Parent Involvement: Theory, Practice, and Head Start. The Role of Social Capital

Transcription

1 Parent Involvement: Theory, Practice, and Head Start The Role of Social Capital Mai Youa Miksic Spring 2015

2 Parent Involvement in Head Start: The Role of Social Capital Parent involvement has long been a cornerstone of Head Start s two generation approach to early childhood education. The two generation approach refers to efforts to target both the needs of the child and his or her family. The rationale for this approach is that focusing on the needs of the family will produce additional positive effects for the child. An overwhelming amount of research has demonstrated that parent involvement has positive benefits for children (Barnard, 2004; Brotman et al., 2011; Jeynes, 2012; Miedel, 2000; Van Voorhis, Maier, Epstein, Lloyd, & Leung, 2013). Early and consistent parent involvement can be the key to improving children s academic achievement, increasing school readiness, and closing achievement gaps. As a result, parent involvement continues to be a fundamental part of early childhood programs and policies. Yet, research has not yet adequately measured the actual impact of Head Start on parents involvement levels much less of parent involvement levels upon student outcomes. Without further understanding of how parent involvement works in early childhood education, organizations will continue to struggle to recruit low- income and disadvantaged parents. Research has already documented the low levels of parent involvement among this population (Cooper, 2010; Feuerstein, 2000; Griffith, 1998; Heymann & Earle, 2000; Huntsinger & Jose, 2009; Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2000; Turney & Kao, 2009). Additionally, programs other than Head Start have failed to produce high levels of involvement (Brotman et al., 2011; Mendez, 2010; Zellman et al., 1998). Thus, there is a need to understand how to get parents from low- income and disadvantaged backgrounds to become involved. Social capital provides a useful framework for examining how programs can get parents from these backgrounds more involved. Parent Involvement Background Parent involvement can broadly be defined as the ways in which parents support their children s education in word and in deed. Parents can be involved in the school setting or at home; their aspirations and expectations for their children also matter. Examples of these traditional understandings of parent involvement include attending parent- teacher conferences, participating in the PTO/PTA, 2

3 supervising fieldtrips, volunteering in the classroom, supervising their children s homework, reading to their children, or discussing school and general academic aspirations with their children. Over the years, researchers have developed more complex, multidimensional definitions for parent involvement. For example, Kohl et al. (2000) conceptualize parent involvement as having six dimensions: parent- teacher contact, parent involvement at school, quality of parent- teacher relationship, teacher s perception of the parent, parent involvement at home and parent endorsement of the school. Grolnick and Slowiaczek (1994) define parent involvement as the dedication of resources by the parent to the child within a given domain. Robinson and Harris (2014) describe parent involvement as practices that entail parent communication with their children about education; behaviors in which parents engage with the exclusive aim of increasing academic outcomes; and parental engagement with schools and teachers. One of the most notable definitions comes from Epstein (1996), whose model consists of six components: parenting, communication with schools, volunteering in schools, learning at home, active participation in school decision- making, and collaboration with the community. In sum, researchers have used many different definitions of parent involvement. This has led to difficulty in comparing findings across. In order to have a more comprehensive approach, parent involvement can be broadly defined as the ways in which parents support their children s education - in the home and at school. Effectiveness of Parent Involvement Research on the effectiveness of parent involvement is vast and has produced a wide range of results. In general, results have shown that parent involvement has positive effects on children s academic outcomes. It is associated with higher academic performance (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006; Hayakawa, Englund, Warner- Richter, & Reynolds, 2013; Marcon, 1999), lower rates of grade retention and placement into special education (Miedel, 2000), and lower rates of high school dropout and increased on- time high school completion (Barnard, 2004). Parent involvement apparently affects parenting practices and leads to 3

4 lower rates of childhood behavioral problems (Brotman et al., 2011). Randomized controlled studies of programs with strong parent involvement components have produced positive results for both parent and child outcomes (Kratochwill, McDonald, Levin, Scalia, & Coover, 2009; Kratochwill, McDonald, Levin, Young Bear- Tibbetts, & Demaray, 2004). This section will briefly review the largest studies that have investigated the relationship between parent involvement and child outcomes. Early studies found that parent involvement has little to no effect on children s outcomes. Two such notable studies were done by Mattingly, Prislin, McKenzie, Rodriguez, and Kayzar (2002), and by White, Taylor, and Moss (1992). Mattingly et al. (2002) examined 41 studies that looked at kindergarten through 12th grade achievement and parent involvement programs. The authors qualitatively evaluated the rigor of each study included in the analysis and concluded that there was little empirical support for the claim that parent involvement programs are an effective way of raising achievement. However, due to the lack of rigorous study design, the authors also emphasize that they do not think programs are ineffective. Instead, they highlight a need for more rigorous study designs, such as randomized controlled studies. White et al. (1992) examined the effect of parent involvement in early childhood interventions on children s outcomes. Similarly, he and his colleagues found little to no evidence that children benefited from parent involvement programs. Neither of these two studies was a meta- analysis. Mattingly et al. (2002) did not calculate any effect sizes and White et al. (1992) did not do a comprehensive literature search. Also, they examined much older research studies and programs and as a result are not up to date. There is, fortunately, more recent research. A meta- analysis by Jeynes (2012) reviewed 51 studies that examined the relationship between parent involvement programs and pre- kindergarten through 12th grade academic achievement. He found that overall parent involvement programs produced a statistically significant modest effect size of.30 of a standard deviation. Effect sizes were particularly larger for programs that involved parents and children reading 4

5 together. Positive but not statistically significant effect sizes were found for programs such as Head Start and ESL training for parents. A recent report from Van Voorhis, Maier, Epstein, Lloyd, and Leung (2013) of MDRC reviewed 95 studies on family involvement and children s literacy and math outcomes. The studies span over 10 years of research on this topic. The review included descriptive studies, nonintervention (nonexperimental) studies, and intervention (experimental and quasi- experimental) studies. Overall, the authors found that family involvement is positively linked to children s outcomes in preschool, kindergarten, and early elementary school. The latest research on parent involvement is a book written by Robinson and Harris (2014), which reanalyzed four datasets: the National Education Longitudinal Study of 998 (NELS), the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS), the Child Development Supplement (CDS) to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, and the Maryland Adolescent Development in Context Study (MADICS). Sixty- three measures of parent involvement were used and analyses were conducted across six racial groups. The authors found no generalized pattern for the relationship between parent involvement and academic achievement. In some cases, there were either zero or negative relationships found, especially for parents checking homework. However, there were some positive, if discrete, findings. First, the authors found some positive relationships between parent involvement and academic achievement early on using the CDS, suggesting that the effect of parent involvement diminishes over time by middle school. The authors also found that active forms of involvement are advantageous for socioeconomically disadvantaged youth. In particular, Hispanics and Blacks seem to benefit the most from assertive parent involvement. Overall, findings are mixed and no strong conclusions can be drawn from the results. Despite the negative findings, the authors caution that their results are based on associations and are not causal by any means. Weight can be given to the report by Van Voorhis et al. (2013) since their study included randomized controlled trials, which produce more confident estimates of the effects of parent involvement. 5

6 These findings raise the question: Why study, and why promote, parent involvement if we re not sure it works? Despite the tentative nature of the findings, it can safely be said that parent involvement has the potential to improve children s outcomes. Much more research is needed in order to fully understand parent involvement as a concept and as an intervention. It is also necessary to understand what predicts parent involvement and how and why it works. Barriers to Parent Involvement Research has shown over and over again that parents from low- income and disadvantaged backgrounds participate at a much lower rate than their counterparts (Cooper, 2010; Feuerstein, 2000; Griffith, 1998; Heymann & Earle, 2000; Huntsinger & Jose, 2009; Kohl et al., 2000; Turney & Kao, 2009). Some of the most cited reasons for not being involved include conflicting schedules and having a young child or baby in the home (Lamb- Parker et al., 2001). Lack of proficiency in English is also a major deterrent for many immigrant parents (Haynes, 2006). However, participation rates remained low, even after parent involvement programs addressed, for instance, providing child care for younger siblings and transportation to and from the school events (Brotman et al., 2011; Mendez, 2010). The persistent low level of involvement suggests that there are other, unidentified, factors that determine whether or not parents get involved. One possible factor that could contribute to parents participation rates is the relationships that parents form with other parents, teachers, and school staff members. Social Capital Theory Social capital theory has become prominent in social science in the past few decades. It has been used to explain a number of sociological phenomena such as political participation, neighborhood effects, income and social inequalities, and more recently parent involvement. In fact, some academic interventions use the building and cultivating of social capital to foster parent involvement. 6

7 The origins of social capital theory can be found in the works of Pierre Bourdieu, who defined social capital as the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationship of mutual acquaintance or recognition (Bourdieu, 1985, p. 248). There are two parts to this definition: first, the actual or potential resources, and second, the procession of a durable network of relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition. Both parts are necessary in the creation of social capital (Portes, 1998). Social actors use investment tactics to form relationships in a way that allows them to tap into the institutionalized resources of relationships. According to Bourdieu, actors then can extract benefits in the form of economic or cultural capital. Lin (1999) extends Bourdieu s work by focusing on the aspect of investment in social relations with the expectation of returns. Thus, Lin (1999) defines social capital as resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions (p. 35). According to this definition, social capital must contain three components: the resources embedded in social structure, accessibility to such social resources by individuals, and use or mobilization of those resources. Portes (1998) agrees with Lin s definition, stating that a consensus is growing in the literature that social capital stands for the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures (p. 6). We return, with Lin s understanding, to the specific case of Head Start. Lin would see social capital here as the resources parents receive through the social networks that are formed as a result of their children s participation in Head Start. Parent Involvement, Social Capital, and Head Start When parents enroll their children into Head Start, they are able to join a social network that includes other Head Start parents, teachers, staff aides, health professionals, social workers, and other professionals. Putnam (2000) theorized that there are two types of social capital: bridging and bonding. Bridging social capital refers to connections made across heterogeneous groups, while bonding social capital refers to connections made across or within homogenous groups. 7

8 Head Start parents should, if they wish, thus be engaged in building bridging social capital by forming relationships with Head Start professionals, like teachers and social workers, and bonding social capital when they form relationships with other parents whose children are also enrolled in Head Start. Both forms of social capital are important to gaining access to the wealth of resources that Head Start provides. Head Start assumes the parent is a child s first and most important teacher and has long integrated parent involvement into the program s structure. Head Start s performance standards require that parents be invited to become integrally involved in the development of the programs curriculum and approach to child development and education; be provided with opportunities to increase their child observation skills and to share assessments with staff that will help plan the learning experiences; and be encouraged to participate in staff- parent conferences and home visits to discuss their child s development and education (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). Performance standards require that parents be approached for these activities during the initial enrollment process. However, the striking fact is that although parents are requested, they are not required, to participate as a function of their children s enrollment. In fact, there are numerous unknown facts about Head Start s parent involvement strategies and their consequences. What strategies do they actually employ to recruit parents? Which of these strategies actually works? What are the outcomes for children whose parents participate, and those who do not? This is a field ripe for serious study. Understanding the mechanism through which Head Start gets parents to be involved is crucial to planning and implementing the program. If we could understand how Head Start programs are able to recruit families, programs could focus their attentions on that particular aspect and thus have more successful rates of parent involvement. A social capital lens would be particularly helpful here, as we would be able to place the outreach, participation, and outcomes within a framework of social network and resources. Head Start 8

9 could work within existing social networks and develop social networks to increase participation and to compound the positive outcomes for students. Our country is currently engaged in a debate about the merits, the funding, and the content, of early childhood education. As a result, it is important that we have effective parent involvement programs that recruit high levels of parent participation. As a longstanding and well- funded program, Head Start offers a rich field for research, and social capital theory provides an important frame through which such research may be interpreted. 9

10 References Barnard, W. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(1), doi: /j.childyouth Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood. Brotman, L. M., Calzada, E., Huang, K.- Y., Kingston, S., Dawson- McClure, S., Kamboukos, D.,... Petkova, E. (2011). Promoting effective parenting practices and preventing child behavior problems in school among ethnically diverse families from underserved, urban communities. Child Development, 82(1), Cooper, C. E. (2010). Family poverty, school- based parental involvement, and policy- focused protective factors in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(4), Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low- income children's literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 653. 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 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Feuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on participation in children's schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environment to parent involvement in elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 99(1), Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents' involvement in children's schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65(1), Hayakawa, M., Englund, M. M., Warner- Richter, M. N., & Reynolds, A. J. (2013). The longitudinal process of early parent involvement on student achievement: A path analysis. Dialog, 16(1), Haynes, K. T. (2006). Negotiating constraints and opportunities for capital (trans)formation: Stories of Latino parents' involvement in their children's education. ( Ph.D.), Vanderbilt University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from Q:ProQuest+Dissertations+%26+Theses+Full+Text&atitle=&title=Negotiating+constraints+and+o pportunities+for+capital+%28trans%29formation%3a+stories+of+latino+parents%27+involvem ent+in+their+children%27s+education&issn=&date= &volume=&issue=&spage=&au=Haynes%2C+Katherine+Taylor&isbn= &jtitle= &btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/ ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. Heymann, S. J., & Earle, A. (2000). Low- income parents: How do working conditions affect their opportunity to help school- age children at risk? American Educational Research Journal, 37(4), Huntsinger, C. S., & Jose, P. E. (2009). Parental involvement in children's schooling: Different meanings in different cultures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(4), Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta- analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental Involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), doi: /

11 Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school conceptualizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Scalia, P. A., & Coover, G. (2009). Families and schools together: An experimental study of multi- family support groups for children at risk. Journal of School Psychology, 47(4), Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Young Bear- Tibbetts, H., & Demaray, M. K. (2004). Families and schools together: An experimental analysis of a parent- mediated multi- family group program for American Indian children. Journal of School Psychology, 42(5), Lamb- Parker, F., Piotrkowski, C. S., Baker, A. J. L., Kessler- Sklar, S., Clark, B., & Peay, L. (2001). Understanding barriers to parent involvement in Head Start: a research- community partnership. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(1), Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner- city preschoolers' development and academic performance. School Psychology Review, 28(3), Mendez, J. L. (2010). How can parents get involved in preschool? Barriers and engagement in education by ethnic minority parents of children attending Head Start. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), doi: /a Miedel, W. T. (2000). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Robinson, K., & Harris, A. L. (2014). The broken compass: Parental involvement with children's education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to School Involvement: Are Immigrant Parents Disadvantaged? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. (2009). Head Start Program Performance Standards 45 CFR Chapter XIII, Part 1307, Federal Register Version. Retrieved from cfr- chapter- xiii/45- cfr- chap- xiii- eng.pdf Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., Lloyd, C. M., & Leung, T. (2013). The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and socioal- emotional skills: MDRC. Zellman, G. L., Stecher, B., Klein, S., McCaffrey, D., Gutierrez, S., Madison, R.,... Suarez, L. (1998). Findings from an evaluation of the Parent Institute for Quality Education Parent Involvement Program. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 11