- California State University

Transcription

PARENT INVOLVEMENT AT PREDOMINANTLY LATINO
SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE RURAL CENTRAL SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY
by
Perla Zamudio Soria
B.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 2007
M.Ed. (University of Southern California) 2009
A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctorate in Education
Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership at Fresno State
Kremen School of Education and Human Development
California State University, Fresno
2012
Perla Zamudio Soria
August 2012
Educational Leadership
PARENT INVOLVEMENT AT PREDOMINANTLY LATINO
SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE RURAL CENTRAL SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY
Abstract
The Latino student population cannot be ignored, as it has become a
permanent fixture in schools. The sluggish and future recovering economy is
expected to be dependent on a young, trained, and educated Latino workforce.
Middle and high schools play an integral role in the development, education, and
training of individuals. Educational success at this level defines an individual’s
future. Meanwhile, an undereducated Latino workforce is a danger to California’s
and the nation’s recovering economy. Parent involvement has been found to help
Latino adolescents stay in school and achieve educationally, personally, and
socially. In this pilot study, 35 principals of middle, junior, and high schools in
the rural central San Joaquin Valley were surveyed; all schools served a
predominantly Latino student population. The survey consisted of 9 main
questions with 87 sub-items. The pilot study identified and analyzed school
principals’ attitudes, perceptions, and practices regarding parent involvement; it
also focused on descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation analyses. The
results of the study indicated that school principals, in the rural central San
Joaquin Valley, perceive parent involvement as important and that best practices
are used to encourage parent involvement. Additionally, it was found that
principals long for an increase in parent involvement at the secondary level;
ii
regardless of the array of challenges involvement imposes (e.g., community issues,
logistic barriers). Finally, this pilot study serves as a springboard for additional
research of secondary schools and Latino parent involvement.
iii
Copyright by
Perla Zamudio Soria
2012
iv
Kremen School of Education and Human Development
Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership
This dissertation was presented
by
Perla Zamudio Soria
It was defended on
August 10, 2012
and approved by:
Ronald Unruh, Chair
Educational Research and Administration
Kenneth Magdaleno
Educational Research and Administration
Debra M. Harris
Social Work Education
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This life accomplishment is no coincidence. Instead it is a result of having
a dream, setting a goal, and being determined.
While in high school I read and learned for the first time about the leaks of
the Chicano educational pipeline. I was shocked and taken aback by what I read. I
could not help but wonder why so many of my gente (people) were bound to get
lost and not make it through school. As a Mexicana I knew that it would be
inevitable that I would face double jeopardy—I had a bigger chance of failing than
succeeding in life. However, I could not accept the reported research facts that out
of 100 Chicano students, 46 graduated high school, 26 went on to college, 8
earned a bachelor’s degree, 2 earned a graduate degree, and an insignificant .2
earned a doctoral degree. Neither could I accept that my gender and ethnicity
would be what determined my destiny. The facts presented by this research
motivated me to work towards reversing the leaks in the educational pipeline in
the Latino community by attaining a career where I could influence students to
move forward, while at the same time yearning to earn a doctoral degree to change
the educational statistics and be an example for others. Eleven years later, I am
happy to report that I have beaten the odds.
What I have been able to accomplish could not have been possible without
the support of many individuals. First and foremost I am extremely thankful to
God who has answered all my prayers and given me the strength to continue ahead
in tough times. Secondly, I must thank my parents for inculcarme la fe y que hay
un Dios el cual nunca nos abandona (teaching me to have faith and that there is a
vi
God who never abandons us), teaching me to believe in myself, showing me the
ethics of hard work, and for their two simple words that have kept me going:
¡Échale Ganas! Special thanks to my siblings (Laura, Amy, Ivet, and Pepe) for
watching on the sidelines and being my cheerleaders in everything that I do.
¡Familia Soria los quiero mucho!
There is one particular individual who I am forever extremely thankful and
indebted to, my husband. He was brave enough to marry me in the middle of this
journey, and willing to take on the many sacrifices necessary to ensure that I was
successful. Without him this journey would not have been successful. Esequiel te
agradezco tu amor, paciencia, y apoyo incondicional que me haz brindado como
amigo, novio, esposo, y padre. Te dedico este proyecto final y mi título a ti y
nuestra familia.
Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the professors in the program
(particularly those in my committee who pushed me to work harder), program
staff, and my cohort for making this a practical and fun learning experience.
Lastly, I would like to thank my friend Carmen Rodriguez, who provided me with
technical assistance throughout the program.
It is now time to move into a different chapter in my life but with the same
mission of continuing to work towards reversing the educational statistics of
Latino students.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
Background of the Study .................................................................................... 4
Accountability ............................................................................................... 4
Latino Students’ Academic Achievement in California ............................... 5
Parent Involvement........................................................................................ 6
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 10
Rationale ........................................................................................................... 11
Research Questions ........................................................................................... 15
Significance of the Study .................................................................................. 15
Definition of Terms........................................................................................... 18
Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 22
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................ 24
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 24
Definition of Latino .......................................................................................... 24
Latino Populations ............................................................................................ 26
Latino Educational Attainment ......................................................................... 29
Benefits of an Education ................................................................................... 34
Adolescent Development .................................................................................. 36
viii
Theories of Development.................................................................................. 39
Theory of Ecological Systems..................................................................... 40
Theory of Overlapping Spheres of Influence .............................................. 42
Parent Involvement at the Secondary Level ..................................................... 44
Support for Parent Involvement as a Reform Effort ......................................... 48
Epstein’s Framework for Parent Involvement ............................................ 50
National Parent Teacher Association .......................................................... 52
Barriers to Parent Involvement for Latino Parents ........................................... 53
Culture ......................................................................................................... 55
Education Level of Latino Parents .............................................................. 56
Language ..................................................................................................... 57
Logistical Issues .......................................................................................... 58
School Environment .................................................................................... 59
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................. 60
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.......................................................................... 62
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 62
Research Design................................................................................................ 62
Participants ........................................................................................................ 63
Research Questions ........................................................................................... 64
Instrumentation ................................................................................................. 64
Data Collection Procedures .............................................................................. 66
Analysis............................................................................................................. 68
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 69
Delimitations ..................................................................................................... 70
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................. 71
ix
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS/OUTCOMES ................................................................ 72
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 72
Organization of Data Analysis .......................................................................... 73
Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents ............................ 74
Data Analyses for Research Questions ............................................................. 76
Research Question 1 .................................................................................... 76
Correlations: Academic Achievement ........................................................ 87
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................. 90
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION/SUMMARY/CONCLUSION ................................ 92
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 92
Summary of the Study ...................................................................................... 92
Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................. 93
Differences in Demographics ...................................................................... 93
Bivariate Correlations................................................................................ 100
Recommendations ........................................................................................... 101
Implications for Practice ................................................................................. 104
x
Summary ......................................................................................................... 107
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 109
APPENDIX A: PERMISSION TO USE LETTER.............................................. 125
APPENDIX B: HIGH SCHOOL AND FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS: SURVEY
FOR TEACHERS ........................................................................................... 126
APPENDIX C: SECONDARY AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT: SCHOOL
PRINCIPAL SURVEY ................................................................................... 133
APPENDIX D: STUDY INTRODUCTION LETTER ........................................ 137
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Number and Percent of Latino Population in U.S. Census Data 1990
to 2010 ...................................................................................................... 27
Table 2 Number and Percent of Latino Population in California Census Data
1990 to 2010 ............................................................................................. 28
Table 3 Percent of National Latino vs. All Student Dropout and Completion
Data .......................................................................................................... 33
Table 4 Percent of California Latino vs. All Student Dropout and Graduation
Data .......................................................................................................... 33
Table 5 Framework of Six Types of Involvement .................................................. 51
Table 6 National Standards and Goals for Family-School Partnerships ............. 54
Table 7 High School and Family Partnership Survey Scales ............................... 65
Table 8 Corresponding Research and Survey Research Questions ...................... 67
Table 9 Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Central Valley County ......... 74
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for the Measures of Principals’ Experience........ 75
Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Principals’ Ethnicity ...................................... 76
Table 12 Item Statistics for the Attitudes About Parent Involvement ................... 77
Table 13 Percentage of Responses for the Attitudes About Parent Involvement .. 77
Table 14 Percentages of Principals’ Support Level for Latino Parent
Involvement ............................................................................................... 79
Table 15 Item Statistics for the Importance of Research-Based Parent
Involvement Activities ............................................................................... 80
Table 16 Principals’ Report of Successful Parent Involvement Practices ........... 81
Table 17 Item Statistics for the Current Practices of Parent Invovlvement
Program .................................................................................................... 82
Table 18 Principals’ Report of Activities to Encourage and Maintain Latino
Parent Involvement ................................................................................... 84
xii
Table 19 Principals’ Report of Parent Involvement School Program
Satisfaction ............................................................................................... 85
Table 20 Descriptive Statistics for the Schools’ Community Issues ..................... 86
Table 21 Correlations Between Academic Achievement Measures and School
Principal Survey Scales ............................................................................ 89
Table 22 Correlations Between Years of Education, Experience at School Site
and School Principal Survey Scales ......................................................... 89
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of development. ............................ 41
Figure 2. Epstein's theory of overlapping spheres of influence. ............................ 43
xiv
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The implementation of federal educational mandates, such as the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, has allowed for parent involvement to gain
great momentum (Epstein, 2004; Igo, 2002). Meanwhile, Jeynes (2003) reported
that parent involvement is an influential avenue to student academic success. As a
result of an increase in the Latino population, there is an interest in the relationship
between Latino parent involvement and Latino students’ educational achievement
fields (Ibañez, Kuperminc, Jurkovic, & Perilla, 2004). The increase in the Latino
population is visible in different governmental measures. For example in the 2010
Census data, 50.5 million (16.3%) of the people residing in the United Sates (U.S.)
reported to be of Hispanic or Latino origin (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). In the
State of California, 37.6% of the population is reported to be of Hispanic or Latino
origin (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). These facts are mirrored in the public school
system where nationwide enrollment of Kindergarten through 12th (K-12) grade
students of Hispanic background is 22%, while in California the percentage is
52.13% (California Department of Education, 2012a). The density of Latino
students is important to acknowledge, and finding ways to elicit positive
educational outcomes is important. Parent literature explaining the impact parent
involvement has on children’s education is compelling (Lee & Bowen, 2006;
Marschall, 2006). Regardless of the immense evidence in support of parent
involvement, research continues to report an existing lack of parent participation
amongst the Latino population, particularly at the secondary school level (Epstein,
2008; Marschall, 2006; Trumbull, Rothstein-Fish, & Hernandez, 2003).
In this pilot study, the term Latino is used to refer to Hispanic individuals
whose ancestors are originally from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spanish-speaking
2
Central and South American countries, and other Spanish cultures (González
Burchard et al., 2005; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Governmental agencies use the
term Hispanic to describe the race of the same population of Latinos. In this
research, the author’s preferred term will be Latino. Latino is the preferred term
as it “preserves the flavor of national origin and political relationship between the
United States and Latino America” (Hayes-Bautista & Chapa, 1987, p. 65).
Preserving the uniqueness of the different Latino groups is imperative in
establishing an identity.
Traditionally, the need for parent involvement has been considered to be
essential at the elementary level, while at the secondary school level parent
involvement is overlooked by researchers and practitioners (Bouffard & Stephen,
2007; Falbo, Lein, & Amador, 2001; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Igo, 2002; Lee
& Bowen, 2006; Ramirez, 2003). The lack of parent involvement at the secondary
level is similar across all ethnic groups. Nevertheless, a greater concern for parent
involvement needs to exist at the secondary school level, as at this level students
are provided the opportunity to mold into the individual roles they will take on in
society. Evidence exists that parent interest in their children’s education continues
well beyond elementary school (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Kreider, Caspe, Kennedy,
& Weiss, 2007). Meanwhile, at the secondary level, a concerning argument exists
in research that states that parent involvement decreases across grade levels
(Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Kreider et al., 2007; Oyserman, Brickman, &
Rhodes, 2007). Therefore, examining what is occurring with parent involvement
at the secondary school level is imperative to understand efforts and help bridge
the academic achievement gaps that are in existence.
Regardless of evidence that shows the importance of parent involvement,
Latino parent participation lacks at all grade levels, and is chronically missing at
3
the secondary schools (Floyd 1998; Leon, 2003; Moles, 1993). Examining
statistics of Latino student academic achievement and the density of the group, it
becomes apparent why the lack of parent participation is worrisome. In California
there has been a rapid increase in the enrollment of Latino students in the last 30
years (California Department of Education, 2011b). As the number of Latino
students increase, it becomes more important to find solutions that are appropriate
to Latino student populations. Yet, a discrepancy exists between research findings
on the positive outcomes of parent involvement and actual practices of parent
involvement amongst heavily Latino populated secondary schools.
Researchers put forward two main reasons, a developmental and cultural
explanation, as to why Latino parent involvement decreases as students reach
secondary school age. First, from a developmental lifespan approach, researchers
have found that parents give more freedom to their children as they age, providing
students with more autonomy and less parental guidance to allow for maturity and
independency growth (Epstein & Connors, 1994; Falbo et al., 2001; Santrock,
2009). Secondly, using a cultural theory approach, research has found that
existing social and cultural barriers hinder Latino parents from becoming involved
(De Gaetano, 2007; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). Consequently, secondary schools
are faced with the task of overcoming both developmental beliefs and
cultural/language barriers in order to increase Latino parent involvement.
If parent involvement is important for student success, as decades of studies
indicate, then a more specific question must be addressed: How can secondary
schools encourage more Latino parents to become involved in their secondary
school-age children’s education in ways that contribute to student achievement
and success? In combination with the existing mandates (i.e., NCLB Act of
2001), an effective Latino parent involvement model would inevitably improve the
4
achievement and success rate of Latino students. In response to the growing
Latino population and to ensure that all students are supported and prepared to
become contributing members of American society, the researcher chose to
undertake this study.
Background of the Study
Accountability
American public schools have been under scrutiny due to academic
performance. Recent legislative mandates, such as the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) of 2001 and Race To The Top of 2009, have attempted to solve the
educational crisis. These mandates call for schools to pay more attention to
student performance and achievement. Educational accountability measures were
established through calculations such as Academic Yearly Progress (AYP) and
Academic Performance Index (API) (California Department of Education, 2012b,
2012c). Schools failing to meet accountability goals face additional mandates and
sanctions (e.g., limited curriculum, mandatory instructional minutes, growth
targets). Mandates and sanctions require schools to create a plan to help achieve
higher educational performance (Batt, Kim, & Sunderman, 2005; No Child Left
Behind [NCLB], 2002). Consequently, many schools employ an immense amount
of creative reform efforts in an attempt to reach higher academic performance for
all students.
New reporting provisions required by federal and state mandates offer
parents significant insights into their children’s education. The federal mandates
attempt to ensure public educational agencies provide parents the information
needed to make well-informed choices that will benefit children, in order to more
effectively share the responsibility for educating as partners (Epstein, 2004; Igo,
5
2002). At the same time, the mandates force schools with low academic
achievement measures to develop effective and successful academic and support
programs in order to close the achievement gap (Kim & Sunderman, 2005).
Despite the national interest in highlighting parental involvement as a tool to help
all students achieve academic success, field research needs to continue to be
conducted in order to determine what secondary schools are actively doing to
promote parental involvement, and if as a result of federal mandates of parent
involvement educational accountability measures are being met.
Latino Students’ Academic Achievement in California
Over the past decades, it has been noted that schools struggling to keep up
with shifts of how educational business is conducted are schools that service a
large percentage of Latino students. Therefore, special attention has been paid to
the educational outcomes of Latino students. Historically and persistently,
educational outcomes (e.g., standardized tests, high school completion, college
attendance rates) for Latino students have been poor (Lopez, 2009; Vernez, Krop,
& Rydell, 1999). In California, the latest dropout rate made public in August of
2011 by the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction indicated “the
graduation and dropout rates continue to show a significant achievement gap
between students who are Hispanic, African American, or English learners and
their peers” (California Department of Education, 2011a). The new data
collection system managed by the state’s California Longitudinal Pupil
Achievement Data System (CALPADS) reports that there is still a significant gap
that persists between Hispanic and their non-Hispanic peers (California
Department of Education, 2011a). According to the latest CALPADS graduation
and dropout data for the 2009-2010 year, Hispanic students lag behind other
6
students with a poor graduation rate of 67.7% and a dropout rate of 22.7%
(California Department of Education, 2011a).
Parent Involvement
In many schools, parent involvement is an underutilized resource and an
untapped source of educational support. Various reasons exist why this is so, but
among those is the vagueness of what parent involvement is. In an attempt to
address this issue, the NCLB Act of 2001 defines parent involvement and clearly
delineates what state, local educational agencies, and schools may and must do to
support parent involvement at the local levels (Epstein, 2004; Hornby & Lafaele,
2011; Igo, 2002). No Child Left Behind (2002) contains an extensive and detailed
list of required and optional activities for all public K-12 school systems; such
activities are non-regulatory.
General beliefs about the need of less parent involvement as children age
hinders continuous parent involvement in students’ education. In the case of
Latino parent involvement at the secondary school level, parents believe that once
their children reach secondary school age their children are able to fend for
themselves; additionally parents lack an understanding of the American
educational system (De Gaetano, 2007; Epstein & Connors, 1994). Like many
parents, Latino parents often hesitate to get involved in their adolescents
educational life due to fear of causing negative effects in adolescents’
development toward independence (Petersen & Epstein, 1991; Portes, 2005;
Simon, 2001). Furthermore, Latino parents often hesitate to get involved because
they find it difficult to communicate and navigate a secondary school system that
they are unfamiliar with (Ceballo, 2004; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Smith,
Stern, & Shatrova, 2008). Misunderstanding the needs of developing adolescents,
alongside diverse levels of English proficiency, poverty, and immigration issues,
7
presents almost impossible hurdles for Latino parents (Peña, 2000). Lack of
access to organized, purposeful, and successful parent involvement opportunities
may contribute to Latino students’ failure and dropout rate (Smith et al., 2008).
Notwithstanding the above, research suggests that parent involvement, when used
correctly, can help enhance the educational success of all students—despite a
challenging socioeconomic and cultural background (Domina, 2005).
Policy and standards have been created to support parent involvement
practices. NCLB (2002) delineates particular steps that schools are supposed to
take to help improve parent involvement. However a concern continues to exist
because the provisions are non-regulatory (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). The
provisions set forth by NCLB (2002) serve as a guidance to superficially launch
parent involvement, requiring only schools that receive Title I funding to adopt
listed parent involvement recommendations. The National Parent Teacher
Association (National PTA) also supports the need for parent involvement at the
secondary level. As a result, the organization has issued national standards for
parent involvement. The National PTA standards, referred to as Standards for
Family-School Partnerships, were created from a research-based framework of six
types of parent involvement (National Congress of Parents and Teachers, 2009).
According to the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, schools
that adopt the National PTA’s standards are more likely to have an overall greater
parent participation in their children’s education—therefore creating a greater
partnership between parents and schools, and a positive bridge to success.
The challenge for secondary schools to develop relationships with parents
is more difficult than for elementary schools, and a greater challenge is posed
when targeting Latino parent involvement. This dissertation aims to understand
8
how secondary schools that have a significant Latino student population
effectively deal with the issue of parent involvement.
Statement of the Problem
The current state of education in California is under stress. In 2011,
California did not meet its annual measurable objectives in English and
Mathematics. Only 56.3% of all California students were proficient or above
grade level in English and 58.5% were proficient or above grade level in
Mathematics (California Department of Education, 2012f). Of even more concern
is that Latino students had a 44.7% English and 49.6% Mathematics grade level
proficiency (California Department of Education, 2012f). Similar lagging trends
exist in 2011 graduation data; California had a graduation rate of 80.53% for all
students, while Latinos lagged behind with a 68.2% graduation rate (California
Department of Education, 2012f). Academic performance and educational
attainment in California are worrisome for not only the state but the nation’s
future. While federal and state accountability measures have called for numerous
attempts of educational improvement formulas to help increase performance
statistics, few of these attempts have included parent involvement practices. As
the state struggles to meet proficient and graduation levels, parent involvement
could be a resource that assists in turning around the current academic
performance of students. High stake measures of educational achievement have
become a priority in schools; consequently, parent involvement has become a
forgotten student asset.
Strong support for the idea of parent involvement amongst researchers and
practitioners is evident, yet at the secondary school level real evidence of parent
involvement program efforts is uncertain. A majority of parent involvement
research points to the positive impact of parent involvement at all grade levels
9
(Behnke, Gonzalez, & Cox, 2010; Crosnoe, 2001; Domina, 2005; Falbo et al.,
2001; González, 2002; Jeynes, 2003; Lopez, 2009). However, with the increase of
diversity amongst students, schools face the challenge of not knowing how to best
bridge families and schools (Chavkin, 1998; Epstein & Sanders, 2006). The
combined Latino student population at the secondary level represents the largest
ethnic group within California schools. Therefore, it is essential to analyze
whether secondary schools are keeping pace with the cultural and social changes
that are reflected in demographic shifts. Historical data of parent involvement
indicate that when used effectively and respectfully, parent involvement increased
student achievement results (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004). Parent involvement
increases student achievement and creates a positive school climate for all students
regardless of their sociocultural background (National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], 2004; NCLB, 2002). The issue at hand is the general
unawareness of what efforts secondary schools are making to improve parent
involvement.
Research literature highlights the positive effects of parent involvement
throughout the secondary level (Catsambis, 1998; Jeynes, 2003; Marschall, 2006).
Federal non-regulatory mandates, research-based frameworks, and standards are in
existence and available for schools to utilize in their quest to create a more active
parent community. It is essential to investigate what secondary schools are doing
and whether schools are keeping up with mandates and the adoption of researchbased practices to serve growing Latino families. Knowing secondary schools’
parent involvement common practices provides an outlook to further support
parent involvement recommendations. Being knowledgeable about the triumphs
and challenges schools have can lead to replicate practices and programs that work
against battling poor academic performance.
10
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine how secondary schools that
serve a large percentage of Latino students are attempting to close the achievement
gap by involving Latino parents. This study attempted to better understand if
secondary schools employ any of the available and recommended parent
involvement research based frameworks. Additionally, the study helps understand
secondary schools’ efforts to connect with families and how schools want to
improve current parent involvement interactions. This was measured by asking
secondary school administrators, specifically school principals, to complete a
survey, which gathered information regarding current parent involvement
programs, practices, and barriers at their sites.
As mentioned, parent involvement can be defined in diverse ways. While
parent involvement has historically been a centerpiece of education legislation it
was not until NCLB that it was defined in statutory terms. According to NCLB
(2002) Title I, Part A parent involvement constitutes “the participation of parents
in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic
learning and other school” (p. 3). The goals of the mandate in the provision aim to
ensure that parents:
1. Play an integral role in assisting their child’s learning;
2. Are encouraged to be actively involved in their child’s education at
school;
3. Are full partners in their child’s education and are included, as
appropriate, in decision-making and on advisory committees to assist in
the education of their children; and
11
4. Are provided with additional specific activities as described in section
1118 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Parent
Involvement) (NCLB, 2002).
Rationale
Parents are a child’s first and most important teacher. This fact does not
change once children reach secondary school age. Parent involvement provides an
additional support system away from the school setting, which can assist children
in excelling academically. Parent involvement is a link to students’ success;
therefore, it is imperative that secondary schools continue to seek such a resource.
To be successful with all students, secondary schools should embrace parent
involvement, and find ways to productively engage and re-engage parents in their
adolescents’ education. Hence, the rationale for this study was to examine how
secondary schools are encouraging Latino parent involvement to become partners
in schools’ learning communities and how school leaders support a parent
involvement culture.
The Center on Family and Community Partnerships has designed a research
framework of six types of parent involvement, which also serves as the National
PTA’s standards for implementing and evaluating parent involvement programs
(National Congress of Parents and Teachers, 2009). The combination of a
framework and standards is a recipe for maximizing the benefits of having parents
involved. Communicating effectively, standard 2 makes it possible for parents to
participate in the educational process (National Congress of Parents and Teachers,
2009). This practice is the foundation for any parent involvement efforts.
Without effective two-way communication, no relationship between parents and
schools will exist.
12
Creating partnerships between parents and schools is necessary for the
educational development of adolescents (Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies,
2007; Shah, 2009). Family and school, while two separate types of systems, are
interrelated as part of adolescents’ ecological system of an individual, what
Epstein would refer to as “spheres of influence” (Epstein, Croates, Salinas,
Sanders, & Simons, 1997). While on the surface it may appear as if parents of
Latino students are not interested in educational involvement in their adolescent’s
life, contemporary research debunks this myth (DeVos & Suárez-Orozco, 1991;
Ramirez, 2003; Smith et al., 2008). Research studies of Latino families have
repeatedly found that parents are very interested in being involved in their child’s
education.
Although research findings show a high level of interest in parent
involvement amongst Latino families, poor educational outcomes for the majority
of Latino students continue to be the trend. Latinos have reached an overall low in
educational attainment. In California, Latinos are one of the groups of students
with the highest secondary school dropout rate and lowest high school graduation
rate (California Department of Education, 2012e, 2012f). Latino parents’ high
aspirations and great interests in their children’s education do not align with their
adolescents’ performance. An array of barriers makes it challenging for parents to
become actively involved to the level where involvement has positive effects on
their adolescents’ performance (Smith et al., 2008). The research cited the
following primary barriers to Latino parent involvement:
 Lack of understanding of the educational system in the United States
 Lack of economic stability including work and transportation
 Lack of school support for the needs of Latino students
13
 Lack of cultural understanding between Latino families and schools
(Bohon, Macpherson, & Atiles, 2005; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; Payne,
2005; Sue & Sue, 2008).
Furthermore, the literature substantiates that a greater part of the challenges
in Latino parent involvement is the lack of a concrete definition of what parent
involvement is. Trumbull et al. (2003) found that there is a misalignment in
definitions, understandings, and perceptions amongst Latino parents and schools.
Consequently, this may lead to a disparity in goals related to parent involvement
and make school-family partnerships challenging.
Traditionally parent involvement is viewed as creating an active presence at
school. This can include volunteering in the classroom, chaperoning, attending
school day functions, etc. The traditional view of parent involvement
marginalizes parents whose sociocultural background is not aligned with or part of
the American school culture (Pérez Carreón, Drake, & Barton, 2005). For
example, many Latino farm-working parents believe involvement is teaching their
children life lessons, such as taking their adolescents to work in the fields
(Ceballo, 2004; López, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001). Parents use this
activity as a life lesson, reminding their children of the importance of hard work,
thereby giving them a choice to either work hard at school or work hard in the
fields (López et al., 2001). The definition of parent involvement needs to be
expanded to include the specific populations that schools represent.
In addition to the inconsistency in terms of parent involvement, a similar
challenge arises in the perceived roles of Latino parents and educators. Primarily
due to cultural background and previous education experience, most Latino
parents believe that it is their sole responsibility to educar (educate) their children
in life, by providing nurturing and moral guidance while expecting schools to
14
provide academic knowledge to their children (Pérez Carreón et al., 2005;
Trumbull et al., 2003; Zarate, 2007). On the other hand, schools expect parents to
be partners in their children’s academic education by providing educational
support (e.g., subject tutoring, academic guidance). The misalignment between
the interplay of the home and school microsystem is often disregarded by school
systems in defining and designing parent involvement. To build a true bridge
between the families and schools it is necessary to acknowledge and understand
the sociocultural factors that interplay in Latino students’ lives (Garcia, 2002;
Payne, 2005).
Typically, Latinos demonstrate strong values towards family. Children’s
well-being is the primary and center of family concerns—this includes
performance at school. Therefore, it is unfair to generalize that Latino parents are
careless about their students’ educational achievement (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004).
Furthermore, researchers have challenged the notion of formal parent involvement
being an indicator of interest (López et al., 2001). It has been found that formal
parent involvement is not always what works with Latino families.
There is overwhelming evidence that parent involvement is a salient
variable amongst students’ academic achievement and success regardless of
sociocultural background. Parent involvement has been linked to improved
academic performance, school attendance, dropout rates, and graduation rates
(Jeynes, 2003). All research in parent involvement makes it known that Latino
parent involvement is no easy task, but it is a worthwhile investment (Sheldon &
Epstein, 2004).
In the last three decades research interests amongst social scientists have
provided a general picture of the status of Latino parent involvement. At the same
time, attention to parent involvement has gained momentum at the federal and
15
state levels. Parent involvement is now embraced as a national educational goal
and recommended as a strategy for closing the achievement gap in California, as
well as nationwide. Yet, this goal has not been easy to achieve—an array of
reasons can be listed as why this is so.
Research Questions
The following research questions will serve as a general guide to facilitate
the explanation of the research problem:
1. What are secondary school administrators’ attitudes about parent
R
involvement in rural central San Joaquin Valley?
2. What are secondary school administrators’ perceptions about parent
R
involvement research based strategies in rural central San Joaquin
Valley?
3. What are secondary school administrators, in rural central San Joaquin
R
Valley, doing to encourage and maintain Latino parent involvement?
4. Are secondary school administrators, in rural central San Joaquin
R
Valley, satisfied with their overall Latino parent involvement program
and efforts?
5. What are obstacles, in rural central San Joaquin Valley, to increasing
R
parent involvement in secondary schools?
Significance of the Study
The number of Latino students in the State of California has grown
significantly over the last 30 years. Inevitably, Latino students will compose a
large number of California’s future workforce. The future workforce needed will
be required to be more knowledgeable than previous generations (Valverde,
Arispe y Acevedo & Perez, 2008). Therefore, the continued large number of
16
failing Latino students in California cannot be allowed. Solutions that work need
to be used to solve poor Latino educational attainment. Parent involvement is
amongst one of the practices that have been proven to work (Epstein & Sheldon,
2002). The success of Latino adolescents needs to be a collaborative effort
between parents and schools (Portes, 2005). Parents and schools need to be
partners and share responsibilities in the best interest of future generations. In
years to come, Latino students will continue to be the ethnic group that our state
economy will depend on and be driven by.
National educational goals and reform movements place growing
educational expectations for all students in an aim to support positive change.
Years of research and most recently federal mandates, have laid a foundation of
what schools can do to create sound parent involvement programs that work. The
NCLB Act of 2001 provides tools for states and local school officials, educational
leaders, technical assistance providers, parents, parent advocacy organizations,
parent involvement coordinators, parent liaisons, and others to actively engage in
student achievement and learning. The goal of NCLB (2002) is to ensure that by
2014 all students, regardless of socioeconomic status and/or ethnicity, are
proficient in the basic skills to enter the work force. The NCLB Act of 2001 was
built around four main principles:
a. Accountability for educational results
b. More information and choices for parents
c. Greater local control and flexibility
d. An emphasis on doing what works based upon scientifically proved
research methods.
17
This framework is meant to assist parents, educators, and communities to
work together to improve teaching and learning. For this reason K-12 educational
institutions are required to develop programs to involve parents in their children’s
education in a way that helps boost student achievement (Epstein et al., 1997).
When schools build partnerships with parents that respond to their concerns and
honor their contributions, a sustaining connection is built that improves student
achievement (Henderson et al., 2007). Similarly, it is the belief of the U.S.
Department of Education that
When families are involved in their children’s education, children earn
higher grades and received higher scores on tests, attend more regularly,
complete more homework, demonstrate more positive attitudes and
behaviors, graduates from high school at higher rates, and more likely to
enroll in higher education than students with less involved families. For
these reasons, increasing family involvement in the education of their
children is an important goal for schools, particularly those serving lowincome and other students at risk of failure (Funkerhouser & Gonzales,
1997, p. 3).
The requirements set forth by NCLB (2002) were designed to close the
achievement gap between traditionally disadvantaged ethnic groups and at risk
students and their peers; Latino students are part of both groups. Large portions of
Latinos students are disadvantaged because they are considered to have limited
proficiency in English—the language of almost all standardized tests used to
measure educational achievement; these students are also referred to as English
language learners (Batt et al., 2005; Kim & Sunderman, 2005). There is a need to
understand that involvement of Latino parents is found to be of crucial important
in their children’s educational achievement (Griego-Jones, 2003). Parent
involvement has been found to be 1of 10 powerful predictors that hinder academic
success of Latino youth (Jose-Kampfner & Aparicio, 1998), hence the significant
focus on Latino parent involvement in this pilot study.
18
The general assumption that almost all parents care about their children’s
welfare and educational progress also applies to Latinos. In Latino cultures
education is regarded as “the social and economic equalizer, and as a prerequisite
to improve the social and economic status” of a family (Darder, Torres, &
Gutierrez, 1997, p. 68). Therefore, Latino parents, although culturally and
linguistically diverse, rank education as a top priority (López et al., 2001; Quiocho
& Daoud, 2006; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009). However, barriers exist
that prevent Latino parents from becoming and being fully involved in the
educational process as outlined by the NCLB Act of 2001 (Moles, 1993). DeVos
and Suárez-Orozco (1991) explained that the parent involvement lies in a larger
context in that
. . . immigrant minority parents have no sense of how to become involved,
nor do they have concrete input of how to bring their dream to fruition.
Nor is there sufficient or effective effort made to involve them. The middle
class majority remains unmindful of how to overcome reluctance on the
part of ethnic or working class parents who must discomfort themselves by
entering into unfamiliar group processes wherein they feel a lack of equal
status. (pp. 8-9)
The NCLB Act of 2001 has set forth accountability in different realms of
students’ success, and parent involvement has been included in this reform. While
NCLB provides in-depth guidelines on how schools are to stimulate parent
involvement; few professionals would agree that these guidelines are what
constitute effective parental involvement policies (Baker & Soden, 1998). Instead
researchers offer that if parent involvement is well defined and communicated
with dignity and respect, barriers protruding Latino parents will be dismantled
(Ramirez, 2003).
Definition of Terms
The following terms will be used operationally throughout this study:
19
Academic Achievement
Also used interchangeably with academic success, educational
achievement, and educational attainment. Academic achievement refers to the
educational progress of students based on test measures of proficiency standards,
high school graduation and dropout rates, and college enrollment, retention, and
graduation rates. In this study academic achievement will primarily focus on high
school graduation and dropout rates.
At-Risk Students
At-risk students are those students who traditionally have a low educational
achievement and attainment. Such indicators of at-risk include low high school
graduation rates and high dropout rates.
Barriers
This term is used to refer to any cultural, economic, emotional, or social
hardships that prevent the process of parent involvement from occurring in an
effective manner.
Central San Joaquin Valley
The central San Joaquin Valley is used to refer to the largest flat valley that
dominates the central portion of California. This term is used to refer to a
geographical area in the State of California. The central San Joaquin Valley is
home to the most productive agricultural areas. In this study, when referring to the
central San Joaquin, the focus counties include Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare.
Children
Also used interchangeably with adolescent(s) and student(s). The term
children refer to students at the elementary, middle, and high school level.
Adolescents refer to students only at the secondary school level, in grades 6 thru
12.
20
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
This was the first and largest comprehensive federal education law. The
1994 ESEA reauthorization provided significant funding for schools that were
identified as needing improvement or corrective action (National Education
Association, 2002).
Hispanic(s)
Hispanic and Latino are often used interchangeably in the U.S.; however
the terms have two distinct meanings. The term Hispanic refers to all Spanishspeaking groups from both hemispheres. The common factor in utilizing the term
Hispanic is the primary language of communication—no other or little similarities
exists amongst groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a). This term is primarily used
by American governmental agencies.
Latino(s)
Latino refers to individuals whose family origin is from geographic
locations in the western hemisphere and whose primary language of
communication is Spanish. The geographic location of Latinos includes Mexico,
Central America, South America, and Puerto Rico. Latino is the term preferred
for all those that are labeled as Hispanic.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
NCLB was drafted, signed, and approved by President George W. Bush in
2001. NCLB called for a historic educational reform from schools in the U.S.
whose educational achievement is identified as poor. These reform measures are
based upon results-based accountability for schools, more state and community
control over educational choices, a preference for research-based teaching
methods, and greater educational involvement for parents. Per NCLB, all students
in 3rd through 8th and those in 10th grade are to be administered a reading and
21
math assessment. The goal of NCLB is that through strategic planning all children
in the U.S. will become grade level proficient by the year 2014. Schools not
meeting certain goals are mandated and/or sanctioned to make changes for
educational improvement (NCLB, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Parent(s)
Also used interchangeably with parent(s), home, and family/families.
Parents will be a group of individuals living in the same household, where a
guardian is responsible for overseeing the well-being of children. The guardian is
a position than could be held by any adult relative, not only by biological parents.
Parent Involvement
Parent involvement is a multidimensional phenomenon. According to the
Director of The Center on Family and Community Partnerships, parent
involvement can constitute an array of specific behaviors or general beliefs that
parents practice in order to support their students’ academic achievement and
success (Epstein et al., 2002).
Predominantly Latino Secondary School(s)
Also used interchangeably with Latino school(s). Predominantly Latino
school refers to a school that has a large percentage of Latino student population.
For this study the threshold to be considered a predominantly Latino school, the
school must have a minimum of 60% study body enrollment identified as Latino.
Rural
In this study rural refers to an area or school that is not urbanized.
Populations in rural areas are much less dense and typically much of the land is
devoted to agriculture. In conducting this study, rural areas of focus included
those in Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare County.
22
Secondary School(s)
For the purpose of this study, the researcher refers to all middle, junior, and
high schools as secondary schools. Middle and junior high schools can range
between grade levels 6 to 8. High schools traditionally range between grade levels
9 to 12.
Secondary School Administrator(s) Principal(s)
Also used interchangeably with administrator(s), leader(s), principal(s),
school administrator(s), school leader(s), school principal(s), chief
administrator(s), respondent(s), participant(s), and subject(s). For the purpose of
this study, school principals are considered to be site chief administrators.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made regarding this study:
1.
All Latino parents care about their children’s welfare, including
educational progress.
2.
School administrators responded honestly and accurately to the
survey questions.
3.
School administrators that returned surveys are representative of all
secondary school administrators in rural central San Joaquin Valley.
Chapter Summary
Parent involvement has become a widely studied topic by researchers and
strongly supported through policy. There have been many studies that focused on
the positive outcomes of parent involvement across all grade levels, social, and
ethnic groups (Bouffard & Stephen, 2007; Domina, 2005). However, fewer
studies have focused on predominantly Latino secondary schools’ parent
involvement and what practices and perceptions secondary schools use to
23
encourage Latino parent involvement (Suárez-Orozco, Onaga, & de Lardemelle,
2010). This study examined the perspectives and points of view of secondary
school administrators in order to discover if and how Latino parent involvement is
encouraged. Using a life developmental and cultural theory approach enabled the
researcher to gain a greater insight into secondary school Latino parent
involvement in the rural central San Joaquin Valley. The concept of secondary
school parent involvement, the NCLB Act of 2001, and parent involvement
typology are discussed in depth in chapter 2.
24
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Parent involvement is a vital component of adolescents’ educational
development. The previous chapter provided an overview of parent involvement
and how it supports the success of students. Chapter 1 also introduced the concept
of accountability regarding parent involvement in public schools. This chapter
serves as a literature review in which the definition of the term Latino, population
data, and educational attainment of Latino students are reviewed. This chapter
also reviews literature on the theoretical framework of adolescent development
and parent involvement, particularly related to Latinos, and how the framework
applies to Latino parent involvement at the secondary education level. This study
of literature will also address barriers that are found to impede Latino parent
involvement and synthesize research-based strategies that can improve parent
involvement.
Definition of Latino
In this research study the term Latino is used to refer to Hispanic
individuals whose ancestors are originally from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba,
Spanish-speaking Central and South American countries, and other Spanish
cultures (González Burchard et al., 2005; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a).
Background origin or descent can be considered equivalent with ethnicity, lineage,
heritage, national origin, the country of an individual, or the country of an
individual’s parents or ancestors before immigrating into the United States (Sue &
Sue, 2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a). Individuals who are identified as being
Latino represent a heterogeneous mix of Asian, Black, Native American, or White
with varying social indicators (González Burchard et al., 2005; Suárez-Orozco &
Suárez-Orozco, 2009). The terms Latino and Hispanic are complex and loaded
25
with history and politics, thus require a synthesized definition before discussing
educational issues (Spring, 2004; Sue & Sue, 2008).
For Hispanics, the preferred term of reference is Latino. Hispanic is a term
that was employed by the U.S. government in the 1970s without the consensus of
who it encompassed (Calderón, 1992). Consequently, Latino is the term embraced
by those who are considered to be Hispanic (Calderón, 1992; Hayes-Bautista &
Chapa, 1987). According to Hayes-Bautista and Chapa (1987) the term Latino “is
derived from Latin America, and as such, preserved the flavor of national origin
and political relationship between the U.S. and Latin America” (p. 65). The term
Latino is built around the nurtured concept of a shared bond of culture, with a
history of inequality and oppression (Acuña, 1988; González Burchard et al.,
2005). Additionally, the term Latino is “culturally neutral, with respect to Latin
American cultures” (Hayes-Bautista & Chapa, 1987, p. 65). It is important to note
that Latinos are comprised of more than one type of monolithic community
(Calderón, 1992; González Burchard et al., 2005). Nevertheless, there is an array
of acculturation, assimilation, and pluralistic conflicting issues that make all
Latino groups undergo similar life struggles in American society. The thread
binding those known as Latino is the colonization, occupation, and annexation by
Spain and other European countries, from 1492 to the 1800s (Calderón, 1992;
Hayes-Bautista & Chapa, 1987; MacDonald, 2001). Characteristics that bring
them together include the struggle for maintenance of culture, the Spanish
language, family values, work ethic, immigrant rights, poverty, social oppression,
and lower levels of education (Calderón, 1992). According to the U.S. Census
Bureau (2011b), the two largest groups within the Latino group label are
individuals of Mexican (63%) and Puerto Rican (9%) backgrounds. Examination
26
of U.S. population data, through various sources, highlights the voluminous Latino
population over time.
Latino Populations
Research in the past 40 years has seen a colossal increase in the number of
Latinos in the United States. In the last four decades the United States has
witnessed historical waves of migration that are “more racially, ethically, and
culturally diverse than in years past” (Marschall, 2006). Historically, Latinos of
Mexican background where primarily found in California, Arizona, and Texas due
to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which extended the Southwest states as
property of the United States (Calderón, 1992; Bohn et al., 2005; Hayes-Bautista
& Chapa, 1987; MacDonald, 2001; Sue & Sue, 2008). Latinos from a Puerto
Rican background have historically resided in the states of Florida and New York
(Behnke et al., 2010; Bohon et al., 2005). Latinos from all countries can now be
found in all states, including Alaska and Hawaii.
Examination of U.S. Census Bureau data provides a clear snapshot of the
increased diversity of Latinos nationwide. From 1990 to 2000, the Latino
populations had a 58% increase across the United States (Bohon et al., 2005; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2001). In 2000, it was reported by the U.S. Census Bureau that
Latinos were the largest ethnic group in the United States totaling 13% (Eamon,
2005; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). A total of 35.3 million people residing in the
U.S. self-identified as Hispanic or Latino in the year 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2001). Ten years later, in 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that 50.5 million
(or 16%) people in the United States were of Hispanic or Latino origin, a 3%
increase from a previous decade (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011b). Latino groups are
held responsible for the rapid growth of the American population. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau (2011b) “more than half of the growth in the total
27
population in the United States between 2000 and 2010 was due to the increase in
Hispanic population” (p. 2). For details of Latino population between 1990 and
2010, see Table 1.
Table 1
Number and Percent of Latino Population in U.S. Census Data 1990 to 2010
Census Year
Number
Percent
1990
22,354,059
9.0
2000
35,305,818
12.5
2010
50,477,594
16.0
The pattern of the Latino population in California closely mirrors the
growing trends of the United States. The major difference between the U.S. and
California’s Latino landscape is that California has a much denser Latino
population. Latinos have become the largest ethnic group in the state of
California. Additionally, Latinos in California are predominantly of Mexican
origin, due to the history and proximity of Mexico (Hayes-Bautista & Chapa,
1987; MacDonald, 2001). Historical relationships, labor markets, politics, and
distance make California an appealing state for Latino immigrants. California
ranks first in percent distribution of Latino population by state (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2011b). In 2000, the Latino population in California totaled 33% of
residing Californians (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). In 2010, a decade later, the
U.S. Census Bureau (2011b) reported the total Latino population in California to
be at 38%. Latinos predominantly propagate California and fuel the continued
state population growth. To review details, see Table 2.
28
Table 2
Number and Percent of Latino Population in California Census Data 1990 to
2010
Census Year
Number
Percent
1990
7,687,938
25.8
2000
10,966,556
32.4
2010
14,013,719
37.6
Understanding the population growth of Latinos is important to be able to
identify changes that social institutions such as public schools undergo. Rapid
growth in the number of Latinos has led to an increase in U.S. school enrollment
(Lopez, 2009). Nationwide, in the school year 2008-2009, Latino students
comprised a total of 21% of students enrolled in public schools (U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011). The same
year in California, Latino student enrollment was twice the size, at 49% of public
elementary and secondary school enrollment. More recently, California confirmed
a growing trend in the diversity of students enrolled in public schools. In the
2011-2012 school year, California reported a total of 51.4% of Latino student
enrollment (California Department of Education, 2012a). That is a slight increase
from the 2010-2011 school year, when California reported a total of 50% Latino
student enrollment (California Department of Education, 2011b). Consequently,
Latinos are the largest ethnic group in California’s public schools. The increasing
enrollment of Latino students has made it necessary to prioritize the educational
needs of Latinos in California, as well as nationwide.
The change in size and composition of the Latino population presents
particular challenges to educators and policymakers. First, the nation’s
educational institutions must educate an increasingly larger and more diverse
29
population, at the same time as American public support for education has
lessened (Bushaw & López, 2011). Second, Latinos are significantly lagging
behind other ethnic groups in educational achievement, specifically high school
completion, and college attendance and completion rates (Bouffard & Stephen,
2007; Weiher, Hughes, Kaplan, & Howard, 2006). Lastly, changes in the structure
of the economy in the United States call for a better-trained workforce (Valverde
et al., 2008). Today’s, and the future’s, workforce requires that individuals have
high skill and knowledge levels (Vernez et al., 1999). To attain employment, the
minimum of a high school education is considered necessary. Some sort of
postsecondary education is almost mandatory to be able to compete in the current
and labor market for a job with a decent living wage.
Latinos are the largest ethnic youth group in California, as well as in the
U.S., and they are expected to be the majority of the future workforce. Latinos
also have high labor force participation, but their low skills, wages, and seasonal
employment have kept them in poverty (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009).
Latino poverty is persistent and growing, characterized by the lower levels of
education (Ceballo, 2004; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009). Latino high
school graduation and college attendance rates are poor (Baum, Ma, & Payea,
2010; Carpenter & Ramírez, 2007; Weiher et al., 2006). Therefore, it is
imperative that schools continue to focus on informing the Latino communities of
the significance and power of completing a minimum high school education and
benefits of obtaining a higher education.
Latino Educational Attainment
The aforementioned statistics reaffirm that the Latino population continues
to grow. Consequently, the public education system is faced with more
challenging needs of Latino students including but not limited to language,
30
culture, and other socioeconomic variables such as immigration and poverty
(Marschall, 2006; Orozco, 2008; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009; SuarezOrozco et al., 2010). In the 2010-11 school year, California had a total of 25% of
English learners, of which 85% were from a Spanish-speaking background,
indicating a Latino immigrant origin (California Department of Education, 2011c).
Additionally, Payne (2005) pointed out that Latino students are more likely to
come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, which further inhibit the
academic success of Latino children. The academic struggles of Latino students in
California are results of multiple factors.
Academic struggles of California’s Latino students have been well
documented in an array of educational measures. Educational attainment can be
measured in various ways, including proficiency on standardized exams (e.g.,
California State Tests [CSTs], California High School Exit Exam [CAHSEE],
California English Language Development Test [CELDT]), high school
graduation and dropout rates, and college enrollment, retention, and graduation
rates. Latino students have low levels of achievement in all measures (Ibañez et
al., 2004; Lopez, 2009; Weiher et al., 2006). The difference between two groups
in academic performance, where the difference is statistically significant, is
referred to as an achievement gap (McCall, Hauser, Cronin, Kingsbury, & Houser,
2006; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
2011). Historically an achievement gap has persisted between particular groups of
students, most often between either Black or Latino and White students (Ibañez et
al., 2004; McCall et al., 2006; Reardon & Galindo, 2009; Spring, 2004). Despite
efforts to narrow the gap between all students, a large and unacceptable academic
achievement gap exists and persists between Latino and their White counterpart
students (Joftus & Maddox-Dolan, 2003; Lopez, 2009).
31
Examining national high school graduation and dropout rates, it becomes
apparent that an educational crisis exists amongst Latinos. Chapman, Larid, Ifill,
and KewelRamani (2011) indicated that in October 2009, “approximately 3.0
million 16- through 24-year olds were not enrolled in high school and had not
earned a high school diploma or alternative credential” (p. 8). The national
dropout rate for 2009 was calculated to be 8.1%, a downward trend from 14.6% in
1972 (Chapman et al., 2011). In the same study, Chapman et al. (2011) reported
that nationally, Latinos fare worse than other groups with a dropout rate of 17.6%.
According to Behnke et al. (2010), “Latino youth are more likely than any other
ethnic group to drop out of high school in the United States” (p. 387).
Great strides have been made in dropout rates amongst Latinos. Since 1972
the high school dropout rate has declined (Chapman et al., 2011). However,
examining related data it becomes obvious that the national high school
completion rates align with high school dropout rates. Nationally the high school
completion rate in 2009 was calculated at 89.9%, while the Latino completion rate
for the same year was only 76.8% (Chapman et al., 2011). The completion rate
for Latinos varies amongst different immigrant categories: 63% for foreign-born,
83.7% for first generation, and 86.7% for second generation (Chapman et al.,
2011). Examining different high school completion measures, it is clear that the
national education condition of Latinos is marked by high dropout rates and
lagging graduation rates.
Statewide, California has similar educational attainment patterns amongst
all ethnic groups, including students of Latino origin. The California Department
of Education (2011a) reported a 2009-2010 statewide graduation rate of 75.2%
and dropout rate of 17.5% for all students. At the same time, Latinos in California
had a graduation rate of 67.7% and dropout rate of 21.9% (California Department
32
of Education, 2011a). The educational attainment of Latinos in California is
worrisome in reaching higher levels of achievement set forth by policy mandates
such as NCLB. Considering that Latinos constitute more than 50% of all
California students, a Latino graduation rate of 67.7% is too low and a dropout or
non-completion rate of 22.7% is too high to be acceptable (California State
Department of Education, 2011a). More work is needed to decrease the dropout
rate amongst Latino adolescents. (To review the details described, see Tables 3
and 4.)
California’s low graduation and high dropout rates for Latino students are
consistent with the same low academic performance of students in elementary and
middle school grades. According to reports, Latinos in California comprise threequarters of the students in the state’s lowest achieving 30% of schools (The
Education Trust-West, 2010). Consequently, “it is not surprising, then, that a
large and persistent gap exists between Latino and White students on every
measurable benchmark of learning and achievement” (The Education Trust-West,
2010, p. 1). The performance of Latino elementary and middle school students is
poor compared to their White peers’ performance; therefore, Latinos at the high
school level struggle to achieve proficiency levels and perform academically
(Ceballo, 2004; Darder et al., 1997; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). The educational
attainment of Latino adolescents is marked by a consistent pattern of
underachievement beginning in the primary grades.
Using dropout and graduation data, the achievement gap between Latinos
and other ethnic groups is too large to ignore. National and state studies have
found that the gap emerges early in Kindergarten and systematically grows through
secondary schooling (Chernoff, Flanagan, McPhee, & Park, 2007; DePlanty,
Coulter-Kern, & Duchane, 2007; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009).
33
Table 3
Percent of National Latino vs. All Student Dropout and Completion Data
Latino
School Year
Non-Latino
Dropout
Completion
Dropout
Completion
2009
17.6
76.8
8.1
89.8
2008
18.3
75.5
8.0
89.9
2007
21.4
76.8
8.7
89.0
Note. Adapted from “Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United State:
1972-2009,” by C. Chapman, J. Larid, N. Ifill, A. KewalRamani, 2011, United States Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Table 4
Percent of California Latino vs. All Student Dropout and Graduation Data
Latino
School Year
All Students
Dropout
Graduation
Dropout
Graduation
2009-2010
20.8
68.5
17.5
74.4
2008-2009
6.2*
61.6*
21.5
70
2007-2008
6.0*
61.2*
21.1
68.5
Note. Adapted from the following sources: “Enrollment, Graduates, and Dropouts in California
Public Schools, 1974-75 through 2010-2011,” by California Department of Education,
Educational Demographics Office, 2012; “Public school graduates and dropouts from the
common core of data: school year 2008-2009,” by Stillwell, R., Sable, J., and Plotts, C., U.S.
Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, 2011; “Public school
graduates and dropouts from the common core of data: school year 2007-2008,” by Stillwell, R.,
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, 2010.
34
These statistics foreshadow grim outcomes for Latinos in today’s competitive
economy, and predict a life of challenges and struggles.
Benefits of an Education
The benefits of an education accrue to the individual students, their
families, communities, and consequently to society as a whole. The academic
struggles of Latinos are not gone unforeseen in society. The low graduation and
high dropout rates make Latinos a vulnerable group in society (Behnke et al.,
2010; Ibañez et al., 2004). The benefits and shortfalls of having a minimum high
school education have been widely documented.
Having an education brings about personal financial benefits. The U.S.
Census Bureau (2012) statistics of mean earnings by higher education has
continuously reported that an individual’s average earnings increase measurably
with a higher completed education. In 2009, Latinos with a high school diploma
earned an average annual income of $25,998, while those without a diploma
earned $19,816; a 30% difference in earnings (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). High
school dropouts, with no or limited skills, struggle to successfully transition into
the work force (Rumberger & Lamb, 2003). The greatest benefit of an education
is the ability to attain employment at a much higher rate than those who are less
educated.
Dropping out of high school affects the individual as well as society at
large. High school dropouts earn less, and are far more vulnerable during an
economic recession (Englund, Egeland, & Collins, 2008). According to the
Alliance for Excellent Education (2009), during the recent recession
unemployment has been a problem many have faced, but those without a high
school diploma have had a higher unemployment rate of 15.4%, compared to 9.4%
for high school graduates, 7.9% for individuals with some college education, and
35
4.7% for individuals with at least a bachelor degree. The issue of dropping out of
high school is a crisis that demands an immediate response.
An educated population contributes to both their local community and the
society at large. Educated individuals are more likely to be well-rounded citizens
that engage in organized volunteer work, vote, are in better health, and are less
likely to be incarcerated (Amos, 2008; Baum et al., 2010; Lochner & Moretti,
2004; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009; Vernez et al., 1999). Individuals
who are continuously employed create a widespread productivity culture, generate
higher taxes, and are less dependent on public income sources (Baum et al., 2010;
Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009). Society as a whole enjoys a financial
return on the educational investment of a growing Latino population. Conversely,
high school dropouts are a burden on society, as dropouts are more likely to be tax
consumers, needing ongoing support from available social services (Englund et
al., 2008; Ferrara, 2009; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Lochner & Moretti, 2004;
Trumbull et al., 2003; Wise, 2008). Additionally, individuals who drop out of
high school are more likely to be unemployed, struggle to attain a stable and living
wage job, and cycle in and out of the prison system (Amos, 2008; Behnke et al.,
2010; Englund et al., 2008; Lochner & Moretti, 2004). Post-high school education
and training (e.g., community college, employment training programs) is rare for
individuals who do not complete high school (Amos, 2008; Baum et al., 2010;
Rumberger & Lamb, 2003; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009). Society as a
whole enjoys financial and non-financial returns on the investment of an education
for Latinos.
The current struggling economy and rapidly changing industry demands a
knowledge-based workforce; the economy requires a high-quality secondary
education for Latino students (Amos, 2008; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco,
36
2009; Wise, 2008). Additionally, the rapidly changing 21st century industries
continue to demand a higher set of skills along with higher education levels
(Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009). A vast number of industries will be
dependent on the growing Latino population for its workforce (Amos, 2008).
Changes in population demographics require a greater focus on educating and
training those who will be tomorrow’s workforce.
Everyone benefits from increased educational attainment levels. As a
society with a more educated workforce, the nation will be able to increase
purchasing power, collect higher tax receipts, and see higher levels of worker
productivity (Englund et al., 2008). High school graduates are more likely to
“earn higher wages and enjoy more comfortable and secure lifestyles” (Alliance
for Excellent Education, 2009, p. 1). Individuals who complete high school attain
different skills and labor market characteristics than those who do not.
Educational attainment is a well-documented path to economic success for
individuals and the nation as a whole. An educated population improves the
quality of life in a variety of ways for individuals and their surroundings.
Adolescent Development
An essential component that comes into play in Latino educational
achievement is the developmental level of students at the stage of secondary
schooling. Adolescent development must be understood to help explain the
complex issues of educational attainment and emphasize why parent involvement
is imperative to help bridge Latino student educational achievement at the
secondary level.
Defining adolescence is a challenge, as it is not strictly bound by
chronological age range. Adolescence can be defined as “a transitional period in
human life span, linking childhood and adulthood” (Santrock, 2009, p. 354). The
37
adolescent stage generally aligns with individuals at the secondary school grades,
including middle, junior, and high school. Adolescents undergo important and
vast changes (Petersen & Epstein, 1991; Santrock, 2009; Wiseman, 2010). At this
stage, development takes place at the physical, emotional, and mental levels.
Adolescence is a time where individuals straddle the world seeking to explore
opportunities in aims to develop independence, autonomy, and an authentic selfimage (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Santrock, 2009; Wiseman, 2010). Many
presuppositions exist about individuals at the adolescent stage; but it needs to be
considered that traversing adolescence can be a difficult pathway.
There are several misconceptions about adolescents. The primary
misconception is that adolescents are intolerable, therefore “adolescent-parent
relationships are inevitable conflictual and lead to rupture” (Petersen & Epstein,
1991, p. 375). Consequently it is also believed that peer relationships play a more
important relationship as opposed to parents (Petersen & Epstein, 1991).
However, research reports that adolescent-parent relationships undergo an
important transformation that supports the continued positive development of the
individual autonomy of an adolescent (DePlanty et al., 2007; Petersen & Epstein,
1991; Santrock, 2009). Adolescents and parents need a balanced relationship.
Through silent monitoring of adolescent behavior, parents can provide guidance
and emotional support to adolescents when it is needed; thus allowing adolescents
to develop their own independence and identity. During this stage, parents’
guidance and emotional support is vital to assist in strengthening and transforming
adolescent-parent relationships (Kreider et al., 2007; Santrock, 2009). The second
misconception is that the stage of puberty hinders adolescents’ development. This
has been revealed to not necessarily be true. Instead biological changes during
puberty have been found to have little effect on most behavior, except sexual
38
(Petersen & Epstein, 1991). Puberty’s social and psychological factors signal the
onset of the coming adulthood (Petersen & Epstein, 1991). According to Santrock
(2009), the majority of adolescents are able to effectively bypass this development
stage. Parent support is needed to ensure that adolescents traverse this stage of
turmoil in a healthy and positive manner (Santrock, 2009). In an attempt for a
positive parent-adolescent relationship, boundary testing and peer relations will
most likely reinforce parent values in order to gain parental approval (Petersen &
Epstein, 1991; Santrock, 2009). Parents play a larger role in adolescents’ lives
than what it is generally assumed.
While it is noted that a majority of adolescents effectively transition in and
out of this stage, there is still a large group that does not (Santrock, 2009). Many
factors come into play in the development stage of adolescence. Family structure,
ethnicity, culture, language, socioeconomic level, age, school community, and
lifestyle differences all impact adolescent development (Bouffard & Stephen
2007; Ibañez et al., 2004; Santrock, 2009; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco,
2009). All of these factors are part of several spheres of influence. According to
Petersen and Epstein (1991) adolescents “face many different challenges unknown
to their parents,” in which guidance and support are essential to successfully
surpass (p. 375). Typically, Latino adolescents face greater challenges in the
different spheres of influence (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2010). Latino students are
more likely to come from a background of immigrants, poverty, and low-income
(Ibañez et al., 2004; Orozco, 2008; Santrock, 2009; Sue & Sue, 2008).
Consequently, Latino adolescents struggle with cultural assimilation and/or
pluralism, and are also faced with discrimination (Suárez-Orozco & SuárezOrozco, 2009). The adolescent stage for Latinos is atypical, as well as their
educational experience at the middle and high school level (Ibañez et al., 2004).
39
Many factors come into play in adolescents’ development, but environments that
adolescents come in contact with enhance or exacerbate lifespan development
(Petersen & Epstein, 1991).
Parents play an integral part of the spheres of influence to ensure that
adolescents are provided with the adequate opportunities and support to become
competent and upright citizens (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Hoover-Dempsey et al.,
2005; Santrock, 2009; Zarrett & Eccles, 2006). While parents play the most
integral role in adolescents, schools also play a significant part of adolescents’
development. Outside of the home, children spend more waking time in school
than elsewhere (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Santrock, 2009). School is a major social
context in the daily life of all school-aged children (Petersen & Epstein, 1991). At
school adolescents develop non-familial relationships with adults who also help
them sort through issues of identity and independence, at times serving as a coping
space to deal with the friction of parent relationships (Eccles & Harold, 1993).
Home-school relationships continue to play an essential role in students
throughout middle and high school; the relationships between home and school
have been found to have a positive correlation with Latino academic achievement
(Delgado-Gaitan, 2004; Domina, 2005; Epstein, 2008; Ibañez et al., 2004; Simon,
2001; Trumbull et al., 2003). There is a necessary interaction between home and
school to assist in the development of adolescents, which makes parent
involvement an important feature of schools.
Theories of Development
There are two theories that emphasize parent involvement as a primary
source of influence in adolescents’ lives. The two theories include
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems and Epstein’s Overlapping Spheres of
Influence. Both theories are framed from a socio-ecological approach, which
40
examine simultaneous and multiple effects from interrelated contexts in a given
environment. Socio-ecological frameworks allow for integration of multiple
levels and contexts to establish a holistic picture of an individual’s life (Oetzel,
Ting-Toomey, & Rinderle, 2006; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). The two theories are
similar in that they include parents as an integral part of the framework.
Theory of Ecological Systems
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) theory of ecological systems focuses on human
development as the study of “a growing human organism and the changing
immediate environment in which it lives” (p. 514). The theory is centered on the
individual and its development in relation to the systems’ structures and contexts
that interact and relate with each other (Santrock, 2009). The theory of ecological
systems focuses on the process an individual undertakes and the social contexts,
both formal and informal, that interact to influence development (Bronfenbrenner,
1977). To understand the development of an individual, immediate environments
need to be understood.
Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems emphasizes that everything
is related to the individual’s context. Pictorially, the individual and its general
demographics (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity) are located at the core of the
developmental model (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Surrounding the individual are five
layers of systems: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and
chronosystem. The microsystem, the first layer, is where the individual
immediately lives. This level includes contexts like an individual’s family,
parents, school, and neighborhood (Alfaro, Umaña-Taylor, & Bácama, 2006;
Santrock, 2009). The mesosystem, the second layer, is where contexts within the
microsystem interact and connect (Alfaro et al., 2006; Bronfenbrenner, 1977,
1986; Santrock, 2009). It is at this level where home-and-school connections
41
influence students. The exosystem, the third layer, is encompassed of larger social
systems that interact with individuals’ microsystem and mesosystem
environments. The fourth and outermost layer, called macrosystem, is comprised
of an array of principles that affect an individual including but not limited to
cultural values, customs, and laws (Santrock, 2009). It is at this fourth level where
parent involvement is an important component of a student’s education. The fifth
and last layer, called chronosystem, encompasses the dimension of time as it
relates to an individual’s environment; both external and internal changes take
place at this level (Santrock, 2009). A detailed picture of Bronfenbrenner’s theory
is available in Figure 1.
Chronosystem: Changes in systems over time via a process of mutual accommodation.
Figure 1. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of development.
Bronfenbrenner’s theory consists of five environmental systems including the
microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. Adapted
from “Life-Span Development,” by J.W. Santrock, 2009, p. 28.
42
Referring to Bronfenbrenner’s model, the family is one of the many
contexts that affect an individual; it is a main landscape that fuels and steers
development. Parents are individuals who have “the most immediate influence on
the adolescents and therefore are most likely to impact adolescents’ behavior”
(Alfaro et al., 2006, p. 279). Consequently, the interactions that occur within the
five layers influence academic achievements both directly and indirectly (Alfaro et
al., 2006; Eamon, 2005). Home and school predominantly affect Latino
adolescent academic achievement for various reasons (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004;
DePlanty et al., 2007; Eamon, 2005). For example, parenting practices within the
home have been found to be predictors of Latino youth academic development
(Ceballo, 2004; Eamon, 2005; Henderson et al., 2007). The emphasis parents put
on schooling and providing a support system helps Latino adolescents make
education-related choices. Additionally, Latino students, as a result of family
socioeconomic status, are more likely to attend schools that are of less quality,
which provide limited opportunities for reaching their full academic potential
(Eamon, 2005). Using Bronfenbrenner’s theory to understand adolescent
development, it is a requirement that a positive home-school connection, via
parent involvement, exists in order to have an ecosystem that allows for healthy
development, which supports educational attainment.
Theory of Overlapping Spheres of Influence
Epstein’s theory of overlapping spheres of influences is a simplified
framework of Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems. The theory focuses
on external and internal structures of three contexts that overlap. The theory states
that three main spheres of influence directly affect an individual’s development
beginning at infancy (Epstein et al., 2002). The three spheres include home,
school, and community (Epstein, 1995; Epstein et al., 1997). Each sphere of
43
influence has key actors which include parents, peers, neighbors, community
members, teachers, counselors, etc. (Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2010).
Pictorially, the external structure encompasses the three systems of home,
school, and community interlocking (Epstein, 1995; Epstein et al., 1997). The
individual lies in the interlocking space of all three spheres, as the internal and
central point of the model. The independent environments of home, school, and
community make up the external system. It is in the internal structure of the
framework that interpersonal relationships occur amongst an array of characters
from the external systems (Epstein, 1995; Epstein, Galindo, & Sheldon, 2011;
Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2010). The influences and their interactions of the three
spheres enable an individual to learn and grown. Figure 2 provides a visual of the
interactions between contexts.
Figure 2. Epstein's theory of overlapping spheres of influence.
Each sphere in the figure indicates an environment whose context influences the
individual, where the individual is centered in the middle of all three spheres.
Adapted from “A Comprehensive Framework for School, Family and Community
Partnerships,” by J. L. Epstein et al., 1997, p. 72.
44
According to Epstein et al., (1997) individuals are the center of the model,
and development is dependent on interactions between key actors and experiences
at home, school, and community. Epstein’s theory stresses that it is critical for the
three spheres to work together. When the spheres are drawn together, individuals
are able to have a more positive development (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004; Epstein &
Van Voorhis, 2010; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). When spheres are pushed
apart, cognitive dissonance occurs, therefore causing conflict and/or confusion
(Epstein, 1995). Using Epstein’s model, when parents get involved in their
adolescents’ education, adolescents are more likely to become engaged, oriented,
energized, and motivated to produce their own success (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002;
Falbo et al., 2001; Henderson et al., 2007). Parents have the ability to reinforce
the importance of school, homework, habits, and activities that build students’
academic success (Epstein, 1995). Having shared goals and responsibilities
amongst parents and schools for student learning enhances the learning experience
and abilities of adolescents (Crosnoe, 2001; Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2010).
Parent involvement assists in creating an extended caring community that in turn
allows students to experience a learning community (Epstein, 1995). The theory
of overlapping spheres of influence acknowledges the power of context and the
results of interactions between parents and schools.
Parent Involvement at the Secondary Level
Most educators know that parent involvement can be a key factor in
increasing educational attainment amongst all students. Parent involvement has
been stressed since the early 1970s, yet for many the concept continues to be a
vague idea (Jeynes, 2003; Leon, 2003). The two theories summarized previously
stress that parents play an integral role in the development of adolescents.
Reflecting on the developmental theories, it is reemphasized that there is a need
45
for interaction between parents and schools (Chavkin, 1998; Eamon, 2005; Epstein
et al., 2002). There is a strong defense for parent involvement, yet the actual
definition continues to be a social construct whose meaning can vary across
diverse groups of constituents (Portes, 2005; Quiocho & Daoud, 2006). People
have different views of what exactly parent involvement is (Scribner, Young, &
Pedroza, 1999).
Parent involvement differs in meanings amongst people. The term parent
involvement has become a “fuzzy, poorly understood notion that gains new
meaning from a sociocultural perspective” (Portes, 2005, p. 123). Traditionally,
parent involvement is defined as formal participation in organized activities and
functions at school including volunteering, chaperoning, serving on school
committees, or assisting in the school in a variety of tasks (López, 2011; López et
al., 2001). Parent involvement traditionally paints a picture of parents attending
school-initiated functions (López et al., 2001; Ramirez, 2003). This definition of
parent involvement does not encompass what Latino parents believe parent
involvement is. Studies have been found that amongst researchers, schools, and
parents, there is a lack of cohesion of how parent involvement is defined (DotsonBlake, 2010; López, 2011; López et al., 2001; Oyserman et al., 2007; Pérez
Carreón et al., 2005; Scribner et al., 1999; Trumbull et al., 2003). The traditional
definition of parent involvement marginalizes individuals of diverse backgrounds
(Dotson-Blake, 2010; López et al., 2001). Parent involvement should be defined
and designed to meet the diverse nature of the diverse students and families in the
school and community (López, 2011; Ramirez, 2003; Trumbull et al., 2003).
Parental involvement is a very broad idea, which includes a vast range of
behaviors, generally referred to the efforts and contributions parents and families
make in a student’s education. These investments can take place inside and
46
outside the institution of school. The type and degree of parental involvement
depends on the extent to which parents are willing and able to contribute and
invest.
Academic life becomes more complex and demanding as students reach the
secondary level. Unfortunately, parental involvement in education declines across
middle and high school, due in part to adolescents’ increasing desire for autonomy
and to changes in school structure and organization which makes parents feel less
knowledgeable and able to assist their children (Bouffard & Stephen, 2007;
Crosnoe, 2001; Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Ferrara, 2009; Leon, 2003; Simon,
2001). Adolescents are at a pivotal age in secondary schools where they continue
to rely on guidance from parents to help them become successful (Catsambis,
1998; Kreider et al., 2007; Oyserman et al., 2007). A large body of research
continues to emphasize the importance of parental involvement in the middle and
high school years (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Epstein, 2008; Leon, 2003; Oyserman
et al., 2007). The attitudes and habits that students adopt during the years of
adolescence have a significant impact on their success in later life, thereby making
it important that “parents or guardians continue to play a significant role in a
student’s life, both in and out of school” (Leon, 2003, p. 32). Bouffard and
Stephen (2007) noted “the nature of family involvement process changes” from
those of elementary schooling (p. 1). Additionally, parents of Latino students are
typically “ill prepared to be involved in their youth’s academic activities or
unwilling or unable to interact with school personnel” (Eamon, 2005, p. 165). The
combination of the developmental stage and cultural and social capital of Latino
families hinders sustained parental involvement process once students reach
middle and high school.
47
Research on continuous parent involvement at the secondary level has
found that adolescents, including Latino students, with involved parents have
higher grades, higher test scores, higher rates of homework completion, a more
positive attitude and behavior, fewer placements in special education programs,
increased motivation, and increased enrollment in post-secondary education
(Bouffard & Stephen 2007; Crosnoe, 2001; Epstein et al., 1997; Flaxman & Inger,
1992; González-DeHass, Willems, & Doan-Holbein, 2005; López; 2009; Simon,
2001; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005; Zarrett & Eccles, 2006). Sheldon and Epstein
(2005) found that students in ninth grade were more likely to change their
behavior and achievement at school when parents intervened than when classroom
teachers attempted to do the same. In this same study, it was found that secondary
students increased academic performance in mathematics by using parent
involvement partnership practices (Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). The results of the
same study by Sheldon and Epstein (2005) reinforced that purposeful parent
involvement activities have the ability to produce results. In a study of 11,000
parents of high school seniors and 1,000 high school principals, adolescents whose
parents were involved in various ways, regardless of ethnicity and socioeconomic
status, “earned higher grades in English and math, completed more course credits
in English and math, had better attendance and behavior and came to class
prepared to learn” (Simon, 2001, p. 12). Falbo et al. (2001) found, in their parent
involvement research with high school students, that parental monitoring had
positive effects on adolescents’ academic and social success. Parents, regardless
of their socioeconomic status, can monitor attendance, schoolwork completion,
and social adjustment for positive outcomes in school (Falbo et al., 2001; Sheldon
& Epstein, 2005; Simon, 2001). Parents have the accessibility to guide students to
make positive choices that will positively correlate with academic achievement.
48
Outcomes of parent involvement at secondary school level have positive
results. Epstein and Sheldon (2002) have found that utilizing effective parent
involvement practices at the middle and high school level can significantly prevent
or minimize dropping out of high school, by disturbing patterns of absenteeism
and truancy. Epstein and Sheldon (2002) also highlighted six types of parent
involvement practices through which schools can connect with families in order to
improve specific student outcomes: (1) parenting, (2) communicating, (3)
volunteering, (4) learning at home, (5) decision making, and (6) collaborating with
the community. A survey by López (2009) found that “65% of Latino youths
strongly agree that their parents play or played an active role in their education”
(p. 5). Parent involvement is especially vital to Latino youth, as they are an at-risk
population. The research conducted in relation to adolescent and Latino parent
involvement has a rich and sound foundation confirming the potential parent
involvement can offer in education (Chavkin, 1998; Flaxman & Inger, 1992;
González, 2002; González-DeHass et al., 2005). Research of middle and high
school parent involvement of Latino adolescents has promising results. Schools
looking for an approach to increase the performance of Latino students should
strategically plan and implement an effective parent involvement program. By
doing so, schools encourage and enable interactions between adolescents and
parents that are important to academic success (Quezada, Díaz, & Sánchez, 2003;
Sheldon & Epstein, 2004, 2005).
Support for Parent Involvement as a Reform Effort
Research makes it clear that parent involvement has beneficial outcomes
for all adolescents, including Latinos. The latest Congress reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Act, recently known as the NCLB
of 2001, addresses the many empirical research studies related to parent
49
involvement. No Child Left Behind (2002) mandates that schools who receive
Title I federal funding comply with specific parent involvement requirements.
The objectives as stated by Part A of the NCLB Act of 2001 are to ensure that:
1) Parents are informed on how to become advocates and full parents in
their children’s education (e.g., understanding test scores, knowledge of
school choice, Supplemental Education Services [SES], parents’ and
students’ right);
2) Parents are advised on how to be included in decision-making and how
to participate in advisory committees to assist in the education of their
children, such as those described in section 1118 of the ESEA; and,
3) Parents know how to be actively involved in their child’s education at
school, at home and in the community (parent involvement). (NCLB,
2002)
Additionally, as part of NCLB, members of Congress for the first time
operationally defined parent involvement. The NCLB Act of 2001 uses the parent
involvement definition used by the National PTA’s National Standards for Parent
and Family Involvement Programs (Igo, 2002). According to the National PTA’s
definition, “parent involvement is the participation of parents in regular, two-way,
and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other
school activities” (Igo, 2002, p. 10). Defining parent involvement was a big step
in acknowledging that parent involvement is a salient influence that takes on many
different forms and shapes (Trumbull et al., 2003).
The passage of NCLB parent involvement requirements validates work
parent involvement researchers have conducted for many years. It also mandates
that parent involvement be used as a strategy to create partnerships between home
and school in order to promote student success amongst needy communities in the
50
United States (Henderson et al., 2007 Trumbull et al., 2003). Engaging families
and encouraging parent involvement is no longer just a good idea for schools to
practice; instead parent involvement has become a mandated necessity (Joftus &
Maddox-Dolan, 2003; Johnson et al., 2006). DePlanty et al. (2007) noted that the
law recognizes parents are children’s first and most important teachers, and in
order for students to succeed in schools, parents must be active participants in their
children’s educational lives. This involvement includes parents maintaining their
involvement in their children’s education during the adolescent years. However,
parent involvement at the secondary level will only continue if conscious efforts
are made to develop partnerships with parents.
Epstein’s Framework for Parent Involvement
Acknowledging and mandating that an increased parent involvement effort
be made at all K-12 levels is not enough to ensure that proper family-school
connections are made. Amongst schools there is a myopic vision of what parent
involvement is, which hinders family-school relationships (Ferrara, 2009).
Advocates of parent involvement call for an acknowledged global and more
extensive perspective of parent involvement (Falbo et al., 2001; Ferrara, 2009;
Trumbull et al., 2003). Parent involvement is multidimensional and can take
different shapes or forms depending on the school age of children, cultural
background, and other socioeconomic characteristics of families (Falbo et al.,
2001; Peña, 2000; Trumbull et al., 2003). For this reason, Epstein created a model
of parent involvement that encompasses different types of parent involvement.
Epstein’s framework “continues to be one of the most widely referenced
frameworks for parent involvement” (Bower & Griffin, 2011, p. 78). Epstein’s
model outlines six types of parental involvement: (1) parenting, (2)
communicating, (3) volunteering, (4) learning at home, (5) decision-making, and
51
(6) collaborating with the community (Epstein, 1995). Epstein found in her
research that the act and definition of parent involvement has evolved from
historical to present studies and from many years of practical work by educators at
all grade levels (Bower & Griffin, 2011). The framework helps educators develop
comprehensive programs of school and family partnership (Henderson et al.,
2007). Each type of parent involvement is operationally defined in the framework.
Table 5 provides details on Epstein’s framework for parent involvement.
Table 5
Framework of Six Types of Involvement
Framework
1. Parenting
2. Communicating
3. Volunteering
4. Learning at home
5. Decision making
Definition
Help all families establish home environments to
support children as students.
Design effective forms of school-to-home and
home-to-school communications about school
programs and children’s progress.
Recruit and organize parent help and support.
Provide information and ideas to families about
how to help students at home with homework and
other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and
planning.
Include parents in school decisions, developing
parent leaders and representatives.
Identify and integrate resources and services from
6. Collaborating with the the community to strengthen school programs,
community
family practices, and students’ learning and
development.
Adapted from “School/Family/Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children We Share,” by
J.L. Epstein, 1995, Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), p. 704.
Epstein suggests an array of activities to create partnerships between home
and school. The framework of parent involvement encompasses a typology that
52
offers a wide variety of opportunities. To attract diverse audiences, it is best to
design parent involvement programs utilizing multiple strategies to draw, retain,
and promote parents’ active participation (Henderson et al., 2007). Simon’s
(2001) study of parent involvement at the high school level found that using a
range of Epstein’s strategies to encourage parent involvement leads to positive
influences in adolescents’ grades, course credits, attendance, behavior, and school
preparedness. Additionally, Simon (2001) found that “regardless of family
background or school context, when high schools reach out to involve families,
families respond with increased involvement” (p. 16). Epstein’s framework
responds to the need of reexamining traditional definitions and practices of what
parent involvement means and the different forms it can take on.
National Parent Teacher Association
In acknowledgement of the importance of parent involvement as a key
factor in student success, the National PTA adopted standards for parent and
family involvement programs in 1998. The National PTA developed the standards
because “research consistently demonstrates the benefits of family-schoolcommunity partnerships” in creating:
 Higher teacher morale
 Increased communication among parents, teachers, and school leaders
 More parent involvement in supporting teaching and learning
 More community support for the school
 Greater student success (National Congress of Parents and Teachers, 2009).
Epstein’s theory of overlapping spheres and framework for parent
involvement served as the original source for the development of the standards
(National Congress of Parents and Teachers, 2009). The standards for familyschool partnerships aim to “integrat[e] the three major interrelated spheres of
53
influence” in students’ lives (Onikama, Hammond, & Koki, 1998). The standards
were designed to use as a guide to develop a balanced comprehensive program of
partnerships, including opportunities for parent involvement at home and school.
The results for students, parents, and teachers will depend on the particular types
of parent involvement that are implemented, as well as on the quality of execution
(Epstein et al., 2002). The National PTA works with leading experts on parent
involvement and school-community partnership to update its standards to reflect
recent research and improve parent and community involvement practices. If
adopted and implemented appropriately the standards should create a parallel
relationship amongst all stakeholders in students’ lives. Table 6 lists the six
standards and their goal.
Barriers to Parent Involvement for Latino Parents
Parent involvement literature focuses on the positive impacts of parent
involvement. The message of the positive impact of parent involvement at all
grade levels and amongst all ethnic groups is supported in the research. However,
one of the challenges that schools face today is meeting the needs of the growing
diversity amongst the Latino students and their families.
Research indicates that although Latino parents are aware of the importance
of educational attainment, many are either not able or hesitant to actively
participate in their adolescents’ education (Moles, 1993; Peña, 2000; Ramirez,
2003; Smith et al., 2008). A mixture of barriers prevents Latino parents from
becoming involved in the education of their children (Goldenberg, Gallimore,
Reese, & Garnier, 2001; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; López et al., 2001). The
barriers can be divided into five categories: culture, education level of parents,
language, logistical issues, and school environment.
54
Table 6
National Standards and Goals for Family-School Partnerships
Standard
1. Welcoming all families
into the school community
Goal
Families are active participants in the life of the
school, and feel welcomed, valued, and
connected to each other, to school staff and to
what students are learning and doing in class.
Families and school staff engage in regular,
2. Communicating effectively meaningful communication about student
learning.
Families and school staff continuously
collaborate to support students’ learning and
healthy development both at home and at
3. Supporting student success school, and have regular opportunities to
strengthen their knowledge and skills to do so
effectively.
4. Speaking up for every
child
5. Sharing power
6. Collaborating with
community
Families are empowered to be advocated for
their own and other children, to ensure that
students are treated fairly and have access to
learning opportunities that will support their
success.
Families and school staffs are equal partners in
decisions that affect children and families and
together inform, influence, and create policies,
practices, and programs.
Families and school staff collaborate with
community members to connect students,
families, and staff to expanded learning
opportunities, community services, and civic
participation.
Adapted from “PTA National Standards for Family-School Partnerships: An Implementation
Guide,” 2009, p. 6.
55
Culture
A primary issue that Latino parents deal with in participating in their
students’ education is their culture, and the clashing of beliefs between the Latino
and American ideas. Teachers who do not have proper training in working with
parents of Latino origin often dismiss the opportunity to engage parents in their
children’s education. A study by Lee and Bowen (2006) found that in working
with Latino populations it is necessary “for schools to recognize and exploit the
existence of cultural variations in parent involvement” (p. 214). Parents’ beliefs
about their role can also be a challenge to involvement. Due to cultural ideas
Latino parents are more likely to believe that their role in their children’s life is at
home by providing them the everyday necessities to ensure that students are able
to attend school well dressed and fed; the responsibility of teaching children is left
to the school (DeVos & Suárez-Orozco, 1991; Goldenberg et al., 2001; Garnier,
2001; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; López et al., 2001; Trumbull et al., 2003). The
sociocultural background of Latino families shapes the way Latino parents become
involved in their students’ educational life.
Latinos have high regard for schools and educators. Latinos view teachers
as professionals who should be left alone to do their job; thus “feel that
interference with school activities would be counterproductive” (Quezada et al.,
2003, p. 32). A study conducted by Goldenberg et al. (2001) found that parents
are able and willing to provide important support for their students’ school
success. However, educators need to “make an increased effort to reach out to
Latino parents and enlist them in collaborate efforts” (Goldenberg et al., 2001, p.
579). Marschall’s (2006) study of Latino schools found that “greater teacher
awareness of cultural and community issues of their students” results in having
more engaged parents, while stronger family-school connections are made (p.
56
1069). Ferrara and Ferrara (2005) inform that most teachers have little, if any,
experience and training in working with parents. Therefore a need exists for
raising awareness of Latino parents as partners in teacher education programs
(Delgado-Gaitan, 2004; Ferrara & Ferrara, 2005; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005).
Educators need to understand the culture of Latino families and be able to identify
the strengths that can make parents’ involvement successful (Orozco, 2008; Payne,
2005). Cultural beliefs that are untraditional to the U.S. education system come
into play when working with Latino parents.
Education Level of Latino Parents
A second factor that hinders Latinos’ parent involvement is the education
levels of parents. Schools have a myopic vision of what parent involvement
entitles; one of the parent involvement assumptions is that all parents should able
to assist with completion of schoolwork at home. Meeting unknown set
expectations can be intimidating and challenging for many Latino parents, as most
have limited formal education, especially at the secondary level (Quezada et al.,
2003; Trumbull et al., 2003). Consequently, parents’ “self-perceived skills and
knowledge appear to figure heavily in parents’ decisions about some kinds of
involvement as their children progress from elementary through middle and high
school” (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005, p. 115). Parent involvement declines in
activities such as homework assistance once children’s subject matters move close
to or supersede parents’ knowledge (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; HooverDempsey et al., 2005). Latino parents’ limited knowledge and skills hinder their
self-confidence in engaging and involving in their elementary children’s schoollife, let alone their adolescents’ education (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2010). To
encourage continued Latino parent involvement at the secondary grades, it is
imperative that schools provide programs and support for parents to learn how to
57
be involved at the secondary school level. Assisting Latino parents in learning
about alternative ways to participate in their adolescents’ education and providing
opportunities to increase skills and knowledge is an avenue to supporting and
creating a parent involvement environment for Latino families.
Language
The third issue that many Latino parents deal with in seeking to become
involved in their children’s education is language. Latino parents often have
limited English proficiency, thus rely on their children for translation. This
situation hampers parent-school relationship development (Bohon et al., 2005;
López, 2011; López et al., 2001; Onikama et al., 1998; Quezada et al., 2003).
Researchers have found that Latino parents perceive their lack of English skills
create a feeling of alienation from the school culture because no one at the school
will be able to listen to them if they cannot communicate in English (Quezada et
al., 2003). Amongst researchers it has been found that the “inability of the parents
to speak and understand English was the major obstacle to effective
communications between the school and the Hispanic parents” (Smith et al., 2008,
p. 11). Language is a barrier that obstructs parents to assist students with their
homework or communicate with school personnel, again limiting the opportunities
for Latino parents to contribute (Bohon et al., 2005; Peña, 2000; Trumbull et al.,
2003). There is a need to bridge the communication gap by hiring more bilingual
and bicultural educators, who can also serve as Latino role models (Bohon et al.,
2005). The demand for bilingual school staff is evident as the number of Latino
students continues to grow in California. It has been found that in California, and
the United States, there is a problem due to the understaffing of bilingual staff that
does not correlate with the rapidly changing demographics, thus worsening the
problem of communication between Spanish-speaking Latino parents and English-
58
only school staff (Ramirez, 2003). There is a need to take action in educating,
training, and hiring qualified educators and staff to work with the growing Latino
population.
Logistical Issues
The fourth issue that hinders Latino parent involvement includes a variety
of logistic issues including but not limited to work schedules, childcare, and
transportation. A research study conducted by Trumbull et al. (2003) found that
new practices needed to be designed to work with Latino parents. It was also
found that the traditional strategies used to attempt to engage Latino parents
represented typical practice educators learned through personal and informal
interactions with their own teachers (Trumbull et al., 2003). Latino parents’ long
work hours and little flexibility make it difficult to attend school-organized
functions (Ceballo, 2004; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Zarate, 2007). Educators
need to be sensitive to these issues, as “some parents lose pay from work by
attending” school events, and at times other parents elect not to participate because
child care and transportation are an issue (López, 2011, p. 16). Latino parents are
unable to fit the traditional parent involvement model because becoming involved
at school, by having a physical presence, may conflict with employment and/or
family obligations. Not attending or leaving work early is considered a sacrifice in
being able to provide daily food and shelter for their children. Due to the
economic stressors of making ends meet, schools should vary the time of day and
the day of the week parent events take place, and address the lack of childcare and
transportation by providing such services. Some programs have found to be
successful in encouraging parent involvement by providing incentives, rewards,
and amenities for parents and families to participate in school activities that are
more accessible to everyone (Zarate, 2007). Logistical issues, while small, are
59
perceived as barriers to Latino families, therefore addressing them may enable
more Latino parents to engage in their children’s education.
School Environment
Researchers have found that many Latino parents feel intimidated by the
school environment, its operating system, and educators (Quezada et al., 2003;
Smith et al., 2008). Large portions of Latino parents are undereducated and
therefore unfamiliar with the American schooling system (Orozco, 2008; Quezada
et al., 2003). This uncontrollable variable immediately distances many parents
from their children’s schools. Many immigrant Latino parents lack the knowledge
to understand the details of school curriculum and educational pathways, its
functioning, and how to play a role in the school (Ceballo, 2004; DeVos & SuárezOrozco, 1991; Kuperminc, Darnell, & Alvarez-Jimenez, 2007; Dotson-Blake,
2010; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). The barriers that school environments
impose on Latino parents need to be resolved to increase Latino parent
involvement. The school environment needs to be inviting both physically and
attitudinally (López et al., 2001). Research studies have found that parent
involvement increases when formal/bureaucratic barriers are broken down and a
welcoming atmosphere is in place (De Gaetano, 2007; López et al., 2001). Parent
education in the American school system is a solution to breaking down the barrier
and having parents participate in schools (López et al., 2001). School
environments are a key factor in inviting parents to be part of a school’s culture.
Therefore, it is imperative that a welcoming and inviting school environment is
created through parent education and personnel training as needed.
Latino parents, just as other parents, genuinely care about their children’s
education. Research studies have verified this assumption (Eccles & Harold,
1993; Goldenberg et al., 2001; López et al., 2001; Quiocho & Daoud, 2006;
60
Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2009). The barriers mentioned above serve only
to distance and discourage parent involvement at the secondary level even further
(Marschall, 2006; Ramirez, 2003). Latino parent involvement at the middle and
high school level requires continuous efforts and encouragement from schools
(Epstein, 2008; Kreider et al., 2007; Sanders, 2001). If educators are truly
interested in making strides in improving the academic outcomes of Latino
students, they must keep these factors in mind when working with Latino parents
and developing parent involvement programs that are inclusive.
Chapter Summary
Latinos represent a large segment of society and will continue to do so for
years to come. The number of Latinos is increasing and they are now the largest
ethnic group in California, and the United States. Although the number of Latinos
is increasing in society, the disparity of educational attainment continues to prevail
amongst this ethnic group. Ensuring Latino educational attainment is necessary to
ensure that California and other states, with large concentration of this group, have
a successful viable economy and society. There are many reasons for the disparity
in education results; however, research-based practices exist to help this disparity.
One of the research-based practices that have supported Latino student
educational achievement and attainment has been parent involvement. Parent
involvement is a salient variable that is socially constructed, which takes on
different forms and meanings. Parent involvement is a resource that is widely
used in the primary level. Secondary schools have done a poor job in embracing
and accessing this resource. Many reasons exist why parent involvement
decreases as students move along to the secondary school level. It continues to be
impetrative that parent involvement takes place at the secondary level. At the
61
middle and high schools, adolescents continue to need parent monitoring,
guidance, and support to ensure a successful educational career.
This chapter summarized literature regarding Latino student population,
educational attainment as well as parent involvement benefits, theories,
frameworks, and barriers. Parent involvement is a construct that has shown to be
tremendously valid in supporting the attainment of Latino students’ high school
completion. Accordingly a significant part of this chapter was dedicated to
summarizing the literature related to Latino parent involvement. The following
chapter describes the methodology utilized in exploring parent involvement
amongst secondary school administrators. Chapter 3 also describes the
methodology utilized for investigating schools’ attempt to beginning forming
connections with families and how they want to improve their interactions.
62
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
This descriptive pilot study had two main purposes. First, the study
identified and analyzed secondary schools’ connections with families. This was
done by collecting rural central San Joaquin Valley administrators’ attitudes and
professional judgments about parent involvement, schools’ present practices, areas
they would like to see developed or improved at their schools, estimates of family
involvement, estimates of support for involvement by other educators and parents,
administrators’ experience and backgrounds, and open-ended comments.
Secondly, this study examined the effect of administrators’ attitudes, perceptions,
and points of view towards parent involvement on current parent involvement
practices at the secondary school level; trends and associations were highlighted in
the results. In light of the findings of parent involvement studies, which point to
the lack of parent involvement in secondary schools in addition to the difficulties
and challenges of engaging Latino parents at the secondary level, it was predicted
that similar findings would be found in this study.
Research Design
This study sought to examine the relationship between rural secondary
school principals towards parent involvement practices and Latino high school
graduation and dropout rates. Six types of parent involvement were examined: (1)
parenting, (2) communicating, (3) volunteering, (4) learning at home, (5) decision
making, and (6) collaborating with the community (Epstein et al., 2002). The
study utilized these six dimensions to gauge the perception of administrators and
program practices with regard to Latino parent involvement.
63
Participants
Fifty-seven rural secondary school principals in California’s rural central
San Joaquin Valley were invited to participate in this study. The 57 schools were
purposely selected because they serve predominantly Latino students in rural areas
of the Central Valley in California, in particular Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare
County. All of the invited principals were from schools that had at least a 60%
Latino population; the average Latino population in all selected schools was 86%.
The selection of participants was purposeful, as it reflects the growing number of
Latino students in California public secondary schools. The researcher collected
the name of the school principals through the 2012 California Department of
Education school directory. The school principals were contacted by phone,
email, mail, or in-person, and invited to participate in the study. Administrators
were assured that their individual participation was voluntary and that they had the
right to withdraw at any time. The administrators participated in a paper and
pencil survey.
School principals are the chief site administrators in schools. Much of the
responsibility for developing parent involvement lies on principals, who in turn
have a responsibility to lead their faculty and staff in the development of programs
that foster meaningful and sustained involvement. As a result, school principals
were the targeted participants. In this study it was assumed that principals are
knowledgeable enough about the current parent involvement culture at his or her
site. As school leaders, principals are responsible for creating schools’ missions,
visions, and for steering schools toward targeted goals. Principals’ responsibilities
extend to parent involvement programs and practices—as school-wide oversight is
an everyday role for principals.
64
Research Questions
This study used a survey instrument designed to guide the research and
seek answers to the following questions:
1. What are secondary school administrators’ attitudes about
parent involvement in rural central San Joaquin Valley?
2. What are secondary school administrators’ perceptions about
parent involvement research based strategies in rural central
San Joaquin Valley?
3. What are secondary school administrators, in rural central San
Joaquin Valley, doing to encourage and maintain Latino parent
involvement?
4. Are secondary school administrators, in rural central San
Joaquin Valley, satisfied with their overall Latino parent
involvement program and efforts?
5. What are obstacles, in rural central San Joaquin Valley, to
increasing parent involvement in secondary schools?
Instrumentation
The data for this study were obtained through the use of an adapted survey
instrument. Written permission was obtained from the Center on School, Family,
and Community Partnerships to adapt and use the teacher’s version of the High
School and Family Partnership Survey (see Appendix A). The survey is seven
pages in length and is comprised of 12 main questions with over 125 items. A
study by Epstein and Connors (1994) utilized the High School and Family
Partnership Survey with a sample of 150 teachers from six high schools in
Maryland. Results from this study indicate existing potential and challenges for
65
partnerships amongst parents and secondary schools (Epstein & Connors, 1994).
A copy of this instrument is available in Appendix B.
The internal consistency reliability of the High School and Family
Partnership Survey was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha was
used because the survey included many Likert-type items. Additionally, reliability
statistical procedures provided detailed information such as “item means and
variances, a matrix of inter-item correlations, scale statistics, item-to-total statistics
on the effect on the item reliability of the scale if an item were deleted, and the
alpha coefficient” (Epstein, Connors-Tadros, Horsey, & Simon, 1996, p 5). In the
original study items were combined to create reliable scales that measured related
concepts, therefore permitting efficient analysis of survey data (Epstein et al.,
1996). Table 7 lists 13 of the 17 scales from the High School and Family Survey,
which includes items adapted and utilized in this pilot study. Coefficient alpha is
provided for each of the 13 scales that were adapted into this study.
Table 7
High School and Family Partnership Survey Scales
Title & Scale Name
Teacher Attitude About Family Involvement (TATTFI)
Teacher Rating of the High School (TRATESCH)
Teacher Reports of School Type 2 Activities (TSCPRGT2)
Teacher Reports of School Activities of Involvement (TSCPRGAL)
Importance to Teacher of Type 2 Activities (TIMPT2)
Importance to Teacher of All Activities (TIMPALL)
Ways Teacher Contacts Families (TCONTACT)
Teacher Views of Support for Parent Involvement (TSUPPORT)
Teacher Views of Community Problems (TCOMPROB)
Reliability
.81
.70
.65
.65
.66
.78
.68
.75
.77
.90
.66
.85
.73
66
A modified survey titled Secondary Schools and Parent Involvement for
school principals was created for the purpose of this research study. This was done
by selecting various items from the High School and Family Survey and adapting
them to the targeted audience. In comparison to the High School and Family
Survey, this instrument is much shorter in length and depth of questions. This was
purposefully done to ensure an acceptable response rate. In total, the Secondary
Schools and Parent Involvement school principal survey is 3½ pages in length,
comprised of nine main questions, with a total of 84 items. A copy of the
Secondary Schools and Parent Involvement survey is available in Appendix C.
The Secondary Schools and Parent Involvement survey measures attitudes,
professional judgments, points of view, and schools’ current parent involvement
practices. Table 8 shows the research questions that were utilized in this study and
the corresponding survey questions and items from the Secondary School and
Parent Involvement Survey that align.
Data Collection Procedures
Approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Institutional Review
Board (IRB) at California State University, Fresno. Upon approval, the data were
collected in two parts: (1) collection of survey data and (2) retrieval of archival
school data. Data collection for part 1 began with an initial contact by phone or
email to preselected secondary school principals. Upon principals’ acceptance to
participate, the researcher followed up by providing a copy of the study’s
introduction letter and a pre-coded Secondary Schools and Parent Involvement
Survey for school principals. A copy of the study introduction letter is available in
Appendix D. Delivery of these items was made in person or email according to
the principals’ preferences. The Secondary Schools and Parent Involvement
Survey took an average of 10-15 minutes to complete and were administered
67
Table 8
Corresponding Research and Survey Research Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Research Question
What are secondary school administrators’
attitudes about parent involvement in rural
central San Joaquin Valley?
What are secondary school administrators’
perceptions about parent involvement
research based strategies in rural central San
Joaquin Valley?
What are secondary school administrators, in
rural central San Joaquin Valley, doing to
encourage and maintain Latino parent
involvement?
Are secondary school administrators, in rural
central San Joaquin Valley, satisfied with
their overall Latino parent involvement
program and efforts?
What are obstacles, in rural central San
Joaquin Valley, to increasing parent
involvement in secondary schools?
Survey Questions & Items
Question 2
Question 3
Question 8, item b
Question 4
Question 5
Question 7, item m
Question 8, item a
Question 6
Question 7
Question 9, item f
Question 7, items d & l
Question 1
Question 8, items d
during the weeks of April 1, 2012 to April 15, 2012. All principals were given a
week and a half to complete and return the survey. The due date of the survey
varied depending on the date the survey was provided to the principal. On average
it took school principals between 4 to 6 days to complete and return the survey.
Data collection for part 2 began with the pre-coding surveys to be able to
track the number of surveys distributed, returned, and site it was coming from.
This was necessary to be able to retrieve archival school data from state and
federal educational accountability databases (i.e., Ed-Data, DataQuest, NCES).
This was intentionally done to link responses to school educational accountability
performance measures data including graduation and dropout rates and student
demographics. This information was necessary for the analysis phase of this
study.
68
Analysis
The descriptive nature of the study focused on conducting descriptive
statistical analyses. This was done to summarize and describe the results of the
surveys. The descriptive analyses conducted for the five research questions
include: (1) number of responses from subjects, (2) mean, (3) median, (4) mode,
(5) standard deviation, (6) variance, (7) range, and (8) percentages. Additionally a
Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationships
between descriptive statistics and high school graduation and dropout rates.
Variables that were examined in the correlation analysis included (1) attitudes
regarding about parent involvement, (2) reports of school activities for parent
involvement, (3) importance of all (parent involvement) activities, (4) graduation
rates, and (5) dropout rates. Bivariate correlations were included to study
relationships between academic achievement measures (i.e., graduation and
dropout rates) at high schools and school principals’
 Attitudes about parent involvement
 Perceptions about research-based parent involvement activities
 Current practices of parent involvement
 Years at current site
 Years in education.
Additional bivariate correlations were conducted to examine relationships
amongst survey scales that were calculated to have reliable coefficients.
Qualitative data gathered was analyzed using a grounded theory approach.
Grounded theory is a complex process that utilizes inductive inquiry (Angrosino,
2005). This is an ethnographic research approach where linkages are developed
between concepts that are being studied and data gathered (Angrosino, 2005).
69
This process was used to find common themes and trends amongst open-ended
responses.
Although the Secondary School and Parent Involvement survey was
adapted, it is a new instrument. Therefore, the internal consistency reliability of
the instrument was analyzed. Many of the items in the instrument utilized a
Likert-scale response format. Accordingly, a Cronbach’s alpha was utilized to
evaluate the internal consistency reliability of each of the scales used.
Additionally, item-total correlation and reliability of item-deleted coefficient was
examined to identify items that negatively affected the internal consistency
reliability of the instrument’s scales.
Limitations
The following are possible limitations to this study:
1.
Pilot study. No other research conducted for the same purpose was
found, and no time was available to conduct a pilot study to follow
up with a second study.
2.
New survey instrument. No instrument that fit the exact purpose for
this study was found.
3.
Sample was self-selected. Follow up communications reminders
were used to encourage all participants to participate. However, it
was not possible to force a principal to complete the survey
unwillingly.
4.
Sample was small. As a result response comparisons across ethnic,
gender, and other demographics groups were limited.
5.
Diversity in sample available was limited. Due to sample available,
results are not to be generalized beyond the specific population from
which the sample was drawn.
70
6.
Unknown subjects’ willingness to respond with frankness. Due to
failure of subjects to answer with candor, results do not accurately
reflect the opinion of all members of the included populations.
There is a possibility that participants provided the most desirable
and socially acceptable answers.
7.
Parent involvement definition. The lack of available definition
allowed for self-interpretation of the term. The participants were not
instructed to use one specific definition for parent involvement.
Therefore, when answering the survey participants used their own
and believed definition of what parent involvement is.
8.
Study time frame. The study was administered in a relatively short
range of time. As result, a possibility exists that participants rushed
to meet the timeline and thus did not take enough time to answer the
survey to the best of their abilities.
Delimitations
The following are possible delimitations to this study:
1.
Rural central San Joaquin Valley was the only focus. This study was
conducted in secondary schools located in the rural central San
Joaquin Valley counties (i.e., Fresno, Kern, Kings, Tulare) that may
not be representative of other schools in the area, state, or nation.
However, this was done for the purpose of learning about rural
central San Joaquin Valley secondary schools.
2.
Secondary school principals were the only subjects surveyed. The
study intended to learn only about the chief site administrators.
Therefore, study excluded other administrators who are also
responsible for parent involvement, such as assistant principals,
71
learning directors, deans, program directors, and counselors. Results
are not to be generalizable to other school administrators or
personnel.
3.
Academic achievement was defined by high school graduation and
dropout rates. The academic achievement measure for this study
was exclusively measured by examining high school graduation and
dropout rates, excluding other representative forms of achievement
such as CSTs, CAHSEE results, attendance rates, discipline, etc.
4.
The survey was administered within a relatively short range of time.
This was done purposefully to elicit a higher response rate.
Chapter Summary
This chapter described the purpose of the study, research design, research
questions, participants, instrumentation, data collection process, analyses,
limitations, and delimitations. This descriptive study provided preliminary data
about principals’ attitudes and reports of parent involvement, from predominantly
Latino secondary schools in rural central San Joaquin Valley. Chapter 4 provides
results found in the pilot study.
72
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS/OUTCOMES
Introduction
This study examined secondary school principals’ perceptions and attitudes
of Latino parent involvement. A survey instrument titled Secondary Schools and
Parent Involvement was used to gather data and created for the purpose of this
research pilot study. Various items from the High School and Family Survey, an
instrument developed by the Center on School, Family, and Community
Partnerships, were selected and adapted to the targeted audience for appropriate
data collection. In total, the Secondary Schools and Parent Involvement school
principal survey is 3-½ pages in length, comprised of nine main questions, with a
total of 84 items. Survey items were designed to measures attitudes, professional
judgments, points of view, and present parent involvement practices. For a copy
of the survey see Appendix C. Educational accountability databases (i.e., EdData, DataQuest, NCES) were used to access school data statistics. Demographic
data gathered about the schools included: (1) percent of Latino student population,
(2) graduation rate, and (3) dropout rate. This chapter includes the data analysis
that addresses the following research questions:
1. What are secondary school administrators’ attitudes about
parent involvement in rural central San Joaquin Valley?
2. What are secondary school administrators’ perceptions about
parent involvement research based strategies in rural central
San Joaquin Valley?
involvement?
73
4. Are secondary school administrators, in rural central San
Joaquin Valley, satisfied with their overall Latino parent
involvement program and efforts?
5. What are obstacles, in rural central San Joaquin Valley, to
increasing parent involvement in secondary schools?
This chapter is divided into five major sections. The first section provides
an overview of the organization of data analysis, including procedures and
strategies. The second section presents a summary of descriptive characteristics of
subjects. The third section addresses each of the research questions based on data
analyses findings from the survey. The fourth section provides a summary of the
correlation between school principals’ responses and schools’ graduation and
dropout rates. The fifth and final section provides an overall summary of the data
analysis findings by integrating and synthesizing results for each research
question.
Organization of Data Analysis
The survey data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2008 and sorted by data
type, quantitative and qualitative. Additionally, school data statistics were entered
and matched with school principals’ responses. Quantitative data were exported
into SPSS version 19.0 and analyzed using frequency distributions and
correlations. The summarized quantitative demographic results are provided
under the “Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents.” In
addition to the frequency distributions, a cross-tabulation table was created to
determine if a pattern existed with regards to school principals’ responses to parent
involvement, and graduation and dropout rates. These data were summarized
under the “Analysis of Research Questions” section.
74
Qualitative data were analyzed by transcribing all open-ended responses to
survey questions onto a Microsoft Word 2008 document. A qualitative method
used to build general theories, known as inductive inquiring grounded theory
approach, was utilized to analyze ethnographic data (Angrosino, 2005). All of the
responses were read and manually analyzed by coding participants’ responses,
identifying commonalities, and then placing common responses into larger
themes.
Presentation of Descriptive Characteristics of
Respondents
A total of 35 school principals were surveyed; 21 (60%) from the high
school level and 14 (40%) from the junior high/ middle school level. The
breakdown of schools by Central Valley county was the following: Fresno 6
(17%); Kern 13 (37%); Kings 4 (11%); and Tulare 12 (34%). Demographic
results indicate diversity in county location of schools in rural central San Joaquin
Valley. Table 9 provides more details on the frequencies and percentages of
county representation by schools.
Table 9
Frequency Distribution of Respondents by Central Valley County
Frequency
%
% Cumulative
Fresno
6
17
17
Kern
13
37
54
Kings
4
11
66
Tulare
12
34
100
County
75
School principals were asked to respond to five personal demographic
questions including: (1) number of years at the site, (2) total number of years in
the field of education, (3) highest level of education completed, (4) gender, and (5)
ethnicity.
Examining school site tenure, 15 (43%) school principals reported 2 years
or less, while 20 (57%) reported 3 years or more. Most school principals (29;
83%) indicated being educators (e.g., teachers, vice principals) for at least 10 years
or more. The descriptive statistics for the number of years at the current school
site and in education are detailed in Table 10. The descriptive statistics for the
highest level of education completed indicates that all 35-school principals had at
least a Master’s degree plus an administrative credential; one school principal also
reported having earned a doctoral degree.
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics for the Measures of Principals’ Experience
Measure
Mean
Median
Mode
Range
Years at Current Site
3
3
1
1-8
Years in Education
25
15
14, 17
5-27
School principals were also asked to identify their gender and ethnicity.
Males were the dominant gender group, with 66% (23) representation, while
females made up a minority group of 34% (12). Two ethnic groups dominated
participants’ identity. The results in Table 11 indicate that White (57%) was the
most common ethnicity amongst school principals, followed by Hispanic/Latino
(31%). For more details on school principals’ ethnicity see Table 11.
76
Table 11
Descriptive Statistics for Principals’ Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Frequency
%
African American
1
3
Asian American
1
3
Hispanic/Latino
11
31
Native American
1
3
White
20
57
Other
1
3
% Cumulative
3
6
37
40
97
100
Data Analyses for Research Questions
The results for each research question are presented in this section. Each
research question was addressed using its corresponding, quantitative or
qualitative, survey item as indicated in Table 8.
Research Question 1
The first research question examined school principals’ attitudes and points
of view about parent involvement. Two questions and one open ended item,
related to attitudes and points of view, were included in the school principal’s
survey to ensure this research question was addressed. School principals were
asked to provide professional judgment about parent involvement by selecting
statements, using a 4-point Likert scale, which best represented their opinion and
experience. This scale is referred to as “Attitudes About Parent Involvement”
(AAPI). Additionally, school principals were asked to provide an open-ended
response of their thoughts on how parent involvement helps or could help their
school. Finally, school principals were asked to rate, using a 4-point Likert scale,
personal support for Latino parent involvement at their school site.
Results. As part of the AAPI scale, school principals were asked to answer
14 question items. After completing a statistical analysis, it was decided that 3
items best measured the desired construct. The results of the 3-item construct
77
were calculated to have a Cronbach’s alpha of .755. Other statistical descriptive
details of this scale are available in Table 12.
Table 12
Item Statistics for the Attitudes About Parent Involvement
Items
M
SD
Statistics for Subscale
3
7.26
1.81
Item-Total
Item Statistics
M
SD
Correlation
Item
Coefficient α
.755
Alpha if
Item Deleted
Q2 k
1.53
.89
.50
.82
Q2 m
2.94
.60
.65
.63
Q2 n
3.00
.68
.66
.59
A frequency distribution was created to examine the proportions of school
principals who agreed and disagreed with itemized statements. Overall, it was
found that school principals agreed to positive-related and disagreed with
negative-related parent involvement statements. The outcomes by percentage and
numbers are summarized in Table 13.
Table 13
Percentage of Responses for the Attitudes About Parent Involvement
Agree
Disagree
No Response
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Question
Item
Q2 k
3
9
31
89
1
3
Q2 m
27
77
7
20
1
3
Q2 n
24
69
10
29
1
3
Notes. Q2 k. It is not necessary for parents to be involved in their adolescent’s
education; Q2 m. This school is one of the best for parents; Q2 n. In this school,
parents play a large role in most decisions.
78
As part of an open-ended question, school principals were asked to list
ways parent involvement can help their school. To analyze these data a grounded
theory analysis was utilized. Grounded theory is an approach where linkages are
developed between concepts, that are being studied, and the data gathered
(Angrosino, 2005). After reviewing the written responses and completing an
analysis, three major themes were identified; the themes were student-centered
based. The most common themes in rank order, as noted by school principals as
having a positive relationship with parent involvement were (1) student
accountability, (2) student goal setting, and (3) student motivation and
encouragement. The theme of student accountability covered different areas
including academics, responsibility, choices, and discipline. Results indicate that
school principals recognize the power of parent involvement and the effect it has
on students’ outcomes.
Lastly, school principals were asked to describe how much support they
give to Latino parent involvement. School principals were given a Likert-scale to
rank their support as “No Support,” “Weak Support,” “Some Support,” and “Very
Strong Support.” Twenty-nine (29; 83%) school principals described their support
toward Latino parent involvement as “Very Strong Support,” an additional 14%
(5) indicated to have “Some Support,” while 3% (1) indicated “Weak Support.”
Details described can be reviewed in Table 14.
Research Question 2
The second research question addressed principals’ perceived support for
research-based parent involvement practices at their school site. Two Likert
questions and items, nominal and open-ended, from the school principal survey
were utilized to address this research question. School principals were asked to
provide their professional judgment about the importance of conducting specific
79
Table 14
Percentages of Principals’ Support Level for Latino Parent Involvement
Frequency
%
% Cumulative
No Support
0
0
0
Weak Support
1
3
3
Some Support
5
14
17
Very Strong Support
29
83
100
Level
parent involvement activities with Latino families. This scale is referred to as
“Importance of Research-Based Parent Involvement Activities” (IRBPIA) and
used a 4-point Likert scale, to allow school principals to select the level of
importance of parent involvement activities. Secondly, school principals were
asked to select the most common types of communication methods with their
parents. Thirdly, principals were asked a nominal item question, to identify if they
do or do not collaborate with community organizations for parent involvement;
and if so to list the organizations they collaborated with. Lastly, school principals
were asked to provide best practices they have found to be successful. This was
an open-ended item.
Results. As part of the IRBPIA scale, school principals were asked to
answer questions that addressed best known practices for parent involvement; 8items measured the construct. The scale results of the 8-item construct were
calculated to have a Cronbach’s alpha of .808. Other statistical descriptive details
of this scale are available in Table 15.
A frequency distribution was calculated to understand the total importance
of activities. Results, of the frequency distribution, indicated that 94% (33) of the
80
participants believed research-based parent involvement activities are important,
the remaining 6% (2) indicated activities to be unimportant.
Table 15
Item Statistics for the Importance of Research-Based Parent Involvement
Activities
Items
M
SD
Coefficient α
8
28.46
2.93
.808
Item-Total
Alpha if Item
Item Statistics
M
SD
Correlation
Deleted
Item
Q4 b
3.49
.61
.82
.73
Q4 e
3.40
.60
.76
.74
Q4 f
3.63
.54
.29
.81
Q4 g
3.31
.47
.68
.76
Q4 h
3.29
.86
.69
.76
Q4 i
3.71
.45
.46
.79
Q4 j
3.80
.46
.22
.82
Q4 k
3.83
.38
.26
.81
This research question also investigated communication methods;
principals were provided a list of research-based methods to select from. The
most common form of reported communication with all parents includes letters
sent home (91%, 32) and telephone (e.g., personal calls, automated phone call
system) (74.3%; 26). Administrators were also asked about their collaboration
with community agencies and businesses to help parent involvement. A large
majority of respondents (86%, 30) reported collaborating with community
agencies to help parents become involved, while only 11% (4) reported they did
not collaborate. Finally, using a grounded theory approach to summarize school
81
principals’ responses, the most common successful parent involvement practices
listed were:
 Collaborating with community organization.
 Phone calls home.
 Communicating in native language.
 Personal (one-on-one) contact.
 Employing a parent liaison.
Table 16 details the frequencies and percentages of principals’ responses to
this item. Please note that this question elicited a free response and did not ask for
specific frequency use nor did it request qualitative data on the perceived
effectiveness of the practice.
Table 16
Principals’ Report of Successful Parent Involvement Practices
Practice
Frequency
Collaborating with community organization
8
Phone calls home
9
Communicating in native language
8
Personal (one-on-one) contact
9
Employing a parent liaison
3
%
22.85
25.71
22.85
25.71
8.57
Research Question 3
The third research question examined what schools do to encourage and
maintain Latino parent involvement. School administrators were asked two
questions and one open-ended item to describe their current parent involvement
program. Principals were also asked to answer how their school involves Latino
parents. The items in this question made up the scale “Current Practices of Parent
Involvement Program” (CPPIP). Responses on a 4-point Likert scale were used to
indicate the strength of the current program on site. The pertinent survey question,
82
which addressed this study’s third research question, contained both nominal and
open-ended items. The last item question was ordinal, and it required participants
to provide the frequency of working time spent on parent involvement.
Results. As part of the CPPIP scale, principals were asked to respond to
items which referenced research-based practices. The scale results of the 8-item
construct were calculated to have a Cronbach’s alpha of .762. Other statistical
descriptive details of this scale are available in Table 17.
Table 17
Item Statistics for the Current Practices of Parent Invovlvement Program
Items
M
SD
Coefficient α
8
25.44
2.86
.762
M
SD
Item-Total
Correlation
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q6 a
2.91
.57
.49
.73
Q6 d
3.76
.43
.52
.73
Q6 e
2.79
.53
.40
.74
Q6 f
3.24
.55
.43
.74
Q6 g
3.21
.72
.64
.69
Q6 h
3.29
.76
.58
.71
Q6 i
3.15
.43
.35
.75
Q6 j
3.09
.57
.27
.76
Item Statistics
Item
A frequency was calculated to examine principals’ perception regarding the
strength of their parent involvement program. The results indicated that 71% (25)
of administrators perceived their program to be strong and 26% (9) perceived their
program to be weak.
83
Administrators were also asked to provide an overview of their school’s
parent involvement program by indicating which parent involvement support
activities were in practice. The activities listed were research-based practices,
supported, and recommended by Epstein and the National PTA. Table 17
indicates that overall, principals’ reported positive associations with program
practices. All school principals reported believing parents are provided reasonable
opportunities to become involved in their adolescents’ education. Additionally, a
large majority of school principals perceived that all parents are invited to
participate and Latino parents have good participation in decision-making
committees. However, Table 18 also indicates that the majority of principals
reported their parent involvement program lacked in the following areas: program
efforts, satisfaction, and providing fingerprinting stipends and transportation.
Moreover, principals were instructed to list the organizations they
collaborated with for parent involvement efforts. The following community
organizations were listed: the Migrant Education Program, Parent Institute for
Quality Education (PIQE), Parent Empowerment Program (PEP), Young Men’s
Christian Association (YMCA), and local Family Resource Centers (FRC). A
notable trend includes that 21 (60%) school principals indicated Migrant
Education Program to be their primary parent involvement partner. Additionally,
100% (35) of the school principals reported that parent involvement functions are
primarily held during weekdays in the evening.
Lastly, subjects were asked to report how many hours a week they spend
contacting parents. The majority of administrators, 34 (97%), reported spending 3
hours or more a week contacting parents. One (3%) school principal reported
contacting parents on an average of 2 hours a week only.
84
Table 18
Principals’ Report of Activities to Encourage and Maintain Latino Parent
Involvement
No
Yes
No Response
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Q7a
0
0
35
100
0
1
Q7 b
17
49
18
51
0
0
Q7 c
17
49
18
51
0
0
Q7 d
3
9
32
91
1
3
Q7 e
1
3
34
97
0
0
Q7 f
1
3
34
97
0
0
Q7 g
32
91
2
6
1
3
Q7 h
33
94
2
6
0
0
Q7 i
11
31
24
69
0
0
Q7 j
11
31
24
69
0
0
Q7 k
30
86
5
14
1
3
Q7 l
30
86
5
14
0
0
Activity
Item
Q7 m
5
14
29
83
1
3
Overall Mean of
15
42
20
57
1
3
Responses
Notes: Q7 a. Reasonable opportunities; Q7 b. Parent/Community Liaison; Q7c.
Childcare; Q7 d. Efforts Could be Better; Q7 e. Decision-making Committees;
Q7 f. Invite All Parents; Q7 g. Fingerprinting Stipends; Q7 h. Transportation;
Q7 i. Budget; Q7 j. Latino Parent Representation; Q7 k. Target Particular
Parents; Q7 l. Happy With Program; Q7 m. Collaborate with Community
Organization.
85
Research Question 4
The fourth research question examined school leaders’ satisfaction with the
parent involvement program and efforts at their respective school. Two questionitems required participants to indicate their satisfaction. Both items were nominal,
requiring an indication of “No” or “Yes.”
Results. The first item asked principals to indicate “No” or “Yes” to the
following statement: “Our parent involvement efforts could be better.” The
majority (32; 91.4%) of subjects indicated “Yes” to this statement. The second
item asked the following statement: “We are happy with our current parent
involvement program.” Again, the majority (30; 85.7%) of principals indicated
“No” to this statement. The results imply a lack of satisfaction and a need for
more effort in relation to parent involvement. Table 19 displays these results.
Table 19
Principals’ Report of Parent Involvement School Program Satisfaction
No
Yes
Satisfaction Statement Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Item
Q7 d
3
9
32
91
Q7 l
30
86
5
14
Notes. Q7 d Our Parent Involvement Efforts Could Be Better; Q7 l We Are Happy
With Our Current Parent Involvement Program.
Research Question 5
The fifth question inquired about obstacles that hinder rural secondary
schools, in the central San Joaquin Valley, from increasing parent involvement.
Administrators were asked to indicate the degree of a problem particular school
and community issues created in their school. Additionally, an open-ended
question gave administrators an opportunity to list other issues that might have not
been indicated previously.
86
Results. Administrators were provided a list of common community issues
and were asked to indicate, using a 4-point Likert scale, the degree the problem
played at the school. The list of issues to be ranked included: alcohol and drug
use, crime and violence, homelessness, immigration, mobility of families, gangs,
teen pregnancy, poverty, and unemployment. All of the itemized problems, except
for homelessness, were indicated to be a problem ranging between major and
minor. The top four most common major problems identified by principals
includes: (1) poverty, (2) immigration, (3) gangs, and (4) mobility. Table 20
provides details to this question.
Table 20
Descriptive Statistics for the Schools’ Community Issues
Issue
Alcohol & Drugs
Crime & Violence
Homelessness
Immigration
Mobility of Families
Gangs
Teen Pregnancy
Poverty
Unemployment
M
SD
Variance
2.89
3.86
2.37
3.23
3.03
3.06
2.97
3.43
2.97
.79
.64
.77
.87
.89
.69
1.0
.91
.98
.63
.42
.59
.77
.79
.28
.99
.84
.97
Additionally, using a qualitative approach it was found that school
administrators believed the following four themes are the greatest obstacles to
building a stronger parent involvement program at their school: (1) parents’
employment, (2) time and availability, (3) transportation, and (4) language barrier
for communication.
87
Correlations: Academic Achievement
Additional statistical analyses were conducted to analyze a variety of
relationships. First the researcher conducted a correlation study to review the
relationships between academic achievement measures (i.e., graduation and
dropout rates) of high schools, with a significant number of Latino students, and
the following three survey scales and two variables:
 Attitudes About Parent Involvement (AAPI)
 Importance of Research-Based Parent Involvement Activities
(IRBPIA)
 Current Practices of Parent Involvement Program (CPPIP)
 Years at current site
 Years in education.
Additional analyses were conducted to examine relationships amongst the
three survey scales of APPI, IRBPIA, and CPPIP. The final analyses were
undertaken to examine patterns amongst the years in education and survey scales.
Results. The most recent graduation and dropout rates available on
educational accountability databases (i.e., Ed-Data, DataQuest, NCES) were
downloaded and coded into Microsoft Excel and SPSS. A Bivariate correlation
was conducted to examine relationships between high schools’ academic
achievement measures and administrators’ responses to the AAPI, IRBPIA, and
CPPIP scales. The results of the Bivariate indicate no statistically significant
relationships between the three survey scales and academic achievement measures.
To examine relationships amongst participants’ attitudes and perceptions, a
second bivariate correlation study was conducted. A positive relationship was
found between principals’ attitudes (APPI survey scale) and current parent
involvement practices (CPPIP survey scale). The relationship was statistically
88
significant at a .005 level. This finding indicated that the more positive attitude a
school principal reported about parent involvement the more likely they were to
report more parent involvement practices at their school. On the other hand, the
higher negative attitude a school principal had about parent involvement the more
likely they were to report a lack of parent involvement practices at their school.
This relationship finds that a school principals’ theory about parent involvement is
put into practice. In the same correlation study, a nearly significant relationship
was found between the perceived importance of research-based parent
involvement practices (IRBPIA survey scale) and current practices of parent
involvement (CPPIP survey scale). A nearly significance level of .072 was found
amongst the two variables. No relationship was found between principals’
attitudes (APPI survey scale) and perceived importance of research-based parent
involvement activities (IRBPIA survey scale). Table 21 provides correlation
details amongst the three survey scales.
Similarly, a bivariate correlation was undertaken to analyze the relationship
between the three survey scales (AAPI, IRBPIA, and CPPIP) and the years of
experience in the education field. A statistically significant relationship was found
between years in education and (1) years at the school site, (2) attitudes about
parent involvement (AAPI survey scale), and (3) current parent involvement
practices (CPPIP survey scale). Table 22 provides an overview of the correlation
relationships.
A negative relationship was found between the numbers of years a principal
had in education and reported attitude about parent involvement (AAPI survey
scale). The significance level of this relationship was found to be .034, indicating
a highly significant relationship. According to these findings more seasoned
school administrators were more likely to have a negative attitude about parent
89
Table 21
Correlations Between Academic Achievement Measures and School Principal
Survey Scales
Scale
1. High School Graduation Rate 2009-2010
2. Dropout Rate Cohort 2009-2010
3. Attitude About Parent Involvement
(AAPI)
4. Importance of Research-Based Parent
Involvement Activities (IRBPIA)
5. Current Practices of Parent Involvement
Program (CPPIP)
1
2
3
4
5
1
-.849***
1
.092
-.098
-.085
.008 .262
.021
-.196 .474* .312
1
1
1
Note. *=p<. 05; **=p<.01; ***=p<.001.
Table 22
Correlations Between Years of Education, Experience at School Site and School
Principal Survey Scales
1
2
3
4
5
Scale
1. Years in Education
2. Years at Current Site
3. Attitude About Parent Involvement
(AAPI)
4. Importance of Research-Based Parent
Involvement Activities (IRBPIA)
5. Current Practices of Parent Involvement
Program (CPPIP)
Note. *=p<. 05; **=p<.01; ***=p<.001.
1
.556***
1
-.364*** -.145
1
-.255
-.133
.262
1
-.314
.276
.474* .312
1
90
involvement (APPI survey scale). Similarly, this finding also indicates that less
experienced administrators were more likely to have a positive attitude about
parent involvement (APPI survey scale).
A second relationship was found amongst the three survey scales. A
positive relationship was found between the number of years a school principal
had in education and the reported current practices of parent involvement program
(CPPIP survey scale). The significance level of this relationship was found to be
.070, indicating a nearly significant relationship. These findings indicate that the
more years a principal had in education the more likely they were to report putting
into practice parent involvement efforts to encourage and maintain Latino parent
involvement. Similarly, novice school principals were less likely to put into
practice efforts to encourage and maintain Latino parent involvement.
A third and last relationship was found to be positively significant, with a
significance level of .001. This relationship indicates that the longer
administrators had been in education the higher the likelihood of being on the
same site for an extended period of time. At the same time, the fewer years in
education, the likelihood of being at the same particular site for an extended period
of time is less. No relationship was found between years on site and the
importance of research-based parent involvement activities.
Chapter Summary
This pilot study was undertaken with the assumption that school principals
are the chief site leaders, therefore are responsible for schools’ parent involvement
culture. The study was intended to determine how secondary school principals, in
the rural central San Joaquin Valley, that service a larger percentage of Latino
students are attempting to close the achievement gap by involving Latino parents.
This was measured in two forms. The first form was by surveying school leaders
91
regarding current parent involvement programs, practices, and barriers at their
sites. The second form was by learning about the attitudes and perceptions
reported in the survey. Through statistical analyses, it was found that principals’
responses were affected by variables measured in the survey, including but not
limited to demographics, educational experience, and parent involvement practices
and program reports. The results of the study suggest that principals overall: (1)
support parent involvement at their school, and (2) have a positive view of their
schools’ efforts. The findings also support previous parent involvement research
which emphasizes that schools face challenges that act as stressors in engaging
Latino parent in adolescents’ education.
Chapter 5 will present a summary of the research study and a synopsis of
chapter four’s findings. This information will be compared and contrasted with
previous research in the field of parent involvement, specifically relating to the
Latino population. Suggestions for future research and recommendations will be
made, followed by a final conclusion as interpreted by the researcher.
92
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION/SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
Introduction
Parent involvement is important across all school levels and cultures. The
low academic achievement (e.g., high school dropout, graduation rates) amongst
Latino students makes parent involvement even more important and urgent to
address. Adolescent students with consistently educationally involved parents are
prone to perform better academically and socially (Ferrara, 2009; Simon, 2001;
Viramontez-Anguiano, 2005). Furthermore, students whose parents are actively
involved have higher high school graduation and lower dropout rates (Ibañez et
al., 2004; Trumbull et al., 2003; Viramontez-Anguiano, 2005). It is imperative
that schools collaborate with Latino parents in order to facilitate a climate of
cohesiveness; providing a support system with similar expectations and aspirations
for students.
The remainder of this chapter provides a summary of the research study, a
synopsis of chapter four’s findings and conclusions, recommendations, and
implications for practice, followed by a final conclusion.
Summary of the Study
The purpose of this pilot study was to determine how secondary schools
that service a large percentage of Latino students are attempting to close the
achievement gap by involving parents. This study also aimed to better understand
if secondary schools employ parent involvement research based frameworks. The
main purpose of the study was to answer the following research questions:
1. What are secondary school administrators’ attitudes about parent
involvement in rural central San Joaquin Valley?
2. What are secondary school administrators’ perceptions about parent
93
involvement research based strategies in rural central San Joaquin
Valley?
involvement?
4. Are secondary school administrators, in rural central San Joaquin
Valley, satisfied with their overall Latino parent involvement program
and efforts?
5. What are obstacles, in rural central San Joaquin Valley, to increasing
parent involvement in secondary schools?
A survey was created from Epstein’s 1993 High School and Family
Partnerships questionnaire for teachers. Using the review of literature of parent
involvement, the questionnaire was refined into a shorter survey for secondary
school principals. The total targeted sample was 57 principals. However, only 35
secondary school principals completed the survey, resulting in a 57% response
rate. All 35 principals were from secondary schools in the rural central San
Joaquin Valley, whose Latino student population was at least 60%.
Findings and Conclusions
Differences in Demographics
As a descriptive study, this study unveiled differences in school leadership
demographics. Thirty-five (35) school principals from high and junior/middle
schools participated in the pilot study. Based on the demographic data Whites
(20), followed by Latinos (11), are largely represented as school leaders of Latino
high schools. These results inform that leadership in the predominantly Latino
secondary schools does not reflect the communities they serve. These results
94
signal a lack of ethnic diversity in school leadership in rural central San Joaquin
Valley secondary schools. Consequently, the lack of ethnic diversity amongst
school leaders makes it a challenge to comprehend and empathize with the
schools’ Latino community (Epstein et al., 2011; Garcia, 2002). This poses a
challenge in having chief administrators and Latino parents interact. Research
results report that differences exist amongst the two different groups (i.e.,
administrators, Latino parents) about what parent involvement means and looks
like; culture plays an important role in defining parent involvement (De Gaetano,
2007). Parent involvement definitions are a result of different experiences and
expectations amongst ethnic and socioeconomic groups (Pérez Carreón et al.,
2005). Therefore, the lack of Latino school leaders in predominantly Latino
secondary schools hinders parent involvement, and leads to a lack of coherency
and empathy amongst parents and schools.
A similar demographic inequality pattern can be found in the category of
gender amongst the subjects. Sixty-six (66) percent of the participants surveyed
were of the male gender. Women made up the minority group at 34%. Inequality
in gender demographics also exists within the study population. Attention needs
to be paid to the disparity in gender; the reasons why there is an unbalance should
be examined.
An important pattern was also found in the reported school site tenure of
school principals. It was found that 15 out of 35 administrators had been at their
respective school site for 2 years or less. As a new site leader it takes time to
understand, embrace, shape, and embody a school culture. The first year at a new
site is about learning and acclimating to the established school culture or
redefining and shaping a new school culture. The responses of the participants
were nonetheless influenced by the short amount of time spent at the site. At the
95
time this study took place, a quarter of the principals were completing their first
academic school year at their assigned site. The short tenure at a site, of one year
or less, makes those principals’ responses questionable and doubtful if they have
truly acquired understanding of their schools’ parent involvement program and
efforts. Participants with a shorter tenure of 2 years or less could have either
under or over reported their parent involvement program status.
Reviewing the demographic (i.e., ethnicity, gender, site tenure) trends of
school principals in the rural central San Joaquin Valley, it is evident that further
research and analyses are needed. It would be of great value to find out why
Latinos are lacking in school leadership positions within their own communities.
Ideally school leaders should reflect and have direct experience of the
communities they service (Igo, 2002). There is a need for school leaders in the
rural central San Joaquin Valley to be committed to learning about their
communities and meeting the needs of diverse populations (i.e., culture, language,
socioeconomic status) being serviced.
Research Question 1
Results from Research Question 1 highlight three important points. First, all
participants reported support for parent involvement at the secondary school level.
This finding concurs with the Bronfenbrenner’s and Epstein’s theoretical
framework, which highlight family as an important component of adolescents’
continued lifespan development (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Epstein, 2008). Next,
principals reported to believe parent involvement to have multiple positive effects.
This finding is in line with research reported benefits of parent involvement,
which include overall student accountability, motivation, and encouragement
(Bouffard & Stephen, 2007; Crosnoe, 2001; DePlanty et al., 2007; Epstein et al.,
1997; Epstein et al., 2011; González-DeHass et al., 2005). Lastly, it was found
96
that the majority of school principals expressed very strong support for parent
involvement in their school. This finding is associated with principals’ belief that
parent involvement has multiple positive effects. These research results inform
that secondary principals support the practice of parent involvement, which has
been empirically proven to work at all grade levels.
Research Question 2
Results from Research Question 2 highlight four findings and conclusions.
First, it was found that school principals reported it is important to give Latino
parents a voice through involvement in school policy committees and as
volunteers. This finding aligns with the requirements of NCLB (2002), Epstein’s
framework, and National PTA’s standards which recommend parents be
represented in decision-making procedures (Epstein, 1995; National Congress of
Parents and Teachers, 2009). Secondly, school principals perceived it important to
support parents by providing information to support adolescents. Information
provided includes, but is not limited to, parenting skills, understanding of
curriculum, and student progress reports. The activities listed align with the
requests of NCLB (2002) parent involvement non-regulatory guidance. According
to the perceptions reported, school principals respect Latino parents as an
important asset to students, and are willing to support parent education in hopes of
having more parents become involved in their adolescents’ education.
Communication between home and school was also found to be important
in this study. The survey results informed that schools use an array of
communication methods to reach parents, a technique that is recommended
(Epstein, 1995). The primary communication methods schools depend on are
letters and telephone broadcastings sent home. Communications by letters and
broadcastings ensure that all parents receive the information, however the review
97
and comprehension of information by parents is unknown. Both methods raise a
concern, as the methods are passive and an impersonal form of communication;
they are a one-way communication method. Two-way communication is
recommended when working with parents (Epstein, 1995; Igo, 2002; National
Congress of Parents and Teachers, 2009), particularly Latino parents who lack
English proficiency skills and educational system understanding. Communication
findings make it known that most schools are beginning to meet the expectations
set forth by Epstein’s framework and National PTA standards. Still, this third
finding highlights the need for secondary schools to be cautious in ensuring that
communication continues to be meaningful and that more two-way
communication methods are practiced.
The fourth and last finding from this research question is that schools
continue to perceive it necessary to collaborate with community organizations at
the secondary level. The top community organizations reported as partners
included PIQE, PEP, and the Migrant Education Program. All three organizations
provide a strong parent education component, additionally, the Migrant Education
Program provides resources and promotes civic participation. Outsourcing parent
involvement duties indicates that the chosen organization is doing something right
with in regards to parent involvement. On the other hand, it may also be indicative
that it is easier to outsource parent involvement responsibilities instead of creating
a school program. This last finding aligns with the recommendation of both
Epstein’s and the National PTA’s recommendation, while at the same time
corroborates with the theories of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Epstein &
Van Voorhis, 2010), which point to the need of different systems interacting to
support adolescents’ development.
98
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 had four meaningful findings. The first finding is that
71% of school principals reported having strong parent involvement programs, a
positive result. On the other hand, the second finding brings to light that only a
small number of secondary schools provide the recommended services and
resources to involve Latino parents. For example only 51% of schools reported
providing childcare and a miniscule 6% reported providing transportation.
Providing such support resources has been found to be essential to encourage
Latino parent involvement (López, 2011; Trumbull et al., 2003). These findings
lead to the following three conclusions: (1) principals are unaware of the
recommendations and needs of Latino parents (Zarate, 2007), (2) schools’ lack the
financial resources to provide needed services (i.e., transportation, childcare),and
(3) accommodating parents’ needs is not a priority for school officials.
The Migrant Education Program played an important role in this study. It
was found that 60% of the school principals reported the Migrant Education
Program as part of their parent involvement efforts, indicating that this
organization has mastered parent involvement successfully, resulting in widely
practiced programs at secondary schools. Two conclusions can be made from this
finding: (1) the Migrant Education Program is an effective program thus a
majority of schools utilizes it, and (2) the rural Central Valley, due to its
agricultural labor seasons, has a large migrant population that needs additional
support in diverse ways.
Finally, it was found that participating administrators dedicated a decent
portion of their working time to parent involvement. On an average 40-hour
workweek, principals reported investing 7.5% of their time to interact with
parents. These statistics point out that parent involvement is an essential part of
99
administrators’ daily duties. In summary, the findings of this research question
indicate that principals find parent involvement valuable enough to practice
Epstein’s framework and the National PTA’s standards, however there continues
to be a lack of disregard for addressing logistical issues which create barriers to
parent involvement. Nevertheless, regardless of administrators’ attitudes and
perceptions, parent involvement is an everyday job duty.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 measured principals’ parent involvement program
satisfaction. A pair of survey question items requested principals to share their
satisfaction of their current parent involvement program. Study results indicated
that the majority (86%) of principals were not pleased with their current program.
Aligning with the first finding of this research question, the majority (91%) of the
principals also reported that parent involvement efforts could be better. It is
meritorious that principals are able and willing to recognize a need for
improvement. The findings of this research question are important as they signal
that something needs to be done to satisfy administrators’ beliefs of what their
parent involvement program and efforts should look like and be.
Research Question 5
Research Question 5 was designed to identify challenges in implementing
parent involvement in Latino secondary schools. Common factors reported
include poverty, immigration, gangs, mobility, parent employment obligations,
time and availability, transportation, and language. The variables listed are
problems related to socioeconomic status, embedded in an array of cultural and
ethnic groups in society (Goldenberg et al., 2001; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). The
identified variables are stressors to parents’ involvement level (Moles, 1993).
100
Many of the challenges listed are difficult, almost impossible to dismantle, as they
are inherited in agricultural communities in the rural central San Joaquin Valley.
Factors such as parents’ employment and availability are non-negotiable; it is a
priority for parents to be able to provide for their children financially (Lopez,
2009). As research states, for Latino parents providing financially for their
children is their form of contribution to their children’s education (López et al.,
2001; Zarate, 2007). However, educators need to learn to tap into the cultural
strengths that Latino parents possess to make parent involvement partnerships
successful, effective, and sustainable (Orozco, 2008). Additionally, transportation
is a challenge in any rural area, many times public transit is very limited, and
possibly nonexistent. Lastly, considering that 60% of the school principals
surveyed were of a White background the language barrier was also not
uncommon. This result points to the need of increased bilingual school leaders.
The barriers identified can be divided into the five different categories the
literature review identified: culture, education level of parents, language, logistical
issues, and school environment.
Bivariate Correlations
Several correlation analyses were conducted, two of which are primarily
noteworthy. The first noteworthy discovery is between academic achievement
(i.e., high school graduation and dropout rates) and school principals’ attitudes and
perceptions about parent involvement. Contrary to what was anticipated, there
was no meaningful relationship found between variables of academic achievement
and principals’ attitudes and perceptions. Other variables, possibly in combination
with principals’ attitudes and perceptions, are responsible for high school
graduation and dropout rates. In this study, principals’ attitudes and perceptions
alone played no role. The second noteworthy finding was a correlation between
101
school principals’ reported attitudes and practices about parent involvement. A
significant correlation was found between both survey scales. This correlation
leads to the conclusion that school principals who believe in the theory of parent
involvement are more likely to report an active practicing parent involvement
program at their site. However, it is unknown, whether the actual practice of
parent involvement takes place—this would call for a different type of study. It
may even be questioned whether principals responded in this manner because it is
the expected answer rather than what the situation really is.
Recommendations
This study examined secondary school administrators’ attitudes and
perceptions of parent involvement, in correlation to Latino students’ academic
achievement measure of high school graduation and dropout rates. As a
descriptive study, the findings support that chief site administrators at the
secondary level continue to value parent involvement and believe it to be
important for student success. Findings indicate that the examination of and the
acknowledgement of the importance of parent involvement at the secondary
school level are worthwhile. However, this study also led to many unanswered
questions and possibilities. It is expected that this study will serve as a stimuli for
future research with the following recommendations:
1.
Refine or replace the Secondary Schools and Parent Involvement
school principal survey. The version utilized in the pilot study was
too short and attempted to measure too many constructs.
Consequently, there were challenges to achieving acceptable internal
consistency reliability amongst specific constructs. It is
recommended that the survey focus on particular constructs and
102
additional items are developed for those scales, and that the revised
scales be piloted with secondary school administrators.
2.
Provide a definition for parent involvement. This study failed to
operationally define parent involvement, leaving the term to be
defined by each participant. This may lead to unintended
consequences, which might affect study results as every participant
defines parent involvement differently.
3.
Consider conducting the study in an exploratory manner with
different research methods including follow up interviews and
repeated measures. This study focus was solely descriptive, thus
hindering the collection of pertinent information.
4.
Replicate this study with a larger sample of secondary school
administrators. This study’s sample was too small to be
generalizable to the targeted and other populations. Further studies
should also include a different sample of administrators such as
deans, counselors, program directors, and vice principals who reside
in other agricultural areas throughout the United States. This would
allow for a more valid responses and a cross setting comparison. A
balance should also be sought in the number of administrators from
high school versus junior high and middle school.
5.
Study should not only be conducted in rural areas but also in
suburban and urban regions. Conducting the study in different areas
would allow for cross-setting comparisons. The instrument utilized
in this study is applicable and adaptable for these settings; a new
version of this instrument should also be applicable and adaptable.
103
6.
Conduct this study with different educators at the secondary school
level. This study focused only on chief school site administrators,
however all educators are responsible for parent involvement. It is
recommended to target the administrator responsible for overseeing
parent involvement to complete the survey or at least require
principals to consult with such individual; this may not always be the
principal. It would also be useful to survey a few individuals from
one school site to have representation of educators at different levels
(e.g. teachers, counselors, coaches).
7.
Study should target participants with a minimum of 2-year site
tenure. Participants with a shorter than 2-year site tenure should be
excluded from analyses. This would assist in ensuring that the
findings are reflective of the school culture.
8.
Conduct variations of this study such as administering the survey
during the summer time, over a 2-year period. This would allow for
repeated measures and compare and contrast analyses across time.
9.
Study analyses should continue to examine trends across subjects’
demographics including but not limited to ethnicity, education,
experience, site tenure, etc. It would be of great value if differences
in attitude and perceptions would be examined in relation to the
chief administrators’ demographics.
10.
Bivariate correlations should use different achievement measures.
This study focused on academic achievement solely based on high
school graduation and dropout rates. However, the results lacked
significance. Examining other academic and student achievement
measures including but not limited to attendance, discipline, reading
104
and math level, and motivation might provide greater insight of the
relationships between parent involvement and student performance
at the secondary level.
These recommendations are not exhaustive. It is also suggested that
research on secondary school administrators’ attitudes, perceptions, and practices
of parent involvement is continued in general, to better understand parent
involvement correlations and constructs.
Implications for Practice
Implications for changes in practice in the field based on the findings of
this study are essential because our society is rapidly becoming more and more
heterogeneous. The fast growth of Latino students has led to a continual increase
in California and U.S.’s school enrollment since 1980 (U. S. Census Bureau,
2011). Latino immigrant families are playing an increasingly dominant role in
determining the overall attainment of the society’s population, hence the quality of
its labor force (Vernez et al., 1999). Thus, the secondary school system should
continue their regular business of educating Latino students, while at the same
time focusing on parent involvement efforts that involve and support Latino
families. The results of this pilot study suggest that secondary school
administrators have positive points of view of Latino parent involvement, thus
such stances should be taken advantage by continuing to require parent
involvement at the secondary level, with more accountability measures.
As a result of this pilot study the following suggestions for practice should
be considered:
1. Train and attract more Latino secondary school administrators to
predominantly Latino secondary schools. This would increase the
105
likelihood of administrators understanding the cultural needs of school
communities, and possibly assist with language barriers.
2. Build principals’ capacity in parent involvement programs and best
practices. Parent involvement can be a very vague and overwhelming
task if individuals lack experience and knowledge. Principals would
benefit from education and training in this area; principal leadership
programs should consider integrating this component into the course of
study. The more prepared school leaders are to deal with parent
involvement the more likely administrators will have a positive attitude
towards it (Epstein & Sander, 2006; Griego-Jones, 2003; Igo, 2002).
This is important, as principals set the tone for school climate and can
either encourage or discourage practices through words and actions
(Sanders & Sheldon, 2009).
3. Develop and implement interactive methods of communication, which
are two-way and meaningful. In this study, two-way communication
was not commonly practiced, possibly because it requires investing time
that educators are not able or willing to devote. To address this issue
schools should consider hiring school parent liaisons with the main task
of making one-on-one and two-way communication with parents. The
liaison should have a flexible schedule that allows for contact after
regular school and working hours; this flexible work schedule would
address logistical issues of time and availability of parents due to family
and work obligations (Ceballo, 2004). Additionally, it would be highly
desirable for liaisons to be bilingual.
4. Prioritize addressing parent involvement barriers. Barriers to parent
involvement in education can a difference between a high school
106
graduate and a high school dropout (González-DeHass et al., 2005).
This study concurred with research in listing similar parent involvement
barriers. Recognizing hurdles to parent involvement is the first step to
finding a solution. Now, administrators should take the next step of
addressing the barriers by preparing solutions that work for their
program. School principals need to take responsibility for negotiating
barriers that hinder the effective implementation of parent involvement
programs.
5. Continue collaborations with community organizations. Such
collaborations should enhance parent involvement; they should not be
the only parent involvement effort (Moles, 1993). Collaborating with
organizations is an important component to strengthen parent
involvement, as organizations are able to provide social services and
resources, which schools might lack.
6. Provide extra support and build confidence amongst Latino parents.
Educators need to emphasize and inform Latino parents of the need for
continued parent involvement at the secondary level. Schools need to
educate parents about how their involvement is essential, while at the
same time empowering them to become involved (López et al., 2001;
Kuperminc et al., 2007). A greater emphasis on home-school and
parent-adolescent relationships is needed at the secondary level.
7. Secondary schools need to create a parent involvement action plan that
is regulated, and where on-going evaluate needs is incorporated. Many
predominantly Latino secondary schools are mandated under NCLB
Title I to have a parent involvement policy and practice parent
involvement; the flaw of this mandate is that it is non-regulatory. As a
107
result of parent involvement not being mandatory, many times parent
involvement can be pushed to be unimportant. By conduction on-going
evaluation, schools will be able to check and adjust their program
strategies and practices for continuous improvement (Epstein, 2008).
Regulating an action plan will persuade educators to make parent
involvement a prerogative.
The implications for practice are critical. The results of this study establish
that secondary school principals have the attitude and perception to support Latino
parent involvement because it will result in benefiting students’ educational
outcomes. Principals, as chief site administrators, need to continue building strong
programs of involvement that sustain a culture of academic success (Sanders &
Sheldon, 2005). Principals need to work towards building proper cohesion
amongst all secondary education stakeholders including administrators,
faculty/staff, parents, students, and community organizations to affect students’
development.
Summary
The importance of parent involvement for students regardless of age,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status have been widely documented by researchers
and acknowledged by practitioners. Even though many studies have asserted that
there is a positive association between parent involvement and school performance
at the secondary level, educators in the field are aware that parent involvement
levels declines as a child progresses through school (Desforges & Abouchaar,
2003; Flaxman & Inger, 1992; Leon, 2003). Educators also know that there are
many challenges associated with implementing parent involvement practices at the
secondary level, primarily because this schooling stage tends to be much less
108
impersonal and more challenging. All of these factors are magnified when dealing
with Latino children and families.
This study assessed the attitudes and perceptions of secondary school
administrators at predominantly Latino secondary schools, in the rural central San
Joaquin Valley, regarding parent involvement. Analysis of the data revealed that
while principals may agree that parental involvement is critical at the secondary
level, their personal attitudes and perceptions are not enough to have an effect on
Latino students’ high school graduation and dropout rates.
109
REFERENCES
Acuña, R. (1988). Occupied America: A history of Chicanos. (3rd ed.) New York,
NY: Harper Collins.
Alfaro, E. C., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Bámaca, M. Y. (2006). The influence of
academic support on Latino adolescents' academic motivation. Family
Relations, 55(3), 279-291.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2009). The high cost of high school dropouts:
What the nation pays for inadequate high schools (Issue Brief). Retrieved
from: http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/HighCost.pdf
org/files/archive/publications/HighCost.pdf
Amos, J. (2008). Dropouts, diplomas, and dollars: U.S. high schools and the
nation's economy (Research Report). Retrieved from Alliance on Excellent
Education website: http://www.all4ed.org/files/Econ2008.pdf
Angrosino, M. V. (2005). Projects in ethnographic research. Land Grove, IL:
Waveland Press.
Baker, A. J., & Soden, L. M. (1998). The challenges of parent involvement
research. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban and Minority Education, 134(1), 110.
Batt, L., Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005, February). Limited English proficient
students: Increased accountability under NCLB. Retrieved from The Civil
Rights Project at Harvard University website: http://civilrightsproject.
ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/nclb-title-i/limited-english-proficientstudents-increased-accountability-under-nclb/batt-kim-sunderman-limitedenglish-proficient-2005.pdf
110
Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefits of
higher education for individuals and society (Research Report). Retrieved
from: http://trends.collegeboard.org/downloads/Education_Pays_2010.pdf
Behnke, A. O., González, L. M., & Cox, R. B. (2010). Latino students in new
arrival states: Factors and services to prevent youth from dropping out.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(3), 385-409.
Bohon, S. A., Macpherson, H., & Atiles, J. H. (2005). Educational barriers for new
Latinos in Georgia. Journal of Latinos and Educational, 4(1), 43-58.
Bouffard, S. M., & Stephen, N. (2007). Promoting family involvement. Principal's
Research Review: Supporting the Principals Data Driven Decisions, 2(6), 18.
Bower, H. A., & Griffin, D. (2011). Can the Epstein model of parent involvement
work in a high-minority, high-poverty elementary school? A case study.
Professional School Counseling, 15(2), 77-87.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723742.
Bushaw, W. J., & López, S. J. (2011). Betting on teachers. Phi Delta Kappan,
93(1), 9-26.
Calderón, J. (1992). "Hispanic" and "Latino": The viability of categories for
panethnic unity. Latin American Perspectives, 19(4), 37-44.
California Department of Education. (2011a). CALPADS finds statewide
graduation rate at 74.4 percent. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
nr/ne/yr11/yr11rel54.asp
111
California Department of Education. (2011b). Enrollment by ethnicity group and
district [Educational database]. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
ds/sd/sd/filesethdst.asp
California Department of Education. (2011c). Statewide English learners by
language and grade 2010-2011 [Educational database]. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/LEPbyLang1.asp?cChoice=LepbyLang1&cYe
ar=201011&cLevel=State&cTopic=LC&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
California Department of Education. (2012a). 2011-2012 statewide enrollment by
ethnicity [Educational database]. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/EnrollEthState.asp?Level=State&TheYear=201112&cChoice=Enr
ollEth1&p=2
California Department of Education. (2012b). Academic performance index.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California Department of Education. (2012c). Adequate yearly progress. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/
California Department of Education. (2012d). Cohort outcome data for the class
of 2009-10 [Educational database]. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/cohortrates/GradRates.aspx?cds=00000000000000&TheYear=200
910&Agg=T&Topic=Graduates&RC=State&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
California Department of Education. (2012e). Cohort outcome data for the class of
2010-2011 [Educational database]. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/cohortrates/GradRates.aspx?cds=00000000000000&TheYear=201
0-11&Agg=T&Topic=Dropouts&RC=State&SubGroup=Ethnic/Racial
112
California Department of Education. (2012f). Dropouts by ethnicity designation by
grade [Educational database]. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
DropoutReporting/DrpGradeEth.aspx?cDistrictName=State&CDSCode=000
0000000000000&Level=State&TheReport=GradeEth&ProgramName=All&
cYear=2010-11&cAggSum=StTotGrade&cGender=B
California Department of Education. (2012g). Enrollment, graduates and dropouts
in California public schools, 1974-75 through 2010-2011 [Educational
database]. Retrieved from California Department of Education website:
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrGradDrop.asp
California Department of Education. (2012h). State report: 2011 adequate yearly
(ayp) report [Educational database]. Retrieved from California Department
of Education website: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Acnt2011/
2011ARPStAYPReport.aspx
Carpenter, D. M., & Ramírez, A. (2007). More than one gap: Dropout rate gaps
between and among Black, Hispanic, and White students. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 19(1), 32-64.
Catsambis, S. (1998). Expanding the knowledge of parental involvement in
secondary education: Effects on high school academic success (Report No.
27). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students
Placed At-Risk.
Ceballo, R. (2004). From barrio to Yale: The role of parenting strategies in Latino
families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26(2), 171-186.
Chapman, C., Larid, J., Ifill, N., & KewelRamani, A. (2011). Trends in high
school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972-2009 (NCES
2012-006). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf
113
Chavkin, N. F. (1998). Making the case for school, family, and community
partnerships: Recommendations for research. The School Community
Journal, 8(1), 9-22.
Chernoff, J.J., Flanagan, K.D., McPhee, C., & Park, J. (2007). Preschool: First
findings from the third follow-up of the early childhood longitudinal study,
birth cohort (ECLS-B). (NCES 2008-025). National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008025.pdf
Crosnoe, R. (2001). Academic orientation and parental involvement in education
during high school. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 210-230.
Darder, A., Torres, R. D., & Gutierrez, H. (1997). Latinos and education: A
critical reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
De Gaetano, Y. (2007). The role of culture in engaging Latino parents'
involvement in school. Urban Education, 42(2), 145-162.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2004). Involving Latino families in schools: Raising student
achievement through home-school partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Crowin Press.
DePlanty, J., Coulter-Kern, R., & Duchane, K. A. (2007). Perceptions of parent
involvement in academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research,
100(6), 361-368.
DeVos, G. A., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (1991). Preface: An ethnography of
empowerment. In C. Delgado-Gaitan & H. Trueba (Eds.), Crossing cultural
borders: Education for immigrant families in America (pp. 1-9) London, UK:
Falmer Press.
114
Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement,
parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment:
A literature review (Research Report #433). Retrieved from Birmingham
Grid for Learning website: http://bgfl.org/bgfl/custom/files_uploaded
/uploaded_resources/18617/Desforges.pdf
Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of
parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78(3),
233-249.
Dotson-Blake, K. P. (2010). Learning from each other: A portrait of familyschool-community partnerships in the United States and Mexico.
Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting
influences on the academic achievement of Latino young adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(2), 163-174.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early
adolescent years. Teachers College Record, 94(3), 568-587.
The Education Trust-West. (2010). Futures at risk: The story of Latino student
achievement in California, 2010 (Report, September 2010). Oakland, CA:
The Education Trust.
Englund, M. M., Egeland, B., & Collins, W. A. (2008). Exceptions to high school
dropout predictions in a low-income sample: Do adults make a difference?
Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 77-94.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the
children we share. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-712.
Epstein, J. L. (2004). Meeting NCLB requirements for family involvement.
Middle Ground, 8(1), 14-17.
115
Epstein, J. L. (2008). Improving family and community involvement in secondary
schools. Principal Leadership, 78(6), 9-12.
Epstein, J. L., & Connors, L. J. (1994). Trust fund: School, family, and community
partnerships in high schools (Report No. 24). Baltimore, MD: Center on
Families, Communities, School's, and Children's Learning.
Epstein, J. L., Connors-Tadros, L., Horsey, C. S., & Simon, B. S. (1996).
Reliabilities and summaries of scales: High school and family partnership
surveys of teachers, parents and students. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University.
Epstein, J. L., Croates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., & Simons, B. S. (1997).
School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook in action. A
comprehensive framework for school, family and community partnerships, in
school, family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators
for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of
Education, 81(2), 81-120.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Clark Salinas, K., Rodriguez
Jansorn, K., Van Voorhis, F. L., . . . Williams, K. J. (2002). School, family,
and community partnerships: Your handbook for action, (2nd ed.) Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving
student attendance through family and community involvement. The Journal
of Educational Research, 95(5), 308-318.
116
Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. V. (2010). School counselors' role in
developing partnerships with families and communities for student success.
Epstein, J. L., Galindo, C. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2011). Levels of leadership:
Effects of district and school leaders on the quality of school programs of
family and community involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly,
47(3), 462-495.
Falbo, T., Lein, L., & Amador, N. A. (2001). Parental involvement during the
transition to high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(5), 511-529.
Ferrara, M. M. (2009). Broadening the myopic vision of parent involvement. The
School Community Journal, 19(2), 123-142.
Ferrara, M. M., & Ferrara, P. J. (2005). Parents as partners: Raising awareness as a
teacher preparation program. The Clearing House, 79(2), 77-82.
Flaxman, E., & Inger, M. (1992). Parents and schooling in the 1990s. Principal,
72(7), 16-18.
Floyd, L. (1998). Joining hands: A parental involvement program. Urban
Education, 33(1), 123-135.
Funkerhouser, J. E., & Gonzales, M. R. (1997). Family involvement in children’s
education: Successful local approaches. An idea book. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/
FamInvolve/index.html
Garcia, E. (2002). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the
challenge. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Griego-Jones, T. (2003). Contributions of Hispanic parents’ perspectives to
teacher preparation. School Community Journal, 73-96. Retrieved from
http://www.adi.org/journal/fw03/Griego%20Jones.pdf
117
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect?
A longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents' aspirations and
expectations, and their children's school performance. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(3), 547-582.
González Burchard, E., Borrell, L. N., Choudhry, S., Naqvi, M., Tsai, H.,
Rodriguez-Santana, J. R., . . . Risch, N. (2005). Latino populations: A unique
opportunity for the study of race, genetics, and social environment in
epidemiological research. American Journal of Public Health, 95(12), 21612168.
González-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Doan Holbein, M. F. (2005).
Examining the relationships between parental involvement and student
motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.
González, A. R. (2002). Parental involvement: Its contributions to high school
students' motivation. The Clearing House, 75(3), 132-134.
Hayes-Bautista, D. E., & Chapa, J. (1987). Latino terminology: Conceptual bases
for standardized terminology. American Journal of Public Health, 77(1), 6168.
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the
bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York, NY:
The New Press.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C.
L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved?
Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2),
105-130.
Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education:
An explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37-52.
118
Ibañez, G. E., Kuperminc, G. P., Jurkovic, G., & Perilla, J. (2004). Cultural
attributes and adaptations linked to achievement motivation among Latino
adolescent. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(6), 559-568.
Igo, S. (2002), Increasing parent involvement. Principal Leadership, 3(3), 10-12.
Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on
minority children's academic achievement. Education and Urban Society,
35(2), 202-218.
Joftus, S., & Maddox-Dolan, B. (2003). Left out and left behind: NCLB and the
American high school. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Jose-Kampfner, C., & Aparicio, F. (1998). Rethinking violence in the educational
crisis of U.S. Latinos (JSRI Research Report #38). Retrieved from:
http://www.jsri.msu.edu/pdfs/wp/wp38.pdf
Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the
No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational
Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.
Kreider, H., Caspe, M., Kennedy, S., & Weiss, H. (2007). Family involvement in
middle and high school students' education (Issues No. 3). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Family Research Project.
Kuperminc, G.P., Darnell, A.J., & Alvarez-Jimenez, A. (2007). Parent
involvement in the academic adjustment of Latino middle and high school
youth: Teacher expectations and school belonging as mediators. Journal of
Adolescence, 31(4), 469-483.
Lee, S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the
achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational
Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218.
119
Leon, L. (2003). Parents and secondary schools. Principal Leadership, 4(4), 3237.
Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence
from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. American Economic Review,
94(1), 155-189.
López, C. (2011). Redefining Latino parent involvement. School Counselor, 4(3),
14-19.
López, G. R., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental
involvement: Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 253-288.
Lopez, M. H. (2009). Latinos and education: Explaining the attainment gap
(Research Report). Retrieved from Pew Hispanic Center website:
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/115.pdf
MacDonald, V. M. (2001). Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, or "other"?: Deconstructing
the relationship between historians and Hispanic-American educational
history. History of Education Quarterly, 41(3), 365-413.
Marschall, M. (2006). Parent involvement and educational outcomes for Latino
students. Review of Policy Research, 23(5), 1053-1076.
McCall, M. S., Hauser, C., Cronin, J., Kingsbury, G. G., & Houser, R. (2006).
Achievement gaps: An examination of differences in student achievement and
growth. Lake Oswego, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
Moles, O. 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). New York, NY: State University of New York
Press.
120
National Congress of Parents and Teachers (2009). PTA national standards for
family-school partnerships: An implementation guide. Alexandria, VA:
National PTA. Retrieved from: http://www.pta.org/Documents/National_
Standards_Implementation_Guide_2009.pdf
National Education Association. (2002). The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/esea
/eseatimeline.html.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat.
1425 (2002).
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Rinderle, S. (2006). Conflict communication in
contexts: A social ecological perspective. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Onikama, D. L., Hammond, O. W., & Koki, S. (1998). Family involvement in
education: A synthesis of research for pacific educators. Honolulu, HI:
Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
Orozco, G. L. (2008). Understanding the culture of low-income immigrant Latino
parents: Key to involvement. The School Community Journal, 18(1), 21-38.
Oyserman, D., Brickman, D., & Rhodes, M. (2007). School success, possible
selves, and parent school involvement. Family Relations, 56(5), 479-489.
Payne, R. K. (2005). A framework for understanding poverty (4th ed.). Highlands,
TX: Aha! Process.
Peña, D. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications.
Journal of Educational Research, 95(1), 42-54.
121
Pérez Carreón, G., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The importance of
presence: Immigrant parents' school engagement experiences. American
Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465-498.
Petersen, A. C., & Epstein, J. L. (1991). Development and education across
adolescence: An introduction. American Journal of Education, 99(4), 373378.
Portes, P. R. (2005). The adolescent component. In P. R. Portes (Ed.), Dismantling
educational inequality: A cultural-historical approach to closing the
achievement gap (pp. 121-149). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Quezada, R. L., Díaz, D. M., & Sánchez, M. (2003). Involving Latino parents.
Leadership, 33(1), 32-38.
Quiocho, A. M. L., & Daoud, A. M. (2006). Dispelling myths about Latino parent
participation in schools. The Educational Forum, 70(3), 255-267.
Ramirez, A. Y. F. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of
Latino immigrant parents. The Urban Review, 35(2), 93-110.
Reardon, S. F., & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in
math and reading in the elementary grades. American Education Research
Journal, 46(3), 853-891.
Rumberger, R. W., & Lamb, S. P. (2003). The early employment and further
education experiences of high school dropouts: A comparative study of the
United States and Australia. Economics of Education Review, 22(4), 353366.
Sanders, M. G. (2001). Schools, families, and communities partnering for middle
level students' success. NASSP Bulletin, 85(627), 53-61.
Sanders, M. G., & Sheldon, S. (2005). Principals matter: A guide to school,
family, and community partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Stage.
122
Santrock, J. W. (2009). Life-span development. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Scribner, J. D., Young, M. D., & Pedroza, A. (1999). Building collaborative
relationships with parents. In P. Reyes, J. D. Scribner & A. Paredes-Scribner
(Eds.), Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning
communities (pp. 36-60). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shah, P. (2009). Motivating participation: The symbolic effects of Latino
representation on parent school involvement. Social Science Quarterly,
90(1), 212-230.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2004). Getting students to school: Using family
and community involvement to reduce chronic absenteeism. School
Community Journal, 14(2), 39-56.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and
community partnerships and mathematic achievement. The Journal of
Educational Research, 98(4), 197-206.
Simon, B. S. (2001). Family involvement in high school: Predictors and effects.
NASSP Bulletin, 85(627), 819.
Smith, J., Stern, K., & Shatrova, Z. (2008). Factors inhibiting Hispanic parents'
school involvement. The Rural Educator, 29(2), 8-13.
Spring, J. (2004). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history
of the education of dominated cultures in the United States. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Suárez-Orozco, C., Onaga, M., & de Lardemelle, C. (2010). Promoting academic
engagement among immigrant adolescents through school-familycommunity collaboration. Professional School Counseling, 14(1), 15-41.
123
Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2009). Educating Latino immigrant
students in the twenty-first century: Principles for the Obama administration.
Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 327-401.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2008). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and
practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fish, C., & Hernandez, E. (2003). Parent involvement in
schooling: According to whose values? School Community Journal, 13(2)
45-72.
U.S. Census Bureau (2001). The Hispanic population. Retrieved from:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011a). Hispanic population of the United States. Retrieved
from: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/about.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011b). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010.
Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012 (131st
Edition). Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences. (2010). Public school graduates and dropouts from
the common core of data: school year 2007-2008 (NCES 2010-341).
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010341.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011).
Digest of education statistics, 2010. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/ch_1.asp
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012).
Public school graduates and dropouts from the common core of date: school
year 2008-2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011312.pdf
124
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences. (2011). Public school graduates and dropouts from
the common core of data: school year 2008-2009 (NCES 2011-312).
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011312.pdf
Valverde, L. A., Arispe y Acevedo, B. Jr., & Perez, M. E. (2008). Why the United
States can no longer wait to educate its Latino population. In L. A. Valverde
and Associates (Eds.), Latino change agents in higher education: Shaping a
system that works for all (pp. 3-21). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vernez, G., Krop, R., & Rydell, C. P. (1999). Closing the education gap: Benefits
and costs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Viramontez-Anguiano, R. P. (2004). Families and schools: The effect of parent
involvement on high school completion. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 61-85.
Weiher, G. R., Hughes, C., Kaplan, N., & Howard, J. Y. (2006). Hispanic college
attendance and the state of Texas GEAR UP program. Review of Policy
Research, 23(5), 1035-1051.
Wise, B. (2008). High schools at the tipping point. Educational Leadership, 65(8),
8-13.
Wiseman, B. (2010). Family involvement in four voices: Administrator, teacher,
students, and community member. Perspective on Urban Education, 7(1),
115-124.
Zarate, M. E. (2007). Understanding Latino parental involvement in education:
Perceptions, expectations, and recommendations (Policy Report). Retrieved
from The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute website: http://www.trpi.org/PDFs/
TW%20REPORT.pdf
Zarrett, N., & Eccles, J. (2006). The passage to adulthood: Challenges of late
adolescence. New Directions for Youth Development, 111, 13-28.
125
APPENDIX A: PERMISSION TO USE LETTER
126
APPENDIX B: HIGH SCHOOL AND FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS: SURVEY
FOR TEACHERS
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
APPENDIX C: SECONDARY AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT: SCHOOL
PRINCIPAL SURVEY
134
135
136
137
APPENDIX D: STUDY INTRODUCTION LETTER
Non-Exclusive Distribution License
(to make your thesis/dissertation available electronically via the library’s eCollections
database)
By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to CSU, Fresno
Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next
paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print
and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.
You agree that CSU, Fresno may, without changing the content, translate the submission
to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.
You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to
grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does
not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.
If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would
not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained
the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant CSU, Fresno the rights
required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and
acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.
If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency
or organization other than California State University, Fresno, you represent that you
have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or
agreement.
California State University, Fresno will clearly identify your name as the author or owner
of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license,
to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate
your agreement to the terms of this distribution license.
Perla Zamudio Soria
Type full name as it appears on submission
September 26, 2012
Date

- California State University

Transcription

Similar documents

PDF version - Petaluma Post

Slides - National Center for Ease of Use of Community Based Services

Brochure 2015 - Festival Latino of the Berkshires

Not Passive Victims: A Look at Latino/a Student Movements During

Healthy Kids Las Cruces Newsletter - February 2016

Move Your CLASS! Kinesthetic Math

A Senior Community with everything you always wanted

Oregonians For Peace http://oregoniansforpeace.org asiapeace

Summer 2014 - North Park University

The function of the botánica as a health care option in The Bronx