Parent Involvement: Influencing Factors and Implications

This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]On: 16 April 2013, At: 11:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Parent Involvement: Influencing Factors and ImplicationsDelores C. Peña aa Texas Tech UniversityVersion of record first published: 02 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Delores C. Peña (2000): Parent Involvement: Influencing Factors and Implications, The Journal of EducationalResearch, 94:1, 42-54

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598741

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

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 any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents willbe complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598741

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Parent Involvement: Influencing Factors and Implications DELORES C. PERA Texas Tech University

ABSTRACT The involvement of Mexican American parents in their children’s education was explored in a year-long case study of an elementary school in Texas. Interviews, document analysis, and observations of parent activities revealed that parent involvement was influenced by several factors, including language, parent cliques, parents’ education, attitudes of the school staff, cultural iduences, and family issues. Although the school staff addressed some of the issues, in general, teachers did not recognize the influence that these concerns had on parent involvement. The findings have implications for teachers that affect both the level and areas of Mexican American parent involvement. An understanding of these factors will provide ways to increase and improve parent involvement.

lthough some teachers have welcomed parent partici- A pation and used it effectively to motivate students, other teachers have not felt secure enough to have parents in their classroom. In turn, Mexican American parents have encountered personal, cultural and structural barriers that have kept them from actively participating in their children’s education (Bauch, 1993; Chavkin, 1989; Kerbow & Bernhardt, 1993; Moles, 1993; Scott-Jones, 1993). Work- ing-class and minority parents, if included in school activities, have tended to be included mostly in the traditional roles of fund raisers and chaperones. Beliefs exist that minority parents choose not to participate or cannot participate in school-family relationships because of differences in language or limited education (Epstein, 1990; Rich, 1993). Studies of parent involvement (Epstein, 1985; Hen- derson, 1981, 1987; Rich, 1987) have supported the many benefits of parents’ school involvement for students, parents, and schools, but generally have not reported the involvement of Mexican American parents.

Evidence supports the need for successful inclusion and involvement of parents in a variety of roles and areas and recognizes the many advantages of having parents as partners in the education of their children (Dwyer & Hecht, 1992; Herman & Yeh, 1983). According to recent research (Berger, 1995), the primary factor for children’s educational success or failure is parent interest and support. Well- implemented school-community practices yield positive

results for the students (Epstein, 1996; Henderson, 1981, 1987; Muller, 1993), the school (Dwyer & Hecht, 1992; Epstein, 1987; Smreker, 1992; Wong, 1994), and the parents (Berger, 1995; Epstein, 1986).

Student Advantages

Parent involvement has many positive benefits for students, the most important of which is enhanced student achievement (Greenwood & Hickman, 199 1 ; Seefeldt, 1985; Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1996). Henderson (1981, 1987) examined numerous studies in which parent involvement produced measurable gains in student academic achievement. Other studies (Henderson, 1988; National Institute of Education, 1985) found that the academic achievement of low-income students in particular seems to vary directly with the degree of parent involvement. Effec- tive parent involvement correlates with students’ earning higher grades and test scores (Dwyer & Hecht, 1992; Hen- derson, 1988; National Institute of Education; Peterson, 1989) as well as increased positive behaviors and emotion- al development (Cai, Moyer, & Wang, 1997; Greenwood & Hickman, 1991).

School Advantages

Many positive benefits from increased parent involvement also exist for the school. Those schools that favor the involvement of parents outperform schools with little parent involvement (Epstein, 1987; Henderson, 1988). On the basis of children’s achievement and the overall quality of the school, those schools that have long-lasting and com- prehensive parent programs are more effective than those without such programs (Rioux & Berla, 1993). Parent involvement provides valuable resources in terms of volunteer time and contributes to increased support for the school (Chavkin, 1989; Dwyer & Hecht, 1992), especially by including parents when formulating school programs (Her- man & Yeh, 1983).

Address correspondence to Delores C. Peiia, Texas Tech Uni- versity, College of Education, Box 41071, Lubbock, TX 79409-1071. (E-mail: dpena @ ttacs. ttu.edu)

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013

Septembedoctober 2000 [Vol. 94(No. I)] 43

Parent involvement has positively affected classroom learning as well as the school environment. Researchers found that increased parent involvement contributes to the overall school-community relationship (Chavkin, 1989; Rich, 1987) and influences teacher efficacy (Epstein & Dauber, 1991 ; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992). Teachers and principals have more respect for families who participate in school activities (Berger, 1995), which helps to increase teacher and parent support of school programs.

Parent Advantages

Henderson ( 1 988 j addressed the many positive outcomes for parents through their increased involvement at school. When low-income parents are trained to work with children, they develop better attitudes, become more active, and help support school activities. They also begin to seek additional education for themselves (Henderson, 1988). Parent involvement also results in increased interest and support of school programs and their children’s progress (Epstein, 1986). Parents who become involved in their children’s schooling also tend to develop positive attitudes toward their children’s teachers (Bempechat, 1992: Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). In addition, involved parents develop higher educational aspirations for their children (Green- wood & Hickman, 1991) and parent-child communication improves (Chavkin, 1989).

Concerns About Successful Parent Involvement

Despite the numerous advantages of parent involvement, concerns of families and school personnel continue to exist. To be actively involved, families need more information and guidance from schools: however, efforts by the schools have not been well organized (Chavkin, 1989; Epstein, 1992). Successful parent involvement programs often require con- tinuous training for parents and teachers (Etheridge & Hall, 1992). Currently, few teachers receive systematic education on family involvement in schools (Epstein, 1992). The extra work is difficult for teachers who have numerous demands on their time. The training that teachers do receive results in attitudes and practices designed to keep parents out of the learning process and even out of the classroom (Epstein, 1985). Some teachers do not believe that parents will understand or follow through with activities, and, therefore, rarely initiate further parent involvement. In addition, some teachers do not make frequent or systematic use of parent- involvement activities (Epstein, 1985). The teachers receive little help in developing skills and knowledge for collaboration with parents, and most rely on accumulated experience in dealing with parents (Moles, 1993).

At times, the relationship between teachers and parents is an uneasy one. Tensions exist between teachers and those parents who believe that they should have a voice in the education of their children (Hiatt, 1994). According to

Liontos (1 992), most schools pay only lip service to mean- ingful school-family partnerships. Parent involvement in school decision making is largely symbolic (National Insti- tute of Education, 1985) and merely “window-dressing” (Perry & Tannenbaum, 1992). Decision making produces more tensions than other types of parent involvement, such as helping teachers or raising funds. The involvement of parents in decision-making roles creates varied opinions and results. Principals continue to favor traditional methods of parent involvement. School board members and superin- tendents, however, are usually those in favor of including parents in decision making (Henderson, 1988: Rich, 1987). In the majority of schools, parent involvement is not encouraged and policy decisions are made without parent input. Some school staff claim that parents appear disinter- ested in policy decisions (Wissbrun & Eckart, 1992).

Some teachers also believe that parent involvement in teacher responsibilities jeopardizes their professional status (Berger, 1995; Gordan, 1976). Not all teachers and staff members are comfortable with increased parent-school collaboration (Berger; Coleman, 1991). Comer and Haynes (1991) found that a significant number of education practi- tioners are ambivalent about parent involvement. Strong professional control over program decisions remains intact regardless of the extent of parent empowerment (Wong, 1994). Other conflicts evolve over the issue of professional temtory particularly when parents and educators dis- agree about the value of different roles for the parents (Henderson, 1988; Wissbrun & Eckart, 1992). Discord over parent involvement occurs when teachers contact parents only in cases dealing with the students’ academic problems and bad behavior. Epstein (1996) linked involving parents only in those instances to high rates of student absences, development of negative attitudes, and low rat- ings of the school by parents.

Assumptions made by some teachers and the lack of importance they place on parent involvement also create problems for parents. Although teachers agree that parent involvement contributes to more effective teaching and a positive school climate, few believe that they could realis- tically change parents’ behaviors (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Bempechat, 1992; Epstein, 1992). Teachers do not realize the value of meeting with parents. In Epstein’s (1994) survey, 67% of parents never met with teachers informally. Teachers who do not involve families tend to give stereotypic responses in discussions of single and less-educated parents, rating them as less helpful and lack- ing follow through (Epstein, 1996). In school environ- ments in which teachers’ personal attitudes differ from those of parents’ attitudes, teachers are less likely to support strong parent-involvement programs (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). Becker and Epstein (1982) determined that teachers who are not actively involving parents and who teach children with less-educated parents are more likely to report that parents are not able or willing to help their children with their schoolwork.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013

44 The Journal of Educational Research

Parent Reasoning for Noninvolvement

Many times parents have reasons for not being involved despite the efforts made by the school. Several researchers surveyed parents to determine why they were not involved in school activities. Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and Brissie ( 1987) found that parents report minimal opportunities for involvement and indifferent attitudes on the part of the school personnel as factors influencing involvement. Par- ents also are intimidated by educational jargon, which impedes communication between them and teachers. In addition, transportation, safety, and childcare issues influence participation in the school (Moles, 1993). Other issues that affect participation include language, culture, and socioeconomic barriers; limited educational background; and parents’ own negative school experiences (Aronson, 1996). Those reasons influence parent involvement and limit many from being actively involved despite opportunities provided by the school.

Disadvantaged parents were especially likely to feel threatened by the authority of teachers, perceived socioeconomic status (SES) differences, and lack of formal knowledge as barriers to participation (Moles, 1993). Parents’ limited education and personal difficulties with the school lead to fear and mistrust. Differences in values and patterns of living between middle-class teachers and low-SES families also present problems that have to be bridged (Gordan, 1968). In many cases, parents are supportive and want an education for their children, yet they are uncomfortable with teachers and principals (Berger, 1995). Teachers come across to parents as “teacherish” because of their reliance on educational jargon, which makes forming relationships difficult (Rich, 1987). Chavkin (1989) found that minority parents are intimidated by school staff and the institutional structure of the schools. They feel awkward about approaching school personnel, particularly if they have had previous negative contacts with the school.

Parent involvement also is influenced by cultural differences between the family and the school. The parents’ culture affects how they become involved as well as whether the teachers and school validate their language and culture. Often when minority parents do not participate in traditional parent-school activities, teachers interpret that behavior as indifference (Chavkin, 1989). Many teachers do not understand the cultural differences between parents and school staff (Carrasquillo & London, 1993; Lightfoot, 1978). According to Carrasquillo and London, some educators believe that parents are not savvy enough to assume leadership roles in schools. They assume that poor parent attendance at events means that parents are not interested. The educators acknowledge that parents from some ethnic groups may be uncomfortable communicating with teachers or participating in school activities because of language barriers or differences in cultural values (Moles, 1993; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996).

For example, Mexican American families often tend to

view the academic development of the student as a function of the school (Carrasquillo & London, 1993; Chavkin & Gonzalez, 1995). School is seen as a bureaucracy controlled by non-Hispanics. Mexican American parents often believe that the role of the home and school should not interfere with each other (Chavkin & Gonzalez, 1995). Many Mexi- can American parents believe that they are helpful by main- taining a respectful distance from the education system. For many of them, the school represents an alien and imperson- al environment directed by “Anglos” who are insensitive to minority parents’ language and culture (Moles, 1993). Mex- ican American parents respect the roles of teachers and are afraid to intervene in the teacher’s professional duties (Car- rasquillo & London). Ritter, Mont-Reynaud, and Dorn- busch (1993) found that Hispanic parents are more deferen- tial and trusting and less comfortable with teachers and schools than are African Americans and Caucasians.

Moles (1993) stated that “Both educators and disadvantaged parents suffer from limited skills and knowledge for interacting effectively. For many disadvantaged parents, a serious handicap in supporting their children’s education is their limited education and their lack of fluency in English” (p. 3 1). Carrasquillo and London (1993) said that parents are not prepared to help with homework because of their own limited education. The difference in languages between teachers and parents and lack of bilingual staff also make parents feel powerless (Chavkin & Gonzalez, 1995). Bauch (1993) reported that a common barrier is conflict with the working hours of parents. He also found that Hispanics are more likely than other groups to cite language differences and attitudes of the principal and teachers as preventing their involvement in school activities. Dwyer and Hecht (1992) reported that the education community must develop an understanding of the needs and situations of minority- group parents, particularly Mexican American parents, to increase their participation in their children’s education.

Method

In this qualitative study of Mexican American parent involvement, I followed a case study approach of one elementary school with a large concentration of Mexican American families. I studied the concept of parent involvement within the school context, but participants were free to define parent involvement in their own terms and by their own actions. The main question directing this study was how Mexican American parents are or are not involved and what factors influence their involvement. The research explored the level and areas of involvement of Mexican American parents at one elementary school, which had an established parent-involvement program. Interviews with teachers, parents, and administrators helped to identify the variables that led to successful involvement of Mexican American parents in one school context. By focusing on parent involvement within one school, I explored areas within the educational environment. In addition, this study

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013

September/October 2000 [Vol. 94(No. I)] 45

was limited to a school site that was in the process of actively involving parents.

I investigated and described parent involvement at Park- er Elementary School (school and participants are identified by pseudonyms), located in a large urban city in ‘Texas. Site selection was limited to schools with Mexican American student populations of at least 70%. The district provided the names of seven schools fulfilling that criterion. Accord- ing to district data from Fall 1995, the seven schools had high percentages of Mexican American student enroll- ments; the selected site had a population of 95.5% Mexican American students. District and university personnel shared information about which schools had active parent-involvement programs, high student mobility rates, other research underway at the sites, and information regarding the surrounding communities. On the basis of that information, I identified four schools as possible sites: Parker Elementary was the first choice. District personnel contacted Parker Elementary and provided the principal, Mrs. Caro, with a copy of the proposed study, according to district guidelines. After a brief discussion with Mrs. Caro, I received approval for the study.

Parker Elementary became a year-round campus in 1994 (Black, 1996). The multi-age classes, which began in 1995 (Black), grouped children into two grades in each classroom to provide for continuity. Parker Elementary and another elementary school received a federal grant of $1.25 million in 1996 for a 5-year period to provide all students with the opportunity to become biliterate and bilingual. Classes, programs, assemblies, and hall displays reflected both the Spanish and English languages and U. S. and Mexican cul- tures. The Dual Language program eliminated the language barrier that commonly exists between Mexican American parents and the school. During the 1997-1998 school year in which this study was conducted, Parker Elementary enrolled 618 students. Student ethnicity included 4 Native Americans, 2 Asian Americans, 25 African Americans, 560 Hispanics, and 27 Caucasian students. Of the 618 students, 553 were identified as economically disadvantaged according to state criteria for free and reduced-price lunches.

At Parker Elementary, there were 3 1 classes ranging from prekindergarten to sixth grade. School staff included 3 1 reg- ular classroom teachers and approximately 20 resource (special education. content mastery, and reading recoveryfiiteracy) and special areas’ teachers (music, art, physical education, computer and band and orchestra). Nineteen of the teachers had Spanish surnames and many of the faculty were fluent in both English and Spanish.

The principal directed my selection of cooperating teachers for this study. Her concerns about the instability in classroom enrollment at the prekindergartenkndergarten level caused a delay in teacher selection until the third week of school. At that time, I met with Mrs. Car0 and the assis- tant principal, Ms. Garcia, to select the teachers whose classroom parents I would be observing over the year. My requests were for both lower and upper grade level class-

rooms to determine if student grade level influenced parent involvement and to observe parents new to the schooling process at the lower grade level. Mrs. Car0 suggested 3 teachers, 2 at the prekindergartenkindergarten level ( 1 with students whose parents were primarily English speaking and 1 with students whose parents were primarily Spanish speaking), and 1 teacher at the thirdfourth-grade level. The suggestions were based on the principal’s personal beliefs about teachers who would feel comfortable participating in the study. I determined that I had a stronger possibility of obtaining a representative sample of both English- and Spanish-speaking parents if I worked with both prekindergartenkindergarten classrooms. The principals agreed and included another thirdfourth-grade classroom that had students whose parents were primarily English speaking to partner the Spanish-speaking parents.

Brief meetings were held with the 4 participating teachers to provide them with some background about the study. At the beginning of September, I distributed copies of the introductory letterkonsent form to the 4 teachers for all classroom parents. The letter had been distributed to the participating teachers earlier in order to receive feedback regarding the use of jargon or incorrect Spanish transla- tions. Suggestions from the teachers were incorporated into the letter and pencils were included as incentives for students to return the introductory letterkonsent form. The introductory letter inviting parents to participate in the study was distributed to parents in the four classrooms during the third week of school.

Forty-three of 75 letters (57%) were returned. Of those, 30 letters (40%) indicated acceptance to participate in the study. Interviews with 28 classroom parents were conducted at their convenience. Two parents were not available despite several attempts to reach them and were therefore dropped from the study. A profile of parents agreeing to participate was constructed according to their home language, length of residence in the school attendance area, and family structure. Because of the confidentiality of students’ records, information for the profile was gathered either from the returned letter or from the participating teachers. The participating parents included 12 of the 32 prekindergartenkindergarten parents, 5 prekindergarten parents, and 7 kindergarten parents (see Table 1). Of the 12 parents, 3 represented single-parent homes and 9 represented two-parent homes. Seven parents were predominantly Spanish speaking and 5 parents were English speaking. Two parents were not living within the school area, 2 parents were new to the area, and 8 parents had lived 2 or more years within the school community.

The thirdfourth-grade parents included 16 of the 38 participants, 8 from each grade level (see Table 2). Five parents were single parents; 11 families included both parents living at home. One parent was bilingual, 10 parents were predominantly English speaking, and 5 parents were Spanish- speaking only. Participating parents included 12 who had been living in the area 2 or more years and 4 who were not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013


Table 1.-Participating Parents of Prekindergarten/ Kindergarten Students

Student No. of parents Parent language Time in area

PK girl PK girl PK boy PK boy

PK boy K girl K girl K girl

K girl K girl K boy K boy

1 2 I 2

2 2 2 2

2 1 2 2

English Spanish English Spanish

Spanish English Spanish Spanish

English Spanish Spanish English

Not in area 2 years

21 years 1 year

4 months 32 years 5 years 2 years

5 years 6 years 12 years

Not in area

Nore. PK = prekindergarten; K = kindergarten. “Not in area” refers to students living outside the school boundaries but attending Parker Elementary because of childcare considerations.

~~~ ~~ ~~

Table 2.-Participating Parents of Third- and Fourth-Grade Students

Student No. of parents Parent language Time in area

Girl (3) 2 English Not in area Girl (3) 2 English 10 years Girl (3) 2 Spanish 3.5 years Girl (3) 2 Spanish 10 years

Girl (3) 1 Spanish Not in area Girl (3) 2 Spanish 9 years BOY ( 3 ) 2 English Not in area BOY (3) 1 English 6 years

Girl (4) 1 English 9 years Girl (4) 1 Bilingual 30 years Girl (4) 1 English 30 years Girl (4) 2 English 41 years

Girl (4) 2 English 15 years Girl (4) 2 English Not in area BOY (4) 2 English 32 years Boy (4) 2 Spanish 28 years

Nore. Numbers in parentheses indicate grade. “Not in area” refers to students living outside the school boundaries but attending Parker Elementary because of childcare considerations.

in the area. My research involved home visits, attendance at parent meetings, informal discussions, and formal interviews with participating parents. Participation was volun- tary and informants were protected with anonymity.

Data for this study were collected through direct observations of the parent-teacher organization (PTO), the playground committee, parent conferences, and open house meetings, along with open-ended interviews with parents and the examination of appropriate school documentation regarding parent involvement. I collected and examined documents such as minutes from the Campus Advisory

Council (CAC) and PTO meetings and communication addressed to parents from the school principal and the participating teachers for the 1997-1998 school year. The interviews were open-ended and focused on four main areas: involvement, communication, site-based management, and definitions of parent involvement. This study focuses on involvement and communication as discussed by the parents from the four classrooms, the 4 teachers, and the principals. All interviews were scheduled at the convenience of the participants.

A final method in which data were collected was through direct observations of the CAC, the playground committee, PTO meetings, and school-sponsored activities for parents. I observed over 19 parent-teacher conferences conducted by the 4 participating teachers, at least one session of each of the different parent workshops, and all pizzdcoffee sessions with the principal. I also observed activities such as Back to School Night, Family Math Night, Christmas at Parker, and cultural activities such as Dia de 10s Muertos and the buiielos class. At those meetings, I conducted observations through a participant- observer method. Detailed notes were written about issues, participants, and nonparticipants.

Transcripts of the recorded interviews and field notes of observed parent meetings were coded into units of information and categorized by emerging themes following the method proposed by Merriam (1988) and Erlandson, Har- ris, Skipper, and Allen (1993). The units of information used were phrased as questions such as the roles of parents and the factors influencing their participation. The main themes included definitions of parent involvement, influencing factors, efforts by the school involving parent involvement, and problems with parent involvement.

In this study, I focused on the factors that parents voiced as influencing their level of involvement at school.

Factors Influencing Parent Involvement

Many Mexican American parents believe that educating students is solely the responsibility of the school and do not intervene in the teacher’s professional duties (Carrasquillo & London, 1993). That cultural attitude, their language, and a variety of other factors related to both the school and to the parents influenced parent involvement at Parker Ele- mentary. Parent cliques, parents’ education, attitudes of the school staff, and family issues influenced the ability of parents to take advantage of the parent activities organized by the school staff.

Language. Language was particularly influential in determining the activities in which parents chose to participate. Moles (1993) stated that “For many disadvantaged parents, a serious handicap in supporting their children’s education is their limited education and their lack of fluency in English” (p. 31). Although Parker Elementary implemented a federally funded Dual Language program that val- idated both the English and Spanish languages, some

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013

September/October 2000 [Vol. 94(No. l)] 47

parents expressed the belief that language could still alien- ate parents. As one parent, Mr. Abrego, stated:

Bilingual is a factor here I think. Casi la gente por ach es puro espaiiol. [Almost all the people around here are pure Spanish]. I myself at times feel kind of uncomfortable because of the surroundings at times. It’s like I say, bilingual, being Spanish, it tends to add that extra factor where you’re kind of nervous about wanting to participate. There’s like a language barrier.

This influence of language differences was especially apparent at parent meetings. At CAC meetings, the domi- nant language was English. Only in specific instances did the principal translate for Mrs. Chavez, a parent representative who spoke only Spanish. The language issue influenced Mrs. Chavez’s ability to actively participate at the meetings. She explained that frequently she did not voice her questions or concerns because her ability to understand English was limited and she was afraid she might have misunder- stood the surrounding discussions. As a result, she generally did not comment at the meetings.

English also seemed to be the preferred language at most parent meetings. For example, the newly formed PTO conducted their executive board meetings in English only despite the issue negatively influencing parent inkolvement in the past. The lack of Spanish translation at previous general meetings kept many parents from participating in the PTO. Many of the monolingual Spanish-speaking parents explained that they had gone to PTA meetings in the previous years but left at the end of the evenings understanding little because the meetings had been conducted entirely in English. Mrs. Vela said, “La primera vez que vine, lo que pas6 fue que hablaron puro inglts y yo no entiendo inglts. Ese dia me fui casi como llegut, no entiendi mucho.” (The first time that I came, what happened was that they spoke only in English and I do not understand English. That day I left almost like I got there; I did not understand much.) Those negative experiences influenced the parents’ involvement in parent organizations. Even though the Parent- Teacher Association (PTA) had officially changed lo PTO to try and solicit more parent participation, language continued to influence their involvement. Mrs. Chavera summarized the language situation as follows:

I came to one meeting [last year]. I don’t remember what kind of meeting that was; it was in the cafeteria. And there was a lot of parents there, but all the time that Mrs. Car0 [school principal] was talking, she talked in English. She never once spoke in Spanish and half the people there didn’t understand English. Pos no entiendo nada, so iquC sirve que la gente venga? (Well, I do not understand anything, so what does it serve for people to come?)

In short, those parents thought their attendance was unnec- essary at meetings that were conducted in English because they could not understand what was discussed.

Although parent group meetings were not bilingual, the key staff at Parker Elementary did conduct school assemblies and conferences in both languages. The workshops

organized by the parent training specialist were available in both Spanish and English. The specialist conducted the workshops in the parents’ preferred language and was able to speak to parents without any problems. The written material she distributed also was provided in both languages. Back to School Night was conducted bilingually; Mrs. Car0 stopped and translated as necessary during the meeting. Although translating was time consuming, all parents understood the information provided by the school staff.

Although the research supports the belief that language differences can influence parent involvement, the staff at Parker seemed to be working to eliminate this barrier. Their school meetings were bilingual or conducted in the parents’ preferred language. For example, at the site visit meeting with parents, the discussion was in Spanish because all the parents present understood and spoke Spanish, and two parents did not speak English. The meeting progressed in Spanish as parents voiced their concerns until Mrs. Prezas, former PTA president, arrived and began to speak in Eng- lish. One parent asked her to repeat her statement in Span- ish so that the others could understand her. Mrs. Prezas tried and then continued on in English despite the parent’s reminder that the other parents wanted to be able to understand her. Mrs. Prezas shared with me in an informal discussion that she did not feel comfortable speaking Spanish although she was fluent in the language. However, the situation demonstrated why PTA meetings in the past and PTO meetings were conducted entirely in English. Despite a bilingual staff, parents still identified language as a prob- lem, which had caused a division between parents. The division between Spanish- and English-speaking parents exists to a lesser extent, but the parent cliques continue to cause friction and influence parent involvement.

Parent cliques. When this study was first organized, Mrs. Car0 related the following common Occurrences of parent cliques at the school that kept some groups of parents from participating:

I think it’s a personality thing, and I think a lot of the parents in this neighborhood have been here forever, generations. And so, in one instance, I know that after I’d been here for a couple of years, I heard that one parent had been alleged to have been involved in some missing money, okay? I don’t think anything ever came of it. I don’t know, okay? This is how I heard, but I think that that probably labeled that person, and those stories don’t die around here.

Although the principal hoped to diminish the friction between parent cliques, these cliques directly influenced parent involvement. The result was that the same parent cliques made most decisions for all the parents.

The four PTO officers held decision-making power concerning important school outcomes. Mrs. Prezas, who no longer held an official office, continued to lead the group. She determined which parents would be involved in the PTO and what activities they would participate in. For example, when organizing volunteers for a burger sale, the group of officers purposely excluded certain parents. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013


community representative on the CAC was not included on the volunteer list because of personal conflicts between that person and the parent organizing the sale. When questioned about including new parents that one PTO officer had met on the new bus route, an officer stated, “not from the circle,” referring to a particularly transient housing area. Only one or two parents who were not officers helped with the burger sale. PTO officers organized, planned, and completed all the work for the fund raiser. The small group of parents, who also had strong social ties, had the power to exclude other parents according to their personal biases. That pattern continued with other fund raisers as well as the organization of the school’s holiday festival. Although parent volunteers were accepted for wrapping presents, the planning and purchasing of gifts was completed without any involvement of parents other than the PTO leaders. The clique of PTO officers maintained their power because they did not hold any general F’TO meetings to solicit additional parent involvement and did not organize other committees to plan future activities. The parent training specialist provided her perspective on past conflicts among parent groups:

I can’t tell you how it started because it started long before I ever came here. But when I came here, there was a lot of talk about non-Spanish-speaking parents versus Spanish- speaking parents and non-Spanish-speaking parents tended to be on FTA and Spanish speaking parents didn’t, and at the PTA meeting they didn’t speak Spanish. When I walked in, there was all this kind of, to me it was . . . divided along language lines [more] than anything and I’m seeing that those people are working more together. I think there was a lot of distrust by parents who were from, who came and were quote Spanish speaking and that they felt like there wasn’t a place for them.

In the past, parent cliques divided by English and Spanish languages heatedly disagreed over how money should be spent. At one PTA meeting last year, Spanish-speaking parents and non-Spanish-speaking Mexican American parents exchanged harsh words. That conflict led to a separation of parent organizations. Some Spanish-speaking parents, such as Mrs. Gamez, said that they had gone to previous PTA meetings and noticed the little groups of parents and that those parents in attendance seemed to fight among themselves. Mrs. Gamez, like a number of others, decided not to participate. If parents did participate, they chose either PTO (predominantly English speakers) or the playground committee (predominantly Spanish speakers). Because of the friction between the two committees, parents rarely participated in both committees.

Parents did not feel welcomed by the PTO even after the name change and the shift in officers. Mrs. Car0 said that “The people that I’ve seen on there are usually their own little group and the same people. I never see anybody different, maybe different seat but same person.” The aggressive style of some of the parent officers kept many parents from participating because of a lack of trust. When asked if the parents had ever addressed their concerns, many described the previous year’s verbal fight. The PTO officer yelled at

other parents, asking them if they wanted her position. The style of that parent and her network of friends kept new parents from participating at the school. The history of division between the parents continued to influence parent involvement; many parents participated in other ways. Even while some parents were willing to give the new PTO the benefit of the doubt, they were not ready to commit by actually joining the group.

Parents’ education. Another factor influencing parent involvement was the educational level of the parents at Parker. At the beginning of the study, the principal explained that volunteers frequently were the least educated parents. Limited education often affected school participation in subtle ways because parents did not voice their concerns. Some parents I spoke with did not have any formal education in the United States or in Mexico. Those parents shared that they could not really help their children in school because of their own limited knowledge. For example, Mrs. Reyna said:

Pues es que yo mandt a educar mis hijos no le sC ayudar en las tareas. Yo no st. No sC ayudarles en las tareas en la escuela porque muchas cosas que yo la verdii no entiendo. [Well, it is that I sent my children to be educated, I do not know how to help them with their homework. I do not know. I do not know how to help with their homework, because there are many things that I truthfully do not understand.]

However, parents did not express that concern to the school staff. The staff assumed that parents could read and understand the written information they disseminated, but a number of parents at Parker Elementary had limited literacy skills in both English and in Spanish. Therefore, the education-level barrier continued to influence how parents participated at the school.

On the first day of school, the staff posted class lists at the front of the building to inform parents of their child’s teacher and the room number. Some parents found their child’s name and proceeded to the classroom, but many parents had to ask the staff members to help them find their child’s classroom. For a parent who could not read, having to face the wall of lists could have been a very intimidating experience. The difficulty continued-some parents did not seem to understand the association between the numbers on the list and the room numbers posted above the classroom doors. Observing parents on the first day of school clearly demonstrated that some parents felt comfortable asking for information or help. Other parents were intimidated and remained confused. They would not seek further assistance from the staff.

Although the staff voiced an understanding of how the parents felt, they did not make accommodations for those parents. Parent participation seemed to be affected by simple misunderstandings that occurred when the staff pre- sumed that parents understood school procedures and practices. Back to School Night commonly included meeting the teachers and presenting the child’s schoolwork. Howev- er, assuming that all parents were familiar with how the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013

SeptembedOctober 2000 [Vol. 94(No. l)] 49

event proceeded was a mistake. Many parents congregated in the school’s cafeteria and were introduced to the teachers. When the principal released them to proceed to the classrooms, some parents left the building. Several parents may have had to return home or had personal reasons for leaving, but one conversation revealed some misunderstandings. One couple arrived after the introductions as parents were walking to the classrooms. Another parent told them the program was over. The couple was surprised and was preparing to leave when the principal walked down the hall and invited them into the classrooms. The parent who told the late couple the program was over and some of those who left did not seem to understand that they were invited to visit the classrooms and the teachers. Events such as the parent night demonstrated presumptions on the part of the school and intimidation on the part of parents. The school assumed parents knew what to do on Back to School Night.

At another parent gathering, the ABC workshop in the fall, the influence of the parents’ education on their ability to participate, was vividly displayed. All three instructors for the workshop explained and demonstrated in both Eng- lish and Spanish how parents were instructed to put together three little ABC books. The teachers showed examples of sentences that the parents could use for one of the pattern books and how parents were asked to work with their children at home. Parents simply needed to choose which pic- tures or stickers they preferred in their child’s book. How- ever, when the teachers asked parents to begin, problems arose. Some parents could not spell the name of the animal stickers they had used in their book. In completing the sentence, “I see dan ” below each animal sticker, some parents did not know when to use a and when to use an. The objective of this workshop was to help parents make books to work with their children. Leaving the workshop with books that had grammatical mistakes in them meant that parents who then worked with their children would be teaching them incorrectly. Despite how simple the instructors made this workshop, some parents could not lollow the directions because they did not have the required prior knowledge. Teachers then faced a dilemma, either correct- ing the parent and risking embarrassment to them or letting them take home an incorrect book to work with their children. Either choice had consequences. Those types of problems limited the value of the parent workshops.

Parents who were bold enough to take the initiative were able to find assistance at the school to help them stay informed. For example, Mrs. Vela, a Spanish-speaking parent, had no formal education but was comfortable asking the parent training specialist for assistance. In some instances, however, the school placed parents in intimidating positions because of the assumptions they made. Anoth- er parent workshop demonstrated a striking example. At the two Spanish-speaking sessions, the parent training specialist called on parents to read a particular statement from each page. She may have been presuming that reading the mate- rials aloud would help the nonreaders, but the situation

became uncomfortable for one parent who was called upon to read. He stated, “no se leer per0 a ver,” admitting he could not read but that he would try. Although he read the sentence correctly, he was placed in an embarrassing position in front of the other parents.

Workshops were not the only area in which the parents’ reading ability created barriers. District paperwork was sometimes difficult to complete despite the parents’ education. The application forms for a free or reduced-price lunch, although available in both languages, contained six parts. Some parents shared with me how confusing and difficult the paperwork had been to complete. One parent, Mrs. Garza, described parents’ reactions: “A lot of those parents, they won’t even show up because as soon as you tell them, here fill this out, they [think] bye, I’m gone, because they don’t want to be embarrassed in that way.” The limited education of many parents influenced their ability to participate. For example, the school’s method of publicizing parent activities was through written notices and the marquee. Both required a reading ability. Parents who did not read depended upon hearing about the event from another person or from their children. In many instances, they were not aware of what was taking place at the school.

Attitudes of the school srafl. Despite the teachers’ ability to speak to parents in their home language, their attitudes influenced parent involvement. Although the teachers’ personal feelings were not always openly visible to the parents, their existence influenced how teachers included parents. The Parker Elementary school staff, for the most part, was supportive of parents and valued their opinions; however, some staff comments suggested their true expectations. For example, one of the thirdfourth-grade teachers admitted in our interview that she did not do much with parents and that there was more she could be doing to involve them. She felt that increasing parent involvement would involve more work on her part. The concern that parent involvement was an extra burden on teachers influenced their attitudes and actions.

Participation with parents was one of the required job responsibilities. According to the staff handbook, “Each team member should attend a minimum of one PTO meeting per year in addition to school-wide events.” Teachers could also be asked to attend specific parent meetings or workshops. However, my observations of different school activities involving parents showed that teacher attendance was usually very minimal. For example, at the January meeting in which the principal shared the TAAS (state stan- dardized test) report with parents, no teachers were present. Although attendance was not required, the teachers did not seem to take advantage of opportunities to interact with parents. Although teachers valued parent involvement, few were willing to commit to what they perceived as “extra work.” The staff newsletter had to send out two notices reminding teachers to join the FTO. The minimal participation by the staff in the PTO further added to the friction among parents. One of the officers frequently made com-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013


ments questioning the need to do anything for the teachers when they were not supportive of the PTO.

Other parents also voiced their concerns about the way teachers treated them. Mrs. Chavez described an example of the attitudes of some of the teachers. She said “Por ejemp- lo el trato entre 10s maestros y 10s padres. Problemas aqui tenemos que cuando tienen ganas te saludan, cuando no tienen ganas no te saludan. (For example, the treatment between teachers and parents. Problems we have here is that when they feel like it, they greet you; when they do not feel like it, they do not greet you.) Some parents recognized that the teachers should provide the most substantial encouragement, but they acknowledged that sometimes their relationship with teachers was not a positive factor. Sometimes past negative experiences influenced how parents interacted with teachers. For example, when Mr. and Mrs. Garza tried to get some assistance for their learning-disabled daughter who they believed was falling behind, they were unsuccess- ful. Mr. Garza explained:

We felt she [daughter] was falling behind and we tried to talk to the teacher, and personally, I felt patronized. I felt they were just telling me what I wanted to hear, so they could keep me quiet and not make a big fuss. We made suggestions and those suggestions were kind of like just put aside. When we met with the principal and the teacher, everything was all hunky dory and we knew that wasn’t true. We would walk out of the meeting thinking do they really think we’re that dumb? I felt real patronized.

Whereas their relationships with teachers were now more positive, Mr. and Mrs. Garza felt the attitude of teachers influenced a lot of parents. Mrs. Garza commented that “Some [teachers] would take the suggestions well and some just wouldn’t take them. Some of them, you wouldn’t even go into some rooms cause they were just rude and just look at you and make you feel like were not welcomed there.” Parents judged the teachers’ actions and comments to assess whether they were truly welcomed into the schooling process.

In other situations, statements made by the parent training specialist were contradictory to the job she was doing and not supportive of the parents. Several times during the semester she made comments that were not particularly complimentary of Parker Elementary parents. One day, as she completed the paperwork for the children of one family to receive free shoes, she kept a running dialogue about parents. She explained that she liked families to visit the school because some parents “abuse the system.” She felt that by meeting with them, the parents could “take some responsibility,” which she “did not think was too much to ask.” The staff person’s comments suggested that she did not truly believe some parents needed help or that she felt they were simply looking for a handout. That attitude upset parents who felt the parent training specialist was judging those who received assistance.

In discussions with me, some parents praised the teachers at Parker Elementary but said they did not like the prin-

cipal’s attitude. For those parents, their personal feeling toward the school’s principal heavily influenced their involvement. During my interview with one prekindergartenkindergarten parent, she became upset from talking about the principal’s attitude at one community meeting at a nearby church. Some parents became upset when they learned that a child molester was living in the area and felt it was the job of the school to inform them. However, the principal was trying to protect the identity of a victim of the offender. The parents felt the principal had come across as very “nonchalant” at the community meeting. One parent said the principal reiterated that the parents should not be concerned and that they were making the situation into a big issue. When the group called for another meeting, the parent said that the principal looked at her watch and stated that this type of arrangement was not going to work for her. The parent was very upset with the principal’s attitude and stated that she would not deal with her again. Often the needs of the parents differed from those of the administrators. Parents also had different perspectives from the staff that led to misunderstandings.

Other parents also cited the principal as an influence in their involvement, indicating in our interviews that if they had any concerns they would approach their child’s teacher but not the principal. The Salinas family, who had a long history at Parker Elementary and had observed the involvement of parents for many years, felt that parents did not feel welcomed by the present principal. They felt that the principal had a lot to do with the reason that parents were not involved. According to them, the principal’s personality and nature did not seem genuine. Mr. Salinas, who attended Parker Elementary years ago and served as PTA histori- an, has observed the school under the leadership of different principals. He said that the current principal did not seem to have the ability to build on the energy of the community. According to him, parents wanted to be involved, but the principal was not able to channel that energy into any action.

According to observations and interviews with both parents and school staff, attitudes toward staff swayed parent involvement. Although staff and parents valued parent involvement, each group tended to be influenced by different factors. School staff felt that parent involvement represented additional work. For parents, parent involvement varied according to their personal feelings toward the school staff or other parents. Parents who refused to be involved with the PTO because of personal feelings toward one of the officers avoided the principal for the same reason. That behavior demonstrated the strong influence of the perceptions of leaders and their abilities to be inclusive on parent involvement.

Cultural injluences. Although most of the parents at Parker Elementary were Mexican American, within-group cultural differences also influenced parent involvement. In discussions with teachers, they revealed that Mexican American parents preferred to be involved in the social part

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013

SeptemberlOetober 2000 [Vol. 94(No. I)] 51

of their children’s schooling, such as organizing school par- ties. The teachers’ comments, based on their experiences as teachers, continued to support the division between parents and teachers. Overall, such assumptions regarding how parents want to be involved or why they were not involved were made without parent input. The omission of parents from the discussions concerning their needs continued to limit the role of parents.

Despite the majority of Mexican American parents, cultural differences between parents born in the United States and those born in Mexico influenced parent involvement. Mrs. Chavez described the differences as follows:

Pues hay unos padres que si, e s t h trabajando con sus hijos y hay otros que no. 0 sera que yo, porque me Cree en otra ambiente, a116 en Mkjico, otra cultura differente. Estamos m i s apegados a 10s hijos, miis comunicaci6n con sus hijos. Como otros padres hablan y tratan sus hijos es diferente en gente de M6jico y gente creados aqui. [Well, there are some parents that yes, they are working with their children and there are some that are not. Or maybe, it is because I was raised in another environment in Mexico, a different culture. We are closer to our children, more communication with them. The way other parents talk and treat their children, it is different between people from Mexico and people raised here.]

Mrs. Valdez, a prekindergartenkndergarten parent, was a vivid example of the cultural differences. During our interview, she explained that she was not very involved in school activities because her husband was extremely traditional. He expected her to stay at home and make dinner. In order to attend the interview, she told her husband that she was meeting with one of the children’s teachers. Cultural differences influenced parent expectations of the school. Those expectations were not openly discussed, and, as a result, misunderstandings occurred between the teachers and parents.

Because most of the school staff, particularly the office staff and the parent training specialist, were bilingual, parents could easily find someone with whom they could communicate. However, cultural differences still influenced their involvement. Mr. Tovar explained as follows:

My feelings are that a lot of the students that come here to Parker, many of their parents are of Mexican ancestry, and I guess they don’t want to get involved or they’re, I don’t know, shy or they don’t know the system. So, there’s going to have to be more outreaching to get these people involved.

Many parents did not come to the school because they did not know what they would encounter. Ms. Carrillo reported the following:

Per0 como ellas dicen, como ellas son de Mi5jico y no tienen papeles, crean que si ellas vienen para la escuela, alguien les van hacer una mala cara o algo. Pero yo les dig0 que no, que no es asina que si ellas vienen pueden hacer algo. [But some mothers say, since they are from Mexico and they do not have papers, they think that if they come to the school, someone is coming to look down on them or something. But I tell them no, that it is not like that, that if they came they could do something.]

Many of the parents were disadvantaged, and they perceived SES differences and their lack of formal knowledge as barriers to participation (Moles, 1993). Parents’ limited education and personal difficulties with the school led to fear and mistrust. Moles reported as follows:

Disadvantaged parents and teachers may be entangled by various psychological obstacles to mutual involvement such as misperceptions and misunderstandings, negative expectations, stereotypes, intimidation, and distrust. They may also be victims of cultural barriers reflecting differences in language, values, goals, methods of education, and definitions of appropriate roles. (p. 33)

The parents faced cultural and social class differences that negatively influenced their involvement. They did not participate because they feared they would not be understood or welcomed. Although the school provided various opportunities for parent involvement, without first alleviating the fears and concerns of parents, the opportunities had limited success.

Family issues. Family issues beyond the parents’ education and language also influenced parent involvement. Cir- cumstances such as the availability of transportation and childcare had a significant effect on whether parents could participate in school events. Lack of transportation limited many parents from attending activities at the school. One parent, Mrs. Chavera, summarized the impact: “Well, some of the parents don’t participate because some of them can’t walk to school.” Parker Elementary staff recognized the impact of limited transportation. For Back to School Night, the school provided school buses. Parents were picked up prior to the meeting and were returned to bus stops near their apartments.

Younger children also influenced if and how parents were involved. The availability of childcare was a concern for some parents. One teacher described the influence of younger children as follows:

A lot of them [parents] work, either the father works or the mother works or both [of3 them. A lot of them also have a lot of children at home and they have to stay at home and take care of them. So, it’s not that you know they don’t want to come. I do think there’s cases they just can’t.

Childcare was a factor for many parents who had young children at home. Many parents told me that because they had babies and toddlers at home, coming to the school was very difficult. Parent concerns about childcare were observed during the Saturday morning parent classes. Many parents asked if they could bring their children to the arts and crafts classes while they attended English-as-a-second language classes. However, because the teacher did not want to be a “babysitter,” only one parent’s children were allowed to be present at the class. The teacher explained that that parent had a daughter in high school who looked after the two younger children in class. The other parents were not allowed to bring their children. The lack of childcare on Saturday mornings kept many parents from participating in the classes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013

The Journal of Educational Research

Visits with some of the parents suggested that many mothers could not participate in volunteer work at the school during the day because they were busy caring for their younger children. In some cases, mothers had two or three younger children for whom they provided daycare in their homes. Childcare also influenced attendance at parent workshops. Ms. Elizondo stated that she had not attended one of the afternoon workshops because she did not know if the staff wanted children to come along. She explained as follows:

Because I have other kids here at home. Oh there’s a lot [of ways to get involved], like the parent workshop and stuff, but I haven’t got involved with those because [of] my kids at home. I don’t know if they allow me to take my kids and be there with them. I can’t leave them.

As a single parent, Ms. Elizondo had no one to leave the children with and elected to stay home.

The parent training specialist did not discourage parents from bringing their younger children; she felt that it was better for them to be at the workshop with their children than not to attend. Despite the supportive attitude, the pres- ence of young children at workshops in some cases proved distracting. Babysitting services were provided for the second set of workshops. However, some parents who had several young children found that it was easier to stay home than to bring all of their children to school. Finding a babysitter on their own at home was an extra expense some families could not afford.

The largest obstacle that a family faced in trying to be involved at the school was their work schedule. The parent training specialist described the parents’ situation as follows:

I think a lot of our parents have long work schedules, work days. A lot of our parents have two jobs, especially the men. I think that a lot of our mothers have really hard physical work, cleaning houses, working in laundries. Stuff [like] that they have to be at work very early in the morning and they come home just exhausted or they might be working a shift and a half.

Finding time to participate was a concern for many of the parents interviewed. Mr. Tovar stated that “It’s kind of hard to find a good time for people to meet. In the neighborhood that we live in, parents are working two jobs or working late at night.” Many of the parents recognized that their work conflicted with planned activities by the school. The school usually alternated the time of the workshops, but the many parents working varied shifts made accommodation difficult. Those issues directly influenced the ability of parents to be involved in school activities. Many of the parents helped their children at home, but attending meetings at the school was difficult. The school addressed the issues by providing childcare and transportation, but many parents were too overwhelmed with life demands to participate at the school.

Implications

Parent involvement has many recognized benefits that may be increased if more parents are involved in the school-

ing process. However, it is important to understand that there is no precise method that will automatically lead to enhanced parent involvement. Increasing parent involvement requires time to gain the trust of parents and to inform them of how they can be involved. For some parents, involvement at the school will never be part of their roles for various reasons. However, there are several factors that teachers can consider in order to improve parent involvement.

In this study, not only were parents able to identify factors that they felt influenced their involvement but they also offered suggestions for improving parent involvement. Per- haps the most simple, yet most powerful, recommendation was “make the parent feel more welcome.” Parents recognized that teachers felt threatened by having parents involved at the school. To increase parent involvement, teachers must first change their attitudes regarding parents and recognize the advantages of parents and teachers working collaboratively. Teachers need to understand that parents are not there to judge their teaching but merely to provide assistance where possible. As some of the observations in this study demonstrated, some school staff simply did not value parents and judged them negatively. Although some parents may speak and dress differently, one should recognize that all parents simply want their children to be successful. Despite any social class and cultural differences, teachers and parents must truly value each other, as each has knowledge and expertise to contribute.

For teachers to build collaborative relationships with parents, they need time to plan and organize parent activities. Although administrators may desire parent involvement, they usually do not provide training and time for teachers to create activities for parents. Teachers are heavily burdened with many teaching duties, and some understandably feel that they do not have time to work with parents. Adminis- trators need to provide teachers with time to plan and work with parents in order to increase parent participation.

To include more parents and to deal with some of the factors influencing parents, the school staff must consider the educational level, language, culture, and home situations of parents. School staff must communicate regularly with parents through various methods in order to meet the educational and language needs of parents. Parker Elementary staff relied on written newsletters, calendars, and flyers; however, these forms of communication assumed parents could read. Parents who were not literate or did not use social networks to gain information were left uninformed. Information must be available in the parents’ native language and teachers need to use social networks to keep parents informed. At Parker Elementary, the social networks kept some parents in positions of power; however, teachers need to recognize the value of social networks. Establishing telephone networks, in which parents notify each other, keeps parents informed without adding to teachers’ duties. More important, schools need to establish a welcoming climate and an open-door policy so that any parents who have questions can feel confident about coming to the school for answers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013

September/October 2000 [Vol. 94(No. I)] 53

Some Mexican American parents do not feel that it is part of their role to get involved in their children’s education. For some of those parents, their home involvement in terms of helping their children with their homework or driving them to extracurricular activities is the extent of their involvement. Those forms of involvement need to be recognized as a valuable contribution to their children’s education instead of commonly assuming that parents who are not present at school are uninvolved. Other parents can become involved if the school staff considers their home situations. Although work schedules keep many parents from participating, alternative meeting times, daycare, and transportation can help increase their attendance.

Other parents do want to get involved but do not know how or what is required. The interests of parents need to be considered when planning parent activities. Parents participate in activities that meet their needs. First, schools need to create a hierarchy of involvement opportunities for parents, ranging from working with their children at home to participating in school decision making. Second, schools should provide parents with the knowledge in order to participate in any of these activities. Parents then feel welcomed and confident to participate in various activities.

To increase parent involvement, teachers and parents should first begin with a shared understanding of parent involvement, as well as each other’s strengths and weak- nesses. Those factors directly influence parent involvement and must be addressed before the needs of parents, teachers, and most important, students, can be met. The implications for teachers stem from the comments that parents made during this study. Although it may be impossible to meet the needs of all parents or to get all parents involved, consider- ing the factors that influence parents can lead to increased parent involvement.

REFERENCES

Aronson, J. Z. (1996). How schools can recruit hard-to-reach parents. Edu- cational Leader.yhip 53(7). 58-60.

Bauch, P. A. (1993). Improving education for minority adolescents: Toward an ecological perspective on school choice and parent involvement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 121-146). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Becker, H. J.. & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices. The Elementary School Journal, 83(2), 85-102.

Bempechat, J. (1992). The role of parent involvement in children’s academic achievement. The School Community Journal, 2(2), 3 1 4 I.

Berger, E. H. (1995). Parents as partners in education: Fumilies and schools working together. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Black, M. S. (1996). Historical factors afecting Mexican Americans, paren tal involvement and educational outcomes: The Texan environment from 1910-1996. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Universi- ty, Cambridge, MA.

Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., & Wang, N. (1997). Parental roles in students’learning of mathematics: An iqdoratory study. Paper presented at the annu- al meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Carrasquillo. A. L.. & London, C. B. (1993). Parents and schools: A source book. New York: Garland.

Chavkin, N. (1989). Debunking the myth about minority parents. Educa- tional Horizons, 67(4), 119-123.

Chavkin, N.. & Gonzalez, D. L. (1995). Forging partnerships between Mexican American parents and the schools. Washington, DC: Oftice of

Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. ED 388 489)

Coleman, J. S. (1991). Parent involvement in education. Washington, DC: Oftice of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334 028)

Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. The Elementary School Journal. 9/(3), 27 1-277.

Dwyer, D. J., & Hecht, J. B. (1992). Minimal parent involvement. The School Community Journal. 2(2), 53-66.

Epstein, J. L. (1985). Home and school connections in schools of the future: Implications of research on parent involvement. Peabody Journal of Education, 62( 2). 1 8 4 1.

Epstein, J . L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(3), 277-294.

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Parent involvement: What research says to administrators. Education and Urban Sociefy, /9(2), 119-137.

Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications for integrating sociologies of education and family. Mar- riage and Family Review, /5( l , 2), 99-1 26.

Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. Johns Hopkins Uni- versity, Baltimore, MD: Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children’s Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 7 15)

Epstein, J. L. (1994). Theory to practice: School and family partnerships lead to school improvement and student success. In C. L. Fagnano & B. Z. Werber (Eds.), School, family and community interaction: A view from thefiring lines (pp. 39-52). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school. family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth, & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 209-246). NJ: Erlbaum.

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.

Erlandson, D. A,, Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Etheridge, C. P., & Hall, M. L. (1992). The impact of school based decision making: A case study. Tennessee: Memphis State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345 361)

Gordan. I. J. (1968). Parent involvement in compensatory education. Uni- versity of Illinois Press for ERIC Clearinghouse on ECE.

Gordan, I. J. (1976). Toward a home-school partnership program. In 1. J. Gordan, & W. F. Breivogel (Eds.), Building effective home-school relationships (pp. 1-20). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 9/(3), 279-288.

Henderson, A. (198 1 ). Parent participation-student achievement: The evidence grows. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, A. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improves student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, A. (1988). Parents are a School’s Best Friends. Phi Delta Kap- pan. 70(2), 148-153.

Herman, J. L., & Yeh, J. P. (1983). Some effects of parent involvement in schools. The Urban Review, /5(1), 11-17.

Hiatt, D. B. (1994). Parent involvement in American public schools: An historical perspective 1642-1994. The School Community Journal. 4(2), 27-38.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, 0. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1987). Parent involvement: Contributions of teacher, efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics. American Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 417435.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, 0. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explo- rations in parent-school relations. The Journal of Educational Research,

Kerbow, D., & Bernhardt, A. (1993). Parent intervention in the school: The context of minority involvement. In B. Schneider & J. S. Coleman (Eds.). Parents, their children, and schools (pp. 115-146). San Francis- co. CA: Westview.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1978). Worlds Apart: Relationships between families and schools. New York: Basic Books.

85,287-294.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013


Liontos, L. B. (1992). Family involvement. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearing- house on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 233)

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moles, 0. C. (1993). Collaboration between schools and disadvantaged parents: Obstacles and openings. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 21-49). Albany: State University of New York.

Muller, C. (1993). Parent involvement in education and school sector. Atlanta, GA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Doc- ument Reproduction Service No. ED 361 888)

National Institute of Education. (1985). Parent participation and the achievement of disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: ERIC Clear- inghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259 040)

Perry, W., & Tannenbaum, M. D. (1992). Parents, power, and the public schools. In L. Kaplan, (Ed.), Education and the family (pp. 100-1 15). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Peterson, D. (1989). Parent involvement in the educational process. Wash- ington, DC: ERIC Digest Series Number EA 43 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 3 12 776)

Rich, D. (1987). Teachers andparents: An adult-to-adult approach. Wash- ington, DC: National Education Association.

Rich, D. (1993). Building the bridge to reach minority parents: Education infrastructure supporting success for all children. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 235-243). Albany:

State University of New York Press. Rioux, J. W., & Berla, N. (1993). Innovations in parent and family involve-

ment. hnceton Junction, NJ: Eye on Education. Ritter, P. L, Mont-Reynaud, R., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1993). Minority par-

ents and their youth: Concern, encouragement, and support for school achievement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic sociery (pp. 107-1 19). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Scott-Jones, D. (1993). Families as educators in a pluralistic society. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 245-254). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Seefeldt, C. (1985). Parent involvement: Support or stress? Childhood Education, 62(2), 98-102.

Smrekar, C. (1992). Building community: The influence of school organization on patterns of parent parficipation. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser- vice No. ED 347 674)

Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parent involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 128-141.

Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1996). Parents’and children’s commu- niry resources and children’s well-being. American Sociological Association.

Wissbrun, D., & Eckart, J. A. (1992). Hierarchy of parent involvement in schools. In L. Kaplan (Ed.), Education and the family (pp. 119-131). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Wong, K. K. (1994). Linking governance reform to schooling opportunities for the disadvantaged. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 153-177.

Services from Heldref Publications Reprints of Heldref journal articles-professional reproduction on excellent quality 60-lb. white enamel (glossy) paper. Minimum order 50 copies. For further information, write to the Reprints Manager.

Bulk Orders for classrooms and conferences Subscriber list rental

Advertising-All copy subject to publisher’s approval Sample copies

For further information concerning these services, write to:

Heldref Publications 131 9 Eighteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-1 802

(202) 296-6267 fax (202) 293-61 30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

17 1

6 A

pril

2013

Documents

Parent Involvement: Influencing Factors and Implications