/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content

SOCIAL REPRODUCTION THEORY AND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT
IN HEAD START: INVESTIGATING THE PARENTS’ PERSPECTIVE

by
Veronica E. Escoffery
_______________________________________________

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

May 2007

Copyright 2007 Veronica E. Escoffery

ii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my family who love and
support me in pursuit of my educational aspirations.
I dedicate this dissertation to the ancestors upon whose
shoulders I have stood in order to achieve this goal.
I dedicate this dissertation to future generations so they can see
what can be accomplished with faith in God and persistence.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Although the writing of this dissertation was a journey undertaken by an
individual, I had many traveling companions along the way. I offer my sincere
gratitude to Dr. Alexander Jun, my dissertation chair whose sage advice,
omnipresent consultation and constant encouragement kept my footsteps on the right
path. I also express appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Gisele Ragusa and
Dr. Kay Song who provided constructive feedback along the way.
I am grateful to the many families at the USC University Park Center Head
Start program who graciously gave of themselves and of their time to participate in
my research. I am indebted to the administrators, staff, and teachers of the USC
School for Early Childhood Education (SECE) who welcomed me into their various
Head Start facilities, allowed me to walk part of my journey in their shoes and
encouraged me to discover the Head Start program for myself.
Special acknowledgement goes to my parents, Paul and Claudine Escoffery
whose faith and prayers sustained my strength. My husband Richard also deserves
acknowledgement for the gratitude he knows I feel for his tacit support of my
journey. The biggest debt is to my savior Jesus Christ. Without His support, this
journey would have never been possible. I thank Him for the grace, mercy and
blessings which He has bestowed upon me in order to bring this journey to
completion.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ....................................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................iii

LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................v

ABSTRACTS .....................................................................................................vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: .......................................................................1

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................12

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................47

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF DATA ....................................................75

CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS ...............................................................................105
Figure 1: USC Head Start Program ..................................................................138

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................148

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Child Development Center Matrix ................................................. 54

Table 2: Participant Matrix ............................................................................ 59

Table 3: Six Forms of Institutional Support ................................................... 65

Table 4: USC/SECE Community Partnerships .............................................. 93

Table 5: Forms of Institutional Support and Study Data Combined ............ 119

vi
ABSTRACT

Myriad studies have focused on parental involvement as well as the scholastic
and personal benefits accrued to children in preschool through high school education
settings who have involved parents. The number of studies addressing the benefits
accrued to parents as a result of their involvement is considerably smaller. Those studies
which have been undertaken generally focus on the outcomes of involvement (e.g.,
increased confidence, improved parental responsiveness). Although these outcomes are
noteworthy, absent from the literature is the process by which parents arrive at becoming
competent and knowledgeable. The process through which parents journey in order to
activate change, acquire resources and arrive at the reported transformational outcomes
remains unclear.
This study explores` the process by examining from a parental perspective,
existing mechanisms within the Head Start program and how parent involvement within
the program supports the development, acquisition, or activation of social and cultural
capital in the lives of the low-income and working class, minority parents who
participate. A local Head Start program administered by the University of Southern
California’s Community Education Academy (CEA) and School for Early Childhood
Education initiative (SECE) was utilized as the study site. Eighteen Head Start program
parents and twelve program administrators and staff participated.
Results of this qualitative case study revealed that parents perceived of
themselves as gaining social and cultural capital resources as a result of their
participation within the Head Start program. More importantly however, results

vii
indicated that the parent-to-parent and staff -to -parent relationships which are built and
exist within the Head Start program are key components which facilitate the process of
parents developing, acquiring, and ultimately activating social and cultural capital
resources in the lives of their families.

1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Forty one years of controversy, criticisms and commendations represent the
history of the Head Start program. Since its inauguration in 1965, Head Start has
weathered many bureaucratic storms in Washington DC regarding its overall benefits
to children, financial accountability, and its efficacy as a program. Despite being
tempest tossed Head Start endures as a beacon program which often receives
bipartisan political support and has achieved national and international recognition as
a successful child development program.
From its inception, to its current manifestation, Head Start has been a program
dedicated to improving the life chances of children who live in poverty. Through its
provision of comprehensive early intervention services Head Start educationally
intervenes in the lives of low-income children and families by not only providing
preschool education services, but also by providing health (mental and physical)
nutrition, social service and parent involvement support. By embracing both
children and parents, Head Start maintains a family-centered focus and cultivates the
parent’s role as the principal influence, primary educator, nurturer, and advocate in
their child’s life. Working in collaboration with parents, Head Start upholds its
strong advocacy of parental involvement in early childhood education.
This chapter is divided into four segments. I first present background
information regarding parental involvement. I subsequently present the problem
statement and research questions. Next, I explain the purpose of the study followed
by a summary and finally an explanation of terms utilized in the study.

2
Background Information
Historically, parents have been involved in the education of their children, but
that involvement has changed over time. In early patriarchal civilizations, fathers
maintained the unconditional right to make life and death decisions and eventual
educational choices regarding their children. Similarly, Greek and Roman societies
retained patriarchal traditions which enveloped the advent of education to children.
English families in the 14
th
century with the appropriate means could afford their
children educational opportunities through the use of private tutors and boarding
schools. It was not until the late 19
th
and early 20
th
centuries that Western societies
began to view childhood as a special period of life (Hepworth-Berger, 1991) and
supported formal education on a widespread basis.
Parental educational involvement has made a gradual transition from education
predominantly occurring within the context of the home and neighborhood to
simultaneously existing within the home and formal educational institutions. This
gradual transition placed the onus of responsibility for achievement in both localities;
home and school. Tierney (2005) noted that the idea of families as educators and the
call for family-school partnerships gained currency in the 1980s and 1990’s as a way
to advance student achievement (p.31). This resurgence in and heightened interest to
encourage parental involvement through the building of family-school relationships,
highlighted the importance of parental involvement as a significant factor in the
schooling of children. Multiple educational researchers have demonstrated that the
educational foundations for high achievement are in place long before students enter
educational programs. Additionally implicating the importance of parental

3
involvement, researchers such as Marjoribanks (1979) and Epstein (1992)
demonstrated that students at all grade levels derive educational benefit when their
parents encourage, are involved in, and support, scholastic activities.
Discussions of the various ways and reasons why parents become involved, as
well as the development of parental involvement typologies have permeated
educational research. Generally, the consensus among researchers and policy
analysts is two fold; first, that students sustain a positive school attitude, do better
academic work, and have higher educational aspirations as a result of parental
involvement and second, that parental involvement is significant to children’s
academic achievement at all levels of schooling (Tierney, 2005; Fan & Chen 2001;
Yan, 1999; Meidel & Reynolds, 1996; Epstein, 1995, 1992; Stevenson & Baker,
1987). Results specific to Head Start and other early intervention programs have
suggested that increased levels of parental involvement are associated with positive
outcomes such as academic readiness, and early academic achievement as well as
positive development in social/emotional domains with increased mastery of early
basic school skills in all subject areas (Lamb-Parker, Piotrkowski, Kessler-Sklar,
Baker & Peay; 1997; Marcon, 1999; Miedel & Reynolds, 2000; Reynolds et al.,
1996).
Problem Statement
Numerous studies in the literature have focused on the benefits accrued to
children as a result of parental involvement. There have been some studies which
have addressed benefits to the parent as well. For example; Hoover-Dempsey
(1995), reported that parents, particularly mothers, appeared to derive information

4
about their own success as parents from their involvement with their children.
Similarly, Lamb-Parker and her colleagues (1997) noted that parental involvement
within Head Start was positively associated with improved outcomes for the parent.
A recent qualitative study by Bruckman and Blanton (2003), has also reported
increases in maternal feelings of competence as a result of parental involvement.
However, the data in these studies have generally focused on the outcomes of
involvement while the mechanisms through which the process occurs are less well
understood. Absent from the literature is the process by which the parents arrive at
becoming more responsive, or more effective as parents. The process through
which parents travel in order to activate changes and arrive at the reported
transformational outcomes remains unclear. This outcome orientation within the
literature obscures valuable information that could be obtained through an
exploration of the process which parents experience.
Observing and acknowledging the external oriented outcomes and actions of
parental involvement such as increased student achievement, increased parent
visitations or parent-teacher communication does not fully support an understanding
of the process that makes “any given parent, informed, competent, or involved”
(Calabrese-Barton, Drake, Perez, St. Louis & George, 2004; p.6). A theoretical lens
should be applied to mediate an understanding of the processes by which parents do
become informed, competent, and involved. Within this dissertation, social cultural
reproduction theory and its tenets of social and cultural capital represent this lens.
Pierre Bourdieu (1977) a French sociologist is credited with the initial
theoretical development of social and cultural reproduction theory as is James

5
Coleman (1988), an American sociologist. Social capital is defined as the resources
developed through participation in social networks and the activation or
magnification of those resources for social benefits (Monkman, Ronald, &
Theramene, 2005). Cultural capital points to the importance of class cultures in
mediating negotiations in the schooling process (Collins &Thompson, 1994).
Family status variables, also known as social and cultural capital are, amenable to
influence and alteration by primary characters in the involvement process: parents
themselves, their children, and other adults in the environment (Hoover-Dempsey &
Sandler, 1997).
Within the context of the Head Start program, the development and acquisition
of social capital resources will be explored in the parents’ process of constructing
social networks both within the Head Start program and the surrounding community.
Aspects of cultural capital will be noted in terms of embodied cultural capital,
represented as the parent’s dispositions or attitudes regarding for example, their
knowledge of educational institutions, changes in parenting attitudes, and knowledge
of available resources. In this study I will utilize the lens of social and cultural
reproduction theory to focus on the parent perspective and the processes which
parents experience as a result of being involved in the Head Start program as
opposed to a focus solely on the outcomes of their participation. Confirmation of the
importance of gaining the parent perspective and utilizing a process oriented focus is
substantiated by recommendations that originated with the Roundtable on Head Start
research.

6
Philips and White (2004) in a summary report of the 1996 Roundtable on Head
Start Research discussions noted that research on Head Start had not given adequate
attention to Head Start families as the unit of analysis or to important descriptive
work which “captures the real lives of children and families in Head Start…”
(p. 268). Discussions from the Roundtable also noted that “the family-Head start
relationship takes many forms and evolves over time; it is best approached as a
process rather than a discrete set of activities that operate as input to parents…”
(p.268). Further acknowledgement of the need to study the process through which
families experience Head Start was furnished by the Roundtable;
Given that families enter Head Start with vastly different capacities,
needs, and orientations toward parent involvement, any effort to
assess the effects of their engagement with the program needs to focus
on trajectories of change and incremental improvement rather than
outcomes (p. 269).

Outcomes are the end result of a process and although valuable, do not fully
represent the process through which said outcomes are accomplished. The need to
study the processes and not solely the “discreet activities” or “outcomes” which
Head Start parents experience as a result of their involvement within the various
activities provided by the program is necessary. As the experiences of parents
participating within the Head Start program progress forward this study will explore
their process and perceptions by utilizing the following four questions to guide the
research:
1. What are the programmatic mechanisms within Head Start that supports
the development, acquisition or activation of social and cultural capital in
the lives of the parents who are involved in the program?

7
2. How do parents’ participation within the Head Start Program facilitate
their perception of the development, acquisition or activation of social
and cultural capital?

3. What are the parents’ perceptions of their involvement within the Head
Start program and how it affects the development of or changes in their
social networks?

4. How do parents’ involvement within the Head Start program influence
their perception of their ability to support or advocate for their child in the
educational environment?

Purpose of study
The purpose of this qualitative case study will be to explore from a parental
perspective, how involvement within the Head Start program supports the
development acquisition or activation of social and cultural capital in the lives of the
low-income and minority parents who participate in the educational, leadership, and
cultural activities provided. The objective of this dissertation is to study a
purposeful sample of two groups of parents. The first group of parents represents
those who have experienced Head Start in the preceding program year with their
child and resultantly are returning to the program during the current year in
preparation for their child’s transition to Kindergarten in the fall. The second group
of parents represents those that currently have a child participating in the Head Start
program while simultaneously having a child in attendance within the public school
system. The study will examine the views, opinions, and perceptions of parents who
can retroactively discuss and presently reflect on the process of and their experiences
with being involved as parents in the Head Start program. This study will also

8
examine the existing programmatic mechanisms within Head Start which support the
development, acquisition, or activation of social and cultural capital in the lives of
the parents who are served by the program.
Significance of the Study
This study is designed to contribute findings to the knowledge base of parental
involvement studies in the Head Start research literature and to contribute to policy
initiatives at the local levels of Head Start programs. Through the use of a
qualitative research design, this study will add a process oriented research
perspective to the literature as opposed to the outcome oriented research perspective
which presently exists. Given the unique qualities of each Head Start program, the
current study will specifically have implications for the particular parental
involvement program being studied. Results rendered from the study may provide
Head start program administrators and staff with an increased understanding from
the perspective of an involved parent, which programmatic aspects support and
benefit parental development of social and cultural capital resources. Through the
provision of study results, ideas for future trainings and workshops for staff may be
developed. Additionally modifications in educational units or approaches to
addressing the needs of parents involved within the Head Start program may be
influenced.
Summary
Within the context of this introduction I have presented information as to the
importance of this study. Following this chapter, I will present a review of the
pertinent literature concerning parental involvement and provide information

9
regarding its relationship to social and cultural capital and social networks. In
chapter three a discussion of research methodology, research design, and subject
selection as well as sampling procedures, data collection and data analysis will be
presented. In chapter four I will present four themes; 1) agency responsiveness:
laying foundations to build social and cultural capital, 2) learning by example:
parenting skills as cultural capital, 3) social networks: making connections and
developing social capital and 4) parental empowerment and advocacy: activating
capital. These themes were derived from the data that was gathered within the study.
Finally, in chapter five I will present an analysis of the data, propose policy
suggestions and formulate recommendations for future research.
Definitions and Terminology
The following definitions and terminology appear throughout the dissertation and are
defined here to provide the reader with information about the concepts that I will be
referring to within the study.
Head Start: A program funded under the Head Start Act and carried out by a
Head Start agency or a delegate agency, that provides ongoing comprehensive
child development services to low-income children from birth to 5 and their
families through the provision of an array of educational, health (physical and
mental), dental, nutrition, and parental involvement services.
Parents: refers to a male and or female related to the child by blood, marriage, or
adoption. Parent can also represent the child’s psychological parents, whether or
not they are also biological parents.

10
Parental Involvement: refers to the Head Start programs vision for parental
involvement which is to: create and sustain an environment of partnership and
collaboration across all elements of the Head Start program which; 1) supports
parents as primary educators, nurturers and advocates, 2) assures that every
parent has an opportunity for a significant experience in Head Start and 3)
assures the policy making role of parents.
Family Partnership Agreement (FPA): The process and document by which
staff assists families, when they are ready, in identifying and defining goals in
measurable terms, discussing what needs to be done to achieve these goals, and
how the accomplishment of each goal will be determined. The document
describes the family goals, responsibilities, timetables and strategies for
achieving these goals as well as progress in achieving them.
Minority: is used to refer to the collective of African American, Latino, Asian
and Native American families which are served within the USC School of Early
Childhood Education (SECE) Head Start program.
Center Parent Committee: is a structured committee made up of all enrolled
parents at a center and includes a functioning board of officers. The committee is
responsible for holding monthly meetings and address issues such as; advising
staff on site operations, planning center activities, and taking part in the selection
of new employees Parents comprise 100% of the membership of this board.
Policy Council: a structured committee mandated in the Head Start Performance
Standards. The council shares in the decision making process for program
operations and is responsible for approving or disapproving annual budgets, grant

11
applications, recruitment and selection process, hiring of new staff, terminations,
and the program’s short-term and long-term goals. The council also has direct
responsibility for hearing any grievances fro community members. Parents
comprise 50% of this board. The remaining 50% is comprised of a combination
of Head Start administrators, staff, and community volunteers.
Income: income is defined as a family’s total cash receipts before taxes.
Low Income family: a family/household whose total annual income before taxes
is 76-100 percent below the Federal poverty guidelines. The household may also
receive public assistance.
Working Class Family: defined as family/household where at least one adult
has a high school education, or some college and a job with limited autonomy
Middle Income Family: defined as a family/household where there is a level of
economic independence where one person typically has a college degree and a
job involving a significant degree of autonomy.
Head Stat Program Performance Standards: mandatory regulations that
grantees and delegate agencies must implement in order to operate a Head Start
program.
Head Start Agency or Grantee: means a local public or private non-profit or
for-profit agency or organization whose application has been approved to operate
a Head Start program pursuant to the Head Start Act.

12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The research and educational literature produced in the last century validates
the efficacy of parental participation at all levels in the schooling of children and the
important role it plays in early education programs such as Head Start. (Epstein,
1996; Henderson & Berla 1994) However, during the development of Project Head
Start in 1965, as it was initially termed, parental involvement was not widely
recognized as an important educational building block. In spite of this actuality, the
founders of the Head Start program positioned parental involvement as one of the
programs foundational cornerstones.
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological approach to child development played
an instrumental role in the inception of Project Head Start and more specifically, the
initiation of parent involvement within the program. As a research psychologist
and Head Start planner, Bronfenbrenner noted that in order to be effective, any
program for children, whether rich or poor, must involve the children’s parents and
communities so that all environments affecting the child would foster similar goals.
(Zigler & Muenchow, 1992). Throughout its 41 year history, the element of parental
involvement within Head Start has facilitated the legislative mandate of “maximum
feasible participation,” for all parents by guaranteeing that they have the opportunity
to be involved in their child’s educational development.

13
Multiple researchers have determined that parental involvement is not only
valuable to the efficacy of early intervention programs and beneficial to the
achievement of children, but also advantageous to the well being of parents
themselves (Lamb-Parker, Piotrkowski, Kessler-Sklar, Baker, Peavy, & Clark, 1997;
Lareau, 1989; Marcon, 1999; Marvogenes, Bezruczko, & Hageman & Reynolds,
1996; Meidel & Reynolds 1999). Since its inception, the goal of parent involvement
within the Head Start program has been to ensure that parents are educated about and
actively participate in the development and schooling of their child. Accordingly, it
is of import to understand how the participation of parents within the Head Start
program can facilitate the development, acquisition, or activation of social and
cultural capital in their lives. Additionally, it is also important to determine if a
parent’s participation within the program supports them in their ability to primarily
enhance their child’s Head Start experience and subsequently sustain this capacity to
be effective advocates for their children once the child exits Head Start to begin
formal schooling. To that end, the purpose of this literature review is to: 1)
operationalize the construct of parental involvement and parent perspective within
the literature generally and in particular relative to the Head Start program,
2) examine the research findings of pertinent literature regarding the educational
benefits accrued to children and parents as a result of parental involvement within
K-12 educational environments and explicitly within the milieu of the Head Start
program, 3) discuss the theoretical interpretations of social reproduction theory,

14
4) conceptualize parental involvement through the lens of social reproduction theory,
and, 5) discuss social networks as a reflection of parental involvement and
social/cultural capital acquisition.
Parental Involvement and Parent Perspective: Operationalized
The term parental involvement carries with it many intuitive understandings,
consequently, conceptualizing it can be difficult because it is often perceived as a
multifaceted construct which subsumes a wide variety of parental behavioral patterns
and parenting practices that incorporate both the home and school settings (Fan &
Chen, 2001). Comprehending this construct called parental involvement within the
context of both the Head Start program and the extant literature is significant to
understanding it within the current study and contextually placing it within the
literature.
With the family-centered focus that Head Start maintains, its vision for parental
involvement is to create and sustain an environment of partnership and collaboration
which:
1) supports parents as primary educators, nurturers, advocates and principal
influence in their child’s development.

2) guarantees the participation of a policy making role for parents.
3) ensures that each parent has an opportunity for a significant experience in
Head Start.

These standards are executed within Head Start through encouraging parents to
become involved in all aspects of the program, from participating in children’s
activities to direct involvement in policy and program decisions. Within the

15
literature, the polysemous construct of parent involvement has been investigated by
various researchers.
Epstein (1992, 1995) in her integration of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
model proposed a six-level framework of parent involvement which asserted that
school and family involvement represented a shared responsibility of overlapping
spheres of influence with the child as the center. This multidimensional system
provided a theoretical framework for assessing and evaluating parental involvement
and underlies Epstein’s emphasis of promoting positive parent-school relationships
the six levels include: 1) parenting/assisting parents in child-rearing skills, 2) school-
parent communication 3), involving parents in school decision-making,
4) home based learning, 5) involving parents in school volunteer activities, and
6) involving parents in school-community collaborations. Epstein’s view and
construct primarily considers the perspective of the educational organization
concerned however, the emphasis is upon building educational partnerships between
the educational organization and the parent’s involvement.
In researching the factors that influence a parent’s decision to become involved,
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) developed a conceptualization of parent
involvement which reflected the parent’s perspective. They found three particular
factors which impacted parental involvement (1) parents convictions as to why they
become involved in their children’s education, (2) the parents choice of being
involved relative to the types of reception the school conveys and (3) the extent to
which parents feel they can have a positive influence on children’s educational
outcomes. Different to Epstein’s (1992) typology, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s

16
(1995) framework attempts to address the reasons behind why parents become
involved and to discover what the mechanisms are through which parent
involvement may exert positive influences on students’ educational outcomes.
Juxtaposed to Epstein’s typology, this particular framework more directly reflects the
perspective of the parent within the context of involvement relative to their election
to engage with and participate in educational activities and organizations such as
school.
The importance of recognizing parental involvement as a many-sided construct
was further asserted by Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) in their study of parental
involvement and its association to enhancing children’s school performance. These
authors described three types of parental involvement in children’s schooling: (1)
parental involvement behavior, (2) cognitive intellectual involvement, and (3)
personal involvement. The parent’s perspective regarding participation within their
child’s education is present within the types of involvement described by these
researchers. The first type, parental involvement behavior entails a parent’s
participation at school and home (e.g., attending school activities, helping with
homework). The second type of involvement is represented by those activities which
address cognitive intellectual involvement such as, exposing the child to
intellectually stimulating activities like going to the library or talking about current
events. Finally, the third category personal involvement consists of parents knowing
and keeping abreast of what is going on with the child in school. (Grolnick et al.
1997).

17
Within each of these frameworks is reflected the multidimensional nature of the
parental involvement construct however, there is a common thread which unites all
three frameworks. The connection lies within the definition of parental involvement
as the dedication of resources by the parent to the child within a given domain
(Grolnick & Slowiaczek 1994). This definition captures the relationship between
the domain of Head Start as an educational institution and the parents who are
involved and participating within the program. The definition additionally illustrates
the resources that parents may acquire or activate as a result of their participation and
subsequently dedicate on behalf of their child’s education. Considering this
definition, it is essential to view the parents not as passive participants in their
involvement within the Head Start program but as active participants. Accordingly,
then it must be understood that the definition of parental involvement within the
context of this study also inheres viewing parents as dynamic, interactive actors and
parent involvement as a dynamic, interactive process within which parents draw on
multiple experiences and resources to facilitate their interface within educational
institutions (Barton, Drake, Perez, St. Louis & George, 2004).
Parental Involvement in Educational Research: Child Outcomes
Parental involvement in children’s academic lives is recognized as a critical
factor and a positive influence on students’ academic achievement in school.
Accordingly, in order to effectively assist their child in his or her efforts to meet the
demands of school, parents need to have knowledge about their child’s schooling and
access to resources to help their child (Stevenson & Baker 1987). Previous studies
have echoed this sentiment regarding the relationship between parental involvement

18
(Epstein 1991, 1992;Meidel& Reynolds 2000; Stevenson & Baker 1987; ) and
children’s schooling , conversely other studies have questioned the efficacy of the
relationship between parental involvement and student achievement (Fan & Chen
2001; White, Taylor & Moss; 1992;). However, empirical research with legitimate
theoretical frameworks has been posited as a response to the efficacy of the parental
involvement question.
In a study utilizing data from the Chicago Longitudinal Study, Meidel and
Reynolds (2000) investigated the relationship between parent involvement in early
intervention education and the school achievement of inner-city children. They
addressed whether or not the frequency of parental involvement and number of
activities a parent participates in during early education is associated with school
achievement. They also examined if the combination of parent involvement and
number of activities participated in by parents affected grade retention or special
education placement at age fourteen. Results rendered from their study indicated
that even after controlling for family background, greater frequency of parent
involvement in early education was positively associated with kindergarten and
eighth grade reading achievement, lower rates of grade retention and fewer years in
special education when children were in eighth grade. Prior research conducted by
Reynolds et al. (1996) also utilizing data from the Chicago Longitudinal Study
established similar findings. The study by Reynolds and colleagues (1996),
examined early childhood intervention program effectiveness framed by two
hypotheses: cognitive-advantage & family-support. Within the context of those
hypotheses, the investigators found that parent involvement was associated with a

19
reduction in rates of grade retention, less frequent school mobility, and determined
that parental involvement was a mediating factor in promoting the effectiveness of
early childhood intervention.
Results such as the abovementioned are similar to findings in research
conducted by Marcon (1999), which suggested that parents play a salient role in
promoting the effectiveness of early education intervention programs. Marcon
(1999) studied the value of parent involvement in children’s early academic
performance and utilized teacher ratings to study the relationship between four
distinct parental involvement activities (i.e., parent-teacher conference, home visits,
and extended class visit, helping with a class activity) and young children’s
preschool academic achievement. Data were collected over a three-year period
within a predominantly low-income, urban city setting and included information
from three separate preschool cohorts. Via observations, interviews, small group
meetings and survey data, Marcon and research assistants collected data from the
teachers who participated in the study. Results rendered from the research indicated
that increased and active parent involvement was associated with positive
development in all domains including greater mastery of language, social skills, and
early basic school skills in all subject areas.
Research by various investigators has clearly demonstrated that children gain
academic advantages when their parents are supportive, involved, and encourage
participation in school activities. This research has not only involved studies of
early education subjects but also students through high school and suggests that
students at all levels do better academic work, have more positive school attitudes,

20
higher aspirations, and display other positive behaviors if they have parents who are
aware , knowledgeable, encouraging, and involved (Epstein, 1992; Stevenson &
Baker, 1987; Yan 1999 ).
Questioning the value of parental involvement:
Despite research results demonstrating the positive consequences of parental
involvement and academic achievement, all research has not consistently supported
its efficacy. In an analysis of early intervention research regarding early intervention
programs White et al. (1992) asserted that it was unclear whether available research
evidence was consistent with the claims that early intervention programs would be
more effective with parental involvement for economically disadvantaged and
disabled children. In their analysis of the extant literature, they concluded:
Claims that parent involvement in early intervention leads to benefits
being maintained longer, or being more cost-efficient to achieve are
without foundation and should be disregarded until such time as
defensible research is available to support such a position.
(White et al., 1992, p.118).

The caveat to their research results indicated that the particular conclusions
reached within their study only applied to those parent involvement programs in
which the primary focus was to use parents as intervenors (White et al.; 1992) that is,
parents were used as primary providers of assistance to their child. Within that
context they found that the parent-as-intervenor model was not beneficial to at-risk
and disabled children. For those programs which modeled their parent involvement
component around providing assistance and education to parents and family
members, White and his colleagues (1992) rendered a different conclusion. The

21
researchers acknowledged that involving parents in other ways besides being the
primary intervenor may yield greater benefits.
Similarly examining parental involvement and its influence in children’s
education, Fan and Chen (2001), conducted a meta-analysis to synthesize
quantitative literature about the relationship between parent involvement and
students’ academic achievement. Utilizing an assemblage of studies culled from
ERIC and PSYCHLIT databases, Fan and Chen’s (2001) results revealed a small to
moderate and practically meaningful, relationship between parental involvement and
academic achievement.
As was evident from this examination, much research regarding parental
involvement has predominantly focused on its influence upon children’s educational
outcomes and not necessarily on the direct impact or effect of parental involvement
upon the parents themselves. However, understanding this juxtaposition between
parental involvement and its effects upon children coupled with parental
involvement and its effects upon the parent is important within the context of this
study and represents the literature which I will subsequently discuss.
Parental Involvement in Educational Research: Parent Outcomes
According to Head Start’s mandate, it is a program designed to focus on the
environmental enrichment of the whole child within the context of “strong family
support and involvement” (Head Start Bulletin, 1993) thus, parental involvement
plays an important role. Within the research literature there now exists a range of
studies which have either focused on or included parent outcome- related findings.
Various researchers have studied Head Start or other early education intervention

22
programs and the effects that these programs render upon the parents themselves.
Some studies have measured natural parent participation in activities provided by the
Head Start program, while others have examined the effects of specially created
parent intervention programs (Lamb-Parker, Piotrkowski & Peay, 1987). In the
following section a review of the literature related to parent outcome findings will be
presented.
Previously noted in this review, results from research regarding parental
involvement in early education programs and Head Start suggest that increased
levels of parental involvement are associated with positive child- outcomes such as
academic readiness, and early academic achievement for the children they serve
(Lamb-Parker et al.; 1997; Marcon, 1999; Miedel & Reynolds, 2000; Reynolds et.al.,
1996). Lamb-Parker and colleagues (1997) conducted a longitudinal study of
parent involvement within two Head Start Program agencies and examined benefits
rendered to children as well as benefits rendered to parents. Two particular aims
were identified by the researchers; 1) identification of variables associated with
parents’ participation in Head Start and 2) examination of the relationship between
parents’ participation in Head Start and outcomes for the parents themselves, their
Head Start children, and older siblings. The findings of the study provided
moderate support for the hypothesis that parental involvement within Head Start was
associated with positive outcomes for the parent as well as the Head Start Child and
older siblings. Lamb-Parker et al (1997), found positive relationships between the
parents involvement and increased feelings of well-being on the behalf of the parent,
lower levels of parenting stress, enhanced parent-child relationships, and

23
improvement in parental provision of educationally relevant materials in the home.
Also noted was an increase in parental educational expectations for the Head Start
child’s long term school success, and enhanced social competence in older siblings.
Ten years prior to the abovementioned study, Lamb-Parker, Piotrkowski, and
Peay (1987) conducted a similar study which investigated parents’ involvement in
Head Start and its effect on the psychological well-being of mothers. In this study,
the researchers worked with eighty-two Head Start program mothers and utilized a
series of measures to gather data regarding parent participation at the center,
maternal self-esteem, and psychological symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and
somatic complaints. Additionally, they measured maternal social integration within
the community and life satisfaction/happiness. The outcome of the study indicated
that maternal gains in psychological well-being were related to their involvement in
the activities offered by Head Start. The researchers noted particularly that the
mother’s psychological symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety) decreased, feelings of
mastery increased, and satisfaction with their quality of life increased (Lamb-Parker
et al., 1987).
A review of research encompassing 21 longitudinal studies regarding parent
outcomes within Head Start was conducted by Pizzo and Tufankijan (2004).
Utilizing a research synthesis model to analyze and review the prospective studies,
the researchers noted a consistent pattern of parent progress in the skills needed to
promote children’s educational success within the school system. Two particular
areas were noteworthy; 1) improvement in parental ability to promote early learning
skills (including early literacy), and 2) greater parent participation in their children’s

24
later schooling. Furthermore, the researchers asserted that Head Start through its
intensive focus on family and parental involvement may help parents acquire a range
of new skills – skills that may lead to better lives for their children and themselves
(Pizzo & Tufankijan, 2004). In discussing the final result of their review, the
researchers stated that “looking at data carefully collected during 3 ½ decades of
longitudinal studies involving more than 3,000 Head Start families we conclude that
Head Start systematically helps parents” (Pizzo & Tufankijan, 2004). Their
convergent findings confirmed the persistent pattern of parent progress which
revealed that parents demonstrated more positive interactions and more effective
teaching-type interactions with their children as well as parents showed more
involvement with their children’s later schooling.
Parental outcomes within the environmental context of parental involvement of
the Head Start program were the focus of exploratory research conducted by
Slaughter, Lindsey, and Kuehne (1989). These researchers studied parental opinions
of involvement activities which the parents (i.e., mothers) perceived as effective for
personal growth in five parent involvement outcome areas (i.e., effective parenting,
self-esteem/confidence, family life, education, and employment). Slaughter and her
colleagues (1989) utilized a series of tools to measure maternal perceptions;
interviews with each parent and administration of surveys and inventories measuring
ego development and self-esteem. The results of the study support assertions that
parental involvement within the Head Start program benefits the personal growth and
development of parents, in this case, mothers who participated in the activities
provided by the parental involvement component (Slaughter et al.; 1989).

25
This particular study specifically sought the parental perspective regarding a
parent’s involvement in the Head Start program. However, its focus was upon the
outcomes of the involvement; that which the parent gains as a result of participating
in the program. While the information resulting from the study adds to the literature,
it did not address the process by which parents derive personal benefit through their
participation. This important distinction is what I am addressing within this study.
Further literature presented in this chapter provides additional information which
indicates that current research provides a strong outcome oriented approach at the
exclusion of a process oriented approach.
A qualitative study conducted by Bruckman and Blanton (2003) explored the
perspectives of low-income single mothers and their experiences within the parental
involvement component of Head Start. Through a series of maternal interviews the
researchers organized and analyzed the mothers’ experiences using three themes; 1)
motivations for selecting the Head Start Program (for their child’s early education),
2) experience with parent-teacher relationships, and 3) experiences with parent self-
development and learning. Results rendered by Bruckman and her colleague
resonate with the abovementioned results of quantitative research which identified
positive parent outcomes as a result of being an involved parent within the Head
Start program. Study participants identified growth in aspects of self-development
which centered upon increased parental patience, greater involvement with and
ability to teach their children, as well as an improved attitude toward education, and
feelings of competence. Again, as noted earlier, the outcomes of the participation
remain the focus of the study. Although the outcomes of parental involvement are

26
important, the process which parents arrive at those outcomes is as important and can
contain valuable information and implications for how to improve parent
participation in education.
Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1997) aptly indicated that parents tend to view
involvement in their children’s education as important when they perceive
themselves as competent and able to have a positive influence on their children’s
learning. Patterns presented in the literature indicate that both children and parents
derive benefits from parental involvement in education (Lamb-Parker, et al 1997;
Marcon, 1999; Miedel & Reynolds, 2000; Pizzo & Tufankijan, 2004:, Reynolds
et.al., 1996,). Students gain in the area of achievement and parents derive benefits
such as: greater involvement with their child’s education, improved teaching skills
and interaction with their children, as well as positive regard for self in the form of
enhanced self-esteem and self-confidence (Bruckman & Blanton 2003; Parker et al.
1997; Pizzo & Tufankijan, 2004; Slaughter et al., 1989).
The literature noted above presents evidence for the attainment of positive
outcomes for parents as a result of their participation. However, what remains
unclear is the process by which the parents arrive at these positive outcomes. Are
parents acquiring resources or capital in the process of their involvement and
participation in various activities which supports these outcomes? Social capital and
cultural capital may play a part in the process of developing or acquiring these
resources.
Heretofore in the discussion I have operationalized the construct of parent
involvement and the parental perspective within the literature. Additionally, I have

27
examined pertinent educational literature regarding the benefits accrued to children
and parents as a result of parental involvement. In the reaming portion of this
chapter I will discuss theoretical interpretations of social reproduction theory,
parental involvement and its relationship to social reproduction theory and finally,
social networks.
Theoretical Interpretation: Social Capital
Bourdieu’s interpretation:
In order to fully comprehend the concept of social/cultural capital and its
relationship with parental involvement in education, it is important to understand its
genesis. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is credited with the initial theoretical
development of the concept as is the American sociologist, James Coleman.
Although both scholars concentrated on the benefits accruing to individuals or
families by virtue of their ties with others, there are significant variations in their
theories (Bourdieu, 1986; Dika and Singh, 2002; Portes, 2000). Therefore,
components of both theoretical interpretations will be examined in order to
understand the social relationships and cultural practices that are utilized or
underutilized by parents in order to gain educational benefits for their children.
Bourdieu’s (1986) conceptualization of social capital is grounded in the theory
of social reproduction and symbolic power and argues that educational systems
contribute to the reproduction of the structure of class relations by unevenly drawing
on the social and cultural resources of members within the society. Although
Bourdieu does not directly examine the question of parental participation in
schooling his analysis aptly relates to the differential possession of social capital

28
among low-income, working class parents, their higher-income counterparts, and the
different levels of parental involvement that exists between them.
Bourdieu (1986) further grounds his interpretation of social capital within the
context of access to institutional resources and defines it as the aggregate of actual or
potential resources linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (p. 248).
More simply put, social capital relates to the resources developed through
participation in social networks and the activation or magnification of those
resources for social benefits. (Monkman, Ronald, & Thereamene, 2005). Stanton
Salazar (1997, p.8), notes that Bourdieu (1986) argues social capital 1) is
cumulative, 2) possess the capacity to produce profits or benefits in the social world,
3) is convertible into tangible resources or other forms of capital and 4) possesses
the capacity to reproduce itself in identical or expanded form. These four points
emphasize the benefits that can be accrued to individuals by virtue of their
participation in groups and on the deliberate construction of sociability for the
purpose of creating this resource (Portes, 1998). It is evident from Bourdieu’s point
of view that families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do not possess the
same benefits or experiences that families from higher socioeconomic backgrounds
do. Resultantly, their ability to equally access educational resources is rendered
insufficient because they lack familiarity with or access to important social capital
resources.

29
Coleman’s interpretation:
Coleman’s (1988) theoretical interpretation of social capital is rooted in a
structural-functionalist orientation in terms of norms and is defined as follows:
Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a
variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all
consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain
actions of actors –whether persons or corporate actors- within the
structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive,
making possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence
would not be possible (p. S98).

Coleman’s (1988) interpretation of social capital has most frequently been cited in
educational literature and directly relates to the relationship between parents,
teachers and educational organizations (Dika and Singh, 2002). The school
represents the social structure that in turn facilitates the actions of the actors, which
in this case are the teachers and parents. The possession of social capital in and of
itself can be asserted then, to facilitate a parent’s ability to achieve “the ends” of
effectively participating in and supporting their child’s achievement and
advancement within the educational institution. Coleman’s (1988) conceptualization
includes within it networks of trust which are promoted within an environment of
common interests and shared values. Furthermore, his interpretation supports the
idea that it is the family which must develop and adopt social capital resources in
order to support educational advancement in the lives of their children.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) succinctly combines both Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s
conceptualizations of social capital to similarly emphasize this same point. He notes
that, “the value of social capital as a concept, lies in the fact that it identifies
properties of social structures that are used by actors to achieve their interests” (p.8).

30
To illustrate the importance of social capital, Coleman (1988) conducted a
study in which he utilized the High School and Beyond data set of 4,000 public
school students, to measure the effects of a lack of social capital within the family
and its influence on different educational outcomes, specifically, its impact upon
high school drop-out rates. He used variables such as socioeconomic status, parental
income and education levels, ethnicity, and household composition, to name a few,
as measures of family financial, human, and social capital. Results rendered
indicated that the possession of social capital within the family is an important
resource for the education of youth.
Reviewing both Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s definitions of social capital,
distinctions between their conceptions are evident. Portes (1998), notes that
Bourdieuian social capital distinguishes between resources and the actors’ ability to
obtain them within the social structure whereas Coleman does not make this
distinction clear. Additionally, it is evident that Bourdieu sees capital as a tool of
reproduction for the dominant class, emphasizing structural constraints and unequal
access to institutional resources based on class, gender, and race (Lareau, 2001).
Whereas Coleman’s (1988) work supports the idea that it is the family’s
responsibility to adopt certain norms to advance their children’s life chances.
Within this study, it is Coleman’s approach that is being predominantly applied
to Head Start and parental involvement. However, Coleman’s approach is being
utilized with the understanding and acknowledgement of the Bourdieuian
conceptualization that recognizes the social milieu in which the Head Start families
and program exists as well as the external social forces that impinge upon them. By

31
extension then, the importance of developing, acquiring and activating social capital
in the lives of parents is important. But also significant is the families possession
and transmission of cultural capital to their children because in order to possess
social capital, investment of cultural capital is necessary.
Theoretical Interpretation: Cultural Capital
Cultural capital
Inherent in the writings of multiple researchers who have addressed the
theoretical concept of cultural capital is the recognition that comprehending cultural
capital is integral to understanding why social class influences school success and by
extension parental involvement. (Bourdieu, 1973, 1977; Lamont & Lareau, 1988;
Lareau, 1987; Lareau & Horvat 1999). Highlighting this, Lareau (1987) asserted that
the standards of schools are not neutral; their requests for parent involvement may be
laden with the social and cultural experiences of intellectual and economic elites
(p.7). From this researcher’s point of view, by virtue of their economic placement
within society, the type of social and cultural capital resources as well as the level of
participation, of low-income, working-class parents is going to be perceived very
different from that which is practiced by their higher-income counterparts. Roscigno
and Darnell (1999), in their study of race, cultural capital, and achievement, similarly
assert that within the theory of cultural capital, schools are not necessarily viewed as
neutral institutions, but as institutions in which the preferences, attitudes, and
behaviors of the “dominant class” are most highly valued. Given these findings, the
importance of the connection between parent involvement and the possession of
cultural capital resources is significant. In order for a parent to equally participate in

32
and advocate for their child within the educational institution of schools they must
possess cultural capital resources that are recognized and acknowledged.
Cultural capital is derived from Bourdieu’s (1986) social reproduction theory
and is considered as a collection of cultural knowledge skills, and abilities that are
possessed and inherited by particular groups in society. This cultural capital can be
seen as high status cultural signals used in cultural and social selection. (Lamont &
Lareau, 1988). In Bourdieu’s (1977) writings, cultural capital exists in three states;
embodied, objectified, and institutionalized. Within its objectified state, cultural
capital exists for instance as books, artwork or high tech machines; a type of capital
which can be increased by transforming economic capital into goods and objects.
As institutionalized capital, it takes the form of degrees or credentials which signify
a level of cultural competence; a cultural competence which is explicitly or tacitly
recognized by others in society. In the final state, embodied capital is represented
by a person’s disposition or aptitude. Bourdieu (1977) recognizes embodied cultural
capital as the personal knowledge base and skills of an individual.
Social Reproduction Theory and Parental Involvement: Perspective
Reflected in the comments of multiple researchers, Kalmijn and Kraaykamp
(1996) posited that cultural capital is believed to be an asset in the schooling process
for several reasons: children who are exposed to cultural capital may be better
prepared to master academic material, may develop a greater taste for learning
abstract and intellectual concepts, and may be favored directly by teachers over
children who have less cultural capital. Bourdieu (1977) further maintains that
cultural experiences in the home facilitate the interactions children have with schools

33
and influences their achievement, thereby transforming cultural resources into
cultural capital. Naturally then it follows that the transmission of cultural capital
follows a path from the parents to the child and can be expressed in the academic
achievement or lack thereof within the educational environment. The embodiment of
this assertion was evident in research conducted by Ricardo Stanton-Salazar.
In a study researching the socialization, schooling experiences and social
network relationships between working-class, racial minority youth and institutional
agents (i.e., teachers, counselors), Stanton-Salazar developed a social capital
conceptual framework. In discussing his framework, Stanton-Salazar (1997) noted
that the potential for institutional promotion and individual mobility is evaluated on
the basis of a student’s early (homespun) attitudes, abilities, and behaviors, and on
the congruence of these traits with ‘universalistic’ institutional standards (p.2). In
essence he recognizes the fact that the cultural capital possessed by a student which
is transmitted via the home can affect their ability to progress through the
educational system.
Although Stanton-Salazar’s study (1997) was specifically related to high
school aged youth, additional researchers have recognized this aspect of capital
within the elementary aged population. Lareau and McNamara-Horvat (1999) as
well as Lareau and Shumar (1996) have similarly applied this aspect of cultural
capital possession to elementary school parents, their relationships with teachers and
schools, and their ability to use their cultural capital to negotiate teacher-parent
communication issues or to educationally advocate on behalf of their children.
Implications of the research unambiguously infer that parental possession and

34
activation of cultural and social capital skills can impact the educational trajectory of
students.
Delgado-Gaitan (1991) acknowledging the importance of parental involvement,
or parental empowerment as she terms it, and the possession of social and cultural
capital makes the point that “
Parents who are knowledgeable about the school’s expectations and
the way in which the school operates are better advocates for their
children than parents who lack such skills. Less knowledgeable
parents face problems in relating with schools relative to children’s
development and school success” (p.21).

Undergirding the importance of parental involvement and parental possession of
social and cultural capital, Delgado-Gaitan’s point is well taken. For many low-
income, working-class and minority families, parental knowledge regarding the
workings of the school and educational system can be problematic. Difficulties such
as parental employment or unemployment, lack of parental educational capabilities,
linguistic barriers and other extenuating circumstances which many low-income and
minority families face, mediates the parents’ ability to participate fully or become
involved, even when the desire to do so exists (Deldago-Gaitan, 1991; Lareau1989;
Lareau & Shumar 1996, Lareau & McNamara-Horvat, 1999). Resultantly, the
social and cultural capital resources that low-income and working-class parents may
actually possesses, goes largely unrecognized, and may not be activated. However,
for some parents, these instances of exclusion may truly represent resources that
have not been acquired.
In a critique of parental involvement in schooling, De Carvalho (2001), points
out that cultural capital can be seen as a type of embodied knowledge that functions

35
as power within specific institutional settings and is the medium of family-school
relations (p. 9). She further affirms in her commentary that parental involvement, as
a family educational input, has been explicitly pointed out and called on as a
resource for school success in research and policy literature in the United States.
Despite this call for cultural capital, it is evident in the research that cultural capital
is not uniformly distributed, accessible or produced in society (De Carvalho 2001;
Lareau, 1987, 1989). Although school and society require that individuals possess
cultural and social capital skills, schools do not teach it to students nor are parenting
classes offered which teach the ways in which a parent can gain social and cultural
capital resources.
Monkman and Delimon-Theramene (2005) in their study of social and cultural
capital in an urban Latino school community reiterate this point by noting that the
process of receiving cultural experiences in one’s home reflects the transformation of
cultural resources into cultural capital which can then be used for social advantage.
Supporting the point I made earlier, their study results further support the assertion
that cultural resources possessed by families are differentially valued by society,
thereby leading to different quantities and types of advantage for said families or
none at all. This differential valuing by educational institutions of the resources that
families possess can and does cause difficulties in stimulating parent involvement.
Delgado-Gaitan (1991) mirrored this point in the following commentary;

36
A systematic isolation of families from the school can be engendered
as a result of differential valuing of resources because “schools
facilitate the exclusion of students and parents (consciously or
unconsciously) by establishing activities that require specific majority
culturally based knowledge and behaviors about school as an
institution” (p.21).

Despite the existence of these conditions, low-income and working-class minority
parents become involved with their children’s education. As evidenced in case and
ethnographic studies by Lareau (1987; 1999), parents in the respective communities
studied did value educational success. All of the parents interviewed in Lareau’s
studies wanted their children to do well in school and all saw themselves as
supporting and helping their children achieve success at school. (Lareau 1987, 1989;
Lareau & Horvat, 1999) However, the difference in actual parental involvement
outcomes between low-income, working-class, minority families and higher-income
families was linked to the class position of the parents and the social and cultural
resources that social class yields in society. Lareau (1987) further affirmed that the
importance of parental involvement within the context of capital indicates that class
and class structures can facilitate or impede children’s (or parents’) negotiation of
the process of schooling.
Parental knowledge and capital activation
Social and cultural capital coexists in a relationship where they are affected by
each other. Portes (1998) notes cultural capital is acquired through social networks
when one invests his or her social capital. At the same time, investment of cultural
capital is needed to acquire social capital (Portes, 1998). Explained by Monkman et
al., (2005) one must demonstrate membership through appropriate use of cultural

37
resources and knowledge to gain entry. However, the possession of cultural or social
resources does not automatically result in activation of social and cultural capital, or
in the ability to use that capital to gain benefits. Capital must be activated, and one
must choose to invest; the process is not a given (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). In their
case study of cultural capital in family-school relationships and moments of
inclusion or exclusion, Lareau and Horvat (1999) make two important distinctions
regarding capital. The first, all individuals have social capital to invest or activate in
a variety of social settings or fields, and the second point, to be of value in a given
setting, social and cultural capital must be activated (pg. 39). They additionally note
that all social and cultural capital does not have the same value in a given field and
that cultural capital and the way in which it is activated influences its value in a field
of interaction.
Within the context of parental involvement, educational institutions represent
the field of interaction and characterize the types of social and cultural capital which
are necessary to activate in order to facilitate parent involvement in and advocacy on
behalf of their child’s educational experience. Lareau and Horvat (1999) provide
succinct characterizations of both. Expressions of cultural capital are found in:
Parent’s vocabularies, sense of entitlement to interact with teachers as
equals, time, transportation, and child care arrangements to attend
school events during the school day. Social capital is characterized by
social networks with other parents in the school community who
provide informal information about the teachers (p.42).

Lareau and her colleague (1999) noted that these resources are not exhaustive
characterizations of social and cultural capital within the school setting. However,
within their study, they noted that these resources were activated and exercised

38
primarily by middle and higher-class parents in their execution of parental
involvement and advocacy on behalf of their children. These resources were noted
in opposition to those displayed by working class parents who although generally no
less interested in their child’s education, did not fully bring to fruition or were unable
to “activate” their resources.
This relationship between social and cultural capital brings to bear the
necessities of parental social networks. As noted by Bourdieu (1977) social capital
relates to the resources developed through participation in social networks and the
activation or magnification of those resources for social benefit. Coleman (1988) in
his explication of capital also conveyed that social capital is closely tied to the social
networks and social interactions which parents develop.
Social Networks
Social network analysis is concerned with understanding the linkages among
social entities and the implications of those linkages (Faust & Wasserman, 1994;
p.17) Further elaborating this point, social networks refer to the set of actors and the
ties among them. The “actors” cited within the definition represent discrete
individual, corporate, or collective social units and the “ties” represent the linkages
which exist between actors (Faust & Wasserman, 1994). Providing a context to
connect this strict definition of social network analysis with social capital Stanton-
Salazar’s (2000) research offers a more inclusive definition by stating “Social capital
is a set of properties existing within socially patterned associations among people
that, when activated, enable them to accomplish their goals or to empower
themselves in some meaningful way”(p.265). He further notes that these

39
associations can occur in multiple ways; between two individuals, (e.g., teacher,
student) between individuals in a group (parents in a neighborhood), and between
groups within a community (e.g., parents, school personnel). Although Stanton-
Salazar in this case is specifically referring to how he defined and employed the
concept of social capital within his book, Manufacturing Hope and Despair, it is an
apropos way in which to view the development, acquisition, and activation of social
capital in the context of parental involvement within the Head Start program and its
relationship to the formation of social networks.
Various researchers in their writings have cited the importance of social
networks in the acquisition and activation of social and cultural capital (Bourdieu,
1986; Coleman, 1988, Lareau 1987; Horvat et al. 2003). Bourdieu (1986) has
posited that network size can be taken as a measure of both the amount and variety
of capital to which an individual has access. Equally, he emphasized the importance
of networks when he proposed that the volume of social capital possessed by a
person depends on the size of the network of connections that he or she can mobilize
and on the volume of capital –economic, cultural, and symbolic – possessed by each
person to whom he or she is connected. Coleman (1988) asserted that, social capital
is important in children’s educational development and that it is a resource that
inheres within the social relationships parents maintain with other adults (p. S98)
thereby, rendering parents’ social networks as an educational resource for their
children. In addition to Coleman (1988), other researchers have indicated that social
networks help to produce social capital to the extent that social relationships
encourage the exchange of information, shape beliefs, and enforce norms of behavior

40
(Cochran & Brassard, 1979, Portes, 1998). The importance of social networks and
their impact upon parental involvement and activation of social and cultural capital is
highlighted by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) assertion that social networks act as
channels of communication that help people identify the human and material
resources they need, as well as share and carry information or attitudes from one
setting to another. Sheldon (2002), in his research on analyzing the degree to which
parents social networks predicted parent involvement noted that, parents who
maintain social networks may affect the role they play in their child’s education.
Sheldon’s (2002) study further indicated that the size of parental networks predicted
the degree to which parents were involved in their child’s schooling.
Parental social networks: Implications
The importance of parental social networks is underscored by results in two
studies by Lareau (1987), Lareau and Horvat (1999) in which qualitative case study
methods were utilized to research cultural, social, and class differences in parental
involvement among parents in varying socioeconomic levels and urban/suburban
schools. Results of both studies implicated social class and race of the parent as
impacting the cultural and social resources that were available to them. Lareau and
her colleague (1999) observed that differences in parental involvement were aligned
with variations in childrearing patterns and social networks among both groups. In
the case of the upper middle-class parents, their social networks (i.e., frequent social
contact with other parents in the school) comprised multiple connections which
provided them with additional sources of information. The information the parents
had, particularly the mothers, ranged from knowing the names and academic

41
reputations of most of the teachers in the school to knowing the academic rank of the
children within the class. Contrary to the upper middle-class parents, working-class
parents’ social networks were not as information rich. Many of these parents had
limited information about their child’s school experience and what they did know
was gleaned from their children. They did not know details regarding the school or
the classroom interactions which took place. Additionally, Lareau noted that the
forms of capital (social and cultural) held by these parents was only activated when it
facilitated the parents’ compliance with dominant standards in school interactions.
When this was not the case, the social and cultural capital held by the parents went
unrecognized.
Research indicates that the building and maintenance of social networks can act
as bridges between families and the educational institutions within society as well as
represent both social and cultural capital that families can utilize. In Rethinking
family school relations, de Carvalho (2001) underscores this point by noting that,
Parents benefit from networking with other parents and families.
And the whole family benefits: Because school is the main external
influence in children’s lives, parental involvement in schooling
builds family cohesion, as parents develop a common language with
their children (p. 1).

Her comment is a succinct translation of Coleman’s (1987) conceptualization of
social capital as the norms, the social networks and the relationships between adults
and children that are of value for the child’s growing up (p. 36). Reynolds and his
colleagues (1996) further note that social networks are not only beneficial for the
child but also for the parent when they stated; parents who are involved in their
children’s school are more likely to experience social support, to value educational

42
opportunities, and to interact with their children in ways that support scholastic
development (p.1121).
Cochran and Brassard (1979) attempted to systematically integrate information
about child development and network analysis. Resultantly, in their study, they
proposed and developed a model for analyzing the relationships between the
development of the child and the social networks of the parent. In their examination
of networks the researchers examined both direct and indirect influences of the
parent’s social network upon the developing child. The direct influences related
most closely to outcomes and benefits to the child. More relevant to this study was
Cochran and Brassard’s (1979) reference to the indirect influences. These indirect
influences related to the social networks of the parents and the effect that those
networks had directly upon the parents themselves. Cochran and his colleague
posited that the parent’s social networks provided emotional and material resources,
provided role models for parenting behavior, and provided sanctions for parenting
behavior. Overall they noted that parents who received more emotional and material
support from their networks would be possibly more sensitive to the needs of their
children.
Interestingly, in a study conducted by Marshall, Noonan, McCartney, Marx,
and Keefe (2001), they utilized the framework network analysis model developed by
Cochran and Brassard (1979) to study the parenting networks of racially and
ethnically different urban families. Through multiple regression analysis they
determined that parental social networks have an indirect effect on children’s
socioemotional development as mediated by parents. Their results also indicated

43
that parents who received support and had heterogeneous social networks were more
responsive to their children, provided a more stimulating home environment, and felt
more effective as parents. Similar to the previously mentioned parental
involvement studies, the focus of this study was on child outcomes with a secondary
mention of positive parental outcomes. No mention of the process by which parents
developed, acquired, or activated their social capital to marshal their social networks
resources was evident. The process simply went unexplored and the outcome took
precedent. However, as result of the three racially and ethnically different groups
included in the study (i.e., African American, Hispanic American, and European
American) Marshall and her colleagues (2001) yielded information about the
similarities and differences among the parental networks and networking styles of
these different groups.
Horvat, Weininger and Lareau (2003) conducted an ethnographic study
examining class differences in the relations between school and parent networks.
Through extensive observations in both formal and informal settings as well as
extensive in-depth interviews, they were able to determine the density of support
networks among the parents the y studied. Within their study they did not
exclusively attend to race however, Horvat and her colleagues (2003) were more
attuned to issues of class. Data indicated that the webs of social networks within
middle-class families were woven through the children’s lives (i.e., organized
activities) and included contacts with other professionals and educators. In contrast,
they noted that the social networks of working-class and low-income families were
rooted in and around kinship group ties and that ties to other parents were less

44
common. Through these observations they made the point that the difference in
networks did not equal deficiency however, the strength and diversity of social
networks as supported by their social capital, did affect the parents ability to impact
and intervene in their child’s schooling experiences. Additionally noted in the study
was the dramatic difference in the parental networks relative to class. Horvat and her
colleagues (2003) observed that parental networks had a tendency to be homogenous
with respect to class in the sense that middle-class networks did not include working-
class or low-income parents and those networks of working-class and low-income
parents did not particularly include middle-class parents.
Social reproduction theory, Social networks and Parents: Context
Parents are social actors. Within their roles as individuals and as parents, they
are members of social groups and social networks who may be influenced through
their interactions with other parents and adults (Sheldon, 2002). Interrelated with
this tenet of social networks is social reproduction theory which suggests that
network ties affect individuals by providing resources, such as favors, and
information, as well as by enforcing behavioral norms and expectations (Coleman,
1990; Portes 1998). Relevant to social capital and the development of social
networks, it must be noted that networks are not a natural given and must be
constructed through the investment of strategies (Portes 1988, p.3). However, given
all of this information, the question remains, how do parents learn and acquire
cultural and social capital skills and strategies to invest in advocacy on their
children’s behalf? Within the writings of Bourdieu (1973, 1977, 1986), and other
scholars it is evident that the society at large does not teach these social and cultural

45
capitals skills in school but instead passes them from one generation to the next as if
a best kept secret. So how can parents, who are the transmitters of social and
cultural capital to their children, enhance their social and cultural capital skills?
What is the process by which they can achieve this?
Summary
The extant literature suggests positive academic outcomes for students who
have parents that are involved in their educational endeavors. Also indicated is that
parents who are involved and successful in educationally advocating for their
children are those who possess sufficient levels of social capital, cultural capital and
strong social networks. Despite these findings, evidence also exists which posits
that social and cultural capital is not evenly distributed within society. Additionally
present are studies which have found that within some educational institutions, the
social and cultural capital skills which parents do possess is not recognized and
therefore may go inactivated (Lareau & Shumar, 1986; Lareau 1987; 1989, Lareau &
Horvat, 1999). It follows then that developing, acquiring and activating social and
cultural capital skills and resources are beneficial to parents.
Within the literature however, there is a dearth of information that explains the
process by which parents develop, acquire, or activate the resources of social
networks or of the social capital and cultural capital skills that they possess or need
to learn. As discussed within this chapter social networks are not a given, and by
extension, social and cultural capital are not given resources. They are resources that
must be constructed through strategies.

46
The purpose of this chapter was to first provide an overview of the literature
that addresses the issues of parental involvement, social and cultural capital, and
social networks. Secondly, the aim was to present information regarding the Head
Start program and parental involvement as a context for the interrelationship of these
variables and the role they play in supporting parent’s abilities to develop, acquire, or
activate their social and cultural capital resources as a result of their participation.
As indicated in the literature review, the positive outcomes of parental
participation in education are evident. Notwithstanding this information however,
the process of how parents gain social capital, cultural capital and social network
knowledge as viewed through their personal perceptions and experiences is not
distinctively evident within the literature and remains generally obscured, especially
as it relates to parents involved in early education contexts such as the Head Start
program. In order to explore this process within the context of the Head Start
program, I will use a qualitative, case study methodology. In the following chapter, I
will discuss why a qualitative approach was the most favorable method by which to
explicate this process. I will also provide information regarding the study
participants and site. Furthermore, I will describe the methodology and procedures
that were utilized within this study to gather data and address the research questions.

47
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The 1960’s marked a renaissance in America’s commitment to assure all
citizens an opportunity to live resourceful, equitable, and dignified lives. It was
within this milieu that the inspiration for the Head Start program was conceived.
From its inception to its current manifestation the Head Start program provides low-
income children and families with access to resources and services relevant to
assisting them in achieving their aspirations and meeting their needs. By recognizing
that early education intervention efforts must not only address the needs of the child
but also address the child’s environment, the inclusion of parents within the design
of the Head Start program was conceived and is recognized as one of the key service
areas within the program.
Multiple researchers have studied the construct of parental involvement within
educational settings from early education to high school. Results of their findings
have indicated a positive relationship between parental involvement and the
educational achievement of children (Fan & Chen, 2001; Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski
& Apostoleris 1997; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Marcon, 1998; Meidel-
Barnard, 2004). Further research studies have specifically focused upon parental
involvement within the Head Start program and the impacts of that involvement
upon the academic and social achievement of children Results of those studies
have included parent outcomes and noted encouraging impacts as a result of parent
involvement such as; increase in parent participation in later elementary school
years, positive impacts upon maternal disposition, increasing of parental self-

48
efficacy as well as change in parental attitudes towards education (Bruckman &
Blanton, 2004; Lamb-Parker, Boak, Griffin, Ripple & Peay; 1999; Lamb-Parker,
Piotrkowski, & Peay, 1987;Marcon 1999; Miedel & Reynolds, 2000; Oyemade &
Washington, 1989; Pizzo & Tufankjian, 2004;). The extant literature is replete with
research on the topic of parental involvement however, the emphasis of the literature
is focused on parental outcomes at the exclusion of the process. Meaning that within
the research a clear depiction of how parents arrived at the outcome is not present.
This outcome orientation obscures the process of the program and the process
through which parents have journeyed in order to become beneficiaries of the
outcomes. Additionally, the theoretical constructs of social and cultural capital have
not been explicitly utilized as a means by which to contextualize this process or the
experiences, perceptions, and benefits which parents derive from participation in
Head Start. The purpose of this research study was to explore from a parental
perspective, how involvement within the Head Start program supported the
development acquisition or activation of social and cultural capital in the lives of the
low-income and working class minority parents who participate in the educational,
leadership, and cultural activities provided.
Information within this chapter is divided into six sections and will describe
the following: 1) conceptual framework used within the study to contextualize parent
perceptions and experiences, 2)description of site history, site selection, and
participant selection, 3) research design, 4) discussion of the data gathering method,

49
5) explanation of the methods of analysis and the importance of validity, reliability
and triangulation procedures in addressing the research questions, and finally, 6) the
role of the researcher will be discussed and a summary presented.
Conceptual Framework
The introductory paragraph of the Head Start Program Performance Standards
and Regulations (2001) states the importance of including parents within the
education of their children:
Head Start fosters the role of parents as the primary educators and
nurturers of and advocates for their children. Therefore, local Head
Start programs work in close partnership with parents to assist them
in developing and utilizing individual and family strengths in order to
successfully meet personal and family objectives.” (p. 2)

Through encouraging parents to become involved in all aspects of the Head Start
program, Head Start supports its belief that a child’s educational success not only
centers on an adequate early educational environment provided within the
instructional realm, but also upon an adequate early educational environment
supported within the home setting. The ability to provide an enriched home
environment however depends upon the availability of resources, access to
information, and ability of the parent to provide said environment. For some low
income and working-class minority parents this ability is present, but the possibility
of activating and actively utilizing this combination of skills and resources is not
always fully realized. Accordingly, it is posited that through involvement and
participation in the Head Start program, parents will be empowered to learn a
continuum of skills that can help them identify their own strengths, needs, interests,

50
and develop resources and behaviors to enhance the life-long well being for their
families (Zigler & Muenchow, 1992; Head Start Program Performance Standards,
2001).
Utilizing the theory of social reproduction, specifically the constructs social
and cultural capital as my conceptual framework, I studied parental involvement in
the University of Southern California’s (USC) School for Early Childhood Education
(SECE) Head Start program. My primary aim was to utilize the parental perspective
to explore the process through which parents involved in the Head Start program
developed, acquired or activated social and cultural capital in their lives.
Secondarily, to discern how the existing mechanisms within the program supported
parents in their ability to enhance their child’s Head Start experience and
subsequently sustain the capacity to be effective educational advocates for their
children.
Site Selection
The site chosen to conduct this study was one of the core members of the
University of Southern California’s (USC) Community Education Academy (CEA).
The School for Early Childhood Education (SECE) provides early childhood
education services to children and families located in South Los Angeles. In order to
understand the selection of this site, an understanding of historical factors is
essential.
History
During the fiscal year 2004-2005, Head Start provided early education and
social services to over 900,000 low-income children and their families within the

51
nation. Within the state of California, services were provided to approximately
98,000 low-income families and children through a network of local public or private
non-profit or faith-based organizations and agencies who received funding to operate
a Head Start program in their locality. The city of Los Angeles (L.A.) was one of
those localities.
Los Angeles. Historical, economic, and urban trends have combined to locate the
University of Southern California (USC) within two of the most economically
challenged urban areas of Los Angeles The University Park Campus, and its
accompanying campus- Health Sciences are located in South L.A. and East L.A.
respectively. In recognition of the changing urban dynamics within the city, USC
has developed and fostered long-standing relations with the local community in order
to meaningfully engage and strengthen the relationship between itself and the
neighborhood in mutually beneficial ways. Resultantly, in 2002 USC developed the
Community Education Academy (CEA) whose collective goal and mission is to
effectively and efficiently support the academic career aspirations of local
traditionally underserved and disadvantaged youth by enhancing their academic
experience from pre-school through college completion.
Community Education Academy. CEA provides an overarching structure which
engages and facilitates the relationship between the university and the community by
representing an alliance of the university’s six core community education outreach
initiatives. The core members of CEA serve as USC’s major education outreach
programs. The six programs which represent this core are; Education Opportunity
Program Center (EOPC), Medical Counseling Organization and Recruitment

52
Program (Med CORP), Mathematics Engineering Science Counseling Program
(MESA), Multimedia University Initiative (MUA), the Neighborhood Academic
Initiative (NAI), and the School for Early Childhood Education (SECE). Each of the
six core members noted above, share the common goal of working with lower-
income, working-class minority youth and families to assist them in attaining their
academic and career aspirations. The difference between the core members however
rests in the ages of the students serviced. The first five core members respectively
provide services predominantly to middle and high school students whereas, SECE
exclusively provides early education services to families with children between the
ages of birth to five years old.
SECE Program Description.
SECE represents the pre-school, early education arm of CEA’s mission to
address the needs of and support underserved youth. Founded in 1970 as a teaching
school for early childhood professionals, SECE is funded to serve children and their
families at five child development centers. Controlled by its service planning area,
the five child development centers are circumscribed by boundaries in the west
extending to Crenshaw Boulevard, in the north to Pico Boulevard, further to the east
by San Pedro Street and to the south by Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Within
these boundaries, SECE addresses a diverse group of families and their needs.
Community Demographics. The total population represented within the SECE
service planning area is 455, 852. Within that number, 43,880 (11%) of those people
are children aged five and under. The majority of families that reside in these two
SECE service areas are Hispanic/Latino (62.1%) and African American (26.7%)

53
with smaller portions of European American (23.0%), American Indian/Alaskan
Native (1.0%), and Asian (6.0%) also residing in the area. Economically, many of
these families survive on low incomes, earning anywhere from $21,077 a year to a
high of $ 39, 013 which is lower than the median family income for Los Angles
County which is $46, 452. Within that demographic, 43.3% of the children are
living at poverty level. Family composition related to parental presence is
represented by 24% of the households consisting of a married couple and 13.6%
households consisting of the mother only. Many adults in these families have
modest educational attainment, and 65.3% do not speak English as their primary
language.
Site Description: As previously noted, SECE provides support to low-income and
minority families and children under the age of five via an interdisciplinary approach
to providing services. These services include education, health (mental and
physical), nutrition, social service and parental involvement and are furnished to
families living within specific service locations within Los Angeles. Five separate
sites compose the network of SECE service locations. The five sites and a succinct
description of services are displayed in the table 1.

54
Table 1
Child Development Center Matrix
Program
Information
Site
A
Site
B
Site
C
Site
D
Site
E

Program
Name

University
Park Child
Development
Center (UPC)
Villa
Esperanza
Child
Development
Center
St. Vincent
Child
Development
Center

University
Gardens
Child
Development
Center
Home Based
Centralized
Early
Head Start

Program
Location

Center Based
setting

Based within
A low-income
housing project

Center Based
setting

Center Based
&
Home Based
setting

Home Based
setting

Services
Provided

Part-day, Full
day & Evening
Head Start
Mon-Thurs
Mon-Fri

Full -day &
Evening Head
Start
Mon-Fri.

Full-day
Head Start
Mon-Fri.

Full-day Head
Start & Services
offered
in home
weekly
90 min.

Services
offered in
home weekly
90 min.
consultation

Service
Hours

Part-day
8-11:30am &
1-4:30pm
Full-day
7:30am-3:00pm
Evening
4: 00pm-10: 00pm

Full-day &
Evening
7:30am-9:00pm

Full-day
7:30am-5:00pm

Full-day
7:30am-3:30pm
In home
by appointment

In-home
by
appointment

Children
Served

218

75

40

20

20

Site A -University Park Child Development Center (UPC):
This center was specifically built in 1974 as a child development center to house
preschool children. Through a combination of part-day and full-day services, 148
children and families receive Head Start and State Preschool services. In
conjunction with the daytime program, UPC also offers evening classes. In 2001,
to address the needs of families working or going to school in the evening, UPC
created the evening program. 70 students participate in the full range of Head Start
services with the only difference being the hours during which services are rendered:
4:00 pm to 10:00 pm.

Site B- Villa Esperanza Child Development Center:
This center began in 1995 as a partnership with Villa Esperanza Partnership Limited,
which is a partnership between the Los Angeles Community Design Center and
Esperanza Housing. This center is located within a low-income housing project, and

55
provides services to 75 children through a combination of full-day and evening
hours. Site C- St. Vincent Child Development Center:
This center opened its doors in 1996 through collaborative efforts with the Esperanza
Community Housing Corporation and St. Vincent’s Parochial school. Full day
preschool services are provided for 40 children

Site D- University Gardens Child Development Center:
This center currently serves 20 children in a home-based setting. Upon licensing,
full-day preschool center-based services will be provided for children ages 3-5, of
parents who are working or going to school between the hours of 7:30am -3:30 pm.

Site E- Home-Based Centralized, Early Head Start:
In October 2002 SECE began serving 80 pregnant women, infants, and toddlers as
well as providing home based services to 20 preschool children. All services
provided are through the home-based model, which translates into services being
offered in the parents’ home.

Site Decision
Amongst the five service center sites, The University Park Child
Development Center (UPC) was selected as the location for this study. There were
three criteria that were utilized as a basis for this decision. The primary criteria for
the selection of UPC was that of the five programs, it was solely center based and is
the oldest, most well established program amongst the five existing sites. Secondly,
UPC served the largest number of children and families thereby providing an array
of family configurations as well as an ethnically and racially diverse census and a
wide-range of administrator and staff experience. Finally, given its census, UPC
possessed a broad assortment of program offerings and opportunities for parents to
be involved with. Conversely, although comparable, the remaining four sites only
met some of the abovementioned criteria. Sites B-E did not possess the census of
UPC, and consequently could not provide the same diversity of families, ethnicities,
and administrator experience.

56
Additionally, the remaining sites presented a combination of center and home based
services as opposed to being solely center-based thereby not meeting all of the
necessary criteria.
Participant Selection
Participant descriptions
The unit of analysis within the study was primarily Head Start parents who
were involved in the educational, cultural, and leadership activities provided by the
program. For the purposes of this study, the term parent was defined as the child’s
psychological parents, whether or not they were also biological. By defining the
term within these parameters, it allowed for the reality of families in which the
position of parent was represented by an extended family member, guardian, or
foster parent. Secondarily, subjects within the study were Head Start program
administrators for example, program directors and program coordinators. Finally,
staff members such as site supervisors, family advocates, and teachers were part of
the subjects utilized within this study.
Parent Participants. A total of 18 parents participated within this study. Each of
the participants met a particular set of criteria. My criteria for parent participation in
the study required that parents currently have a student enrolled within the program
and that they participated in at least two or more parental involvement activities
within the month they were interviewed. These activities were represented by their
participation in volunteer activities, chaperoning of fieldtrips, attending educational
workshops, or participating in Policy Council (PC) or Center Parent Committee
(CPC) meetings. Additionally, my interest was in those parents who were

57
participating in and experiencing the Head Start program for a second time. Two
types of parent interviewees emerged as a result of these criteria specifications, the
first type of parent was known as a “returnee.” This meant that they had
experienced Head Start in the previous program year with their child and resultantly,
were returning to the program during the current year for the second time in
preparation for their child to begin public school Kindergarten in the fall. The
second type of parent interviewed were those that currently had a child in the Head
Start program while simultaneously having a child in attendance within the public
school system. I deemed that through interviewing these two types of parents, I
would gain insight into their prior and current experiences and perceptions of
parental involvement in the Head Start program and within the formal school system
with another child. Given the theoretical framework, of social and cultural capital, it
is important to have worked with both groups of parents. Parents who with the
benefit of hindsight could respond in present terms about their current experiences
and what they learned by participating within the program as well as parents who
could respond retrospectively with their perceptions of the skills or information that
they perceive they previously learned and or currently use.
I was interested in interviewing both mothers and fathers as a unit. However as
an educational professional and having participated in compensatory education for
over ten years, it has been my experience that as a result of the “traditional” division
of labor, mothers are primarily responsible for overseeing schooling issues. Within
the study, the majority of participants who responded to researcher contact and

58
queries were predominantly female. However, four males did participate within the
individual and focus group interviews that were conducted.
Administrator subjects. The administrators interviewed represented the institutional
perspective of parental involvement within the Head Start program. The contextual
perspective they provided as administrators was important relative to what they
viewed as the goals and outcomes of the parental involvement juxtaposed to that
which parents perceived as the outcomes of the program. Three administrators
including the director, early childhood development manager, and the family and
community development manager were interviewed to garner this perspective
Staff Participants. The Staff participants interviewed were those who had at least two
years of experience or more in working directly with parents participating within
Head Start. Five site supervisors were formally interviewed and utilized as
consultants who aided in the identification of parents who were able to articulate and
share their experiences and perceptions about parent involvement. I also engaged in
conversations and informal interviews with a combination of two classroom teachers
and two family advocates who additionally assisted in providing an institutional
perspective of the parental involvement from the perspective of persons who daily
work directly with parents. Table 2 is provided to concisely display the narrative
data.

59
Table 2
Participant Matrix
Study Participants Number
Head Start Program Parents
-Individual Interviews
-Focus Group

12
6
Head Start Program Administrators
-SECE director
-SECE Manager
-SECE Manager

3
Head Start Program Staff
-Site Supervisors
-Family Advocates/Teachers

5
4
Total 30

Research Design
The experience of being a parent involved with the educational endeavors of a
child is best understood from the point of view of the person involved with the
experience. Although there are some general experiences which parents share in
their execution of being mothers and fathers, it is the specific details germane to their
life, family, and child which make their experience unique. In order to best capture
those experiences it was necessary to use the words and language of the individuals
themselves. To that end, a qualitative case study design was selected as the method
to explore how parents involved with and participating in the Head Start program
exhibited development, acquisition or activation of social and cultural capital. A
qualitative line of inquiry instead of a quantitative research design was chosen to
address this study for a variety of reasons. Principally, the qualitative method
provided the researcher with an ability to develop a level of detail about the
individuals or the site and to be highly involved in the actual experiences of study
participants. Additionally, a qualitative design allows the research to be emergent

60
rather than tightly prefigured (Creswell 2003) in the exploration and accumulation of
data. Finally, as a researcher, the qualitative case study permitted me the
opportunity to capture direct quotations and explore the personal perceptions, and
individual experiences, of the subjects involvement in great depth with careful
attention to detail, context, and nuance (Patton, 2002). Unlike the predetermined
boundaries utilized in experimental research, the data yielded within this study
provided rich and thick descriptive information about the people, situations, and
phenomena that were under study. By utilizing qualitative methodologies to steer
my research, the focus was on building rapport and credibility with the individuals
who participated within the study (Creswell, 2003).
The research regarding parental involvement focuses on the outcomes which
parents acquire as a result of their participation in a program or set of proscribed
activities. What is missed within this outcome orientation is the process through
which the parents progress in order to arrive at the outcome. I selected data methods
that permitted participants the freedom to describe, in their own words their
processes and perceptions within the context in which they experienced them. The
following section will address 1) sampling procedures that were utilized in data
collection 2) data collection methods employed to extricate the information with a
detailed discussion of each method chosen, and 3) the time frame in which the study
occurred.

61
Sampling Procedures
Purposeful sampling entails the selection of information-rich cases whose study
will illuminate the questions under study (Patton, 2002). Because my aim as a
researcher was not empirical generalization from a sample to a population,
purposeful sampling permitted me to strategically and purposefully select cases that
rendered insight and useful manifestations of the phenomenon studied. Within
purposeful sampling a variety of strategies exist which assist the researcher in
obtaining the desired information-rich cases. I utilized two of the multiple possible
strategies to acquire my sample; chain sampling and maximum variation sampling.
Chain sampling permitted me to utilize key-informants or knowledgeable people
within the inquiry setting who indicated persons that would be good case examples
and interview candidates for study. As previously noted underneath the subject
selection heading, I worked with experienced Head Start staff in identifying those
parents within the environment who fit the study criteria were able to provide rich
and in-depth information to address the research questions.
The second strategy utilized was Maximum variation sampling. This strategy
facilitated my ability to capture and describe central themes that cut across a great
deal of variation (Patton, 2002). Within a small sample, heterogeneity can be
problematic because each individual case differs from the other. However, utilizing
maximum variation sampling to gather and analyze data, yielded in-depth, detailed
descriptions of each unique case and captured important shared patterns of core
experiences which “derive their significance from having emerged out of
heterogeneity” (Patton, 2002; p. 234). This was important within the Head Start

62
parent population because although parents shared some commonalities, those
commonalities were outweighed by the difference and uniqueness of each family that
was interviewed. Diverse characteristics such as, number of adults in the family,
number and ages of children in the family, as well as ethnicity, employment status,
and education level were all characteristics that made each family unique. In order
to validate the uniqueness of each experience and discover the similarities which
existed among them, multiple data collection methods were utilized.
Data Collection Methods
In-depth interviews.
In order to determine how the parent involvement within the Head Start
program facilitated the development, acquisition, and activation of cultural and
social capital, a total of thirty face-to-face interviews with parents, administrators,
and staff were conducted. The open-ended, semi-structured interview approach was
utilized to conduct these interviews. I developed a standardized question protocol
for use with the participants (Appendix B). This standardized, open-ended
interview protocol assisted me in guiding my interaction and discussions during the
interview. This ensured consistency across interviews and assured a reduction in the
amount of variation between interviews. Utilizing a standardized, open-ended
protocol also helped me as the researcher to be highly focused, utilize the
interviewees time efficiently, and facilitated later analysis of the data by making
responses easy to find and compare. Interviews lasted between thirty five to forty
minutes, were audio taped, and transcribed to ensure accuracy.

63
During these interviews I sought information from parents particularly
regarding instances of embodied cultural capital and social capital. Embodied
cultural capital is represented by a person’s attitudes and aptitudes. For the Head
Start parents interviewed, embodied cultural capital was represented in their
expression of ease and familiarity with the Head Start program routine as well the
routine of the elementary school which another child attends. It was also represented
by their confidence and awareness of institutional protocol in effect, knowledge of
available school resources and institutional agents. Social capital aspects were
evidenced through their responses to questions regarding social network
development, familiarity with accessing and acquiring information they need and
acknowledgement of social networks use.
Focus groups.
In order to increase the number of parent perspectives as well as cross-validate
or discover additional themes, focus group interviews were conducted. The focus
group environment provided participants with the opportunity to hear one another’s
responses and lead to a sharing of ideas that were not accessible in the individual
interviews. During the focus group, I was attentive to similar aspects of social and
cultural capital as was utilized within the in-depth individual interviews. One formal
focus group interview consisting of six parents was conducted. A semi-structured,
open ended interview protocol (Appendix B) was also developed for the focus
group interview and consisted of six questions. The full focus group interview lasted
for a total of forty minutes.

64
Observations

Direct observation within the study setting is advantageous for the researcher
because it not only allows for a better understanding of the context in which the
study participants exist but also provides the researcher with a first-hand experience
in seeing things that others have not attended to or that which may possibly escape
the awareness of persons in the setting (Patton, 2002). An additional advantage
provided by observation is that it allows the researcher to build rapport with study
participants and in turn draw on personal knowledge during the interpretation stage
of analysis (Patton, 2002).
As the researcher moving into the Head Start program setting, I kept in my
consciousness that I was not a parent, which possibly hindered my ability to fully
experience that which program participants do. Although this did not inhibit me
from becoming a participant observer, I assumed the role of a non-participant
observer in the initial phase of my research. During the course of my observations as
parents and staff became familiar with my presence, I gradually moved into a
participant observer role. I became a participant observer via volunteering in one of
the classrooms for a total of three weeks. During my non-participant and participant
observation phases within the study, I was able to observe parent to staff and parent
to parent interaction. I was also able to informally speak with a variety of staff
members to gather additional information which assisted in my ability to analyze
and understand the environment of the UPC Head Start program.
In order to examine the development, acquisition, and activation of social
capital through my observations of parental involvement activities, I believed that it

65
was important to operationalize the information that I observed within the different
instances and exchanges that took place. Resultantly, I elected to adapt and utilize
elements of Stanton-Salazar’s (1987, 2001) Six forms of institutional support as a
foundation upon which to build a structured observation protocol (Appendix A).
Each of the Six forms of institutional support that served as the basis for the
structured observation protocol is described in table 3.
Table 3
Six Forms of Institutional Support
Forms 1-6 Description
Form 1
Funds of
Knowledge
Those funds most associated with ascension within the educational system; such
funds also underlie the process of implicit socialization into institutional
Discourses-those which regulate communication, interaction, and exchange
within mainstream institutional spheres.
Form 2
Bridging
The process of acting as a human bridge to gate-keepers, to social networks, and
opportunities for exploring various mainstream institutions (e.g., university
campuses)
Form 3
Advocacy
The process of intervening on behalf of another for the purpose of protecting or
promoting their interests.
Form 4
Role modeling
Modeling behaviors associated with 1) effective participation in mainstream
domains and 2) effective coping with stratification forces via help-seeking
behaviors, rational problem-solving strategies.
Form 5
Emotional and
moral support
Provided in the context of other forms of support geared toward promoting
effective participation in mainstream domains and effective coping with
stratification forces.
Form 6
Personalized and
soundly based
evaluative feedback
advice and
guidance
Incorporates the provision of institutional funds of knowledge as well as
genuine emotional and moral support

Structured Observation Protocol: Context
Stanton-Salazar (2001) notes that “Social capital is the value inhering in an
individual’s relationships when those relations are capable of, as well as socially
organized for the purpose of transmitting to the individual forms of institutional

66
support…” (p. 270). Within the context of my study, I examined the process by
which parents perceive themselves as developing, acquiring, or activating social and
cultural capital skills and resources as a result of their participation and involvement
in the Head Start program. Resultantly, in examining Stanton-Salazar’s (2001)
framework I determined that it was possible to adapt and apply his thinking to
parental involvement within the Head Start program. Additionally, the above
mentioned quote captures the existing “relationship” between parents who participate
in the parental involvement activities of the University Park Center (UPC) Head
Start program which I studied. Within that relationship, the UPC Head Start
program functioned as the entity which was “capable of and organized for the
purpose of transmitting to parents forms of institutional support…” (p.270).
Although the Head Start program prides itself on the nature of its programs
being local and customized to the clientele they serve, Head Start as a national
program, remains part of the greater institution of government in the forms of the
education and social services support that it provides. This is not a criticism, but an
omnipresent reality of Head Start as a federally funded and nationally recognized
program entity. Stanton-Salazar (2001) aptly points out that,
Certain forms of support would not be normally found within middle-
class relational contexts; rather they are forms that are distinctly
created in order to help low-status individuals cope effectively with
marginalizing forces in society and enable them to socially advance in
spite of these forces. (pg. 276)

Head Start is representative of this form of support created specifically for the
purposes of helping low-income families and children, “cope effectively” and
“socially advance.” In light of the preceding narrative, I utilized my adaptation of

67
the Six Forms of Institutional Support observational protocol to record instances and
signs of Head Start facilitating the process of social capital development, acquisition,
and activation. My observational protocol provided me with a means by which to
observe and examine interactions between parents and staff. I also used it to assist
me in classifying the experiences and perceptions of parents as they participated
within the various parental involvement offerings provided through the UPC Head
Start program.
In order to facilitate the use of the structured observation matrix, I attended and
formally observed two Center Parent Committee meetings, two Policy Council
meetings and two Parent and Child Time Together (PACT) gatherings.
Observational notes were taken as a non- participant observer and lasted between
forty five minutes to one hour dependant upon the actual duration of the activity
taking place. Additionally, upon my weekly visits to the UPC Head Start program, I
utilized the protocol to assist in my observations of general environmental
occurrences and interactions amongst parents and staff. Additionally, as noted earlier
in this narrative, informal observations occurred and were facilitated via my
volunteering within a Head Start classroom.
Document analysis
Archival data or documents can provide information about issues and
phenomena which cannot necessarily be observed or uncovered in interviews or
focus groups. Documents can also make available to the researcher information
about past occurrences which may no longer be part of the organizational memory of
existing staff and program participants. Resultantly, they can “prove valuable not

68
only because of what can be learned directly from them but also as a stimulus for
paths of inquiry that can be pursued only through direct observation and
interviewing” (Patton, 2002, p. 294).
Document analysis was also utilized as a means of gathering data within this
research study. I collected and reviewed literature pertaining to the national Head
Start organization, methodology, curriculum, and policies of parental involvement
within the program. Examples of the sources of information examined were; official
government reports, program standards, and national Head Start organizational
mailings. Additionally, I reviewed information specific to the local USC School For
Early Childhood (SECE) Head Start program such as; handbooks, brochures,
pamphlets, minutes of Policy Committee and Parent Center Committee meetings. In
my review of documents, I utilized the six forms of support observational matrix to
examine the static and programmatic information of the Head Start program and
analyze or classify elements of institutional support and facilitation of social and
cultural capital that were available to parents.
Research time frame
The Head Start program runs concurrently with the traditional school year
calendar from September to June. However, data gathered for this research study
occurred between the months of February 2006 and lasted through June 2006.
During the school year, parents bring their children to the University Park Center
(UPC) Head Start site and drop them off in their individual classrooms for the
requisite length of their program day (morning, partial day or evening program).

69
Policy Council (PC), Center Parent Committee (CPC) meetings and PACT times are
held during afternoon and evening hours to accommodate parent schedules.
Accordingly, my interviews took place at the UPC site preceding the beginning or
following the end of those meetings and activities. Observations were simultaneous
to the events occurrence. The above noted data was gathered weekly over the course
of the study.
Data Analysis
The process of analyzing the data involves the ability to make sense of all the
information which has been gathered via various collection methods. In order to
conduct the analysis of my study data, I utilized Creswell’s (2003) six-step method
of data analysis and interpretation. The first step is organization and preparation of
the data for analysis. In order to do this I transcribed all audio taped individual and
focus group interview data. Additionally, I transcribed field notes which were
gathered as a result of observations and document analysis. Step two is reading the
data. This step entailed reading the transcribed data and notes in order to get a
general sense of the information that is present and to “reflect on its overall
meaning” (p. 191). Through the reading of the data, taking margin notes, and
collecting my thoughts, I noted and developed codes. This naturally led to the third
step which is coding. Coding is the process of organizing the data into chunks which
in their groupings, present possible ideas and themes that emerge from the data. In
developing codes and organizing my coding into manageable chunks of information
I was able to see possible themes emerging from my gathered data.

70
Step four is the description phase and involved the detailed rendering of
information about the study participants interviewed, interactions observed,
information gathered as well as identification of themes from the information.
This exercise of generating descriptions was helpful to me in examining and
corroborating codes that I developed in the previous step. The fifth step allowed my
generated themes and descriptions to be advanced within the narrative. From this
step, I determined the best manner and format to present my themes and the analyzed
data. I arranged the data in narrative passages which included detailed discussions of
each theme. I also presented organized data in visual tables and charts which
succinctly detailed information about study findings.
The final step, interpretation represents the culmination of brining meaning to
the data. Essentially, this step embodies the heart of the analysis and allows the
researcher to bring meaning to the information in order to convey the findings. In
order to saliently convey my findings, I utilized the four themes which emerged from
the data and embedded them within the theoretical framework I was using. This
provided me with the vehicle to explain the data and address the questions being
researched.
Validity and Reliability
Although the validation of findings occurs throughout the research process, I
employed a variety of strategies to ensure the validity and reliability of the results.
First of all, data was collected via multiple sources which included; non-participant
and participant observations, focus groups, document analysis, and individual
interviews, which provided in-depth descriptions and analyses to convey the

71
experiences of parents involved in the UPC Head Start program. Utilization of
multiple sources provided triangulation of the data which strengthened reliability and
supported the researcher in building a coherent justification for the themes which
emerged (Creswell, 2003).
The second strategy I utilized was member-checking. The use of member-
checking was helpful to me in determining the accuracy of the qualitative findings
(Creswell, 2003). In order to accomplish this, I shared the transcribed data with a
select number of study participants. This sharing of data with participants provided
me as the researcher and the study participants with the opportunity to review and
edit their responses for accuracy. I also employed peer-debriefing or peer-
examination strategies as a method to enhance the accuracy of theme generation. I
met and worked with a fellow doctoral candidate from my thematic dissertation
group who reviewed the data and provided questions and feedback regarding the
rationality of the themes that were developed. Finally, clarification of the
researcher’s bias will be articulated under the heading of “Researchers Role” within
the dissertation so that an understanding of the role it plays within the context of the
study is understood by the consumer of the research.
Role of the Researcher

The role of the researcher as the primary collector of data within qualitative
research means it is imperative to discuss the personal values and biases held by the
researcher as a result of its possible effect on the outcome of the study. Conducting a
qualitative study without honestly presenting this knowledge to the consumer of the

72
study can be damaging to the credibility of the study itself. To that end, in the
following section I describe my experience and personal views as a researcher.
My perceptions of the Head Start program and parental involvement
component have been shaped by my experience in working as an educational
professional employed within California public schools. From September 1996 to
present, I have been a school psychologist and have worked with Head Start/State
preschool programs at various school sites to which I have been assigned.
Additionally, in working within the schools, I have served a diverse spectrum of
families from a variety of cultures, ethnicities, and economic backgrounds. In my
associations with the Head Start program, I have worked closely with teachers to
develop and present parent education workshops as well as I have worked closely
with both families and teachers to ensure smooth transitions from Head Start to
elementary school for children with special needs. As an African American woman
with a Latin American heritage, it has been a humbling and rewarding experience to
serve and assist families within Head Start and elementary school system in my
capacity as an educator. I believe that my experience with the Head Start program
and my understanding of the context of the interactions which take place within the
program will assist me in working with the participants in this study. I bring cultural
experience and knowledge of both the structure of the Head Start and a familiarity in
working with the families who participate in the program.
Due to my previous experiences in working with low-income, working-class
minority parents, I bring a certain bias to this study and empowering parents is one
of my personal interests. Although every effort will be made to ensure objectivity,

73
these biases may shape the manner in which I view, understand, and interpret the
data I uncover. I begin this study with the a perspective, similar to Annette Lareau
(1987, 1989,) that low-income and working class minority families possess social
and cultural capital but that for some of these families this capital remains
inactivated because it goes unrecognized. Additionally, capital resources can be
developed and acquired by low-income, working class minority families who may
not recognize the capital resources that they themselves posses. Although appealing,
I understand that the social reproduction theory and its tenets of cultural and social
capital do not represent a panacea for the social and economic societal ills which
significantly impact low-income and minority families. However, I think that the
understanding of social reproduction theory, its constructs of social and cultural
capital, and the inextricable role they play in social reproduction can be a means by
which to construct bridges that can facilitate low-income, working class minority
parents in developing, acquiring, or activating their existing capital to mediate the
scholastic environments in which their children exist. The Head Start program with
its focus on parental involvement and accompanying program services may play an
important role in providing information and guidance to parents’ which can
positively affect the educational trajectory of the low-income, ethnically diverse
children and families that it serves.
Summary

Qualitative research methods will be utilized to help me determine how the
existing mechanisms within the Head Start parental involvement component
facilitate the process of development, acquisition, and activation of social and

74
cultural capital within the parents who participate in the program. Research
conducted in a qualitative manner readily lends itself to focusing on the process that
is occurring as well as the product or the outcome (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1990).
Qualitative research methods also permit the researcher the opportunity to capture
and explore in-depth the personal perceptions and individual experiences of study
participants with careful attention to detail, context, and nuance (Patton, 2002). In
order to investigate the study question, I utilized four forms of data collection
methods including, individual interviews, non-participant, structured observation,
focus groups, and document analysis. The sample I selected included parents
participating in UPC Head Start program offerings, UPC staff, USC School for
Early Childhood (SECE) staff, and administrators. Following this chapter will be the
final two chapters of the dissertation. Within chapter four I will present the data
regarding parental perception of their development, acquisition and activation of
social and cultural capital and social networks. Additionally, I will present
information regarding the existing mechanisms within Head Start that may assist in
facilitating this perception. In chapter five I will utilize the findings from the study
to answer the research questions that were proposed within the first chapter. Also,
included in chapter five I will develop suggestions regarding parental involvement
within the Head Start program, discuss study limitations and propose
recommendations for future research.

75
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION OF DATA
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him
for a lifetime (Chinese Proverb)

Although this proverb has become oft quoted and borders on being cliché, it
accurately characterizes the remarks and observations of the parents, staff, and
administrators who are involved in the University of Southern California (USC)
School for Early Childhood (SECE), University Park Center Head Start
program(UPC). The goal of this research was to examine from a parental
perspective, the existing mechanisms within Head Start which support the
development, acquisition or activation of social and cultural capital within the lives
of the parents who participate in the educational, social, and leadership opportunities
provided by the program. In chapter two, I discussed the integral nature of social
and cultural capital, its relationship to parental involvement, and the importance of
parent possession of it in order to negotiate educational institutions.
Endeavoring to present meaningful, viable, and comprehensible findings which
accurately reflect and support the comments of the study participants, I utilize the
“give a fish or teach to fish” proverb above. Within the context of this study, the
proverb embodies the fundamental relationship between social and cultural capital
and the resources that can be wrought as a result of its acquisition and activation.
Moreover, the proverb reflects the relational dynamics which are inherent in the
process through which parents travel in order to gain social and cultural capital
resources. To that end, this chapter has been divided into four thematic categories

76
representing a juxtaposition of the commentaries rendered by the University Park
Center (UPC) parent participants, staff, and administrators regarding their
experiences of being involved within the UPC Head Start program. Each thematic
category is presented below;
1. Agency Responsiveness: Laying Foundations to Build Social and Cultural Capital

2. Learning by Example: Parenting Skills as Cultural Capital

3. Social Networks: Making Connections and Developing Social Capital

4. Parental Empowerment and Advocacy: Activating Capital

Each of these thematic categories relates to elements of the process through
which parents travel within UPC’s Head Start program. The first thematic category
entitled Agency Responsiveness: Laying Foundations to Build Social and Cultural
Capital, focuses on the SECE Head Start program leadership and the UPC staff‘s
effort to provide social capital resources and respond to the needs of parents involved
within the program. Also presented is the parent’s viewpoint regarding their
interactions within the UPC environment and their response to the information, and
services provided. The second category, Learning by Example: Parenting Skills as
Cultural Capital, characterizes and reflects the cultural capital skills that parents feel
they have learned as a result of their participation within the Head Start program and
their perspective concerning their attainment of those skills. Social Networks:
Making Connections and Developing Social Capital is the third thematic category
and illustrates the extant networks within the program and the ways in which parents
both conceive of and experience networking within the context of their involvement
at UPC. The final category, Parental Empowerment and Advocacy: Activating

77
Capital, highlights the social and cultural capital skills that parents feel they have
acquired and their opinion of the changes they have made or experienced in their
lives resulting from their participation within the Head Start program at the UPC site.
University Park Center (UPC) is one of five brick and mortar Head Start sites
affiliated with USC’s School for Early Childhood Education (SECE). UPC serves
approximately 218 students and their families by providing educational, health,
nutrition, and social services. As noted in chapter three, UPC is the oldest and
largest Head Start program in SECE’s cadre of sites. Additionally, its census
represents the most diverse population amongst the five locations and comprises the
largest number of families participating in the program. Resultantly, it was utilized
as the principal site to gather data from the key participants; parents, program staff,
and program administrators. In addition, input from site supervisors at the
remaining four sites was also utilized. All of the participant’s candid responses and
opinions provide the basis for understanding the presented themes.
Agency Responsiveness: Laying Foundations to Build Social and Cultural Capital

Through the auspices of the Head Start program performance standards,
providing parents with a fishing pole is an apropos description of what SECE’s
administrative leadership and staff is determined to do for the parents they serve.
The SECE program director exemplified this by stating,
In 1988, the Head Start Performance Standards were revised and
when those performance standards were revised, the task was to
integrate all of the components. So, now you will see all of the
various individual departments or components working seamlessly
together…

78
Parent involvement is everybody’s responsibility; it has to be in the
classroom, in the office, it has to be in the child’s development, in
the medical/health decisions, everything. So, it’s integral to all the
services that are provided.

Her words speak to the agencies acknowledgement of the necessity to be responsive
in all areas to the needs of the parents and the students serviced by the program.
This recognition of responsiveness is also present in commentaries shared by
parents. One parent shared,
I really like the mentality of the program, it’s not just to help the kids
but helping the parents so the parents can help the kids…I think at this
level, they’re really trying to help parents with jobs, with homes, with
housing and everything so they bring everything together, they put
everything together to give parents that don’t have, the right start.

Another parent, a father who went through a custody battle for his child shared how
UPC’s responsiveness as an agency was important to and supportive of him when he
needed it;
The administration last year…was a tremendous help. I had a family
advocate who was a tremendous help and when I say tremendous
help, going through the whole custody ordeal, there was a lot of salt
poured in my game and they were aware enough to think outside of
the box and not just take my sons mother on her word. They gave me
a chance to prove myself.

In a practical manner, parents have recognized the utility of services and information
that the agency provides to them not only in an educational sense but also in
addressing the family’s social-emotional needs. More importantly however the
underlying understanding reflected in the parent quotes is that Head Start as an
institution and UPC as its programmatic arm responds to, recognizes, and values the
skills or qualities that parents bring to the table. Typically, the corollary is true as
noted by Lareau (1987), all families possess social and cultural capital however,

79
some forms of capital are valued more highly by dominant institutions and only
rarely is this capital recognized by dominant social institutions. UPC actively
acknowledges and identifies the capital which parents possess. They do this at the
commencement of a parent’s participation within the program during the orientation
period. One of the program managers aptly explained it as such, “in Head start, we
take a ‘strengths based approach,’ so really trying to identify and help parents
identify their strengths.” She went on to explain,
I think it’s important , because working with families from low
income backgrounds, facing so many issues within the family, a lot
of times you [they] can’t see that you [they] do have strengths…So, at
the time of enrollment or during our first home visit, with families we
complete what we call a strengths and needs assessment. So, we help
families identify what their strengths are as well as address any needs
the family has. We do goal setting as well because you have to
identify strengths in order to help them set goals, because you are
going to look at what strengths they have to obtain to be able for them
to reach their goals.

This strengths based orientation appears to permeate the interactions between staff
and parents throughout the program. This observation was confirmed by a site
supervisor in her explanation of exchanges that she has had with parents. She
shared,
Sometimes there are parents who have a concern and they will
apologize for brining up their issue. But, I let them know that [you]
they don’t have to apologize because they are advocating for [your]
their child and I really let them know the importance of not ever
apologizing for advocating for their child. I share that, you’re here
to ask questions and you want answers and that partnership is
important…When they leave here and go to Kindergarten in LAUSD
or wherever they are going, I let them know that [you] they are going
to need to continue that, so we’re glad that [you’re] they are starting it
here with us so [you’ll] they will be successful in their child’s future
career as a student.

80
Acknowledgement of the existing capital which parents possess does not only take
place in a formal sense but also informally through the possibility of a parent
participating within the classroom curriculum. Conversations with both
administrators and classroom teachers confirmed that parents are encouraged in this
level of participation. A comment made by a site supervisor supported this point,
One of the main goals is to ensure that parents are involved at every
level of the program. Not just coming in and volunteering in the
classroom or assisting on a fieldtrip. We aim to have our parents
participate with our lesson planning. So, during the teachers planning
time, the parents are invited to sit alongside of the teacher and
actually help plan what their children are going to do and give input
into that planning of what they would like to see in the classroom.

Parents are also encouraged to directly contribute to the curriculum in other ways.
One site supervisor commented,
We tap their interests and their talents because we always tell
them…if you have any talents to share with us, if a mom or dad
knows how to cook … or plays an instrument, let us know and we
can include it in our lesson plans or activities.

Through acknowledging the capital which parents bring with them to the program,
staff and administration lay foundations which parents continue to build upon using
the capital they posses. The SECE program director echoed this outlook by sharing
the following,
My aim and goal of parent participation is that parents get what they
want and need. By that I mean to say that parents aren’t getting what
“we” think they need which is what happens in a lot of social service
programs. You have an administration that makes decisions based on
what “we” think is good for parents and families as opposed to having
families as part of the process and us then being a responsive agency
to their needs. And that’s always been the goal at USC [SECE]

81
When we looked at describing who we were, we always described
ourselves as a responsive agency to the needs of the community and
then we would create programs and programming based on the needs
of the community.

When she shared this intention, the director punctuated her reflection with an
anecdotal story. A father at one of the smaller Head Start sites had a daughter
attending the morning Head Start program. He owned his business and was an ice
cream truck driver. In the afternoon, he would pick up his daughter from school and
have her with him in the truck apparently, from noon until six or seven o’clock in the
evening. There was a lack of child care in the family so, the child would spend the
day with her father in the truck. Unfortunately, the child was twice a witness to her
father being assaulted and robbed in the ice cream truck. As a result of those
occurrences, the father came to the Head Start program and asked if he could enroll
his daughter for both the morning and afternoon programs. In response to his need,
the director and program staff conducted a needs survey and ascertained that
multiple families were interested in an extended evening program. As a result of the
response to a parent need, the twilight or evening program was developed.
Currently, the twilight/evening hours begin at 4:00 p.m. and last until 10:00 p.m. and
are purposefully available to parents who are working or attending school between
those hours.
In their efforts to build social capital foundations for parents, UPC’s leadership
and staff most closely reflect Coleman’s (1988) interpretation of social capital which
relates to the relationships between educational organizations, teachers, and parents.
Coleman defines social capital by its function and notes that it facilitates the actions

82
of actors – whether persons or corporate actors – within the structure. He goes on to
say that social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends
that in its absence would not be possible (p. S98). Directly related to this point is
USC’s School for Early Childhood Education (SECE) provision of transition
services for those students and parents graduating from the program to the public
school system. Through administrative planning and staff execution, SECE is
responsive to parent needs. They provide parents with necessary social capital by
ensuring that the parents receive vital information. One particular program manger
relayed the following
When children are going to transition to Kindergarten…we have a
series of workshops we provide to families in the areas of transition
like; What is transition, What to expect, How do you prepare, School
choice, How to locate your home school, How to interact with school
personnel, and How to advocate on your child’s behalf…. So, there is
a whole series around transition into Kindergarten and we provide
that every year. We work closely with parents to make sure that
they are prepared and know what to expect once their child leaves
Head Start, and we want them to make informed decisions as to what
type of school they are interested in having their child attend.

The information provided through these workshops can act as a direct facilitator of
the actions of parents by arming them with essential information to support the
transition of their child from the Head Start program into Kindergarten. Ultimately,
this affects the social capital resources of the parents by assisting them in their
efforts to navigate the educational system and participate in the educational
achievement of their child. This sentiment is also present in the following parent
commentary.

83
A mother, whose child is transitioning into the public school system as a
Kindergartener, commented about one of the four yearly transition meetings which
she attended,
…At one of the trainings for the transitions, they gave us lists of
schools, things we need to prepare our child with, things we need to
sit down with our children. I would have never thought of that, I
would have just said, what school are we going to put him in?”

This parent’s commentary is demonstrative of being given a fishing pole. She
readily acknowledges that she would not have considered the information that had
been given to her. By extension, her comment can be extrapolated to demonstrate
that now with the information, she can better prepare her child and or make a more
informed decision regarding school placement. Further acknowledgement of
responsiveness is evident in this parent’s recognition of the programs provision of
different opportunities for parents:
...They also provided not to long ago, a computer training and also
they have job fairs you know, and I think that if I was looking for a
job – because I was overhearing one of the family advocates talking
to a parent asking, “did you go to that interview?” and “we’ll look for
more openings.” So, I think they really try to connect parents with
different opportunities, not just help the kids.

Once the foundation is laid and parents receive fishing poles so to speak, then it
naturally follows that instruction in the use of the fishing pole must be rendered. The
question remains however, within the context of UPC, how does said instruction take
place? Is it direct instruction, indirect or both? And, do parents recognize what they
have learned?

84
Learning by Example: Parenting Skills as Cultural Capital
The words parental involvement within and of themselves inhere in its
definition a recognition of parents as dynamic interactive actors and involvement as
a dynamic interactive process (Barton, Drake, Perez, St. Louis & George 2004).
Within the Head Start program and UPC specifically, this process for the parent
participants takes place both directly through the auspices of workshops, meetings,
and trainings as well as indirectly via observing the modeling behaviors of staff,
administrators, or other parents. Acknowledgement of this was clear in a
perspective shared by the following parent when describing what she felt she has
learned through her participation in the program,
As far as dealing with my children, it has taught me to have more
patience to be able to address my child in a positive way and then to
deal with the little problems that he may have. From the trainings and
watching the teachers, I take everything that I see in the program from
the classroom and the meetings home to use it on my children. Even
when talking with my husband, I’ve learned to express myself
correctly so as not to have a misunderstanding.

A second parent noted the following,
I didn’t have much experience like how to teach them [her children]
so I watch and get some ideas from them [the teachers] and then
[think] oh, okay, that’s how they do it. So yes it has been a good
experience to learn more how to help them.

Both of these participant‘s views reflect the dynamic element of their involvement.
Neither is a passive bystander. Similarly, in order to learn how to fish, one cannot
simply be a passive bystander. Once the fishing pole is in hand, the technique of
how to use it must be actively acquired. One part of the process to acquire the
technique is by watching a knowledgeable fisherman’s strategy. In this case, UPC

85
staff serves as the knowledgeable fishermen. Evident in the parent’s comments, is
the sentiment that each of them has actively participated in their learning by
observing different persons and activities which have occurred within their
surroundings. In essence, they have observed effective techniques or skills and
capitalized upon them by putting them into practice within their own home
environments.
In examining cultural and social capital within the context of this study,
parent’s beliefs, views, and opinions shared throughout the data gathering process
positively indicated that parenting skills can be viewed as a form of cultural capital.
The writings of Pierre Bourdieu (1977) characterize cultural capital as existing in
three distinct states; embodied, objectified, and institutionalized. For the purposes of
this study, the focus is on embodied cultural capital which can be represented by a
person’s disposition or aptitude. In noting this distinction, the manner in which a
parent interacts directly with their child and is involved with the schooling process is
reflective of their disposition and aptitude. While interviewing parents, it was
evident that they noted changes in both their outlook and parenting capacities as a
result of their participation in UPC’s various programmatic offerings. One mother
who is learning English as her second language preferred to speak in English and
shared her experience,
I learn more, I feel like I’m growing more in the way I teach them.
Sometimes you just go kind of strict with them - do this and that.
And just looking at how the teacher treats them and teach them, it
help me to be a better mother and a teacher, like a mommy-teacher.

86
Another parent stated her feelings in the following way,

…I’ve been to the parenting classes and they help you think that kids
are not just an object, they are a person too and they have feelings….
I learned to control myself with the classes that I had, it was really
good and I try to control my temper.

Evident from the comments of these parents is that as a result of their involvement
within the program, they are actively learning and putting to use skills and
techniques - gaining capital - to assist them in parenting their children. One mother
who felt that she has personally changed as a result of her learning shared,
It [the program] has made me feel more confident with the kids now.
When they ask me something, I already like know how to answer
them…you got to think what you say before you say it so they could
understand you and everything. So, that’s what I learned, I didn’t
have a lot of patience with my daughter and I would just tell her like
this and that and she wouldn’t understand it, but now I explain to
them more….because they don’t get it right away like we do, you got
to tell them step by step by step so yeah, I been learning a lot and I’ve
been changing.

Information gathered in parent focus groups and additional individual interviews
yielded similar comments. One mother said, “I learned different parent skills; how
to not yell, how to be patient and to get down on their eye level.” A father also
participating in the focus group stated that one of the useful things he has learned
while participating as a parent at UPC was parenting skills. He went on to say, “I see
the teacher tell him (his child) stuff and I go home and say the same thing.”
Although basic in their deliverance, the comments shared by these parents implies
that these are skills which they feel they have acquired as parents and can readily
incorporate into their home routine. Similarly stated by another parent,
The trainings itself does give you more confidence to be a parent, to
know how to deal with your child, how to talk to them. I see how the

87
teachers talk to them and I pick up on that and do it at home. I try
also to implement what they do at school at home to continue the
education.

The commonality present in the remarks and thoughts shared by the parents noted
above is that they have consciously and actively observed the behavior of the
teachers or other staff who have interacted with them and their children. Whether
the interactions took place through their participation in training or via observing the
teacher interact with their child in the classroom environment, the parent’s
sentiments imply that they feel that they have learned and gained useful skills or
techniques as a result. Adding to this, direct teacher consultation has also served as
a means by which parents gain skills.
While participating in a focus group, a mother shared some insight regarding
something practical that she had learned in the program and used within her home.
This particular mother has six children three of which have been through Head Start,
one currently in the program, and the two younger children not of age to participate
as yet. Her first three children through were boys and the fourth is a girl who was
encountering some difficulties. This mom stated,
…I have all sons and all the ways and methods that I taught my sons,
and I know I shouldn’t compare my kids but, the teacher gave me an
idea….and I wouldn’t have thought about doing that and…gradually
she got it, she’s still working on it but, the method I was doing wasn’t
working.

In a similar vein, a father shared insight he feels he has garnered from his
participation. This particular father disclosed that he has dedicated himself to being
involved with his children because he did not experience the same involvement from
his father when he was a child. Consequently, he felt that he did not reach his full

88
academic potential in school. He further shared that prior to his UPC Head Start
experience, he was simply looking forward to the beginning of Kindergarten as the
important scholastic milestone in his son’s life. However, as a result of his
participation in the program he noted,
I think if I wasn’t here then I would still be thinking of Kindergarten,
whereas being here early before Kindergarten has made me look into
getting a jump start on him a little faster which makes me go to
Lakeshore and look at books that I can find for him so I can get him
even advanced more.

The above-mentioned father’s sentiment and the points of view shared by other
participants is echoed in the research of parental involvement and cultural capital.
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) noted that cultural capital is amenable to
influence and alteration by primary characters in the involvement process: parents
themselves, their children, and other adults in the environment. Considering the
commentary shared by parents, it is evident that their acquisition of capital has been
amenable to the influence of the teachers and staff in the UPC environment.
In addition to the abovementioned informal observations, interactions, and
consultations as learning vehicles for parents, semi-formal and formal opportunities
for their participation are available via the Center Parent Committee (CPC) and
Policy Council (PC) groups. These groups allow parents to learn and participate in
the shared decision making process of the Head Start program as well as at their
respective program sites. The Center Parent Committee (CPC) is the less formal
group of the two and is made up of all enrolled parents at a center. The membership
elects a four person executive board and monthly meetings are held at each
respective center.

89
CPC committees are responsible for advising staff regarding site operations,
planning center activities, and take part in the selection of new employees.
The Policy Council (PC) is more formalized and is composed of duly elected
parent representatives from each of the existing Head Start sites in addition to the
SECE director and other SECE staff. This council is responsible for
approving/disproving annual budgets or grant applications, the recruitment/selection
process of hiring new staff, and terminations. Additionally, the council is
responsible for hearing grievances from community members.
Participation in these two groups provides parents with a different opportunity
to learn in that they are more formalized and structured in nature. Each committee
has an executive board and specific protocols are utilized to conduct each meeting.
The Policy Council (PC) utilizes the parliamentary procedures of Robert’s Rules of
Order to conduct their business and for many parents, their participation on the PC is
the first time that they have encountered the protocol of Robert’s Rules of Order.
One parent who is now participating on the PC felt that she has benefited from the
experience stated the following,
Everything is just so, and you take turns to talk, and everybody takes
turns for every little thing that you do. So, you kind of have to hold
back and try to formulate your questions the best way you can
articulate them and so it makes you analyze things differently. And
you know, this is how I am teaching my child to analyze things and to
express himself and to communicate with others because it’s all about
communicating your ideas and your feelings. So the fact that it’s
structured this way is something I’m taking for me and for him.

90
A second parent who also participates on both committees feels strongly about what
she is learning and how helpful it has been to her. She shared that she wishes other
parents would take the time to participate like she has and declared,
I want to tell other parents and say you know, come and participate,
you learn, you not just learn how to participate or how to help your
child, but it helps you as an individual person to express yourself, to
work together as a group and to grow.

UPC staff and administrators are keenly aware of the USC School for Early
Childhood (SECE) program mission and values as it relates to parent involvement
and subsequent parent learning and education. Within the handbook that parents are
given once they have been accepted into the program, SECE clearly delineates not
only the rules and regulations of their Head Start program, but also speaks to parents
about its vision for them as partners in the education process. Excerpted below is a
portion of the programs beliefs regarding parents as partners;
The success of a child is most influenced by the involvement of
parents in their child’s learning process. The role of the parent as the
primary educator of their child has a longer lasting and most
significant impact on the growth of the child…..By working in
partnership with parents, staff enhances the development of parental
teaching, interaction, and problem solving skills…

This outlook was similarly expressed by a site supervisor when asked what she felt
her role was in parental involvement,
We’re educating them [parents]… educating them so that they know
they are the first teacher for their children and so that whatever we do
here they are able to transition it and do it at home, because, it is
going to be a carryover and they have to understand that the school is
an extension of the home.

This particular site supervisor was not the only administrator to voice the belief that
the parent and home are the primary sources of education for the children with the

91
program providing assistance and support to the parents. Support that the parents
would find useful in specific ways as strategies or techniques and support in general
relative to parenting and an appreciation of themselves and their child. The director
characterized it in this manner,
Idealistically, I want parents to fall in love with their children and to
really understand the miracle of growth because a lot of the times
when you are doing the day to day managing of feeding, clothing,
diapering, and all the daily living things – getting food on the table,
it’s hard so you miss that. And what I always hope is that through this
program…that they [parents] could come away with, ‘you know this
is just a miracle to see how my child changes and develops.’

Overall, it appears that parents are cognizant that they have acquired information and
by extension cultural capital through their participation in the UPC Head Start
program. They expressed that they have gained capital that is particularly helpful to
them in parenting their children within the home environment as well as capital that
will help them to educationally support their children. The importance of this
realization was evident in the voice of a father who shared a simple observation of
what he garnered from a fieldtrip.
They [the program] always have fieldtrips to something interesting
Even the fieldtrips I’ve volunteered on, I’ve shown interest in it to
where [extent that] I’ve taken my son back on my own because I saw
his interest and I was interested. Like the Science center, we’re
getting ready to go back in a couple of weeks.

The quote from the parent above illustrates research findings by Kalmijn &
Kraaykamp (1996) which indicated that relative to parental involvement, the
acquisition of cultural capital is believed to be an asset in the schooling process of
children.

92
Not only is this acquisition of capital beneficial to the schooling process of children
but also beneficial to parents in the development of their social capital and
enhancement of their social networks.
Social Networks: Making Connections and Developing Social Capital
Cochran and Brassard (1979) and Portes (1998) noted that social networks help
to produce social capital to the extent that social relationships encourage the
exchange of information, shape beliefs, and enforce the norms of behavior. Relative
to UPC and the parents participating within the Head Start program, networking not
only takes the form of connecting with other people, but also through the exchange
of information via accessing resources within the community.
Organizationally, USC School for Early Childhood Education (SECE) and
programmatically, UPC aim to build community partnerships and supply parents
with information that will support them in their ability to network within the
community. Table 4 presents a few of the multiple community partnerships that
SECE has established.

93
Table 4
USC/SECE Community Partnerships

Agency

Service
Los Angeles Child
Guidance

Manual Arts High School

John Tracy Clinic

Jules Stein Eye Clinic

Mt. St. Mary’s University

Exposition Library

Foster Grandparents

Eisner Pediatrics Mobile
Unit

United Way
Mental health referrals & treatments of children with
behavior problems or mental health issues

ESL Classes on site

Free on-site hearing screenings for children

Free on-site vision screenings for children

Early childhood development student teachers

Adult literacy program

Senior volunteers that serve as additional support within
the classroom

Provides on-site medical & dental screening to children
enrolled in SECE Head Start programs

Mother Read/Father Read Literacy Program

Because of SECE’s objective to provide information to Head Start parents, the SECE
director was asked her point of view regarding networking skills and resources that
parents may acquire as a result of their program participation. She stated,
I think parents learn that they are part of the community by working
along with their Family Advocates. By doing this, they are able to
access different services within the community that they probably
didn’t know existed before- that they can then take with them. So,
when they leave at the end of the program, they can take those
resources with them, know that there is accessibility for it, and know
how to maneuver and work those systems and then teach others how
to do it.

During a separate interview with the site supervisor, the same question was asked
and her response was somewhat different but displayed the same aspiration for
parents to connect with and access the available resources. She responded,

94
We show parents the link, that there are other things out there besides
just Head Start for their child. There are other opportunities …Don’t
just limit your view to this building. I think that’s what our goal is, to
help parents see that there are other avenues available to them outside
of this [the Head Start] community and to access it and please ask for
the things you need…don’t be afraid to connect to other resources.

Connecting with other people and knowing how and where to access resources is of
importance in building a community. As noted by the abovementioned researchers,
social relationships encourage the exchange of important information. Within a
community of fisherman, it is important to know the best places to fish, where to find
the freshest bait, and how to behave when one is fishing. One cannot entirely learn
this independently however, by connecting with other like minded experienced
fishermen who share similar goals, information can be gleaned that will enhance the
novice fisherman’s knowledge. Relative to parents participating in UPC, the staff,
administrators, other parents, and community partners compose this community of
like minded persons. In determining parents understanding of and experience with
social networking, one parent affirmed the above sentiments by sharing her
experience of receiving information from the program about available community
resources,
We did get a binder or book with listings of all the offices in the
neighborhood and facilities for children, childcare, and activities for
children for the summer. It was this thick and when I saw it, I was
just blown away because I could have sat there and read the whole
thing page by page…So, it did help us in the community itself.

Further interviews with parents revealed a parent perspective regarding
networking and resources which was different from the viewpoint voiced by
administration and staff. Interestingly, when participants were interviewed about

95
networking, the majority of them shared how they have utilized the knowledge they
have learned in the Head Start program to network or share resources with other
people. In that vein, multiple parents shared their personal networking stories. One
mother shared that she has given advice to other people she knows, “I have shared
with friends and family to make learning fun and spend[ing] time with their child.”
A father in a focus group commented, “When I see parents that have kids at home, I
say put them in Head Start you know, get them started, it’s helped my kid with
mental things so, get started in Head Start.” Another parent shared that when she
goes to the clinic to get her daughters medical check -ups and sees other parents in
the waiting room, she talks to them about Head Start. She stated,
…I tell the parents that we have a school here [UPC] and I tell them
that they could come to see it. I also tell them I have applications in
the car, I give them out [Head Start applications] and tell them that
they need to come over and check it out [UPC]. I give them like a
little introduction and let them know what’s going on.

Bronfenbrenner (1979) asserted that social networks act as channels of
communication that help people to identify the human and material resources they
need as well as share and carry information or attitudes from one setting to another.
From the remarks shared by parents it is perceptible that they acknowledge and seem
to appreciate the information that they have learned within the program. Resultantly,
as implied by their commentaries, they consider their knowledge and experience as a
resource and evidently see their sharing of this information with others as
representative of networking.
Noted earlier in this chapter were the Policy Council (PC) and the Center
Parent Committee (CPC) groups. For those parents that choose not to become

96
involved on the PC or do not consistently attend the CPC meetings, other avenues for
developing social networks exist. Fieldtrips around the community in which parents
volunteer to accompany the class, classroom volunteer opportunities and within each
of the classrooms, an activity called Parent and Child Together Time or PACT time
is available. PACT time, as it is called, occurs on a monthly basis and is a time for
parents and children to engage one another within the classroom. The first 30
minutes are reserved for child-parent activities that are completely child directed.
The remaining time is for the teacher to share a classroom activity that parents can
take home and practice with their child. It is also a time for the parents to informally
meet, speak, and connect with one another.
Multiple observations of PACT times and interviews with parents revealed that
some parents do engage in networking type conversations about resources or
techniques that they have successfully used. One parent remarked about her
participation in the PACT time and how she felt about it,
…Meeting other parents and discussing how they kind of dealt with
some of the same situations I have with my son…Some of their
children are already going to Kindergarten, they’re children are
experienced and the parents are more experienced so, you kind of see
and learn how they’ve kind of handled things.

A second parent confirmed the importance of classroom meetings and PACT times
to her personally by sharing,
When I married my husband we moved to a different area and I was a
little scared to go out so it [PACT] helped me to have friends, to
communicate with the parents. We talk about all the experiences with
the kids….I have made friends now and learn to communicate with
other people.

97
Her conception of networking embodies networking with others as a more personal
occurrence. This notion was also voiced by a few other parents. When asked about
networking with other parents during PACT time or at meetings, another mother
shared,
I didn’t even think about it as “networking,” but it’s given me an
opportunity to meet the parents through our children in the classroom
and at the meetings…I do have two moms that I met in last years
class and we talk back and forth and try to get together with our kids.
We’re talking, so it does give you the opportunity to create more
relationships.

Whether personally involved with other parents at UPC, sharing information or
accessing community resources the conceptions of parents regarding their building
of social networks implies that they do feel they are connecting with other people
and networking. The importance of their perception is reflected in research
conducted by Reynolds and colleagues (1996) which determined that social networks
are beneficial to parents because these parents are more likely to experience social
support, to value educational opportunities and to interact with their children in ways
that support scholastic development. With the social networking benefits that these
parents area able to gain, the question then arises as to whether or not these benefits
affect a parents perspective in regard to feeling personally empowered relative to
their ability to provide educational support for their children.
Parental Empowerment and Advocacy: Activating Capital
Taking into consideration the “give a fish or teach to fish” analogy, one’s
ability to fish does not simply consist of being able to catch a fish. One must have
the appropriate equipment, learn the proper techniques, connect with and receive

98
guidance from experienced fishermen and make the effort in order to ultimately
catch the first fish. In essence, a level of agency is involved in ensuring that each
step of the process works in concert. Fundamentally, each person or parent must
take action in order for the desired effect to be produced. Reflecting on the
commentary, thoughts, and opinions shared by the parents who participate within the
UPC Head Start program, it appears that they experience a process akin to the above
noted analogy. One parent expressed her thoughts in this manner,
I feel like this [being involved in the program] gives the parent a
sense of…like a push in trying to get the best for your kid. A lot of
information [I received] I really wasn’t aware of before and all of this
[information] has helped me to prepare myself to provide a better
education for him and work with the schools and the teachers to give
back to my child.

This mother’s thoughts echo the parts of the process that must work in sync – parent,
child, school, and teacher in order to produce the desired effect, which in this case, is
a good education for her child. Another parent shared similar thoughts in this way,
I think that if you see the education of your child as something that is
so important, you will try. And I think that a lot of parents just don’t
get that , that you and the teacher and the school, we all have to work
together to make sure that our kids reach their maximum potential
and it has to be together as a group, not just the parent, not just the
child, not just the teacher.

In speaking with parents, perceptions regarding involvement, confidence,
empowerment, and being able to advocate on behalf of their children was
unmistakably evident in their responses. Analogous to these parents comments is
research conducted by Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) which indicated that
when parents perceive themselves as competent and able to have a positive influence
on their children’s learning they are more apt to view involvement in their children’s

99
education as important. One mother who was questioned regarding how she felt her
participation within the UPC Head Start program would help her to advocate on
behalf of her child, emphatically stated
They’re [the school]not going to hand him the education he needs,
they’re just going to go along with the curriculum. So now being in
this program has shown me that I need to go out there, talk to the
teachers, create a relationship with them, and let myself be known [to
the teachers] that I’m going to be here and I’m going to be on top of
what is happening with my child.

This mother’s sentiments are similar to the “parental empowerment” research of
Delgado-Gaitan (1991). She has posited in her research that “parents who are
knowledgeable about the way schools operate are better advocates for their children
than parents who lack such skills.” This assertion was collectively evident within
parental commentaries. The father who earlier shared that his own father’s lack of
involvement has encouraged him to be significantly involved in his child’s education
shared,
The whole program has given me a guide, to basically start with a
pre-school education and to follow through, [the program is like] a
guide as to what I need to do as a parent to provide him with the best
education.

Likewise, a mother whose child will be leaving UPC to begin Kindergarten in the
fall declared
I had him when I was getting older at 32. Well, now I’m 36 so I feel
I’m a late starter and just being in the program has opened my eyes to
what I should consider as better or best for him. It has given me the
tools to know that this is better or this is not better for him. So, being
a late starter in children it [the program] has given me more
confidence to be a better parent. And at home, I take what I get from
the classroom and I try to continue it as they started it, and now I feel
more confident as a parent to make decisions and know what is best
for him

100

As evident from the above noted commentaries, parents voiced their perceptions that
their involvement within the UPC Head Start program has positively affected their
ability to educationally support their child. Also palpable in their observations is
how they have been personally affected by their participation within the program and
their perceptions of themselves as feeling personally empowered. One mother while
being interviewed regarding what she felt she has gained via her participation in the
program, had tears welling up in her eyes. She proceeded to say, “I get all emotional
because I talk about my son and I just have a sense of pride from being in this
program, for me being here. I’m empowered, I’m proud to be part of it.” Another
parent shared how she has felt personally empowered and has benefited as a result of
her participation on the Policy Council (PC) and Center Parent Committees (CPC).
She enthusiastically stated,
It actually [the PC] helped me to improve myself at work, giving me
more confidence to speak out because you have to speak out on the
committee and ask questions. So, I do feel that came out for me from
being able to speak out here [in the PC meetings]. I still get nervous
but I’m more up to asking questions…It’s empowering to be part of
the PC or CPC, it has given me confidence both in being an adult and
a parent.

Characterizations of social and cultural capital can be observed in parent’s
vocabularies, their sense of entitlement to interact with teachers as equals, as well as
in the connections within their social networks (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). Although
not exhaustive, Lareau and Horvat’s observations point to important indicators of
social and cultural capital acquisition. Within the context of this study,
characterizations such as that noted above, were reflected in parent’s statements

101
regarding their involvement and their perceptions of how their involvement has
impacted their ability to advocate for their children. One mother shared the
following,
They [the program] give us the confidence to be able to speak up for
him [at school]. [The program] to open [ed] my eyes that I do need
to be more involved and they [the program] give[s] us the tools to go
out and ask for or almost demand the proper education for our
children.

Another parent mirroring similar sentiments stated,

It [the program] has helped me because the stuff I know now I am
able to go to the school [her child’s elementary school], request what I
want, I know the proper channels or avenues to do that. …I can ask
the right questions, I can get answers I didn’t before but now I feel
comfortable in what I’m doing and how to do it.

A particular poignancy is added to this parent’s comment because of her particular
situation. She is currently a foster mother for a number of special needs children.
Although she has adult children, she did not previously participate in the Head Start
program. As noted in her comment, she shares that she has learned important
information which has helped her to support the foster children she now has. During
the interview she disclosed that she wished that she had known then, what she knows
now in the way of being more knowledgeable about educational and school related
matters. From the comments shared by the participants, characterizations of capital
are evident. It is apparent that they feel they have personally gained capital
resources via their participation in the UPC Head Start program and can utilize those
resources to advocate for their children Similarly expressed by another mother was
a comment which reflects a sense of entitlement as it relates to her ability to be
involved with her child’s education.

102
Being in the program gives me like, I feel like I have the right, the
encouragement to ask for progress of how my child is doing and how
I can help him. [his teachers can] tell me, give me ideas, I’ll take them
home and try to do whatever is lacking. The fact that I’m involved in
the parent meetings [CPC committee] makes me want to be more
involved in the school and work with him and help him.

Also evident during the interviews with SECE and UPC administration and
staff was their acknowledgement of and active participation in efforts to empower
parents by providing them with support, encouragement, and information. The UPC
site supervisor shared her view in the following manner
We’re trying to empower them [parents] and letting them know that
even while your child is here, we want you to be empowered. We
want you to be empowered when your child leaves here. [We want
you] to be able to go to any organization, whatever it is that you need,
and to [be able to] talk and say, this is what I need and never being
afraid to ask for what you need.

She went on to express that they communicate the following message to parents in
the classroom, during workshops, and through meetings,
You are important, you have a lot of power and this is what is
expected of you [advocating for your child] as a parent, as your
child’s first teacher. You’re going to need to do these things all the
time so let’s start here, right now, learning how to do that [advocate
on their child’s behalf].

The administrative level message also encompassed the importance of empowering
parents through educating and providing them with the necessary tools to
educationally support their children. One administrator shared the following,
They [parents] learn the language of the profession [teaching
profession], they learn the language of child development so that
when they go outside of Head Start into a school system and someone
tries to talk above their head, they can say ‘excuse me, how is this
helping my child develop? How is it helping their social emotional
[skills]?’ So I think it demands respect from people.

103
She went on to describe how she perceives these educational inputs as being
beneficial to the parents served by the Head Start program,
So, parents learn through Head Start and parent involvement how
important it is to be active in their children’s lives as opposed to just
dropping them off in September and picking them up in June. They
learn the benefits of being there [at the school] on a regular basis and
communicating with the teachers…they learn how to talk with
teachers and learn how to question what teachers observe and that
they can be partners with the teaching staff in their child’s
development.

In reviewing the above commentaries shared by parents staff, and
administration it is evident that UPC staff and administrators do play a role in
developing and shaping parent’s fishing technique. More specifically, they play an
influential role in helping parents acquire and activate social/cultural capital skills
and resources. Despite the role that administration and staff play, the onus of
responsibility for ultimate acquisition and activation of said social and cultural
capital skills resides within the parents themselves. Agency is necessary in order to
catch that first fish or advocate for ones child.
Parent’s perceptions of their involvement within the UPC Head Start program
indicate that they feel they have acquired and activated capital in a variety of ways.
Whether this capital and its activation has taken the form of personal feelings of
empowerment, growth in individual competence, enhanced confidence, or increase
in educational advocacy for their child, the study participants commentaries
categorically imply that there has been an acquisition of capital and that they
perceive themselves as being capable of actively employing the capital they have
acquired.

104
Summary
Within this chapter, I have presented the information that was gathered via staff
and parent interviews, document analysis, and observation. In order to accurately
illustrate the data which emerged within this study, four themes or thematic
categories were utilized. Those thematic categories are as follows;
1. Agency Response: Laying Foundations to Build Social and Cultural
Capital

2. Learning by Example: Parenting Skills as Cultural Capital
3. Social Networks: Making Connections and Developing Social Capital

4. Parental Empowerment and Advocacy: Activating Capital
In the following and final chapter, I will analyze the data applicable to the proposed
research questions, provide conclusions, and offer suggestions for future study.

105
CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS
“Social and cultural capital reflect social relationships, cultural practices,
and knowledge that are used to gain social and economic benefit.
Monkman, Ronald & Theramene, (2005)
Commencing from its early beginnings to its current incarnation, Head Start
has existed as an organization whose philosophy has incorporated the provision of
social and cultural capital resources to the parents and children it serves. This is
symbolically expressed within three key Head Start principles that undergird its
philosophy; 1) the interdisciplinary approach to and provision of comprehensive
services in the areas of education, parent involvement, health, nutrition, and social
services, 2) the family centered focus and parental involvement and finally, 3) the
local community based partnerships and services. Employing the theoretical lens of
social reproduction theory, I examine, from a parent perspective, the existing
mechanisms within the Head Start program, which may facilitate the development,
acquisition, or activation of social and cultural capital,
In this chapter, I conclude this dissertation with an overview of the study, a
summary of relevant literature, the methodology of the study and analysis of the data
collected. In addition, I discuss study limitations, policy recommendations and
suggestions for future research. I particularly attend to and analyze the interface
between social and cultural capital as it is incorporated within the existing
programmatic elements of the parental involvement portion of Head Start and the
parent’s perspective regarding the process by which they develop, acquire, or activate
capital which can then be utilized to educationally advocate for their children.

106
Review of Literature
The literature that was presented in chapter two provided a review of research
which examined the significance of parental involvement in the schooling of children
and the important role it plays within early education programs such as Head Start. I
documented studies which concluded that parental involvement was not only
valuable to the efficacy of early intervention programs and beneficial to the
achievement of children, but also advantageous to the well being of parents
themselves. In order to provide a context to the multidimensional nature of parental
involvement, I presented studies to operationalize the construct of parental
involvement and the parental perspective as it exists generally within the extant
literature and specifically as it relates to the Head Start Program. By citing such
scholars as Joyce Epstein (1992; 1995), Kathleen Hoover-Dempsy, Howard Sandler
(1995), Wendy Grolnick, and Maria Slowiaczek (1994), pertinent conceptualizations
of the construct were offered.
Essential to the categorization of parental involvement, is the parental
perspective. Inherent within the reasons why parents become involved with their
child’s education are the personal motivations resulting in their involvement, the
types of involvement which they choose to undertake, as well as the level of
investment, cognitive or physical, at which they participate. Parents are thus
recognized as dynamic, interactive actors participating within a dynamic interactive
process - a process within which they are able to draw upon resources and
experiences to support their connections with educational institutions.

107
Parental involvement not only affects the well-being of the child, but also
impacts the well-being of the parent. Within the research literature, exists a range of
studies regarding the effects that early childhood education programs, such as Head
Start, have upon parents who participate within them. Convergent findings presented
by multiple researchers has indicated positive gains in parental feelings of self-
esteem, growth in self-confidence, and lowered levels of parenting stress (Pizzo &
Tufankijan 2004; Reynolds, 2000; Lamb-Parker, Piotrkowski, & Peay, 1997, 1987;
Slaughter, Lindsey & Kuhene, 1989).
Through the lens of social reproduction theory, I conceptualized parental
involvement within the context of social and cultural capital. I posited that although
outcomes of parental involvement were clearly present within the literature, the
process through which parent involvement supports the development and acquisition
of social and cultural capital was not fully articulated or present in the literature. I
surmised that as a result of participation in parental involvement activities, parents
where partakers in a process that would resultantly yield both social and cultural
capital knowledge and resources to them.
In order to coherently express this perspective through the literature, I
addressed the notions of social and cultural capital and its relationship to parental
involvement by expounding upon Pierre Bourdieu (1973;1977), James Coleman
(1987;1990;1991), and other researchers (Dika & Kusum, 2002; Lamont & Laureau,
1988; Lareau, 1987; 1999; Portes, 2000; Stanton-Salazar 1997; 2001),
conceptualizations of social reproduction theory. In his landmark work, Cultural
Capital and Social Reproduction, Bourdieu (1973) identified cultural capital as a

108
collection of cultural knowledge, skills, and abilities that are possessed and inherited
by particular groups within society. Inherent within his definition was the distinction
that members of a higher economic class were advantageously favored because
societal institutions predominantly reflected and reinforced their experiences, habits
and dispositions. This assertion was recognized by researchers such as Lareau
(1989), Delgado-Gaitan (1991) and DeCarvalho (2000), who similarly recognized
that class distinctions between high and low income families impacted cultural
capital acquisition. They noted that although families of lower economic strata
possessed cultural capital resources, said resources went unrecognized by societal
institutions
Contrasting Bourdieu’s view of social capital is that of James Coleman (1987;
1990). Coleman, whose conceptualization of social capital has been most often cited
within educational literature, noted that social capital is a variety of different entities
that consist of social structures and facilitates the actions of actors which in turn
make possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be possible without
said capital. Although both views suggest social capital resources as advantageous,
Bourdieu’s conceptualization purports limitation to capital via a deficit orientation
while that of Coleman indicates relative ubiquitous capital based on function, self-
agency, and action.

109
Social networks, as observed by researchers such as Bronfrenbrenner (1979),
Lareau (1989;2003) and Coleman (1987;1990), indicate that social networks are
important in the activation of social capital and supports a parents ability to identify
the resources they need as well as exchange information and shape beliefs and
attitudes. In essence, parents are social actors who within their roles as individuals
and parents are members of social groups and social networks. Within these
networks they can be influenced and gain social capital through their interactions.
As noted in the literature (Coleman, 1988; Roscigno & Darnell 1999; Sheldon,
2002), positive outcomes are suggested for those parents who possess sufficient
levels of social, cultural capital and strong social networks.
Methodology
In the study, I focused on the USC, School for Early Childhood Education
(SECE) Head Start program located at the University Park Center site (UPC). The
UPC site provided both a culturally and socioeconomically diverse group of
participants with whom to work. The participants I focused on primarily were those
parents involved within the various educational, cultural and leadership activities
provided by the Head Start program.
My criteria for parent participation in the study required that parents currently
have a student enrolled within the program and that they participate in at least two or
more parental involvement activities within the month they were interviewed.
Additionally, my interest was in those parents who were participating in and
experiencing the Head Start program for a second time. Resulting from the criteria
specifications, two types of parent interviewees emerged. The first type of parent

110
was known as a “returnee.” This meant that they had experienced Head Start in the
previous program year with their child and resultantly, were returning to the program
during the current year for the second time in preparation for their child to begin
public school Kindergarten in the fall. The second type of parent interviewed were
those that currently had a child in the Head Start program while simultaneously
having a child in attendance within the public school system. Additional
participants interviewed included UPC program administrators as well as UPC staff
and site supervisors from each of the five SECE Head Start program sites.
Investigating the experience of being a parent involved with the educational
endeavors of a child and the parental learning which simultaneously occurs, is best
captured by understanding it from the perspective of the person involved in the
experience. Accordingly, those experiences must be rendered through the testimony
of the individual themselves. As previously stated, in order to enable the researcher
to develop a level of detail about the individuals, the site, and to be involved in the
experiences of the study participants the utilization of the qualitative case study
methodology is necessary. Qualitative case design permitted me as the researcher to
capture direct quotations, explore personal perceptions, and individual experiences of
the participants with attention to important detail.
In an effort to investigate parental involvement in the Head Start program from
the parent’s perspective and determine the process through which they acquire,
develop, and activate social and cultural capital, I conducted 12 in-depth, individual
parent interviews. Of the 12 parents, 10 were female and 2 were male. In terms of
parental Head Start experience, four parents had children that were in attendance in

111
both the Head Start program and public school. The remaining eight parents were
returnees, attending Head Start for the second year in preparation for their child to
start public school Kindergarten in the fall. The ethnicities of the participants
consisted of eight Hispanic/Latino and four African American parents. Interviews
with each parent were scheduled at a time and location convenient to their schedule.
As a result of the diversity of Head Start classroom session times offered at UPC
(morning, afternoon, and evening), parent interviews occurred at the UPC site in
proximity to the time parents arrived to sign their child into the classroom. It was
noted that parents appreciated the effective use of their time and felt comfortable
being interviewed in a convenient and familiar location.
In order to facilitate interviews occurring at the UPC site, I secured assistance
from the site supervisor to utilize small meeting rooms or unoccupied offices to
interview the participants. The majority of parent interviews lasted between 35 and
40 minutes with a few extending to a full hour. In addition to parent interviews,
individual interviews were also conducted with three program administrators and all
of the five SECE Head Start program site supervisors. These interviews occurred in
each respective person’s office at their site and generally lasted for 45 minutes.
Informal interviews and conversations with Family Advocates (FA’s) and classroom
teachers occurred during my weekly visits to UPC to observe and speak with parents.
Alongside the individual interviews conducted, focus groups were also
utilized as a method within this study. The assurance of focus groups is that they can
enable the researcher to get a variety of perspectives and increase confidence in
whatever patterns emerge (Patton 2002). I conducted one focus group consisting of

112
six parents, who affirmatively responded to my verbal solicitation for participants.
Again, in order to help participants feel comfortable and effectively utilize their time,
the focus group interview occurred at the UPC site. The focus group interview
occurred following a Center Parent Committee (CPC) meeting and those parents who
agreed to participate remained in the room. Within this group, four participants were
females and two males. The focus group lasted 40 minutes and consisted of six
questions which explored the parent’s perspective regarding their involvement within
the Head Start program and resources or skills they feel they have acquired.
The gathering of interview data was accomplished through employing a
standardized, open-ended, semi-structured interview approach. I developed three
separate, standardized open-ended question protocols which were utilized with the
individual parent and staff participants as well as with the focus group participants.
Inherent in standardized, open-ended interviews is a weakness in its flexibility with
relating the interview to particular individuals and circumstances (Patton, 2002). In
order to diminish that weakness and amplify the potency of this approach, the
protocols developed for each group were explicitly adhered to. All participants were
asked to respond to the same questions in their respective protocols, thereby
increasing the comparability of their responses, reducing interviewer bias, and
facilitating the organization and analysis of the data (Creswell, 2003).
Triangulation of Data
Utilizing a variety of methodological combinations such as individual
interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis provided confirming
evidence to test trustworthiness within this study. Verbal accounts by parents and

113
staff were validated via triangulation. For example, individual parent interviews
and observations highlighted and confirmed the importance of the relationships built
among staff and parents. During multiple observations, I noted staff checking in
with various parents regarding individual personal, child related or other familial
matters and the status of them. It was evident that staff knew intimate details and
appeared genuinely interested. Reactions and responses from parents provided
substantiation for this observation. A reflection of this was established in the
comments of one mother who shared, “…The family advocates, they always like
care about you, you know what I’m saying, they care if you have any problems like
that.” Other parents’ comments reflected similar shared feelings, “I’ve created
relationships with the staff from them knowing me and how I am, and they also
support me…and encourage me…” The reviewing of documents such as the Head
start program standards as well as a variety of other Head Start program and UPC
specific literature also corroborated parental perceptions of care and support.
Analysis of these documents saliently confirmed the programs philosophy and
principles as they relate to the importance of relationships. In order to gain further
context into UPC as a SECE Head Start program site and its culture, observations of
and informal conversations with classroom teachers and family advocates occurred.
Their input supported and verified parent accounts and researcher observations of the
existing connections and relationships that are built among parents, children and
UPC staff.

114
Disconfirming evidence was also revealed via observations and interviews.
When interviewed regarding networking, both parents and staff expressed different
conceptions of what they believed networking to be and whether or not it was
present within the HSP community. For example, when asked about networking
during the individual interviews, multiple parents spoke about how they networked
with other people within the community to tell them about the Head Start program.
They cited speaking to neighbors, family members, and even other parents they
encountered at health clinics or in the bank as people they have networked with.
They less often expressed their understanding of networking as an interface with
community organizations or building of relationships with key individuals. One
father’s comments exemplified this in stating,
“Here, (i.e., UPC), I chit chat with folks, not outside of the program
because myself and my son we are pretty much on a routine….so, I
really don’t have a lot of time for socializing. I’m pretty sure some
networking goes on here, [but] not for me as much as other
participants”

Juxtaposed to this parental trend was that of the staff who when interviewed felt that
parents were indeed networking with community agencies and other key individuals
within the community. It is possible that language utilized to ask questions within
the interviews did not clearly convey the concept of networking to the parents as it
did with the program staff and administration. The possibility also exists that lack of
familiarity with the concept also affected parental comprehension.
Once the data was collected and transcribed, I engaged in a systematic process
of sorting and coding the information. I culled through the transcripts to identify and
code recurring themes and concepts emerging within the data. I then organized the

115
transcript data according to the thematic categories which surfaced. The Four
thematic categories identified were:
1. Agency Responsiveness: Laying Foundations to Build Social and Cultural Capital
2. Learning by Example: Parenting Skills as Cultural Capital
3. Social Networks: Making Connections and Developing Social Capital
4. Parental Empowerment and Advocacy: Activating Capital
In order to ensure the validity of my data, I employed three specific strategies
following Creswell’s (2003) suggested data analysis and interpretation steps. The
first was to triangulate data via multiple sources. As noted above, in-depth
individual interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis were
utilized as methodologies collect the data and corroborate the accumulated
information. The second method utilized was member-checking. Member checking
involved my sharing of transcribed data with a select number of study participants.
This sharing of data with participants provided me as the researcher and the study
participants with the opportunity to review and edit their responses for accuracy.
Peer-debriefing was utilized as a method to enhance the accuracy of theme
generation. I met and worked with a second doctoral candidate from my thematic
dissertation group who reviewed the data and provided question and feedback
regarding the rationality of the themes that were developed. Finally, I provided a
clarification of researcher bias in chapter three. I presented a short narrative in order
to clarify my role as the researcher within the context of this study and provide to the
consumer of this research an explanation of any existing investigator predispositions.

116
Limitations
Relative to qualitative research design, it is important that flexibility remain
present in order to explore the question or questions under study and emergent
occurrences which arise throughout the data gathering process. Despite this
actuality, a design is necessary and inherent in any research design there exists
limitations. Within this study, a mixed purposeful sampling methodology was
utilized at one particular study site in order to collect data. One of the alternatives
would have been to expand the number of study sites. Utilization of multiple sites
could have resulted in greater data yield and possibly more in-depth information for
comparative analysis. Similarly, inclusion of all five SECE sites would have
expanded the number of participants and provided a larger array of parental
involvement perspectives and experiences. Another noted limitation was the
number of focus groups utilized within the study. Inclusion of one or two additional
focus groups may have potentially yielded greater triangulation of the data collected.
Portions of this study can perhaps be investigated in the future with greater
detail and accuracy through different methodologies. However, in order to establish
a framework for the process orientation in examining the parental perspective
regarding their acquisition, development, and activation of social and cultural capital
skills through their involvement, it was important to explore information rich cases
in an in-depth manner. This was achieved through directly interviewing and posing
questions to the individuals who participate in and experience the phenomena.
Without the opportunity to hear the individual’s voice, it becomes problematic in

117
understanding and discerning the true perspective of the parents as they view the
benefits of their experience and involvement within the Head Start program.
Data Analysis
The data presented in chapter four has been portrayed utilizing four thematic
categories in an attempt to examine parental involvement within the Head Start
program. Specifically, this study undertook examination of the UPC Head Start
program from a parental perspective to discover how parent participation within the
program’s educational, leadership, and cultural opportunities supports the
development, acquisition, or activation of social and cultural capital in their lives.
Three additional research questions were posed. The first question centered on
programmatic mechanisms which support the parent’s development, acquisition or
activation of social and cultural capital. A second question focused on parent
perception of social network development relative to their program involvement, and
the final study question addressed parents’ involvement within the program and their
perspective on how it impacts their ability to educationally advocate for their child.
To analyze the data and address the study questions each thematic category has
been juxtaposed with study participants own words, researcher observations,
theories, and the findings of existing research in order to identify similarities and
areas of departure (Bourdieu, 1973, 1986; Coleman, 1987, 1994; Lareau, 1987, 2003;
Epstein, 1992, 1997; Stanton-Salazar 1997, 2001; Delgado-Gaitan, 1999;
DeCarvalho, 2001). The four distinct themes which resulted are noted previously in
this chapter and will be utilized within this data analysis section to facilitate the
discussion of the study findings. Furthermore, analysis will be made possible

118
through the use Ricardo Stanton-Salazar’s (2001) social capital conceptual
framework termed, the Six Forms of Institutional Support. I concluded that his
conceptual framework built around the concepts of social capital and institutional
support is particularly applicable.
Although Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2001) social capital conceptual framework
and his research are exclusively applied to high school aged, working-class minority
youth and their relationships with institutional agents and access to social capital,
parallels can be drawn from his work and applied to the knowledge and institutional
supports provided to the low-income and working-class minority parents
participating within the UPC Head Start program. Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2001)
framework was presented and discussed in chapters two and three.
In the analysis that follows, I discuss each of my four thematic categories
inclusive of the study findings and present the six forms of institutional support in
the model which exemplifies the findings within that theme. More specifically,
within each of the four thematic categories is respectively encompassed one or two
of the forms of institutional support. This is graphically represented in table 5 which
provides a synthesis of this narrative.

119
Table 5
Thematic Categories and associated Six Forms
Thematic Category
Agency Responsiveness:
Laying foundations to
Build Social & Cultural
Capital
Thematic Category
Learning by Example:
Parenting Skills as
Cultural Capital
Thematic Category
Social Networks:
Making Connections
& Developing Social
Capital
Thematic Category
Parental Empowerment &
Advocacy: Activating
Capital
Associated form(s)
of Support

Form 1
Funds of Knowledge
Funds most associated
with ascension within the
educational system; such
funds underlie the process
of implicit and explicit
socialization into
institutional discourses –
which regulate
communication,
interaction, and exchange
with mainstream
institutional spheres.
Form 6
Feedback/Guidance
Incorporates the
provision of
institutional funds of
knowledge as well as
personalized, soundly
based evaluative
feedback, guidance,
and genuine
emotional and moral
support
Associated form(s)
of Support

Form 4
Role Modeling
Modeling behaviors
associated with
1)effective
participation in
mainstream domains
and 2) effective
coping with
stratification forces
via help-seeking
behaviors, rational
problem solving
strategies
Associated form(s)
of Support

Form 2
Bridging
The process of acting
as a human bridge to
gate-keepers, to
social networks, and
opportunities for
exploring various
mainstream
institutions
Associated form(s)
of Support

Form 3
Advocacy
The process of
intervening on behalf
of another for the
purpose of protecting
or promoting their
interests.
Examples
Standard operating
procedures of Head
Start are taught to
parents. They learn
protocol and use it to
transition into
mainstream
educational spheres.
Examples
Parent to parent role
modeling and staff to
parent role modeling
enhances parent’s
acquisition of skills.

Parents participate on
Policy Council and
Parent Center
Committees and
garner
Examples
Parents perceive
selves acting as social
network agents or
“bridges” for other
parents. Thus Head
Start parents socially
network with other
parents within the
community and
communicate
information about
Examples
Parents learn social
and cultural capital
skills/knowledge
which they use to
advocate for
selves/children while
in the Head Start
program and at the
elementary school
level.

120

Table 5: Continued
Examples
Administration and
Staff build upon
parents existing
knowledge and skills
base to encourage
parents and respond
to parent needs.

Head Start uses a
“strengths based”
approach to work
with parents to set
and achieve goals via
step-by-step process.

Formal home visits
conducted to check
goal progress. Staff
informally converse
with parents to offer
advice/support.
Trusting relationships
are built.

Staff utilizes funds of
knowledge to assist
parents in navigating
mainstream
environments.
Examples
both social and
cultural capital
resources which
enhance their abilities
to interact with
institutional
organizations such as
schools and social
service agencies.
Also parent problem-
solving abilities are
augmented.

Head Start parents
learn the language of
child development
and parenting skills
via training,
educational
workshops, and daily
interactions with
staff.
Examples
the Head Start
program as well as
share information
they are learning
within parent
trainings, educational
workshops and
cultural experiences.

Head Start partners
with local school
districts and many
community agencies
that provide a range
of health, education,
and employment
related services. This
bridging introduces
parents to important
agencies and
gatekeepers within
mainstream
institutions.
Examples
Family advocates
and/or site
supervisors upon
parent request,
provide parents with
support through
consultation,
regarding how to
address particular
situation encountered
in mainstream
institutional spheres.
If parent requests
direct assistance, staff
will attend meetings
to serve as
encouragement for
parent and/or directly
advocate on behalf of
parent.
Each theme encompasses an aspect of this form
Form 5
Emotional and moral support
Provided in the context of other forms of support geared toward promoting the effective
participation in mainstream domains and effective coping with stratification forces.
Examples
The relationships which are built within Head Start amongst parents and staff are an outgrowth
of the regard, trust, and responsiveness that staff and administration have for participating
parents.

Parents to parent and parent to staff relationships engender a level of moral support which
garners trust and trustworthiness that supports acquisition of capital.

121
Each individual thematic category and its associated form of institutional
support, presents a depiction of the process of relational dynamics through which
parents travel in order to gain social and cultural capital skills resulting from their
participation within the UPC Head Start program.
As illustrated in table five, each thematic category, its associated theme, and a
description of the respective forms of support are presented in the first two rows of
each column. Also contained within each column are examples of the support which
were revealed in the study findings of each thematic category. The first theme,
Agency Responsiveness: Laying Foundations to Build Social and Cultural Capital,
encompasses forms 1- Funds of Knowledge and form 6 Feedback /Guidance. The
second theme, Learning by Example: Parenting Skills as Cultural Capital reflects
form number 4 – Role Modeling. The third theme, Social Networks: Making
Connections and Developing Social Capital envelops form number 2 – Bridging.
The final theme, Parental Empowerment and Advocacy: Activating Capital,
encompasses form number 3 -Advocacy. The fifth form of institutional support,
entitled Emotional and Moral support is represented in the last row of the diagram
and exists within the context of each theme. This will be explained accordingly in
the ensuing discussion of the study findings.
Agency Responsiveness: Laying Foundations to Build Social and Cultural Capital
(Forms 1 and 6)
Within University Park Center (UPC), the program staff deliberately responds
to the needs of students and parents in two ways. The first is represented by the type

122
of programming provided to parents and the second is the staff’s responsiveness to
parent needs and acknowledgement of the skills and abilities parents bring with them
to the Head Start program. These responsive indicators are analogous to Stanton-
Salazar’s (1997, 2001) forms of knowledge numbers one and six. Form one is
entitled Funds of Knowledge and by definition, represents funds or information
which is associated with ascension in the educational system. Additionally, said
funds underlie the process of implicit and explicit socialization into institutional
discourses – discourses which regulate communication, interaction, and exchange
with mainstream institutional spheres.
The manner in which this particular form reflects the responsive relationship
between UPC’s programmatic offerings and parental involvement is evident in
UPC’s provision of programming such as parenting classes, health trainings, school
readiness and literacy workshops which provide parents with funds of knowledge or
information that will assist them in navigating the educational system. In essence,
the information which parents garnered through their participation within the
program helps them to develop and acquire both cultural and social capital. For
example, the school transition workshops provide parents with resource information
about all of the schools in their attendance area. The workshop also gives parents
suggestions on what they can do with their child prior to and on the first day of
school, as well as ideas on how they can communicate effectively with school
administration or their child’s classroom teacher. With this knowledge, parents are
able to more fluidly enter into the school and understand its protocol. They become

123
privy to the language of the “mainstream institutional sphere,” or more simply put,
the language of the institution called the school system. They are then enabled to
socialize and engage in the discourse which occurs there. For working-class
minority parents, this is important given Lareau’s (1989, 2003) findings that in
institutional encounters, families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are not as
equally able to facilitate or activate the same knowledge and benefits of experience
(i.e., social and cultural capital) which families from higher socioeconomic
backgrounds do. The interplay between social and cultural capital as provided via
UPC’s programmatic offerings is evident in both the knowledge provided to parents
and the trusting relationships which are built between parents and staff.
Form six within the funds of knowledge is termed Feedback/Guidance and
incorporates the provision of institutional funds of knowledge in conjunction with
genuine emotional and moral support. Parents collectively agreed that UPC’s
administration and staff were responsive to their needs as individuals and families.
This was also evidenced by staff conduct. From the moment that the Head Start
intake process begins, a “strengths based” approach is initiated. A Family Advocate
(FA) is assigned to each family and this person begins to gather general demographic
information about the family’s situation as well as more specific information
regarding the family’s goals and objectives for their future. By doing this,
relationships are built which allow for the exchange of school, job, social, and
educationally related information between parent and UPC. Also built is a
foundation of trust between parents and UPC staff which allows for the giving of

124
emotional and moral support. As noted in chapter four, one father felt supported and
felt that his needs were met when the staff at UPC got to know him and gave him the
opportunity to prove himself as a father in the midst of a custody battle. This was
simply one example of the established relationships within UPC. Researcher
observations similarly provided evidence. Conversations between teachers, Family
advocates’, and parents confirmed genuine emotional and moral support as noted in
the content of the questions asked by staff and the responses given by parents. It was
obvious that a high level of trust and comfort existed between the parties as personal
data was exchanged and disclosed. Acknowledgement of the parent’s possession of
cultural and social capital skills or abilities to educationally participate with their
children was also present in the UPC parent/staff interactions.
The viewpoint that the capital which parents possess be used as an asset was
supported by staff and administrator conduct. This attitude was evident and
incorporated into the program’s instructional activities. In addition to participating
on fieldtrips, parents were asked to contribute their talents and ideas to their child’s
education. This occurred through participation in curriculum planning by sitting
down with the teacher to discuss and contribute to the daily class curriculum. Also
staff questioned parents regarding, special talents or abilities they could bring into
the classroom to share with the children. These opportunities strengthened parent
and staff relationships by demonstration of respect for and acknowledgement of
parent’s skills and abilities. This respect and acknowledgement strengthened the
foundation of mutual trust which allowed for the provision, exchange, and

125
acceptance of funds of knowledge between parents and staff within an environment
of genuine emotional and moral support. UPC Program staff and administration
deliberately developed and implemented programs that provide parents with
information which supported the development and acquisition of parental social and
cultural capital. UPC staff acquainted parents with educational institutional
structures and provided them with essential information. Additionally, relationships
of trust were constructed through the UPC staff‘s response to parents by
acknowledging and valuing the capital possessed by the parents involved within the
program as an asset.
Learning by Example: Parenting Skills as Cultural Capital
(Form 4)
Pierre Bourdieu did not examine the issue of parental involvement in schooling
relative to his theory of social reproduction. However, by extending his definition of
cultural capital to the present study of parental involvement and the acquisition of
cultural and social capital, parallels can be drawn. Cultural capital as defined by
Bourdieu (1973, 1977) as a collection of cultural knowledge, skills, and abilities that
are possessed and inherited by particular groups in society. In his writings Bourdieu
further characterizes cultural capital as existing in three distinct states; embodied,
objectified, and institutionalized. For the purposes of this study, the focus is upon
embodied cultural capital. Embodied cultural capital is represented by a person’s
disposition, habits, ways of knowing and acting. Given that definition, it is evident
that the parenting skills possessed by a parent are reflective of their disposition,

126
skills, acting and their ways of knowing. Logically then, parenting skills can be
viewed as a form of embodied cultural capital.
The data confirmed that parents’ participation within the UPC Head Start
program facilitated their perception of themselves as developing and activating a
range of skills and abilities via direct interaction with staff and participation in
various workshops and trainings. This perception by parents was supported and
verified in their personal commentaries- commentaries which highlighted parent’s
declarations of acquiring knowledge which they felt was significant. This finding is
akin to the fourth form of knowledge termed, Role Modeling. Role Modeling
represents the modeling of behaviors associated with effective participation in
mainstream domains as well as the effective coping with stratification forces via the
use of help-seeking behaviors and rational problem solving strategies.
Within the UPC Head Start program, parents exist as dynamic actors in the
environment and not simply as passive bystanders. The administration and staff of
UPC are consciously aware of this actuality and consistently practice and model
behaviors which are conducive to building embodied cultural capital in the parents
they serve. As noted earlier, because of the trusting relationships which are built
amongst parents and staff, parents are more receptive to the behaviors reflected,
information given and strategies offered by program staff. Amongst the many
aspects of embodied cultural capital which parents perceived they acquired were
changes in personal style or disposition, such as being more patient with their
children. Additionally noted was the use of different behavioral strategies as well as

127
parental learning of educational strategies to navigate the educational system and
support their child in school. Knowledge of parenting skills, strategies, and
behaviors such as those mentioned above, (i.e., embodied cultural capital) are
important within the mainstream educational environment because they represent
one of the building blocks of family - school relationships. Similarly expressed by
DeCarvalho (2001), “cultural capital is the medium of family-school relations and
can be seen as a type of embodied knowledge that functions as power within specific
institutional settings.
In an analysis of the findings relative to the fourth form of knowledge, Role
Modeling, the information gained by parents through their observational learning and
exchanges within UPC are vital. The significance is made evident in Lareau’s
(1989) supposition that higher income and working class parents differ in the skills
and resources which they bring to bear upon the education of their children. Further
enhancing the importance of Role Modeling is Bourdieu’s (1977) thesis that schools
draw unevenly on the social and cultural resources in the society. Therefore, the
knowledge, skills, and sensibilities which Head Start parents bring with them
combined with their interactions and participation in UPC enhances their abilities to
plot a course through and cope with issues in the mainstream education environment.
In addition to the existing informal structures within Head Start, formal
structures provided by the program also provide vehicles through which parents can
develop and activate embodied cultural capital skills. As discussed in chapter four,
the Center Parent Committee (CPC) and Policy Council (PC) are two groups in

128
which parents and staff engage one another in the shared decision making process to
address agency and center based issues. Parents collectively expressed their
perception that through their participation in the committee meetings, abiding by the
required protocol and engaging in discussions, that they learned communication and
critical thinking skills. Data suggested that staff
and other parents served as exemplars within the program. Interactions which
occurred in meetings, consultations with staff, and general conversations provided
parents with instances of role modeling, support, and assistance which facilitated
positive parental perceptions of acquired skills. Taken as a whole, both the informal
observations, and interactions between staff and parents fused with the formal
opportunities provided by the CPC and PC committees, parents do perceive
themselves as gaining essential cultural capital skills which they can utilize to assist
them in effectively coping in the mainstream educational environment.

129
Social Networks: Making Connections and Developing Social Capital
(Form 2)

Study findings regarding the manner in which parents perceive their
participation in Head Start as affecting the development of or changes in their social
network were incongruous with study expectations. To be clear, the findings did not
distinctly answer the study question but instead illuminated the parent’s views of
social networks and their participation within them. Despite the incompatibility
which was encountered, the data reveals that the difference emerged within the
perceptions of social networks. When confronted with questions regarding social
networks, parents overwhelmingly spoke about their role as network informants
providing capital within the social network as opposed to the role of being a recipient
of capital within the social network. However, it should be noted that parent
commentaries did evidence an implied understanding of their receipt of social capital
information resulting from their participation within the Head Start program. It is
evident that without this understanding, parents would have been unable to view
themselves as informants within a social network.
James Coleman (1988), in addition to other researchers (Cochran and Brassard
(1979; Portes 1998; Sheldon, 2002) have asserted that social networks help to
produce social capital to the extent that these social relationships encourage the
exchange of information, shape beliefs, and enforce norms of behavior. Parent
participants within the study confirmed the exchange of information which takes
place between them and other parents in regard to participation in the Head Start

130
program, when they spoke about their role as informants. This informant orientation
to social networking is comparable to the second form of knowledge titled, Bridging.
Bridging is represented as the process of acting as a human bridge to gate-keepers, to
social networks, and opportunities for exploring various mainstream institutions.
Parent’s perceptions of social networking presented them as sharing knowledge
about the UPC Head Start program with family, friends, neighbors, and other persons
they encountered within the community at large. Resultantly, the UPC parents
perceived themselves acting as bridges for uninformed parents by introducing them
to the “mainstream institution” of the Head Start program. Not only did they
introduce unacquainted parents to the program but also, by virtue of acting as a
bridge, enhanced their own and possibly the other persons social network. Parents
participating within UPC also emphasized their ability to serve as information
resources and network with one another through informal conversations, connecting
at meetings, and the sharing of parental insight.
Programmatically, the perspective of UPC administration and staff regarding
networking was noticeably different. The orientation conveyed by staff more
closely resembled Stanton-Salazar’s (1997; 2001) Bridging form of knowledge.
Within UPC, teachers as well as Family advocates and other staff served as human
bridges to families. Examples of this were evident in parent commentaries regarding
their returning to UPC to connect with teachers and ask questions regarding their
child’s participation in the public school or how best to address a situation with a
teacher. Other instances involved family advocates assisting parents by providing

131
consultation on how to interact with or address social service and school related
issues. Through the auspices of program offerings, administration ensured that
connections between UPC, the surrounding community and the USC campus were
made available to parents. Collaboration amongst city entities such as the John
Tracy clinic, and USC campus entities such as the dental school, for example were
consistently provided for parents as opportunities to interact with other “mainstream
institutions.”
Collectively, both parents and staff acknowledged the actuality of functioning
social networks within UPC. However, the difference in their recognition of
networks was the characterization of said networks. UPC Head Start administration
and staff appeared to fully understand networking and consciously provided
programs to give parents opportunities to enhance their social networks and social
capital skills. On the contrary, from the data gathered, it appears that parents had an
incomplete understanding of the power of social networks. Although they exercised
their ability to be informants within the social networks it did not appear that parents
fully understood the social capital benefits that could be wrought from activating and
exercising their network connections.
Parental Empowerment and Advocacy: Activating Capital
(Form 3)

Parent testimony within this study has demonstrated that parents do perceive of
themselves as having developed and acquired social and cultural capital skills and
resources as a result of their participation within the UPC Head Start program.

132
Nevertheless once these skills and resources are acquired the issue, as mirrored by
the final study question, is whether or not the parents participation and acquisition of
social and cultural capital influences their perception of their ability to educationally
advocate for their child?
Relative to the educational domain in which this study is taking place, social and
cultural capital coexist in a relationship where they are affected by one another.
However, as noted by Lareau and Horvat (1999), the possession of social and
cultural capital does not automatically result in the activation of acquired capital.
Instead, social and cultural capital resources must be activated by the agent and one
must consciously choose to invest in the process. This process of activating capital
resources represents the agency and advocacy of the parent – an agency and an
advocacy which are the dedication of resources by the parent to the child within a
given domain. (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994). This process is reflective of
Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2001) third form of knowledge entitled Advocacy.
Advocacy is described as the process of intervening on behalf of another for the
purpose of promoting their interests. For the participants within this study, advocacy
combined with intervention fittingly supports and represents the data which emerged.
Collectively, the parent participants interviewed have been active in and have
capitalized upon the multiple educational, leadership, and cultural opportunities
provided by the UPC Head Start program. Study findings demonstrated that for the
parents, making the choice to be involved enhanced their personal perceptions. The
data confirmed that through their participation in UPC’s programmatic offerings

133
parents identified themselves as having gained key information and skills. This was
illustrated in remarks shared by parents that embodied their positive perceptions of
their ability to promote their interests as parents in order to educationally advocate
on behalf of their children. The vocabulary used in parent comments as well as their
expression of feeling confident enough to address school related questions and
issues or interact with educational professionals was clearly articulated. One parent
stated, “Well, it has helped me to reach out more to the teacher and to go and ask
more questions about my daughter.” A second mother shared, “I feel that I have
learned to articulate myself better when I make requests or to deal with any issues
and deal with issues in a confident way.”
Within the UPC Head Start environment, advocacy not only occurred between
parent and child, but also amid parents and staff. Staff actively engaged in advocacy
on behalf of parents within the program by providing social capital resources.
Instances shared by both parents and staff emerged as confirmation of these actions.
By parent request, staff members, particularly Family Advocates (FA’s), advocated
for parents by accompanying them to school meetings and or social service
appointments. Further examples were evident in staff’s simple provision of
assistance to parents in connecting them with salient job leads, helping them in
navigating the World Wide Web to access important information or interpreting a
bus schedule to assist them in getting to another city for an immigration
appointment. Clearly, the empowerment of parents and their feelings of being able
to advocate on behalf of their children did not occur independent of the educational

134
institution with which they were involved - in this case the UPC Head Start
program. Instead, an amalgamation of parent perceptions of acquiring social and
cultural capital skills as well as interaction with staff positively influenced parent
view of their ability to utilize or activate these skills with the intention of advocating
for their children within the educational domain.
The augmentation of parents social and cultural capital skills and the
development of relationships formed with staff, supported the advent of advocacy
through the activation of capital. As noted by Coleman (1988), social capital comes
about through changes in the relations among persons that facilitate action.
Coleman’s assertion underlies this notion of advocacy and the inherent relationships
which must exist in order for advocacy to flourish and capital to be activated.
Thematic Overlay-The Fifth Form of Knowledge

As I stated earlier in this chapter and will elaborate here, the fifth form of
knowledge, Emotional and Moral Support, was specifically not connected to one
particular theme for two reasons. The first reason is that this particular form of
support, as characterized by Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2001), is provided within the
context of the other forms of support within the framework. From his point of view
this fifth form of support is particularly geared toward promoting effective
participation in mainstream domains and effective coping with stratification forces.
Similar to the abovementioned, the second reason is that the element of Emotional
and Moral Support was also found to permeate each of the four thematic categories
which emerged from study data:

135
1. Agency Responsiveness: Laying Foundations to Build Social and Cultural Capital
2. Learning by Example: Parenting Skills as Cultural Capital
3. Social Networks: Making Connections and Developing Social Capital
4. Parental Empowerment and Advocacy: Activating Capital
Within each of these thematic categories, Emotional and Moral support was
evident within the relationships that were built between the UPC parents, staff and
administration. Data presented within Chapter 4 demonstrated that this fifth form of
institutional support was an important factor which supported parents’ development,
acquisition and activation of social and cultural capital skills. As noted by Coleman
(1988), social capital exists within the relations among people and facilitates
productive activity. Coleman, additionally noted, “a group within which there is
extensive trustworthiness and extensive trust, is able to accomplish more than a
comparable group without that trustworthiness and trust” (p. S101). By providing an
environment of responsiveness to parent need, role modeling opportunities, parental
participation, and creating networks, trustworthy relationships were engendered.
The parent to parent relationships and parent to staff relationships that were built
within UPC engendered an emotional and moral support. A support which aided
parents in their development, acquisition and activation of social and cultural capital
skills that in turn helped them operate within mainstream educational environments.

136
Examining the Forms of Institutional Support: New Context

In chapters two and three I discussed Stanton –Salazar’s (1997, 2001) social
capital conceptual framework developed in his study of working class Mexican-
origin youth and their access to social capital resources. His framework provides a
context for forms of support that are “distinctly created in order to help low-status
individuals cope effectively with marginalizing forces in society and enable them to
socially advance in spite of these forces. ”(p. 267). This framework “provides a
basis for the types of support that are necessary for success within mainstream
institutional arenas” (p. 267), such as the education or occupation sector. These
forms of support exist within the Head Start program.
As I will elaborate here, Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2001) social capital
conceptual framework – the Forms of Institutional Support can be appropriated to
represent the process embodied within parental involvement in the Head Start
Program. His model accurately captures the existing elements within the process
which have been specifically designed to support the lower income and working-
class minority parents who participate within the Head Start program. However, in
order to fully appreciate the relational dynamics which facilitate the support that
lower income and working-class minority parents receive as participants, the model
must be fashioned to reflect parents as dynamic, interactive actors. Although the six
Forms of Institutional support predominantly characterize social capital skills it also
embodies cultural capital resources. Findings from this study have indicated that
parents are dynamic actors and not simply passive bystanders in the development,

137
acquisition, and activation of their social and cultural capital. The process is
represented through their participation and involvement in the educational
organization of the University Park Center (UPC) Head Start program where they are
recipients of each of the six Forms of Institutional Support that are necessary to
sustain their interactions within the mainstream institutional area of education.
Through their receipt of social and cultural capital skills and resources, parents can
emerge into the education system perceiving of themselves as able to educationally
advocate on behalf of their child.
It should be noted however that the relationship between parents and Head
Start is not simply unidirectional. Instead, it is bi-directional meaning, reciprocal
relationships are formed. The UPC Head Start program receives input from the
parents which continuously informs and improves its programmatic practices, staff
and services. The building of these relationships creates and environment in which
trust is built, information channels are open and available, and social and cultural
capital resources are exchanged. Consequently, this relationship enhances the Head
Start program community which encompasses parents, staff, administration, and
community partners. Within this environment parent’s existing capital is recognized
as well as they are able to develop and acquire new social and cultural capital skills
or resources that they can activate in order to advocate on behalf of their children.
Figure 1 reflects this concept (see following page):

138
Figure 1:

139
The importance of the staff to parent and parent to parent relationships which
develop within the UPC Head Start program reflect the dynamic process of social
capital which exists within the “reciprocal investments and commitments “ (Stanton-
Salazar, 2001) that are made between all parties. More importantly, these
associations support the development, acquisition, and activation of social and
cultural capital skills which enable parents to perceive themselves as educational
advocates for their children. In an effort to advance the discussion of the
mechanisms within the Head Start program which support the development,
acquisition, and/or activation of social and cultural capital in the lives of
participating parents, I now turn to policy recommendations.
Policy Recommendations
Societal change in the configuration of families, immigration patterns, shifting
community structures, and the culture of poverty has prompted the evolution of the
Head Start program during its 41 years of existence. Despite these changes, Head
Start has maintained its founding philosophy of educationally intervening in the lives
of disadvantaged children and families to improve their life chances through the
provision of comprehensive intervention services. Central to this philosophy has
been a family-centered, interdisciplinary approach. Through its recognition of
parental involvement among its foci of services, Head Start communicates to parents
the importance of the parent role as educator, principal influence, nurturer, and
advocate in their children’s lives. In order to augment this philosophy, continued
recognition and incorporation of the distinct perspective of the parent is essential. In

140
this section, I present policy recommendations aimed at Head Start program delegate
agencies, local Head Start program administrators, and program site supervisors
interested in continuing to develop and apply new information in their endeavors to
address the education, skills, and resources provided to parents participating in the
Head Start program. The four recommendations are as follows: 1) cultivate parental
networking opportunities; 2) augment public school district collaboration; 3)
supplement Head Start staff training; 4) maintain high program standards.
Cultivate Parental Networking Opportunities
The utility of social networks lies in the resources that can be acquired as a
result of the existing associations or relationships therein. This perspective implies
that the better the network, the better the resources. However, as cited by multiple
researchers, the networks of low-income and working class families are usually
smaller, more homogenous, tightly knit, and turf bound. Resultantly, they have
limited access to institutions and diverse networks within the mainstream (Lareau
1989, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 2000). Within the Head Start program, there exists a
ready network of staff, administrators, and community organizations available for
parents to access. However, study findings indicated that parents did not completely
recognize or internalize the full utility of these networks. Parents collectively and
consistently identified themselves as social network informants, supplying
information to others as opposed to being recipients or beneficiaries of network
information.

141
In order to address the parent network informant vs. parent network beneficiary
effect which resulted, multiple strategies could be employed to assist parents with
fully understanding the power and utility of social networks. First, local Head Start
programs such as UPC could include within its parents trainings a module which
addresses the importance of social networking, the type of information that can be
rendered as a result of participating in social networks and the necessity of making
social or business connections within and outside of ones community. Opportunities
to reinforce this concept could be engendered through the provision of a parent-
driven resource center or a time (e.g., bulletin board, agenda item in meetings)
purposefully designed for parents to connect and share resources with one another.
A second possibility stems from Head Start’s utilization of a “strengths-based”
approach. This approach utilizes and builds upon parents existing skills and abilities
to support themselves in setting and accomplishing self-selected goals. During a
home visit, Family Advocates (FA) are responsible for meeting with parents to help
devise the goal and to help parents assess what they will need to achieve the goal.
The home visit provides an opportunity to explain and discuss the importance of
social networking and how it can be a factor in accomplishing the selected goal.
Utilizing the practical aspects of the “strengths-based” approach provides a
foundation upon which to build a scaffolding to support the parents understanding of
social networking.
Within the UPC Head Start program parents are generally exposed to the idea
of social networking. However, study results indicate that in order for parents to

142
fully utilize the social and cultural capital skills that they are developing and
acquiring, it is necessary to provide additional overt exposure to the concept. By
providing this overt exposure, parents can be assisted in understanding the
importance of building diverse social networks and of being a beneficiary of the
connections within said network. Additionally, parents need to comprehend the
power of the social capital resources that can be gained through participation in
information-rich social networks.

Augment Public School District Collaboration
The intention of supporting the academic success of all children is an ever-
present objective for public schools. One of the elements that research has shown
that contributes to the success of children, at all scholastic levels, is parental
involvement in children’s education. Resultantly, school districts should work more
closely with involved parents transitioning from the Head Start program into public
school. Currently, the UPC Head Start program has a transition team which provides
a series of transition workshops for parents. This team also works with the public
schools to ensure that parents receive key information about local education program
options, completing school registration materials, and the governance structure of the
local district. Although these activities support the cultural and social capital skills
that parents have gained during their time within the UPC Head Start program,
comments from key informants within the study indicate that from a parent

143
perspective, public schools do not initially appear as inclined to or supportive of
parents acquired skills.
Public school districts should consider making a more concerted effort to
effectively capitalize upon the skills, resources and parental involvement awareness
of the incoming Head Start population of parents. Through collaborating with the
area Head Start programs, public schools could determine the families which are
transitioning from Head Start and provide additional workshops or gatherings for
those parents which would address the topic of how to continue their involvement at
the elementary school level beyond Kindergarten. The public schools could also
develop a cadre of or resource network of previous Head Start parents to serve as
liaisons and support for incoming Head Start parents. By making available this type
of resource to incoming parents, the school could probably maintain a consistent
level of parental involvement with the new parents and possibly sustain a greater
level of parental involvement past the Kindergarten year of school.
Supplement Head Start Staff Training
The presence of a well-trained and qualified staff is one of the determinants of
a good program. Relative to findings within the study, parents perceived the UPC
staff as helpful, supportive, and responsive to their needs. This particular parental
perspective seemed to stem from the established relationships between staff and
parents which supported the parent’s development and acquisition of social and
cultural capital skills. In light of the data, it is important to sustain the staff’s ability
to effectively do their jobs and meet the changing needs of Head Start families.

144
Consequently, as set forth in the Head Start Program Standards, maintaining a
continuous level of staff development and training to increase staff knowledge and
skills is significant. In addition to providing staff with training in the areas of child
development topics, successful family transitions from Head Start, and proper child
abuse reporting methods, a unit addressing the importance of social networks as
well as social and cultural capital could be added.

145
The USC School for Early Childhood Education (SECE) Head Start program,
of which UPC is a part, represents a department within the USC structure.
Resultantly, each of the five Head Start centers has developed unique relationships
with the university. This relationship with the university provides a natural means
by which the abovementioned staff trainings could be facilitated. SECE
administration and site leadership at UPC could utilize its relationship with the
university to connect with a variety of professors or graduate students within the
department of education who could provide staff training and development. These
professors or graduate students could address issues such as: 1) the importance of
social networks ;2) the practical use of cultural and social capital; and 3) how the
acquisition and use of social and cultural capital resources can affect a student and
families educational trajectory. Provision of such information to the staff could
certainly enhance their knowledge and skills as professionals and paraprofessionals
but, it could also possibly have a positive impact on their delivery of service to the
families that they interact with daily.
Maintain High Program Standards
The Head Start Program is an effective program. Some would consider this
claim debatable however, given that the data collected within this study represented
the parental perspective regarding their participation in a Head Start program center
(i.e., UPC), this claim is valid. What has made the UPC Head Start program
effective is the administrators and staff who have been sustaining and implementing
the Head Start program performance standards, goals and objectives. Through

146
UPC’s adherence to the Head Start philosophy and their development of programs
responsive to meeting the needs of the parents and children within the community
they serve, they have maintained high program standards.
UPC should continue to maintain high program standards through its
commitment to responsively serving the families within the community, recruitment
and selection of well qualified staff, dedication to creating a teaching and learning
environment for parents and staff, and sustain its endeavors in building connections
with a myriad of community agencies. Study results presented in chapter four
indicated that parents collectively noticed and appreciated the responsiveness of the
UPC staff. Responsiveness which was not only represented in the types of programs
developed by the SECE and UPC site administration, but also in the personal
relationships developed amongst parents and staff. Through maintaining quality
leadership skills in administration and staff as well as sustaining those actions
mentioned above, the UPC Head Start program can continue to provide a service to
children and parents that support them in their development, acquisition, and
activation of social and cultural capital resources.
Future Research

In this study I examined from a parental perspective, the existing mechanisms
within a Head Start program that support the development, acquisition or activation
of social and cultural capital skills as a result of their participation. The suggestions
that I offered within this chapter are not exhaustive and relate specifically to one
Head Start program site within a particular locality. Future studies would benefit

147
from an examination of cases at multiple Head Start sites under the auspices of one
Head Start Agency or Grantee (e.g., university, church, or non-profit organization).
Multiple sites would provide for a greater cross section of ethnicities, differentiation
in the size of families (i.e., number of children), and parental experience with both
Head Start and the public school.
While it was beyond the scope of this study, further research should be
conducted on the transition of Head Start parents from Kindergarten into first grade
to examine the ways in which they continue to utilize the social and cultural capital
skills that they developed during their child’s participation in the Head Start
program. Additionally, examining change or growth in the types of social networks
that parents may have developed within that year between exiting Head Start and
matriculating in Kindergarten would continue to add to the research of parental
involvement in lower-income and working class minority communities.
In conceptualizing the parental perspective within Head Start and the
mechanisms within the program, future researchers could utilize Joyce Epstein’s
(1987, 1992, 1995) framework of the Six Types of Involvement as a different
theoretical perspective from which to examine social and cultural capital acquisition
and parental involvement within Head Start.
Conclusion

Within the United States there has existed a widespread faith in the merits of
education as being an equalizing force that supports the success of all individuals
without regard to race, ethnicity or economic position. Educators are well aware that

148
early educational intervention has a significant impact on a student’s educational
trajectory. Despite multiple educational reforms aimed at leaving no child behind,
low-income children and children of color have continued to lag behind their peers.
From its early beginnings in 1965 as a six-week summer program to its current
manifestations as part-day, full-day, and evening year long programs, Head Start has
been a program dedicated to intervening in the lives of our neediest students and
families to facilitate change. The Head Start program has maintained its founding
philosophy and principles of providing a high quality, comprehensive, early
intervention program to low-income children and families through its education,
health, social service, nutrition, and parental involvement services.
Fundamental to the change in the lives of children are the skills and abilities of
the parent. Across all populations, researchers and educational practitioners
acknowledge that one element which contributes to the scholastic success of children
is parent involvement in their child’s education. Inherent in the Head Start
program’s philosophy and principles has been the acknowledgement and recognition
that parents do not come as tabula rasa to the program, but do come to the program
with existing skills and abilities. This acknowledgement of parental resources is
germane to the Head Start organization as well as its local Head Start program sites.
University Park Center (UPC) represents one of those sites.
Data presented in this study clearly illustrates that parents perceive of this
acknowledgement of their talents and abilities and through their participation within
the program, they are able to develop, acquire, and activate social and cultural capital

149
resources in lives of their family. The relational dynamics or building of
relationships that facilitate support between parents and staff within the program
represents the process through which this occurs. In order to address our neediest
students we must start at the beginning of the process. The Head Start program in
general and its programmatic arms as manifested in local Head Start centers,
represent opportunities where fundamental change can be realized in early
educational intervention. This change can occur by individually impacting parents
through their personal experiences with and perceptions of their capability to affect
change by acquiring social and cultural capital skills and activating them within the
educational realm on behalf of their children.

150
Bibliography
Baker, A. J., & Soden, L. M. (1998). The Challenges of Parent Involvement
Research. ERIC/CUE Digest Number 134. Retrieved June 14, 2005, from
Eric Digest database (ED419030).

Booth, A., & Dunn, J. F. (Eds.). (1996). Family-School Links; How doe they affect
educational outcomes. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.

Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural Capital and Social Reproduction. Pp. 71-112 in
Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change: Papers in the Sociology of
Education, edited by Richard Brown, London: Tavistock.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel,
A.H. Halsey (Ed.),

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York:
Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Coleman, J. S. (Eds.). (1991). Social Theory for a Changing Society.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & Flor, D. (1995). Linking family processes and
academic competence among rural African American youths. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 57 (August), 567-579.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruckman, M., & Blanton, P. W. (2003). Welfare-to-work single mothers'
perspectives on parent involvement in Head Start: implications for parent-
teacher collaboration. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(3), 145-150.

151
Bryant, D., Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2000). Head Start Parents'
roles in the educational lives of their children. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the American Educational Research Association, 143.

Calabrese-Barton, A., Drake, C., Perez, J. G., St. Louis, K., & George, M. (2004).
Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. Educational
Researcher, 33(4), 3-12.

Castro, D. C., Bryant, D. M., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Skinner, M. L. (2004).
Parent involvement in Head Start programs: the role of parent, teacher and
classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 413-430.

Cochran, M. M., & Brassard, J. A. (1979). Child development and personal social
networks. Child Development, 50, 601-616.

Coleman, J. S. (Ed.). (1991). Policy perspectives: Parental Involvement in
Education. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement- US Department of Education.

Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher,16 (Aug –
Sep.)(6), 32-38.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social Capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94 Supplement, S95-S120.

Coleman, J S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Coleman, J. S. (1994). Family, school, and Social capital. In Husen, T. &
Postelwaite, T. N. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.,
pp. 2272-2274). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

152
Coleman, J. S. (1994). Family, school, and social capital. In T. Husen & T.N.
Postlewaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp.
2272-2274). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Collins, J., & Thompson, F. (1994). Family, school, and cultural capital. In T. Husen
& T.N. Postlewaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd
ed., pp. 2267-2272). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

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

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

De Carvalho, M. E. (2001). Rethinking family-school relations: A critique of
parental involvement in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991). Involving parents in schools: a process of empowerment.
American Journal of Education, 100(1), 20-46.

Demo, D. H., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Families with young children: A review of
research in the 1990's. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 (November),
876-895.

Dika, S. L., & Kusum, S. (2002). Applications of Social Capital in educational
literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.

Ellsworth, J., & Ames, L. J. (Eds.). (1998). Critical Perspectives on Head Start:
revisioning the hope and challenge. Albany, New York: State University of
New York Press.

153
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Alkin (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1139-1151). New York:
McMillan.
Epstein, J.L. (1995). School/family/school partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.

Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Clark-Salinas, K., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997).
School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of
parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The
Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 289-305.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic
achievement: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-21.

Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A
multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education .
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367-376.

Farrell, A., Tayler, C., & Tennent, L. (2004). Building Social capital in early
childhood and care: an Austrailan study. British Educational Research
Journal, 30(5), 623-632.

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 motivation model. Child
Development, 65, 237-252.

154
Hoover-Dempsy, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (Spring 1997). Why do parents become
involved in their children's education? Review of Educational Research,
67(1), 3-42.

Horvat, E., Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2003). From social ties to social capital:
Class differences in relations between schools and parent networks. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319-351.

Kalmijn, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (1996). Race, cultural capital, and schooling: An
analysis of trends in the United States. Sociology of Education, 69 (January),
22-34.

Kingston, P. W. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of cultural capital theory. Sociology
of Education -Extra Issue, 74, 88-99.

Lacy, G. L. (1997). Head Start social services: experiences, perceptions and benefits
from the perspective of Head Start mothers (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts
International.

Lamb-Parker, F., Boak, A. Y., Griffin, K. W., Ripple, C., & Peay, L. (1999). Parent-
Child relationship, home learning, environment, and school readiness. The
School Psychology Review, 28(3), 413-25.

Lamb-Parker, F., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Peay, L. (1987). Head Start as a social
support for mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(2), 220-233.

Lamb-Parker, F., Piotrkowski, C. S., Baker, A. J., Kessler-Sklar, S., Clark, B., &
Peay, L. (2001). Understanding barriers to parent involvement in Head Start:
A research-community partnership. Early Childhood Quarterly, 16, 33-51.

Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural Capital: Allusions, gaps, and glissandos
in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, Fall 153-168.

155
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The
importance of Cultural Capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home Advantage. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
Lareau, A., & McNamara-Horvat, E. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and
exclusion race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships.
Sociology of Education, 72, January 37-53.

Lareau, A., & Shumar, W. (1996). The problem of individualism in family-school
policies. Sociology of Education-Extra Issue, 69, 24-39.

Lawson, M. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher
perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 77-133.

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social
background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington
D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Lubeck, S. & deVries, M. (2000). The social construction of Parent Involvement in
Head Start. Early Education and Development. 11(5), 633-658.

Marcon, R. A. (1998, July). Predicting parent involvement and its influence on
school success: A follow-up study. Paper presented at the meeting of the
National Head Start Research Conference. Washington DC.

Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and
public school inner-city preschoolers' development and academic
performance. The School Psychology Review, 28(3), 395-412.

Marshall, N. L., McCartney, K., Marx, F., & Keefe, N. (2001). It takes an urban
village: Parenting networks of urban families. Journal of Family Issues,
22(2), 163-182.

156
McAllister-Swap, S. (1993). Developing home-school partnerships: From concepts
to practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Meidel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Parent involvement in early intervention
for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology,
37(4), 379-402.
Miedel-Barnard, W. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and
educational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 39-62.

Monkman, K., Ronald, M., & Delimon-Theramene, F. (2005). Social and cultural
capital in an urban Latino school community. Urban Education, 40(1), 4-33.

Noack, P. (2004). The family context of preadolescents’ orientations toward
education: Effects of maternal orientations and behavior. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96(4), 714-722.

National Council of Jewish Women, Lamb-Parker, F., Piotrkowski, C. S., Kessler-
Sklar, S., Baker, A. J., Peay, P., et al. (1997). The impact of parent
involvement in head start on parents and children (US Department of Health
and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth, and Families ED
425796). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Oyemade, U. J., Washington, V., & Gullo, D. F. (1989). The relationship between
Head Start parental involvement and the economic and social self-sufficiency
of Head Start families. Journal of Negro Education, 58(1), 5-14.

Pizzo, P.D.& Tufankijan, E.E., (2004). A persistent pattern of progress: Parent
outcomes in longitudinal studies of Head Start children and families. In
Zigler, E. & Styfco, S.S. (Eds.), The Head Start Debates (pp. 193-217)
Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing

Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24. Power and Ideology in Education (pp.
487-511). New York: Oxford University Press.

157
Reynolds, A. J., Mavrogenes, N. A., Bezruczko, N., & Hagemann, M. (1996).
Cognitive and family-support mediators of preschool effectiveness: A
confirmatory analysis. Child Development, 67, 1119-1140.

Roscigno, V. J., & Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W. (1999). Race, cultural capital, and
educational resources: Persistent inequalities and achievement returns.
Sociology of Education, 72, 158-178.

Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (1993). Enhancing Head Start parents' conceptions of
literacy development and their confidence as literacy teachers: a study of
parental involvement. Early Child Development and Care, 89, 57-73.
Schafer, E. (1991). Goals for parent and future-parent education: Research on
parental beliefs and behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 239-
247.

Schneider, B., & Coleman, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Parents, Their Children, and
Schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Seaman, P., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Assisting young people's access to social capital
in contemporary families: a qualitative study. Journal of Youth Studies, 7(2),
173-190.

Seitz, V., Rosenbaum , L. K., & Apfel, N. H. (1985). Effects of Family support
intervention: A ten-year follow-up. Child Development, 56, 376-391.

Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents' social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent
involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 301-348.

Sigel, I. E., & Powell, D. R. (1988). Parent education as early childhood
intervention: Emerging directions in Theory, Research, and Practice:
Annual Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology (3 ed.). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

158
Slaughter, D. T., Washington-Lindsey, R., & Shahariw-Kuehne, V. (1989). Who gets
involved? Head Start mothers as persons. Journal of Negro Education, 58(1),
16-29.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1995). Social Capital and the
Reproduction of Inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin
high school students. Sociology of Education, 68 (April), 116-135

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A Social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Education
Review, 67(1), 1-39.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2001). Hope and despair: The school and kin support
networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and the child's
school performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001). Program performance
standards and other regulations. Washington, DC Head Start Bureau:
Author.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Evaluating Head Start: A
recommended framework for studying the impact of the Head Start Program.
Washington, DC Office of Head Start: Author.

University of Southern California School for Early Childhood Education. (2004).
Early Head Start/Head Start/State Preschool parent Handbook [Brochure].
Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Van Der Gaag, M., & Snijders, T. A. (2005). The resource generator: social capital
quantification with concrete items. Social Networks, 27, 1-29.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and
applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

159
Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2003). Translating Bourdieu into the American
context: the question of social class and family-school relations. Poetics, 31,
375-402.

White, K. R., Taylor, M. J., & Moss, V. D. (1992). Does research support claims
about the benefits of involving parents in early intervention programs?
Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 91-125.

Yan, W. (1999). Successful African American students: The role of parental
involvement. Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 5-22.

Zigler, E., & Muenchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The inside story of America's most
successful educational experiment. New York, NY: Basic Books, A division
of Harper Collins Publisher, Inc.

Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. J. (Eds.). (2004). The Head Start debates. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Zigler, E., & Valentine, J. (1979). Project Head Start: A legacy of the war on
poverty. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Myriad studies have focused parental involvement as well as the scholastic and personal benefits accrued to children in preschool through highschool education settngs who have involved parents. The number of studies addresing the benefits accrued to parents as a result of their involvement is considerably smaller. Those studies which have been undertaken generally focus on the outcomes of involvement (e.g., increased confidence, improved parental responsiveness). ALthough these outcomes are noteworthy, absent from the literature is the process by which parents arrive at becoming competent and knowledgeable. The process through which parents journey in order to activate change, acquire resources and arrive at the reported transformational outcomes remains unclear.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Impact of required parental involvement on African American male students and families: a qualitative study of the USC-NAI program

PDF

Examining Latino parents' perspective on parent involvement at the secondary level: why should we care

PDF

Making the connection: The California urban superintendent and parent and community involvement

PDF

The impact of parental involvement on student achievement

PDF

Factors that promote or inhibit the involvement of African American parents in a community college early childhood education program

PDF

Examining parental involvement at the elementary-level: the Chamoru perspective

PDF

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

PDF

Latino parental aspirations and literacy practices related to children's reading engagement

PDF

A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment

PDF

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

PDF

English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices

PDF

The role of storybook reading in a twilight preschool head start program

PDF

Innovative parental involvement: Utilizing information and communication technologies to increase parental involvement

PDF

Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools

PDF

Increasing parent involvement in social-emotional learning workshops in high school using the gap analysis approach

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

Experiences of African American males accessing the pipeline of higher education through the Neighborhood Academic Initiative

PDF

The parent voice: an exploratory study to understand Latino parent involvement in schools