Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 23 November 2014, At: 09:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Early Education and DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20
Attitudes of Early Childhood Teachers Toward Familyand Community InvolvementIthel Jones , C. Stephen White , Victor Aeby & Barbara BensonPublished online: 08 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Ithel Jones , C. Stephen White , Victor Aeby & Barbara Benson (1997) Attitudes of Early ChildhoodTeachers Toward Family and Community Involvement, Early Education and Development, 8:2, 153-168, DOI: 10.1207/s15566935eed0802_4
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0802_4
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Early Education & Development Volume 8, Number 2, April 1997
Attitudes of Early Childhood Teachers Toward Family and Community Involvement
Ithel Jones
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
C . Stephen White
George Mason University
Victor Aeby & Barbara Benson
University of Georgia
This investigation examined early childhood teachers’ attitudes towards families and their involvement with schools, and specific variables that influence these attitudes. Teachers’ perspectives about school and family partnerships were assessed using the School and Family Partnerships: Questionnaires for Teachers and Parents in the Elementary and Middle Grades (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). This survey was administered to 92 elementary school teachers in Follow Through classrooms in the southeastern and pacific northwestern United States. Results indicated that teachers’ attitudes about family and community involvement were highly positive. Additionally, African American teachers had a more positive attitude than European American teachers. Furthermore, teachers who taught large proportions of low ability students had less positive views of family strengths.
The work reported herein was supported under the Follow Through Model for Early Childhood Education Award (#S014C10016-94) as administered by the U.S. Department of Education. The findings and opin- ions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. We acknowledge the cooperation of the teachers who participated in this study. A version of this paper was presented at the 1995 meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Ithel Jones, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 383 Enderis Hall, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201.
i 1 I 1
I
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
154 Jones, White, Aeby & Benson
Attitudes of Early Childhood Teachers Toward Family and Community Involvement
Introduction
Parental involvement in the educational process has long been considered a key com- ponent for positive student achievement and development (e.g., Epstein & McPartland, 1979; Haynes, Comer, & Hamilton-Lee, 1989; Henderson, 1987; Leicher, 1974; Marjoribanks, 1979). This is because strong links between a child’s home and school promotes developmental opportunity. The nature and quality of home-school collabora- tion and the extent of parental involvement may be determined by parents, teachers, admin- istrators, and other adults. Teachers, however, have both the ability and professional re- sponsibility to facilitate home-school collaboration. That is, they are central to parental involvement in the educational process.
In general, parental involvement practices have been shown to be effective. For ex- ample, researchers have suggested that involving parents in the educational process leads to positive student outcomes such as higher academic achievement (Haynes et al., 1989; Henderson, 1987; Reynolds, 1992) and positive student attitudes and behaviors (Becher, 1984; Henderson, Marburger, & Ooms, 1986; Taylor & Machida, 1994). Yet, the number of teachers who actively utilize strategies to encourage parental involvement is low (Swick & McKnight, 1989). Possible reasons for teachers’ reluctance to adopt practices for in- volving parents include a lack of training (Chavkin & Williams, 1988) as well as conflict- ing perceptions and expectations of parental involvement by both parents and teachers (Reynolds, 1992). In addition, teachers’ attitudes about family and community involve- ment as well as their views of family strengths have been found to influence parental in- volvement practices (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Epstein, 1986,1990; Powell, 1978; Stedman, 1987; Williams & Stallworth, 1982). Yet, little is known about possible influences on teachers’ attitudes toward parental involvement and their views of family strengths. The present study is an initial attempt to address this issue.
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the attitudes of early childhood teachers toward family and community involvement and their views of family strengths. In addi- tion, the study sought to determine the factors that potentially influence these constructs. Specifically, this investigation determined whether differences in teachers’ attitudes and their views of family strengths may be attributable to the grade level taught, race of the teachers, number of years teaching experience, and perceived student ability level.
In previous studies of teacher attitude toward parental involvement, samples have been limited to teachers of elementary and secondary students (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Dauber, 1989) and prekindergarten teachers (Garinger & McBride, 1995). Further- more, few comparisons of the attitudes of early childhood teachers have been conducted across teacher and student demographic variables. Such comparisons are important be- cause differences in teachers’ attitudes can present barriers to program efforts to establish home-school partnerships in early childhood programs.
Attitude Toward Parental Involvement
Teacher attitude has been defined by a number of researchers (e.g., Fishbein, 1967; Smith & Hudgins, 1964). For the purpose of this investigation, however, teacher attitude was defined as a teacher’s emotional response in support of or against parent involvement
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teacher Attitude 155
practices. Teacher attitude is considered to be one’s perceptions and ideas about the effec- tiveness of parents’ instructional support of their children at home. Researchers and educa- tors have also attempted to categorize and define parental involvement (e.g., Datta, 1973; Epstein, 1987, 1992; Gordon, 1970; Schmerber, 1974; Wood, 1974). Despite an apparent inconsistency in how parental involvement is defined (Reynolds, 1992), Epstein’s (1987) model offers a practical guide for developing comprehensive parent involvement strategies for both early childhood and elementary programs (Epstein, 1987, 1992). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, we adopted Epstein’s (1987) definition of parental involvement. This typology breaks down the concept of parental involvement into six categories: (a) basic obligations of parents, (b) basic obligations of schools, (c) parent involvement at school, (d) parent involvement in learning activities at home, (e) parent involvement in governance and advocacy and, (f) basic obligations of the community to connect with the school.
A substantial body of research has examined the attitudes and beliefs of teachers about parental involvement (e.g., Burton, 1992; Epstein & Dauber, 1989; Kontos, Raikes, &Woods, 1983; Sharpe, 1991; Tizard, Mortimore, & Burchell, 1981). It has been suggested that teachers’ perceptions about parental involvement are not always congruent with the per- ceptions held by the parents (Epstein, 1986). Moreover, it seems that there could be incon- gruities and misperceptions about roles and expectations between teachers and parents (Sharpe, 1991; Tizard, Mortimore, & Burchell, 1981). Such differences could be the result of parents’ naivete about educational goals, practices, and priori ties, as well as communica- tion difficulties with teachers (Tizard, Mortimore, & Burchell, 198 1). Specifically, teach- ers may not always be explicit and sensitive enough when communicating with parents (Tizard, Mortimore, & Burchell, 1981). In turn, the subsequent lack of interest by parents is often assumed by teachers to be an indication that they are uncaring. In short, teachers and parents seem to perceive each others’ roles quite differently.
In a recent study, Parr, McNaughton, Timperley & Robinson (1991) found that teach- ers perceived themselves as experts. Parents, on the other hand, were not regarded by school professionals as anything remotely bordering on equal partners. Possible explana- tions proffered for such views include teachers’ hesitancy to involve parents because of the time investment required for productive parent participation, the absence of external re- wards for efforts to involve parents, and problems with low levels of commitment or skills on the part of parents (Epstein & Becker, 1982; Moles, 1982). Furthermore, teachers may fear parents (Epstein & Becker, 1982), possibly because of a perception that parents ques- tion teachers’ professional competence (Power, 1985), or blame them for children’s prob- lems (Vernberg & Medway, 1981).
Such perceptions held by teachers presumably influence their parental involvement practices. Yet, information concerning potential influences on teachers’ attitude toward parental involvement and their views of family strengths is limited. In one sense, teacher attitude toward parental involvement is a product of one’s personal, cultural and educa- tional history. It follows that “teacher level” variables, such as race, level of education, and number of years teaching experience, are potential factors that influence teacher attitude and views of family strengths.
At the teacher level, it is reasonable to assume that ethnicity could be a factor that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
156 Jones, White, Aeby & Benson
influences attitude toward parental and family involvement. For example, different racial identities between students and teachers could lead to less positive attitudes of parental involvement. Studies related to teacher attitudes of minority students have examined subtle responses by teachers according to student racial identity (Coates, 1972; Simpson & Erickson, 1983). In most cases, the teachers were unaware of these distinct responses and were sim- ply reacting on a subconscious level. A number of more specific studies have examined teacher attitudes toward parent involvement of minority families (Ascher, 1987; Lareau, 1987; Leitch & Tangri, 1988; Lightfoot, 1978; Ogbu, 1974). For example, Leitch and Tangri (1988) found that teachers viewed minority parents as a barrier to parent involve- ment. The teachers tend to blame parents for the students’ problems. Yet, in contrast, it is reasonable to assume that the converse could also occur. That is, minority teachers who teach minority students might feel more empathy toward their students’ families and conse- quently they should exhibit more positive attitudes toward parental involvement. Thus, we predicted differences in African American and European American teachers’ attitudes to- ward parental involvement and their views of family strengths
Teacher attitude toward parental involvement may also differ according to the teach- ers’ educational background. In a recent study of preschool teachers’ attitudes toward parental involvement Garinger and McBride (1995) found that teachers with more formal- ized education had more positive attitudes toward parental involvement in learning activi- ties at home. There was a negative relationship, however, between teachers’ attitudes to- ward the parental involvement obligations of schools and the number of graduate and un- dergraduate parent involvement courses taken. Despite the apparent contradictory nature of these findings it seems that teachers’ attitudes are influenced by the extent of their pro- fessional training. Presumably, teachers with graduate level course work will have spent more time considering educational issues as well as their own personal philosophy. More- over, teachers who actively further their own professional development will have been exposed to a broader array of educational topics and issues. We therefore predicted that teachers with a graduate degree would have more positive attitudes and views than teachers with an undergraduate degree.
A further source of potential influence on teacher attitude toward parental involvement could be a teacher’s level of experience. It has been suggested that experienced teachers might be more supportive of parent and family involvement practices (Blust, & Kok, 1982; Helge & Pierce-Jones, 1968; Mager, 1980). In their study of preschool teacher attitudes toward parental involvement Garinger and McBride (1995) reported a positive relationship between the number of teacher-parent contacts and the number of years the teacher had been in the profession. Possibly, long-term service in schools where parent involvement is encouraged and supported promotes positive teacher attitudes and views. We therefore predicted that experienced teachers would have more positive attitudes toward parental involvement than less experienced teachers.
In addition, several student factors could also impact attitudes and practices of parental involvement. For example, research would suggest that minority status (Lareau, 1987; Leitch & Tangri, 1988), student ability level (Good, 1970; Morrison & McIntyre, 1969), and the socioeconomic status of families (Smith & Greenberg, 1975; Lufler, 1979; Will- iams, 1976) influence teacher attitude toward parental involvement. In each case, the influ- ential factors can be classified as “student level” variables.
Several investigations have examined the influence of student ability on teacher
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teacher Attitude 157
attitudes (Good, 1970; Hoehn, 1954; Morrison & McIntyre, 1969). For example, Morrison and McIntyre (1969) found that students were aware of teachers’ attitudes concerning their academic performance. Students were interviewed and 73% of low ability students re- ported that they thought teachers had negative attitudes about them. In contrast, only 10% of the high ability students had similar beliefs. It has also been reported that teachers’ negative or positive teaching experiences were related to the home-school partnership (Leitch & Tangri, 1988). Teachers who reported a positive experience in the classroom also per- ceived increased amounts of parent involvement in the school. We therefore predicted that teachers who reported that most of their students were “below average” would have less positive attitudes toward parental involvement, and less positive views of family strengths than those teachers who reported having fewer low ability students.
Another related possibility is that teacher attitude and views of family strengths could be related to the grade level taught (Jackson & Stretch, 1976; Langenbrunner & Thornburg, 1980; Tudor, 1977). Kindergarten teachers, for example, might maintain frequent contact with their students’ parents whereas third- or fourth-grade teachers, because they are work- ing with older students, may rarely get to meet the parents. Consequently, we predicted that kindergarten teachers would have more positive attitudes and views than first-, second-, or third-grade teachers.
Finally, a large body of research has examined the relationship between teacher atti- tudes and student socioeconomic status (e.g., Karlins, Coffman, & Waters, 1969; Deutsch, Katz, & Jensen, 1968; Lufler, 1979; Smith & Greenberg, 1975). For example, Lufler (1979) interviewed teachers about their perceptions of school discipline policy and found that teachers believed that lower income students were potentially more disruptive than stu- dents from other economic backgrounds. Indeed, it has been suggested that because low income families face many problems, parental involvement is less likely to occur (Reynolds, 1992). Yet, federally mandated programs which serve low socioeconomic status (SES) children such as Head Start and Follow Through have required active home-school col- laboration. Because of the family-centered service philosophy of such programs (Zigler & Freedman, 1987) a reasonable expectation would be that the teachers have positive atti- tudes toward parental involvement as well as positive views of family strengths.
Given the above framework, the present study was undertaken to explore Follow Through teachers’ attitudes toward parent and family involvement and their views of fam- ily strengths. The study is part of a larger ongoing investigation of both teacher and parent attitudes toward parental involvement.
Method
Participants
The participants were 92 kindergarten, first-, second-, and third-grade teachers in six Follow Through schools in the southeast and northwestern United States. Follow Through was a model designed to make the transition from Head Start into the early grades as smooth and successful as possible for children at risk of academic failure. This particular Follow Through model consisted of a university sponsor who provided the participating school districts with ongoing training and technical assistance for school personnel who work with Head Start graduates while they are in kindergarten through third-grade. The instructional model of this project was based on Piagetian and social construction theories and principles of learning. Non-instructional support services provided to children and their families
i !
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
158 Jones, White, Aeby & Benson
included parent involvement and educational programs, various social services, medical and dental programs, and nutrition programs. Responsibilities of the Follow Through teachers included implementation of the instructional component of the model as well as participa- tion in in-service training related to the model.
The socioeconomic status of the students and families served by the Follow Through schools was judged to be low due to the fact that the children received free or reduced school lunch. Approximately 73% of the kindergarten to third-grade student population in the six schools were African American, and 21% were European American.
Each of the participating schools actively promoted parental and family involvement and, for this purpose, employed a Parent Coordinator. This individual’s responsibility was to organize and implement programs for parents both at school and in the home. Thus, throughout the school year, several programs were implemented by the Parent Coordina- tors to give parents an opportunity to be involved in their child’s school.
The teachers were relatively experienced; an average of 15 years teaching experience ( M = 15.32, SD = 9.59), and they had been at their present school for an average of 9 years ( M = 9.35, SD = 6.77). Twenty-three of the teachers taught kindergarten classes, 25 first- grade, 20 second-grade, and 24 third-grade. Approximately 30% of the sample were Afri- can American (-28) and 60% Caucasian (n=55). Nine teachers, however, did not respond to the question on the instrument concerning their race. The African American teachers were relatively evenly distributed across the six schools. Educational levels reported by the teachers were generally high, with 68% indicating that they had postgraduate experience.
Instrument
Teachers’ perspectives about school and family partnerships were assessed using the School and Family Partnerships: Questionnaire for Teachers and Parents in the Elemen- tary and Middle Grades (Epstein & Salinas, 1993). The seven-page teacher survey in- cluded 12 focus areas with more than 125 items of information related to teacher attitudes about parental involvement, school programs, teaching experiences and background, and teacher practices involving families. Focus areas assessed in this investigation included teacher attitude about family and community involvement, and teachers’ views of family strengths (see Appendix A for a sample page from this instrument). In the first section respondents rated, on a four-point scale, the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with items concerning their attitudes about family and community involvement. The second section asked teachers to estimate the number of families contacted by various methods such as memo, home visit, and by telephone. In the third section, teachers were asked to indicate the various ways they involved parents as volunteers. Other sections of the survey asked teachers to indicate, on a four-point scale, the importance of various activities to assist their students and families.
Procedures
Surveys were administered to 92 kindergarten through third-grade teachers at the six Follow Through schools. Participation by the teachers was voluntary and no information was provided concerning the purpose of the study. The surveys were administered by a university trainer at the end of a faculty in-service session at each of the schools in the last trimester of the school year. Each teacher was administered an individual questionnaire and given 24 hours from the time of distribution to complete it. The following day all of the
i i
1 3
i
1 i i
! I
1 i 1 I
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teacher Attitude 159
surveys, representing a 100% response rate, were collected by a school administrator or a university trainer.
The teachers’ responses were analyzed to determine their attitudes about family in- volvement and their views of family strengths. Item responses were summed and averaged across sections to arrive at subscale scores for each respondent. Subscale scores could, therefore, range from one to four. Reliability estimates for the two scales associated with the instrument were calculated using the Cronbach alpha (a ) formula. This approach was used to test for internal consistency because the survey contained many Likert-type items (Mueller, 1986). Reliability coefficients equaled .57 and .68 for views of family strengths and attitude about family and community involvement, respectively. These relatively modest estimates of internal consistency could potentially mask differences between the groups. However, given that this was an initial attempt to examine teachers’ attitudes toward family and community involvement it was judged that the coefficients were tolerable.
Data Analysis
Independent t-tests and Analyses of Variance were used to determine whether attitudes about family involvement and views of family strengths differed by teachers’ race, grade taught, years of teaching experience, educational qualifications, and perceived student abil- ity level. A potential limitation in our analysis plan was that it did not allow for the analyses of interactions of the major variables.
In order to determine whether there were differences in the outcome variables of inter- est associated with the respondents race, a subsample of African American teachers ( ~ 2 4 ) and European American teachers (n=53) were identified. Responses by the two groups of teachers were then compared by calculating the t statistic and associated p-value.
Potential effects for grade level were determined by identifying the grade taught by the teachers and conducting an Analysis of Variance, with grade level as the between-subject variable. The same analyses were also used to determine whether there were significant differences in the outcome variables associated with years of teaching experience. For this purpose teachers with less than 5 years teaching experience (n=16), between 6 and 15 years teaching experience (n=26), and more than 15 years teaching experience ( ~ 3 5 ) were iden- tified. Similarly, for educational qualifications, four groups of teachers were identified: those with a bachelors degree (n=24), bachelors and credits (n=32), masters degree (=lo), and masters and graduate credits (n=14).
In order to determine whether there were differences in attitude toward family and community involvement and views of family strengths associated with perceived student ability level, a group of teachers who had estimated that fewer than 15% of their students were “below average”, along with a group with more than 50% “below average” students were identified. Then, mean scores on the scales for attitude and views of family strengths were compared by calculating the t statistic and associated p-value.
Results
Teachers’ attitudes about family and community involvement were highly positive (M = 3.2 on 4-point scale); as were their views of family strengths (M = 3.2 on a 4-point scale). Yet, examination of the distribution of subjects responses on individual items, as shown in Table 1, identified conflicting opinions; e.g., only 24% of the sample thought that parents knew how to help their children on school work at home.
i
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
160 Jones, White, Aeby & Benson
Table 1.
Teacher Responses on Parental and Family Involvement Questions
Parent involvement is important for a good school Most parents know how to help their children This school has an active and effective parent organization Every family has some strengths that could be tapped to increase student success in school All parents could leam ways to assist their children on schoolwork at home, if shown how Parent involvement can help teachers be more effective with more students Teachers should receive recognition for time spent on parent involvement activities Parents of children at this school want to be involved more than they are now at most grade levels Teachers do not have the time to involve parents in very useful ways Teachers need in-service education to implement effective parent involvement practices Parent involvement is important for student success in this school This school views parents as important partners This community values education for all children This school is known for trying new and unusual approaches to improve the school Mostly when I contact parents, it's about problems or trouble In this school, teachers play a large part in most decisions
This community supports the school
Compared to other schools, this school has one of the best school climates for teachers, students, and parents
Strongly Disagree
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
9
17
1
0
0
1
0
6
3
1
5
Teacher R
Disagree
0
73
8
4
2
0
14
54
49
26
4
2
15
5
35
16
14
12
3onses (%)
Agree
10
23
53
75
59
34
56
29
31
65
27
36
40
45
51
62
71
46
Strongly Agree
90
1
33
21
39
66
30
8
3
8
69
62
44
50
8
19
14
37
I
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teacher Attitude 161 i T
Descriptive statistics for measures of teacher attitude towards family and community involvement and teacher views of family strength are reported in Table 2. Independent t- tests and Analyses of Variance were used to assess whether attitudes about family involve- ment and views of family strengths differed by race, grade taught, years of teaching expe- rience, teachers’ educational qualifications, and the ability level of their students. All sta- tistical analyses were conducted using the computer package SPSS (release 4.1).
Table 2.
Means and Standard Deviations for Teacher Attitude Toward Family and Community Involvement and Views of Family Strengths
by Teacher and Student Characteristics
GROUPING VARIABLES
All subjects (n = 92) Race of Teacher:
African American (n =24) Caucasian (n = 53) Teaching Experience: e 5 years (n = 16) 6 to 15 years (n = 26) > 15 years (n = 35) Teachers’ Educational Qualifications: Bachelors Degree (n = 24) Bachelors + credits (n =32) Masters Degree (n = 10) Masters + credits (n = 14) Grade Level: Kindergarten (n = 23) 1st grade (n = 25) 2nd grade (n = 20) 3rd grade (n = 24) Student Ability Level: e1 5%” below average” (n = 24) >50% “below average” (n = 18)
AlTlTUDE
M SD
3.20
3.37 3.1 3
3.20 3.1 5 3.20
3.26 3.17 3.24 3.14
3.20 3.1 9 3.17 3.20
3.23 3.16
.29
.26
.26
.23
.33
.28
.25
.32
.28
.22
.28
.28
.31
.29
.33
.31
VIEWS
M SD
3.20
3.46 3.1 9
3.44 3.25 3.21
3.40 3.1 6 3.40 3.25
3.1 9 3.25 3.35 3.27
3.39 3.08
.43
.46
.38
.40
.42
.43
.44
.39
.39
.43
_ .
.43
.36
.51
.41
.47
.32
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
162 Jones, White, Aeby & Benson
There was a statistically significant difference in African American and European American teachers scores on the measure for attitude toward family and community in- volvement, (75) = 2.79, p = .007.
The predicted effects for grade level on teachers’ attitude, F(3,77) = .233, p = .873, and views of family strengths, F(3,77) = .483,p = .695, were not supported. Furthermore, there was no evidence that number of years teaching experience influenced either teacher atti- tude, F(2,74) = .375, p = .688, or teachers’ views of family strengths, F(2,74) = 1.64, p = .201. Similarly, the effect of educational qualifications on teacher attitude, F(3,75) = .759, p = S20, and teachers’ views of family strengths F(3,79) = 1.89, p = .137, was not sup- ported. -
Finally, in order to determine whether there were differences in teacher attitude and views of family strengths associated with perceived student ability level, the analyses fo- cused on the responses of two groups of teachers. Identification of these teachers was based on their response to a question on the instrument asking them to estimate the percent- age of “below average” students in their class. Teachers with fewer than 15% “low ability” students in their classes had a more positive views of family strengths than teachers with more than 50% “low ability” students, t(40) = 2.46, p = .013. However, there was no significant difference in the scores obtained by the two groups of teachers on the measure for attitude toward family and community involvement, (40) = SO, p = .613.
Discussion
The results of this investigation indicate that the teachers had highly positive attitudes toward family involvement as well as positive views of family strengths. In general, the teachers who participated in this study support Epstein’s model of parental involvement, which considers obligations on the part of the family, school, and community. Given that the six participating schools actively promoted parental and family involvement, this find- ing is hardly surprising. Possibly, institutional support for parental involvement practices facilitates more interaction among teachers and parents and, subsequently, promotes posi- tive teacher attitudes and views.
Data from this initial study also suggest that influences such as grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and educational level do not have a strong impact on teach- ers’ attitudes toward family and community involvement and views of family strengths. In contrast to previous findings (Garinger & McBride, 1995) experienced teachers, and teach- ers who have actively pursued professional development, did not have more positive atti- tudes than colleagues with less teaching experience and educational background.
The current study also indicates that views of family strengths vary according to teach- ers’ perceptions of their students’ ability level. The views of teachers working with low SES students vary according to the percentage of “low ability” students in their classrooms. In this case, teachers with a greater number of underachieving students (more than 50%) had less positive views of family strengths than teachers with a smaller number of under- achieving students (less than 15%). This finding is relatively consistent with previous research data that has examined the influence of student ability on teacher attitudes (e.g.,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teacher Attitude 163
Good, 1970; Hoehn, 1954; Momson & McIntyre, 1969).
Other findings in this investigation suggest that teacher race influences teachers’ atti- tudes about family and community involvement and views of family strengths. African American teachers had more positive scores than those of European American teachers for views of family strengths. There were also differences on the measure for attitude toward family and community involvement between the two racial categories of teachers. This finding reflects previous research that has investigated teacher attitudes of minority stu- dents (Coates, 1972; Simpson & Erickson, 1983) and teacher attitudes toward parental involvement of minority families (Ascher, 1987; Lareau, 1987; Leitch & Tangri, 1988; Lightfoot, 1978, Ogbu, 1974). A possible explanation for this finding could be the similar- ity of students’ and teachers’ racial identity as opposed to specific racial background or race per se. That is, the student population in the Follow Through schools were predomi- nantly African American. A reasonable assumption, therefore, is that minority teachers feel more empathy toward their students’ families and consequently exhibit more positive attitudes toward parental involvement. Clearly, further study is needed to interpret this finding.
The data would suggest some considerations related to the promotion of the home and school partnership. Given the nature of the compensatory educational model of Follow Through, the student and family populations were from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In addition, the majority of families are African American. On the other hand, the majority of teachers working with Follow Through students and families were typically European American. In general, most of the teachers would have had positive school experiences and would expect their students and families to maintain the same attitudes that they themselves had as learners. Today, however, we recognize the importance of expanding teachers’ awareness of diversity and supporting initiatives for multi-cultural educational practices. Therefore, the need to train teachers to use culturally sensitive practices related to ethnicity, race, ability, and socioeconomic status is a significant consideration. In turn, culturally sensitive practices at school can be extended into the home environment. Teachers from cultural backgrounds different from those of the families they work with need to support homelschool interactions by accepting and respecting diverse home environments.
The results also have implications for teacher hiring policies. Since the results of the investigation support attitudinal differences between African American and European American teachers related to family involvement, it is possible that the recruitment of more African American teachers would strengthen home/school partnerships. From this investi- gation, it is suggested that a teacher’s approach to family involvement based on culturally sensitive practices would enhance more positive attitudes related to views of family strengths and family involvement.
Although a substantial body of research has already been completed on parent involve- ment and teacher attitude related to certain variables such as race, socioeconomic status, and ability of students, it is important to continue investigating the relationship between minority families and minority teachers. It is unclear whether parent involvement is strength- ened by similar cultural identities of families and educators. Further research is therefore recommended to validate these findings, and to determine additional influences of positive parent involvement beyond those examined in this study.
i
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
164 Jones, White, Aeby & Benson
References
Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. A. Murchison @I.), A handbook of socialpsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 798-844). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Ascher, C. (1987). Improving the school-home connection for poor and miizority urban stu- dents. New York Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Teachers College, Co- lumbia University.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psycho- logical Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy e Research, 8,231-255.
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4,359-373. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Becher, R. M. (1984). Parent involvement: A review of research andprinciples of success@ practice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices. The Elementary School Journal, 83,85-102.
Blust, R. S., & Kohr, R. L. (1982). A survey of teacher perceptions on school conditions and school related conditions. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State Department of Educa- tion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED213 757)
Burton, C. B. (1992). Defining family centered early education: Beliefs of public school, child
Chavkin, N. F., &Williams, D. L. (1988). Critical issues in the training of teachers for parent
care, and Head Start teachers. Early Education and Development, 3,45-59.
involvement. Educational Horizons, 66, 87-89.
Coates, B. (1972). White adult behavior toward black and white children. Child Develop- ment, 43, 143-154.
Datta, L. E. (1973). Parent involvement in early childhood education: A perspectivefrom the United States. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Deutsch, M., Katz, I., & Jensen, A. R. (Eds.). (1968). Social class, race, andpsychological development. New York Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Emans, R. (1969). Teacher attitudes as a function of values. Jouml of Educational Re- search, 62,459-463.
Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86,227-294.
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelmann, E Kaufinann, & F. Lose1 (Eds.), Social interven- tion: Potential and constraints (pp. 121-136). New York Walter de Gmyter.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teacher Attitude 165
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Epstein, J. L., & Becker, J. J. (1982). Teacher reported practices of parent involvement:
Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1989). Teacher attitudes andpractices ofparent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools (CREMS Report No. 32). Baltimore: John Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Epstein, J. L., & McPartland, J. M. (1979). Authority structures. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy, and productivity @p. 293- 310). Berkeley, C A McCutchan.
Educational Research (6th ed.), 1 139-1 15 1.
Problems and possibilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83,103-1 13.
Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (1993). School and family partnerships: Questionnaires for teachers andparents in the elementary and middle grades. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children’s Learning.
Fishbein, M. (Ed.). (1967). Readings in attitude theory andmeasurement. New York Wiley.
Garinger, J. G., & McBride, B. A. (1995). Successful parent involvement strategies in pre- kindergarten at-risk programs. The School Community Jouml, 5, 59-77.
Good, T. (1970). Which pupils do teachers call on? The Elementary School Journal, 70, 190- 198.
Gordon, I. J. (1970). Parent involvement in compensatory education. (ERIC clearinghouse on early childhood education). Champaign-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
through parental involvement. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 87-90. Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1989). School climate enhancement
Helge, S., & Pierce-Jones, I. (1968). The relationship between specific and general teaching experience and teacher attitudes toward project Head Start. Austin, ‘IX: Texas Univer- sity, Child Development Evaluation and Research Center. (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. 025 323)
Henderson, A. T. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improves student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Henderson, A. T., Marburger, C. L., & Ooms, T. (1986). Beyond the bake sale: An Educators guide in working with parents. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Hoehn, A. (1954). A study of social status differentiation in the classroom behavior of 19 third grade teachers. Jouml of Social Psychology, 39,269-292.
relations. Journal of Educational Research 85,287-294.
Jackson, R. K., &Stretch, S. H. (1976). Perceptions of parents, teachers, and administrators to parent involvement in early childhood programs. Alberta Journal of Educational Re- search, 22, 129-139.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, 0. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent-school
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
166 Jones, White, Aeby & Benson
Karlins, M., Coffman, T., &Waters, G. (1969). On the fading of social stereotypes: Studies in three generations of college students. Journal of Personality andsocial Psychology, 13, 1-16.
Kontos, S., Raikes, H., & Woods, A. (1983). Early childhood staff attitudes toward their parent clientele. Child Care Quarterly, 12,45-58.
Langenbrunner, M. R. & Thornburg, K. R. (1980) Attitudes of preschool directors, teachers, and parents toward parent involvement in the schools. Reading Improvement, 17, 286- 291.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60,73-85.
Leicher, H. J. (1974). The family as educator. New York Teachers College Press.
hitch, M. L., & Tangri, S. S. (1988). Barriers to home-school collaboration. Educational Horizons, 66,7074.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1978). Worlds apart. New York Basic Books.
Lufler, H. S . (1979). Debating with untested assumptions: The need to understand school discipline. Education and Urban Society, 1 I , 450-464.
Mager, G. M. (1980). The conditions which influence a teacher in initiating contacts with parents. The Journal of Educational Research, 73,276-282.
Marjoribanks, K. (1979). Families and their learning environments: An empirical analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Moles, 0. C. (1982). Synthesis of recent research on parent participation in children’s educa- tion. Educational Leadership, 40,44-47.
Morrison, A., & McIntyre, D. (1969). Teachers and teaching. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.
Mueller, D. J. (1986). Measuring social artitudes. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ogbu, J. (1974). The next generation. New York: Academic Press.
Parr, J., McNaughton, S., Timperley, H., &Robinson, V. (1991). Bridging the gap: Practices of collaboration between home and the junior school. Paper presented at the early child- hood convention, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Powell, D. R. (1978). Correlates of parent-teacher communication frequency and distribution. Journal of Educational Research, 71,333-341.
Power, T. J. (1985). Perceptions of competence: How parents and teachers view each other. Psychology in the Schools, 22,68-78.
Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7,44 1-462.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teacher Attitude 167
Schmerber, R. J. (1974). Reaching parents through involvement. Elementary School Guid-
Sharpe, P. (1991). Parental involvement in preschools, parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of
Simpson, A. W., & Erickson, M. T. (1983). Teachers’ verbal and nonverbal communication patterns as a function of teacher race, student gender, and student race. American Educa- tional Research Journal, 20,183-198.
Smith, I. L., & Greenberg, S. (1975). Teacher attitudes and the labeling process. Exceptional
ance and Counseling, 9, 138-142.
their roles. Early Child Development and Care, 71 ,53-62.
Children, 41(5), 319-324.
Smith, L. M. & Hudgins, B. B. (1964). Educational Psychology: An application of social and behavioral theory. New York Knopf.
Stedman, L. C. (1987). It’s time we changed the effective school formula. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 215-224.
Swick, K. J., & McKnight, S. (1989). Characteristics of kindergarten teachers who promote parent involvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 19-29.
Taylor, A. R., & Machida, S. (1994). The contribution of parent and peer support to Head Start children’s early school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 387- 405.
Tizard, B., Mortimore, J., & Burchell, B. (1981). Involving parents in nursery and infmt school: A resource book for teachers. London: Grant McIntyre.
Tudor, K. R. (1977). An exploratoy study of teachers attitudes and behavior toward parent
Vernberg, E. M., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Teacher and parent casual perceptions of school
Williams, T. (1976). Teacher prophecies i d the inheritance of inequality. Sociology of
education and involvement. Educational Research Quarterly, 2, 22-28.
problems. American Educational Research Journal, 18,29-37.
Education, 49,223-236.
Williams, D. L. Jr.,& Stallworth, J. T. (1982). A survey of educators regarding parent involve- ment in education: Implications for teacher training. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab. @ R K Document Reproduction Service No. ED 220 448)
Wood, A. J. (1974). Some effects of involving parents in the curriculum. Trends in Educa- tion, 35,39-45.
Zigler, E. & Freedman, J. (1987). Head Start: A pioneer of family support. In S. L. Kagan, D. R. Powell, B. Weissbourd, &E. F. Zigler (Eds.), America’s family supportprograms (pp. 57-76). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
168 Jones, White, Aeby & Benson
Appendix A.
Examples of questions from the School and Family Paifnerships:
Questionnaire for Teachers and Parents in the Elementary
and Middle Grades (Epstein & Salinas, 7993).
Please circle the one choice for each item that best represents your opinion and experience.
Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
a) Parent involvement is important for a good school
b) Most parents know how to help their children on schoolwork at home
c) This school has an active and effective parent organization
d) Every family has some strengths that could be tapped to increase student success in school
e) All parents could learn ways to assist their children on school work at home, if shown how
f) Parent involvement can help teachers be more effective with more students
g) Teachers should receive recognition for time spent on parent involvement activities
h) Parents of children at this school want to be involved more than they are now at most grade levels
i) Teachers do not have the time to involve parents in very useful ways
j) Teachers need in-service education to implement effective parent involvement practices
k) Parent involvement is important for student success in school
I) This school views parents as important partners
m) This community values education for all students
n) This school is known for trying new and unusual approaches to improve the school
0) Mostly when I contact parents, it's about problems or trouble
p) In this school, teachers play a large part in most declslons
q) This community supports the school
r) Compared to other schools, this school has one of the best school climates for teachers, students, and parents
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD -
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
A SA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th D
akot
a St
ate
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
9:03
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
