carry that was not
carried prior to my arrival here. Historically the district staff saw itself in the
role of this is our house and you may come in if you want and we’ll do the favor
of educating your kids. So I play the role of making sure everyone knows they
(District employees) are responsible for implementing the district strategic plan.
Which means it is not a favor to work with the parents and community, but it is
our job, our responsibility… I set the tone and I am perceived in the community
as connecting the district to them through collaboration.
Of the five superintendents that stated they were responsible for setting the tone,
four shared that they make it a priority through modeling engagement with parents and
community members and/or making it an expectation in terms of financial resources.
Superintendent A and Superintendent D stated that they attended all district-level
decision-making group meetings that involved parents and community members.
Superintendent A shared, “I open the meetings and answer questions or concerns. I try
not to take over the meeting, because I want the parents to be involved. But by me being
there, they know it’s important.” Superintendent E shared that he shows parent and
community involvement is a priority by setting aside 5%, instead of the federally
mandated 1% (NCLB, Section 1118), of the Title I money for parent engagement.
Superintendent B also stated he went “beyond the minimum Title I funding requirement.”
81
Although Superintendent A did not specifically mention how much money was dedicated
to parent and community involvement in his district, when asked about what part he
played in ensuring financial resources for his schools, he stated, “Don’t tell me it’s a
financial problem, because I’ll come and show you how it’s not.”
Four of the six superintendents shared that their role with working with the
community was ensuring partnerships with corporate business partners and/or state and
local legislature. Superintendent D stated that the Dragon Fruit Education Partnership
(DFEP) created partnerships with many businesses. The DFEP had raised $250,000 this
past year for student scholarships and parent training. Superintendent C shared that just
recently she had been “working on developing relationships with legislatures and leaders
in the community to bridge the gap from the community to the school.”
Three of the six superintendents mentioned that their role in executing the
district’s parent and community involvement policies and practices was building trust
among district employees and parents and community members. Superintendent D
explained Dragon Fruit’s use of the Tregoe Educational Forum’s concept of problem-
solving and decision-making. He shared that this corporate decision-making process
allowed him to have “visible thinking” for the community which
reinforces the trust… that before making a decision we consider the risk of
whether or not we will go with that decision. This visible thinking helps parents
and community members see that we are ensuring the best possible decision
regardless of the division.
Superintendent F had the least to share about his role in executing his district’s
parent and community involvement policies. Although he answered “Strongly Agree” to
the survey questions regarding making parent and community involvement one of his
82
priorities and expressed the belief that parent and community involvement was one
strategy for improving student achievement, his answers to the interview questions
indicated that he did not take as active a role in his district’s parent and community
involvement policies or strategies as the other superintendents who were interviewed.
When asked about the role he took, he answered, “Not extensively, except the few district
communications which come out under my voice.” When asked about attending parent
decision-making group meetings, he answered, “Not a great deal. When I tend to get
involved is when the district has formed a special advisory committee.” He did say that
he saw his role as one of building trust, explaining, “Quite frankly some of the barriers
for our parent and community involvement partnerships with the schools is the staff.”
Table 16, below, presents the roles the interviewed superintendents play in
executing their district’s parent and community involvement policies and practices.
83
Table 16
Roles for Parent and Community Involvement
Superintendent
A B C D E F
Build Trust
Create Business Partnerships
Ensuring Financial priority
Role Model Engagement
Setting the Tone
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Relation to Student Achievement
The final research question attempted to answer, “Do the types of parent and
community involvement practices, as defined by Epstein, relate to student achievement?”
A Pearson-Chi Squre and Fisher Exact Test analysis were run for all independent
variables (district enrollment, superintendent’s age, superintendent’s experience,
superintendent’s gender, and district’s accountability) as compared to the dependent
variables (Likert item responses). The following null hypotheses guided this portion of
the study:
84
1. There is no significant difference between individual superintendent’s ratings of
types of parent and community involvement and district enrollment size.
2. There is no significant difference between individual superintendent’s ratings of
types of parent and community involvement and superintendent characteristics
(age, gender, and experience).
3. There is no significant difference between individual superintendent’s ratings of
types of parent and community involvement and overall district accountability (as
defined in Chapter Three as being a more or less successful district).
Research Hypothesis Number One: District Size
The Pearson-Chi Square and Fisher’s Exact Test analysis of district size and
superintendents’ rating of current parent and community involvement practices yielded
no significant results using a p = .05 level of significance for any of the types of parent
and community involvement strategies. District size was evaluated by aggregating
schools into small and large urban districts and by 10,000 student increments. In the first
aggregate, small urban district was defined as having fewer than 30,000 students,
whereas large urban district was any district with an enrollment greater than 30,000
students. In the second analysis, district size was aggregated into six categories: 10,000 to
19,999 students; 20,000 to 29,999 students; 30,000 to 39,999 students; 40,000 to 49,999
students; 50,000 to 59,999 students; and greater than 60,000 students. Regardless of how
the independent variable of District Size was manipulated, no significant findings were
discovered. Therefore, research hypothesis number one is accepted as not detecting any
association between district size and parent and community involvement strategies.
85
Table 17, below, presents the analysis by aggregating school enrollment size by small
and large urban districts, whereas Table 18, below, presents the analysis by aggregating
schools by increments of 10,000 students.
Table 17
District Size (by Small and Large) Compared by Involvement Types
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI
Pearson Chi-Square .254 .977 .677 .565 .350 .465
Likelihood Ratio .300 .973 .689 .626 .384 .374
Fisher’s Exact Test
.220 .980 .713 .547 .448 .552
Linear-by Linear
Association
.770 .186 .882 .174 .762 .440
N of Valid Cases 33 33 33 33 33 33
Table 18
District Size (by 10,000 increments) Compared by Involvement Type
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI
Pearson Chi-Square .262 .934 .541 .878 .513 .995
Likelihood Ratio .188 .918 .518 .851 .490 .993
Fisher’s Exact Test
.252 .916 .488 .806 .521 .994
Linear-by Linear
Association
.968 .118 .961 .039 .568 .736
N of Valid Cases 33 33 33 33 33 33
86
Research Hypothesis Number Two: Superintendent Characteristics
The Pearson-Chi Square and Fisher’s Exact Test analysis of superintendent
characteristics—age, gender, and experience—and superintendent rating of current parent
and community involvement practices yielded only one significant result using a p < .05
level of significance. Superintendent age and experience was analyzed in aggregate. Age
was categorized by years in decades: 40-49 years old, 50-59 year olds, and 60-69 year
olds. Gender was grouped male and female. Experience was grouped into three
categories: 1 to 10 years of experience, 11 to 20 years of experience, and 21 and more
years of experience.
Superintendent age and gender yielded no significant results as to which type of
parent and community involvement they rated as being currently implemented to engage
parent, community, and school partnerships. Therefore, research null hypothesis two is
accepted for Superintendent age and gender. The results are presented in Tables 19 and
20, below. Table 19 shows the two-tailed significance for superintendents’ age, as
compared to the types of involvement, whereas Table 20 presents the significance by
gender.
87
Table 19
Superintendent Age Compared by Involvement Type
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI
Pearson Chi-Square .404 .546 .605 .308 .882 .063
Likelihood Ratio .132 .305 .546 .136 .944 .350
Fisher’s Exact Test
.147 .290 .478 .142 .863 .432
Linear-by Linear
Association
.526 .615 .156 .010 .351 .723
N of Valid Cases 33 33 33 33 33 33
Table 20
Superintendent Gender Compared by Involvement Type
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI
Pearson Chi-Square .380 .204 .946 .982 .836 .594
Likelihood Ratio .418 .191 .946 .982 .778 .639
Fisher’s Exact Test
.441 .214 .946 .979 .863 .529
N of Valid Cases 33 33 33 33 33 33
Years of experience as superintendent yielded one significant result (p < .05) as to
which type of parent and community involvement was rated as being currently
implemented to increase the parent, community, school partnership. The one type of
parent and community involvement, as defined by Epstein, that had a statistical
88
significance using a p < .05 significant level was Type III, Volunteering. Superintendent
Experience compared to Type III, Volunteering, had p = .03 on the Fisher’s Exact Test.
The Fisher test was used because there were cells that had a count fewer than five.
Research hypothesis two, with regard to the superintendent characteristic of years of
experience, was rejected because an association was found for Superintendent Experience
compared to Type III, Volunteering. Table 21, below, presents the findings of comparing
Superintendent experience with parent and community involvement type.
Table 21
Superintendent Experience Compared by Involvement Type
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Type VI
Pearson Chi-Square .075 .134 .021 .182 .413 .297
Likelihood Ratio .071 .384 .037 .380 .120 .091
Fisher’s Exact Test
.091 .410 .030 .548 .096 .202
Linear-by Linear
Association
.916 .261 .173 .271 .137 .631
N of Valid Cases 33 33 33 33 33 33
Research Hypothesis Number Three: District Accountability
The Pearson-Chi Square and Fisher’s Exact Test analysis of overall district
accountability (defined in Chapter Three as being a more or less successful district) and
superintendent rating of current parent and community involvement practices yielded two
significant results using a p < .05 and p < .01 level of significance for the types of parent
and community involvement strategies currently used by districts. Whereas Type I,
89
Parenting, Type II, Communicating, Type IV, Learning at Home, and Type VI,
Collaborating with the Community yielded no significant results, strong evidence (p =
.01) exists that an association exists between Type III, Volunteering, and Type V,
Decision Making and District Accountability. As District Accountability is a measure of
student achievement (as described in detail in Chapter Three), research hypothesis three
is rejected and research question four can be answered as “Yes,” there are types of parent
and community involvement practices, as defined by Epstein, that relate to student
achievement. Table 22, below, presents the data analysis for Type III, Volunteering,
compared to District Accountability, whereas Table 23, below, presents the data analysis
for Type V, Decision Making.
90
Table 22
P-Value for Type III: Volunteering Compared by District Accountability
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (1-
sided)
Point
Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 16.026
a
8 .042 .019
Likelihood Ratio 19.806 8 .011 .013
Fisher's Exact Test 14.695
.013
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.029
b
1 .864 .876 .459 .020
N of Valid Cases 33
Note. a. 8 cells (44..4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .27.
b. The standardized statistic is .172.
Table 23
P-Vale for Type IV: Decision Making Compared by District Accountability
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Point Probability
Pearson Chi-Square 20.984
a
9 .013 .003
Likelihood Ratio 23.763 9 .005 .005
Fisher's Exact Test 16.713
.006
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.280
b
1 .258 .249 .126 .004
N of Valid Cases 33
Note. a. 12 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .27.
b. The standardized statistic is 1.131.
91
Chapter Four Summary
The participation rate for this study was 62.3%. Participant responses were
analyzed using descriptive statistics in the form of means and standard deviations. The
data presented in this study were based on multiple data sources, which served to
strengthen their validity.
The t-test, Pearson Chi-Square, and Fisher statistical tests were used to analyze
participant responses. These tests were used to determine if there was a significant
difference between independent group means and between the independent variables:
district enrollment size; superintendent’s age, experience, and gender; and district
accountability, as compared to the dependent variables of the Likert item responses for
the Measure of School, Family, and Community Partnership survey.
In addition, information shared by the interviewed superintendents was included
in the form of direct narratives and coded information to gain insight into the specific
roles and strategies superintendents were using to execute their district’s parent and
community involvement policies and practices.
The findings, conclusions, and implications of this study will be presented in
Chapter Five.
92
CHAPTER FIVE
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Chapter Five Introduction
The purpose of this study was to redress the paucity of research regarding
superintendents and their role in implementing parent and community involvement
policies. The secondary purpose was to examine which types of parent and community
involvement practices, if any, may relate to student achievement. This chapter begins
with a review of the mixed methodology used in this study, and is followed by a
summary of the findings derived from analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of this study’s
data. The next section addresses the implications of this study. The chapter ends with
recommendations and suggestions for future research.
Restatement of the Study
This research study involved a mixed-methods, qualitative and quantitative,
inquiry regarding the role that California urban superintendents play in executing their
districts’ parent and community involvement policies, and examined which types of
parent and community involvement practices may correlate with student achievement.
Data was gathered using multiple sources, including the California State Department of
Education website, survey responses, interviews with selected superintendents, and a
review of documents from districts led by the superintendents who were interviewed.
93
School districts selected for this study were identified using data gathered from
the California State Department of Education website. The targeted search of K-12
Unified School Districts with a minimum of 10,000 students and a student population of
at least 50% receiving free or reduced lunch and 50% identified as minority resulted in a
list of 53 districts that met this study’s criteria for being a California urban school district.
Superintendents leading the 53 districts were sent the Measure of School, Family,
and Community Partnership Survey (see Appendix D). Multiple notifications were sent,
resulting in a 71.7% overall response rate with a 62.3% overall participation rate. After
applying the methodological strategy of “blocking” superintendents interested in being
interviewed into two groups based on district accountability, six of the superintendents,
two leading more successful districts and four leading less successful districts, were
chosen to participate in a follow up one-on-one interview with this researcher.
Findings
A detailed discussion of the findings of this study is presented in response to the
four research questions that guided this study.
Research Question 1: Extent of Beliefs
To what extent do California Urban Superintendents believe parent and
community involvement correlates to student achievement? No previous research studies
addressed this question explicitly; however, the importance of this question has been
presented in past research. Sharp and Walters (2004) found that the values and
knowledge held by the superintendent bear upon every person in an educational system,
94
and the Theory of Action (see Chapter Two) has linked a people’s beliefs to their
behaviors. Identifying the extent to which the participating superintendents believed
parent and community involvement related to student achievement may reveal what
behaviors superintendents would put into action to connect their roles to parent and
community involvement policies and practices.
None of the participating superintendents indicated that they “Strongly
Disagreed” or “Disagreed” with the statement that parent and community involvement
related to student achievement. However, superintendents leading less successful
districts were less likely to “Strongly Agree” that parent and community involvement
related to student achievement. Superintendents leading less successful districts were
also less likely to make parent and community involvement a priority and less likely to
believe that increasing parent and community involvement could improve student
achievement. These findings are congruent with the Theory of Action. Applying the
Theory of Action (see Figure 2) to this study’s findings reveals that superintendents who
believed that parent and community involvement was less likely to produce an outcome
related to student achievement (Belief) were less hopeful that they could produce the
outcome of student achievement using parent and community involvement as a strategy
(Attitude). This attitude indicated that they were less ready to use parent and community
involvement as a strategy for improving student achievement (Intention), which resulted
in not making parent and community involvement a priority (Behavior). This study’s
findings correlate with that of Henderson, Mapp, Johnson and Davies (2007), which
indicated that it is necessary to hold a set of positive beliefs about family engagement.
95
Henderson et al. assert “before we can build strong and effective partnerships with
families, we have to believe not only that it’s important but also that it can be done—and
that we can do it” (2007, p. 32).
Research Question 2: Rating of Current Practices
How do California urban superintendents rate their school districts’ current
practices in engaging parent and community involvement? Responses to this question are
important because of the efforts of educational reform movements and the current federal
laws requiring school systems to include parents (NCLB, 2002). Although 10 years have
passed since the deadline in Goal 8 of the national education goals anticipated that “by
the year 2000, every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental
involvement” (National Education Panel, 1995), few studies have measured how this
partnership, in fact, is going.
Collaborating with the Community, Type VI, was rated as the most prevalent
component of the participants’ districts’ parental involvement plan. Given that all
educational leaders in California, including superintendents, are held to the standards of
the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL), it is interesting
to note that two of the six actions in Standard 4: “Collaborating with families and
community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and
mobilizing community resources” has to do with Type VI. Specifically, the action stated
in Standard 4.4 is to “strengthen the school through the establishment of community,
business, institutional, and civic partnerships” and the action stated in Standard 4.6 is
“mobilizing and leveraging community support services” (CPSEL, 2009).
96
Whereas Collaborating with the Community was the highest rated strategy with a
Likert scale rating between “Frequently” and “Extensively,” Superintendents rated Type
III, Volunteering, as the least prevalent component of their district’s parental involvement
plan—resulting in a Likert scale rating between “Occasionally” and “Frequently.”
Making the same connection as previously discussed, none of the six actions stated in the
CPSEL Standard 4 regarding parent and community involvement is specifically related to
Volunteering. The practice in Volunteering that received the lowest overall Likert
average was “providing transportation and/or childcare to reduce barriers to parent
participation.” This rating is commensurate with the research conducted by Turney and
Kao (2009), which identified lacking childcare and having problems with transportation
as reasons why parents did not become more involved in schools. This finding acquiesce
with the study conducted thirteen years ago by Webb’s (1997) which found that
volunteering was still an area of need for more consideration for superintendents.
Another finding from this study was that the highest mean average for any
individual practice of all six types of involvement was developing “communication for
parents who do not speak English well, do not read well, or need large type.” This
practice is part of involvement in Type II, Communicating. Similar to Type VI,
Collaborating with the Community, two out of the six actions listed in the CPSEL
Standard 4 are related to Type II, Communicating. This practice is also specifically
stated in the Title 1, Part A law, which states that “schools must provide information to
parents of students participating in Title 1, Part A programs in an understandable and
uniform format including alternative formats” (Title 1, Section 1116 (c)).
97
Research Question 3: Roles and Strategies
What roles and what strategies are California urban superintendents currently
using to engage parent and community involvement? Prior research has shown that
superintendents are expected to be agents of change (Hayes, 2001) and that not just their
beliefs, but also their actions have the ability to enhance parental participation (Chesser &
McNeal, 2000). This study identified actions in which superintendents engaged to
execute their district’s parent and community involvement policies.
All the participating superintendents indicated that they had knowledge of
strategies and programs that could increase parent and community involvement in their
districts. After coding the superintendents’ answers during the interview, the researcher
identified nine strategies utilized by one or more of the superintendents and five roles as
essential in executing their districts’ policies concerning parent, community, and school
partnerships.
Of the nine strategies, four of the strategies could be classified as Type II,
Communicating. These four strategies were (a) assigning a central office administrator to
be in charge of parent and community involvement partnerships, (b) using technology as
a form of district outreach, (c) training staff to value and become aware of parent and
community involvement strategies, and (d) committing to a strategic plan or goal. This
study’s finding of having a strategic plan or goal is similar to Kesslar-Sklar and Baker’s
(2000) finding that 90% of superintendents reported having a district plan that supported
parent involvement; nonetheless, this study’s finding that five of the six superintendents
focused on training their parents and staff to improve parent and community partnerships
98
contradicts Kesslar-Sklar and Baker’s (2000) finding that district policies and strategies
to assist staff to work more effectively with parents were “grossly underrepresented.”
Another finding conflicting with the research of Dell’Olio (2006) was around the use of
technology as an outreach strategy for parent and community involvement. Dell’Olio’s
research stated that administrative educators may not be conscious of the efficacy and
increasing use of computer technology as an additional means to connect with parents
because only 19.2% of the commission-approved preliminary administrative service’s
credentialing programs in California mentioned using computer technology as a resource
to increase parent and community involvement.
Both of these incongruous findings may be explained by superintendents’
developing knowledge and understanding of Federal legislation (Hayes, 2001), which
requires building schools’ and parents’ capacity for strong parental involvement (Title 1,
Section 1118). Hayes also established that superintendents were not only obligated to be
very familiar with the laws and policies, but also must know all of its implementation
components. Because staff development and community outreach are implementation
components of the laws to include parents and community members as partners with the
school system, the superintendents in this study have demonstrated that they have the
conceptual skills to put these strategies into practice.
Along with considering strategies, this study looked at the roles superintendents
played in executing their districts’ parent and community involvement policies and
practices. Five essential roles were identified after coding the information collected
during the one-on-one interviews. The roles included building trust, creating business
99
partnerships, ensuring financial priority, role-modeling engagement, and setting the tone
for the district and its employees.
Three of the roles the participants identified can be characterized as building a
welcoming environment. Parent intimidation of the school system (Politis, 2004) and the
sense parents have that their roles are distinct from those of schools (Smrekar & Cohen-
Vogel, 2001) have been identified as barriers for some parents to become involved with
the schools. Findings from this study show that superintendents are aware of these
barriers and are working to eradicate them in an effort to build their parent, community,
and school partnerships. Two out of the six superintendents cited staff attitudes as the
reason why they needed to set the tone that parent and community partnerships were
important. Setting the tone for staff can also be connected back to the strategy previously
presented regarding staff development as a strategy for implementing parent and
community involvement policies.
Four of the six superintendents shared that they attended district-level decision-
making group meetings that involved parents and community members. The
superintendents stated that they went to these meetings to show the parents that they
believed their input and feedback were important. This finding is consistent with
previous research by Chesser and McNeal (2000), which found that parents believed their
participation was more important and valued when superintendents were participating
and encouraging them to participate.
100
Research Question 4: Types of Practices Related to Student Achievement
Do types of parent and community involvement practices, as defined by Epstein,
relate to student achievement? The majority of research studies regarding a relationship
between parent and community involvement and student achievement focused on one or
two specific practices (as discussed in Chapter Two). The purpose of this research
question was to add to the current research by comparing and contrasting the different
types of involvement to determine if there was a significant difference between the
specific types of parent and community involvement as compared to the independent
variables presented in this study.
Findings from this study resulted in accepting the null hypotheses for types of
involvement as compared to the independent variables of district enrollment size, age of
the superintendent, and gender of the superintendent. The null hypotheses stating there
was no significant difference between individual types of parent and community
involvement and superintendent’s years of experience and overall district accountability
was rejected.
In rejecting the null hypothesis for types of parent and community involvement
compared to district accountability—this study’s measure for student achievement—these
findings answered research question 4 and found that there are two types of involvement
practices that relate to student achievement. There was strong evidence (p = .01) that an
association existed between Type III, Volunteering, as compared to student achievement,
and strong evidence (p < .01) that an association existed between Type V, Decision
Making, as compared to student achievement. Notably, although correlation does not
101
equate to causation, it helps us to determine the existence of a relationship between the
variable of types of parent and community involvement and student achievement. This
relationship may help future researchers design more precise and experimental studies in
order to better understand this correlation.
Implications
This study is significant to the field of education in that it redressed the dearth of
research regarding superintendents and their connection with parent and community
involvement policies and practices. It also adds to the field of research regarding the
types of parent and community involvement that is related to student achievement. In
order for the findings from this study to impact practitioners and policymakers, the
following suggestions are made for addressing the issues and insights that have been
raised in this study.
Recommendations for Practitioners
Applying the Theory of Action that posits “Beliefs” influence “Attitudes,” which
lead to “Intentions” that result in “Behaviors,” this researcher asserts that it is imperative
that superintendent beliefs about parent and community involvement policies and
practices are addressed. In order for superintendents to make parent and community
involvement a priority and to use it as a strategy to improve student achievement, as
federal law requires (NCLB, Title 1, Section 1118), superintendents themselves must
believe there is a relationship between parent and community involvement and student
achievement. Expressed by all six of the interviewed superintendents, exposure to prior
102
research concluding that parent and community involvement supports student
achievement was a major factor in forming their beliefs. This connection would indicate
that educational programs that prepare leaders to become superintendents need to ensure
that parent and community involvement research is an integral part of that instruction.
Educational programs that prepare leaders to become superintendents also need to
emphasize the substantial psychological and symbolic benefits of modeling the behavior
that parent and community involvement is valuable. As stated by Superintendent C
regarding parents who role-model for their children by taking an interest in school, the
result is “kids think(ing) that education must matter to Mom and Dad, so it matters to me
too.” The same logic was seen when superintendents role-modeled to the parents by
attending the parent group decision-making meetings.
Additionally, educational leaders and educational researchers should continue
working to identify the specific types of parent and community involvement practices and
strategies that relate to student achievement. As Feuerstein (2000) found, parental
involvement is critical to school administrators because it is an acknowledged central
variable associated with success in schools. In a time of financial difficulty, a resource
that will always be present to educators is the parents and/or community members of the
students who attend our schools.
Recommendations for Policymakers
Policymakers communicate values and set agendas through the policies and laws
(Kelley, 2000) they establish. The findings of this study suggests that policymakers and
advocacy groups interested in increasing and improving parent and community
103
involvement should also consider citing research in their rationale as they put together
parent, community, and school partnership laws and procedures intended to help students
achieve academic success. By citing research, they may be able to influence the belief
systems of those leaders who must interpret and execute policies and laws and, in turn,
influence the belief system of the staff members who themselves implement the parent
and community involvement practices at the school-site level.
How California urban superintendents rated their districts’ current practices in
reaching out to involve parents and community members has implications for the
California Department of Education’s policymakers. Kelly (2000) argued that the
challenge for educational policy makers is to weave together discrete policies to produce
a clear vision. This study’s findings presented that practices and actions specifically
identified in federal laws and in the standards for educational leaders were found to be
more prevalent components of their district’s parental involvement plan than practices
that were not specifically identified. These findings illuminated a potential correlation
between the specific actions stated in the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders (CPSEL) and superintendent ratings of their districts partnership
practices. As California Department of Education policymakers update and formulate
procedures to help California leaders execute federal laws regarding parent and
involvement, they may want to look at the current CPSEL and make revisions or
additions to the specific actions that assist leaders in meeting the expectations of Standard
4: Collaborating with families and community members.
104
Future Research
Based on the results of this study and the review of the related literature, the
following recommendations for further study are presented concerning the impact of
superintendent beliefs and actions on the parent and community involvement
partnerships:
1. Replicate this study in different settings, adding an additional independent
variable that may reveal supplementary information and/or correlations with
parent and community involvement partnerships.
2. Conduct follow-up studies with superintendents who participated in this current
study to measure possible changes in perceptions and practices as a result of
exposure to this survey.
3. Conduct follow-up studies with the superintendents to determine their needs as
they relate to parent and community involvement strategies and roles.
4. Undertake further studies with superintendents to determine what activities or
experiences influence their belief system in terms of parent, community, and
school partnerships.
105
REFERENCES
Association of California School Administrators (2007). California Professional
Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL). Retrieved from
http://www.acsa.org/MainMenuCategories/ProfessiionalLearning/PromisingPractic
es/CPSELs.aspx
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicating social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2003). Questions raised by a reasoned action approach:
comment on Ogden 2003. Health Psychology, 23 (4), 431-434.
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change, and defensive routines. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Carter, G. R. & Cunningham, W. G. (1997). The American school superintendent:
Leading in an age of pressure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Catsambis, S. (1998). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in secondary
education- effects on high school academic success. Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University. Retrived from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/Reports/report27entir.htm.
Chesser, J. S. & McNeal, L. (2000). Educational community study circles: How
superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of School
Administrators. San Francisco, CA.
Chrispeels, J. & Rivero, E. (2000). Engaging Latino families for student success-
understating the process and impact of providing training to parents. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Chrispeels, J. & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success: How
parents education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their
children. Peabody Journal of Education, 76 (2), 119-169.
Coleman, A. L., Starzynski, A. L., Winnick, S. Y., Palmer, S. R., & Furr, J. E.
(2006). It takes a parent: Transforming education in the wake of the No Child Left
Behind Act. Washington, DC: Appleseed. Retrieved from
www.gaapplesee.org/docs/it_takes_a_parent.pdf
106
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld,
F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological
approach. The Elementary School Journal, 91 (3), 271-277.
Corwin, R. G & Carson, C. L. (1994). Contrasting district practices: School districts that
effectively serve educationally disadvantaged children. Far West Lab for
Educational research and development, San Francisco, CA.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Crosnoe, R. (2001). Academic orientation and parental involvement in education
during high school. Sociology of Education, 74, 210-230.
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement
in school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between
and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 653-664.
Dell’Olio, F. (2006). A survey of parental involvement components in commission-
approved preliminary administrative services credential programs in California.
(Doctoral dissertation) Pepperdine University. Malibu, CA.
Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race
and income matter? Journal of Educational Research, 93, 11-30.
Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental
involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78, 233-249.
Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Hastings-on-
Hudson, NY: Coalition for Community Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.communityschools.org/evalution/evalprint.html.
Edwards, M. E. (2007). The modern school superintendent: An overview of the role and
responsibilities in the 21
st
century. Lincoln, NE: Universe, Inc.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School, family, community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-713.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family and community partnerships: Helping educators and
improving school. Boulder, CO: Westview.
107
Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Clark Salinas, K., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (2009).
School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3
rd
ed.),
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (1999). Parental involvement and students’ academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Arlington, VA: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Fege, A. F. (2000). From fundraising to hell raising: New roles for parents. Educational
Leadership, 57, 39-43.
Fishbein, M. A. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Garnier, H., Stein, J., & Jacobs, J. (1997). The process of dropping out of high school: A
19-year perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 395-419.
George, & Mallery, (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference. 11.0 update (4
th
ed.), Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Glass, T. & Franceschini, L. (2007). The sate of the American school superintendency: A
mid-decade study. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education and American
Association of School Administrators.
Glass, T., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new
millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Goodlad, J. I. (2002). Kudzu, rabbits, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 16-23.
Harvard Family Research Project (2006). Approaches to parental involvement for
improving the academic performance of elementary school children in grades
K-6. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-
resources.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of
school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin,
TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from
http://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf
Henderson, A., Mapp, K., Johnson, V., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale:
The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York: The New Press.
108
Heymann, S. J. & Earle, A. (2000). Low-income parents: How do working conditions
affect their opportunity to help school-age children at risk? American Educational
Research Journal, 37, 833-848.
Hiatt-Michael, D. B. (2006). Reflections and directions on research related to family-
community involvement in schooling. School Community Journal, 16, 7-30.
Ingram, M., Wolfe, R. B., & Lieberman, J. M. (2007). The role of parents in high-
achieving schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and urban
society. Retrieved Feb. 16, 2009 from http://eus.sagepub.com.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to
urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40,
237-269.
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., Sroufe, A., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective
longitudinal study of high school dropouts examining multiple predictors across
development. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 525-549.
Johnson, D. (1997). Putting the cart before the horse: Parent involvement in the
improving America’s schools act. California Law Review, 85(6), 1757-1801.
Kelley, C. (2000). From policy to performance: Weaving policy and leadership strategies
to improve student achievement. In B. A. Jones (Ed.). Educational leadership:
Policy dimensions in the 21
st
century. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Kessler-Sklar, S. L. & Baker, A. J. L. (2000). School district parent involvement policies
and programs. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 101-118.
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent Involvement in school:
Conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and
demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 501-523.
Konnert, M.W., & Augenstein, J. J. (1990). The superintendency in the nineties:
What superintendents and board member need to know? Lancaster, PN:
Technonic Publishing.
Kowalski, T. J. (2006). The school superintendent theory, practice, and cases.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lee, J. S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the
achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational
Research Journal, 43, 193-218.
109
Mapp, K. (1999). Making the connection between families and schools: Why and
how parents are involved in their children’s education.
McEwan, E. K. & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s
not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive Relationships between parent school involvement and
public school inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance.
School Psychology Review, 28, 395-412.
Maruca, P. M. (2002). Impact of parent involvement on Hispanic, limited English
proficient students and their parents. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3055219).
Nettles, S. M. (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A review.
Review of Educational Research, 61, 379-406.
NCLB Executive Summary (2004). Full text legislation retrieved March 1, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Perry, B. P. (2006). The school-family-community partnership: A superintendent’s
perspective. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertation and Thesis
database. (UMI No. 3254216).
Politis, C. (2004). When parents won’t get involved. Early Childhood Today, 18, 23-
31.
Pomerantz, E. M. & Moorman, E. A. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’
involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of
Educational Research, 77 (3), 373-410.
Robinson Kurpius, S. E. & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-
friendly guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Salkind, N. J. (2007). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
110
Sharp, W., & Walters, J. (2004). The school superintendent: The profession and the
person. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action:
A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and
future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 325-343.
Shumow, L., & Miller (2001). Parents’ at-home and at-school academic involvement
with young adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 68-91.
Sinn, D. N. (2006). Multiple stakeholders’ perceptions of parental involvement an
exploratory case study of a California school district. (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from Dissertation and Thesis database. (UMI No. 3250127).
Smrekar, C., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2001). The voices of parents: Rethinking the
intersection of family and school. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 75-
100.
The History of IDEA (2004). National Dissmenination Center for Children with
Disabilities. Full text article retrieved Feb 20, 2009, from
http://www.nichcy.org/Trainpkg/3txt.pdf.
United States Department of Education (2004). Parent involvement: Title I, part a.
Retrieved from www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/parentinvguid.doc
West Ed (1999). Greater expectations for California’s neediest students: A call to action.
Recommendations from the California superintendents council on language,
culture, poverty, and race. San Francisco, CA.
111
APPENDIX A
PERMISSION FOR USE OF SURVEY
5-13-09
To: Amy Nguyen-Hernandez
From: Joyce Epstein
Re: Requested information
This is to grant permission to you to use or adapt the Measure of School, Family, and
Community Partnership survey. All we ask is that you include a reference to the original
surveys in your dissertation references and in resulting publications. The full reference is:
Epstein, J. L., et al. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook
for action, third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (pp. 324-329).
Others have used the measure in their dissertation. I have not received information on
their studies, but I am sure that, based on other surveys that we have designed and used,
the items in the various scales in the Measure will have high internal reliability
(Cronbach’s Alpha). The items in the Measure have shown consistent patterns in other
surveys and in field studies on the six types of involvement. To check this, you will have
to use a statistical program (such as SPSS- Scales) to report eht reliability statistics for
your study sample.
Best of luck on your project!
Joyce L. Epstein, Ph.D.
Director, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships and the Nation
Network of Partnership Schools
Research Professor of Sociology Johns Hopkins Univeristy
3003 North Charles Street, Suit 200
Baltimore, MD 21218
Tel: 410-516-8807
Fax: 410-516-8890
jepstein@csos.jhu.edu
www.partnershipschools.org
112
APPENDIX B
PARTICIPATION LETTER
Dear Superintendent,
You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study conducted by Amy
Nguyen-Hernandez, principal at Rolling ridge Elementary School the Chino Valley
Unified School District, and doctoral student from the Rossier school of Education’s
Ed.D. program at the University of Southern California.
This study is focused on identifying the role California Urban Superintendents play in
executing their districts’ parent and community involvement policies. The secondary
purpose is to examine which types of parent and community involvement practices, if
any, make a difference in student achievement. This study will redress the dearth of
research regarding Superintendents and their role in implementing parent and community
involvement policies. The finds may have direct implications for current and future
Superintendents as they execute their districts’ parent and community involvement plicies
as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
If you agree to participate in this research study, the approximate time required to
complete the survey will be 15-20 minutes. You may also indicate whether or not you
would be interested in participating in a face-to-face or follow up phone interview. The
interview would be 30-45 minutes in length and will be scheduled to accommodate your
preference of time and location.
Your participation in the study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any
time without penalty. Any data collected will be destroyed per your request. All
information obtained in connection with this study will be confidential and the data will
be reported in aggregate so that your responses cannot be linked back to you.
Pseudonyms will be used when quoting specific participants. There are no perceived risks
to participants.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding participation in this study, please contact
Amy Nguyen-Hernandez or Dr. Rudy Castruita at the University of Southern California.
Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Amy Nguyen-Hernandez, Principal Investigator
USC Ed.D. Student
nguyenhe@usc.edu
Dr. Rudy Castruita, Faculty Supervisor
Professor, USC Rossier School of Education
rcastrui@usc.edu
113
APPENDIX C
EMAIL REMINDER FOR PARTICIPATION
From: Nguyen, Amy
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 6:34 AM
Subject: USC doctoral candidate's dissertation- final attempt
Good morning, Superintendent-
My name is Amy Nguyen-Hernandez. I am a principal in the Chino Valley Unified
School District and a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California. I'm
emailing you as a final attempt to invite you to participate in my dissertation research. I
have previously sent you 2 paper copies and a postcard reminder inviting you to
participate in my research. You were chosen for my study because you are one of 53
Superintendents who: (1) leads a K-12 Unified School District in California; (2) has at
least 10,000 students; (3) has at least 50% of the student population from a minority
group; and (4) has at least 50% of the student population participating in the free and
reduced lunch program.
I am making this final attempt because I have not received enough surveys back to
complete my research for my dissertation. I understand you have many time constraints
and are in high demand from many people. However, if at all possible, I am asking you to
take 15 to 20 minutes to complete the attached survey. If you would rather have a paper
copy, please reply to this email and I will send you one as soon as I receive your email.
If you choose to complete the survey, you may return it in an email, as a fax (909-591-
1435), or let me know and I will send a stamped envelope for you to return it to me.
Please help me complete my final step in my three year journey to become a doctor of
education. I appreciate your time and thank you in advanced!
Amy Nguyen-Hernandez
Principal (and USC Ed.D. candidate)
Rolling Ridge Elementary
909-628-9375 ext. 8313
114
APPENDIX D
MEASURE OF SCHOOL, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY SURVEY
Measure of School, Family, and Community Partnership
The following instrument is designed to measure how you and your district are reaching out to
involve parents, community members, and students. Please circle the rating that most closely
matches with your district’s current practice.
I. PARENTING: Help all families establish home environments to support children as students.
Our District and Schools within our
District:
Not
Occurring Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively
1. Conducts workshops or provides
information for parents on child
development
1 2 3 4 5
2. Provides information, training, and
assistance to all families who want it or
who need it, not just the few who can
attend workshops or meeting at the
school building
1 2 3 4 5
3. Produces information for families that is
clear, usable, and linked to children’s
success in school
1 2 3 4 5
4. Asks families for information about
children’s goals, strengths, & talents
1 2 3 4 5
5. Provides families with information and/or
training on developing home conditions
or environments that support learning
1 2 3 4 5
II. COMMUNICATING: Design effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school
communications about school programs and children’s progress.
Our District and Schools within our
District:
Not
Occurring Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively
1. Develops communication for parents who
do not speak English well, do not read
well, or need large type
1 2 3 4 5
2. Have policies that encourage all teachers
to communicate frequently with parents
about their curriculum, expectations, and
how parents can help
1 2 3 4 5
3. Conducts a formal conference with every
parent at least once a year
1 2 3 4 5
4. Trains teachers, staff and principals on
the value and utility of contributions of
parents and ways to build ties between
school and home
1 2 3 4 5
115
Our District and Schools within our
District:
Not
Occurring Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively
5. Sends home folders of student work
weekly or monthly for parent review and
comment
1 2 3 4 5
6. Have policies that encourage all teachers
to communicate frequently with parents
about their curriculum, expectations, and
how parents can help
1 2 3 4 5
III. VOLUNTEERING: Recruit and organize parent help and support.
Our District and Schools within our
District:
Not
Occurring Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively
1. Provides a parent/family room for
volunteers to work, meet, and access
resources
1 2 3 4 5
2. Schedules school events at different
times during the day and evening so all
families can attend some throughout the
year
1 2 3 4 5
3. Trains volunteers so they use their time
Productively
1 2 3 4 5
4. Recognizes volunteers for their time and
Efforts
1 2 3 4 5
5. Provide transportation and/or childcare to
reduce barriers to parent participation
1 2 3 4 5
IV. LEARNING AT HOME: Provide information and ideas to families about how to help
students at home with homework and other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning.
Our District and Schools within our
District:
Not
Occurring Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively
1. Makes parents aware of the importance
of reading at home, and asks parents to
listen to their child read or read aloud
with their child
1 2 3 4 5
2. Provides information to families on how
to monitor and discuss schoolwork at
home
1 2 3 4 5
3. Provides ongoing and specific
information to parents on how to assist
students with skills that they need to
improve
1 2 3 4 5
4. Assists families in helping students set
academic goals, select courses, and
programs
1 2 3 4 5
116
Our District and Schools within our District: Not
Occurring Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively
5. Schedules regular interactive homework
that requires students to discuss what
they are learning with a family member
1 2 3 4 5
V. DECISIONMAKING: Include parents in school decisions, developing parent leaders and
representatives.
Our District and Schools within our
District:
Not
Occurring Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively
1. Has active PTA, PTO, or other parent
Organization
1 2 3 4 5
2. Has parents represented on district level
advisory council and committees
1 2 3 4 5
3. Involves parents in revising the
school/district curricula
1 2 3 4 5
4. Includes parent leaders from all racial,
ethnic, socioeconomic, and other group in
the school
1 2 3 4 5
5. Asks involved parents to make contact
with parents who are less involved to
solicit their ideas, and report back to them
1 2 3 4 5
VI. COLLABORATING WITH COMMUNITY: Identify and integrate resources and services
from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and
development.
Our District and Schools within our
District:
Not
Occurring Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively
1. Provides a community resource directory
for parents and students with information
on community services, programs, and
agencies
1 2 3 4 5
2. Works with local businesses, industries,
and community organizations on
programs to enhance student skills and
learning
1 2 3 4 5
3. Offers after-school programs for students
with support from community businesses,
agencies, and volunteers
1 2 3 4 5
4. Opens its building for use by the
community after school hours
1 2 3 4 5
5. Utilizes community resources, such as
businesses, libraries, parks and museums
to enhance the learning environment
1 2 3 4 5
117
Gender: ________ Age: _______ Years of experience as a Superintendent: ______
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. I believe parent and community involvement is
related to student achievement.
1 2 3 4
2. Promoting parent and community involvement is
one of my priorities.
1 2 3 4
3. I believe one strategy to improve student
achievement is to increase parent and community
involvement.
1 2 3 4
4. I know of strategies and programs which can
increase parent and community involvement in my
district.
1 2 3 4
I would be interested in participating in a 30 to 45 minute interview about my role in executing my
District’s parent and community involvement strategies, policies, and programs.
______ Yes ______ No
You may contact me at the following number to schedule a follow up interview:
__________________________
Thank you very much for completing this survey!
Amy Nguyen-Hernandez, Ed. D. Candidate
Rudy M. Castruita, Ed. D., Faculty Advisor
University of Southern California
118
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What are your District’s policies and practices in regard to parent and community
involvement?
2. What role do you play in executing the district’s parent and community
involvement policies and practices?
3. To what extent are you personally involved in decision making groups which
involve parents and community members?
4. What strategies have you used to encourage parent and community involvement?
5. What resources does your District have to encourage parent and community
involvement? What part have you played in ensuring these resources?
6. What major factors, if any, have limited your district’s family and community
involvement success?
7. Do you believe parent and community involvement relates to student
achievement? Why do you believe this way?
8. Do you have goals for improving your District’s parent and community
involvement policies? If so, what is one of your major goals or strategies in
improving the parent and community partnership with your district over the next 3
years?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to redress the paucity of research regarding superintendents and their role in implementing parent and community involvement policies. Another aim was to examine which types of parent and community involvement practices, if any, may be related to student achievement.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals
PDF
The impact of parental involvement on student achievement
PDF
Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform
PDF
How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement
PDF
Reclaiming the superintendency: the skills, strategies and experiences of successful women superintendents in California
PDF
Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions
PDF
Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents
PDF
Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play
PDF
What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to address global challenges in the implementation of 21st century skills
PDF
An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study
PDF
The superintendent as an external community builder
PDF
Opening the door: a comparative study of leadership competencies of traditional and nontraditional superintendents
PDF
Understanding the decision making process of California urban schools superintendents through Bolman and Deal's four leadership frames
PDF
Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males
PDF
An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement
PDF
The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students
PDF
Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams
PDF
How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement
PDF
Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males
Asset Metadata
Creator
Nguyen-Hernandez, Amy
(author)
Core Title
Making the connection: The California urban superintendent and parent and community involvement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/15/2010
Defense Date
03/23/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
community involvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,parent involvement,roles and strategies,superintendent
Place Name
California
(states),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy M. (
committee chair
), Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee member
), Malloy, Courtney (
committee member
)
Creator Email
alnh515@gmail.com,nguyenhe@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2927
Unique identifier
UC1485428
Identifier
etd-NguyenHernandez-3632 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-312098 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2927 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-NguyenHernandez-3632.pdf
Dmrecord
312098
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Nguyen-Hernandez, Amy
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
parent involvement
roles and strategies