xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001921510
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080123s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002151
Parenting style, home-based involvement, and educational expectations of Black parents :
b their roles in the development of pre-literacy readiness of Black children
h [electronic resource] /
by Iravonia Rawls.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of parenting style, home-based involvement, parents' educational expectations and pre-literacy readiness. Sixty-two preschool children and his or her parent or guardian participated in this study of: 1) The relationship between parenting style and pre-literacy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs; 2) The relationship between parents' educational expectations of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs and pre-literacy readiness; 3) The relationship between home-based involvement of Black parents and levels of pre-literacy readiness of their children enrolled in Head Start programs; and 4) The relationship between the predictor variables (i.e., parenting style, parental home-based involvement, and parents' educational expectations) and pre-literacy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs.Data were obtained from a Parent Survey that was administered to parents of children who attended Head Start Centers. Child participants were also administered pre-literacy assessments. A series of correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted to answer the four research questions in this study. Overall, all correlation and multiple regression analyses lacked significant results. None of the predictor variables had more of an influence on pre-literacy readiness variables. Despite the lack of significance, the results of this study contributes to the literature that supports that Black parents do have high expectations for their children and are engaging in activities at home with their children, whether it's the primary caregiver (e.g., mother) or another person in the immediate or extended family (e.g., father, grandparents, uncle, boyfriend).These results further support the notion that Baumrind's parenting style constructs may not generalize across other cultural and economical contexts. Future research is needed to determine the generalizability of these parenting style constructs across other ethnic minority and cultural groups. Practical implications of this study suggest that prevention and early intervention practices are two essential components in improving the learning outcomes of young minority children from less privileged backgrounds.
Thesis (Ed.S.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 115 pages.
Advisor: Harold Keller, Ph.D.
x School Psychology
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Parenting Style, Home-Based Involvement, and Educational Expectations of Black Parents: Their Roles in the Development of Preliteracy Readiness of Black Children by Iravonia Rawls A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Education Specialist Departments of Psychology and Social Foundations College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Harold Keller, Ph.D. Richard Briscoe, Ph.D. Jeffrey Kromrey, Ph.D. Date of Approval: July 11, 2007 Keywords: authoritative, aut horitarian, permissive, parental involvement, kindergarten readiness Copyright 2007, Iravonia Rawls
i Table of Contents List of Tables iv Abstract vi Chapter One: Introduction 1 Statement of Problem 1 Rationale for Study 2 Purpose of Study 3 Definition of Terms 3 Research Questions 5 Hypotheses 5 Significance of Study 6 Chapter Two: Literature Review 8 Overview 8 Theories of Kindergarten Readiness 9 Factors that Influence School Readiness 10 Preschool 10 Socioeconomic Status 11 Single Parent Families 12 Ethnicity 12 Parental Educational Level 13 Parenting Style 14 Parenting Style and Young Children 17 Parenting Style and Black Families 19 Young Children 19 Adolescents 21 Parenting Style and Environmental Factors 22 Educational expectations 26 Parental Home-Based Involvement 30 Barriers to Parental Involvement in Preschool 36 Overview of Current Study 38 Chapter Three: Method 40 Participants 40 Selection of Participants 41
ii Ethical Considerations 41 Variables 42 Measures 42 Individual Growth and Development Indicators 42 Picture Naming Fluency IGDI 43 Rhyming IGDI 45 Alliteration IGDI 46 Parent Survey 47 Family Involvement Questionnaire 47 Educational Expectations 49 Parenting Behavior Ques tionnaire-Head Start 49 Procedures 51 Completing Parent Survey at Home 51 Data Collection at Head Start Centers 52 Assessment of Children 53 Data Analysis 53 Chapter 4: Results 57 Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables 57 Descriptive Statistics for Ma rtial Status and Employment Status 61 Descriptive Statistics for Number of Years Child was enrolled in Head Start 61 Parental Home-Based Involvement 62 ParentsÂ’ Educational Expectations 62 Parenting Style 63 Authoritative Parenting Style 63 Authoritarian Parenting Style 64 Permissive Parenting Style 64 Parenting Style and Gender 64 Literacy Assessments 65 Picture Naming IGDI 65 Rhyming IGDI 65 Alliteration IGDI 65 Combined Literacy Readiness Score 65 Research Questions 66 What is the relationship between parenting style and pre-literacy readiness of Black Children enrolled in Head Start programs? 66 What is the relationshi p between home-based involvement of African American parents and levels of pre-literacy readiness of their children enrolled in Head Start programs? 67 What is the relationship between parentsÂ’ educational expectations a nd pre-literacy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs? 68
iii What is the relationship between the predictor variables (i.e. parenting styles, parental homebased involvement, and parents educational expectations) and pre-literacy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs? 68 Picture Naming IGDI Multiple Regression Analysis 69 Rhyming IGDI Multiple Regression Analysis 70 Alliteration IGDI Multiple Regression Analysis 70 Combined Literacy Readiness Multiple Regression Analysis 71 Correlation Matrix of Predictor Variables 72 Home-based Involvement Qualitative Data 73 Chapter 5: Discussion 75 Overview 75 Demographics 76 The Relationship between Parent ing Styles and Pre-literacy Readiness 76 The Relationship between Home-based Involvement and Pre-literacy Readiness 77 The Relationship between Parent sÂ’ Educational Expectations and Pre-literacy readiness 79 The Relationship between the Predictor Variables and Pre-literacy Readiness of Black Children enrolled in Head Start Programs 80 Limitations of the Study 81 Future Research 82 Conclusion 83 List of References 86 Appendices 102 Appendix A: Parent Survey 103 Appendix B: Letter to Parents 110 Appendix C: Scripts and Helpful Tips: Help ing Parents 112 Appendix D: ParentsÂ’ Follow-up Letter 114 Appendix E: Survey Advertisement 115
iv List of Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistics fo r Parent Demographic Variables (Gender) 58 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics fo r Parent Demographic Variables (Age) 59 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Parent Demographic Variables (Ethnicity) 59 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for ParentsÂ’ Educational Level and Number of Children in Household 60 Table 5 Respondents Relationship with Preschooler 60 Table 6 Child Demographic Information 61 Table 7 Number of Years enrolled in Head Start a nd Pre-literacy Readiness 62 Table 8 IGDI Assessments 66 Table 9 Correlations for Paren ting style and Pr e-Literacy Readiness 67 Table 10 Correlation for Home-based Involvement and Pre-literacy Readiness 67 Table 11 Correlations for Parents Educational Expectations and Pre-Literacy Readiness 68 Table 12 Multiple Regression with Picture Naming IGDI as Dependent Variable 69 Table 13 Multiple Regression with Rhyming IGDI as Dependent Variable 70 Table 14 Multiple Regression with Alliteration IGDI as Dependent Variable 71 Table 15 Multiple Regression with Combined Literacy Readiness as Dependent Variable 72
v Table 16 Correlation Matrix for Predictor Variables 73 Table 17 Percentage of Othe rs that Assist in ChildÂ’s Learning at Home 74
vi Parenting Style, Home-Based Involvement, and Educational Expectations of Black Parents: Their Roles in the Development of Pre-Literacy Readiness of Black Children Iravonia S. Rawls ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to inves tigate the relationship of parenting style, home-based involvement, parentsÂ’ educational expectations and pre-li teracy readiness. Sixty-two preschool children and his or her pa rent or guardian partic ipated in this study of: 1) The relationship between parenting st yle and pre-literacy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs; 2) The relationship between parentsÂ’ educational expectations of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs and preliteracy readiness; 3) The re lationship between home-based involvement of Black parents and levels of pre-literacy read iness of their children enrolled in Head Start programs; and 4) The relationship between the predictor vari ables (i.e., parenting st yle, parental homebased involvement, and parentsÂ’ educational expectations) and pre-literacy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs. Data were obtained from a Parent Survey that was administered to parents of childre n who attended Head Start Centers. Child participants were also administered pre-literacy assessments. A series of correlation and multiple regre ssion analyses were conducted to answer the four research questions in this study. Overall, all correlation and multiple regression analyses lacked significant re sults. None of th e predictor variable s had more of an influence on pre-literacy readiness variables.
vi Despite the lack of significance, the re sults of this study contributes to the literature that supports that Bl ack parents do have high expect ations for thei r children and are engaging in activities at home with thei r children, whether itÂ’s the primary caregiver (e.g., mother) or another person in the imme diate or extended family (e.g., father, grandparents, uncle, boyfriend). These results further suppor t the notion that BaumrindÂ’s parenting style constructs may not generalize across other cultural and economi cal contexts. Future research is needed to determine the generalizability of these parenting style constructs across other ethnic minority and cultural group s. Practical implications of this study suggest that prevention and early intervention practices are two essential components in improving the learning outcomes of young minority children from less privileged backgrounds.
1 Chapter One Introduction Statement of the Problem Research has shown that parent involveme nt in childrenÂ’s schooling is associated with positive outcomes for adolescents (Dornbus ch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Epstein, 1991; Griffith, 1996; Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). However, few studies have linked parent involvement to preschool childrenÂ’s outcomes, specifically at-risk groups such as low-SES minority children (Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Perry, 19 99). Recent federal government legislative efforts such as Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2001) have identified kindergar ten readiness and parental involvement as critical goals for enhancing learning in U.S. public school s (Abdul-Adil & Framer, 2006). More specifically, Goal 1, Â“school readiness,Â” states that Â“all childre n will start school ready to learnÂ” (National Educational Goals Panel, 1997, p. XV) and Goal 8, Â“parental participation,Â” states that Â“every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting social, emotional, and academic growth of childrenÂ” (National Educationa l Goals Panel, 1997, p. xvii). Recent national statistics indicate th at key demographic factors (i.e., economic disadvantage, minority status, lo w maternal educational attain ment, and being raised in a single-parent family) put minority students at risk for poor performance on school readiness measures (Departmen t of Education, 2000; Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000). In addition to the key demographic variables, th e lack of quality childcare and preschools, insufficient family support, and less effective parenting also pose significant threats to
2 early developmental school readiness of minor ity children (ChildrenÂ’s Defense Fund, 1998). Thus, it is no surprise th at a combination of these f actors increases the likelihood that young minority children will face difficultie s over the course of their school years, including behavioral and emotional problems, poor school performance, grade retention, and dropping out (McLoyd, 1998). Future interv entions are needed to address how schools can best work with parents in supporting the cognitive and developmental needs of children at home (Hampton, Fantuzzo, Cohen, & Seking, 2004). Rationale for the Study Parental school-based involvement, as well as parenting style, and parental educational expectations have al l been well established in the literature as important factors that influence the educational outcomes of adolescent childre n (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Griffith, 1996; Grolnick, et al., 1997; Halle, KurtzCostas, & Mahoney, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). To date, however, few studies exist that have inve stigated the roles of the aforementioned variables among young children and school readiness outcomes (Dic kson & DeTemple, 1998; Fantuzzo, et al., 1999; Hill, 2001; Mantzicopoulos, 1997). Therefore, to completely understand why some children are more prepared for school than ot hers professional educat ors need to understand how specific variables such as parenting styl e, parental homeinvolvement activities and parentsÂ’ educational expectation relate to child renÂ’s development of kindergarten readiness. It is important to understand how parents influence the school readiness skills of their children to help educators develop appropriate interventions to support the process of what parents are doing at home with their children. Fortunately, Head Start programs are in the position to help facilitate this process by being a readily available reso urce to parents, such
3 as providing parent training pr ograms, educational materials, and other services to help parents create a positive, proactive, and supportive home learning environment for their children. The current study will attempt to identify those parenting behaviors (i.e., parenting style, parental-home based involvement, and pare ntal expectations) that are most likely to enhance school readiness outco mes of Head Start children. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship among parenting style, parental educational expectations, and the types of parental home-based activities that Black Head Start parents use to foster the development of Kindergarten readiness. This study will replicate Fantuzzo, McWayne, and PerryÂ’s ( 2004) use of the home-based involvement portion of the Family Involvement Questionn aire (FIQ) measure with low-SES Black parents of children enrolled in Head Start progr ams. This study will also seek to contribute to the literature base of the few and inc onsistent findings of BaumrindÂ’s (1967; 1972) parenting style typologies with the pa renting behaviors of Black parents. In addition, findings of the current st udy will be discussed using a strengths (what are parents doing) based approach versus Â“fixi ng familiesÂ” or a deficit based approach (what they are not doing or what they are lacking) to demonstrate the types of positive behaviors that Black parents engage in with their ch ildren at home to promote academic success (Maton, Schellenbach, Leadbeater, & Solarz, 2004). Definitions of the Terms For the present study, the terms are defined in the following manner. Home-Based involvement Epstein (1995) defined ho me-based involvement as specific concrete tasks that parents undertake to establish a positive learning environment
4 with their children. For example for this study, this category includes providing learning materials (i.e., educational books, ABC flash car ds, computer assisted learning programs) setting aside space for learni ng activities (e.g., providing a de sk or place in room for learning) and participating in learning activities with childr en (e.g., reading books, practicing ABCÂ’s, counting numbers, teachi ng/reviewing colors, watching educational television shows or movies) Parenting style. Baumrind (1967) defined the foll owing three types of parenting typologies: authoritative, authorita rian, and permissive. Authoritative style is characterized by high levels of parental nur turance, involvement, sensi tivity, reasoning, control, and encouragement of autonomy; (b) authoritaria n parenting, consisted of high levels of restrictive, punitive, rejecti ng, and power-assertive behaviors; and (c) permissive parenting, characterized by high levels of warmth and acceptance but low levels of involvement and control. Educational Expectations. Hill (2001) defined parental educational expectations as parental expectations and goals for future ed ucational attainment specifically relating to making good grades and attending college. School Readiness. Shepard and Smith (1996) defi ned school readiness as a combination of academic, social, and physical sk ills of the child that are deemed necessary to function adequately in the classroom. Pre-literacy readiness, which is considered a component of school readiness, is defined by a childÂ’s development of key processes that underlie early reading development (e.g., phonological awareness, concepts about print, and oral language development).
5 Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs). McConnell, Priest, Davis, and McEvoy (2002) developed IGDI s as a general outcome measure (GOM) designed to assess early literacy skills, in cluding expressive language and phonological awareness of preschool children 30-66 months IGDIs include the following expressive language and phonological awareness measures : Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration, and Phoneme Blending. IGDIs also include m easures that assess social interaction, motor, and adaptive functioni ng of preschool children. Research Questions In this study, the researcher will addre ss the following four research questions: 1. What is the relationship between paren ting style and pre-lite racy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs? 2. What is the relationship between pare ntsÂ’ educational expectations of Black children enrolled in Head Start progr ams and pre-literacy readiness? 3. What is the relationship between home -based involvement of Black parents and levels of pre-literacy readiness of their children enrolled in Head Start programs? 4. What is the relationship between the pr edictor variables (i.e ., parenting style, parental home-based involvement, and pare ntsÂ’ educational expectations) and preliteracy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs? Hypotheses Based on the research questions for th e current study, the researcher has the following hypotheses: 1. There is a relationship between parenting style and pre-literacy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs.
6 2. There is a relationship between home-ba sed involvement of Black parents and levels of pre-literacy readiness of Black children. 3. There is a relationship between parent sÂ’ educational expectations of Black children enrolled in Head Start progr ams and pre-literacy readiness. Significance of Study It was hoped that the results of this study will provide information on the type of parent-child relationship most benefici al for influencing learning outcomes. Collaborating with parents to promote childre nÂ’s school readiness is especially critical with low-income minority families. Research supports that economic and cultural differences between families and educators often results in significant discontinuities between home and school cont ext (Slaughter-Defoe, 1995). Low-income Black parents and children we re the primary sample in this study because parents from this group have been e xposed to high levels of discrimination and oppressed in this county (Coll et al., 1996), a nd they have been faced with raising their children in at-risk environmen ts characterized by poverty, cr ime, high rates of teenage pregnancy, unemployment, and poor schooli ng (Bos, Huston, Granger, Duncun, Brock, & McLoyd, 1999; Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Sealand, 1993; McDermott & Spencer, 1997; Weiss & Fantuzzo, 2001). Thus, to examin e the relationship am ong variables that influence the home-learning environment such as parenting style, parental home-based involvement, and educational expectations is essential l for imp roving the educational outcomes of Black children. This study will contribute to the scant literature base on exploring parenting variables that influence kindergarten readiness.
7 The remaining chapters are organized in the following manner. Chapter 2, entitled Â“Literature Review,Â” includes an examination of the existing literature on parenting style, parental home-based involvement, and parental educational expectati ons as it relates to pre-literacy readiness. Chapter 3, entitled Â“M ethods,Â” includes a description of the design and procedures of this study to determine if parenting style, parental home based involvement, and parental educational expect ations are associated with pre-literacy readiness of Black children enrolled in H ead Start programs. In addition, Chapter 4 entitled Â“Results,Â” will report the results of the current study, and Chapter 5, entitled Â“Discussion,Â” will provide a discuss of the results and the implications of the findings.
8 Chapter 2 Literature Review Overview Parental involvement is linked to positive academic outcomes for children (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, Egeland, 2004; Grolnick, et al., 1997). Therefore, the National Educational Goals Panel (1997) have identified two components to target for intervention to enhance learni ng opportunities of a ll children. These two components are school readiness and parental involvement (National Educ ational Goals Panel, 1997, p. xvii). In addition, studies have found that parenting pr actices that consist of high levels of warmth and discipline (authoritative parent ing) are related to school achievement (Baumrind, 1991; Hetherington, Henderson, & Reiss, 1999). However, these studies focus primarily on the academic outcomes of adolescents (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Griffith, 1996; Gronlnick, et al., 1997; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). To date, few studies have examined the relationship between parenting behaviors and school pe rformance among young children (Fantuzzo, et al., 1999); even fewer have examined this relationship among Black children (Baumrind, 1972; Coolahan, 2002). The purpose of this literature review is to examine the literature on parenting style, parental educational expectations, and home-based involvement in relation to kindergarten readiness. Specifically, this li terature will predominantly focus on studies with Black participants. This literature revi ew is divided into four sections. The first section will review the theory of school read iness and factors that may influence school readiness. The second section reviews the lite rature on the relations hip between parenting
9 style and school outcomes. The third section reviews the literature on the relationship between parental educational expectations and school readiness. The fourth section reviews the literature on th e relationship between home-b ased involvement and school readiness. Theories of Kindergarten Readiness The definition of kindergarten readiness often depends on how a parent, school, or community defines readiness, which may infl uence a childÂ’s ability to transition to school. Many people believe that kindergarte n readiness is a combination of academic, social, motor and psychological skills necessa ry to function adequately in school, but a common definition of school read iness is unspecified. Typica lly, in the literature there are four predominant theories of readiness: idealist/nativist, empiricist/environmental, social constructivist, and interactionist (Meisels, 1999). However, overall research literature a lacks of consensus in the definition of school readiness, as well as how to measure it. The first view, the idealist/nativist vi ew, asserts that school readiness is a maturational process, and cannot be influenced by external variables. In contrast, the empiricist/environmental view, asserts that a child is ready when he or she has acquired the specific skills n ecessary for school success (e.g., knowi ng colors, shapes, how to spell ones name, etc.). The third view of readiness is the social co nstructivist view. This view identifies readiness in social and cultural te rms. According to this view, readiness is constructed from social meanings as a result of values and expectations of the family, community, and schools. As a result, being ready for school could have many different meanings depending on the context in which the school exists. The fourth and final
10 conception of readiness is the in teractionist view. This view takes into consideration both the child and the educational environment in fluencing the development of readiness. Thus, it is not only the skills the child possesses, but also how the school defines readiness (Miesels, 1999). Factors that Influence School Readiness A review of the literature shows that there are several factors that influence school readiness. Some of these include preschool experience, socioeconomic statutes, marital status of the parent, and educational level of the parent. This section will briefly review each of these factors. Preschool Preschool is often considered a common e xperience and prerequisite in preparing children for kindergarten (Cheever & R yder, 1986: Featherstone, 1986). Brand and Welch (1989) investigated the importance of preschool on acquisitions of readiness skills. Results of this study indicated that preschool was instrume ntal in developing vocabulary, language comprehension, mathematics, visual memory, and perceptual organization skills when compared to those children who st ayed at home duri ng preschool years. Gullo and Burton (1992) also found that childrenÂ’s scores on the Metropolitan Readiness Test were higher if they attende d preschool versus those who did not attend preschool. Preschool attendance was attributed to a significant amount of variance of the outcome variable school readiness. The result s of this study also showed that children who attended two years of pres chool scored higher on the Me tropolitan test than children who only attended one year. These differences were not significant, however, they do support the notion that preschool is importa nt in developing childÂ’s academic skills.
11 Reynolds, Mavrogenes, Bezruczko, and Hagemann (1996) also found that preschool participation has positive learning outcome s. Participants of this study were 95% Black children. Results of the study found th at children who participate in preschool programs at ages 3 and 4 had significantly hi gher reading and math scores in the sixth grade. Lower retention rates were also f ound among this group. Reynolds et al. (1996) also found that parental invol vement mediated the effects of pre-school program, further enhancing the outcomes of preschool. Since other studies had not demonstrated these results, Reynolds et al. (1996) suggest that parental involve ment was associated with the long-lasting results of preschool. Socioeconomic Status Studies have shown that children from low-SES families demonstrate higher level of both externalizing and internalizing behavi or (Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994) and also demonstrate lower academic performance (Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994). In addition, Poresky and Morris (1993) noted sign ificant differences between families of lower and higher SES on demographic factors, home learning environment, and cognitive development, however, once family income a nd educational levels peaked, the influence of these factors on childrenÂ’s development was reduced. It is also important to note that parents of lower socioeconomic status experi ence a combination of factors such as low levels of education, low levels of income, a nd high levels of stre ss which contributes to their lower levels of involvement in th eir childrenÂ’s schooling. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) concluded that many parents of lower socioeconomic status in the United States have positive views of their role in th eir childrenÂ’s education and work to carryout those beliefs.
12 Single Parent families When research discusses the relationsh ip of kindergarten readiness with the marital status of parents, it often concludes th at children of single parent homes are often at risk for academic difficulties (Ricciu ti, 1999). The absence of a partner makes it difficult for the single parent to deal with typical childcare responsibilities and other day to day stressors (i.e., work, financial strain, et c.). While research has demonstrated that those children that come from single fam ily homes often have poor developmental outcomes in adolescence, this relationship has not been well defined with preschool children (Patterson, Kupersmi dt, & Vaden, 1990). Riccuiti (1 999) found that children from single parents were not at greater risk for school readiness in a sample of White, Black, and Hispanic 6-7 year old children. Inte restingly, research has also found that it is not necessarily the single parent environment that is associated with negative outcomes, but the experience of marital di stress that is related to intern alizing and externalization of behavior problems and the financial strain and economic instability that accompanies single-parent families (Ricciuti, 1999). Ethnicity Research suggests that ethnicity is associ ated with school achievement, such that Black children are associated with higher ri sk for behavioral problems and lower levels of academic achievement (Patterson, Kupe rsmidt & Vadan, 1990). However, other studies have found that ethnicity plays a very small role (if any) in externalizing problems at school entry, and that SES mediates these effects (Gree nberg, Coie, Lengua, & Pinderhughes, 1999). Others argue that the r eason ethnicity is related to academic
13 difficulties is because of the cumulative effects of racial discrimination and prejudice (Spencer, 1990), rather than ethnicity itself. Parental Education Level Several studies have shown that education level of parents is related to academic success of their child ren (Stevenson & Baker, 1987; Becker-Klein, 1999). Christian, Morrison, and Bryant (1998) have also found that maternal education is related to academic success, however, when mothers wi th lower educational levels provided literacy in the home, their children outperform ed those children with mothers with higher educational levels who did not provide litera cy activities in the home. The researchers concluded that parenting activities in the hom e moderated some of the effects of parent education. Stevenson and Baker (1987) stated that the educational level of parents is associated with the parentsÂ’ experience and knowledge of the ways one can successfully move through the educational system. Results indicated that the involvement of a more educated mother in the school career of children may be more effective than the involvement of a less educated mother. For instance, the involvement of a mother who has knowledge of and is familiar with the college admission process and college experience will be more familiar with help ing their children with the process and applying to various colleges and universities. This parent may also be helpful in assisting the child with choosing a college major and finding financial support. Summary Research suggested that there are ma ny factors associated with childrenÂ’s readiness for school. A number of studies suggest that these f actors play a significant role
14 in predicting academic success, while other studies found that parenting factors mediate the effects of these factors on academic perfor mance. The next two sections will review other factors that influence sc hool readiness: parenting style, parental expectations, and parental home-based activities. Parenting Style Research supports that parenting style may differ across ethnic groups and other environmental characteristics (H ill, 2001). However, these re sults have been mixed and less consistent among Black families. Of these studies, the majority focus on the relationship between parenting style and a dolescent outcomes (Dornbusch,et al., 1987; Griffith, 1996; Gronlnick, et al., 1997). Few st udies have examined parenting style as it relates to preschool outcomes of Black children (B aumrind, 1972; Coolahan, et. al., 2002). Furthermore, most of the studies exam ining parenting style and Black families use a deficit approach in examining the problems these families and youths have such as teenage pregnancy, drug use, and criminal involvement (Taylor, Chatters, Tucker, & Lewis, 1990). Taylor et al. (1990) suggest that further re search is needed on the positive interactions of Black youth versus focusing primarily on social maladjustments. This section of the literature review will provide an overview of environmental variables (i.e., community, economic hardships) that can in fluence the quality of parenting children receive, in addition to how different parent ing styles influence school success. Despite the dearth of res earch on parenting style and minority populations within the past decade, there has been an abundan ce of studies on family-school connection that have explored the influence of different types of parenting st yles (e.g., typologies characterized by responsiveness and demandingne ss) and specific parental practices (e.g.,
15 helping with home-work, attending parent-t eacher conferences) on childrenÂ’s school outcomes (Spera, 2005). Of these studies resear chers have often used parenting practices and parenting styles interchangeably (Macc oby & Martin, 1983). Ho wever, Darling and Steinburg (1993) suggest that to better understand the social ization of children within families it is important to distinguish between parenting style and parenting practices. Darling and Steinberg (1993) defined parenting practi ces as specific behaviors that parents use to socialize th eir children. For example, when a parent is socializing their children for school they may designate a time and place for child to complete homework and assist and monitor child upon completion. In contrast, Da rling and Steinberg (1993) defined parenting style as the emotional cl imate in which parents raise their child. Therefore, parenting style can be considered a Â“contextual variable that moderates the relationship between specific parenting practi ces and specific developmental outcomes of childrenÂ” (Darling & Steinburg, 1993). Historic ally, parenting style has been defined by Â“parental demandnessÂ” and Â“responsivessÂ” of children (Baumrind, 1991) In the section that follows, BaumrindÂ’s (1967, 1991) four t ypes of parenting style typologies are reviewed. The most empirical work undertaken in the area of parenting style has been BaumrindÂ’s (1967) identification of the three main parenting styles: (a) authoritative parenting, characterized by high levels of pa rental nurturance, involvement, sensitivity, reasoning, control, and encouragement of autonomy; (b) authoritarian parenting, consisted of high levels of restrictive, pun itive, rejecting, and powe r-assertive behaviors; and (c) permissive parenting characterized by high levels of warmth and acceptance but low levels of involvement and control. M accoby and Martin (1983) extended the work of
16 BaumrindÂ’s typology by creating an additiona l category described as neglecting or uninvolved. Therefore, expanding BaumrindÂ’s pa renting dimensions to authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, a nd neglecting or uninvolved. According to Baumrind (1967), childre n whose parents us ed authoritative parenting style were confident in their ability to acquire and master new skills, exhibited a happy mood, and demonstrated self-controlled behavior (e.g., less disruptive in the classroom). However, authoritarian parents are demanding of their children (i.e., have high expectations for children to conform to the parentsÂ’ values) a nd yet unresponsive to the rights and needs of their children (e.g., expect children to obey rules without question). Baumrind (1967, 1971) has found th at children whose parents used an authoritarian parenting styl e were described as anxious, withdrawn, and unhappy, and they interacted with peers in a hostile manner. Adolescents whose parents were authoritarian in their pa renting style were not as well-adju sted as those with authoritative parents; however, their academic achievement was not as poor as adolescents whose parents were not demanding (i.e., permi ssive or uninvolved parents) (Steinburg, Lamborn, Darling, & Dornbusch, 1992). The permissive style of parenting is responsive and nurturing; however, there are no demands or rules imposed on the child. Th e uninvolved style consists of no demands and a lack of responsiveness (i.e., the parent s has very little comm itment to the childrearing process). Children whose parents are either permissive or uninvolved typically perform more poorly in school than children of authoritative or authoritarian parents (Baumrind, 1991; Kurdek & Fines, 1994; La mborn Mounts, Steinbe rg, & Dornbursch, 1991).
17 Parenting Style and Young Children As previously mentioned, Baumrind (1967, 1971) was one of the first to explore the relationship between parent ing style and pre-school child ren. Although these studies have occurred decades ago, they have paved the road for subsequent research in the areas of parenting styles and ch ildren outcomes. BaumrindÂ’s re search shows that certain parental behaviors are associated with specific preschool outcomes (Baumrind, 1967, 1971). In BaumrindÂ’s (1971) first preschool st udy, three groups of Â“normalÂ” children were identified according to their social and emotional behavior. Then the behaviors of children and parents were observed and compared. The results indicated that children who we re most self-reliant, self-controlled, and explorative and content were of parents who were controlling, demanding, and warm, rational, and responsive to their childÂ’s needs and demands. Children who were discontent, withdrawn, and distrusting had pa rents who were characterized as detached, controlling, and less warm. The last finding of this study show ed that children who were characterized as the least self -reliant, explorative, and se lf-controlling had parents who were non-controlling, and non-demanding, but were warm (Baumrind, 1967). These three findings are consistent with BaumrindÂ’s auth oritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting styles previously described. A re plication of this st udy further supported the earlier findings that authorit ative parenting is linked to children who are responsible, autonomous, and self-assertive (Baumrind & Black, 1967). Other studies have found that parenting style may be linked to cognitive and behavioral development of children (Estra da, Arsenio, Hess, & Holloway, 1987; Kahen, & Gottman, 1994). Estrada, Arsenio, Hess, and Holloway (1987) found that parents who
18 exhibited warmth, acceptance, responsivess, and flexibility during an observed parentchild interaction task were, associated with preschool childrenÂ’s task persistence, initiation of new activities, and decision to pur sue challenging tasks. In addition, research has linked authoritative parenting practices with aggressive and disruptive peer play interactions (Kahen, Katz, & Gottman, 1994). Heller, Baker, Henker, and Hinshaw ( 1996) found that author itarian parenting style was the stronger predicto r of the preschool to first grade childÂ’s externalizing behavior, such as aggression and noncomplia nt behavior, even when the motherÂ’s education, child behavior problems were controll ed for. These researchers theorized that authoritarian parenting might l ead to conflicts between parent al expectations and childÂ’s predisposition to exhibit externalizing beha viors. The childÂ’s behaviors, plus the parenting styles confounded each other. The researchers theorized that externalizing behavior would interfere with learning and depress IQ, the results did not support this hypothesis. Although externalizi ng behavior did not interfer e with cognitive functioning of preschoolers and first graders, it is possible that if externalizing behavior exist for long periods of time it may interfere with l earning and cognitive functioning. Another hypothesis suggested by these rese archers was that it may be that these parents exhibited a specific parenting involvement or activity that in combination with authoritative parenting was sort of detrimental to primary school childrenÂ’s learning. Carlton and Winsler (1999) found in a st udy of 24 parents and their 3 year old children that parents classified as authoritative provided mo re effective tutoring styles, such as scaffolding. Scaffolding can de defined as a nondirectiv e teaching style that provides a high degree of support for childre nÂ’s autonomy and self -regualtion (Carlton &
19 Winsler, 1999). These parents were shown to be more structured, responsive, and warm to their children. They also were not easil y angered or frustrated by the child and set limits for the child. Results indicated that ch ildren who received this type of authoritative parenting and the scaffolding type tutoring we re more successful than those children who did not receive this type of parenting and tutoring. Another study by Pratt, Green, MacVi car, and Bountrogianni (1992) examined parenting style, tutoring behaviors, and childrenÂ’s acquisition of academic skills found that for fifth graders, academic performance was influenced when authoritative parenting style was paired with parental tutoring. These researchers felt that authoritative parenting moderated the practice of tutoring, making tu toring more effective when paired with different types of parenting styles. Parenting Style and Black Families Young Children To date, few studies have examined the relationship between parenting style and preschool outcome s of Black children (Baumrind, 1972; Coolahan, et. al., 2002). BaumrindÂ’s (1971) or iginal study examined the patterns of parental authority on preschool childrenÂ’s behavior; however the participants of this study were majority white middle-to upper class parent s and children. As a result, Baumrind (1972) decided to separately analyze the data of the 16 black children and families to explore if diffe rences in parenting style exist when these black families were compared to white parenting norms (i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive). Results of this study found that black children, specifically black girls appeared to benefit more from an authoritar ian type of parenting style. These results suggested that authoritarian child-reari ng practicescharacterized by the use of
20 disciplinary, forceful control to gain compliance or to repr imand inappropriate behavior by the parentwere associated with competen ce in daughters. Such findings often portray Black families as expecting unrealistic levels of obedience, engaging in high levels of power assertion, expressing low levels of r easoning, and having low tolerance for child input. Furthermore, its important to note that these results co ntradict the parenting style literature that suggests that authoritative pa renting is associated with positive child outcomes. Coolahan et al., (2002) examined the c onstruct validity of the Parenting Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ) with BaumrindÂ’s three ty pes of parental t ypologies with 465 low income Black parents and children enrolled in Head Start programs. Factor analyses indicated three slightly different parenting style dimensions emerged: active-responsive (warmth, responsiveness to childrenÂ’s needs, respect for children needs, respect for autonomy, and limit setting with explanation or authoritative parenting construct), passive-permissive (lack of warmth and fo llow through with direc tiveness and no clear guideline for behavioral guide lines for child), and active-re strictive (excessive demands and use of criticism during discipline or auth oritarian parenting construct). However, a Pearson product moment correl ation analyses indicated th at two dimensions, activeresponsive and active-restrictive measured by the PBQ were significantly positively correlated with BaumrindÂ’s authoritative a nd authoritarian parenting styles. Results showed that passive-resistance parenti ng differs significantly from BaumrindÂ’s permissive parenting construct. The resear chers theorized that these differences exist because BaumrindÂ’s permissive parenting styl e construct is defined as lack of boundary setting but adequate levels of warmth. For the population of this study passive-
21 permissive was characterized as low parental restriction or low levels of parental attentiveness and parental actions. This finding was similar to Maccoby and MartinÂ’s (1983) indifferent-uninvolved construct that supports the character istics found in this study that permissive parents are completely detached emotionally and uninvolved with their children. Although this is an inconsistent finding in the literature, this study also supports the relationship between financ ial distress and parenting styl es. Results indicated that parents with less financial support and resour ces reported the highest levels of passivepermissive and active-resistan ce parenting. Of this sample, these parents were more likely to be single and have le ss than a high school education. On the other hand, activeresponsive parents were more likely to ha ve achieved a higher level education. Adolescents. To date only two studies have used predominantly minority populations to examine family influences on academic achievement (Attaway & Bry, 2004; Radziszewska, Richardson, Dent, & Fla y, 1996). To explore how family variables (parenting behaviors) influence academic out comes, Dornbush, Ritter, Leider, Roberts, and Fraleigh (1987) developed pa renting style scales from a questionnaire that had been administered to several thousand high school st udents in the San Francisco area. Overall, they found that academic achievement was associ ated with studentsÂ’ reports of parentsÂ’ authoritative parenting style. However, these results were not consistent with the Black student population. Among black students paren ting style was not a valid indicator of grades at all. Steinburg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, and Darling (1992) reexamined this relationship with a population of Wisconsin students and found the same results, that parenting style
22 was a good indicator of academic achievement of most youth, but not for Black students. However, it is important to note that in bot h of these studies the populations of black students were fewer than 12%, which coul d have confounded the research findings. Radziszewska et al. (1996) found that in a diverse sample of 3,993 ninth graders from Los Angeles and San Diego counties with more than 50% of the population Hispanic and Black that authoritative pare nting style was indeed associated with achievement among Black youth. Attaway and Br y (2004) replicated this study with 59 black mother and female adolescents to examine the relationship between maternal beliefs in control and responsiveness and adol escent academic outcomes. Results of this study indicated that higher maternal beliefs in control were signifi cantly correlated with low grade point averages. No other signifi cant relationships were found between other parenting and demographic variables and adolescent academic achievement. In summary, aforementioned research on parenting style influences on Black adolescent achievement is limited. Most of th e studies that examine the influences of parenting style on adolescent outcomes fo cus on outcomes such as independence, organization, behavior, and reasoning and problemÂ–solving (Crum, Enminger, & McCord, 1998; Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hira ga, 1996). Thus, additional research is warranted in the area of how different pare nting styles influence academic outcome of Black youth. Parenting Style and Environmental Factors Parenting style among Black families has been largely understudied (Graham, 1992), as well as within group di fferences in parenting style among Black parents (Abell, Clawson, Washington, Bost & Vaughn, 1996). Several factors have been
23 associated with the quality of parenting be haviors exhibited by Black parents such as SES, community environment, and poverty (BlueStone & Tamis-LeMonda, 1999; Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, & Lord, 1995; McLoyd, Jayaratne, Ceballo, & Borquez, 1994). Research has shown that poverty and stressors rela ted to community violence, inadequate healthcare, and insufficient housing significantl y impact the quality of parenting children receive (Osofsky, 1995). Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, and Zelli (2000) found that these environmental factors are a ssociated with the lack of quality family support and ineffective parenting practices. In addition, research has linke d other risk factors to envi ronmental factors such as poverty to lower education leve l and single-parent households to dimensions of parenting style (U.S. Department of H ealth and Human Services, 1996). Kelly, Sanchez-Hucles and Walker (1993) found that low levels of parent al education are associ ated with high levels of parental restrictiveness, furthermore, lo wer parental education has been associated with lower level of parental involvement (Fantuzzo et. al, 2000). However, although these studies suggest that parents living in impoverishe d environments employ less adaptive parenting behaviors, th ere is currently very little research on how income level and culture, are expressed with in styles of parenting. Past studies have found that a relationship exist between parenting style and SES and race (Pinderhughes et al., 2000). As pr eviously mentioned, such findings compare parenting styles of Black pa rents to those of white mi ddle to high SES children and parents, which as a result have led to a limited and inaccurate picture of minority parenting. Investigators have found that SES and race often confound each other when
24 compared to parenting behaviors. However, more recent studies have concluded that parenting style is more related to SES than ra ce or culture variable s, with both White and minority low income parents (Pinderhughes et al., 2000). McLoyd, Jayaratne, Ceballo, and Borquez, (1994) investigated the impact of parenting practices in a group of single, Bl ack mothers. They found that unemployment and financial strain contributed to increased levels of matern al depression, which in turn predicted greater punitiveness toward thei r adolescent children. In addition, mother perception of perceived support decreases th eir levels of depre ssion, their negativity about being a mother, and their tendency to exert harsh punishment with children. Elder, Eccles, Ardelt, and Lord (199 5) examined the effects of economic hardships on both emotional distress and parenting behaviors of Black and EuroAmerican parents of adolescents. They found that unstable work environments and lowincome were associated with increased emotional distress an d negative parenting behaviors. Since low-income Black families had fewer economic resources to begin with, they were more directly affected by economic hardships than were Euro-American families. These findings suggest that the relationship between sociodemographic factors and parenting behaviors depends on the speci fic ethnic group variable being examined. BlueStone and Tamis-LeMonda (1999) examined the relationship between parenting and discipline pract ices of 114 working and middl e class Black mothers and children using the Parent Dimension Inventor y. Results of this study conclude that a range of parenting styles exist among middle-working class Black parents. The researchers found that most mothers engaged in child-oriented approaches to disciplining children such as addressing childÂ’s needs, allowing child to participate in the
25 establishment of family rules, and enga ging in inductive reasoni ng when disciplining children. These findings challenge the literature base that characterize Black parents as primarily Â“power assertiveÂ”, a view that is part a result of focusing on single household status and dysfunctions of Black families. The researchers in this study found that the parenting strategy most commonly used was reasoning, a strategy characteristic of authoritative parenting. Physical punishment a major component of power-assertiveness styles, was reported infrequentl y. In addition, motherÂ’s who we re less educated and from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds were more likely to Â“let things goÂ” with children. However, motherÂ’s who were more depressed and reported more negativity and less warmth were less likely to reason with their children. Education and socioeconomic status were not related to th e use of the strategy of reasoni ng. This study contributes to the literature base on the st rengths of Black families in relation to supporting childrenÂ’s school success and provides further informa tion on the factors that contribute to the outcomes of diverse types of parenting. This concludes this section of the liter ature review on influences of parenting styles on cognitive, emotional, and behavior al outcomes of children. As previously mentioned, there is limited research on the in fluences of parenti ng style and preschool outcomes. Of these studies with Black popul ations, the majority of them focus on parenting behaviors that influence adolescen t outcomes. Research supports that several ecological variables such as SES, less pe rceived financial and emotional support, unstable work environment, and economic hardship can influence parent-child relationships of Black families. Additional research is warranted to further explore this relationship among young Black child ren and achievement outcomes.
26 Educational expectations Researchers have also documented a positive relationship between parental educational expectations a nd childrenÂ’s learning outcomes (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, and Egeland, 2004; Gronlick et al., 1997; Halle, Kurtz-Costas, & Mahoney, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Lareau, 1989). For example, Halle et al. (1997) found that parental educational exp ectation for future educational attainment was related to childÂ’s current school achievement. This study examined the influence of parental beliefs and expectations about math and reading achievement on childrenÂ’s actual obtained grades in math and reading in a sample of Black elementary school students. Using an unstructured interview format the researchers assessed parentsÂ’ expectations concerning the likelihood that their child would comple te Grades, 6, 9, and 12, 2 years of college, and 4 years of college. They also asse ssed parental beliefs about normal child development of academic skills such as naming the president. Their results show that parental expectations concerning future academic achievement were associated with academic attainment. Hill (2001) examined the relationship among parenting and childrenÂ’s school readiness with socioeconomically similar Black kindergarten children, mothers, and teachers. In addition, the moderating variables family income and ethnicity were examined among parenting behaviors, parent al educational expectations, and school involvement and childrenÂ’s school readiness performance. Participants of this study were 103 Bl ack (n=54) and Euro-American (n=49) mothers of kindergarten child ren. These two groups were similar in socioeconomic status. In this study pare ntal involvement was measur ed using the Parent-Teacher-
27 Involvement Questionnaire (PTIQ) which contained three type s of parental involvement school involvement, home-involvement, and pa rent-teacher relationship. Two subscales of The Metropolitan Readiness Test (prere ading and premath) were used to assess childrenÂ’s readiness at the end of kindergarten. Parental expect ations were assessed using three questions developed by the researchers fo r this specific study. To assess expected grades, mothers were asked the following th ree questions: Â“Knowing your child as you do, what grades do you expect him/her to r eceive in school? How far do you think he or she will go in school? What type of job do you expect him or her to have?Â” In-home interviews were conducted with families at their convenience and surveys were completed by teachers. Results of this study showed that the re lationship between pare ntal expectations for expected grades and future occupation was positively associated with prereading scores. In addition, family income was a m oderator variable to parenting and school performance. Parenting had a much stronge r relationship with prereading performance for lower income families than for those of higher income. This study suggests that parents may be able to bette r indicate childrenÂ’s capabiliti es with reading and writing tasks than math-related tasks. Furthermore, parents of children who read and write well at home may develop higher future occupation ex pectations for their children than those parents whose reading is not as devel oped. Alternatively, parents with higher occupational goals for their ch ildren may engage in more r eading related activities with their children. Sukhdeep and Reynolds (1999) found simila r results that investigated the relationship between parental educational e xpectations and school achievement of Black
28 children. Participants of this study were 712 children from an inner city Chicago area. A path analysis was used to test the processe s of influence from parentsÂ’ and teachersÂ’ expectations of sixth grade students. Results of this st udy indicate that third grade achievement was mediated by sociodemographi c variables, which in turn influenced parent and teacher expectations. Teacher and parent expectations had a significant influence on math achievement, whereby only te acher expectations were associated with reading achievement. Prior achievement, however, served as the most powerful influential variable relating to academic outcomes above and beyond sociodemographic variables. The researchers suggest that future research shou ld examine the home environment in which parents convey their expectations to chil dren that may give valuable information about this process. Furthermore, interventions should be developed to enhance or change parental educational expe ctations to help parents foster a supportive home-learning environment for children. The more parents believe they play a critical role in th eir childrenÂ’s education the more likely they will be to facilitate a teaching-learning process. When taking into account parentsÂ’ beliefs about their roles in their childre nÂ’s education, Lareau (1989) found that working class parents believed their roles involved basic preparation for school such as ensuring school attendance or and good manners. On the other hand, parents also believed that it is the schoolÂ’s responsibility to make decisions relating to educational progress (i.e., reten tion or special education placement). These parents were described as having an interconnected relati onship with the school. Their parent roles involved an active monitoring of their chil dÂ’s academic progress and intervening in school decisions when necessary.
29 In addition, parents who believe that e ducational attainment is the key to upward social mobility are more likely to invest in their childrenÂ’s education (Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez, & Bloom, 1993). When considering parentsÂ’ beliefs about their roles in their childÂ’s education, Lareau (1989) found that wo rking-class parents tended to believe that their roles involved basic preparation for school such as getting them to school on time or ensuring their children have good manners. Lare au (1989) found that these parents tended to believe that it was the schoolÂ’s responsib ility to make decisions about educational progress (i.e., retention or sp ecial education). Conversely, the researcher also found the upper-middle-class parents to believe differen tly. These parentsÂ’ views of the home and school seemed to be Â“interconnectedÂ” (Larea u, 1989). Their parent roles involved an active monitoring of their childÂ’s academic progress and intervening in school decisions when necessary. In addition, research supports that when pa rents have the view that education is a necessary tool for social mobility or stat us maintenance, then the motivation for involvement is more likely to be apparent (Muller & Kerbow, 1993). However, this is significantly influenced by the amount of res ources available to families. For example, a parent may choose to invest in their childrenÂ’s education by paying for private education, investing in a tutor, joining pa rent-teacher associations, or just verbally communicating to their child educational expect ations (Muller & Kerbow, 1993). In summary, parentsÂ’ beliefs and ex pectations concerni ng their childrenÂ’s progression in school is considered an impor tant factor in improving student outcomes. Thus, targeting low-income families with prevention and intervention strategies to enhance parent-child relationships (i.e., co mmunicating educational expectations) could
30 in turn improve student academic outcomes. Review of the literature suggests that further research is needed in this area, especially with younger children from minority and low socioeconomic backgrounds. Parental Home-Based Involvement Research shows that childr enÂ’s whose parents are more involved in school is associated with higher academic performan ce (Epstein, 1996), in addition, higher levels of home-based involvement (e.g., supervision and monitoring, daily conversations about school) have been associated with higher scor es in reading, writing as well as higher report card grades (Epstein, 1991; Griffith, 1996; Keith, Keith, Quirk, Sperduto, Santillo, & Killings, 1998). However, researchers are still trying to identify the most effective types of parental involvement activities (home and school) that influence childrenÂ’s academic and behavioral outcomes (Fantuzzo et. al, 2004). Parents from ethnically diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds have often been criticized for the lack of involvement in their childrenÂ’s education and coined Â“hard to reachÂ” parents (e.g., low socioeconomic status, ethnic minority parent s, those with limited education, single parents) (Raffaele & Knoff, 1999). However, it is important to note that while many of these parents are not considered involved unde r the traditional school-b ased definition of parental involvement (i.e., attending school related activities), these parents may be involved in more Â“behind the s cenesÂ” ways at home not fully captured by the literature. Although, research has consistently found a si gnificant relationship between parentsÂ’ status variables and parentsÂ’ involvements in childrenÂ’s schoo ling (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). It is also im portant to note there is mutual agreement that process
31 variables (Â“what parents doÂ”) are more im portant in predicting student academic achievement (Kellagh an et al., 1993). Furthermore, because Â“parental involvementÂ” is such a multidimensional concept (involving multiple behaviors, attitudes, and activities), research lacks a consensus definition (Fantuzzo, et al., 2000; Epstein, 1992 ). Based on this notion, Abdul-Adil and Framer (2006) defined parental involvement as Â“parental attitudes, behaviors, styles, or activities that occur within or outside the school setting to suppor t childrenÂ’s academic and/or behavioral success in th eir currently enrolled school. Â” Thus, this section of the literature review will first review EpsteinÂ’ s (1996) six multiple types of parental involvement and then specifically discusses home-based involvement, which is the focus of the current study. Epstein (1996) based her six typology of parental involvement on Comer and Haynes (1996) parenting program model. Ep stein (1996) identifi ed six ways school personnel can work with families and commun ities to foster parental involvement in childrenÂ’s education: parent ing, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with community The first type of involveme nt refers to basic obligations of parents, and requires schools to assist families in providing for childrenÂ’s health and safety, developing parenting skills and positive home conditions that support learning and behavior ap propriate for school. Second, parents actively participate in a ll communication between the school and home regarding school programs and student academic progress (e.g., parent-teacher conferences, report cards, phone calls).
32 The third type of involvement identi fied by the literature is school-based involvement. School based involvement included parents becoming volunteers who assist teachers in the classroom or in the sc hool setting, attending sc hool functions and/or by promoting shared responsibility between pa rents and schools. For example, a parent may participate in the classroom setting as a Â“p arent tutorÂ” or helper for the teacher. In addition, parents may decide to become i nvolved in the classroom by chaperoning field trips or being a guest speaker during Â“Career DayÂ”. Fourth, parents facilitate l earning activities at home (e.g., helping with homework, providing necessary supplies). This also in cluded school personne l providing parents with ways they can assist th ere children at home in learni ng, in addition to ways that align with childrenÂ’s school work. In addition, the school can provide parents information on the requirements and skills nece ssary for their children to be successful in school (i.e., meeting benchmarks). Schools ma y also assist families in ways that they can monitor, discuss, and help with homework assignments as well as how and when to make decisions about specific school programs, activities, and opportunities at specific grade levels (i.e., to enroll your child in college preparatory courses). Fifth, parents actively assist in maki ng decisions within the schools (e.g., P.T.A., school government) at the school, district, or state level, contributing to the shared responsibility of educating ch ildren. Schools can train pare nts to serve as leaders and representatives in decision-making and communi cation skills to assist as liaisons for schools in interacting with ot her parents. Also, schools can provide parents information needed to assist in schoo l improvement activities.
33 The sixth type of involvement reviewed in the literature is school-communityfamily involvement, which schools coordina te access to community resources for families and students (e.g., after school program s, mentoring programs, counseling, etc.). In the current study the focus will be on home-involvement, one type of parental involvement defined by Epstein (1996). Home involvement is one type of involvement described that provides pare nts the opportunity to become involved in different ways. Providing academic assistance is often seen as the most common type of parent involvement. It includes activities such as providing assistance with homework (including direct instruction, encouraging and modeling reading, structuring a working environment in the home (i.e., providing an appropriate space to work with proper lighting) providing necessary academic mate rial (e.g., books, writing utensils, etc.), and implementing a structure for learning and m onitoring (Christenson et al., 1992). Another means of home-based parental involvement is parents providing their children with outside experiences and expos ure to learning opportunitie s (i.e., watching television together and discussing progr ams, playing games; partic ipating in hobbies; providing exposure to different types of music and ar t, visiting libraries, museums, zoos, and attending cultural events (Kellogohan, Sloane, Alvarez, & Bloom, 1993). Few studies have explored parental home-based involve ment in relation to school readiness of preschool children of low-income families (Dickson & Temple, 1998; Mantzicopoulos, 1997; Parker Boak, Griffin, Ripple, & Peay, 1999). Research has shown that parental involvement program s focusing on improving the home learning environment (through parent education and provisi on of materials, etc.) is associated with increased outcomes such as childrenÂ’s motivation and self-efficacy (Mantzicopoulos,
34 1997). In addition, those studies that have investigated th e relation between parental involvement and preschool outcomes tend to mainly focus on the quality of language stimulation provided in the home or parental use of explicit literacy-promoting behaviors (Christian, Bachnan & Morrison, 2001). Fantuzzo, McWayne, and Perry (2004) examined the relation between family involvement dimensions and end of the year outcomes to learning, conduct problems, and receptive vocabulary. To date, this is only the second study that has examined the Family Involvement Questionnaire (FIQ) dimension and preschool outcomes (i.e., learning, conduct problems, and receptive vocabulary) (Fan tuzzo et al., 1999). Participants of this study were 144 urban Head Start children. Pa rent report of parent al involvement was assessed using the Family Involvement Questio nnaire (FIQ), which is a multidimensional rating scale that asks primary care providers of young children to report the nature of their involvement in their childrenÂ’s education. In a ddition, the Preschool Learning Behaviors Scale was used to measure appr oaches to learning, the ConnerÂ’s TeacherÂ’ Rating Scale (short-form) was used to meas ure behavioral problems, and the Peabody picture vocabulary was used to assess receptive vocabulary skills. The three types of involvement examined in this study were school-base involvement, home-based involvement, and home-school conferencing. To measure the relationship between the types of parental involvement and the thre e outcome measures, the FIQ was given to parents at the beginning of the year and the other three measur es were assessed at the end of the year. Results of the study showed that home-based involvement was the st rongest predictor of later preschool competence. In addition, highe r levels of home-based involvement were
35 associated with lower levels of classroom be havior problems. Of note, these results show that not only is home-based involvement important but that it is the leading variable in influencing preschool compet ence in head start children. Most studies have focused on school-based involvement of pare nts in relation to developmental outcomes of preschool ch ildren (Macron, 1999, Sl aughter-Doe & Brown, 1998). Macron (1999) documented the importance of family-school collaboration within a sample of 708 predominantly Black parents of preschool childre n. The preschoolers in this sample were 51% female and 95% Bl ack. The type of pa rental involvement measured was parent-teacher conference, homevisits, extended class visits, and helping with a class activity in relati on to young children development. Teacher ratings were used to identify the extent of parental involvement in this sample of children. Also, measures of adaptive rating scales and basic school skil ls were included. A four category checklist was used to record the number of times th e teacher had contact with a childÂ’s parents during the school year. To measure adaptiv e behavior, the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale was used to measure each childÂ’s performance in the four domains (i.e., communication, daily living scales, socializati on, and motor development). In addition, basic school skills was assessed by using the school districtÂ’s Early Progress Report, which measures preschoolersÂ’ classroom perfor mance with the districtÂ’s expectations of skills mastery. Results of this study showed that mo re types of active school involvement were associated with an increased level of positive development and academic development. In addition, further interesting results was that gi rls outperformed the boys in all areas of the Vineland Adaptive domains (expressive language domestic skills, play and leisure, and
36 gross motor skills); however, increased parent al involvement was a ssociated especially with increased academic outcomes for boys. Barriers to Parental Involvement in Preschool Research has well-documented that home -school collaboration benefits all children (Raffaele & Knoff 1999). However fe w studies have examined this relationship among economically disadvantaged, ethnically diverse families of preschool children (Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Harris, & Hamr ick, 1987). Raffaele and Knoff (1999) suggest that better facil itation of home-school collaboration is needed among diverse and low SES populations of families, especially duri ng the preschool years when children are learning the foundations of reading, writing, and math skills required to for school success. It has been well-esta blished that status variables such as socioeconomic status, education level, marital status, and ethnicity play significant mediati ng factors in parentsÂ’ involvement of childrenÂ’s schooling (H oover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Greenwood and Hickman (1991) examined the following f our barriers which are considered parent related: (a) attitudes of parents, (b) parents abilitiesÂ’, (c) parental work demands, and (d) parentsÂ’ health. Greenwood and Hickman (1991) suggest that some parents simply do not value education of thei r children, while others may feel th at they have no influence over their childrenÂ’s school outcomes. Some pa rents have had negative experiences with schooling during their own years and thus assu me that their children will have similar experiences or they believe that the teachers do not have the best interest for their children (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). It is al so supported that some parents feel that they lack the skills necessary to be involve d in their child renÂ’s school (volunteering at
37 school), while others believe that it is not their responsibility (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). Additionally, Greenwood & Hicks (1991) found that parentsÂ’ inconvenient work demands and poor health created additiona l barriers to parental involvement. Although research reports many barriers to parental involve ment, many studies have also found that the majority of minority parents do want to be involved in their childrenÂ’s education and desire the best future outcomes for their children, but other factors such as scheduling c onflicts and time availability influence active school-based involvement (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). It is also important to note, that the examination of family process barriers such as Â“what families doÂ” have been less investigated and less-establishe d in the parental involvement literature, however, many of the school-based barriers aforementioned can be applied to barriers to home-based involvement. Sandell (1998) noted that th e recognition of having parents as active participants in thei r childrenÂ’s schooling at home is becoming an increasingly more supported and investigated factor. Overstreet, Devine, Bevans, and Efreo (2005) investigated predic tors of parental involvement among 159 economically disadvant aged Black parents from an urban community setting. The children of the pa rticipants in this study ranged from kindergarten to 12th grade, with 65% of the participan ts in elementary school and 35% in high school. Results of this study show th at parent demographics, attitudes about education, and community engagement behavior s were the most important predictors of parental involvement. School receptivit y, however, was considered the strongest predictor for school involvement among parent s. In addition, results showed that high parental educational expectations and pa rents who were activel y involved in the
38 community were significant predictors of sc hool involvement for elementary, middle and high school parents. The majority of resear ch studies discuss ways to improve schoolbased involvement of parent s through strategi c home-school collaboration efforts (Raffaelle & Knoff, 1999), but few recomm end ways to help parents improve the learning environment of children in the home. In summary, few studies have examin ed the influence of home-involvement of Black parents of preschool children in re lation to school readiness outcomes (Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Harris, & Hamrick, 1987). Pa rental involvement is a multidimensional construct that is operationally defined in va rious ways. However, the literature base on home-involvement in relation to school readiness outcomes is limited. Fantuzzo et. al. (2004) was one of the few studi es to find home-involvement as a primarily influential factor in competence development of head st art children. Future research is needed in these areas to better inform the types of serv ices and programs needed to assist parents and children of this targeted population to improve overall student academic outcomes. Overview of the current Study To date, few studies have attempted to examine the relationship between parenting style, home-based involvement, a nd educational expectations with academic outcomes of young children. Thus, the current study will seek to expand the literature base on these variables. Specifically, this study will contribute to existing literature on factors that influence school readiness outcomes of Black children. This study will replicate Fantuzzo et al. (2004) use of the measure FIQ with low-SES Black parents of children enrolled in Head Start programs. Additionally, this study will also seek to contribute to the few and inc onsistent findings of the pare nting style literature base,
39 specifically focusing on the type of parenting style associated with school readiness of Black head start children.
40 Chapter Three Methods The present study explored the relationshi p between the predictor variables (i.e., parenting style, parental home-based involve ment, and parentsÂ’ educational expectations) and levels of pre-literacy read iness of Black children enrolled in Head Start Programs. This chapter describes the specifics of the predictor and outcome variables that were used in the present study, to incl ude the measures and methods for data analysis. The procedure for conducting the survey and the asse ssment of preschool children also will be discussed. The last section of this chapter will summarize the possible threats to validity in this study. Participants The sampling frame consisted of 1,312 ch ildren enrolled in 24 Head Start programs in Hillsborough County, Florida during 2005-2006 school year (Hillsborough County Head Start District Office, 2006). Of these, 85 African American parent-child dyads from 6 different Head St art Centers were invited to participate in the study (those who met the study criteria). Th ere were a total of 62 partic ipants (72.9%) that completed all portions of the study. It is important to note, that Hillsborough County Head Start programs are year around and children who will pl an to transition to kindergarten in the Fall can attend school until th e third week of July. To determine the required number of partic ipants for this study to yield significant results, a PearsonÂ’s Product Moment Corre lation power analysis was conducted at .80 power, with a medium effect size of .30, and a .05 signifi cance level (Cohen, 1992). The
41 results of this analysis suggest that at least 85 participants were needed to yield significant results. Selection of Participants Based on the sampling frame, of 1,312 child ren enrolled in Head Start programs in Hillsborough County, 85 parentÂ–child dyads were selected based on the following three study criteria: (a) both parent and child of African descent, (b) child enrollment in a Head Start program, and (c) child eligible to enro ll in kindergarten in Fall 2006. Those parent-child dyads not meeting these crit eria were not included in the study. A list of all Head Start Programs wa s generated. A Hillsborough County Head Start District Manager contacted Head Start supervisors at each of the six Head Start center about the possibility of conducting this st udy at their site. Pa rticipation in this study was voluntary. Upon consent, a Head St art District Manager created a list of possible Black participants at his or her Head Start center (based on the study criteria). The researcher obtained a list of participants at each site and assigned a number to each studentÂ’s name. The selection-eligibility re quirements included only parent-child dyads that met the study criteria and ar e willing to sign consent. Ethical Considerations The researcher was required to obtain a pproval from the University South Florida Institutional Review Board (I RB) for this study because the participants are human (i.e., children and parents). Once IRB approval was granted, informed consents were given to parents to obtain both parent and child c onsent for participation. All information was kept completely confidential, by not requi ring participants to give any identifying information for this study (e.g., name, social security number). All participants were
42 given a random identification number for da ta collection and anal ysis purposes. In addition, permission from the Hillsborough County Head Start District Office was granted, before the researcher was able to colle ct data at the targeted Head Start sites. Variables The five predictor variables in this st udy are parenting style (i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, permissive), parental home-b ased involvement (home-based involvement reported by parent), and educational expectati ons of Black parents (expectations in school reported by parent). For all five predictor va riables the outcome variable is the level of pre-literacy readiness of Black children en rolled in Head Start programs. The three school readiness outcome measures in th is study are Picture Naming IGDI, Rhyming IGDI, and Alliteration IGDI. In addition, an av erage of these three subtests was computed to create a total Â“Combined School Readin ess ScoreÂ”, which served as another preliteracy readiness outcome variable. Measures There are three preliteracy measures used in this study. Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs) The first instrument used in this study is the Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs), which is a General outco me measure (GOM) designed to assess the pre-literacy skills of preschool children (McConnell, Priest, Davis, & McEvoy, 2002). General outcome measures (GOMs) are categorie s of assessments that are based on direct assessment of a childÂ’s performance on sta ndard task, with a co mmon measurement of performance in which data can be collected across an extended period of time (Fuchs & Deno, 1991). Similar to other GOMÂ’s, such as Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy
43 Skills (DIBELS) and Curriculum-Based Assessme nt (CBA), IGDIs are standardized and individually administered assessments of ear ly literacy skills, including expressive language and phonological awarene ss. IGDIs also include meas ures that assess social interactions, motor, and adaptive f unctioning of preschool children. For the purpose of this study, IGDIs was preferable to other school readiness measures because it is sensitive to changes in studentsÂ’ skills over short periods of time, it can be used to produce data to monitor the e ffects of an intervention in a problem solving or response to intervention m odel (RtI), it is easy to admi nister, and it is time efficient and cost effective (McConnell, et al. 2004). In addition, IGDIs is suitable for preschool children 30Â–66 months (McConnell, et al., 2004). The Picture Naming, Rhyming, and Alliteration measures of IGDI s will be used in this study. These three measures have strong empirical support and are most associ ated with early literacy and language development outcomes of preschool children (McConnell, at el., 2004). Picture Naming Fluency IGDI Picture Naming Fluency IGDI requires students to name as many pictures as possible in one minute (McConnell, et al., 2004 ). Students are pres ented with a random set of colored pictures of objects found in natural environments, including the home (e.g., cake, sink), classroom (e.g., glue, book) and community (rabbit, train). Each picture is printed on an 8 x 5 inch index card. The total score is the number of pictures a student names correctly in one minute. If a student does not know a picture, after three seconds, the examiner gives a prompt by saying Â“WhatÂ’ s that?Â” or Â“Do you know what this is?Â” and the student is allowed two additional seconds to respond before the examiner proceeds to the next card.
44 The 1-month, alternative-form reliability of Picture Naming is .44 to. 78 and testretest reliability across three weeks is .67 fo r a sample of 29 preschoolers (McConnell et al., 2004). Picture Naming has been shown to correlate with other language development measures such as the Peabody Picture Voca bulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-3; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) and the Preschool Language Scal e-3 (PLS-3; Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 1992), with correlations ranging from .47 to .69 (Priest, Davis, McConnell, McEvoy, & Shin, 1999). Concurrent validity had also been established with th e Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Kami niski & Good, 1996) measure of Letter Naming Fluency (LNF; .32 to .37) and Onset Recogn ition Fluency (.44 to .49; McConnell et al., 2002; Missall, 2002) using a sample of 84 preschool-age children. Picture Naming Fluency has also been shown to account for growth of preschoolersÂ’ expressive language skills over time (preschooler 53 months), with significant correlations between childrenÂ’s scores and chronological age (.41 in a longitudinal study and .60 in a cross-sectional study), in cluding typically developing children (.63), children enrolled in Head St art (.32), and children with disabilities receiving services in earl y childhood education classrooms (.48) (McConnell, et al., 2004). An average Picture Naming score is 16.97 for typical developing children, 16.51 for low income children, 14.13 for children with identified speech and language disabilities, and 2.64 for Spanish speaki ng children learning English (Missal & McConnell, 2004).
45 Rhyming IGDI Rhyming IGDI requires students to iden tify a picture that rhymes with the stimulus picture (McConnell, et al., 2004). Students are presente d with a series of cards. Each card has four pictures. The stimulus pictur e (e.g., hat) is at the top of the card and the other three pictures are in a row at the bottom of the card. The row of cards below the stimulus picture has one correct (e.g., hat) and one incorrect response (e.g., house and shoe). The examiner points to each card and says the name of each picture and tells the child to, Â“Point to the pictur e that sounds the same as the top picture.Â” The examiner shows a random selection of car ds to the student for 2 minutes A studentÂ’s score is the total number of rhyming words identified co rrectly in 2 minutes (McConnell, et al., 2004). Test-retest reliability in a three week peri od is .83 to .89 for a sample of 42 preschoolers. McConnell, et al., (2004) f ound in a longitudinal study with 90 children (including children with disabi lities and those living in povert y), that Rhyming IGDI was positively correlated with PPVT-3 (.56 to .62), Concepts About Print (CAP; Clay, 1985; .54 to .64) and Test of Phonological Awarene ss (TOPA; Torgeson & Bryant, 1994; .44 to .62). Concurrent Validity was demonstrated with the same participants with moderate to high correlations between Picture Naming Fl uency IGDI (.46 to .63) and Alliteration IGDI (.43) (Missall, 2002). Concurrent valid ity has also been esta blished with DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF; .48 to .59) a nd Onset Recognition Fluency (ORF; .44 to .68) for children in preschool (McC onnell et al., 2002; Missall, 2002).
46 An average Rhyming score is 6.29 for t ypical developing children, 1.66 for low income children, 1.68 for children with iden tified speech and language disabilities, and .79 or Spanish speaking children learni ng English (Missal & McConnell, 2004). Alliteration IGDI Alliteration is similar to the other two IGDI assessments previously discussed, such that a stimulus card is presented and the studentÂ’s total score is the number of items correct in one minute. The student is presente d with a stimulus card with four pictures, the stimulus picture is at the top and the other three pictures are at the bottom (1 correct and two incorrect responses) (McConnell, et al., 2004). The student is instructed to Â“Look at the pictures and find the ones that start with the same sound.Â” The examiner names all the pictures on the stimulus car d for the student. The stimulus cards are presented in random order for two minutes, and the total score is the number correct within this time period (McConnell, et al., 2004) Alliteration test-retest reliability scor e over three weeks for a sample of 42 preschool-aged children is .46 to .80. In a longitudinal study McC onnell, et al., (2004) found that Alliteration correla tes with PPVT-3 (.40 to .57), TOPA (.75 to .79) and CAP (.34 to .55). Concurrent validity has also b een demonstrated with DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (.39 to .71) (McConnell et al., 2002; Missall, 2002). An average Alliteration score is 5.19 fo r typical developing children, 1.09 for low income children, .94 for children with speech and language disabilities, and .71 or Spanish speaking children learning English (Missal & McConnell, 2004).
47 Parent Survey Family Involvement Questionnaire The second instrument used in this study is the Family Involvement Questionnaire (FIQ) (Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000). Th e Family Involvement Questionnaire (FIQ) was developed by Fantuzzo et al. (2000) to represent the categories of parental involvement created by Epstei n (1995). This instrument is a multidimensional rating scale that asks primary care givers of young ch ildren (i.e., parents, other family members, or legal guardians) to indicate the nature or extent of their involvement in their childÂ’s early educational experiences (school-based involvement, home-based involvement, and home-school conferencing). According to Fantuzzo et al. (2000), th e FIQ was developed in partnership with parents and teachers in a large urban school dist rict in the northeastern United States, and is composed of 42 Likert-type items (Rar ely, Sometimes, Often, Always). Parents are required to report on the freque ncy of specific involvement behaviors. The FIQ measures three parent involvement dimensions: School Based involvement, Home-Based Involvement, and Home-School Conferencing. A se ries of factor analyses revealed that each construct was shown to be highly re liable (CronbachÂ’s alph=.85 for School-based involvement, .85 for home-based involvement, and .81 for home-school conferencing). However, for the purpose of this study the FIQ will be modified to only include the home-based involvement items (13-items). In addition, the researcher developed an openended response question asking parents about other individuals (e.g., sister, grandmother, aunt) in the household that may engage in different educational activities with the
48 preschooler (e.g., working on reading and writing skills, take child to museum, etc.) at the end of this section of the survey. The researcher chose this questionnai re because this measure was used on a diverse sample of Head Start, kindergarte n, and first-grade children and parents. Fantuzzo et al. (2000) reporte d that there were 649 partic ipants on whom this measure was conducted. Respondents range in age from 19 to 72 years and were predominantly female (94%). In addition, 57% of the re spondents were Black, 29% Caucasian, and 11% of other ethnic backgrounds. Of the samp le, 32% were employed full-time, 25% were employed part-time, and 43% were unemploye d. Almost one-half of the participants (47%) reported being single, 40% were married, and 13% widowed, separated, or divorced. Of the parents invite d to participate, 77% were Head Start parents, 56% of Child Development Center parents, 66 % of ki ndergarten parents, and 60% of first-grade parents. Multivariate analyses of demographic and parental involvement constructs revealed the following information: Parents wi th higher levels of education engaged in higher levels of school-based involvement a nd home-conferencing than parents with less than high school education. In addition, highe r levels of home-sc hool conferencing and home-based involvement were found in two parent family households (compared to single family households), and surprisingly, pare nts with children en rolled in Head Start (versus kindergarten or first-grade) s howed the highest level of school-based involvement.
49 Educational Expectations In addition, the following three items developed by Hill (2001) which assesses parental educational expecta tions were included on the survey for the present study. To assess expected grades, parents were asked the following questions: Knowing your child as you do, what grades do you expect him/her to receive in school?Â” Parents responded using a 5 point Likert-type scale from 5 ( All AÂ’s ) to 1 ( All FÂ’s ). To assess how far parents expect their children to go in school, pare nts were asked, Â“Knowing your child as you do, how far do you think he/she will go in school.Â” Parents responded using a 5 point Likerttype scale ranging from 0 (0-5th grade) to 5 (4 or more year s of college). Finally, parents were asked about expected future occupatio ns, Â“What type of occupation do you expect him/her to have?Â” on a 3 point scale ranging from 0 ( service ) to 3 ( professional ). Parent Behavior Questionnaire-Head Start The third instrument that used in this study is the Parenting Behavior Questionnaire Revised (PBQ-HS) 40 item scale (Coolahan, McWayne, Fantuzzo, & Grim, 2002). The original PBQ is an 62 item s cale that measures parenting style based on BaumrindÂ’s three main styles of parenting: (a) authoritative, (b) authoritarian, and (c) permissive. The original PBQ was normed on 1,251 parents, 32% of whom were parents of children enrolled in a local university H ead Start Program. Coolahan et al. (2002) revised the original PBQ measure explicitly for the use with low-income AfricanAmerican caregivers of preschool children. This sample included 465 caregivers of Black children. The primary caregivers of this sample ranged from 19 to 73 years of age (M = 31.54, SD = 9.17). Seventy-nine percent of caregivers were mothers, 9% were fathers, and 12% were other relatives or fost er parents. Seventy-two percent of caregivers
50 reported being single. Fifty-two percent reported being unemployed, with 36% having less than a high school diploma, 30% holding a high school diploma or equivalent, and 24% reporting having some college experience. The children of the caregivers in this study ranged in age from 44.8 to 76.0 months (M=59.7, SD=5.9). There were approximately equal numbers of boys and girls (49% female and 51% male). Coolahan et al. (2002) modified the PB Q-HS to assure comprehensibility and cultural sensitivity for their targeted population (Black preschool children and parents). For example, the item, Â“I withhold scolding and/or criticism even when child acts contrary to our wishes,Â” was deemed pr oblematic by the inves tigators because the purpose and meaning of the wording is unclear and this phrase contains language that is not common verbiage for this population. The item was changed to read Â“I scold and/or criticize my child when he doesnÂ’t do wh at heÂ’s told.Â” Other items about physical punishment or items suggesting excessive/pot ential abuse (e.g., I explode in anger towards my child) that were deemed offens ive by the investigators were removed from the item pool as well. The PBQ-HS (Coolahan et al., 2002) used in this study consisted of 40 items reflecting three dimensions similar to the original scales: Authoritative (16 items), Authoritarian (11 items), and Permissi ve constructs (13 items). Respondents were rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale how often they performed various parenting behaviors (i.e., Almost Never, So metime, Often, Almost Always). The results of this study found that th ree dimensions similar to BaumrindÂ’s parenting style constructs emerged for this population of Black, low-income caregivers: authoritative dimension (active-responsive) cons ists of 16 items with internal consistency of .87. The Permissive parenting dimension (p assive-permissive) consists of 11 parenting
51 item with an internal consistency of .77. The authoritarian dimension (active restrictive) consists of 12-items with an internal constanc y of .74. Factor analys es revealed that 39 out of 40 of the items (97.5%) loaded signifi cantly on only one dimension; the remaining item i.e., Â“I am afraid that disciplining my child will cause my child to dislike meÂ” did not load significantly on any these three factors. Procedures Two possible data collection procedures wi ll be described in this section: (1) providing parents the opportunity to take Parent Surveys home to complete, and (2) providing parents the opportunity to complete surveys at Head Start Centers. However, as standard data collection procedures for bot h options, the researcher gave IRB Informed consents to all parent-child dya ds selected to participate in the study and a letter attached for parents explaining the purpose and procedur es of the study, as well as a place for parents to indicate whether they would like to complete the su rvey at home or at their childÂ’s Head Start Center (see Appendix B). This letter also informed parents about the possibility to win a $100 gift cer tificate to a local retail stor e/grocery store for completing all components of this study (i.e., both ques tionnaires and child participation) (see Appendix B & E). Once the researcher received all IRB Informed consents, a master list of child and parent participates was created. Th is master list will only be accessible to the researcher and will be kept in a priv ate file in a locked filing cabinet. Completing Parent Survey at Home The researchers gave Head Start parents p ackets that contained a cover letter, IRB Informed consents (child and parent), a nd a Parent survey. Parents who chose to participate in the current study returned comp leted consent forms and Parent Survey to
52 their childÂ’s Head Start teach er; the researcher obtained all forms from Head Start teachers. The Parent Survey was administered one time. However, for parents who did not respond to surveys sent home or took home to complete, a follow-up effort was made at Head Start Centers (e.g., as king a parent the next day for surveys and/or consents or asking teachers to ask teachers to remind parent s). Follow-up letters were only sent home to the parents of children who did not comple te the child assessment portion of the study (see Appendix D). This survey took approxi mately 15-20 minutes to be completed. The next section describes the procedures for data collection at Head Start Centers. Data Collection at Head Start Centers The same standard data collection prev iously discussed was used. In addition, parents completed surveys when they pickup th eir children from Head Start. Research team members explained the purpose of the study, procedure, IRB Informed consent, confidentiality, and data co llection procedures (see Appendix C). Upon informed consent, research team members administ ered one survey (including demographic survey) to parent or primary caregiver (where caregiver is defined as the adult that the child lives with and has sole responsibility for the child) per family. Parents were asked to complete the survey at this time (s ee Appendix A). Upon request, research team members provided assistance to parents who had difficulty completing the survey (e.g., read items aloud, record responses). For pare nts who indicated they could not complete the survey at this time, they were permitted to take the survey home to complete and returned to their childÂ’s classroom teachers, or schedule a time to complete survey during a follow-up day at the Head Center. The goa l of this procedure was to maximize the response rate of the survey, as well as to provide additional s upport to parents who
53 otherwise may have been unable to complete the survey due to other reason (i.e., low level of literacy). Assessment of Children Data collectors were school psychology st udents trained in the administration of IGDIs. Therefore, once in ter-rater reliability of 80% was obtained on the Picture Naming, Rhyming, and Alliteration tests, the researcher and eight other school psychology students began data collection. Each data collector administered the Picture Naming, Rhyming, and Alliteration test indi vidually to students. The approximate assessment time needed per students was 10 to 15 minutes. Upon the return of childrenÂ’s IGDI protocols, the researcher blocked out (with a black pe rmanent marker) participantsÂ’ identifying information and it was replaced with their assigned ID nu mber (matched with parent ID number). Data was colle cted over a two-week period. Data Analysis Once the parent surveys were completed by the participants and returned to the researcher, the data was scored and entered in to an Excel database. Each studentÂ’s IGDIs scores (Picture Naming, Rhyming, Allitera tion) were entered into an Excel (2003) database. Then data were converted and anal yzed by the researcher using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Soft ware Package (SPSS, 1999). The following section describes the statistical analysis method that was employed to answer each research question. The following are the three out come variables used in all four research questions to measure pre-literacy readine ss: Picture Naming, Rhyming, and Alliteration. Question 1. What is the relationship be tween parenting style and pre-literacy readiness of Black children enro lled in Head Start Programs?
54 Statistical Method. To answer this question, PearsonÂ’s Product Moment Correlation analyses were employed using a significance level of .05 to determine the relationship between parenting style and pre-literacy readin ess. Correlation analyses are used to determine if a relationship exists between one quantitative pr edictor variable and one quantitative outcome vari able (Johnson & Christenson, 2004). A total of twelve correlations were conducted to determine th e relationship between each of the three parenting styles (Autho ritative, Authoritarian, and Permi ssive) constructs and the four pre-literacy readiness measures (Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration, and Combined Literacy Readiness). Question 2. What is the relationship between parentsÂ’ educational expectations of Black children enrolled in Head Star t programs and pre-literacy readiness? Statistical Method. To answer this question, PearsonÂ’s Product Moment Correlation analyses were employed using a significance level of .05 to determine the relationship between parentsÂ’ educational e xpectations and pre-literacy readiness. Correlation analyses are used to determin e if a relationship exists between one quantitative predictor variab le and one quantitative outcome variable (Johnson & Christenson, 2004). Four correlation analyses were conducted to exam ine the relationship between parentsÂ’ educational expectations and each of the pre-literacy readiness outcome measures (Picture Naming, Rhyming, Allitera tion, and Combined Literacy Readiness). Question 3. What is the relationship be tween home-based involvement of Black parents and the levels of pre-li teracy readiness of their children enrolled in Head Start programs?
55 Statistical Method. To answer this question, PearsonÂ’s Product Moment Correlation analyses were employed using a significance level of .05 to determine the relationship between parental home-based i nvolvement and pre-literacy readiness. Correlation analyses are used to determine if a relationship exist be tween one quantitative predictor variable and one quantitative outco me variable (Johnson & Christenson, 2004). Four correlation analyses will be employed to examine the relationship between parental home-based involvement and each of the pr e-literacy readines s outcome measures (Picture Naming, Rhyming, A lliteration, and Combined Literacy Readiness). Question 4. What is the relationship between the predicto r variables (i.e., parenting style, parental home-based involve ment, and parentsÂ’ educational expectations) and pre-literacy readiness of Black ch ildren enrolled in Head Start programs? Statistical Method. To answer this res earch question, four multiple regression analyses were employed to examine the rela tionship between predic tor variables (the three types of parenting st yles, parental home-based involvement, and parentsÂ’ educational expectations) and each of the out come variables of pre-literacy readiness (Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alli teration, and Combined Literacy Readiness). The first multiple regression will explore the relations hip between the predictor variables (the three types of parenting st yles, parental home-based involvement and parentsÂ’ educational expectations) a nd the outcome variable Picture Naming IGDI. The second multiple regression analysis will examine the relationship between the predictor variables and the outcome measure Rhyming IGDI. The third multiple regression analysis will explore the relationship between the predic tor variables and th e outcome variable Alliteration IGDI. In addition, a fourth multiple regression an alysis will be conducted to
56 determine the relationship between the five predictor variables (t he three types of parenting styles, home-based involvement, a nd parentsÂ’ education expectations) and the outcome variable Â“Combined Literacy Readin essÂ” (average of Picture Naming, Rhyming, and Alliteration scores). Multiple regression is most appropriate because analyses are used to explain or predict th e values of an outcome variab le (pre-literacy readiness), based on two or more predictor variables (p arenting style, home-based involvement, and parentsÂ’ educational expectations) (Johnson & Christenson, 2004). Specifically, multiple regression analyses were used to demonstr ate the significance and magnitude of the predictor variables on the va rious outcome variables. In addition, demographic information (i .e., education level, marital status, employment status, etc.) were analyzed usi ng descriptive statistics (e.g., means, range, standard deviations).
57 Chapter Four Results The present study investigated the re lationship between several predictor variables (parenting style, educational expe ctations, and home-base d involvement) and the outcome variable literacy readiness (Picture Naming, Rhym ing, Alliteration, and Combined Literacy Readiness). First, this chapter will discuss the descriptive statistics related to the studies demographic variables (e .g., age, gender, ethn icity, and educational level) and predictor variables (i.e., parenti ng style, educational expectations, and homebased involvement). Then the results of correlation and multiple regression analyses will be discussed and used to answer the four research questions in this study. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables The sampling frame consisted of 1,312 children enrolled in 24 Head Start programs in Hillsborough County, Florida during 2005-2006 school year (Hillsborough County Head Start District Office, 2006). Of these children, 85 African American parentchild dyads from 6 different H ead Start Centers were invited to participate in the current study (those who met the studies criteria and were curre ntly enrolled in Head Start at the time of the study). It is important to not e, that Hillsborough County Head Start programs are year around and children who will attend kindergarten in the Fall can attend school until the third week of July. There were a total of 62 pa rticipants (72.9%) that comp leted all portions of the study, 2.4% (N=2) refused to participate in the study, and 23.5% (N=20) were unable to complete all portions of the st udy (e.g. signed consent forms but did not return survey or child assessment portion was not completed). In addition, 4 out of 10 parents responded
58 to the follow-up letter mailed home (one time mailing to home address) to schedule a time to meet at the library for their child to participate in the pre-literacy assessment portion of the study. To protect th e confidentiality of all participants (e.g., their personal address), a Head Start District Manager mailed follow-up letters home to parents. The frequencies and percentages for th e parent demographic variables (e.g., gender, age, and ethnicity) are presented in Ta bles 1, 2, and 3. These results indicate that most of the parent participants in this study were African Am erican (77%), female (92%), and between the ages 20 and 30 (68%). Of note, the data in Table 3 indicate that there is one missing parent response to the ethnicity question (N=61). Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Parent Demographic Variables (Gender) Parent Demographic Variables Frequency Percentage 5 8 Parent Gender (N=62) Male Female 57 92
59 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Pare nt Demographic Variables (Age) Parent Demographic Variable Frequency Percentage 1 2 42 68 17 27 Parent Age (N=62) Under 20 20-30 31-45 Over 45 2 3 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Parent Demographic Variable (Ethnicity) Table 4, indicates that most of the parent participants in this study had at least a high school diploma/GED or an education beyond the high school level (95%; N=62). Table 4 also indicates that 60% of participan ts indicated that there are at least 1 to 2 children living in their home; there was one mi ssing response for this questions (N=61). Parent Demographic Variable Frequency Percentage Ethnicity (N=61) African American 47 77 Caribbean decent 7 12 African 1 2 Black Hispanic 4 7 Other 2 3
60 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for ParentsÂ’ Educ ational Level and Number of Children in Household Table 5 Respondents Relationship with Preschooler In addition, results indicate that 94% of th e respondents of the Parent Survey were the primary caregiver of the pr eschooler. Of these respondent s, 87% indicated that they were the mother of the preschooler, 8% the fa ther, and 5% the grandmother (see Table 5). Study Variables Frequency Percentage ParentsÂ’ Educational Level (N=62) High School and Above 36 58 High School or GED 23 37 Less than high school 3 5 Number of Children in Household (N=61) 1-2 children 37 60 2-3 children 14 23 4-5 children 9 15 5 or more children 1 2 Study Variables Frequency Percentage Respondents Relationship to Preschooler (N=61) Mother 54 87 Father 5 8 Grandmother 2 5
61 According to Table 6, of the 62 child part icipants in this study, 37% were males and 63% were females. Eighty-six percent of ch ild participants were at least 5-years old (see Table 6). Table 6 Child Demographic Information Child Demographic Variables Frequency Percentage Child Gender (N=62) Male Female 23 39 37 63 Child Age (N=62) 4 years 5 years 6 years 7 53 2 11 86 3 Descriptive Statistics for Marita l Status and Employment Status. Fifty-seven percent of the survey responde nts indicated that they we re single (N=61), 28% were married, and 15% were separated, divorced, or widowed. The majority of participants (77%) worked full-time, 8% worked part-tim e, 8% indicated irre gular employment, and 7% were unemployed (N=62). Descriptive Statistics for Number of YearÂ’s Child was Enrolled in Head Start. Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated that their children were enrolled in a Head Start program for at least 2 years, 26% indicat ed for 1 year, 9% for 3 years, and 3% for 4 years. A correlation analyses was conducte d to examine the relationship between the number of years a child was en rolled in Head Start and preliteracy readiness. According
62 to the data in Table 7, no significant relati onship exists between the number of years a child was enrolled in Head Star t and pre-literacy Readiness. Table 7 Number of Years Enrolled in Head Start and Pre-literacy Readiness Picture Naming Rhyming Alliteration Combined Literacy Readiness Number of Years Enrolled in Head Start .162 .150 -.059 .126 Descriptive Statistics for Predictor Variables Parental Home-Based Involvement. Thirteen items were grouped together to form this variable (with each item rated on a scale 1= Rarely, 2=Sometimes, 3=Often, 4=Always). The mean rating was 3.17 (N=62, SD=.532). The distribution of scores for this variable was significantly negatively sk ewed (sk=-.853). This means that a majority of parentsÂ’ ratings on this item falls above the mean (3.17). This suggests that on average parents do believe that they engage in ho me-based educational activities with their children. ParentsÂ’ Educational Expectations Three items were grouped together to form this variable. For item 1, Â“Knowing your ch ild as you do, what grades do you expect him/her to receive in school?Â” the mean rating was 4.34 (N=62) (with each item rated on a scale 5=All AÂ’s, AÂ’s and BÂ’s=4, All CÂ’s = 3, All BÂ’s and CÂ’s=2, A ll FÂ’s=1), suggesting that on average most parents expect their childre n to make at least AÂ’s and BÂ’s in school. For item 2, Knowing your child as you do, how far do you think he/she will go in school?Â” mean rating was 4.45 (N=62) (w ith each item rated on a scale K-5th-=1, 5th 8th=2, 9th-12th=3, 12th with some college=4, 4 or more years of college=5), suggesting
63 that average most parents expect their child ren to graduate from high school and pursue some level of college. For item 3, Knowing your child as you do, what type of job do you expect him/her to have?Â” mean rating was 2.90 (N=61) (with each item rated on a scale 1=service, 2= Laborer, 3=Professional), sugge sting that on average most parents expect their children to have a professional career in the future. The overall mean rating for the combined three educational expectations items was 3.91 (N=62, SD=.406). The distribution of sc ores for this variable was significantly negatively skewed (sk=-.825), meaning that a ma jority of parentsÂ’ rating on this item fell above the mean (3.91). This suggests that on average the majority of parent/primary caregivers in this study believe they have high expectations for their children. Parenting Style The following scale was used for each parenti ng style item (authoritat ive, authoritarian, permissive): 1=Almost Never, 2=Some time, 3=Often, and 4=Almost Always. Authoritative Parenting Style Sixteen items were grouped together to form this variable (with each item rated on a scale 1=Almost Never, 2=Sometime, 3=Often, and 4=Almost Always). The mean rating for th is variable was 3.61 (N=62, SD=.454). The distribution of scores for this variable wa s significantly negatively skewed (sk=-1.92), meaning that a majority of the parentsÂ’ rati ngs on this item fell above the mean (3.61). This suggests that most parents believe that they engage in author itative type parenting which is characterized by high levels of pa rental nurturance, involvement, sensitivity, reasoning, control, and enc ouragement of autonomy.
64 Authoritarian Parenting Style Twelve items were grouped together to form this variable (with each item rated on a scale 1=Almost Never, 2=Sometime, 3=Often, and 4=Almost Always). The mean rating for th is variable was 1.85 (N=62, SD=.457). The distribution of scores for this va riable was positively skewed (sk=+.721). The distribution of scores for this variable was significantly positively skewed (sk= +.721), meaning that a majority of the parentsÂ’ ratings on this item fell above the mean (1.85). This suggests that on average parents believe that they almost ne ver engage in authorit arian type parenting which is characterized by high levels of restrictive, punitive, rejecting, and powerassertive behaviors. Permissive Parenting Style. Twelve items were grouped together to form this variable (with each item rated on a scale 1=Almost Never, 2=Sometime, 3=Often, and 4=Almost Always). The mean rating for th is variable was 1.71 (N=62, SD=.461). The distribution of scores for this variable was significantly positively skewed (sk=+1.33), meaning that a majority of the parentsÂ’ rati ngs on this item fell above the mean (1.71). This suggests that on average parents believe th at they almost never engage in permissive type parenting, which is char acterized by high levels of wa rmth and acceptance but low levels of involvement and control. Parenting Style and Gender Data was also examined to determine if differences exist among child gender and the types of pare nting style exhibited by Head Start parents. A T-test was conducted to determine if m ean differences exist among child gender and parenting styles. The mean rating for aut horitarian parenting was 1.58 for males (N=5; SD=.282) and 1.87 for females (N=57; SD=.463). The mean rating for authoritative parenting was 3.81 for males (N=5; SD=.044) and 3.59 for females (N=57; SD=.469).
65 The mean rating for permissive type parenting was 1.63 for males (N=5; SD=.045) and 1.71 for females (N=57; SD=.479). Results indi cate that no significant mean differences exist among child gender and parenting styles In addition, these results are supported by previous findings, specifically that most of these Head Start parent s reported engaging in authoritative type parenting, regardless of the gender of his or her child. Literacy Assessments Picture Naming (IGDIs). This variable was comprised of the average score on the picture naming measure. The mean score for this variable was 21.1 (N=62, SD=5.73), which is considered above the mean of 16.51 for low income children (Missal & McConnell, 2004). The range for the number of pictures correctly named in 1 minute was 8 to 35 (e.g., rabbit, train, glue, and book). The distribution of scores for this variable was slightly negatively skewed (sk=-.040). Rhyming (IGDIs). This variable was comprised of the average score on the rhyming measure. The mean score for this variable was 4.98 (N=62, SD=5.43), which is considered above the mean of 1.66 for low income children (Missal & McConnell, 2004). The range for the number of rhyming pictures matched correctly in two minutes was 0 to 18. The distribution of scores for this va riable was significantly positively skewed (sk=+.923). Alliteration (IGDIs). This variable was comprised of the average score on the alliteration measure. The mean score for th is variable was 3.03 (N=62, SD=4.43), which is considered above the mean of 1.09 fo r low income children (Missal & McConnell, 2004). The range for the number of pictur es that begin with same sound matched
66 correctly in two minutes was 0 to 20. The dist ribution of scores for this variable was significantly positively skewed (sk=+2.35). Combined Literacy Readiness Score (IGDIs). This variable is comprised of the average score of the three IGDI measures (i.e., pict ure naming, rhyming, and alliteration). The mean score for this variable was 9.71 (N=62, SD=3.90). The range for combined literacy readiness score was 11 to 65. The dist ribution of scores for this variable was significantly positively skewed (sk=+1.36). Table 8 IGDI Assessments Research Questions 1. What is the relationship between pare nting style and pre-literacy readiness of Black Children enrolled in Head Start programs? A PearsonÂ’s Product Moment analysis was employed to examine the relationship between parenting style and pre-literacy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs. A total of twelve correlations (3 x 4 matrix) were conducted to determine the relationship between each of the three parenting styles (Authoritative, Au thoritarian, and Permissive) constructs and each of the four outcome variables (P icture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration, and Combined Literacy Readiness). Accordi ng to the finding in Table 9, there were no Study Variables (N=62) Standard deviation Range Mean Number Correct Picture Naming 5.7 8 Â– 35 21.1 Rhyming 5.4 0 Â– 18 4.9 Alliteration 4.4 0 Â– 20 3.0 Combined (Total) 11.7 11 Â– 65 29.1
67 statistically significant relati onships among parenting style (A uthoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive) and the outcome variable pre-literacy readin ess (Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration, and Combined Literacy Readiness). Table 9 Correlations for Parenting Style and Pre-Literacy Readiness Picture Naming Rhyming Alliteration Combined Literacy Readiness Authoritative .-.011 .196 .074 .114 Authoritarian .019 -.022 -.007 -.003 Permissive .150 .184 .045 .176 2. What is the relationship between home -based involvement of African American parents and levels of pre-literacy readine ss of their children enrolled in Head Start programs? A PearsonÂ’s Product Moment analysis was employed to examine the relationship between home-base involvement and literacy readine ss of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs. A tota l of four correlations (1 x 4 matrix) were conducted to determine the relationship betw een parental home-based involvement and each of the four outcome variables (P icture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration, and Combined Literacy Readiness). According to the findings in Ta ble 10, there were no statistically significant rela tionships among home-based i nvolvement and the outcome variable pre-literacy readiness. Table 10 Correlations for Home-based Involvement and Pre-Literacy Readiness Picture Naming Rhyming Alliteration Combined Literacy Readiness Home-based Involvement -.112 .044 .082 -.003
68 3. What is the relationship between pare ntsÂ’ educational expectations and preliteracy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs? A PearsonÂ’s Product Moment analysis was employed to examine the relationship between parentsÂ’ educational expectations and li teracy readiness of Black chil dren enrolled in Head Start programs. A total of four correlations (1 x 4 matrix) we re conducted to determine the relationship between parentsÂ’ ed ucational expectations and each of the four pre-literacy readiness outcome variables (i.e., Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration, and Combined Literacy Readiness). According to the findi ngs in Table 11, there were no statistically significant relationships among parentsÂ’ educational expect ations and pre-literacy readiness (i.e., Picture Naming, Rhymi ng, Alliteration, and Combined Literacy Readiness). Table 11 Correlations for ParentsÂ’ Educational Expectations and Pre-Literacy Readiness Picture Naming Rhyming Alliteration Combined Literacy Readiness Educational Expectations .036 -.109 .056 .003 4. What is the relationship between the predictor variables (i.e., parenting style, parental home-based involvement, and parentsÂ’ educational expectations) and preliteracy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs? Four multiple regression analyses were conducted to determ ine the extent to which each of the five predictor variables (i.e., three types of parenting styles: au thoritative, authoritarian, and permissive; home-based involvement and educa tional expectations) pr edicted pre-literacy readiness (i.e., Picture Naming, Rhymi ng, Alliteration, and Combined Literacy
69 Readiness). Each of Â“Pre-L iteracy ReadinessÂ” measures were used as a dependent variable in this study. Picture Naming IGDI Multiple Regression Analysis. A multiple regression was used. Picture Naming IGDI was the outcome vari able for this series of analyses. The multiple correlation coefficient (R) used to predict all the variables simultaneously was .22 (R =22) and it was not statistically signifi cant. No Beta weight s were statistically significant. Results indicate that 4.9% of the variance in Picture Naming can be accounted for by the five predictor variables (i .e., authoritative, aut horitarian, permissive, parental home-based Involvement, and pare ntsÂ’ educational exp ectations) in this regression, which is considered re latively small (see Table 12). Table 12 Multiple Regression with Picture Naming IGDI as Dependent Variable Multiple Regression with Picturing Naming IGDI as Dependent Variable Predictor Variables Beta Weights Significance Authoritative .028 .865 Authoritarian -.041 .778 Permissive .189 .201 Home-based Involvement -.162 .318 Educational Expectations .116 .427 R2 .049 Standard Error of the Estimate 5.82
70 Rhyming IGDI Multiple Regression Analysis. A multiple regression was used. Rhyming IGDI was the outcome variable for this series of analyses. The multiple correlation coefficient (R) used to predic t all the variables si multaneously was .283 (R =.283) and it was not statis tically significant. No Beta weights were statistically significant. Results indicate th at 8.0 % of the variance in Rhyming can be accounted for by the five predictor variables (i.e., authorit ative, authoritarian, permissive, parental home-based Involvement, and pa rentsÂ’ educational expectatio ns), which is considered relatively small (see Table 13). Table 13 Multiple Regression with Rhyming as Dependent Variable Multiple Regression with Rhyming as Dependent Variable Predictor Variables Beta Weights Significance Authoritative .210 .203 Authoritarian -.055 .699 Permissive .208 .154 Home-based Involvement -.095 .548 Educational Expectations .063 .659 R2 .080 Standard Error of the Estimate 5.43 Alliteration IGDI Multiple Regression Analysis A multiple regression was used. Alliteration IGDI was the outcome variable for this series of analyses. The multiple correlation coefficient (R) used to predict all the variables simu ltaneously was .173 (R =.173) and it was not statistically signifi cant. No Beta weight s were statistically
71 significant. Results indicate th at 3.0 % of the variance in A lliteration can be accounted for by the five predictor variables (i.e., aut horitative, authoritarian, permissive, parental home-based Involvement, and pa rentsÂ’ educational expectatio ns), which is considered relatively small (see Table 14). Table 14 Multiple Regression with Allite ration as Dependent Variable Multiple Regression with Alliteration as Dependent Variable Predictor Variables Beta Weights Significance Authoritative .068 .686 Authoritarian -.020 .893 Permissive .010 .944 Home-based Involvement .087 .592 Educational Expectations -.157 .287 R2 .030 Standard Error of the Estimate 4.55 Combined Literacy Readiness Multiple Regression Analysis. A multiple regression was used. Combined Literacy Read iness was the outcome variable for this series of analyses. The multiple correlati on coefficient (R) used to predict all the variables simultaneously was .224 (R =.224) a nd it was not statistica lly significant. No Beta weights were statistically significant. Re sults indicate that 5.0 % of the variance in Â“Combined Literacy Readine ssÂ” can be accounted for by th e five predictor variables (authoritative, authorita rian, permissive, parental home-b ased Involvement, and parentsÂ’ educational expectations), which is considered relati vely small (see Table 15).
72 Table 15 Multiple Regression with Combined Literacy Readiness as Dependent Variable Correlation Matrix of Predictor Variables To further examine the relationship among the five predictor variables (authoritative, Authoritarian, Permissive home-based involvement, educational expectations), a correlation matrix was cr eated. For these variables, PearsonÂ’s R correlation values and level of significance are reported in the correlation matrix in Table 16. Moderate correlations were found among se veral of the predicto r variables at the .01 level and .05 significance levels.Multiple Regression with Combined Literacy Readiness as Dependent Variable Predictor Variables Beta Weights Significance Authoritative .137 .411 Authoritarian -.053 .714 Permissive .193 .191 Home-based Involvement -.091 .575 Educational Expectations .027 .855 R2 .224 Standard Error of the Estimate 3.96
73 Table 16 Correlation Matrix for Predictor Variables Home-based Involvement Authoritarian Authoritative Permissive Educational Expectations Home-based Involvement 1 -.129 .569** -.027 .293* Authoritarian 1 -.203 .370** -.215 Authoritative 1 .048 .304* Permissive 1 -.261* Educational Expectations 1 Indicates significan ce at the p<.05 **Indicates significance at the p<.01 Home-based Involvement Qualitative Data One qualitative question about parental home-based involvement was included in this study. Forty-two particip ants responded to the follo wing question on the Parent Survey, Â“Is there anyone else in the househol d that does these kinds of activities with your child? If so, who?Â” Results indicate that a majority of res pondents reported that either their childÂ’s father (30%) or a sibli ng (sister-24%; brother-16% ) helps his/her child at home (see Table 17).
74 Table 17 Percentage of Others that Assist in ChildÂ’s Learning at Home Study Variables (N=41) Others that Assist in ChildÂ’s Learning in the Home Frequency Percentage Mother 2 4 Father 13 30 Sister 11 24 Brother 7 16 Stepfather 4 9 Boyfriend 1 2 Uncle 1 2 Aunt 2 4
75 Chapter 5 Discussion The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationship between parenting style, home-based involvement, and parentsÂ’ educational expectations and preliteracy readiness. The f our research questions in cluded in this study were: (1) What is the relationship between parenti ng style and pre-lite racy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start Programs? (2) What is the relationship between pare ntal home-based involvement of Black children and levels of pre-literacy readin ess of their children enrolled in Head Start programs? (3) What is the relationship between parent sÂ’ educational expectations and preliteracy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs? (4) What is the relationship between the pred ictor variables (i.e ., parenting style, parental home-based involvement, and pa rentsÂ’ educational expectations) and pre-literacy readiness of Black childr en enrolled in Head Start programs? Overview There were four research questions in th is study. Correlational analyses were used to answer the first 3 research questions. Multip le regression analyses were used to answer the fourth research question. The studyÂ’s par ticipants included 62 Bl ack parents and their children who were currently enrolled in a Head Start Program. This chapter will summarize the results in the previous chap ter, discuss limitation of the study, and conclude with implications for future research.
76 Demographics When examining the demographic variables in this study, it was seen that most of the parent participants in this study were si ngle, African American, females; between the ages 20 and 30; had at least a high school diploma/GED or beyond; at least 1 to 2 children living in their home; and were the primary caregiverÂ’s of the preschooler and were employed full-time. The demographic composition of the parent pa rticipants in this study is similar to the national proportions for inne r city Head Start Programs a nd other studies that have been conducted with the targeted populat ion (Fantuzzo et al., 2004). However, the participants in the current study reported having fewer children and working more hours than parents in previous studies (Fantuzzo et al., 1999; Fantuzzo et al., 2004). This could speak to the fact that perhaps, the compos ition of the types of parents with children enrolled in Head Start programs are changing (for the better) due to Head Start program requirements (e.g., parents have the option to either work full-time or enroll in school full-time) and more parents taking advantage of the supports and se rvices available (e.g., educational support, childcare, etc.). The Relationship between Parentin g Style and Pre-Literacy Readiness When examining the relationship betw een parenting style and pre-literacy readiness, correlational analyses showed that there was no significant relationship between parenting style and pre-literacy read iness of Head Start children. Specifically, this means parenting behaviors (i.e., authorita tive, authoritarian, and permissive) did not have a significant impact on a childÂ’s overall development of early readin g skills (e.g., child being able to match rhyming pictures, identify pictures that begin with the same
77 sound, and identify common objects in home/sc hool environment) prior to entering kindergarten, regardless of the gender of the child.. However, although not significant, parents who indicated that they engaged in permissive pare nting style and authoritarian behaviors (i.e., the permissive style of pare nting is described as responsive and nurturing however, there are no rules imposed on the child) and the authoritativ e style is described by parents who are supportive, nurturing, a nd promote autonomy) had children who performed higher on overall pre-literacy read iness scores (Combine d Literacy Readiness scores). This finding suggests that pare nt who create a warm and supportive home environment (with or without rules or boundary setting) for their children are more likely to have children who perform better on pre-literacy reading assessments. The Relationship between Home-based Involvement and Pre-literacy Readiness When examining the relationship betw een home-based involvement and preliteracy readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start programs, surprisingly, results indicate no statistically signi ficant relationships among home -based involvement and the outcome variable pre-literacy readiness. These findings are not supported by research. There is a plethora of research that supports the notion that more parental involvement increases the likelihood of academic and behavi oral success. However, researchers are still trying to identify the most effective t ypes of parental involvement activities that influence childrenÂ’s academic outcomes (Fan tuzzo et. al, 2004). Thus, the lack of significant results maybe attributed to the fact that the definition of Â“parental home-based involvementÂ” is on such a broad continuum that all the activities were not captured on the survey used. In addition, although not statisti cally significant, the relationship between parental home-based involvement was str onger on the two assessments that measured
78 basic phonological awareness (e.g., Alliterati on and Rhyming). This is interesting because of the fourteen parental home-bas ed involvement items included on the survey, none specifically targeted phonological awarene ss. Therefore, it is suggested that the home-based involvement items on the survey und er-represents the critical areas measured by two of IGDIs assessments (Alliteration and Rhyming assessments). Alternatively, one could also argue that these results indicate that these parents focus more on teaching easier or basic pre-academic skills to their children (e.g., identifying common objects in the home envi ronment) versus more time consuming and higher skills (e.g., providing tutoring, reading to their children at home, teaching letters and letter sounds). To specifically support this argument, results showed that these children scored higher on the IGDI Pict ure Naming assessment (which measures expressive language) than the other two I GDI assessments (which measures phonological awareness). It is also important to note that the results of this study showed at least 70% of respondents reported that someone else other th an themselves [either their childÂ’s father (30%) or a sibling (sister-24% ; brother-16%)] helps his/her child at home. Thus, this further supports the fact that more research is needed in the area of developing a better way to not only measure parental involvemen t, but to also measure the various ways individuals in the family, extended famil y, and community provide supports to these families. With 70% of respondents indicating th at someone else in the home helps his or her child with schooling, one could question whether the person completing the survey has an accurate view of the types of activiti es and learning environment created for the child.
79 The Relationship between ParentsÂ’ Educational Expectations and Pre-Literacy Readiness Results indicate that there were no stat istically significant relationships among parentsÂ’ educational expect ations and pre-literacy r eadiness (i.e., Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration, and Combined Liter acy Readiness). These results are not supported by research literatur e. Most studies conducted f ound that parents with higher educational expectations typi cally have children who perform better on math and reading measures (Gronlick et al., 1997; Hall e, Kurtz-Costas, & Mahoney, 1997). These insignificant results may be attributed to the f act that there were onl y three questions used to assess this area, making reliability of th e questions questionable. The majority of participants indicated on the su rvey that he/she expects his/he r child to make at least AÂ’s and BÂ’s in school, graduate high school and pursue some form of college education, and pursue a professional career. Results suggest that there appears to be a significant Â“gapÂ” between the high expectations parents have for their children and their childrenÂ’s actual performance on the pre-literacy measures (i.e., these e xpectations did not impact childrenÂ’s overall performance on pre-literacy measures). It is supported in research literature that most black parents have high educational expecta tions for their childr en (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997); however it remains unclear how Â‘actionsÂ” (behavior) and Â“wordsÂ” (communication) are tied to academic out comes of these expectations.
80 The Relationship between the Predictor Vari ables and Pre-Literacy Readiness of Black children enrolled in Head Start Programs To answer the primary research questions four multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the extent to which each of the five predictor variables (i.e., three types of parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive; home-based involvement and educational expectations) pred icted pre-literacy r eadiness (i.e., Picture Naming, Rhyming, Alliteration, and Combined Lite racy Readiness). Overall, all multiple regression analyses lacked signi ficant results. None of the pred ictor variables had more of an influence on pre-literacy readines s variables (outcome variables). There are several possible explanations fo r these findings. Specif ically, in relation to parental home-based involvement, the fact that a large number of participants (70%) indicated that others in the immediate/extended family engaged in home-based involvement activities with his or her child, suggests that the FIQ measure used may not have assessed the more complex dynamic as pects of parental involvement in Black families. This is supported by the fact that re search literature lacks a consensus definition of Â“parental involvementÂ” because this con cept is multidimensional in nature and is difficult to measure (Adil & Framer, 2006; Epstein, 1996; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Furthermore, with regards to the potential power of the predicto r variable, parental home-based involvement perhaps more time between measures is needed to have a significant impact on childrenÂ’s pre-literacy achievement. To further examine the relationship among the five predictor variables (authoritative, Authoritarian, Permissive home-based involvement, educational expectations), a correlation matrix was cr eated. The relationship between variables all
81 made sense intuitively and conceptually, ex cept for the relationshi p between permissive and authoritarian constructs. As mentioned previously, these findings further support the suggestion that suggests that BaurmindÂ’s euro -centric parenting style constructs are invalid measures to use with minority populat ions. The significant relationship between authoritarian and permissive constructs may indicate that (specifically, with this population of parents) these two constructs have an unc lear and undistinguishable relationship with each other (Coolahan et al., 2002). In other words, perhaps if further explored a slightly different parenting dimension may emerge from these two dimensions (authoritarian and permissive). These result s further support the notion that BaumrindÂ’s parenting style constructs may not genera lize across other cultural and economical contexts. Limitations of the Study There are several limitations in the present study that must be discussed. First, the most obvious is the small sample size. Due to the small sample size results (N=62), the required number of participants for this study to yield significant re sults (N=85) was not met. Second, the fact that a correlati onal research design was used, enabled the investigation of relationships only, and did not allow for any e xploration of cause-and-effect relationships between variables. Third is the ex tent to which results of this study generalizes to other populations. The sample population of the pres ent study included only Black parents and their children who were enrolled in Head Start programs. Thus, these results may not generalize to other ethnic/racial groups (e.g., White, Hispanic, Asian, etc.). Another limitation is ecological validity. It refers to th e generalizability of th e results of the study across settings (Johnson & Christenson, 2004). This study was conducted throughout
82 various Head Start programs in the central Fl orida; therefore, results may not generalize across different rural and/or urba n settings. Another limitation to this study is the fact, that no normative data exist for the pre-literacy outcome variable used in this study, thus the child participant scores in this study could not be compared to other Head Start children. One of the last limitations noted is content-va lidity, which is the extent that the measure reflects the full domain of the concept being measuredÂ” (Neuendorf, 2002). Because parental involvement is such a multidimensional construct, it is difficult to determine if the FIQ accurately measured home-based involvement. The final limitation of this study is related to the fact the since Head Start promotes Â“parental involvementÂ” as a core philosophy of its overall early in tervention/prevention program for low-income and at-risk children and fa milies, it is likely that most of the parent participants of this study we re those parents who already cr eate a stimulating home learning environment for their children. Furthermore, due to the poor timing of the study (all data was collected the last two weeks of Head St art) and lack of random sampling (due to convenience sampling-participants were parents and children available to participate), perhaps these parent participants were parent s who are already highly involved with their children at home and chose to have their children a ttended Head Start for the entire summer to learn as much as possible before attending kindergarten in the Fall. Future Research First, future research should seek to rep licate this study using a larger sample size. Second, future research should also examin e the home environment in which parents convey their expectations to children because this may give valuable information about this process. Third, to help researchers operationally de fine Â“home-based parental
83 involvementÂ”, the use of qualitative methodology (e.g., focus groups and direct observations) may be key in accurately defining these concepts. For example, focus groups consisting of immediate and extended family members to discuss the primary roles each play in creating an optimal home learning environment for children and direct observations in the home could lend further in formation about the small things parents do at home that may not be captured through self -report survey measures or in other ways. Fourth, the few and inconsistent findings of how parenting styl e relates to school performance of young children (as supported by the findings of this study ), also reflects the complex and dynamic nature of parenting behaviors, and the difficulty of applying Euro-centric measures to the study of other et hnic groups. Thus, future research is needed to determine the generalizability of these pare nting styles constructs across other ethnic minority and cultural groups. In addition, other qualitative measures (e.g., focus groups and direct observations) may be warranted to develop more reliable and valid measures to examine parenting behaviors of ethnic minority groups. Conclusion In general, the results of this study are supported by the literature (Gronlick et al., 1997; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Steinburg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling; 1992) and this study de monstrates that Black Head Start parents demonstrate the following strengths: (1) Black Head Start pare nts have high educatio nal expectations for their children, specifically, they are highly involved in the ea rly learning process of their children (especially in the ar eas of vocabulary development); (2) they engaging in more authoritative parenting behaviors (e.g., parenting behaviors that consist of high levels of warmth and discipline); and (3) they have extremely high exp ectations for their children
84 (e.g., graduation from high school and completi ng college, maintaining at least AÂ’s and BÂ’s in school, and pursuing a pr ofessional career in the future) However, these results also show that Head Start parents could us e additional support and or trainings in the areas of teaching or helping their child ren in the area of phonological awareness, specifically because these tasks were challenging for the child participants in this study. It is important to note, that several li mitations of this study (e.g., small sample and sensitivity of measure used) cont ributed to this studyÂ’s overall lack of significant results. However, despite the lack of significance, the results of this study contributes to the literature that supports that Bl ack parents are engaging in acti vities at home with their children, whether itÂ’s the primary caregiver (e.g., mother) or another person in the immediate or extended family (e.g., father, grandparents, uncle, boyfriend). These are considered strengths of the black community and more attention should be paid to supporting and building on the strengths. A bdul-Adil and Framer (2006) suggested three strategies for increasing parent al involvement of inner city African American parents: (1) empowerment offering parents the training or skills that will support increased involvement; (2) outreach make services and supports readily available in the community and design programs that will meet parents Â“where they areÂ” and take them Â“where they need to goÂ”; and (3) indigenous resources utilize programs that use a parent-oriented focus within the family and community settings. Future research should build upon these promising strategies to faci litate increased pare ntal involvement of Black parents, especially in th e area of phonological awareness. In response to the statement that Â“all children will start schoo l ready to learnÂ” (National Educational Goals Panel, 1997, p. XV), specifically children from less
85 privileged backgrounds, prevention and early intervention practices are two essential components in promoting future academic a nd learning outcomes. It is important to understand the significance of identifying a nd utilizing the resources and supports available in the black community. These are essential components in facilitating the preliteracy growth of black children in the home environment (such as specifically in the area of phonological awareness), as well as the school environment and targeting the Â“achievement gapÂ” that arguably starts during early childhood years. The results of this study further supports this view as well as the continued need for extensive and focused research in this area.
86 List of References Abell, E., Clawson, M., Washington, W. N., Bost, K. K., & Vaughn, B. E. (1996). Parenting values, attitudes, and behavior s, and goals of Black mothers from a low-income population in relation to social and societal context. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 593-613. Abdul-Adil, K. J. & Farmer, A. D. (2006). Inner-city Black parental involvement in elementary schools: Getting beyond urban legends of apathy. School Psychology Quarterly, 21 1-12. Attaway, N., M. & Bry, B. H. (2004). Parenti ng style and black adolescentÂ’s academic achievement. Journal of Black Psychology, 30, 229-247. Avenevoli, S., Sessa, F. M., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Family structure, parenting practices, and adolescent adjustment: An ecological examination. In E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Coping with divorce, sing le parenting, and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 65-90). Mahwak, NJ: Erlbaum. Baumrind, D. & Black, A. E. (1967). Soci alization practices associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 38, 291-327. Baumrind, D. (1967). Childcare practices an teceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75 43-88. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patt erns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4 (1, pt 2). Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on black children: Some black-white comparisons. Child Development, 43 261-267.
87 Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P.A. Cowan & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (p.111-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Becker-Klein (1999, April). Family and school level barriers to family involvement. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM. Bluestone & Tamis-LeMonda ( 1999). Correlates of parenting styles in predominantly working Â–and middle class African America mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 881-893. Bos, J. M., Huston, A. C., Granger, R. C., Duncun, G. J., Brock, T. W., & McLoyd, V.C. (1999, April). New Hope for people with low incomes: Two-year results of a program to reduce and reform welfare New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Group. Bradley, R. H., Rock, S. L., Caldwell, B. M., Harris, P. T., & Hamrick, H. M. (1987). Home Environment and School Performance among Black Elementary School Children. The Journal of Negro Education, 56, 499-509. Brand, H. J. & Welch, K. (1989). Cognitive and social-emotional development of children in different preschool environments. Psychological Reports, 65, 480482. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 99, 353-395.
88 Carlton, M. P., & Winsler, M. (1999). School Re adiness: The need for a paradigm shift. School Psychology Review, 28, 338-352. Cheever, D. S., & Ryder, A. E. (1986). Qual ity: the key to successful programmes. Principal, 65 16-21. ChildrenÂ’s Defense Fund. (1998). The state of AmericaÂ’s children yearbook 1998 Washington, DC: Author. Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., & Gorney, D. (1992) Family factors and student achievement: An avenue to increase studentsÂ’ success School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 178-206. Christian, K., Bachman, H. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2001). Schooling and cognitive development. In R.J. Sternberg & R. L. Grigorenko (Eds.) Environmental effects on cognitive abilities (pp. 287-335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Christian, K., Morrison, F. J., & Bryant, F. B. (1998). Predicting kindergarten academic skills: Interactions among childcare, ma ternal education, and family literacy environment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 501-521. Clay, M. E. (1985). Concepts about print Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing. Comer, J., & Haynes, N. (1996). Integrati ng schools, families, and communities through successful school reform: The school development program. School Psychology Review, 25, 501-506 Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative Methods in Psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
89 Coll, C. G., Lamerty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crinic, K., Wasik, B. H., & Garcia, H. V. (1996). An integrativ e model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67 1891-1914. Constas, M.A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: the documentary of. category development procedure. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (1), 253-266 Coolahan, K., McWayne, C., Fantuzzo, J ., & Grim, S. (2002). Validation of a multidimensional assessment of parenting styles for low-income Black families with preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17 356-373. Crum, R. M., Ensminger, M. E., Jo, M. J., & McCord, J. (1998). The association of educational achievement and school drop-out with risk of alcoholism: A twentyfive year prospective stu dy of inner-city children. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 318-326. Darling, N., & Steinburg, L. (1993) Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113 487-496. Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1996) Physical discipline among Black and European Amer ican mothers: Links to childrenÂ’s externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065-1072. Department of Education. (2000). AmericaÂ’s kindergartens (NCES 2000-070). Washington, DC: Author. Dickinson, D. K. & DeTemple, J. (1998). Pu tting parents in the picture: Maternal reports of preschoolersÂ’ literacy as a predictor of early reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 241-261.
90 Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization medi ators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 65, 649-665. Dornbush, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M .J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary testthird edition Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services. Elder, G. H., Eccles, J. S., Ardelt, M. & Lord, S. (1995). Inner-city parents under economic pressure: Perspectives on the strategies of parenting. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 771-784. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, U. S. C., 107-110 (2001). Englund, M., Luckner, A., Whaley, G., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children's achievement in early elementary school: Longitudina l effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723-730. Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects on student achieve ments of teachersÂ’ practices of parental involvement. In S. B. Silvern (Ed.), Advances in reading and language research: Vol 5. Literacy through fam ily, community, and school interaction, (pp 261-276). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnership M. Alkin (Eds.), In Encyclopedia of educational research. New York: Macmillian (1139-1151).
91 Epstein, J. L. (1995) Perspectives and prev iews on research and policy for school, family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Familyschool links: How do they a ffect educational outcomes (pp. 209-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and prev iews on research and policy for school, family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Familyschool links: How do they affect educational outcomes, 209-246. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Estrada, P., Arsenio, W. F., Hess, R. D., & Holloway, S. D. (1987). Affective quality of the mother-child relationship: Longitudi nal consequences for childrenÂ’s schoolrelevant cognitive functioning. Developmental Psychology, 23 210-215. Fantuzzo, J., McWayne C., & Perry, M. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to beha vioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review, 33, 467-480 Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000) Family Involvement Questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 367-376. Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Perry, M. (1999). Relationships between family involvement in Head Start and childrenÂ’s interactive peer play. NHSA Dialog, 3, 60-67. Featherstone, H. (1986). Presc hool: It does make difference. Principal 65 22-27 Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigm atic distinctions betw een instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57 488-500. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U. S. C., 5811-5812 (1994).
92 Graham, S. (1992). Most of the subjects were White and middle class: Trends in published research on Blacks in selected APA journals, 1970-1989. American Psychologist, 47, 629-639. Greenberg, M. T., Lengua, L. J., Coie, J. D ., & Pinderhughes, E. E. (1999). Predicting developmental outcomes at school entry using a multiple-risk model: Four American communities. Developmental Psychology, 35, 403-417. Greenwood G. E., & Hickman C. W. (1991) Research and Practice in Parent Involvement: Implications for Teacher Education. The Elementary School Journal 91 279-288. Griffith, J. (1996). Relation of parental i nvolvement, empowerment, and school traits to student academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 90 33-41. Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997). Predictors of parental involvement in childrenÂ’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 538-548. Gullo, D. F., & Burton, C.B. (1992). Age at entry, preschool experience, and sex as antecedents of academic readiness in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 175-186. Halle, T. G., Kurtz-Costas, B., & Mahoney, J. L. (1997). Family influences on school achievement in low-income Black children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 527-537. Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. & Seki ng, Y. (2004). A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children Psychology in the Schools, 41 363-377.
93 Heller, T. L., Baker, B. L., Henker, B., & Hinshaw, S. P. (1996). Externalization behaviors and cognitive func tioning from preschool to first grade: Stability and predictors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 376-387. Hetherington, E. M., Henderson, S. H., Rei ss, D. (1999). Adolescent siblings in stepfamilies: Family functioni ng and adolescent adjustment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64 ( 4, Serial No. 259). Hill, N. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school readiness: The roles of ethnicity and family income Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 686-697. Hillsborough County, Florida: The official Government online resource. Head Start (2006). Retrieved May 6, 2006 from http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/headstart/ Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. ( 1997). Why do parents become involved in their childrenÂ’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67 3-42. Johnson, B. & Christenson, L. (2004). Educat ional research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Boston: Pearson Education. Kahen, V., Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). Linkages between parent-child interaction and conversations of friends. Social Development, 3, 238-254. Kaminiski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). To ward a technology for assessing basic early variables. Unpublished doctoral disse rtation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
94 Kellogohan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B. S., & Bloom, S. (1993). The home environment and learning: Promoting paren tal involvement in the education of children San Franscico, CA: Jossey Bass. Keith, T. Z., Keith, P.B., Quirk, K. J., Sperdut o, J., Santillo, S., & K illings, S. (1998). Longitudinal effects on parent involveme nt on high school grades: Similarities and differences across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School Psychology, 36 335-363. Kelly, M., Sanchez-Hucles, J., & Walker, R. R. (1993). Correlates of disciplinary practices in working-to mi ddle class Black mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 252-264. Kurdek & Fines, M. A. (1994). Family accep tance and family control as predictors of adjustment in young adolescents: Linear, curvilinear, or inte ractive effects? Child Development, 65, 1137-1146. Lamborn, S. D. Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L ., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991) Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families Child Development, 62, 1049-1065. Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage. Soci al class and parental intervention in elementary education. New York: Falmer Press. Maccoby, E. E. & Martin, J. A. (1983). Soci alization in the cont ext of the family: Parent-child interaction. In Mussen, P. H. (series e d.) and Heatherington, E. M. (Vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology : Vol. 4 Socialization, Personality, and Social Development, Wiley, New York.
95 Macron, R.A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner-city preschoolersÂ’ de velopment and academic performance. School Psychology Review, 28, 395-412. Mantzicopoulos, P. Y. (1997). The relationship of family of family variables to Head Start childrenÂ’s preacademic competence. Early Education & Development, 8 357-375. Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N., & Hiraga, Y. (1996). Neither too sweet nor too sour: Problem peers, maternal cont rol, and problem behavior in Black adolescents. Child Development, 67 2115-2130. Maton, K., Schellenbach, C., Leadb eater, B., & Solarz, A. (2004). Investing in children, youth, families, and communities: Strength-based research and policy. American Psychological Association, 3-12. Washington, DC. McConnell, S. R. (2000). Assessment in earl y intervention and early childhood special education: Building on the past to project into our future. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 43-8. McConnell, S., Priest, J., Davis, S., & McE voy, M. (2002). Best practices in measuring growth and development for preschool ch ildren. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology (4th ed., Vol., 2, pp.1231-1246). Washington DC: National Associ ation of School Psychologist. McDermott, P. A., & Spencer, M. B. (1997). Racial and social cl ass prevalence of Psychopathology among school-age y outh in the United States. Youth & Society, 28, 387-414.
96 McLoyd, V.C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53 (2), 185-204. McLoyd, V. C., Jayaratne, T. E., Ceballo, R., Borquez, J. (1994). Unemployment and work interruption among Black single moth ers. Effects on parenting and social emotional development. Child Development, 61 311-346. Meisels, S. J. (1999). Assessing readiness. In R. C. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.). The transition to kindergarten Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Microsoft Excel Data Base [Computer Software] (2003). U.S. Missall, K. N. (2002) Reconceptualization school adjustmen t: A search for intervening variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertati on, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Missall, K., & McC onnell, S. (2004). Psychometric characteri stics of individual growth & development indi cators: Picture Naming, Rhyming, and Alliteration (Tech. Rep. No.1). University of Minneso ta: Center for Early Education and Development. Moccoby, E., & Matin, J. (1983). Socialzation in the context of the family: Parentchild interaction. In P.H. Mussen (Eds.), CharmichaelÂ’s manual of child psychology (pp.1-101). New York: Wiley. Muller, C., & Kerbow, D. (1993). Parental involvement in the home, school, and community. In B. Schneider, & J. S. Colemean (Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools (pp.13-42) Boulder, CO : Westview Press. National Educational Goals Panel (1997). Getting a good start in the school. Washington, DC: Author.
97 Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Onwuegbuzie, T. J. (2002, November). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron ? A Paper presented at the Mi d-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, TN. Onwuegbuzie, T. J. (2003). Expanding the fram ework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools, 10(1 ), 71-89. Osofsky J. D. (1995). The effects of exposure to violence on young children. American Psychologist, 50, 782-788. Overstreet S., Devine J., Bevans K., & Efreom Y. (2005). Predicting parental involvements in childrenÂ’s schooling w ithin an economically disadvantaged African American sample. Psychology in the School, 42 101-111. Parker, F. L., Boak, A. Y., Gr iffin, K. W., Ripple, C., & P eay, L. (1999). Parent-Child relationship, home learning envir onment, and school Readiness. School Psychology Review, 28, 413-425. Patterson, C. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., Vade n, N. A. (1990). Income level, gender, ethnicity, and household composition as predictors of childrenÂ’s school based competence. Child Development, 61, 485-494. Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. E., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S. & Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline responses influences of pa rentsÂ’ socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 14 380-400.
98 Poresky, R. H., & Morris, B. M. (1993). Kinderg arten readiness: Ecol ogical analysis of the effects of SES, parental beliefs and the home-environment. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Socie ty for Research in Child Development (70th, New Orleans, LA, March 25-28, 1993). Pratt, M. W., Greem, D., MacVicar, J. & B ountrogianni, M. (1992). The mathematical parents: Parental scaffo lding, parenting style, an d learning outcomes in longdivision mathematics homework. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 17-34. Priest, J. S., Davis, K. N., McConnell, S. R., McEvoy, M. A., & Shin, J. (1999, December ). Individual growth and developm ent indicators for preschoolersÂ’ Â“expressing meaningÂ” skills: Follow that trajectory! A Paper presented at the annual conference of the Division for Early Childhood, Council for Exceptional Children, Washington, D.C. Priest, J. S., Silberglitt, B., Hall, S., & Estrem, T. L. (2000). Progress on preschool IGDIs for early literacy Presentation presented at Heartland Area Education Association, Des Moines, IA. Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay, B. R. (1996). Parenting style and adolescent depressive systems, smoking, and academic achievement: Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 289305. Raffaele, L., & Knoff, H. (1999). Im proving home-school collaboration with disadvantaged families: Organizational principles, perspectives, and approaches. School Psychology Review, 28, 448-466.
99 Reynolds, A. J. Mavrogenes, N. A., Bezru czko, N., & Hagemann, M. (1996). Cognitive and family-support mediators of presc hool effectiveness: A confirmatory analysis. Child Development, 67, 1119-1140. Ricciuti, H. N. (1999). Single-parenthood and social readiness in White, Black, and Hispanic 6and 7-year olds. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 450-465. Robinson, C. C., Mandieco, B., Olsen, S. F., Russell, A., Aloa, V., Jin, S., Nelson, D. A., Bazarskaya, N. (1996). Psychomet ric support for a new measure of authoritative, authoritaria n, and permissive parenti ng practices: Cross-Cultural Connections. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, (14th, Quebec, Canada, August 12-16, 1996). Sandell, E. J. (1998). Parents in the schools. In Home-School Relations: Working Successfully With Parents and Families, M. L. Fuller and G Olsen Eds. Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights, MA P. 127-150. Shepard, L. A. & Smith, M. L. (1996). Synt hesis of research on school readiness and kindergarten retention. Educational Leadership, 44, 78-86. Slaughter-Defoe, D. T. (1995). Revisiting the concept of socialization: Cargiving and teaching in the 90Â’s: A personal perspective. American Psychologist, 50 276289. Slaughter-Defoe, D., & Brown, E. (1998). Edu cational intervention and the family: The Chicago tradition in policy and practice. National Head Start Research Quarterly, Spring, 39-111
100 Spencer, G. B. (1990). Development of minority children: An introduction. Child Development, 61, 267-269. Spera, C. (2005). A review of relationship among parenting practices parenting style, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125146. Statistical Package for the Social Scie nces (SPSS) (Version 9.0 for Windows) [Computer software]. (1999). Chicago: SPSS. Steinburg, L. D., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on a dolescent achievement: Author itative parenting, school involvement, and encouaragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 12661281. Stevenson, D. & Baker, D. (1987). The fam ily-school relation and the childÂ’s school performance. Child Development, 58 1348-1357. Sukhdeep, G. & Reynolds, A. (1999). Educational expectations and school achievement of urban Black children. Journal of School Psychology, 37 403424. Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., Tucker, M. B., & Lewis, E. (1990). Developments in research on Black families: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 993-1014. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Metholody: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Torgeson, J. K. & Bryant, B. R. (1994). Test of phonological awareness Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
101 U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Final rule: Head Start Performance Standards, 45 CFR Pa rt 1304, Federal Register, 61, 57186-57227. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of school outcomes based on early language production and socioeconomic factors. Child Development, 65, 606-621. Weiss, A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2001). Multivaria te impact of healthcare and risk-taking factors on the school adjust ment of first graders. Journal of Community Psychology, 29 141-160. Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R.E. (1992). Preschool language scales-third edition San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
103 Appendix A Parent Survey DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON THIS SURVEY. THIS IS NOT A TEST. All information will be kept private. Please be as hon est as you can. Try to answer all questions. Skip any questions you donÂ’t want to answer. If you are unsure of an answer, please place a check ( ) on the line you feel most appropriate. Thank you for your time. Part I. Demographic Information Please answer the following qu estions by placing a check ( ) on the appropriate line. Please check only one item. Your gender Your age Male ____ Under 20 _____ Female ____ 20-30 _____ 31-45 _____ Over 45 _____ Martial status Ethnicity Married ____ Black ____ Single ____ Caribbean descent ____ Separated, divorced, or widowed ___ African ____ Black Hispanic ____ Other ____ Employment Status Education Level Unemployed ____ High School and above ____ Irregular employment ____ High School Diploma or GED __ Regular, part-time employment ____ Less than high school ____ Regular, full-time employment _____
104 Are you the primary caregiver of the preschooler? How many children live in your home? No ___ 1-2 ____ 4 -5 ____ Yes ___ 2 -3 ____ 5 or more ____ What is your relationship wi th the preschooler (circle)? Mother Sister Cousin Other: _______ Father Brother Grandparent Please answer the following questions about your child by placing a check ( ) on the appropriate line. Please check only one item. Child Gender Child Age Male ____ 4 years ____ 6 years ____ Female ____ 5 years ____ How many years has your child attended Head Start/Early Head? __________ Part II. Please carefully read each statement about the type s of activities you do at home with your child. Place a check ( ) on the appropriate line. Please check only one item. 1. I spend time working with my child on number skills Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 2. I spend time working with my child on reading/writing skills Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 3. I talk to my child about how much I love learning new things Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 4. I bring home learning materi als for my child (videos, etc.) Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 5. I spend time with my child working on creative activities Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____
105 6. I share stories with my child about when I was in school Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 7. I see that my child has a plac e for books and school materials Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 8. I take my child places in the community to learn special things (i.e., zoo, museum) Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 9. I maintain clear rules at my home that my child should obey. Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 10. I talk about my childÂ’s learning efforts in front of relatives Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 11. I review my childÂ’s school work Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 12. I keep a regular morning bedtime schedule for my child Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 13. I praise my child for school work in front of the teachers Rarely ____ Sometimes ____ Often ____ Always ____ 14. Is there any one else in the household that does these kinds of activities with the child? If so, who? ____________________________________________________ Adapted from Fantuzzo et al. 2004, Family Involvement Survey (FIQ) Part III. Please read each statement and place a check ( ) on the appropriate line that best describes your educational goals for your child. Please check only one item. 1. Knowing your child as you do what grades do you expect him/her to receive in school? All AÂ’s ____ AÂ’s and BÂ’s ____ All CÂ’s ____ All BÂ’s and CÂ’s____ All FÂ’s ____
106 2. Knowing your child as you do, how far do you think he/she will go in school? K -5th grade ____ 55h 8th _____ 9th 12th ____ 12th with some college ____ 4 or more years of college ____ 3. Knowing your child as you do, what type of job do you expect him/her to have? Service ____ Laborer ____ Professional ____ Adapted from Hill (2001), Educa tional Expectations Questions Part IV. Please carefully read each statement about how often you do this behavior with your child. Place a check ( ) on the appropriate line. Please check only one item on for each statement. 1. I respond to my childÂ’s feelings or needs Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 2. When my child and I disagree, I tell my child to keep quiet Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 3. My family says that I spoil my child Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 4. I explain to my child why misbehavior is wrong Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 5. I tell my child IÂ’ll punish but donÂ’t Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 6. I demand that my child do/does things Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 7. I explain the consequences of my childÂ’s behavior Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 8. When my child and I fight, I discipline first, and ask questions later Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 9. I spank my child when he/she is disobedient Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______
107 10. I tell my child IÂ’m proud when he/she tries to be good Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 11. When I want my child to stop doing something, I ask him/her many times Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 12. I threaten to punish my child more than I do it Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 13. I scold or criticize my child Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 14. I have a hard time saying Â“noÂ” to my child Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 15. I tell my child reasons to obey rules Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 16. I express affection towards my child by hugging, kissing, etc. Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 17. I encourage my child to express opinions Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 18. When my child acts up in public, I donÂ’t know what to do Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 19. I give praise to my child when he/she is good Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 20. I punish more effective than reasoning Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 21. I show sympathy when my child is hurt Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 22. I encourage my child to think about consequences Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 23. I apologize to my child when I make a mistake Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______
108 24. I am affectionate with my child Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 25. When my child doesnÂ’t do what I asked, I let it go or do it myself Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 26. I emphasize reasons for rules with my child Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 27. I encourage my child to talk about feelings Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 28. I give comfort and understanding when my child is upset Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 29. I am afraid that disciplining my child will cause her/him to dislike me Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 30. I tell my child how I want them to behave Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 31. I find it difficult to discipline my child Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 32. If my child resists going to bed, I let them stay up Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always_____ 33. I give in when my child causes commotion Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 34. I am unsure how to change my childÂ’s behavior Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 35. When my child misbehav es, I say things I regret Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 36. When my child acts up, I get visibly upset Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 37. I use physical punishment with my child Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______
109 38. When my child asks why I must do something, I say, Â“Because I said soÂ” Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 39. I yell or shout when my child misbehaves Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always______ 40. I get upset with my child when he/she spills something Almost Never_____ Sometime_____ Often_____ Almost Always_____ Adopted from Coolahan, et al. (2002) Paren ting Style Questionnaire-Head Start (PSQ-HS)
110 Appendix B Letter to Parents Code _________ Dear Parent, Hi! My name is Iravonia Rawls and I am an African American graduate student at the University of South Florida. The purpose of th is letter is to invite you and your child to participate in a research proj ect that looks at how Black H ead Start parents help prepare their children for kindergarten at home. If you would like to participate in this project, and you are the parent or the adult that the child lives with and you have primary responsibility for the child (e.g., grandparent, aunt, cousin), then please complete the consent forms and Parent Survey found in this packet. Completing the survey will take about 15Â– 20 minutes. If you give permission for your child to participate in this project, he or she will be asked to do the following activities with myself or a member of my research team: provide the names of different pictures (e.g., cake, book, rabbit), match pictures th at rhyme (e.g., cat and mat), and match pictures that begi n with the same sound (e.g., ha t and house). The total time that it will take for your child to do these ac tivities will be 5Â–7 minutes. As a participant of this study you will not be required to pr ovide any identifying information (e.g., name, social security number, address). As a token of appreciation for your time and help (for completing th e survey and gÂ’iving permission for your child to participate in this project) you will be entered into a $100 raffle to win a gift certificate to Universi ty Mall or a local grocery store. Please ( ) check the appropriate box below: Yes, I want to participate. I will complete forms and Parent Survey and return them to my childÂ’s clas sroom Head Start teacher. Yes, I want to participate but I prefer to complete forms when I pick up my child from Head Start. My research team and I will be at your Head Start Center to help you complete all forms. No, I donÂ’t want to participate. Please se nd this form back to your childÂ’s Head Start teacher.
111 Appendix B (Continued) Who do I contact if I have questions? If you have any questions about this study, pl ease feel free to contact me at 813-830-8666 or my major professor Harold Keller, Ph.D. at 813-974-6709. For a Head Start representative, please contact Jennifer Marshall, General Ma nager, at 813-272-5140 ext. 3114. Thank you, Iravonia Rawls, M.A. USF School Psychology Program
112 Appendix C *Script and Helpful Tips: Helping Parents Introduction: Hi my name is _________ and I am a student at the University of South Florida. I am also a member of the research team for this project. We are interested in learning more about the ways Black (minority) parents help prepare their childre n for kindergarten, and would like you and your child to participate. If you would like to participate in this project, then first please read and sign th ese forms (hand parent consent forms) giving permission for you and your child to particip ate. When you are fini sh let me know and I will give you a survey to complete. It will take you approximately 15-20 minutes to complete the survey. Participation in this pr oject is completely up to you and you will not be required to provide any identifying inform ation (e.g., name, addre ss, social security number). If you have any questions about th e information on the forms or survey I am here to help you. Thank you for your time. Frequently Asked Questions: Q1: How long will it take me to complete the survey? A: It will take you approximately 15-20 minutes to complete the survey. Q2: What does my child have to do? A: A member of our research team will ask your child to name various pictures in the environment for 1 minute (e.g., cake, book, rabb it), match pictures that rhyme (e.g., cat and bat), and match pictures that begin with the same sound (e.g., bee and ball). Q3: Do I have to give an y personal information? A: No identifying information is required. Q4: Will I know the results of my childÂ’s assessment? A: Unfortunately individual scores will no t be available, but if you would like the researcher can provide you with a summary of the overall research project findings when available. Q5: Who is going to se e this information? A: The results of this study will be shared with the Director of Hillsborough County Head program.
113 Appendix C (Continued) Q6: How do I win the $100 gift certificate? A: Sign consent forms (parent and child), co mplete Parent Survey, make sure child participates Q7: When will I know if I won the $100 gift certificate ? A: You will find out no later Aug.1, 2006 if you won the $100 gift certificate. A Head Start manager will contact you.
114 Appendix D Follow-up Letter Dear Parent, Thank you for your recent participation in the research project that examines how Black parents prepare their children fo r kindergarten. I really appr eciate that you took the time out of your busy schedule to complete the Parent Survey. I am contacting you because my research team and I were unable to co mplete the pre-readi ng assessment with your child before he/she exited Head Start. This pre-reading assessment is an important second part of this project. Both the Parent Survey and the child pre-reading assessment must be complete for me to be able to us e this information for my project. I was hoping to schedule a time that I can do this 5-8 minute assessment with your child. Your child will be asked to do the following activities: name pictures, match pictures that rhyme, and match pictures that sound the same. Please contact me at 813-830-8666 to schedule a time within the next two weeks that I can do this assessment with your child. I am very flexible and can meet you and your child any time and any place (e.g., head start center, library, or home). I look forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, Iravonia Rawls
115 Appendix E Survey Advertisement By completing the survey in this packet and returning it to your childs Head Start teacher, you will be entered into a raffle to win a $100 gift certificate to University Mall or a local grocery store! Dont miss this opportunity! For more information contact: Iravonia Rawls at 813-866-5329 or Head Start Manager, Jennifer Marshall, at 813-272-5140.