University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE RELATIONSHIP OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT TO STUDENT ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT IN LATINO MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS

by

Teresa Kugler

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009

Copyright 2009 Teresa Kugler

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am greatly appreciative of many people for their support and patience while I
wrote this dissertation. I must start with my mother, Dr. Marianne Kugler because it was
she who turned me on to the theory of Dr. Joyce Epstein, which was the impetus for this
work. The rest of my family including my dad, Dr. Larry Kugler, sister, Dr. Anne Kugler
and brother-in-law, Dr. Stacy McGaugh also contributed greatly to my survival. They
provided advice, a shoulder to cry on when my hard drive died, and knowledge of the
highs and lows of the process of writing a dissertation. My sister was singularly
important to this project by keeping me sane and encouraged at the lowest points. I am
proud to be the fourth Dr. Kugler in my immediate family.
Many friends also motivated, nagged, and left me alone as needed. Julie Ortiz
and Dr. Jon Eyler particularly gave me a kick when I needed it most. This would not be
finished without their not-so-subtle calls and texts toward the end. Missy Bergman let
me whine and complain and occasionally told me to get over it. Carlos Jauregui gave me
something else to talk about, bought lottery tickets, and laughed at (with?) me. Most
importantly they all made me want to live up to their belief in me. I especially owe Alice
my thanks for keeping up with all of the details so I didn’t have to. Congrats Dr. Ra!
Of course my committee and chair, Dr. Ruth Chung, deserve my undying
gratitude for their patience and insight. Dr. Chung managed to leave me alone and keep
me going at the same time. Dr. Randy Gray and Dr. Helena Seli were calm and
supportive when I was scared and uncertain, and Dr. Ginger Clark was kind enough to

iii

step in at the last when I was in a bind. Thanks to Dr. Chung’s recommendation Dr.
Yuying Tsong made my statistics speak a language that made sense to me.
This work could not have been done without the permission of the principals at
the schools I surveyed. I appreciate their permission but even more their enthusiasm for
the project. I also am honored by the trust of the parents who allowed me to collect data
regarding their personal choices, and information about their children.
Finally I must gratefully acknowledge the office staff of my own school,
including Susie Campante, Sonya Mercado, Maria Placencia, Sylvia Sullivan, and
especially Wendy Mendez. They provided translation, encouraging words, and laughter
every time I needed them! Just don’t tell the boss.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables vii

Abstract viii

Chapter I: Introduction 1
Achievement Gap 1
Parent Involvement 3
Student Achievement 5
Standardized Testing 6
Report Cards 8
Middle School Students 9
Theoretical Framework 10
Parent Involvement Models 13
Significance of the Study 14
Organization of Dissertation 16

Chapter II: Review of Literature 18
Historical Perspecive of Parental Involvement 18
Parental Involvement Models 20
Epstein’s Model of Parental Involvement 21
Grolnick and Slowiaczek’s Model of Parental Involvement 26
Hoge, Smit, and Crist’s Model of Parental Involvement 29
Commonalities of Models 31
Additional Parental Involvement Models 34
Applying Parent Involvement Models to Student Populations 36
Latino Students 36
Middle School Students 41
Other Factors 42
Overall Purpose of Study 43

Chapter III: Methodology 45
Participants 45
Instruments 47
Procedure 49
Analysis of Data 52

v

Chapter IV: Results 54
Intercorrelations 55
Analyses of Research Questions 57
Research Question 1: Is the Epstein model of parent 57
involvement a predictor of english and math academic
achievement (standardized test scores and report card grades)?
Research Question 2: Is the Grolnick and Slowiaczek model of 59
parent involvement a predictor of english and math achievement
(standardized test scores and report card grades)?
Research Question 3: Is the Hoge, Smit, and Crist model of 61
parental involvement a predictor of english and math academic
achievement (standardized scores and report card grades)?
Research Question 4: Among parental involvement behaviors 62
which are the best predictors for English and math academic
achievement (standardized scores and report card grades)?
Standardized Scores 63
Report Card Grades 64
Additional Analysis 65
Summary of Results 66
English Learner Groups 67
Parental Involvement Models 67
Research Question 4: Among parental involvement behaviors 68
which are the best predictors for English and math academic
achievement (standardized scores and report card grades)?
Non-English Learners 68
English Learners 70
Reclassified English Learners 71
Summary of English Learners 72

Chapter V: Discussion 74
Discussion of Significant Findings 74
Epstein’s Model 75
Grolnick’s Model 76
Hoge’s Model 77
Parent Behaviors 78
English Learners 79
Implications 80
Negative Correlations 80
Positive Correlations 83
Additional Implications 84
Limitations 86
Future Directions for Study 88
Conclusion 91

vi

References 93

Appendix A: Results From 2007 NAEP 96
Appendix B: California Standards Results (2007) 97
Appendix C: Parental Involvement Survey Instrument-English 98
Appendix D: Parental Involvement Survey Instrument-Spanish 103
Appendix E: Parent Consent Form-English 108
Appendix F: Parent Consent Form-Spanish 112

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Components of Parental Involvement Models 32

Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Student Participants 46

Table 3: Frequency Distribution of Standardized Test Scores 46

Table 4: Frequency Distribution of Report Card Grades 46

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero Order Product Correlations 56
For Measured Variables

Table 6: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 59
Epstein’s Model

Table 7: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for 60
Grolnick’s Model

Table 8: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Hoge’s Model 62

Table 9: Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for English 64
Standardized Test Scores

Table 10: Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for English 65
and Math Report Card Grades

Table 11: Significant Parent Involvement for Student Groups in English 72
Language Arts

Table 12: Significant Parent Involvement for Student Group in Math 73

viii

ABSTRACT
A significant achievement gap exists between Latino and White students, and
between middle school students and their elementary counterparts. To address this,
federal legislation, specifically No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Title I, are driving
forces behind policy and practice in schools in the United States. NCLB holds schools
accountable for student achievement, while Title I requires parental involvement in
schools. This study considered whether parental involvement has a relationship to
student achievement, thereby providing a connection between NCLB and Title I.
For this study three parental involvement models and the behaviors associated
with these models were analyzed to determine whether they predicted student academic
outcomes. A survey was developed based on these three models. The survey was sent
home to Latino middle school students at three schools in Los Angeles County.
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis was used to determine whether any
relationships between model components and performance on standardized tests or report
cards in math and English Language Arts existed. Correlations between specific parent
behaviors and student outcomes were analyzed through stepwise multiple regression
analysis.
Results indicated that some components of the models correlated with math or
language arts report card grades or language arts test scores. Certain parent behaviors
also predicted student achievement. The relationship between parent involvement model
or behavior and academic outcomes varied depending on the English Language level of
the students. For the overall population and English Learner groups some correlations

ix

were negative, for example, help with homework and language arts test scores. Positive
correlations such as attending a performance with their child predicting higher math
grades provided information about behaviors that do predict higher student achievement.
In both cases directionality remains to be determined.
The variations in results based on EL level, academic subject, and type of
assessment indicate that a one-size-fits-all parental involvement model is not appropriate
for schools serving Latino middle school students. Ways of meeting NCLB and Title I
requirements must be considered carefully, and many factors including culture must be
incorporated into parental involvement policies developed in schools serving these
students.

1

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Achievement Gap
A frequent topic of discussion of educators, parents, legislators, and others is the
“achievement gap” in education. What people mean by that varies with their own
interests and concerns, but it generally refers to a disparity in academic achievement
between two groups that are ethnically, socio-economically, or otherwise different.
Desimone (1999) states that “one of the driving forces of education policy in the United
States is the desire to equalize disparities in schooling opportunities and outcomes” (p.
11). The problem, then, arises when one asks why there is an achievement gap and what
to do about it. In the United States it is expected that every child is provided with an
education that helps them to meet specific academic standards. This expectation means
that, as the federal government has put it, No Child is Left Behind. Gaps between
students or groups of students must be identified, acknowledged, and eliminated to meet
this important but challenging goal.
These gaps are evident in results from both the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) administered to 4
th
and 8
th
graders nationally, and in the
California Standards Test (CST) taken by 2
nd
through 10
th
graders annually. According
to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2007) the average score
nationally in 2007 for fourth graders in reading was 220, and for eighth graders, 261.
The average California scores for all students were lower, at 209 for 4
th
graders and 251
for 8
th
graders. Latino students in California scored even lower, with average scores of

2

195 and 239 respectively. The situation for math was similar, with 4
th
grade California
Latinos scoring 20 points lower and 8
th
graders scoring 23 points lower than the national
average.
California Standards Test scores tell a similar story for students in California (see
Appendix B). While overall 44% of students scored at proficient or above in English
Language Arts (ELA) in 2007, only 29% of Latino students were proficient or better. In
math the discrepancy was slightly less, with 41% of all students and 30% of Latinos
scoring proficient. Even when considering economic status Latinos fared worse than
their counterparts, especially those who are not economically disadvantaged. Latino
students who were identified as not economically disadvantaged scored at 42% and 36%
in English Language Arts and math, as compared to 60% and 52% for overall students
without economic disadvantages. In fact, of all reported subgroups, only African
Americans, and especially English Learners, had lower proficiency percentages on these
assessments. This gap is evident every year from 2003 to 2007 (California Department
of Education, 2007b). In fact, in both English language arts and math Latino students
scored lower in 2007 than students overall in 2003, suggesting that whatever efforts were
made did not close the achievement gap in that time. Additionally, while 6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th

grade scores remain consistent with the grades preceding and following them in ELA, the
percentage of proficient 6
th
graders in math was 42% overall, while 5
th
graders scored
49% proficient. By the 8
th
grade only 21% of students who took the Algebra I
assessment and 23% of students taking the general math assessment are scoring at
proficient levels.

3

Clearly then, it is important to find ways to impact the achievement of Latino
Middle School students. The Latino population is the second fastest growing group in
the United States (NCES, 2005) and these students deserve to be successful academically.
In fact, according to the NCES the Latino population is projected to nearly double from
13.7% to 24.3% of the population of the United States by 2050 (2005). It is vital that all
students, including those identified as Latino, receive the educational benefits of our
system. This discrepancy in scores indicates that there is a breakdown somewhere in the
system, which cannot be attributed exclusively to socio-economic status (CDE, 2007b).
Federal policies as described in No Child Left Behind and Title I require states, districts,
and schools to address these gaps. However, the continued difference between Latino
students and students overall in California indicates that we have not yet solved the
problem. In spite of the legislation’s title, we are evidently leaving a very significant
population of students behind.
This study aims to find a way to close the gap and ensure that all students
demonstrate academic success. Parents have a huge impact on their children in a variety
of ways, including their education. Schools must learn how to tap into this resource, and
knowing which models and variables of parental involvement are most closely related
with student achievement would help establish a process for closing that gap.
Parent Involvement
Two key components of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that California’s schools
and districts are working to meet are the parental involvement (PI) expectations of Title I
and accountability for student achievement as measured by Annual Yearly Progress

4

(AYP) goals established by each state. Since these are both significant components of
federal education policy, it is relevant to consider the interaction between them. While
AYP is fairly clearly defined, with standardized test scores being the most public
measure, parental involvement continues to be a less specific concept. Title I defines
parental involvement in this way:
The term “parental involvement” means the participation
of parents in regular, two-way, meaningful communication
involving student academic learning and other school activities
including ensuring…
• That parents play an integral role in assisting their
child’s learning;
• That parents are encouraged to be actively involved in
their child’s education at school;
• That parents are full partners in their child’s education
and are included, as appropriate, in decision-making and on
advisory committees to assist in the education of their child.
(U.S. Dept of Ed., 2004, p. 31-32)

Federal legislation looks at parental involvement and standardized test scores in two
separate sections of legislation, but since they are both strongly prioritized it would be
useful to know if there is a relationship. This study is not intended to evaluate the
legitimacy of standardized test scores as a measure of student achievement, nor the
inherent value of parental involvement, but specifically whether identified constructs of
parental involvement have a relationship to standardized test score outcomes and other
student achievement measures such as report card grades.
Title I is the core legislative document driving parental involvement in schools. It
is a federal initiative that, among other things, provides substantial financial support to
schools and districts with socio-economically disadvantaged students. One component of

5

Title I requires that schools receiving Title I funds spend at least one percent on parental
involvement annually. Considering the amount of money some schools receive each
year, that one percent is not inconsiderable. Title I also requires a substantial degree of
public information reporting which in California is addressed through the School
Accountability Report Card which is posted online. This document is updated annually
and includes student demographics, teacher credentialing and standardized test score
results. It is required that it be current and available to all families and communities but
is complex to create and always based on the previous year’s data. In addition, Title I
requires parental involvement in school governance, planning and decision making,
including a governing committee at site and district levels, and parental opinion surveys.
A parent-school compact must also be distributed annually in which the responsibilities
of the school, teacher, parent, and student are clearly stated (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004). At the same time, Title I does not specifically describe how schools
are to implement these items, except in that accountability measures are in place and
implementation necessarily must reflect these measures. It also does not delineate to
what degree it expects these requirements to impact student achievement.
Student Achievement
In fact, NCLB and Title I do not directly connect parental involvement
requirements to student achievement. They are separately tracked and schools and
districts are held accountable for each mandate separately. However, both programs are
currently major priorities. Assuming the whole goal of any regulations regarding
educational systems is to positively impact student success, it seems reasonable to

6

wonder whether these two priorities have any connection to each other in terms of actual
school practice. If there is something about PI that does correlate to student achievement
it would be very useful to know what that was, and to determine whether it could be used
either to increase student achievement or predict which students are most likely to be less
successful and remediate the situation before the lack of success of some students and
groups is beyond repair.
Standardized Testing. The federal legislation included in No Child Left Behind
provides specific guidelines for how states are to measure student achievement. They
include a 95% or higher participation rate in standardized testing, increasing levels of
proficiency on those standardized tests by districts, schools, and statistically significant
subgroups within those schools, improvement by students not at the proficient level, and
graduation rates for high schools (CDE, 2007a). These measures are all evaluated
annually.
However, NCLB leaves room for interpretation for each state. California
identifies both the AYP, or Adequate Yearly Progress, and Academic Performance Index
(API) as important measures of student progress based on standardized testing. For the
purposes of this study, measures of AYP will be used, because they reflect federal
requirements while the API measures are based on state goals. The AYP goal includes
four sets of requirements, including participation rates on statewide standardized tests,
percentage of students meeting the pre-identified proficient level score on the California
Standards Tests, an improvement in the API score, and graduation rates (California
Department of Education, 2007c). While all of these factors combine to determine a

7

school or district’s overall AYP score, this study will specifically consider the results of
sixth, seventh and eighth grade middle school students on the California Standards Tests
(CSTs) in English language arts and mathematics. Eighth graders also take social studies
and science CSTs in California, and in the past seventh graders have taken a norm-
referenced test called the California Achievement Test or CAT/6 Survey, but these
assessments are only a part of the API, not the AYP. Other components of the AYP
including other standardized tests such as high school exit exams and alternate
assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities, as well as API increases
and participation rates in standardized testing, will not be included in this study. Another
component of AYP is that all significant subgroups, including ethnicity, English Learner
(EL) status, and students with disabilities must meet the targeted scores, as well as the
school as a whole. Since the unit of observation in this study is the individual student,
and only results from Latino students will be used, the differences between subgroups
will not be analyzed at this time, though differences between sixth, seventh and eighth
graders will be considered if they arise.
Success in meeting the AYP targets for middle school students is measured by the
percentage of students in a given school or statistically significant subgroup meeting the
proficient level on math and language arts assessments. The scores of all students are
divided into quintiles. These are identified by the ordinal names of Far Below Basic,
Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels. These coordinate with a scale
rating from 200-600 in which Basic is always defined as 300-350 and proficient always
begins at 350. The division between the other levels depends upon student performance

8

and test characteristics that change annually and are different for math and language arts
(California Department of Education, 2007a). The target for 2008 middle schools was
for 35.2% of students to be proficient in English Language Arts and 37% to be proficient
in math (CDE 2007b p. 13).
As mentioned above, standardized testing is a major focus of current federal
legislation regarding education. Therefore it is in keeping with a primary way of
assessing student progress to examine the impact of PI on standardized test scores.
Students in grades 2-10 are assessed annually in math and language arts through
standardized tests. Some grades also are assessed in other subjects including science,
social science, and physical education. However, it is English language arts and math
that are the priorities for schools, districts, and No Child Left Behind.
Report Cards. Report card grades are also consistently discussed as a common
form of student assessment. These, unlike standardized test scores, are not used to
measure a school’s progress by federal mandates. However, as the form of assessment
most familiar to parents and most frequently cited by teachers in conversation with
parents, report card grades are also relevant measures of student academic progress.
Again, though students are assessed in other areas, only language arts and math grades
will be analyzed for this study.
Jeynes (2003) found that report card grades are a relevant measure and can be
used to cross check parental involvement relationships to achievement, and also to
determine differences between correlations of PI models or components and two separate
measures of success. Jeynes found that the correlation between PI and report card grades

9

as measured by grade point average was lower than that of PI and achievement test
scores. He found teacher reports of student achievement to be most highly correlated to
PI which he attributed in part to teacher perceptions of parent intentions and family
motivations.
Support for this argument for using report card grades as well as standardized test
scores resulted from Desimone’s 1999 study. In it she found parent involvement was
found to be predictive of grades significantly more so than standardized test scores.
Similar to Jeynes’ conclusions, she pointed out that some of this may be attributed to
changes in school and teacher perceptions based on changes in parent involvement.
Middle School Students. Middle school students have been studied in a variety of
ways regarding motivational outcomes, grades, standardized test scores, and behavioral
outcomes. As young adolescents, they may have different experiences of parental
involvement than older, high school age students or younger children. In fact, Spera
(2006) suggests a model in which ethnicity informs parental goals and values which, in
combination with parenting practices and styles impacts adolescent outcomes. These
findings suggest that controlling for middle school Latino students will provide
information that is specific to that group of students and may not be generalizable to
other ages or ethnicities. However, it may provide information specific to that population
that can be used to plan parental involvement programs, or at least predict which
students are likely to demonstrate particular outcomes.
For this study then, Latino middle school students in sixth, seventh, and eighth
grades will be studied. Their report card grades, and their test scores on the annual, state

10

developed “STAR”, or California Standards Tests in math and language arts will be
considered through the lens of parental involvement. More specifically, this study will
analyze three parental involvement models and several parent behaviors to see whether
they have a relationship to student academics as measured by report card grades and
standardized test scores in math and language arts. Other student outcomes such as
motivation and behavior do not fall into the scope of this study. Additionally, report card
grades in areas such as science, social studies, and physical education will not be
considered, since they are not all measured at all three grade levels by the standardized
tests.
Theoretical Framework
Increasing, improving, or targeting parental involvement is one suggestion that
has been made repeatedly to address the achievement gap. While parent behavior is not
under the control of the school or district, and not legislated in this regard, it is a resource
that is often perceived as either lacking, or underutilized. In fact, parental involvement
has been discussed and analyzed in the United States at least since the nineteenth century
(Kainz & Aikens, 2007). Multiple models and studies have been developed to study the
interaction between student academic outcomes, motivation, and behavior (Domina,
2005, Gonzalez-DeHass et al, 2005, Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). It has been suggested
that parental involvement might impact students through sending a message of the
importance of schooling, by developing closer control and connection between the
parents and school or teacher, and by giving the parents “insider information” about
problems or concerns that may be affecting their child (Domina, 2005.) Results of

11

studies are mixed, however. At least one shows that while some aspects of PI may
correlate with academic achievement, others have little or no effect when other factors
are controlled for, and some may actually correlate negatively with student success
(Domina, 2005).
Other issues surrounding parental involvement include the definition and
understanding of what actually constitutes parental involvement in the first place.
Pomerantz et al. (2007) discussed the distinction in research between “naturally
occurring” parental involvement and PI that has been elicited by the school as a result of
the needs of their specific student (p. 377). For the most part, the research they
considered related to “naturally occurring” PI.
Parents and teachers do not always see parental involvement in the same way.
Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, and Hernandez found that teachers could be trained to
understand differences in parent culture that might interfere with a common
understanding of their role with the school. Teachers were trained on the differences
between Individualistic and Collectivist cultures and how to bridge the difference to bring
parents into the school community, and how to enter into the parents’ collectivist culture
in order to better support the students (2003). This is one example of the difficulty in
developing an effective, universal parental involvement program for schools.
In an ethnographic study of parents involved in a parent education program,
Chrispeels and Rivero described a factor that impacts the understanding of parental
involvement specifically with Latino families. They studied parents who were
participating in the “Parent Institute for Quality Education” which has the goal of

12

connecting Latino parents more closely with schools and teachers (Chrispeels & Rivero,
2001). The content of this program included: (a) collaboration between the home and
school, (b) motivation and self-esteem, (c) communication and discipline, (d) academic
standards, (e) how the school system functions, and (f) college information (Chrispeels &
Rivero, 2001, p. 126.) The parents involved in this study had a variety of parenting styles
and levels of understanding of schooling in the United States. According to the
researchers, some parents did change their styles, expectations, and behaviors as a result
of participating in the institute. This suggests there is value in parental training and
education about how to be effectively involved in school. However, since this study did
not go further and analyze changes in the students’ achievement, it is again not evident
that this type of training actually improves student achievement.
These and other aspects of research into the possible correlations between
parental involvement and student academic achievement make it clear that while an
enormous amount of research has been done, it arises from many different questions and
leads to a variety of sometimes contradictory results. Specific areas must be illuminated
if the value of PI is to be accurately assessed for student success. At the same time, it is
important to remember that different theoretical models, components, populations
studied, age groups studied, and measures of success all complicate the results of any
study. Results from one study may not apply to another population or if measured
through another metric. This, then, is why the discussion continues, especially in the
light of the pressure placed on schools and districts by federal and state legislation

13

regarding both parental involvement and student achievement such as Title I and No
Child Left Behind.
Not only is there discussion and disagreement about the effects of PI on student
achievement, there is no one model that is required by Title I or recognized nationally.
This study will focus on three frequently cited models of parental involvement. All three
originated in the 1990’s, and have been used empirically to study student achievement
and parental involvement. Each also has a list of components that will act as an
additional set of variables to be studied separately from the models as whole entities.
Parent Involvement Models
One model of parental involvement that has been applied in several studies is that
of Joyce Epstein. It includes six types of parental involvement that she also identifies as
six types of caring that schools can show for the children they serve (1995). The six
types are described as parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home,
decision making, and collaborating with the community. Her model is described from
the point of view of what the school is doing, while other models reflect what the parents
are doing.
In a different approach, Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) described parental
involvement in terms of school into three categories. They included “behavior”,
“personal”, and “cognitive/intellectual” components. Behavior included such actions as
going to the school, and participating in parent meetings. The personal component was
related to student perceptions of parent affect. The final component, cognitive/intellectual

14

involvement, included parents exposing students to activities such as trips to museums,
and materials such as books and current events.
Another model of parental involvement, proposed by Hoge and others, described
the framework of parental involvement as “Family Process Factors” which include the
sub-types parental expectations, parental interest in school, parental involvement in
school, and family and emotional support. They grouped the variables they studied in
this way in order to determine whether specific variables or families of variables could
predict student success (1997).
These three models share some parent involvement behaviors with one or both of
the others. Some variables are particular to only one model. In order to best get at what
about parental involvement affects student academic outcomes these items will be
analyzed separately as well as grouped with their respective models.
Significance of the Study
While many educators and others make the assumption that parental involvement
impacts student achievement, that assumption is not thoroughly founded in empirical
research. Many studies have been developed to study specific theories, including those
mentioned above. Some studies have also analyzed student behavior and motivation, and
considered many measures of achievement including standardized test scores, student
grades, and teacher and student reported measures of success. In a meta-analysis of PI
Jeynes (2003) found that there is a correlation between PI and student achievement. He
found differences between the racial groups he studied, including African Americans,
Latinos, and Asian Americans in terms of which components of PI were most significant.

15

In a study focusing specifically on math outcomes, Sheldon and Epstein measured
the impact of a specific community, school and family partnership (1995). The schools
that were a part of this study implemented practices including, among others, conducting
daytime and evening parent workshops on math skills and expectations, and offering
materials and packets to use at home. They found a greater increase in math proficiency
in elementary than in secondary schools, though both increased. At the same time,
secondary report card grades in math actually went down over the period of the study,
though elementary grades increased overall. It is interesting to note that, while a
relationship did exist, the results were not all positive as a result of this particular
program. In another study Ingram, Wolfe, and Lieberman also analyzed Epstein’s model
in order to determine whether PI impacted student achievement and found that at high-
achieving, high-risk schools parents feel that their involvement is very important.
Specifically the survey results showed that it was helping at home and parenting that
most impacted student achievement, and that parent interaction with the school was less
significant (2007).
Parental involvement, then, may be a way in which to impact student academic
success and to close the achievement gap. This study will hopefully provide further
evidence about the relationship, if any, between PI variables from specific parental
involvement models and student academic outcomes. The first goal is to determine
whether a particular model is better than the others for predicting Latino Middle School
achievement in math and Language arts. The next aim is to isolate and determine which,
if any, individual components of those models correlate with student achievement.

16

Finally, the hope is to identify specific parent behaviors that demonstrate a relationship to
student achievement. This, in turn, may illuminate any connection between two
independent, yet significant federal programs, NCLB and Title I.
The purpose of this study, then is to determine what, if any, relationship there is
between parent involvement, either as specific behaviors or as a whole model, and
student academic outcomes including grades and standardized tests. Four research
questions will be answered regarding parental involvement models and parent behaviors
and their relationship to measurable student outcomes.
Organization of the Dissertation.
Chapter one has provided background regarding federal requirements for parent
involvement and student assessment including the achievement gap that is evident
between groups of students. It has also offered the significance of this study and an
overview of the parent involvement models to be analyzed.
In chapter two a brief history of parent involvement in schools in the United
States will be provided. Each parent involvement model will be described in detail.
Following that, several additional models and studies of parent involvement will be
reviewed. The rationale for applying the three PI models to Latino students and middle
school students will then be explained, and the chapter will end with the research
questions matched with relevant hypotheses.
The methodology chapter of the study, chapter three, will begin with the purpose
of this study. The participants will then be described. The parent survey will be
explained in detail as the instrument used to collect data on parent behaviors. Procedures

17

for enlisting participants and collecting data will be described. Finally, a brief discussion
of the data analysis methods will end chapter three.
Chapter four will provide describe the statistical analyses used to determine
answers to the research questions. It will provide the results of the statistical analyses. It
will address each research question with regard to student achievement in English
language arts and math as measured by CSTs and report card grades. It also will assess
the relationship between parent involvement and groups of students based on their
English proficiency.
The last chapter will begin with a discussion of the results of the study, and
implications of these results for practical purposes. It will also describe the limitations of
this study and directions for future research. Finally, a conclusion will provide a big
picture understanding of this study in the context of NCLB and Title I.

18

CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
In the previous chapter measures of student achievement were described, along
with two federal programs, No Child Left Behind and Title I, that have taken over the
minds and possibly the nightmares of educators nationally. The purpose of this chapter is
to provide a fuller description of the different theories of parental involvement and
review the supporting research literature in order to build a foundation for the study
described in chapter three. I will start with a brief explanation of parental involvement in
the United States. Next, each of the three models to be studied will be described in terms
of theory, specific variables, and relation to student achievement. Further parental
involvement models will be discussed, specifically in relation to Latino and middle
school students since that is the target population for this study. Finally, the research
questions addressed in this study and hypotheses are stated.
Historical Perspective of Parental Involvement
Parental involvement has been a part of formal or informal education policy in the
United States since at least the nineteenth century. Kainz and Aikens reminded us that
teachers have been taught as a part of their training to understand children’s background
and psychology, including their family and home life. In 1937 at Stanford University the
prevailing view which was published and taught to teachers was that educating a “whole
child” necessarily required educating the family (2007, p. 303). Others in the 1930’s,
40’s and 50’s argued that parents and teachers must work together to ease transitions to
kindergarten, and that school and home were commingled in children’s minds and

19

therefore parents must play the role of teacher especially in a child’s early years.
Beginning as early as 1914 Parent Teacher Associations became concerned with
children’s home lives including their hygiene, attendance, and character.
These groups and others were especially concerned with the poor and immigrants,
and worked to transmit middle-class American values to these families regarding
education, especially as connected to social and moral values. By the mid-twentieth
century the prevailing reason for advocating parental involvement shifted from values to
economics. Economic success was connected with academic achievement, and programs
such as Head Start were developed to support early childhood education. A gradual shift
also took place from the expectation that children would begin formal education at their
entry to school, to the idea that children should come to kindergarten ready to learn and
prepared for the school setting and some of that preparation must take place at home.
This concept was supported by federal policy and programs such as The National Even
Start Family Literacy Program. Kainz and Aikens expressed the opinion that “such
policy reflects an expectation for families to adopt a prescribed set of behaviors,
regardless of differences in beliefs, values, or resources to assimilate to these demands”
(2007, p. 306).
Though the bulk of this review of policy expressed concern about the underlying
goal of parental involvement policy, they did conclude on an up note. Kainz and Aikens
advocated for policies that would support parents of all cultural and socioeconomic
backgrounds, and which would “disrupt patterns of privilege associated with traditional
involvement practices and to redefine parent involvement” (p. 308) to help schools and

20

families better meet the educational needs of all students. This brief overview of parental
involvement concepts and policies highlighted the question of the value of parental
involvement. Considering parental involvement constructs in terms of specific academic
outcomes such as standardized test scores and report cards may provide evidence for
continuing, or revising such expectations and policies.
Parental Involvement Models
In the 1980’s and 1990’s a new approach to parents began to develop that
culminated in the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 (Epstein &
Hollifield, 1996). Since then, researchers and educators alike have struggled to
implement parental involvement plans that comply with Title I requirements and are
effective in improving student achievement. There are several models of parental
involvement that have attempted to affect the relationship between parent actions and
student academic achievement. In studying these models, if one is found to be more
predictive of student academic success as measured by standardized test scores than
others, or if specific components of these models are most predictive, this would be a
place to start in designing educational policy about parental involvement that actually
impacts academic results. At the same time, if there is no relationship between parental
involvement and standardized test scores or grades, then it might be necessary to reassess
the current huge emphasis placed on one or both concepts by Title I and No Child Left
Behind.
It is possible, and in fact most studies regarding PI have found, that specific
components of PI are more or less significant for different populations of students, and

21

vary by measure of success used to analyze them. (Jeynes, 2003). A meta-analysis of
parental involvement studies related to academic achievement conducted in 1999
revealed a moderate effect size and suggests that there are, indeed, some aspects of
parental involvement that are more closely related to student academic outcomes than
others (Fan & Chen, 1999). For example, while parent supervision is not significantly,
and sometimes negatively correlated with student achievement, parental expectations for
student success are positively and significantly correlated with some measures of student
academic success (1999, p. 15). It is useful, then, to look not only at overall models but
at the variables that make them up. A model that has a majority of the most significant
components might be best used for a specific group of students, while another might be
better if a different population is the target, or if a different achievement outcome is
desired. Each model discussed below has a separate, but overlapping list of components.
Epstein’s Model of Parental Involvement. One parental involvement model was
proposed by Joyce Epstein in 1995 and continues to be used as a tool for developing at
parental involvement programs in schools. She categorized parent involvement into six
types. They include:
Type 1. Parenting: Helping all families establish supportive
environments for children.
Type 2. Communicating: Establishing two-way exchanges
about school programs and children’s progress.
Type 3. Volunteering: Recruiting and organizing parent help
at school, home, or other locations.
Type 4. Learning at home: Providing information and ideas
to families about how to help students with homework and other
curriculum-related materials.
Type 5. Decision making: Having parents from all backgrounds
serve as representatives and leaders on school committees.

22

Type 6. Collaborating with the community: Identifying and
integrating resources and services from the community to
strengthen school programs.
(Sheldon & Epstein 2005)
Epstein argued for a theory of overlapping influences in which schools that
frequently interact with parents and families are more successful because students get
consistent messages from family, community and schools about the importance of
education and other education-related priorities (Epstein, 1995, p. 701). She then used
the types of parental involvement and a concept of partnerships to offer a five-step
method for improving parental involvement and school-family partnerships.
Several variables can be extracted from each of Epstein’s types and analyzed on
their own. These items might, in themselves, be useful predictors of student academic
success, even if the model as a whole is not found to correlate significantly with student
outcomes. The study conducted by Sheldon and Epstein looked at these variables from
the point of view of the school. However, many of them could also be seen as actions or
behaviors of the parents.
For type one, “Parenting”, there were three variables. They included (a)
participation in workshops developed for parents regarding academic skills and
expectations, (b) buying books or materials for student, and (c) supporting homework by
providing quiet time or space. For “Communication”, the type two variables included:
(a) participation in parent/teacher conferences, (b) attending school events, (c) attending
school open houses and back-to-school nights, and (d) initiating contact with the teacher
via phone or written note. “Volunteering”, Epstein’s type three, could be divided into (a)

23

volunteering at school in classroom, (b) volunteering at school events and field trips, and
(c) volunteering time to do work for school at home.
Type four variables taken from “Learning at Home” were comprised of (a)
assistance with homework, (b) taking student to museums, the library, or a performance
(c) using materials provide by the school to extend learning at home and (d) practicing
academic skills not part of the homework. “Decision making” is type five. It included
one variable: being a member of a school site committee such as the School Site Council,
Parent Teacher Association, or English Learner Advisory Committee. Finally, the type
six variable relating to “Collaborating with the Community” was described as accessing
community services to support student academics.
Many of these variables share characteristics with the two other models of
parental involvement discussed in this review. For an overview of the variables from all
three models see Table 1 below.
Epstein’s model has been used in a number of studies to evaluate relationships
between parental involvement and student academic outcomes. One such study,
conducted by Sheldon and Epstein, specifically looked at math standardized test scores in
elementary and middle schools. They asked about the level of math achievement in
schools that deliberately work to include family and community members in math
education. They also asked what the perceptions of stakeholders were regarding family
partnerships with schools and student math achievement, and whether longitudinal
changes in math achievement existed relative to family math involvement practices
(2005). They studied several schools throughout the Unites States that are members of

24

the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University. This
Partnership reflected, though is not identical to, Epstein’s 1995 model. The students at
these schools varied in age, socioeconomic status, type of community (urban etc.),
gender, and English language proficiency.
In order to assess the effectiveness of the program Sheldon and Epstein studied
implementation of specific components of the Partnership model, student grades, and
math achievement scores. They did not specify what types of achievement tests were
used, ie. state, district, or site based assessments, but since several states were
represented, and the data was collected in 1997 and 1998, before states had common
concepts of testing resulting from No Child Left Behind, it is likely that there were a
variety of assessments used. Sheldon and Epstein (2005) considered these scores in
terms of levels of proficiency. They measured the implementation of the model by
surveying teachers about the components of the Partnership model that were used and
their perceptions of their quality of use and effectiveness. They then analyzed student
achievement data in relation to this information. They found that student proficiency in
math was strongly correlated to specific activities if those activities were reported to be
used well, rather than simply reported to be used at all. The two most strongly correlated
activities were home-learning math homework that required parent-child interaction and
the use of mathematics materials at home which are both Type 4 involvement
components according to Epstein’s model (2005, p. 202). They concluded that at least
this component of the Partnership model, learning at home, is a valuable tool for
increasing math achievement and should be used effectively and consistently.

25

In a comprehensive study intended to distinguish the differences between parent
involvement in different racial and socioeconomic groups, Desimone (1999) used
Epstein’s framework to study student outcomes in terms of grades and standardized tests.
She found several relationships between parent involvement behaviors and academic
outcomes, and that they varied with race and socio-economic status. The most significant
result across the board was the negative correlation between parent help or involvement
with homework and negative student achievement. Directionality in this case, as in many
of her outcomes, is not determined. She suggests that either parents are checking
homework of students who are performing poorly, or that helping adolescents with
homework “may be considered developmentally inappropriate” (p. 24).
Ingram, Wolfe, and Lieberman also used Epstein’s framework to analyze the
parental involvement at three elementary schools with minority, low-income populations
but high test scores (2007). They considered only schools that had scored in the top third
of the state on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test. They did not disaggregate the
student test scores and selected schools as a whole by their schoolwide ranking. They
therefore did not connect specific student’s outcomes to their parent’s reports of
involvement. They used Likert and open-ended questions to assess the parents’
perceptions of their involvement and sorted the questions into the six types described by
Epstein. They found that “Parenting” and “Learning at Home”, types 1 and 4
respectively of parental involvement from the Epstein model were found to be
significant, the other four were neither present nor correlated with student achievement.

26

This finding indicates that an analysis of smaller components of the model might be
valuable in revealing which specific areas of involvement are most significant.
Epstein’s parental involvement model arose from a renewed focus on helping
schools to bring parents in as partners in their children’s education (Epstein and
Hollifield, 1996). Her six types of parental involvement divided parent behaviors in such
a way that both the model, and the variables making up each type can be studied to
determine whether they have a relationship to student achievement. In fact, at least two
of them have already been shown to impact student academic outcomes (Ingram et al,
2004).
Grolnick and Slowiaczek’s Model of Parental Involvement. Another concept of
parental involvement was presented by Grolnick and Slowiaczek. They offered a
definition of parental involvement that is somewhat different from Epstein’s because
rather than focusing on specific activities that characterize involvement, they considered
parent resources and how students actually experienced them. For them, then, parental
involvement “is defined as the dedication of resources by the parent to the child within a
given domain” (1994 p. 238). They went on to point out that this definition can be used
for any type of parent involvement, not exclusively related to school or educational
purposes. Grolnick and Slowiaczek then further described parental involvement in terms
of school into three categories. They included “Behavior”, “Personal”, and
“Cognitive/Intellectual” components. Behavior included such actions as going to the
school, and participating in parent meetings. They further argued that this impacted
students because they saw their parents valuing school, parents learned things that can

27

help them assist at home, and teachers paid more attention to the student. The Personal
component was related to student perceptions of parent affect. Grolnick and Slowiaczek
argued that this was related to parents showing that they cared about school, and that
interactions between parents and students regarding school were generally positive. The
final component, Cognitive/Intellectual involvement, included parents exposing students
to activities such as trips to museums, and materials such as books and current events.
These exposures may be outside the school curriculum and unrelated school except in
that they were intended to extend student understanding of or exposure to concepts
selected by the parent. In some cases, they are actually modeling rather than providing
experiences for the child, such as the parent taking a course.
Like Epstein’s framework, Grolnick and Slowiaczek’s model for parental
involvement could be divided into several specific variables. The three types described
each included items that were appropriate for analysis. Some overlapped with those
related to Epstein’s work, and some were separate. This study looked at parental
involvement from multiple perspectives including those of students, teachers, and
parents. However, the variables were stated from the parents’ points of view.
Behavior, the first type, included: (a) participating in open houses, (b) going to the
school for events, (c) attending parent teacher conferences and (d) initiating contact with
teachers. The second type, described as Personal, is more difficult to distinguish.
However, variables associated with it include (a) positive responses to academic
endeavors, and (b) being aware of student progress in school. The Cognitive/Intellectual
type of parental involvement included several variables. They were: (a) reading a book,

28

(b) talking about current events, (c) taking courses/classes, (d) taking student to library,
museum or performances, (e) buying books for the student, and (f) looking up words in
the dictionary.
With the fewest categories or types of the three models, the Grolnick model
condenses several variables into each category. However, the Cognitive/Intellectual type
brings up new variables that the other models did not address, such as parents taking
courses or talking about current events.
Grolnick and Slowiaczek’s primary focus was motivational factors arising from
parental involvement, though it did also consider a more direct relationship between
parental involvement and student achievement. They examined primarily Caucasian
middle school students and also considered demographics such as parent educational
level, gender of the parent considered, and parent work patterns. They assessed parental
involvement from student and teacher reports, and student achievement by grades and
teacher reports of competence (1994). They found moderate and even strong correlations
between motivational factors including perceived competence and self-regulation and
parent behavior, personal factors, and cognitive/intellectual measures of parental
involvement for both mothers and fathers. However, they found weak correlations
between school performance as measured by teacher competence ratings and grades and
parent behavior but not personal or cognitive/intellectual factors.
In contrast to Epstein’s six types, Grolnick and Slowiaczek’s model included
three concepts of parental involvement to be studied. However, many of the variables
that can be isolated are similar. Clearly, parental involvement is, if not clearly defined, at

29

least limited to a range of behaviors that may be measured in terms of student
achievement. Some of these behaviors do, indeed, impact some students’ achievement
(Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994).
Hoge, Smit, and Crist’s Model of Parental Involvement. The last model of
parental involvement to be considered in this study occurred under the umbrella of
“family process factors” according to Hoge et al (1997, p. 28). Under this umbrella were
four types. They were “Parental Expectations” such as the expectations parents have for
their child’s academic success, “Parental Interest in School”, which includes home
activities related to school, “Parental Involvement in School”, including opportunities for
parents to actually interact with the school and teachers or staff, and finally “Family and
Emotional Support” which is not directly related to school and academic endeavors but
which he says does connect with school success for students. In this 1997 study students
were given surveys to measure these family process factors. This means that the
measures of PI came from student perceptions of parent interest, expectations etc. rather
than from parental reports or other evidence. This provides one important viewpoint, and
in fact student perceptions can be as important as the parent actions in predicting student
success.
The four types of factors Hoge et al examined were further broken down into
specific behaviors or actions taken by parents. “Parental Expectations” included student
perceptions of what their parents thought about their academic ability and their
expectations regarding general ability, class rank, and grades in particular subjects.
“Parental Interest” was measured by student perceptions of parental interest, but is

30

defined as parental interest in classes, help with homework, and providing study
materials. To assess “Parental Involvement” students were asked about the frequency
with which their parents attended school events, such as parent meetings, parent-teacher
conferences and to volunteer. Finally, students were asked questions about parent-child
communications as a measure of “Family and Emotional Support.”
Like those of Grolnick and Epstein, Hoge’s model was comprised of categories
that can be further broken into specific variables. The study done by Hoge et. al.
collected survey data from students, but these variables, like those in the other models,
could also be considered from the parent point of view.
The first category included one variable, parental expectation of academic
success. Parental Interest, the second category, had three variables. They were (a)
buying books or other materials for the student, (b) helping with homework, and (c)
supporting homework time. The third category was Parental Involvement, a more narrow
construct than that being studied in this research. It included (a) contacting teachers, (b)
participating in school events, (c) attending conferences, (d) attending open houses, and
(e) volunteering at school. Family and Emotional Support was the final category, one
variable related to school: showing an interest in academic efforts.
The longitudinal study conducted by Hoge et al (1997) examined student grades
and results on the “Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills” in language arts and math. The
student surveys addressed the four categories of family process factors described above.
They found that family process factors do impact student achievement, especially in
math. They also found that this impact is greater over time, and that parental

31

expectations were the most strongly correlated with academic outcomes. One concern
they expressed about the results is that it seemed that parental expectations were more
strongly correlated with test scores than with grades. They wondered whether this
reflected the real situation or if it was an artifact of their process for data collection.
Similar challenges will need to be avoided in this study.
Some items that were a part of “Parental Involvement” in the other two models
were pulled out into other categories in this model. This more specific definition of
parental involvement is not common to other studies. Only one of these variables did not
overlap with at least one from one of the other two models, indicating that this is the most
broad-based of the three models.
Commonalities of Models. All of these models have some variables or specific
parent behaviors in common. At the same time, they are each grounded in somewhat
different theories about how best to categorize and explain the effects of their
components. Table 1 below shows the variables from each model and the types of
categories they fall under. As can be seen, of twenty-eight items only seven were held in
common by all three models. Another seven were common to two of the models, and
fourteen were only representative of one model.
This shows the level of overlap, but also the significant differences between these
models. These differences are indicative of the current state of research in parental
involvement at this time. A wide variety of theories and research designs have been
developed to address this issue.

32

The three models selected for this study, those of Epstein, 1995, Grolnick &
Slowiaczek, 1994, Hoge et al., 1997, have characteristics that make them appropriate and
practical for such a study. The primary common ground they share is that they are
concerned with parental involvement in connection with student academics, rather than
behavior or other outcomes. They all include clear descriptions of specific parent
behaviors that can be defined and are measurable. They also categorize their behaviors
into theoretical groups that make the models and their sub-components appropriate for
analysis as well as each specific parent behavior. Additionally, these models do have
some overlap, which allows for an analysis of specific behaviors in the context of as
many as three different theoretical frameworks. While other models of parental
involvement exist, they do not have these characteristics, including measurable,
categorized, and theoretically grounded items that may be developed into a survey or
other research instrument.
Table 1
Components of Parental Involvement Models
Question Criteria Epstein 1995 Grolnick &
Slowiaczek
1994
Hoge et al
1997
Question 1
Initiation of contact
Initiates communication
with teacher via phone or
note
Communicating
(2)
Behavior
(1)
Parent
Involvement
(3)
Question 2
Attendance at school
events

Participates in School
events
Communicating
(2)
Behavior
(1)
Parent
Involvement
(3)
Question 3
Attendance at math/read
nights

Participates in School
events
Communicating
(2)
Behavior (1) Parent
Involvement (3)
Question 4
Attendance at parent
workshops
Participates in workshops
regarding student skills
and expectations

Parenting (1) X X

33

Table 1 (continued)
Question 5
Attendance at governing
committee meetings

Member of school-site
committee such as
SSC/ELAC/PTSA
Decision Making (5) X X
Question 6
Attending a performance

Goes to library, museum,
or performance with child
Learning at Home
(3)
Cognitive/
Intellectual
(3)
X
Question 7
Go to library
Goes to library, museum,
or performance with child

Learning at Home
(3)
Cognitive/
Intellectual
(3)
X
Question 8
Parent teacher conference

Attends parent-teacher
conferences
Communicating (2) Behavior (1) Parent
Involvement (3)
Question 9
Back-to-school
Attends open houses Communicating (2) Behavior (1) Parent
Involvement (3)

Question 10
Open House
Attends open houses Communicating (2) Behavior (1) Parent
Involvement (3)

Question 11
Taking any classes
Takes courses X Cognitive/
Intellectual (3)

X
Question 12
Membership on governing
committee

Member of school-site
committee such as
SSC/ELAC/PTSA
Decision Making (5) X X
Question 13
Read for pleasure
Reads books X Cognitive/
Intellectual (3)

X
Question 14
Talk about current events

Talks about current events X Cognitive/
Intellectual (3)
X
Question 15
Volunteer in child’s
classroom

Volunteers in classroom Volunteering (4) X Parent
Involvement (3)
Question 16
Volunteer to do work at
home for school

Volunteers at home for
school
Volunteering (4) X X
Question 17
Support homework
Homework support
(finding quiet study place
etc

Learning at Home
(3)
X Parent Interest
(2)
Question 18
Talk about academics
Responding to academic
endeavours
X Personal (2) Family and
Emotional
Support (4)

Question 19
Volunteer at school
outside classroom

Volunteers at school
events
Volunteering (4) X Parent
Involvement (3)

34

Table 1 (continued)

Additional Parental Involvement Models. As an example of another viewpoint on
parental involvement, Domina (2005) looked at student academic achievement and
behavioral outcomes in terms of parental involvement factors. He found that, at first
glance, there is a significant, positive correlation between parent involvement activities
such as attending parent-teacher conferences, volunteering, and helping with homework
and student scores on the Peabody Individual Achievement Test. However, while
parental involvement correlates positively with some aspects of student behavior, after
controlling for student and family background characteristics, fewer component of PI are
significant, and at least one, attending parent teacher conferences, becomes negatively
correlated with academic outcomes. Finally, Domina controlled for direction, in this case
Question 20
Help with homework
Homework assistance
(help with work)
Learning at Home
(3)
X Parent
Involvement (3)

Question 21
Practice academic skills
Practicing academic skills
unrelated to homework

Learning at Home
(3)
X X
Question 22
Use school materials
Using materials provided
by the school for extended
home learning

Learning at Home
(3)
X X
Question 23
Buy or check out books
Buys bk for child Parenting (1) Cognitive/
Intellectual (3)

Parent Interest
(2)
Question 24
Look up words in
dictionary

Looks up words in
dictionary
X Cognitive/
Intellectual (3)
X
Question 25
Outside agency
Accessed community
services to support student
academics

Collaborating with
the Community (6)
X X
Question 26
Expectations for grades
Parental expectations of
student success
X X Parent
Expectations (1)

Question 27
Expectations for future
Parental expectations of
student success
X X Parent
Expectations (1)

Question 28
Knowledge of academic
progress
Knows student academic
progress in school
X Personal (2) X

35

identified as the possibility that parents become more or less involved depending upon
their child’s success rather than success following involvement. He found that the results
became even more muddy, with three components being negatively correlated with
student success, including attending parent teacher conferences, and checking, and
helping with homework which he defines separately. Interestingly, he found more
positive and consistent results with behavioral outcomes.
While this concept of parental involvement can be seen to have components in
common as well as differences from the models described earlier, an alternate view of
parental involvement points out that it is more important to consider how parents are
involved rather than how much. Pomerantz, Moorman, and Litwack argued that
“consideration of the how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s
education is critical to maximizing its benefits for children” (2007, p. 374). They also
distinguished between school-based and home-based parental involvement. This concept
of parental involvement broke school-based involvement into several components,
including attending school meetings, talking with teachers, and volunteering at school.
Participation in school governance at a district level such as being on a school board or
attending board meetings was also mentioned, though not researched further. Home-
based involvement components included assistance with homework and other school
related tasks, talking with children about academics, and supporting or responding to
students’ academic work such as performance on a test. Pomerantz et al (2007) also
referred to Grolnick and Slowiaczek’s concept of cognitive-intellectual involvement and
included trips to the library etc. as a separate category related to home-based involvement

36

that supported intellectual growth without necessarily being directly connected to school.
Their review of research suggested a different outcome than that of Grolnick and
Slowiaczek. They found that home-based parental involvement related to school did not
have as much impact as school-based involvement. However, this conclusion is based on
their interpretation of other studies, rather than an empirical study they conducted
themselves.
The variety of models and studies using them indicates the level of inconsistency
of results. While Sheldon and Epstein (2005) found that certain activities related to
Epstein’s “Learning at Home” type of parental involvement correlated with math success,
Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) found a significant correlation between students’ self-
regulation and perceptions of confidence and their “Cognitive/Intellectual” category of
PI. Hoge et al (1997) found that their family process factors were more strongly
correlated with standardized test scores than grades. Other studies examined behavior
and the difference between home- and school-based involvement as the foundation of the
research. Clearly, there are a variety of sometimes conflicting concepts of the value of
parental involvement in students’ academic success, and implications such as which parts
of PI might be adopted by a school or district that is attempting to improve parental
involvement and standardized test scores or grades.
Applying Parent Involvement Models to Student Populations
Latino Students. While all of these models share some parent involvement
behaviors or other characteristics, they do not have in common the populations whose

37

academic achievement they analyzed. In contrast to Grolnick’s study and others, this
analysis will focus on Latino students.
Kainz and Aikens (2007) made a valid point in describing education policy
regarding parental involvement. They cautioned that the “dominant discourse” regarding
effective parental involvement is rooted in specific gender, family structure, and cultural
constructs and therefore diverts attention to the home that should be focused on school
processes and practices. Specifically, they stated that “Conceptualizing early learning as
a function of parent behaviors and home environment gives reason to generate policy and
expectations for parents’ behaviors in the home with little regard for diversity in families’
beliefs about such activities or abilities to respond effectively to such demands” (Kainz &
Aikens, 2007 p. 306.) Applying Epstein, Grolnick, and Hoge’s parental involvement
constructs to Latino families will allow for this claim to be evaluated, at least in terms of
a connection between these constructs and standardized test data and grades.
Desimone (1999) specifically and deliberately examined the interaction between
parent involvement, academic outcomes, and race. While she found that parent
involvement was less strongly predictive of Hispanic/Latino and Black academic
outcomes than that of Asian and White populations, there were some correlations, both
positive and negative. For example, she found that increased parent participation in the
Parent Teacher Organization predicted lower Hispanic/Latino reading scores (p. 20).
Contact with the school about academics as defined by Epstein (1995) was also
negatively correlated with student achievement in all measures, for all races, particularly
for Hispanic students’ math grades (p. 21).

38

Jeynes (2003) found significant positive correlations between parental
involvement and what he described as overall academic achievement, as well as grade
point average and academic achievement tests for Latino students as well as other
populations. Specific components of PI had greater or less impact, but overall he found it
to be relevant to look at PI in terms of ethnicity. Particularly, he found that there was a
difference between the effects of various components on African Americans as compared
to Latinos and Asian Americans who had more results in common. This highlights the
need to look at individual groups to determine which, if any, PI models or components
are most closely correlated with student achievement in order to impact that academic
success.
In an ethnographic study of parents involved in a parent education program,
Chrispeels and Rivero described a factor that impacted the understanding of parental
involvement specifically with Latino families. They studied parents who were
participating in the “Parent Institute for Quality Education” which has the goal of
connecting Latino parents more closely with schools and teachers (Chrispeels & Rivero,
2001). The content of this program included: (a) collaboration between the home and
school, (b) motivation and self-esteem, (c) communication and discipline, (d) academic
standards, (e) how the school system functions, and (f) college information (Chrispeels &
Rivero, 2001, p. 126.) The parents involved in this study had a variety of parenting styles
and levels of understanding of schooling in the United States. According to the
researchers, some parents did change their styles, expectations, and behaviors as a result
of participating in the institute.

39

A qualitative study focusing on a strength rather than deficit hypothesis regarding
Mexican-American families specifically targeted three areas of strength, including two
that overlap with concepts from Grolnick, and Hoge’s models. In this study Delgado-
Gaitan (1992) found that “Physical Environment”, “Emotional and Motivational
Climates”, and “Interpersonal Interactions” were components that provided a framework
for the parent involvement and results she found (p. 501). While physical environment
does not have a comparable component in any of the three models to be considered in this
study, both of the other two overlap with concepts from the three models studied here.
“Emotional and Motivational Climates” includes ideas about parent modeling and
relationships that connect with both Grolnick’s “Cognitive-Intellectual” component and
Hoge’s “Parent Expectations.” The category defined by Delgado-Gaitan as
“Interpersonal Interactions” dovetails with all three models, including Epstein’s
“Learning at Home”, Grolnik’s “Cognitive-Intellectual” and both Hoge’s “Family and
Emotional Support” and Parent Interest” components. These connections between
models indicate it is reasonable to use these three models in examining Latino students
and the relationship between their parents’ behaviors and their academic outcomes.
Trumbull et al (2003) made the point that it is vital to consider the values from
which the parents base their decisions on what is appropriate parental involvement. They
argued that the “dominant European-American culture of the U.S.” is individualistic, and
associated with independence, self-expression, and personal autonomy (p. 48). In
contrast, many other cultures that participate in the U.S. educational system are
collectivist, which indicates group and family interdependence, and the separation of

40

teacher as responsible for academics and moral development and parent as responsible
for family needs and interconnection within the family and group (Trumbull et al, 2003).
While there is no reason to assume that all Latino families to be studied come from
collectivist cultural backgrounds, it is likely that at least some do. If that is the case,
studying students who fall outside the “dominant European-American culture” may point
out differences between PI impact on these students’ academic success in comparison to
those found in other studies. More practically, the results of this study may allow for a
model to be developed that helps direct parental involvement initiatives specifically for
Latino families.
Studies regarding student outcomes, both behavioral and academic, have made an
effort to consider at least some issues of ethnicity, race, and socio-economic status (SES)
(Domina, 2005). However, in at least one case that effort was limited to SES which,
while a valid variable, does not by itself explain differences in outcomes that instead are
related to ethnicity or race.
This study will focus on Latino middle school students. While an argument could
be made that the ethnicity “Latino” should be subdivided in order to get at differences
within the group, that distinction will not be made for this study. In terms of the research
done in this area, Jeynes (2003) and others did not distinguish between various subgroups
in the Latino population. In addition, the results provided by the State of California for
standardized test scores do disaggregate by ethnicity, but not into subcategories for
Latino students.

41

Although subdivisions within the Latino ethnicity will not be made, student
proficiency in English will be considered in this study. This is an area that has been
shown to be important to both parent involvement and academic outcomes. For example,
Ramirez (2003) found that parents were frustrated at the district and school’s
unwillingness to provide translation at school board meetings, or understand the needs of
students who were English Learners. Desimone, who found multiple connections
between ethnicity, PI, and student outcomes, stated that while some results may be
related to student or parent language choice, she did not collect language data, and so
could not confirm this assumption (Desimone, 1999).
Middle School Students. Additionally, this study will target the grade level of the
students. Specifically, the parental involvement behaviors and academic success of sixth,
seventh, and eighth graders will be analyzed. Middle school students show an increased
risk of low academic achievement (CDE, 2007b) and at the same time are at a point in
their development when parental involvement in their schooling and personal lives may
change (Spera, 2005).
In a recent study, Woolley, Kol, and Bowen (2009) examined the success of
Latino middle school students in terms of influences from several groups of people
including parents, teachers, and peers. They studied middle school students particularly
because they were impacted greatly by social interactions at the same time that they are
receiving less support from adults and are in a more challenging and complex academic
setting. Woolley et al proposed that family environment would impact the teacher-student
relationship, which would, in turn, impact their behavior at and satisfaction with school.

42

These student factors would impact their academic outcomes. They found that while all
parent influences were mediated through teacher support, one item, parental monitoring
of education, such as conversations about school and academic activities, was directly
connected to student satisfaction with school. The model they developed suggested that
there are factors in parent involvement that can be significant for middle school students.
Eccles and Midgley (1988) discussed adolescent challenges in school in the
context of declining motivation and behavior due to changes in the social and
characteristics of the middle school setting. One argument for the difficulties that middle
school students experience as demonstrated by dips in performance, is that they face a
change in the school that they attend. While this is not a key element of the current
study, it is important to note that the middle schools students at the schools to be
examined in this study did not make this change. They attended schools that were
continuous from Kindergarten through eighth grade. Eccles et al (1991) found that the
difference between K-8, Junior High and Middle School models was not significant to
their results. However, they point out that schools that are not traditional Junior Highs
with 7
th
through 8
th
or 9
th
graders often follow a Junior High rather than Middle School
philosophy and are not programmatically distinct from Junior Highs.
In elaborating on this Eccles, Lord and Midgley (1991) examined the transitions
and impact that gender had on success in moving from elementary to Middle School or
Junior High. This study focused substantially on school environment and did not address
parent involvement. However, if parent involvement can be found to impact student

43

academic outcomes, it may be that this can mediate the motivation dips and their ability
to transition through the grades.
Other Factors. Another issue that will be addressed is English proficiency level.
As mentioned above, the language proficiency of a student may be relevant to the type of
parental involvement, and also may be a factor impacting student outcomes. In the same
way, gender will be addressed as a demographic concern but not as a research variable.
Domina (2005), Okagaki & Frensch, (1998), Desimone (1999) and others discuss
the concern of directionality, that is, whether parental involvement correlates with student
outcomes or whether student success, or lack thereof, might lead to increased parental
involvement. Unfortunately, the limitations of this study do not allow for the type of
longitudinal research necessary to get at that factor at this time.
Overall Purpose of Study
This study is intended to determine whether parental involvement as defined in
three different models correlates with student achievement in the form of standardized
test scores and report card grades in math and language arts, and if so which components
of parental involvement are most closely connected. Additionally, this study hopes to
distinguish between three specific models of parental involvement and determine whether
one predicts student achievement as measured by grades and standardized tests better
than another. One area where there is a demonstrated gap is between elementary and
middle school students. Additionally, there is a gap between Latino and Caucasian
students, so this study will target middle school Latino students.
This study will address four research questions. They are:

44

Research Question 1: Is the Epstein (1995) model of parental involvement predictive of
English language arts and math academic achievement as measured by standardized test
scores and report card grades?
Hypothesis 1: Parental involvement based on Epstein’s model will predict higher
standardized test scores.
Research Question 2: Is the Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) model of parental
involvement predictive of English language arts and math academic achievement as
measured by standardized test scores and report card grades?
Hypothesis 2: Parental involvement based on Grolnich and Slowiaczek’s model
will predict higher standardized test scores.
Research Question 3: Is the Hoge et al (1997) model of parental involvement predictive
of English language arts and math academic achievement as measured by standardized
test scores and report card grades?
Hypothesis 3: Parental involvement based on Hoge’s model will predict higher
standardized test scores.
Research Question 4: Among the parent involvement behaviors which are the best
predictors for English language arts and math achievement as measured by standardized
test scores and report card grades?
Hypothesis 4: Parent-initiated communication with teachers and homework
support will be significantly correlated with standardized test scores and report
card grades.

45

CHAPTER III
Methodology
The methodology for this study is described in this chapter. This includes the
research design, participants, instrument used, collection of data, and the process for
analysis of the data collected.
This study measured parent responses to a posttest design survey regarding their
parental involvement in several areas (independent variable). This information was
compared with their students’ standardized test scores, specifically, California Standards
Test scores, and report card grades (dependent variables). The survey used was
developed based on information from the three models of parental involvement (Epstein,
1995, Grolnick& Slowiaczek, 1994 and Hoge et al, 1997), in order to incorporate as
many aspects of each model as possible.
Participants
For this study parents were asked to answer the survey but it was students,
through their test scores and report card grades, who were the primary units of analysis.
Parents who had more than one student in the target grade levels were asked to complete
a survey for each child.
Of 184 valid surveys more girls than boys were represented ( girls n=103, 55.9%)
(boys n=81, 44.1%) . While 24.5% (n=45) students were not English Learners and 32%
(n=59) were, the remaining 43.5% (n=80) were students who were formerly English
Learners and had been designated as proficient in English. Student demographic
frequencies are listed below.

46

Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Student Participants
N Percentage
Sex
Male 81 44.0
Female 103 56.0
Grade Level
6th 71 38.6
7th 60 32.6
8th 53 28.8
English Level
English Only 45 24.5
English Learner 59 32.1
Reclassified Fluent 80 43.5

Report card grades and standardized test scores were gathered from the district
student databases and cumulative records with parent consent. Student academic results
may be seen in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3
Frequency Distribution of Standardized Test Scores
English Language Arts Math
Proficiency Level
n % n %
Far Below Basic 10 5.4 12 6.5
Below Basic 28 15.2 38 20.7
Basic 63 34.2 48 26.1
Proficient 61 33.2 59 32.1
Advanced 22 12.0 27 14.7
Total 184 100.0 184 100.0

Table 4
Frequency Distribution of Report Card Grades
English Language Arts Math
Proficiency Level
n % n %
NP-Below Grade Level 30 16.3 15 8.2
2-Nominally Grade Level 57 31.0 67 36.4
3-Proficient 67 36.4 77 41.8
4-Above Grade Level 30 16.3 25 13.6
Total 184 100.0 184 100.0

47

Instruments
In their study of math achievement Sheldon and Epstein sent surveys to the
schools they studied in two consecutive years which collected information on school
characteristics, planned school-family-community practices related to math skills,
effectiveness of the partnership they were studying, and math achievement results (2005,
p. 201). This survey was targeted for schools, rather than parents, and asked about a
specific model of partnership between schools, parents, and the community that was
based on but not in complete accordance with Epstein’s 1995 model of parental
involvement.
An earlier study of PI also examined the implementation of a specific program
based on Epstein’s model. It included the collection of survey data from the schools
regarding the expectations and needs parents, students, and teachers had for school
activities that would increase parental involvement. Aside from this survey this study
followed an action research model to assess needs, provide interventions, and evaluate
the outcomes of the program (Epstein & Hollifield, 1996).
Grolnick and Slowiaczek used a variety of measures in order to assess the
relationships between parental involvement, motivation, and academic performance
(1994). These included a survey of teachers and one of students that asked about parent-
school interactions, two different questionnaires of students’ perceptions of their parents
involvement in their academic and social lives, and two student checklists of parent
behaviors (p. 241).

48

For the study based on Hoge et al’s model of parental involvement questionnaires
were given to students regarding their perceptions of their parents beliefs and behaviors
about parental academic expectations, parental interest, parental involvement, and parent-
child communication (1997, p. 30-31.)
Because the current study was a comparison of several models and each model
used a different type of instrument targeting different participants and types of data, a
survey was developed to collect information regarding the major components of all three
models. The survey sent home to parents was developed based on the contents of the
models to be analyzed. Specifically, it was created for this study using the components
from each model listed in Table 1 above. Questions were written to reflect as closely as
possible the variables as described by Epstein (1995), Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994)
and/or Hoge et al, 1997. The questions regarding Epstein’s model fell into one of six
types of parental involvement. They included Parenting, Communicating, Volunteering,
Learning at Home, Decision Making, and Collaborating with the Community. Questions
related to Grolinck and Slowiaczek’s model included Behavior, Personal, and
Cognitive/Intellectual as categories to be addressed. The “family process factors”
described by Hoge et al and addressed by these survey questions included Parental
Expectations, Parental Interest in School, Parental Involvement in School, and Family
and Emotional Support. Each survey question was concerned with no more than one
category per model, but may have addressed more than one model. For example, the
survey question “How many school events did you attend last year?” targeted Epstein’s
Communication type, Grolnick and Slowiaczek’s Behavior category, and Hoge et al’s

49

Parent Involvement family process factor. While seven questions connected to all three
models and seven address two of the models, fourteen questions only addressed one of
the models.
The language used to create the questions was based on the terminology used by
the PI models, but modified to address terms that are used within the school sites. The
principals of the schools were consulted regarding this terminology. For example,
Epstein (1995) referred to being a member of a school-site committee as a component of
decision making. In the schools studied, the school site committees that included parents
were referred to as SSC (School Site Council), ELAC (English Learner Advisory
Committee), GATE (Gifted and Talented Education Committee), and PTSA (Parent-
Teacher-Student Association). The terms that were familiar to parents were used to write
the questions. School staff translated the survey into Spanish in order to ensure that the
translations of school-specific terms were consistent and familiar to parents.
This survey included twenty-eight questions regarding parent involvement
activities and habits, including twenty-three Likert statements and five dichotomous yes
or no statements. Where possible a Likert statement rather than a dichotomous statement
was used (see Appendix C for full text of survey).
Procedure
The parent surveys and parental consent letters were sent home to the parents of
incoming sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students at three Kindergarten through eighth
grade schools in a small urban district in Los Angeles county. These three schools were
selected because they had at least 250 students in the appropriate age range, ensuring an

50

adequate return of surveys. These schools also had a large population of Latino students
so that a large proportion of the surveys returned could be used. School A had a student
enrollment of 85.9% Latino, school B’s Latino enrollment was 84.6%, and school C’s
Latino population made up 86.2% of the overall population. All three schools were also
designated as Title I schoolwide, indicating at least 40% of students fall below poverty
levels (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). In fact, at these schools the percentage of
students receiving free or reduced lunch, an indicator of socio-economic status, were 91%
at school A, 88% at school B and 91% at school C. Because a high percentage of
students at each school qualified for free or reduced lunch based on SES, data are not
included on SES for this study.
The survey and letter of consent were written in English and translated into
Spanish and sent home in both languages to all parents. Based on the method used by
Grolnick et al (1997) the survey and letter were translated into Spanish by a school staff
member and then translated back into English by another staff member in order to ensure
that the school-specific terminology and overall translation were accurate. The surveys
and parental consent letters were sent home, with the permission of the principals of the
schools, to all parents of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students. The parent surveys
were clearly marked as voluntary and not directly connected with the school district, but
rather an independent researcher. Parents were asked to respond based on their actual
actions from the previous school year, not based on plans or expectations for the
upcoming year. Students were encouraged to return their surveys the next day or as soon
as possible. Students who returned a completed survey form with a consent form, or a

51

consent form denying permission to participate, received a “free dress day” pass which
allowed them to wear clothes other than the uniform required by the school district on a
day designated by the school principal. (For parent consent form see appendix E.)
All parents of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students at three schools in a small,
urban district in southern California were given a survey, and because some parents chose
not to return the survey this sample was self-selected. Approximately 260 surveys were
sent home to 6
th
graders’ parents, 265 sent to 7
th
grade parents, and 250 surveys were sent
to parents of 8
th
graders. A total of 279 responses were received. Two were later
removed because the parent had skipped a page of the survey. Fifty-seven responses
were returned with parents electing not to participate. Twenty-two surveys representing
non-Latino students were removed before processing in order to focus specifically on the
Latino students at these schools. Additionally, fourteen were removed because the
student started this school year and so parent involvement behaviors reported were not
representative of actions taken within these three schools, and report cards for theses
students were not always available. The return rate of surveys overall was 36% though
the valid rate dropped to 23.7%.
Surveys and parent consent letters were then coded by student identification
number and student names were removed. A list of student identification numbers was
compiled and data regarding student report card grades and standardized test scores and
district benchmark assessment scores in both language arts and math, ethnicity, English
language level, and gender was collected from the school databases “Genesis” and
“OARS” for each student identification number. Data regarding results for the 2007-

52

2008 school year from 71 sixth, 60 seventh, and 53 eighth grade students were collected.
Survey responses were added, including 28 representing the parent involvement models
to be studied, in addition to three more questions regarding parent satisfaction, parent
preference for language of communication with the school, and ethnicity.
Data from standardized tests were recorded as both point score and level. The
California Standards Tests are on a scale from 150-600 with five continuous levels
including (a) Far Below Basic, (b) Below Basic, (c) Basic, (d) Proficient) and (e)
Advanced. The scores for each level except “Basic” vary with each test each year.
Report card grades include a scale including “NP” meaning not proficient, “ 2”,
meets minimum proficiency, “3” exceeds proficiency and “4” greatly exceeds
proficiency. Grades for the second semester of the 2007-2008 school year for English
language arts and math were recorded. This scale was established by the school district
and is used for all sixth, seventh, and eight graders at the schools studied.
All demographic information regarding ethnicity, English language level, and
socio-economic status was taken from the student database maintained by the school
rather than from self-reports from the survey. The information on the database for some
items also self-reported, but this source was used in order to ensure all demographic
information was reported in the same format.
Analysis of Data

The dependent variable in this study was student academic achievement as
measured by language arts and math standardized test scores and report card grades. The
independent variables included twenty-eight parent behaviors, as well as combinations of

53

those behaviors that combine into three separate parent involvement models and their
subcomponents. The survey results and student achievement data and demographic data
were encoded and analyzed using SPSS. This data was analyzed using a multiple
regression model. The models and components of models were analyzed using
simultaneous multiple regression in order to determine the impact that each separate
component had on student outcomes. Stepwise multiple regression was used to analyze
each item from the survey. Since many items were parts of more than one model, each
variable was analyzed separately in order to assess the relationship of these variables to
RQ4. After the responses were analyzed as a whole, the data were evaluated based on
the English language level of the student.

54

CHAPTER IV
Results
This chapter provides the descriptive data of the variables in this study, including
means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations. Results from simultaneous multiple
regression analyses and stepwise multiple regression analyses are presented for the four
major research questions below for Latino middle school students,
1. Does the Epstein model of parental involvement predict English language arts and
math academic achievement (standardized scores and report card grades)?
2. Does the Grolnick and Slowiaczek model of parental involvement predict English
language arts and math academic achievement (standardized scores and report
card grades)?
3. Does the Hoge et al model of parental involvement predict English language arts
and math academic achievement (standardized scores and report card grades)?
4. Among the parental involvement behaviors, which best predictor English
language arts and math academic achievement (standardized scores and report
card grades)?
Additional analyses of the research questions for non-ELL (non-English language
learners), ELL, and reclassified ELL students are presented at the end of this chapter to
provide further insights.
The data collected from the surveys and achievement results were analyzed
through a multiple regression analysis. Responses to the survey were analyzed using
simultaneous multiple regression analysis in order to separate the models and their

55

distinct components to address research questions one through three. Additionally each
variable was analyzed using stepwise regression analysis in order to address research
question four.
Intercorrelations
The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the measured variables
are presented in Table 5.

56

Table 5 (Continued)
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables M SD 15 16 17 18
1. Sex -.10 .02 -.07 .03
2. CST-Eng 342.93 46.98 -.04 -.12 -.06 .08
3. CST-Math 348.20 72.64 .03 -.08 -.12 .12
4. GR-Eng 2.53 .95 -.03 -.07 -.12 .13
5. GR-Math 2.61 .82 .02 .00 -.04 .11
Epstein 6. E1 .77 .21 .89*** .29*** -.01 .21**
7. E2 .74 .30 .41*** .48*** -.07 .30***
8. E3 .86 .18 .53*** .36*** .08 .20**
9. E4 .28 .34 .69*** .06 -.09 .24**
10. E5 .26 .31 .42*** .16* a. .18*
11. E6 .38 .49 .37*** .16* a. .14
G & S 12. G1 .77 .21 .89*** .29*** -.01 .21**
13. G2 .80 .15 .40*** .50*** .12 .15*
14. G3 .99 .05 -.04 -.03 .71*** -.04
Hoge 15. H1 .69 .20 -- .26*** -.02 .28***
16. H2 .96 .14 -- -.02 .17*
17. H3 .99 .07 -- a.
18. H4 .89 .22 --
a. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variable is constant

Analyses of Research Questions
Research Question 1: Does the Epstein model of parental involvement predict English
language arts and math academic achievement (standardized scores and report card
grades)?
Four simultaneous multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate if
the six factors in the Epstein model of parental involvement (Communicating, Parenting,
Learning at Home, Volunteering, Decision Making, and Collaborating with the
Community) are predictive of language arts and math academic achievement as measured
by CST’s (standardized scores) and report card grades.
Results indicated that, based on the Epstein model, Parenting and Collaborating
with the Community were significant predictors for Latino middle students’ ELA

58
standardized scores, ! = -.24, p = .007; ! = -.17, p = .040, respectively. These two factors
explained approximately a significant 9% of the variances in English CST scores, F (6,
165) = 2.81, p = .012. At the same time, Collaborating with the Community was the only
significant predictor for students’ math report card grade, ! = -.24, p = .005, explaining
approximately 5% of the variances in math report card grade, F (6, 165) = 1.64, p = .139.
However, it should be noted that while the factor itself was a significant predictor, the 5%
variances explained were not significant. There were no significant predictors for the
students math standardized scores or English report card grades.
These results suggest that the Latino middle school students reported lower
English language arts CST’s when their parents reported higher level of involvement in
Parenting (e.g., attendance at parent workshops, buying or checking out books for
children) and Collaborating with the Community (e.g., accessing community services to
support student’ academic performances), and they reported lower grades on their math
report card when their parents reported higher level of involvement in Collaborating with
the Community. The statistics are summarized in Table 6.

59
Table 6
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Epstein’s Model
Variables R
2
F B SE ! p
English Standardized Scores (CST’s) .093 2.81 .012
Communicating 26.36 19.16 .12 .171
Parenting** -37.34 13.71 -.24 .007
Learning at Home -28.86 22.30 -.11 .197
Volunteering 10.63 11.45 .08 .354
Decision Making 12.41 13.27 .08 .351
Collaborating with the Community* -16.11 7.80 -.17 .040

Math Standardized Scores (CST’s) .026 .73 .624
Communicating 28.23 30.93 .08 .360
Parenting -27.14 22.13 -.11 .220
Learning at Home 1.29 36.01 .00 .970
Volunteering .54 18.48 .00 .980
Decision Making 21.82 21.42 .10 .310
Collaborating with the Community -18.34 12.59 -.13 .150
English Report Card Grades .036 1.02 .416
Communicating .18 .40 .04 .656
Parenting -.38 .29 -.12 .194
Learning at Home -.29 .47 .06 .541
Volunteering .14 .24 .05 .560
Decision Making .26 .28 .09 .357
Collaborating with the Community -.28 .16 -.15 .086
Math Report Card Grades .056 1.64 .139
Communicating .15 .35 .04 .674
Parenting -.28 .25 -.10 .257
Learning at Home .39 .40 .09 .341
Volunteering .17 .21 .07 .418
Decision Making .22 .24 .09 .356
Collaborating with the Community** -.41 .14 -.24 .005
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Research Question 2: Does the Grolnick and Slowiaczek model of parental involvement
predict English language arts and math academic achievement (standardized scores and
report card grades)?
In the same manner as was used for RQ1, the three components that comprise the
Grolnick model (Behavior, Cognitive/Intellectual, and Personal) were analyzed using
four simultaneous multiple regressions to determine whether any of them are predictive
or math or English language arts report card grades or standardized tests.

60
No components of the Grolnick model were found to be significant for math or
ELA standardized test scores, or ELA grades. Math report card grades were found to be
predicted by one component of the Grolnick model (Cognitive/Intellectual) which is
characterized by such behaviors as attending a performance, going to the library, and
talking about current events. This component was significant, ! = .19, p = .017 F (3,
172) = 2.08 p = .104 but only explained 3% of the variance, and the explanation of
variance was not significant. According to these results, Latino middle school students’
higher math report card grades correlate with their parents’ higher levels of
Cognitive/Intellectual behaviors as defined by Grolnick. See Table 7 for a summary of
the statistics.
Table 7
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Grolnick and Slowiaczek’s Model
Variables R
2
F B SE ! p
English Standardized Scores .004 .24 .872
Behavior -11.80 18.24 -.05 .519
Cognitive/Intellectual -3.63 26.54 -.01 .891
Parental 21.86 67.79 .03 .748

Math Standardized Scores .008 .455 .714
Behavior -2.96 28.63 -.01 .918
Cognitive/Intellectual 44.97 41.66 .09 .282
Parental -45.96 106.41 -.03 .666

English Report Card Grades .002 .09 .967
Behavior -.11 .36 -.02 .769
Cognitive/Intellectual -.14 .54 -.02 .793
Parental .14 1.37 .01 .921

Math Report Card Grades .035 2.08 .104
Behavior -.30 .31 -.08 .339
Cognitive/Intellectual* 1.10 .46 .20 .017
Parental -1.19 1.17 -.08 .308
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

61
Research Question 3: Does the Hoge et al model of parental involvement predict English
and math academic achievement (standardized scores and report card grades)?
Four simultaneous multiple regression analyses were again used to investigate the
relationship between three of the Hoge components of parental involvement, including
Parent Involvement, Parent Interest, and Parent Expectations, and student academic
outcomes as measured by report card grades and CST’s in English language arts and
math. Component three, Family and Emotional Support, was found to be a constant and
therefore was removed from the analysis.
While no components of Hoge’s model were found to be significant in
relationship to either measure of math, the English language arts measures were found to
be correlated with two different components of Hoge’s model. Hoge’s factor called
Parent Interest, which includes such parent involvement behaviors as supporting
homework and buying or checking out a book for a child, was significantly correlated to
standardized test scores for English language arts, ! = -.174, p = .026, F (3, 175) = 2.426
p = .067, though as with other results it explained a small amount of variance (4%).
Parental Expectations for Success, described as expectations for grades and for
children’s future schooling, was significant with relation to English language arts report
card grades, ! = .16, p = .042, F (3, 175) = 1.824, p = .144 again explaining only 3% of
variance, and again the variance is not significant. Additional statistics may be seen
below. (Table 8).

62
Table 8
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Hoge et al.’s Model
Variables R
2
F B SE ! p
English Standardized Scores .040 2.43 .067
Parent Involvement -6.62 18.82 -.03 .725
Parent Interest* -60.57 26.89 -.17 .026
Parent Expectations 26.95 16.38 .13 .102

Math Standardized Scores .031 1.84 .141
Parent Involvement 11.43 29.51 .03 .699
Parent Interest -69.86 42.15 -.13 .099
Parent Expectations 45.72 25.68 .14 .077

English Report Card Grades .030 1.82 .144
Parent Involvement -.27 .39 -.06 .488
Parent Interest .69 .55 -.10 .211
Parent Expectations* .69 .34 .16 .042

Math Report Card Grades .013 .77 .513
Parent Involvement -.02 .34 -.01 .955
Parent Interest -.21 .48 -.03 .667
Parent Expectations .44 .30 .12 .142
Note. Family and Emotional Support factor was deleted from the analysis because it has a constant value
for all participants
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

This indicates that Latino middle school students demonstrate higher English
language arts standardized test scores in relation to their parents’ behaviors such as
supporting homework, and higher ELA grades in relation to their parents’ expectations
for those grades as well as for future academic progress.
Research Question 4: Among the parental involvement behaviors, which best predict
English language arts and math academic achievement on standardized tests and report
cards?
Four stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate, among
all the parental involvement behaviors examined in this study, which were the best
predictors of ELA and math academic achievement, measured by standardized scores and

63
report card grades. For all regressions questions 18 and 28 were found to be constants
and were deleted from the analysis.
Standardized Scores. Results of the stepwise multiple regression analyses with
standardized scores as the criterion variables indicated that, for English standardized
scores, 4 significant predictors emerged, with Behavior 20 (help with homework) being
the best predictor, followed by Behavior 7 (going to library), Behavior 4 (attendance at
parent workshops), and finally Behavior 2 (attendance at school events), ! = -.26, p =
.002; ! = .18, p = .028; ! = -.18, p = .025, and ! = .17, p = .046, respectively. Together,
these four behaviors explained approximately 15.3% of the variances in English
standardized scores, F (4, 141) = 6.37, p < .001, with help with homework explaining
6.6% of the variances, F change (1, 144) = 10.18, p = .002, going to library explaining an
additional 3.1% of the variances, F change (1, 143) = 4.91, p = .028, attendance at parent
workshops explaining an additional 3.2 % of the variances above and beyond the effects
of help with homework and going to library, F change (1, 142) = 5.17, p = .025, and
finally, attendance at school events explaining an additional 2.4% of the variances after
the effects of the three behaviors described above, F change (1, 141) = 4.04, p = .046
were considered. No significant predictors emerged for math CST’s.
These results indicated that, parents’ involvement in terms of helping with
homework was the best predictor among all the parental involvement behaviors examined
in this study. Specifically parental involvement in helping with homework was the most
significant predictor of Latino middle school students’ lower English standardized scores.
In addition to the effects of parents helping with homework, going to library was the next

64
best in predicting students’ higher English standardized sores. Beyond the effects of
these two behaviors, parents’ attendance at parent workshop was the next best predictor
of students’ lower English standardized scores. Finally, after taking into account of the
effects of all three behaviors described above, parents’ attendance at school events was
the next significant predictor of students’ higher English standardized scores. Statistics
are summarized in Table 9, with the last entered variable in each step.
Table 9
Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for English Standardized Scores
Variables R
2
R
2
Change
F
Change
B SE ! p
Step 1 .066 .066 10.18 .002
Help with Homework -51.04 16.00 -.26 .002

Step 2 .097 .031 4.91 .028
Go to Library 96.53 43.57 .18 .028

Step 3 .129 .032 5.17 .025

Attendance at Parent
Workshop

-16.61 7.31 -.18 .025
Step 4 .153 .024 4.04 .046

Attendance at School
Events

21.45 10.67 .17 .046
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Report Card Grades. While several parent behaviors were found to be predictive
of ELA test scores, and none for math standardized test scores, a different pattern
emerged for report card grades. For English language arts, only one parent behavior,
accessing community agencies, (Behavior 25) was found to be significant, ! = -.166, p =
.045 which explained about 2.8% of variance. This parent behavior was also found to be
significant in relation to math grades, ! = -.211, p = .011, with Behavior 6, attending a
performance, being the next significant predictor, ! = .193, p = .021. These two
behaviors combined to explain 7.9% of variances in math report card grades F (2, 143) =
6.156, p = .003. Accessing community agencies explained 4.4% of variance, F change

65
(1, 144) = 6.691, p = .011. Attending a performance explained an additional 3.5% of
variances, F change (1, 143) = 5.416, p = .021. See Table 10 for a summary of statistics.
Table 10
Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis for Report Card Grades
Variables R
2
R
2
Change
F
Change
B SE ! p
English

Step 1 .028 4.10 .045
Q25 Outside Agency -.31 .15 -.17 .045

Math

Step 1 .044 6.69 .011
Q25 Outside Agency -.356 .137 -.21 .011

Step 2 .079 .035 5.42 .021

Q6 Attending a
Performance

.32 .14 .19 .021
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
This indicates that both Latino Middle School students’ lower ELA and math
grades are predicted by parents’ higher levels of accessing community agencies.
Conversely, the behavior of parents attending a performance with their child is correlated
with higher math grades.
Additional Analysis
Due to the fact that some variables were dichotomous the above analysis was run
as if all items were dichotomous in order to standardize the responses to continuous and
dichotomous questions. In order to determine whether this change in the continuous
questions affected the results the data for RQ4 was analyzed again using stepwise
regression but without the dichotomous questions. No new behaviors or significant
changes in results for both math test scores and report card grades were found. For
language arts, regarding test scores, the parent behavior described as attendance at school
events was no longer found to be significant. For ELA report card grades accessing an

66
outside agency was no longer found to be significant but use of materials provided by the
school was in an inverse direction, explaining 3.4% of the variances, F change (1, 151) =
5.34, p = .022, ! = -.19, p = .022.
Summary of Results
As the above analysis has described, some parent behaviors and components of
parent models do correlate with student academic results in English language arts and
math as measured by standardized test scores and report card grades. Specifically, ELA
CST’s were predicted by parents’ reports of going to the library, and negatively
correlated with parent attendance at school events and parent workshops, and helping
with homework. Epstein’s components Parenting and Collaborating with the Community
and Hoge’s Parent Interest were also negatively correlated with this measure of student
success.
Report card grades in English language arts were found to correlate with different
parent behaviors, including parents accessing an outside agency for academic help for
their child (negative correlation), and the Hoge component Parent Expectations for
Success. The parent behavior accessing an outside agency was negatively correlated
with student math report card grades, as was Epstein’s Collaborating with the
Community. Attending a performance with their child and the Cognitive/Intellectual
component of Grolnick’s model that includes that behavior predicted higher math grades.
Interestingly, no single behavior or component of these three Parent Involvement models
was significant with regard to math standardized test scores.

67
English Learner Groups
In addition to running multiple regression analyses for the participants as a whole,
the student data were also divided into three groups based on their English Language
fluency status; Non-English Learners, English Learners, and Reclassified students who
were formerly English Learners. Some differences were found between these three
groups.
Parental Involvement Models.
English Learner Level was considered in relation to all three PI models. For non-
English learners two components from two models were found to be significant.
Epstein’s component 6, Collaborating with the Community, was significant with regard
to English language arts standardized test scores, ! = -.356, p = .041 and explained a
significant 28% of variance, F (6, 38) = 2.53, p = .037. The second component of
Hoge’s model, Parent Interest, was also significant, ! = -.457, p = .006 in relation to math
CST’s. This component explained 21.4% of variance, F (3, 40) = 3.637, p = .021, again
a significant amount. Hoge’s Parent Interest was also found to be significant for English
Learners’ English language arts standardized test scores, ! = -.324, p = .014 explaining
15% of variance, F (3, 54) = 3.188, p = .031. All three of these correlations are in the
negative direction.
Based on these results, Latino middle school students who are non-English
learners reported lower ELA test scores when their parents reported higher involvement
in Collaborating with the Community, and lower math test scores when parents reported

68
higher Parent Interest as defined by Hoge. English Learners’ ELA test scores are also
reported to be lower in connection to parents’ higher Parent Interest.
Research Question 4: Among the parental involvement behaviors, which best predict
English and math academic achievement?
Regarding RQ4, several parent behaviors were found to correlate with specific
measures of the dependent variable, when using stepwise multiple regression analyses,
and there is again a difference based on student English Language level.
Non-English Learners. Non-English Learners’ language arts standardized test
scores were found to correlated with two significant predictors, with Behavior 25
(accessing an outside agency), being most predictive, ! = -.391, p = .009 and Behavior 22
(using materials provided by the school at home) being the next predictor ! = -.334, p =
.024. These two factors explained a combined 34% of variance, with accessing an
outside agency explaining 24%, F change (1, 37) = 11.736, p = .002, and using materials
provided by the school explaining an additional 10% of variance, F change (2, 36) =
9.369, p = .001. This is a very high percentage of variance being explained by these two
factors for test scores of non-English Learners.
These two behaviors, along with three more, were found to be significant for non-
English Learners’ ELA report card grades. The five significant predictors were, in order
of strength of prediction, Behavior 25 (accessing an outside agency), Behavior 22 (using
materials provided by the school), Behavior 19 (volunteering at school outside the
classroom), Behavior 16 (volunteering to do work for school at home), and to a lesser
degree Behavior 1 (parent initiation of contact with teacher), ! = -.380, p = .011, ! = -

69
.333, p = .026, ! = .379, p = .008, ! = -.315, p = .018, and ! = -.363, p = .005
respectively. These factors combined to explain a very substantial 64% of variance in
English language arts report card grades, F (5, 33) = 11.68, p < .001. Accessing an
outside agency explained 23%, F change (1, 37) = 11.06, p = .002, using materials
explaining an additional 10%, F change (2, 36) = 5.42, p = .026, and volunteering
outside the classroom another 12%, F change (3, 35) = 7.92, p = .008. Volunteering to
do work at home explained 8% more of the variance in ELA grades, F change (4, 34) =
6.23, p = .018, and finally parent initiation of contact explained another 10%, F change
(5, 33) = 9.14, p = .005.
In relation to math standardized test scores two parent behaviors were found to be
predictive for non-English Learners. The best predictor was Behavior 17 (parent support
of homework) ! = -.369, p = .015, followed by Behavior 23 (buy or check out books for
the child), ! = -.361, p = .017. These two behaviors explained a combined 25% of
variance in math test scores F (2, 36) = 6.06, p = .005, with parent support of homework
explaining 12%, F change (1, 37) = 5.15, p = .029, and buy or check out books
explaining another 13% of variance F change (2, 36) = 6.24, p = .017. No significant
predictors were found for math report card grades.
The results described above indicated that several parent involvement factors
were significant for Latino middle school students who are not English Learners. The
most significant factor for English language arts was found to be accessing outside
agencies which predicted both lower test scores and report card grades. Using school
provided materials also predicted lower ELA test scores and report card grades. In terms

70
of math, fewer behaviors were predictive, with parent support of homework being the
most significant in terms of non-English Learner Latino middle school students’ lower
standardized test scores.
English Learners. Two parent behaviors were found to predict the English
language arts CST scores of students designated as English Learners. They include
Behavior 17 (support of homework), ! = -.433, p = .002, and Behavior 7 (go to library
with child), ! = .303, p = .029. These two behaviors combine to explain 28% of the
variance in CST scores in ELA, F (2, 40) = 7.97, p = .001. Support of homework was
the best predictor and explained 19% of the variance, F change (1, 41) = 9.83, p = .003,
while going to the library explained another 9% of variance, F change (2, 40) = 5.12, p =
.029. No parent involvement behaviors were predictive of ELA grades for English
Learners.
In terms of math CST scores, three parent behaviors were found to be predictive.
Behavior 24 (look up words in dictionary) was the best predictor, ! = -.560, p <.001,
followed by Behavior 3 (attendance at read/math nights), ! = .275, p = .038, and
Behavior 25 (access an outside agency), ! = -.270, p = .038. These factors combined to
explain 42% of the variance in math CST scores F (3, 39) = 9.41, p <.001. Look up
words in dictionary explained nearly 28% of the variance, F change (1, 41) = 15.68, p <
.001, while attendance at math/read night explained 7% of variance, F change (2, 40) =
4.59, p = .038, and access an outside agency explained about 7% of variance as well, F
change (3, 39) = 4.63, p = .038. This percentage of variance explained is both substantial
and significant.

71
The analysis of these behaviors with regard to math report card grades found two
parent behaviors to be predictive for Latino middle school students who are English
Learners. Behavior 9 (attending back to school night), ! = -.336, p = .020 was most
predictive followed by Behavior 25 (accessing outside agency), ! = -.316, p = .028. They
explained about 23% of the variance in these students’ math report card grades, F ( 2, 40)
= 6.03, p = .005, with attending back to school night accounting for 13%, F change (1,
41) = 6.26, p = .016, and accessing an outside agency accounting for another 10%, F
change (1, 41) = 5.18, p = .028.
While not as many parent involvement behaviors were found to predict the
academic results of English Learners as those who are not, there are still several
behaviors that do predict these outcomes, as the above explanation shows. Specifically,
parents who demonstrated higher levels of support of homework predicted their
children’s lower CST scores in ELA. Looking up words in the dictionary as a parent
involvement behavior predicted lower math standardized test scores in Latino middle
school students who are English Learners. Attending back to school night predicted
lower math report card grades in these students.
Reclassified English Learners. No parent involvement behaviors were found to
predict math achievement for Reclassified English Learners as measured by either CST
scores or report card grades. However, one behavior was found to predict language arts
standardized test scores. Help with homework, Behavior 20, ! = -.270, p = .031,
explained 7% of the variance in test scores for Latino middle school students who are
reclassified English Learners. Another behavior, attending back to school night,

72
(Behavior 9), ! = .265, p = .034, predicted English language arts grades for those
students. It explained 7% of the variance in grades, F (1, 62) = 4.856, p = .031.
Only two parent involvement behaviors were predictive of student academic
achievement for Reclassified English Learners. Increased help with homework predicted
lower standardized test scores in language arts, and attending back to school night
predicted lower report card grades, also in language arts.
Summary of English Learners
Some differences were found between the overall population studied and the
subgroups of English Learners. While some behaviors and components of models
predicted academic outcomes for some groups, there were some that demonstrated no
correlations to parent involvement behaviors. (See Tables 11 and 12.) In terms of
English language arts, English Learners’ report card grades were not found to have a
relationship to the parent behaviors or models studied. The same is true for all students’,
and Reclassified English Learners’ math CST’s, as well as math grades for English
Learners and Reclassified English Learners.
Table 11
Significant Parent Involvement for Student Group in English Language Arts
English Language Arts
Variables CSTs Grades
All English
Only
English
Learners
Reclass
English
Learners
All English
Only
English
Learners
Reclass.
English
Learners
Components
Epstein
Model
Parenting,
Collab. with
Community
Collab.
with
comm
- - - - - -
Components
Grolnick
Model
- - - - - - - -
Components
Hoge Model
Parent
Interest
- Parent
Interest
Parent
Expec-
tations
- - -
Parent
Behaviors
20, 7, 4, 2 25, 22 17, 7 20 25 25, 22,
19, 16,
1
- 9

73
Table 12
Significant Parent Involvement for Student Group in Math
Math
Variables CSTs Grades
All English
Only
English
Learners
Reclassified
English
Learners
All English
Only
English
Learners
Reclass
English
Learners
Components
Epstein Model
- - - - Collab with
Community
- - -
Components
Grolnick
Model
- - - - Cognitive/
intellectual
- - -
Components
Hoge Model
- Parent
Interest
- - - - - -
Parent
Behaviors
- 17, 23 24, 23, 25 - 25, 6 - 9, 25 -

Conversely, certain parent behaviors, as well as the Epstein model and Hoge
model were found to have components that predicted all students’ ELA CST scores.
Certain Epstein components, Grolnick components, and particular behaviors were also
predictive of math grades for all students.
While no factors or behaviors predicted math standardized test scores for the
overall population studied, when students were divided by EL status two of the three
groups, English Learners, and those who were not English Learners, were found to have
their math CST scores significantly predicted by particular parent behaviors.

74
CHAPTER V
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to draw connections between parent involvement
and student academic outcomes in order to determine whether parent involvement
programs could be used to assist in overcoming the achievement gap between Latino
students and other student populations. The idea for this study arose from the
understanding that two powerful, yet unconnected forces were shaping national education
policy. Title I requires parental involvement, but does not specify what outcomes are
expected as a result. No Child Left Behind mandates standardized testing and multiple
measures of assessment of schools, but does not tie in parent involvement. This study
was intended to determine whether there are parent behaviors or a model for parent
involvement that can, in fact, connect these two forces by providing a framework for a
parent involvement policy that schools and districts could implement to affect student
achievement.
This chapter will include a discussion of the results of the study, and implications
of these results. It will also describe the limitations of this study and directions for future
research. Finally, a conclusion will provide a big picture understanding of this study in
the context of NCLB and Title I.
Discussion of Significant Findings
This study analyzed three parent involvement models and the parent behaviors
that make them up, in terms of the relationship they had with student academic outcomes.
Generally, it was hypothesized that certain of these behaviors would be found to be

75
predictors of increased student achievement. Some correlations were indeed found
between components of parent involvement models and student standardized test scores
or report cards in math and language arts. However, many of those correlations were
negative, indicating that increased parent involvement predicted lower, rather than higher
achievement. Since the correlations found varied by both parent involvement behavior or
model component, and measure of academic success, this discussion will take each
hypothesis in turn.
Epstein’s Model. The first hypothesis stated that parental involvement based on
Epstein’s model would predict higher standardized test scores. This study found that two
types of Epstein’s parental involvement did predict English language arts test scores.
They included Parenting and Collaboration with the Community. According to Epstein’s
model Parenting includes such behaviors as attending parent workshops and buying or
checking out books for a student (Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). Collaboration with the
Community is defined as accessing community resources such as a church, city program,
or for-profit program for tutoring for a child. In contradiction to the hypothesis, both
components demonstrated a negative correlation, predicting lower rather than higher test
scores. Collaborating with the Community also correlates negatively with math report
card grades. This result was not found by Sheldon and Epstein. Though school leaders
they talked to believed that community involvement activities would improve student
achievement, they did not find evidence to support this (2005, p. 208). Delgado-Gaitan
found evidence in her interviews with parents that suggest it should not be surprising that
these correlations were negative. She found that parents did not communicate with the

76
school if their students’ report cards showed good grades, but in some cases did make the
effort to do so if they report cards were negative (1992).
No components of Epstein’s model were found to be indicators of increased
student achievement in either math or ELA, though some parent behaviors that are
variables within these components did. This will be discussed in relation to hypothesis
four.
Although Desimone (1999) found correlations between parent participation in
parent teacher organization and student test scores, this was not confirmed by the current
study. She attributed the variation between strength of correlation and student population
to the fact that this measure actually captured other variables such as parent language
ability in English, parent self-efficacy in relation to their child’s education and parents’
knowledge or lack of knowledge about how schools and teachers prefer that parents be
involved. This correlation was weaker for Hispanic students than other groups, and this
may be why it is not supported by this study.
Grolnick’s Model. The second hypothesis predicted that parental involvement
based on Grolnick and Slowiaczek’s model would predict higher standardized test scores.
One measure defined by Grolnick as Cognitive/Intellectual was found to predict higher
student achievement in the area of math report card grades, though not standardized test
scores. Two of the specific behaviors related to this component were also significantly
predictive of student success. The other behaviors making up this component include
among others, parents taking classes and reading for pleasure, and talking about current
events. No other components of Grolnick’s model were fond to be significant. Grolnick

77
and Slowiaczek also found this component to be significant in their research, though they
found that parent Behavior as defined by communication with the school, and attendance
at a variety of school events, was also connected to student outcomes. They hypothesized
that the reason for the relationship between Cognitive/Intellectual processes and student
achievement was either the result of student exposure to parent modeling or high
achieving students actually influencing their parents in this area instead (1994, p. 249).
Hoge’s Model. Parental involvement based on Hoge’s model would predict
higher standardized test scores was hypothesis three. Two of Hoge’s components were
found to predict student academic outcomes in English language arts. Parent Interest was
negatively correlated with standardized test scores, indicating that increased Parent
Interest predicted lower ELA test scores. Parent Interest includes supporting homework,
and buying or checking out books for a child according to Hoge. Parent Expectations
was found to predict higher report card grades in English language arts. These are
expectations of both student grades and future academic achievement. Hoge et al found
that these expectations had greater predictive power when measured for specific subject
areas rather than overall grades or test scores. They also found that the parent
expectations predicted test scores more than grades (1997).
Interestingly, this is not supported by Desimone’s findings. An indicator that she
used to measure parent expectations was “parental discussion with students about post
high school plans” which she found not to be significant for Hispanic students, though it
was for some other groups (1999, p. 23).

78
Fan and Chen (1999) found through their meta-analysis that parent expectations
for their child was more strongly correlated to student achievement than other constructs
they examined. This is consistent with the correlation found in this study that Hoge’s
concept of parent expectations predicted ELA report cards. This makes sense in
whichever direction it is examined. Parents who set expectations for their children may
be seeing a response from their students in terms of actual grades. Conversely, it may be
that parents have a good understanding of their children and expect a particular level of
achievement because by this point in their child’s education they know what their child is
likely to produce.
Parent Behaviors. Finally, hypothesis four predicted that parent-initiated
communication with teachers and homework support will be significantly correlated with
standardized test scores and report card grades. Interestingly, parent communication with
the school was not found to be significant in this study. Parent support of homework was
also not found to predict any student academic outcomes. However, one parent
involvement behavior that was found to be significant in this study was help with
homework. While not quite the same as parents checking homework, it does seem to
support Desimone’s findings that parents checking homework is negatively correlated
with student achievement (1999). On the other hand, going to the library, a variable
associated with Grolnick’s Cognitive/Intellectual component, and which was positively
correlated with ELA CST’s, was not found in other studies. This may be because while
homework is a clear measure of parent involvement that most people are familiar with,

79
not everyone connects going to the library directly with school. Therefore it is a behavior
that may not be measured often in relation to specific measures of student achievement.
Other parent behaviors that correlated with decreased academic outcomes
included attending workshops in math and/or language arts, which predicted lower ELA
test scores, and accessing community agencies which was negatively correlated with
report card grades in ELA and math. Though accessing community resources is a concept
from Epstein’s model, this result does not support the results she found with Sheldon
(2005) regarding math report card grades. Instead, they found that it was learning at
home activities that impacted student achievement. This result was supported when the
dichotomous elements were eliminated and use of school materials was found to be
significant. While attending workshops predicts lower scores, parents attending other
school events predicted higher scores on English language arts CST’s.
The most unanticipated outcome regarding the individual parent behaviors was
that of parents attending a performance outside of school with their child. This behavior
was positively and significantly correlated with math report card grades, indicating that
this behavior predicts higher grades in math. As a part of Grolnick’s
Cognitive/Intellectual component this variable was grouped with other behaviors that also
predicted increased math grades. When isolated it continues to predict this interesting
outcome.
English Learners. Another unanticipated finding of this study was the difference
found depending upon student English Learner status. While some models and variables
were found to predict academic achievement, when the participants were divided into

80
their respective English Learner levels some variables dropped out and others became
significant. Of additional importance is that some of the variables that were found to be
significant were found to explain a larger percent of variance than were those for the
overall population. For example, Collaborating with the Community was found to be
significant for ELA standardized test scores for the overall population, but only explained
a small percentage of variance, which was insignificant. However, for non-English
learners this component explained 28% of variance and was significant. Similarly,
Hoge’s Parent Interest explained less than 5% of variance for the overall population but
explained 15% of variance in the English Learner students’ English Language Arts
CST’s. The differences between populations exist in all models and variables, with some
overlap that seems to follow no pattern with regard to English Learner status compared to
overall population or other EL level.
Implications
The results of this study further muddy the water of parent involvement and
student achievement. Some significant results were found, but though the population
studied here came from only one school district and represented one ethnicity in three
grade levels, a variety of results were found depending, in part, upon the students’
English Language proficiency. One clear message from this is that a “one size fits all”
parent involvement model would not benefit most students at any particular school.
Negative correlations. This study found data that tell two different stories about
parent involvement. The first relates a tale of parents being involved when their students
are struggling. Parents supporting homework and looking for outside help indicate

81
families who have recognized that their child is not meeting their expectations and needs
help. They attend workshops, help with homework, and generally “Parent” as described
by Sheldon and Epstein (2005). This is useful information, and is encouraging in that it
makes it evident that at least some parents of struggling students are aware of the
problem and are trying to help. Alternately, depending upon the direction of the effect, it
may indicate that adolescents are not interested in the involvement of their parents, or
that, if not implemented carefully, parent involvement can backfire.
Ingram et al (2007), for example, found that Epstein’s Parenting and Learning at
Home had an effect on student achievement and therefore educators emphasize improved
parenting practices and opportunities for students to learn at home. However, this study
has found that Learning at Home did not correlate significantly with any student
outcomes and that Parenting correlated negatively with standardized test scores in
English language arts. Until causality can be determined it may not be appropriate to
recommend these two areas be emphasized in a parental involvement program for Latino
middle school students.
One way in which schools can use this information is to provide parents with
complete, timely and practical information about any areas in which their children are
struggling. If parents are, indeed accessing community resources or otherwise supporting
their children when they are not achieving academically it is important that they look for
resources that actually meet those needs. For example, if a student is struggling on
algebra homework because they do not know their times tables this is a different set of
needs than if they do not have a solid foundation of algebraic skills. Parents, also, should

82
seek out this type of information. If they choose to assist their struggling students it
would be to their benefit to be sure they know specific information about their students.
This may be lacking, since the question regarding parents initiating contact with teachers
did not yield significant results. This lack of parent initiation of communication is
consistent with Desimone’s (1999) findings for Black, Hispanic, and low-income parents.
At the same time, parents should be careful to assess how their involvement is
being perceived by their middle schools students. If the relationship between parent
actions seems to be going the other way, that is, parents become more involved and
student results grow worse, parents should think about the emotional differences between
adolescents and younger students and be careful not to be overly involved, as suggested
by Pomerantz et al, (2007). Eccles et al (1991) remind us that that early adolescents are
likely to be in the process of becoming more autonomous and peer oriented. Parent
involvement in student academics might be seen as interference. Parents who are seeking
assistance under these circumstances would do well to find programs that use peer tutors
or other age-appropriate strategies.
This concept returns the focus to the school point of view. Schools should
consider ways to support struggling adolescents in a manner that allows them to be more
autonomous and peer oriented while still meeting their needs. Eccles also points out that
classroom structures tend to actually tighten and become more structured with fewer
opportunities for student decision-making in Junior High or Middle School. This may be
a reason for the dip in student achievement at this age. If so then schools must plan
parent involvement opportunities that do not make this situation even worse.

83
This interaction may be culturally bound as well. Ramirez found that parents very
strongly desired to have more interaction with teachers and for parents to be more aware
of community needs (2003). The relationship of parent involvement with students who
struggle does change based on English Learner level, and it may be that this is related to
family processes or culture that were not examined in this study.
Positive correlations. The other tale told by the data discussed above is the one
this study intended to reveal. That is, there are some parent behaviors and factors from
the models that do indeed predict student success and higher achievement. This tale does
not indicate cause, so it is not clear that students do better on their report cards in math
because their parents take them to performances, or that their report cards show better
English language arts grades because their parents have high expectations. However, it
sets the scene for schools, researchers, and families to be introspective about what they
are doing and how it might impact their children.
Specifically, using the terminology of teaching and of motivation, many of the
behaviors that correlated with increased academics relate to parent modeling. This being
the case, both schools and parents would do well to use this strategy with students.
Schools should provide training for parents, not on how to help with homework, but how
to demonstrate cognitive skills and their value. Schools could also provide opportunities
for such modeling to take place such as hosting performances and classes for adults,
opening the library for parent/student visits, and sending home talking points to parents in
newsletters or other formats that relate to current events, all variables from Grolnick’s
Cognitive/Intellectual component of parent involvement. While schools may offer some

84
of these opportunities now, it is unlikely that they are aimed specifically at parent
modeling. Newsletters that go home often target such ideas as how to help with
homework, rather than discussion points that are not directly related to schoolwork.
This indirect support of student achievement may be more effective with Latino
middle school students than the direct support some parents are providing. The challenge
for both schools and parents is to know when to transition from more direct to indirect
actions. If this is particularly related to the students entering adolescence it will have to
be carefully timed.
Another important perspective from which to look at this data is to consider the
measures of academic achievement. Different parent behaviors impacted different
measures and subject areas. Reading was more frequently correlated negatively with
parent involvement than was math. No indicators correlated with math CST’s for the
overall group, though some did for specific groups of EL level students. This is
important from the point of view of policy at the school, district, and government level.
Since certain behaviors and models are related to different outcomes, it should be made
clear in district policies and government legislation which achievement measures are the
priority. That way schools can focus on the actions that are most relevant. Unfortunately
no indicators related to all four measures consistently, or even just to test scores, grades,
or a subject area. Therefore programs must either be very broad or targeted to areas in
which the school or particular students would most benefit.
Additional Implications. This study analyzed a fairly specific group of Latino
families in one community. However, in comparison with the other studies reviewed

85
above, it becomes evident that the effectiveness of parental involvement may be
culturally based and not universally appropriate. Different groups of parents may have
different expectations and beliefs about what their role in their child’s education should
be. As Kainz & Aikens (2007) suggested, parent beliefs and values may play a
significant role in the choices they make and impact of their involvement on their
children. In this case, substantially more information is necessary about cultural and
family beliefs about, and understanding of education before a rigid parental involvement
policy can be developed. Ramirez (2003) reported the alienation of parents as a concern
due to districts’ lack of response to their needs. These and other external factors may
also be related to cultural understanding of parent and school roles in the upbringing of
children, adding to the difficulty in developing parental involvement plans to help
students achieve.
Changing or requiring certain parental involvement behaviors alone may not be
the best way for schools to meet the needs of students and decrease the achievement gap.
Requirements of Title I do not take into account the basic idea that parents may not
always be the best resource for improving their children’s academic achievement. They
may not have the resources described by Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994), and their
family process factors (Hoge, 1997) may not include functions that support academics. It
may be that training and school based parental involvement models need to focus more
on motivation and other aspects rather than behaviors specific to support of school, at
least for some groups of parents. Alternately, training of teachers to be aware of cultural
differences in parents as discussed by Trumbull et al (2003) might be the best approach.

86
Limitations
This study has several limitations that must be taken into account. These include
challenges with population, instrumentation, directionality, and design. One specific
issue of population is that the survey was provided to the parents of all students in the
target grade levels at the schools, but the return varied greatly by school, and participants
were self-selected. This means it is possible that the parents who returned the survey
were already members of a particular group with the tendency to respond to perceived
school requests for information. Additionally, there was no comparison population for
this study. The schools studied do not have large populations of non-Latino students, so
no comparison could be made within the same school or district culture of different
behaviors by different ethnic groups.
Though the sample size of 184 was adequate, a larger sample size would aid in
the disaggregation of English Learner status. The English Learner status groups varied
from 45 English Only students to 80 Reclassified English Learners. Larger populations
of these groups would allow for more powerful results.
This study was also not longitudinal, and did not offer the implementation of a
parent involvement program to be analyzed. Instead, it used parent reports of behaviors
and reconstituted them into components of the three parent involvement models to be
analyzed. Therefore, some negative parent reports may be the result of the school not
providing an opportunity for, for example, volunteering outside the classroom, rather than
the parent’s choice not to do so.

87
It is certainly important also to know the direction of the relationship between the
variables. For example, in the case of “Collaborating with the Community” which is
essentially defined as seeking outside tutoring, it is reasonable to think that the
correlation was negative because parents sought assistance because the child was already
struggling. On the other hand, as Desimone (1999) pointed out, while it may be that
parents check homework because their students are struggling, it also may be that
adolescents do not want parent involvement and therefore react poorly to parent
interaction with their homework.
Some aspects of the design of this study made analysis of data challenging.
Because the behaviors measured in the survey did not all lend themselves to a Likert-type
of question, all questions were converted in the analysis stage to yes or no questions.
Though significant correlations were still found, they could not be as closely refined as
they might have been. To partially address this analyses were run of only the non-
dichotomous questions, with little effect on results. This study was not longitudinal and
did not offer a pre-test or baseline. It also relied on reports of parents based on
recollections of their behaviors the prior year. This risks the possibility that parents
either over-, or under-reported behaviors based on what they believe they did or wish
they had done. Another design concern relates to the issue that both Hoge (1997) and
Desimone (1999) raise; that students’ reports of perceived parent involvement are more
significantly connected to student outcomes than parent reports. In other words, it is not
what parents do or say they do, but rather what students perceive that impacts their

88
academic success. Therefore, collecting data from parents about actual behaviors leaves
out a vital factor, that of student perception.
Future Directions for Study
There are many ways in which these results can be the impetus for further study.
Better understanding of the interaction between parent, student perception, and academic
success is needed. Wooley et al (2009) developed a model that incorporates not only
parents and students, but teachers, peers, and motivational issues. This model establishes
a framework for a study of the complex interactions that take place at schools daily.
Using this perspective to analyze parent and student reported data might give schools and
parents a better idea of how parent behavior impacts rather than simply correlates with
student outcomes.
Another way to process this information and to develop a better understanding of
the relationship between parental involvement and student achievement is through the
framework provided by Pomerantz et al (2007). This model separates out skill
development from motivation, and suggests parents may impact these areas in different
ways. This model also focuses on quality rather than quantity of parental involvement.
Application of this model to Latino middle school or other students would provide
valuable insight into the best ways for a school to involve parents, and the most effective
things parents can do to support struggling students, and encourage successful ones. It
might also lay a foundation for early behaviors in which parents can engage before their
children begin to struggle.

89
Actual implementation of a new model of parent involvement that provided
parents and teachers with training on those areas that do positively correlate with student
achievement would, of course, not only offer corroboration of the results in this study,
but also allow for a longitudinal study to determine whether these parent behaviors truly
assist their students in learning. Both Sheldon and Epstein (2005) and Ingram et al
(2007) found that Learning at Home was correlated with student academic success. Both
studied programs that implemented parent training and other support of this concept.
While both identified their study populations as “diverse” specific demographic
information is not provided about ethnicity or age. Though the current study did not
support their findings, a systematically implemented program involving parents in
Learning at Home might still be warranted.
Additionally, comparing this population with other groups including white,
middle class, or other groups would provide information to isolate cultural and
socioeconomic differences in the relationship between parent involvement and student
academic achievement. A qualitative study associated with the quantitative measures
would provide valuable insight into what parents were thinking and what schools were
expecting regarding parent involvement, and what each group believes the role of parents
should be and how it might help students. Ramirez (2003) found that parents did express
frustrations about how schools involved them, and Desimone (1999) indicated the
importance of race in parent involvement.
Analysis of this data through the lens of parenting styles as described by
Baumrind (1968) would provide an important dimension to the understanding of parental

90
involvement as well. This could operate in two ways. Analyzing parent behaviors that
have already taken place and determining the parenting style of the parents involved
might provide information regarding the mechanism through which the behaviors are
correlated with student achievement. At the same time, if certain behaviors that correlate
positively or negatively with achievement can be found to also predict parenting style this
information would increase our understanding of parenting styles and their relationship to
student achievement.
A comparison of other ethnic groups, and English Learners who are not Latino
would help to clarify the relative significance of any group. Other demographic
information such as generational situation and cultural background would also contribute
to the understanding of how parent involvement impacts student achievement. A closer
examination of the age at which the correlations arise would particularly address
Desimone (1999) and Eccles’ (1991) discussion of the experience of middle school age
students.
Clearly a variety of variables could be added or changed to determine more
specific conclusions. However, an interesting and distinctly new question to investigate
would be to examine the mechanism by which math grades are correlated with attending
a performance. It would provide insight into parent influences on their children to
determine whether this is an effect of Grolnick’s Cognitive/Intellectual concept, some
other factor of the family functions or culture, or whether it is related to the connection
between math and music studied by Johnson and Memmott (2006) and others.
Depending upon the results, it might suggest the need for increased arts programs, better

91
information regarding opportunities for families to attend performances, or a description
of family structures in which attending performances is part of the family culture.
Conclusion
Title I and No Child Left Behind continue to drive educational policy in the
United States. Though the new presidential administration may make changes in these
federal mandates, their effects will be felt for many years. Parental involvement, a
substantial requirement of Title I, has been demonstrated to be less than a clear cut path
to the high test scores required by No Child Left Behind. Often when governments
establish sweeping requirements for implementation, they leave out the “how”. This is
frustrating to educators and other stakeholders, who are left to flounder for effective
programs and concepts. Sometimes, over time, particular methods rise to the top and
become either the official or unofficial approved programs to use. In the case of parent
involvement this has not yet occurred.
As it turns out, there is good reason for the lack of guidance about how to
implement parental involvement programs. Whether intentional or not, the federal
government has avoided the pitfalls of requiring a particular model be followed. This is
fortunate, since, according to this study, no model is substantially correlated with student
academic outcomes overall. Schools and districts will need to look to their parents,
students, and other significant issues related to age, culture and motivation in order to
determine how to best include parents in the formal education of their children.
At the same time, there is evidence that parental involvement does, indeed, have a
significant relationship to student success. It is tempting to look at the wide range of

92
sometimes contradictory evidence regarding parent involvement and decide to simply
dismiss parents as irrelevant or incapable of supporting their children at school.
Conversely, it is tempting to blame parents for not being involved enough. Rather than
using an all or nothing model, schools need to carefully consider the needs and
characteristics of students, and provide clear information and, if appropriate,
opportunities for parents to be involved in ways that do, indeed help students. In this way
an additional resource, effective involvement of parents, can help decrease the
achievement gap that persists for Latino middle school students in the United States.

REFERENCES
Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence,
3(11), 255-282.

California Department of Education (2007a). 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress Report:
Information Guide.

California Department of Education (2007b). News Release: State Superintendent Jack
O’Connell Releases 2007 STAR Results Showing Encouraging, Troubling Trends.
www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr07/yr07rel98.asp.

California Department of Education (2007c). Overview of California’s 2006-2007
Accountability Progress Reporting System.

Chrispeels, J. H. & Rivero, E. (2001). Engaging Latino families for student success:
how parent education can reshape parents’ sense of place in the education of their
children. Peabody Journal of Education 76(2), 119-169.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican American home: Socializing
children to education. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 495-513.

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement and parent achievement: Do race and
income matter? Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-30.

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: assessing the effectiveness of
parental involvement in elementary schools. Sociology of Education. 78(3), 233-
249.

Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Midgley, C, (1991). What are we doing to early adolescents?
The impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of
Education 99(4), 521-542.

Eccles, J. S. & Midgley, C. (1988). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate
classrooms or early adolescents. Research on Motivation, vol. 3. Edited by R. E.
Ames and C. Ames. New York: Academic Press 1988.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-713.

Epstein, J. L. & Hollifield, J. H. (1996). Title I and school-family-community
partnerships: using research to realize the potential. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 1(3), 263-278.

94
Fan, X. & Chen, M. (1999, April). Parental involvement an students’ academic
achievement: a meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association , Montreal, Canada.

Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P, & Doan Holbein, M. F. (2005). Examining the
relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational
Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of
parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89(3), 538-548.

Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents involvement in children's
schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child
Development , 65(1), 237-252.

Hoge, D. R., Smit, E. K., & Crist, J. T. (1997). Four family processes factors predicting
academic achievement in sixth and seventh grade. Educational Research
Quarterly. 21(2) 27-42.

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. 39(4), 479-497.

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: the effects of parental involvement on minority
children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society. 35(2), 202-218.

Johnson, C. M., & Memmot, J. E. (2006). Examination of relationships between
participation in school music programs of differing quality and standardized test
results. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(4), 293.

Kainz, K. & Aikens, N. L. (2007). Governing the family through education: A
genealogy on the home/school relation. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(4),
301-310.

National Center for Educational Statistics (2005). Status and Trends in the Education of
American Indians and Alaskan Natives
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/nativetrends/ShowTable.asp?table=tables/a_table_1_
1.asp&indicator=1.1&excel=xls/table_A-1.1.xls&excelsize=21

National Center for Educational Statistics (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: State
Profile, California. Nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp.

95
Okagaki, L. & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Parenting and children’s school achievement: A
multiethnic perspective. American Educational Research Journal. 35(1), 123-
144.

Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (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.

Ramirez, A. Y. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latino
immigrant parents. The Urban Review.35(2), 93-110.

Sheldon, S. B. & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: family and community
partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research, 98 (4), 196-207.

Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting
styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review
17(2), 125-146.

Spera, C. (2006). Adolescents’ perceptions of parental goals, practices, and styles in
relation to their motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence.
26(4), 456-490.

Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Hernandez, E. (2003). Parental involvement in
schooling-according to whose values? The School Community Journal.

United States Department of Education, (2004). Parental Involvement: Title I, Part A,
Non-Regulatory Guidance. No Child Left Behind.

United States Department of Education, (2008, May 7). Improving Basic Programs
Operated by Local Education Agencies (Title I Part A). Retrieved May 10, 2008
from http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html.

Woolley, M. E., Kol, K. K., & Bowen, G. L. (2009). Social context of school success
for Latino middle school students: Direct and indirect influences of teachers,
family and friends. Journal of Early Adolescence 29(1), 43-70.

96
Appendix A
Results from 2007 NAEP
Reading 4
th
grade National California California
Latinos
Participants in National
School Lunch Program
Below Basic 34% 47% 61% 62%
Basic 34% 30% 27% 26%
Proficient 24% 18% 10% 10%
Advanced 7% 5% 1% 1%
Average Score 220 209 195 195

Reading 8
th
grade National California California
Latinos
Participants in National
School Lunch Program
Below Basic 27% 38% 50% 50%
Basic 43% 41% 39% 39%
Proficient 27% 20% 11% 11%
Advanced 2% 2% 0 0
Average Score 261 251 239 239

Math 4
th
grade National California California
Latinos
Participants in National
School Lunch Program
Below Basic 19% 30% 43% 42%
Basic 43% 40% 41% 41%
Proficient 33% 25% 14% 15%
Advanced 5% 4% 1% 1%
Average Score 239 230 218 219

Math 8
th
grade National California California
Latinos
Participants in National
School Lunch Program
Below Basic 30% 41% 56% 54%
Basic 39% 35% 33% 33%
Proficient 24% 19% 9% 11%
Advanced 7% 5% 1% 1%
Average Score 280 270 256
From ies National Center for Educational Statistics

97

Appendix B
California Standards Test Results (2007)
Percentage of students scoring at proficient or above statewide
Subgroup English Language Arts Math
6
th
grade 42% 42%
7
th
grade 46% 40%
8
th
grade 41% 21% (general math)
23% (algebra I)
all students 2-11
th
grade 44% 41%
Latino 2-11
th
graders 29% 30%
Economically Disadvantaged 29% 31%
Latino Econ. Disadvantaged 26% 29%
Not Economically Disadvantaged 60% 52%
Latino Not Econ Disadvantaged 42% 36%
English Learners 15% 26%
From California Department of Education (2007b)

98
Appendix C
Parental Involvement Survey Instrument
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT AND STUDENT ACADEMIC OUTCOMES
Parental Involvement
Please answer the questions below based on what you did last year at your 6
th
, 7
th
, or
8
th
grade student’s school.

1. About how many times did you initiate contact with your child’s teacher last year,
either by phone or a note?
0 1 2 3 4 5 over 5

2. How many school events did you attend last year?
0 1 2 3 4 5 over 5

3. How many read nights or math nights did you attend last year?
0 1 2 3 4 5 over 5

4. How many parent workshops regarding student study skills, homework, or
academics did you attend?
0 1 2 3 4 5 over 5

5. How many parent meetings such as ELAC, School Site Council, GATE or PTA
did you attend?
0 1 2 3 4 5 over 5

6. How often did you attend a performance or show outside of school with your
child last year?
0 1 2 3 4 5 over 5

7. How often did you go to the library with your child in the last year?
0 1 2 3 4 5 over 5

8. Did you meet with your child’s teacher(s) during the official parent-teacher
conference last year?
Yes No

9. Did you attend Back-to-School night in August last school year?
Yes No

99
10. Did you attend Open House in May last school year?
Yes No

11. Are you currently taking any classes or course work?
Yes No

12. Are you a member of any school committee such as ELAC, School Site Council,
GATE, or PTA?
Yes No

For questions 12-21 below please use the following scale:
0-Never-I have never done this
1-Rarely-I do this less than one time per month
2-Sometimes-I do this between 1 and 4 times per month
3-Occasionally-I do this 1-2 times per week
4-Often-I do this more than 2 times per week

13. How often do you read for pleasure at home?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

14. How often do you talk about current events with your child or with adults when
your child is in the room?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

15. How often do you volunteer in your child’s classroom
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

16. How often do you volunteer to do work at home for the school?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

17. How often do you provide support for your child to do homework by providing a
quiet place, specific time, etc.?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

18. How often do you talk with your child about schoolwork, grades, or academic
goals?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

100
19. How often do you volunteer at school (not including in the classroom) for field
trips, school events, or to help at school?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

20. How often do you help your child with homework?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4
21. How often do you practice academic skills with your child that are not part of
their assigned homework?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

22. How often do you use materials provided by the school to work with your child
on academics?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

For questions 22-24 below please use the following scale
0-Never-I have never done this
1-Rarely-I do this 2 times per year or less
2-Sometimes-I do this 3-5 times per year
3-Occasionally-I do this 6-11 times per year
4-Often-I do this 1 time per month or more

23. How often do you buy books or check them out from the library for your child?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

24. How often do you look words up in a dictionary?
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

25. How often have you gone to community or private agencies outside of school to
get academic help for your child? (City, Kaplan, Church or other)
Never Rarely Sometimes Occasionally Often
0 1 2 3 4

101

26. What are your expectations for your child’s academic success?
___0-No expectations
___1-Passes 1-2 classes
___2-Passes 3-5 classes
___3-Passes all 6 classes
___4-Gets 3’s and 4’s in all classes
___5-Gets 4’s in all classes

27. What are your expectations for your child’s academic future?
___0-No expectations
___1-Goes to high school
___2-Graduates from high school
___3-Goes to college
___4-Graduates from college
___5-Goes to graduate or professional school
___6-Graduates from graduate school or professional school

28. How much do you know about your child’s academic progress in school.
___0-I don’t know anything about my child’s academic progress.
___1-I know a little about how my child is doing academically.
___2-I know some about how my child is doing academically.
___3-I know a lot about how my child is doing academically.
___4-I know practically everything about my child’s academic progress.

29. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your child’s school?
___0-I am very dissatisfied with my child’s school.
___1-I am somewhat dissatisfied with my child’s school.
___2-I am somewhat satisfied with my child’s school.
___3-I am very satisfied with my child’s school.

30. Which language do you prefer when receiving communications from the
school?
___English
___Spanish
___English and Spanish
___Another language (Please list)__________________________

102

31. What is your racial/ethnic background (check all that apply)?
___Asian
___African American
___Chicano/Latino/Hispanic
___European American
___Middle Eastern/Arabic
___Native American
___Pacific Islander
___Other (please specify)______________________________

103
Appendix D

INVULUCRAMIENTO DE PADRES Y RESULTADOS ACADEMICOS DE LOS
ALUMNOS
Invulucramiento de Padres
Por favor conteste las preguntas basado en lo que usted hizo el año anterior en la
escuela de su hijo/a del 6º, 7º, y 8º grado.

1. ¿Aproximadamente cuantas veces usted inicio comunicarse con el maestro de su
hijo/a en año anterior, bien sea por telefono o nota?
0 1 2 3 4 5 mas de 5

2. ¿Cuantos eventos escolares asistio usted el año pasado?
0 1 2 3 4 5 mas de 5

3. ¿Cuantas noches de lectura o noches de matematicas asistio usted el año pasado?
0 1 2 3 4 5 mas de 5

4. ¿Cuantos talleres de padres asistio que eran talleres relacionadas con habilidades
de estudio, tarea, o academico?
0 1 2 3 4 5 mas de 5

5. ¿ Cuantas juntas de ELAC, Comite Escolar, GATE o PTA asistio?
0 1 2 3 4 5 mas de 5

6. ¿Cuantas veces asistio usted con su hijo/a un show o actuacion afuera de la
escuela el año pasado?
0 1 2 3 4 5 mas de 5

7. ¿Cuantas veces visito la biblioteca con su hijo/a el año pasado?
0 1 2 3 4 5 mas de 5

8. ¿Concocio al maestro/a du su hijo/a durante las conferencias de padres-maestros
oficiales el año pasado?
Si No

9. ¿Asistio usted la Noche de Recepcion Escolar de Padres en agosto el año pasado?
Si No

104
10. ¿Asistio usted la recepcion escolar en mayo del año pasado?
Si No

11. ¿Esta tomando usted alguna clase o curso de estudio?
Si No

12. ¿Usted es miembro de algun comite escolar con ELAC, Comite escolar, GATE, o
PTA?
Si No

Para las preguntas 12-21 abajo por favor use la siguente bascula:
0-Nunca- He hecho esto
1-Raramente- Lo he hecho una vez por mes
2-Algunas veces-Lo he hecho 1 a 4 veces por mes
3-Ocasionalmente-Lo he hecho 1-2 veces por semana
4-Seguido- 2 o mas veces por semana

13. ¿Que tan seguido lee usted en casa por placer?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

14. ¿Que tan seguido usted platica con su hijo/a o adultos sobre eventos recien?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

15. ¿Que tan seguido usted viene de voluntario al salon de su hijo/a?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

16. ¿Que tan seguido usted trae trabajo de la escuela voluntariamente?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido

0 1 2 3 4

17. ¿Que tan seguido usted provee apoyo para su hijo/a en las tareas con prover le un
lugar callado, horario especifico, ect.?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

18. ¿Que tan seguido usted habla con su hijo/a sobre su trabajo de escuela,
calificaciones o metas academicas?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

105

19. ¿Que tan seguido usted trabaja como voluntario en el escuela de su hijo (no
incluyendo tiempo en el salon) para paseos, eventos escolares, o ayudar a la escuela?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

20. ¿Que tan seguido ayuda a su hijo/a con la tarea?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

21. ¿Que tan seguido practica las habilidades acadmicas con su hijo/a que no son
parte de la tarea que se le asigna a su hijo/a?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido

0 1 2 3 4

22. ¿Que tan seguido usted usa materials que fueron proveidos por la escuela para
trabajar con su hijo/a en sus estudios?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

Para las preguntas 22-24 abajo por favor use la siguente bascula:
0-Nunca- He hecho esto
1-Raramente- Lo he hecho dos veces por año o menos
2-Algunas veces-Lo he hecho 3 a 5 veces por año
3-Ocasionalmente-Lo he hecho 6a 11 veces por año
4-Seguido- 1 o mas veces por mes

23. ¿Que tan seguido compra libros o saca libros de la biblioteca para su hijo/a?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

24. ¿Que tan seguido busca usted palabras en el dicionario?
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

25. ¿Que tan frequente a salido a su comunidad o agencia privadas afuera de la
escuela para conseguir ayuda academica para su hijo/a? (Ciudad, Kaplan, Iglesia o otro)
Nunca Pocas veces A veces Ocasionalmente Seguido
0 1 2 3 4

106
26. ¿ Que son sus expectativas para el exito academico de de su hijo/a?
___0-No tengo expectavivas
___1-Que mi hijo/hija pase 1-2 clases
___2- Que mi hijo/hija pase 3-5 clases
___3- Que mi hijo/hija pase todas las 6 clases
___4- Que mi hijo/hija tenga 3’s y 4’s en todas sus clases
___5- Que mi hijo/hija tenga 4’s en todas sus clases

27. ¿Que son sus expectativas para el futuro academico de su hijo/a?
___0-No tengo expectativas
___1-Que mi hijo/a vaya a la preparatoria
___2-Que mi hijo/a se gradue de la preparatoria
___3-Que mi hijo/a vaya al colegio
___4- Que mi hijo/a se gradue del colegio
___5- Que mi hijo/a vaya a una escuela profesional
___6- Que mi hijo/a se gradue de una escuela profesional

28. How much do you know about your child’s academic progress in school.
___0- No tengo conocimiento sobre el progreso academico de mi hijo/a.
___1-Tengo poco conocimento sobre el progreso academico de mi hijo/a
___2-Tengo conocimiento sobre el progreso academico de mi hijo/a.
___3-Tengo conocimineto de alguans cosas sobre el progreso academico de mi
hijo/a.
___4-Se practicamente todo sobre el progreso academico de mi hijo/a.

29. ¿Como condsidera su satisfacion de la escuela de su hijo/a?
___0-Estoy muy insatisfecho con las escuela de mi hijo/a.
___1- Estoy un poco insatisfecho con las escuela de mi hijo/a.
___2- Estoy un poco satisfecho con las escuela de mi hijo/a.
___3- Estoy muy satisfecho con las escuela de mi hijo/a.

30. ¿En que idioma prefiere recibir las comunicaciones de la escuela?
___Ingles
___Español
___Ingles y español
___Otro idioma (Porfavor indique)__________________________

107
31. ¿Que es su grupo etnico?(indique todos lo que aplican)?
___Asiatico
___Afroamericano
___Chicano/Latino/Hispano
___Americano Europeo
___Arabico/ De Ambiente Oeste
___Nativo Americano
___De otras Islas del Pacifico
___Otro(specifique)______________________________

108
Appendix E
University of Southern California

A. PARENT/GUARDIAN CONSENT TO
PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Parental Involvement

Purpose
You are being invited to participate in a research study conducted by Teresa Kugler,
Assistant Principal at Your School. This study is a part of Ms. Kugler’s dissertation for
her Doctor of Education program at the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California. You were selected as a possible participant because your child is
a 6
th
, 7
th
, or 8
th
grade student at Your School. This study will last several months,
starting November 1, 2008 and ending May 1, 2009.

The purpose of this study is to learn more about how the involvement of parents in
school relates to student achievement on the STAR test and on their report card. All
Your School 6
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
grade parents are being invited to participate. We hope this
project will give us information which will help educators provide better opportunities
for parents to be involved in their children’s school.

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your child’s grades will not be affected
whether or not you participates. Ms. Kugler’s role in this study is researcher, rather
than school administrator, and whether you participate or not is in no way connected to
your child’s school record. Please take as much time as you need to read the
information below before deciding whether or not to participate. The individual listed at
the end of this form will be happy to answer any questions you have about this form or
the study. You are welcome to discuss the study with anyone you like before making
your decision.

Procedures
If you give your permission, you will be asked to do the things described below.

There are two parts to this study.

1. Complete Survey. Attached to this consent form is a 30 question survey regarding your
involvement in your child’s school last year. You are asked to complete this survey and
return it to your child’s teacher. The survey will ask you to rate the frequency with
which you participated in school events, or did things at home that related to school.

2. School Data. The second part of the study involves the researcher receiving two types
of information from official school records. They are your child’s grades and his or her
STAR test scores in language arts and mathematics, for the 2007-2008 school years,
and demographic information including ethnicity, English language level.

109

Confidentiality
Several steps will be taken so that no one outside the research team will know what
responses you personally gave to the survey or interview questions. Any information
that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with your child
will remain confidential and will be given out only with your and your child’s
permission or as required by law.

Your participation is voluntary and all responses are confidential. If enrolled in the
study, you will be randomly assigned a study ID. Any responses you provide as part of
this study, and any other data will be coded before the data is analyzed or considered.
All study data will be stored in the investigator’s home office in a locked file cabinet or
password-protected computer. Only Ms. Kugler will have access to the study data and
to the list that links your study ID to your or your child’s name. After five years, the
paper and will be destroyed (shredded or deleted).

When results of the research are published, presented, or discussed with anyone, the
responses you child give will be grouped with the responses from other parents in the
study. This means your choice to participate and your individual responses will not be
shared with your child’s teachers, the school or anyone else.

Potential Risks and Discomforts
There are no known risks associated with your participation in this research project.
You can choose not to answer any question during the survey that you are not
comfortable answering.

Potential Benefits to Participants and to Society
This study is not designed to help you or your child personally, but to help teachers and
researchers learn more about parental involvement. Since the outcomes of this research
will be shared with teachers and administrators from your child’s school, he or she may
benefit from improved parent programs as a result of the insights gained during this
study.

Compensation for Participation
Your child will receive a “free dress day” pass when this form is returned, whether you
choose to complete the attached survey or not.

Freedom to Withdraw
Your participation is voluntary, and you are free to withdraw from this study and to
refuse to answer any questions you do not want to answer without consequences of any
kind. Your child’s grades or other school records will not be affected, whether or not
you agrees to participate. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.

110
Alternatives to Participation
Your alternative is to not participate. If you do not want to complete any of the
procedures, you may choose not to return this form, or return this form with “no, I
choose not to participate” so that your child may still receive a “free dress pass”.

Obtaining Copies of Research Instruments
To obtain copies of the survey, please contact the principal investigator at the address
below.

Rights of Research Participants & Contact Information
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue your participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
permission for you to participate in this research study. If you have any questions about
your rights as a study participant and/or your child’s rights or you would like to speak
with someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions about
the research, or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please contact the
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

Identification of Investigator
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Teresa Kugler., Principal Investigator, 8535 Contreras, Paramount, California; email:
tkugler@usc.edu.

THANK YOU FOR REVIEWING THIS INFORMATION!

If you DO agree to participate in this study, please complete the
form below and the attached survey and return it to your child’s
school.

If you do NOT give permission you may return the form below
with “no, I choose not to participate” or do nothing, in which case no
further action is requested and you may do as you wish with this
form.

111

SIGNATURE OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask
questions. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to
participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

Please CHOOSE ONE of the following two participation options.

! I choose to participate in this study by completing the attached
survey.

OR

! I choose not to participate in this study.

ALSO, please indicate whether the researchers may access your
child’s language arts and mathematics grades and STAR results as
well as demographic information from official school records.

! Yes, you may obtain my child’s demographic information, grades
and STAR results from school records.

OR

! No, you may not obtain my child’s demographic information,
grades and STAR results from school records.

My signature below indicates that I agree to participate in this study.

Parent or Guardian’s Name Child’s Name

Parent or Guardian’s Signature Date

112
Appendix F
CONSENTIMIENTO PARA LOS PADRES/GUARDIANES PARA
PARTICIPAR EN UNA INVESTIGACION

Participación de los Padres
Propósito
Usted ha sido invitado/a a participar en un estudio de investigación conducido por Teresa
Kugler, Asistente Directora de la escuela de Your. Este estudio el parte de la disertación
de la Srta. Kugler para su programa de educación de doctorado en la Escuela de
Educación, Rossier en la Universidad del Sur de California. Usted ha sido elegido/a
como un participante porque su hijo/a es un alumno del 6º, 7º o 8º grado en la escuela de
Your. Esta investigación durara por varios meses, comenzando el 1 de noviembre, del
2008 y terminará el 1 de mayo, del 2009.

El propósito de este estudio es para aprender mas sobre como la participación de los
padres en la escuela se relaciona con los éxitos en el examen STAR y en el reporte de sus
calificaciones. Todos los padres de alumnos en la escuela Your que están en el 6º, 7º, y
8º grado, han sido invitados a participar. Esperamos que este proyecto nos de
información la cual pueda ayudar a los educadores a ofrecer mayor oportunidades para
que los padres se envuelvan en la escuela de sus hijos.

Su participación es completamente voluntaria. Las calificaciones de su hijo/a no será
afectada si usted participa o no, y la escuela no estará informada si usted participo o no en
el estudio. La funcion de la Srta. Kugler es el papel de investigador, no un administrador
de escuela, si usted participa o no participa no esta conectado al archivo escola de su
hijo/a. Por favor, tómese el tiempo necesario en leer y repasar la información siguiente
antes de decidir si le gustaría participar o no. La persona mencionada al final de esta
página, estará encantada de contestar cualquier pregunta que usted pueda tener acerca de
esta forma o el estudio. Usted puede discutir la investigación con cualquier persona que
usted guste antes de tomar una decisión. Una segunda copia de esta forma está incluida
en este paquete para que usted guarde.

Procedimientos
Si usted da su consentimiento, se le pedirá que usted haga las siguientes cosas.

Hay dos partes a este estudio.
1. Completar la encuesta. Adjunto con esta forma, esta una encuesta de 30
preguntas referente su envolucramiento con la escuela de su hijo/a el año
pasado. Se le pide a usted que complete esta encuesta y la regrese al/ la
maestro/a de su hijo/a. La encuesta le pide que estime la frecuencia con la que
usted participo en los eventos escolares o hizo cosas en la casa relacionados
con la escuela.
2. Información Escolar. La segunda parte del estudio incluye al investigador
recibiendo dos tipos de información de archivos oficiales de la escuela.

113
Confidencialidad
Varios pasos serán tomados para que nadie fuera del equipo de investigación sepa que
respuestas de usted personalmente ala encuesta o preguntas de la entrevista. Cualquier
información que sea obtenida en conexión con este estudio y que puede ser identificada
con su hijo/a se mantendrá confidencial y se compartirá solamente con su permiso y el de
su hijo/a como requerido por ley.

Su participación es voluntaria y todas las respuestas confidenciales. Si se inscribe en la
investigación, a usted se le asignará una identificación de investigación. Cualquier
respuesta que usted nos de como parte de esta investigación, y cualquier otra información
sera puesta en una clave antes de que la información pueda ser analizada o considerada.
Toda la información será guardada en la oficina de nuestro investigador, en su casa, en un
gabinete bajo llave o en la computadora protegida con un código en de seguridad en la
computadora. Solamente la Srita. Kugler tendrá acceso a la información y la lista que
conecta a su identificación del estudio con el nombre de su hijo/a. Después de cinco
años, el papel será destruido (rompido en pedacitos, o borrado).

Cuando los resultados sean publicados, presentados, o discutidos con cualquier persona,
la respuesta que su hijo/a dé la pondrán en grupo con las respuestas de los otros padres en
el estudio. Esto significa que su decisión en participar y su respuesta individual no será
compartida con el/la maestro/a de su hijo/a, la escuela, o nadie mas.

Riesgos potenciales e incomodidades.
No han habido riesgos asociados con su participación en este proyecto de investigación.
Usted puede tomar la decisión de no contestar ninguna pregunta durante la encuesta, que
usted no se sienta cómodo en contestar.

Beneficios Potenciales a los participantes y la Sociedad.
Esta investigación no esta diseñada para ayudarle a usted o su hijo/a personalmente, pero
sí para ayudarles a los maestros e investigadores a aprender más acerca de la
participación de los padres con la escuela. Como los resultados de esta investigación se
compartirán con los maestros y Administradores de la escuela de su hijo/a, el o ella se
beneficiarán de los programas de mejoría para los padres, como resultado de perspicacia
durante esta investigación.

Compensación y participación
Su hijo/a recibirá un pase para un día de “Vestuario libre” cuando esta forma sea
regresada a la oficina, decida usted o no, completar la encuesta que está adjunta.

Libertad de retirarse
Su participación es voluntaria, y usted es libre de retirarse de esta investigación y negarse
a contestar cualquier pregunta que usted no quiera contestar sin consecuencias de ningún
tipo. Las calificaciones de su hijo/a o los archivos escolares no serán afectadas, si el/ella

114
decide participar o no. El investigador puede retirarlo a usted de esta investigación si las
circunstancias así lo piden.

Alternativas de Participación
Su alternativa es no participar. Si usted gusta no participar en cualquier de estos
procedimientos, puede elegir no regresar esta hoja, o puede regresar esta hoja con una
notación que dice” No, quiero participar” para que su hijo/a reciba un pase de “vestuario
libre”.

Obteniendo Copias de Instrumentos de esta Investigación
Para obtener copias de esta investigación por favor de comunicarse con la directora de
esta investigación al domicilio que esta anotado abajo.

Derechos de Participantes de Investigaciones & Información de Contacto
Usted puede mandar a pedir su consentimiento a cualquier tiempo y descontinuar su
participación si ninguna penalidad. Usted no esta dando de baja demanda legal, derechos
o remedios por su permiso que dio en participar en esta investigación. Si usted tiene
alguna pregunta sobre sus derechos como participante en este estudio o sobre los
derechos de su hijo/a o le gustaría hablar con alguien independiente al equipo para
obtener preguntas sobre la investigación. Si usted no se puede comunicar con el equipo
de investigaron por favor comuníquese a la Universidad Park IRB, Oficina del Vice
Provost de Avance para investigaciónes, Stonier Hall, Cuarto 224a, Los Angeles, A
90089-1146, (213)821-5272 O upirb@usc.edu.

Identificación del Investigador
Si usted tiene alguna pregunta o preocupaciónes referente la investigación, por favor
llame a la Srta. Teresa Kugler, Investigadora Principal, 8535 Contreras Street,
Paramount, California; telefono: (562)602-8068; email: tkugler@usc.edu.

GRACIAS POR REPASAR ESTA INFORMACION!

Si usted está de acuerdo en participar en este estudio, por favor complete la parte
baja de esta forma y la encuesta y regrésela a el/la maestro/a de su hijo/a.

Si usted NO dá su permiso, usted puede regresar la parte baja de esta forma,
marcando “No, yo decidí no participar”o hacer nada, en cual caso, no se tomará
ninguna acción, y usted podrá hacer con este papel lo que mayor le convenga.

115

FIRMA DEL PADRE/GUARDIAN

He leído la información incluida arriba. Se me ha dado la oportunidad de hacer
preguntas. Mis preguntas han sido contestadas a mi satisfacción, y estoy de acuerdo en
participar en esta investigación. Se me ha dado una copia de esta forma.

Por favor Elija una de las dos opciones de participación.

Yo elijo participar en esta investigación, completando la encuesta
incluida.

Yo elijo no participar en esta investigación.

TAMBIEN, por favor indique si los investigadores pueden tener
acceso a los resultados de exámenes STAR para lectura y
matemáticas al igual que información demográfica de archivos
oficiales de la escuela.

Sí, usted puede obtener la información demográfica, exámenes y
resultados de los archivos de la escuela.

No, usted no puede obtener la información demográfica,
calificaciones, o resultados del examen STAR de la escuela.

Mi firma debajo indica que estoy de acuerdo en participar en
esta investigación.

_________________________ ______________________
Nombre del Padre/Guardián Nombre del alumno

________________________ _______________________
Firma del Padre/Guardian Fecha

Abstract (if available)

Abstract A significant achievement gap exists between Latino and White students, and between middle school students and their elementary counterparts. To address this, federal legislation, specifically No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Title I, are driving forces behind policy and practice in schools in the United States. NCLB holds schools accountable for student achievement, while Title I requires parental involvement in schools. This study considered whether parental involvement has a relationship to student achievement, thereby providing a connection between NCLB and Title I.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship among the nurturance and monitoring dimensions of parenting, academic self-concept, and acculturation, in the academic achievement of Latino college students

PDF

Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?

PDF

The impact of parental involvement on student achievement

PDF

A quantitative analysis on student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 6th grade middle school students

PDF

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

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The relationship of values and parenting styles on academic achievement and occupational choice among Jewish-Americans and Jewish-Iranian Americans

PDF

The effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on students' writing achievement and attitudes

PDF

The path of involvement: educational practices of working class African American parents of college students

PDF

Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

PDF

Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts

PDF

Low-socioeconomic status families: the role of parental involvement and its association with early childhood academic achievement trajectories

PDF

Professional development in high- and low-performing elementary schools serving large numbers of African American, Latino, and low-socioeconomic students

Asset Metadata

Creator Kugler, Teresa (author)

Core Title The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 08/03/2009

Defense Date 06/24/2009

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

Tag Academic Achievement,achievement gap,Latino students,Middle school students,No Child Left Behind,OAI-PMH Harvest,parent involvement,Title I

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth, H. (committee chair), Clark, Ginger (committee member), Gray, Randy (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email tkugler@usc.edu,tkugler@verizon.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2448

Unique identifier UC1457171

Identifier etd-Kugler-3169 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-172842 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2448 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kugler-3169.pdf

Dmrecord 172842

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kugler, Teresa

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