PARENT ENGAGEMENT IN CHILD EDUCATION
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Division of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Elise Christine Fitzgerald
SPRING
2014
PARENT ENGAGEMENT IN CHILD EDUCATION
A Project
by
Elise Christine Fitzgerald
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Francis Yuen, DSW, Professor
____________________________
Date
ii
Student Name: Elise Fitzgerald
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library, and
credit is to be awarded for the project.
______________________________________, Graduate Coordinator _____________
Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
Date
Division of Social Work
iii
Abstract
of
PARENT ENGAGEMENT IN CHILD EDUCATION
by
Elise Christine Fitzgerald
This study aimed to gather parents’ insights and opinions about their involvement in their
child’s education. This study was conducted at an affordable housing complex owned by
Mutual Housing California with parents of children in the K-12 education system in
Sacramento, California. Although it is hard to reach population, 20 parents were recruited
for this study. The study was a qualitative study which included a brief questionnaire
followed by a one hour focus group discussion. The emphasis was on parents’ opinions
about their strengths, challenges, suggestions, and future on their engagement in their
children’s education. The participants identified mostly as Latino (n=16) and the focus
group discussions and all materials were offered in Spanish and English. The participants
in this study were low income and the majority was first generation immigrants. In the
literature, many families with these characteristics tend to be labeled as less likely to
participate in their child’s education due to a variety of obstacles. Contrary to the
literature, this study’s findings suggested that these parents were very engaged in their
child’s education and further, wanted increased communication with teachers to be told
how to engage more. Parents expressed their views on what improvements could be made
iv
such as: increased access to parent education, more opportunities for youth after school,
and greater relationships with other parents at the apartment complex to build mutual aid.
Overall, this study demonstrated that low income parents with barriers such as language,
limited free time and financial struggles still engaged at high levels in their child’s
education and had strong desires to be as involved as any other parent. The researcher
recommended that the community utilize this study to reflect on the opinions of the
parents to better strengthen the partnership between the school and the parents in the
community. With a stronger partnership, parents and teachers could work together to
ensure clear expectations and increase overall engagement in child education.
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Francis Yuen, DSW, Professor
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my friends and family who encouraged me to strive towards
making the community a better place and pursuing my degree in Social Work. I would
especially like to thank my partner Michael O’Connor for daily encouragement, strength,
and home cooked dinners. I would like to thank my parents who, while far away in
Maine, provided me with a listening ear and loving support. I would like to acknowledge
my Sacramento State 2014 Cohort and the many professors for giving me the opportunity
to grow and learn so much in the short time we were together. Finally, I would like to
thank Professor Yuen for taking me on as a thesis student and not only helping me
complete a research project in nine months, but provide humor and support during times
of stress. Thank you.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….….. 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Statement of the Research Problem ................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 6
Theoretical Framework .................................................................................. 7
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................ 8
Assumptions ................................................................................................... 9
Justification .................................................................................................. 10
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 11
The Importance of Neighborhood .................................................................. 14
Target Population Service Needs .................................................................... 17
Importance of After School Programming ..................................................... 18
Affordable Housing ........................................................................................ 20
Parent Engagement and Child Education ...................................................... 23
Barriers to Engagement .................................................................................. 27
Policies Regarding School, Parent, Community Partnership.......................... 30
vii
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 33
Sampling Procedures .......................................................................................34
Data Collection Procedures..............................................................................35
Instruments .......................................................................................................37
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................38
Protection of Human Subjects .........................................................................39
4. STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... 41
Overall Findings.............................................................................................. 42
Specific Findings from Focus Group Discussion ........................................... 48
Strengths: School, Parent, Child Partnership………………………………...49
Challenges: Cultural Competence and Advocacy …………………………...53
Suggestions for the Future: More Parent Involvement………………………58
Summary ......................................................................................................... 61
5. CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 63
Summary of Study .......................................................................................... 63
Implications for Social Work ...........................................................................65
Recommendations ........................................................................................... 66
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 71
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 72
Appendix A. Informed Consent to Participate ... ........................................................ 74
Appendix B. Focus Group Discussion Guide…. ........................................................ 75
viii
Appendix C. Brief questionnaire ................................................................................ 76
References ................................................................................................................... 79
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
Identified Race of Participants……………………..………………………42
2.
Gender of Participants …………..…………………………………………43
3.
Employment Status of Participants…………………………..…………….44
4.
Most and Least Activities Selected…..……………………………………..46
5.
Response to Program Service Needs Question……………………………..48
6.
Categories and Themes from the Focus Group Discussions ………………49
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
It has been indicated in research studies that parent participation in their own
child’s education is one of the most important factors that can help the child succeed later
in life (Bloomquist, August, Lee, Piehler & Jenson, 2012; Epstein, 1992; Reynolds,
Temple & Ou, 2010). Not only does parent participation in child education increase the
number of positive outcomes later in life, but the outcomes are wide spread in variety and
range from better behavior (LaRocque, Kleiman & Darling, 2011) in school to better
graduation rates in high school (Weiss, Lopez, Rosenberg, Harvard Family Research &
SEDL, 2010). The number of ways that parent engagement in a child’s education
produces positive results is vast and exciting because it gives evidence to support the
development of parent participation programs, and also reveals the importance for more
research on ways to increase parent participation.
Due to the variety of ways that parent engagement can be quantified, the term
“parent engagement” is often uniquely defined depending on who is doing the defining.
For example, a parent may consider engagement as completing homework with their
child after school, while a teacher may expect engagement as a parent volunteering in the
classroom (Weiss & Lopez, 2010). While both parent and teacher are working towards
the same goal to educate the child in the most efficient and effective manner, the
mismatch of expectations along the pathway to success can cloud the goal. In some cases
the misunderstanding between a parent and the teacher results in the perception that the
2
other side’s lack of effort in engagement signifies lack of care for the education (Epstein,
1992; LaRocque & Kleiman, 2011).
Background of the Problem
While there are many studies on parent engagement, the research on outcomes for
children of diverse backgrounds and varying ethnicities are not well reflected in the
research (Fuentes, 2009; Jeynes, 2005). This gap in the research on diversity within the
parent engagement studies provides significance for further drawing of conclusions of
outcomes with parent engagement in diverse communities and schools. In some of the
studies that have been done about children of diverse backgrounds, there is a claim that
teachers often have a higher disregard for the engagement of these parents and believe
they are not as interested in their child’s education (LaRocque & Kleiman, 2011). This
view demonstrates the larger context of the difference in perceptions of parents and
teachers who must work harder to come together and understand one another to educate
all children.
There are many reasons for the discrepancy in expectations of parents and
teachers yet issues with communication is cited on both sides as one of the major barriers
to parent engagement (Epstein, 2008; Kao, 2004; Lareau & Munoz, 2012). This absence
or minute amount of communication between parents and teachers could be due to a
cultural and language barrier, access to technology such as email, or due to not knowing
the system, be it the family or the school, well enough. As well as focusing on the school
setting and home life, the context of a child’s community and neighborhood has come to
the forefront of the discussion and is considered just as important in effecting a child’s
3
future success (Benson, Leffert, Scales, Blyth, 2012; 1998; Epstein, 1992; Fuentes, 2009;
Mueller & Tighe, 2007). Many researchers state that they cannot continue to disregard
the community aspect when discussing child education and behavior outcomes.
Understanding the relationship between parents, children and their neighborhood schools
in the context of the larger community can create a space for developing new
programming that could enhance parent engagement in child education.
Agencies that work closely with children and families in underperforming school
districts have skills that could be used to forge better bonds between the family and the
school. There is a possibility for community based organizations (CBO) to develop better
partnerships by minimizing the gap between schools and families to facilitate
communication and help bridge the incongruity between educators and parents.
In examining the factors that help children to be successful later in life, the
community and more specifically the child’s housing situation is significant (Leventhal &
Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Mueller & Tighe, 2007). Unfortunately, the situation for many low
income families has not improved in the last decade in terms of being able to find
affordable housing. In the United States, the gap between what families can afford and
what is available continues to fall shorter and shorter each year (National Low Income
Housing Coalition, 2013).
A neighborhood complex full of families that send their children to the same
school has the potential to be a great starting point for building unity amongst residents.
Centering on the fact that many of the families have children at the same school, the
creation of a more stable and close knit community could be built around increasing
4
opportunity for education of the children. The school and the family on their own may
not be able to help children succeed due to various barriers, but a CBO may assist by
facilitating the access to necessary services for the family in order to benefit of the
children in their academic success. The apartment complex could build mutual aid
between the two entities each with their limited resources and encourage active
participation to improve child academics.
Statement of the Research Problem
Parents and schools are blamed for failing to provide a child’s education and
therefore strategies to address this are typically targeted at the individual parent.
Regarding the belief that a parent’s lack of unwillingness to participate in school
functions is due to personal choice, many school administrators and community programs
continue to ignore that parent instead of attempting to incorporate them in a way that
might better fit the parents’ situation. One reason many schools may doubt a parent’s
desire to be involved is due to the list of barriers and challenges a family provide when
declining to show up at the school. Despite the fact that parents may report many barriers
to becoming more engaged in their child’s education, they do want to be involved in their
child’s education (Wilson, 2011).
While literature may suggest low income families engage less in their child’s
education, the perception of a family’s apathy to participate is not always justified. The
parents at River Garden Estates face many of the challenges cited in the literature as
significant obstacles to parent engagement. One of the main reasons for the study is to
understand on a deeper level the factors that contribute to a parent’s engagement and
5
what, if any, barriers hinder their increased participation. The opinions of a group of
parents at an affordable housing complex may provide great insights for teachers,
administrators and community organizations to help improve strategies to reach this
population. Parents may provide an opportunity for teachers and administrators to better
understand that although a parent cannot volunteer in the classroom on weekdays that
parent is still engaged in their child’s education, but in a different manner.
A youth’s academic outcomes are significantly tied to their future in society.
There is substantial research that shows that when youth do not graduate high school,
their incomes are lower and their productivity in society is not as great (Reynolds &
Temple, 2010). Youth who struggle with academics may be given few options to develop
skills and tools to succeed in school, and if those students do not have a supportive home
life conducive to academic success, the student is at a higher disadvantage (Epstein,
2008). Many studies indicate the importance of SES as it relates to academic achievement
and success (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Mueller & Tighe, 2007; Wilson, 2011).
When examining communities of lower SES, the negative consequences of poor schools,
absence of after school activities and supportive home environments can add up to create
a negative impact on the individual child’s academics and thus, the success of many
communities.
One strategy that addresses neighborhood poverty is to provide affordable, safe,
housing to increase stability (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Creating safe
neighborhoods where families can begin to build community without having to move
often can give families the stability they need to be successful in other areas of their lives,
6
like child’s education. This study will explore the parent engagement on site at an
affordable housing complex with a majority of low income residents.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between parent
engagement and children’s education; it is hypothesized that parent engagement does
lead to increased academic success. This study was conducted on an affordable housing
complex in order to voice the opinions of a population that often struggles to maintain
housing stability. The apartment complex that was chosen for this study was cited in the
2000 Census as being located in an area with the highest concentration of youth under 18
in the six county region of Sacramento (Robertson, 2001). The block that the apartment
complex is built on, is made up of over half children which indicates the reason the
parent engagement study was conducted where such a large population of youth live.
The study explored parent’s perspectives on their own involvement in their
child’s education, describing the current strengths they see as well as analyzing the
obstacles they believe keep them from engaging. The perspective of the parent is
extremely important in understanding the reasons, and perceived reasons, for a lower rate
of engagement in the child’s education. The explanation from the parent can be helpful to
schools and also to community based organizations in designing future programming to
address lower performing students and schools. It is important to make the connection
between parent perceptions at a local level in order to help influence the decisions at a
city or state level. In combining ideas from evidence based interventions with strategies
local parents produce, may assist in creating a lasting and effective program to help
7
increase parent engagement. Parent engagement is key to youth academic success and it
is important to give families the tools and opportunities to improve their family
involvement.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study includes micro, mezzo and macro levels
of practice. Through the use of community organizing methods such as one-to-one
meetings and recording the opinions of parents at a group level in a focus group pave the
way for development at a macro level. Using the suggestions and voices of parents in the
community provided tangible strategies to create programming at the macro level on
behalf of the community. One model to address a community with failing schools draws
perspective through a community organizing lens. J Rothman uses the “locality
development” approach which addresses community needs by building social capital
amongst residents, engaging in capacity building and tapping into the strengths of the
community for its own benefit (Cox, Erlich, Rothman & Tropman, 1979; Weil, 2005).
This model respects the community by incorporating their knowledge and resources into
a larger model for community development.
In gathering information from parents, there was an emphasis on current
strengths, despite the challenges that are reported, and a focus on intervention strategies
to implement in the future for the benefit of the families. Using community organizing as
an underlying theme was useful to spark development amongst families in the community
to design a program that could fulfill their needs. Considering the potential for mutual
aid amongst families that are struggling with similar issues to engage in their child’s
8
education, the hope was that by discussing tangible ways and concrete strategies parents
could utilize on a daily basis would provide them with the tools they need to be
successful.
Definition of Terms
Parent Engagement
Parent engagement in this study includes the involvement of a parent in the
education of their children.
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing is defined as housing in which a family does not spend more
than 30% of their annual income on rent (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2013)
Community Organizing
Community organizing includes utilizing the strengths of the community
members to empower local voices to be heard and for the ideas to be recognized to create
social change.
Community Based Organization (CBO)
A community based organization is an agency that represents a local area of a
larger city or region that provides goods and services for the community in an effort to
better the lives of the people living there.
Barriers
Barriers are defined as obstacles parents and families may face while raising their
children and can include: limited available time, inability to understand the dominant
language, no access or understanding of technology and shortage of resources.
9
Community
Community is defined as a small neighborhood in a certain geographic location
where the characteristics of face-to-face communication, exchange, and interaction are
common (Weil, 2005).
Latino and Hispanic
These two terms will be used interchangeably as many participants in the study
refer to both in their speech.
Assumptions
One assumption made by the researcher was that the parents who participated in
the focus groups and brief questionnaire answered the questions openly and honestly to
the best of their ability. There was also the assumption that parents felt comfortable to
speak freely and truthfully in front of the researcher, their peers and neighbors during the
focus group without fear of judgment. Although the researcher attempted to ensure
residents confidentiality by stating all answers and opinions were anonymous, the
speakers’ still faced each other while they responded and may have felt uncomfortable
sharing certain information in front of the others.
Another assumption regards the future of the study in that the researcher assumes
the needs that emerge from the discussion with parents will be strong indicators of what
possible program development or suggestions can be made to help parents engage. The
researcher asked participants to suggest ideas and ideals for strategies of how they could
increase their engagement in their child’s education, and this information is assumed to
10
be useful for the local community organizer at the property and the school or other
parents involved.
Justification
While indicators for child success in education continue to point to parent
engagement as an important factor, the barriers to involvement still outweigh the benefits
for some parents and prevent them from engaging as they would like. This study aims to
reveal parent voices and experiences in their own communities in engaging in their
child’s education, showcasing both the strengths and hardships families face. By
understanding what works for parents and comparing that to what they find difficult,
there is the possibility that community agencies, teachers, and local parents themselves
can strengthen the strategies to engagement in education.
11
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
There is significant research that demonstrates students have greater academic
success when a parent provides a supportive environment and is involved in their
education (Epstein, 1992; Weiss & Lopez, 2010). The research shows improvement in
school readiness, academic achievement and graduation rates (Weiss & Lopez, 2010).
There has been conclusive evidence on the correlation between parent involvement and
child educational outcomes since the 1960s (Epstein, 1992). The evidence to support this
claim is drawn from a variety of research designs and projects of varying types which all
point to the same conclusion that parent involvement in a variety of forms, does matter
for the outcomes in a child’s education. For example, some studies look at how
neighborhood context is tied to youth academic success (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn,
2003; Mueller & Tighe, 2007) while others focus on the parent’s math abilities and how
that translates to their child’s success in the subject (Sheldon & Epstein, 2005).
The sampling sizes and length of study differ widely in the research on the topic
of parent engagement as it can be costly for many researchers to do large scale analysis
on children in afterschool programming over time. Due to the nature of the time spent
interviewing parents, teachers and students involved, it becomes difficult to track
children over a long period (Bender, Brisson, Jenson, Forrest-Bank, Lopez, & Yoder,
2011). When summarizing research on parent engagement, the assortment of studies and
outcomes linked to parent participation makes it difficult to condense the information.
For instance, there are some studies that indicate the long term positive effects that result
12
from an increase in parent involvement during the child’s preschool year (Reynolds &
Temple, 2010), while there is other research that focuses on demonstrating how it effects
non-academic outcomes like the enhanced neighborhood safety and better behavior in
school (Bender & Brisson, 2011).
Parent engagement can be defined in many forms and one researcher referred the
term as, “random acts of family involvement” noting the disorganized way in which
different groups attempt to quantify involvement (Weiss & Lopez, 2010). The wide range
of activities that may fall under the term parent involvement, can be interpreted as a
reflection of the cultural diversity of the children and families in US society today
(LaRocque & Kleiman, 2011). One family may think of parent involvement as
purchasing materials for school, while another believes involvement is completing
homework assignments with the child. It is therefore understandable how difficult it can
be to define a term that may be very unique to each family. Many researchers argue that
schools need to do a better job of tailoring parent involvement programs and strategies to
meet the needs of the multicultural communities they serve (Epstein, 1992; Fuentes,
2009; LaRocque & Kleiman, 2011). The greater the disparity between the culture of the
family and the ‘culture of the school’, the more challenging it can be to form a working
partnership between the two entities for the benefit of the child (Lareau & Munoz, 2012).
As Larocque, Kleiman and Darling (2011) infer, there is no one best way for
parents to become involved in their child’s education. Research has been done on
programs that attempt to increase the parent’s education by helping parents receive their
General Educational Development (GED) in order to boost their own self esteem when
13
helping their children do homework after school (Shiffman, 2011). In Chicago in 1967, a
program was created specifically for parents and children to learn together (Reynolds &
Temple, 2010). The focus was on improving language development of children by
teaching parents the best practices while asking them to volunteer in the classroom; and
the centers provided comprehensive services for the entire family like home visitation.
This study tracked the same 1,539 children enrolled in the child parent centers for 22
years while simultaneously tracking 550 children in a comparison group (Reynolds &
Temple, 2010). The findings pointed to higher graduation rates, more college attendance,
and better jobs for those who participated in the child parent centers. This suggests that
parent involvement over a sustained period of time can increase the chances for success
of a child later in life.
While many studies focus on parent engagement conjuring images of both a
mother and father active together, few studies have explored the relationship of the father
in this equation. One study discussed the duality a father who must act as the breadwinner
and also be available emotionally to connect with the children and help with schoolwork
(Gottzen, 2011). These studies are just a few examples of the variety of research
regarding parent engagement. As Dr. Joyce Epstein notes, the quality of the parent
engagement does matter; an increase in quantity of a parent’s involvement is not the same
(Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). The discussion of quality over pure number of hours, gives
way for the importance of parental decision making and empowerment in choosing what
type of involvement will be best for their child and their family.
14
The Importance of Neighborhood
The research indicates that one reason parent engagement in child education is so
important is because the positive outcomes on a youth’s academics can be linked to
overall improvements in a community and neighborhood (Cunha & Heckman, 2010;
Mueller & Tighe, 2007). On any given week in the US, there are approximately 14
million children who are without supervision after school hours (Ouellette, Hutchinson &
Frant, 2005). Outcomes such as missing less days of school, an increase in level of
homework completion and good school behavior have been mentioned as positive
developments when communities expand their programming for youth after school
(Ouellette & Hutchinson 2005). This link between education and community wealth and
worth is explored in this paper through the lens of parent engagement.
Analyzing a distressed neighborhood to better understand how it affects the
children and youth is important and has been considered through many different
disciplines such as economics, sociology, psychology and demography to help better
understand the problem. Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2003) reviewed studies across
multiple disciplines with regard to how children and youth faired depending on the type
of environment and neighborhood they grew up in. The findings demonstrated common
patterns that dealt not only with academic achievement but other social and physiological
outcomes that can be linked to academic achievement. The findings assert that children of
families of low socioeconomic status (SES) and low income are associated with higher
mental and physical health challenges, whereas more affluent families tend to associate
more with positive academic achievement scores, higher IQ and verbal scores. These
15
patterns reflect in the research that neighborhoods affect a child on all levels of
development, whether positive or negative.
One study that was reviewed by Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2003) discusses the
1994 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Move to Opportunity Program where
4,600 families were given vouchers to relocate out of the low income projects they lived
in. A comparison was made between families who remained and those who had the
opportunity to leave. The findings indicate that families who left and relocated had
positive academic achievement, superior physical and mental health as compared to those
who stayed. The families who left also reported lower levels of arrests for violent crimes
and it was noted that the overall achievements were more pronounced for the boys than
the girls. This evidence suggests that there are strong correlations between overall mental
and physical health outcomes, including academic achievement, and neighborhood
environment.
It is reported that more than half of people living in poverty live in urban areas
(Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). The connection between poverty and academics is
overwhelming and understanding the reasons for the poverty can aid in creating solutions
to provide stable environments for the children despite low income circumstances. One
California non-profit housing development agency, Mutual Housing California,
constructs and owns affordable housing complexes in the Sacramento region. Their
largest property has 115 units ranging from two to five bedrooms and provides one
example that showcases the many struggles low income families face.
16
For Mutual Housing’s 18 properties in the Sacramento area, 58% of total
households (n=868) were at or below 30% of the Area Medium Income (AMI). AMI
refers to the medium income for a particular location which in Sacramento County the
AMI in 2012 was $76,100 (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2013). The
demographics illustrate that around 23% of all Mutual Housing households are headed by
females with children (Mutual Housing Demographic, 2012). The literature across the
nation demonstrates that single female households with children not only struggle to
provide for their family but also to involve themselves in their child’s education (Shaw,
Horton & Moreno, 2008). The mother may be forced to wrestle with the dilemma of
raising her children or working to provide income and often must choose between these.
Single parent households
While some mothers may choose to stay at home to raise their children and
receive welfare benefits, some programs have job requirements attached to the benefits
and cause hardship for the parent. In a study on sanctions within the welfare system, eight
focus groups were conducted in Los Angeles County with 56 parents who had been given
sanctions for choices they made while participating in a jobs program (Shaw & Horton,
2008). Many of the single mothers indicated that they would rather take the sanctions and
be penalized financially in order to stay home and take care of their children whether the
children were sick, the neighborhood was unsafe, or they wanted to engage in their
child’s education after school
This sacrifice many mothers make is not often heralded in society despite the
widely accepted belief that raising children is a mother’s primary duty. Many families are
17
so concerned about the safety of their neighborhood that they would rather not work to
stay home to protect their children (CalWORKs Safety Net and Sanction Cases, 2008;
Shaw & Horton, 2008). The decision to stay home and be available if a child needs the
parent is a difficult one but many parents may choose this route and consider it the only
way to raise their children successfully, especially if there is not another caring, stable
adult in the household. In a study of 143 female parents receiving California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs in California in 2008, 20% stated
that neighborhood problems were one of their major concerns and a large reason why
they often missed work or training in the last year (CalWORKs Safety Net and Sanction
Cases, 2008).
Target Population Service Needs
As mentioned previously, this study will explore parent engagement in a region of
Sacramento that has a tremendous number of youth under the age of 18. The 2000 Census
reported that the apartment complex of this study, River Garden Estates owned by Mutual
Housing California, along with a few other apartment complexes in the same block had
the highest rate of children under the age of 18 in the six county region (Robertson,
2001). Shortly after the census data was collected, the Sacramento Bee newspaper wrote
an article focusing on this staggering fact of how many children lived in this particular
area. One woman was quoted in the article as saying she would organize football games
for her children and other children who had nothing else to do after school. This woman
believed many of the children were from one parent households which could have
explained their ending up in an affordable housing complex (Robertson, 2001). More
18
than ten years after the article was written, recent demographic data gathered from 2012
at the River Garden Estates indicates this statistic remains true; out of a total of 571
residents, 287 are children under 18, meaning that just about half are children (Mutual
Housing Demographic, 2012). These alarming statistics indicate the urgency for
providing effective programming to promote youth academic success.
Reflecting on the census date and the demographics of the apartment complex, it
provides significance for a study of what strategies can be implemented to aid and
empower the youth and families living in this situation. It has been shown that poor
quality housing leads to poor studying habits of youth, which ultimately leads to
decreased graduation rates (Mueller & Tighe, 2007). In a study of 47,000 middle school
and high school students, most of whom were white and living rurally, researchers
examined the effects of external influences on youth behavior (Benson & Leffert, 2012).
It was found that youth who had deviant friends who were involved with substance
abuse, gangs, and trouble with the police accounted for their negative behavior in the
school. This neighborhood influence was not found to be necessarily linked to academic
downfalls only disruptive conduct. This study demonstrates the importance of positive
neighborhoods, positive peer relationships and the potential negative effects a community
can have on a youth.
Importance of After School Programming
Although the community plays a major role in a child’s life, the family
environment arguably has a more direct influence. It has been argued that due to the
privatization of the family life and the deemphasizing of the family role as an entity that
19
solely raises a child, this has led to civic disengagement and a lessening of parent
engagement (Benson & Leffert, 2012; Jeynes, 2005; Casby-Nichols & Cooper, 2011).
Over time, people have focused their attention inwards and care less about the
community as a whole. A community no longer is taken care of by the people who live
there but some argue the commoditization of care has put the duty of providing for the
community on outside services i.e. City Parks and Recreation (Benson & Leffert, 2012).
Because to some, the family is no longer considered a public issue, the well-being of the
community is left as someone else’s responsibility. Therefore, many low income
communities tend to complain when there is nothing for their kids to do after school, yet
they depend on the outside system to provide for them rather than searching for a solution
within the local community (Casby-Nichols & Cooper, 2011).
When reviewing a community that faces deficits in areas like quality public
education, activities for youth, and a safe atmosphere, the reasoning behind these deficits
can become cyclical. For instance, common reasoning may suggest that there are no after
school programs because the city does not have any funding, and the city may not have
any funding because there are not high enough taxes to contribute to quality educational
services. To understand why there may be these deficits, it is important to look at
accessibility to services, availability of services and acculturation to services. If there
actually are after school programs that provide tutoring for the community but they
happen to be inaccessible or off the bus route for families who do not have transportation,
then this is not an accessible resource although it exists.
20
The same can be said for an after school program that only serves K-5th grade
youth and has capacity for 30 kids a day; this program is not available to the majority of
the community. Lastly, a program may be within the community but may not be serving
the needs of the people who live there. The cultural competency of the agency may not
match the residents and therefore they do not feel welcome due to language barrier and
will not participate in the service. These examples demonstrate that although some
programs may exist, they are not available to the community in a practical and effective
manner, essentially making them obsolete to parts of a community.
Affordable Housing
One strategy to combat a negative, impoverished neighborhood where the cycle of
poverty continues to catch the children and youth, is to build community within the
neighborhood through educational programming for youth. In order to provide a safe
space for families and children to share in education together, a neighborhood must be
equipped with the right tools to do so. In the United States, public housing was a
responsibility of the government since the 1930s when they were forced to provide low
cost apartments for low income individuals and families to help combat poverty caused
by the depression (Abramovitz, 2010). As the federal dollars for federal housing
decreased over time, the quality of the public housing complexes diminished and this
gave rise to the private sector’s construction of affordable housing under Section 8
(Abramovitz, 2010). Although public housing units still exist and have improved some in
quality, the need for more affordable housing continues to grow as incomes fall short of
market demands for rent.
21
Affordable housing is defined as a rent amount in which the renter pays no more
than 30% of their income towards housing each month. According to a recent report
produced by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (2013), there are only 30
affordable units per 100 extremely low income (ELI) renters. ELI renters refer to anyone
at or below 30% of area median income (AMI). The earnings for a family in California
who is currently at 30% below the AMI is $21,472 annually. At this yearly income, these
families could afford a rent of $537 per month and not be considered cost burdened by
rent. In California, the fair market rent (FMR) for a two bedroom apartment currently is
$1,341; this signifies the large gap between what is available to rent and what is
affordable by the majority of renters. In order to eliminate the gap between what is
available and the demand for affordable housing, there would need to be 4.5 million units
of affordable housing created for ELI households on a national level (National Low
Income Housing Coalition, 2013).
In Sacramento County, affordable housing is hard to come by and now ever more
so since the percentage of families who rent in Sacramento has increased by 4% between
the years of 2000-2010 (Sacramento County, 2013). Due to the housing boom and bust of
2008, more families became renters and are subject to rates and locations of many
apartment complexes throughout the city. While the government maintains that a typical
household should not spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, the
percentage rates of income spent on rent are much higher for those who rent versus those
who own homes (Sacramento County, 2013). In Sacramento County, almost half of
households earn less than 80% of AMI (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2013).
22
The private sector and non-profit agencies have begun to fill in the gap for
creating affordable housing units. With the investment in affordable housing by the
private sector, this provides an opportunity to go beyond the construction of the units and
also deliver a community economic development strategy that would promote economic
stability (Clay & Jones, 2009). Mutual Housing is an example of a non-profit that
provides affordable housing and community development opportunities through its
community organizing department to empower families at the local level in their own
neighborhood. Through this type of community based organizing, a focus on education in
the community has the potential to develop into programming for the low income
neighborhoods that struggle to engage in their children’s education.
Community organizing as a model
One of the main focus points for Mutual Housing is leadership development
amongst residents and they do that in two primary ways: community building and
community organizing (Mutual Housing Leadership Development, 2012). Community
organizing is defined by Mutual Housing as working with residents to identify common
issues and build on the knowledge and skills in the community to address ways to create
change in their own back yards. Community organizing is a model that encompasses
many approaches to creating change and one is called “locality development” (Weil,
2005). This strategy is a combination of several models such as social and economic
development that are all based on the premise that direct work with communities can help
create more impactful change in social and economic development. Using participatory
planning and leadership development, this strategy focuses on mutual learning between
23
professionals and residents (Weil, 2005). It is exactly this strategy that guided the
researcher’s choice of focus groups to learn more about the opinions and suggestions of
residents to help lay the ground work for social change in the future.
Parent Engagement and Child Education
While parents may think that because they are not asked to participate in the
school by a specific teacher they are not allowed to engage, a teacher may have the same
expectation that a parent would need to ask them to come to volunteer in the school. The
two sides, parents and teachers, may have the same checklist for what parent engagement
means but often logistics stand in the way (Larocque & Kleiman, 2011). In a recent study
of secondary school teachers, 97% stated that involvement with parents was one of their
main challenges, yet almost everyone surveyed agreed that parent involvement is
extremely important (Epstein, 2008). While the expectations may lead to the same goal
of child academic success, often teachers and parents report inconsistencies in
communication. Although the goals are the same, the process for determining who is
responsible for initiating the communication for the activity involved can sometimes lead
to low levels of parent engagement at school.
The term parent engagement has best been defined by Dr. Joyce Epstein in her
extensive research as the Director of the Center on School, Family, and Community
Partnerships and who is a current research professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins
University. Dr. Epstein’s research on parent engagement and involvement is widely
referenced across the literature (Sheldon & Epstein, 2005; Wilson, 2011). Dr. Epstein’s
idea of parent engagement includes the partnership between the school, the family and
24
the community. She references six types of involvement that must be put into practice to
have effective parent engagement and they begin with (1) parenting and the basic
obligations of families. The second piece to involvement includes (2) communication and
the obligation the school has to the family. The third is (3) the involvement of the parent
in the school i.e. volunteering. The fourth important element to engagement is (4)
learning at home and assisting parents in monitoring their children at home. These first
four, parenting, communication, volunteering and learning at home, are explored a lot
throughout literature on parent engagement and will not be explored in great detail here
(Gottzen, 2011; Lareau & Munoz, 2012; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005; Weiss & Lopez,
2010; Wilson, 2011).
The last two of Dr. Epstein’s core competencies for parent engagement are less
developed in the literature. The fifth aspect is (5) decision making on the parent side to be
involved in governance and advocacy at the school level. Dr. Epstein believes that parent
involvement should also include parents taking leadership and participatory roles on
councils to lend their voice in the decisions that ultimately affect their children. The last
element is about (6) collaboration with community partners and community based
organizations. This part is the most unexplored in the discussion of parent engagement
because the two prominent sides are typically the family and the school. Dr. Epstein
argues that community organizations should be at the table in the issue of parent
engagement because they have the ability to supplement both sides and boost unity for
education across the entire community.
25
Although many researchers and academics have attempted to define the term
parent engagement throughout literature, some of the most important definitions and
opinions have come straight from parents and educators themselves. Wilson (2011)
researched parent perceptions and came up with three themes that describe how parents
perceive their involvement in their child’s education: parents’ motivational beliefs,
parents’ perceptions of invitations to involvement, and parents’ life context. Within the
first theme of a parents’ motivational drive to involve themselves, is the concept
embedded in a self- fulfilling prophecy; a parent may not believe they can help their child
with homework because they never finished high school and therefore they do not
attempt to help the child with homework (Larocque & Kleiman, 2011; Sheldon &
Epstein, 2005; Shiffman, 2011; Yoder & Lopez, 2013). If parents believe that they are
not ‘smart enough’ to assist with homework this may impact how much the parent is
motivated to become involved at all. Whether or not a parent is motivated can make all
the difference when talking about engagement in their child’s education.
In research conducted by Bloomquist and August (2012) on outreach strategies to
increase parent engagement, he studied the behavior of 246 children and families who
were involved in a parent participation program called the Early Risers Program. He
found that parents who were excited from the beginning about becoming involved in their
child’s academic activities were more likely to maintain that motivation throughout the
program (Bloomquist & August, 2012). This research suggests that although many skills
for parent engagement can be taught, part of the process must be motivation on the part
of the parent.
26
The second theme that Wilson (2011) develops is about how parents perceive
being asked by the school to become involved. This coincides with the idea that if a
parent does not feel invited or welcome to participate in the school activities, the parent
often receives the blame from teachers who do not see them as involved parents. Many
studies show that parents do want to be asked to volunteer and be involved in the school
(Epstein, 2008; Larocque & Kleiman, 2011; Wilson, 2011; Yoder & Lopez, 2013) yet
may not know how. A parent can have a strong desire to help, but may feel that unless the
teacher asks them to participate, they are not needed. The parent may begin to believe
they are useless at the school and this plays a strong role in deterring parents to involve
themselves in the school.
The third theme Wilson (2011) brings up is about a parents’ background and life
context. One aspect of parent involvement that has been researched extensively is how
race, SES and gender play a role in the equation (Cunha & Heckman, 2010; Gottzen,
2011; Le, Kirby, Barney, Setodji, & Gershwin, 2010; Reynolds & Temple, 2010).
According to a longitudinal study on school readiness and all-day kindergarten, part of
the difference in academic outcome between white and black students is based on learned
social skills like gross motor skills and inter personal skills (Le & Kirby, 2010). It can be
argued that because there are these racial discrepancies that are seen before children even
enter kindergarten these families are at a disadvantage and there should be a more
focused effort on non-academic indicators to help reduce the gap between whites and
other ethnicities at an early age (Cunha & Heckman, 2010; Le & Kirby, 2010). One way
these authors suggest this could be accomplished is through universal preschool and a
27
national commitment to invest often and early for youth who already present with
academic challenges based on their race or low SES (Cunha & Heckman, 2010; Reynolds
& Temple, 2010).
Barriers to Engagement
For some parents, the barriers to engagement at the school may outweigh the
future benefits and it is easy to see why tackling these challenges as a parent could deter
them from engaging. In reviewing the literature, the most commonly cited reasons that
either researchers observed or parents expressed included many that are associated with
SES. Having lower income SES and being of ethnic minority tend to be associated with
lower participation rates in their child’s education (Larocque & Kleiman, 2011). To name
a few, the common reasons for parents not participating in schools are: lack of resources,
SES status, access to technology, youth age, life context, immigrant status, cultural
mismatch, language ability, lack of money, lack of time, lack of transportation and
feelings of marginalization by the school (Bender & Brisson, 2011; Kao, 2004; Wilson,
2011; Yoder & Lopez, 2013).
Less is written about the barriers teachers face to engaging with parents yet that is
one of the main avenues for facilitating parent engagement in the child’s education. A
teacher may be very well informed on how to teach a student concepts like math, but
when attempting to connect with parents there often is a lack of engagement skills
(Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). Teachers and administrators tend to blame parents for not
participating at school but the process for how parents engage may be where the
confusion begins as many teachers lack training on how to partner with families (Epstein,
28
1992). A study that explored the inconsistency in understanding between teachers and
parents identified a likely gap between upper middle class teachers and their attempts to
connect with the lower SES parent population at their school (Wilson, 2011). Although in
this study of nine teachers and eight mothers and grandmothers, the two sides had the
child’s educational success in common, the perceptions were of an ‘us versus them’
mentality due to differences in background and race. The parents wanted to be invited to
volunteer in the classroom and the teachers wanted to see the parents more often yet the
pathway to this common goal of more engagement was muddled by various barriers
mentioned above.
Having higher SES may not be the answer to the problem for many teachers and
administrators who wish their parents would be more engaged at school. Some research
demonstrates an increased amount of conflict between educators and parents in higher
SES communities despite what some may think that more engagement equals better
communication (Lareau & Munoz, 2012). In a study conducted at an elementary school
in a upper middle class community interviews took place with two superintendents, the
school principal and 21 parents involved in the Parent Teacher Organization about the
structural conflicts that took place (Lareau & Munoz, 2012). The article presented several
examples when the PTO and principal clashed over power, each believing that they were
entitled to make final decisions at the school based on their status. For instance, the
parents stated they wanted to see a main office staff that was warm and inviting towards
parents while the principal believed in an efficient work space that could accomplish
tasks (Lareau & Munoz, 2012). This study reflects the idea that parents and educators
29
often have the same goal in mind, making the workplace the most successful it can be for
instance, but the process to achieve it can stress the relationship and harm the end goal.
To ease this process of communication between parents and educators, it is
important to consider the past literature on what has worked and what has not been
successful. When determining what parent engagement programs to offer, the parent
voice is important to understand what will motivate or improve their engagement. One
study revealed that parents perceive their level of interest based on several factors
including how relevant it is and the relationship with the service provider (Bloomquist &
August, 2012). Bloomquist and August evaluated rates and predictors of parent
involvement in the Early Risers Conduct Problem Prevention Program offered at two
settings, in the neighborhood center and in the client’s home. The study monitored 246
kindergarten through second grade children and their families in Minnesota who received
parenting skills, family support and case management.
The outcomes of this study show that families who participated in the
neighborhood center model had a higher average ‘dose’ of the program meaning they
received more contact with specialists and received more minutes of support than those
that participated in the home outreach model (Bloomquist & August, 2012). The author
states that families were more involved at the neighborhood center because they could
access many resources in one location, there was emotional support from a group of
parents, and the center encouraged entire families to come together for family nights to
share and learn as a group. This study provides evidence that within a neighborhood,
30
families may benefit from one location where the entire family can benefit from parent
engagement with their children.
Policies Regarding School, Parent, Community Partnership
There are some aspects of parent engagement that are out of the hands of parents
because they are laws the school must abide by to conduct classrooms a certain way, or
test children according to benchmarks the nation has set. From a political mindset, Weiss
and Lopez (2010) present their policy forum that highlights several ways to reframe
family engagement. They see that family engagement can no longer be measured in a
disorganized way where parents and teachers ‘randomly’ make attempts at engaging one
another. The authors call for a systemic, integrated and sustained approach at family
engagement that help change the environment towards a more student centered approach
that will integrate community organizations to assist families in communicating with one
another, learning new skills and gaining resources.
The argument that the US education system needs to move into the 21st century
where learning is taking place outside the classroom is based on the research showing
students can learn across multiple settings and that families can play a major role in
facilitating learning inside the home (Weiss & Lopez 2010). While Dr. Epstein (1992)
has stated that teachers need to receive more fundamental training on engaging with
families, these authors take it a step further and purpose implementing a policy
nationwide for teachers to complete a engagement with families course as a core
professional competency (Weiss & Lopez, 2010). Policy makers have changed public
education before, with the implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education
31
Act (ESEA) which required Title 1 schools to spend 1% of their funding on strategies for
family engagement (Weiss & Lopez, 2010). Although federal funding for education is
often spread throughout different federal departments which makes it hard to develop a
national approach for parent engagement, the statistics show that parent engagement
matters in education and the policies surrounding education in the US should reflect that
knowledge.
Through this presentation of literature on parent engagement in child education, it
can be seen that there are more than two sides that play a role in increasing parent
involvement. Besides parents, families, teachers and administrators, the community and
organizations involved in assisting families who are low income and difficult to reach
need to be at the table in discussing education in their community. Policy makers and city
council members can broaden the discussion to reach a wider audience who can become
involved in designing programs that would best suit the needs of struggling communities
with poor educational outcomes. Affordable housing complexes and neighborhood
centers can become the hubs for parent involvement with the right organization and tools
to succeed. Continued evaluation of what parents think and believe regarding their child’s
education is the place to begin as all parents are the expert on their own children.
Parent engagement can be considered one part in a community’s effort to build a
more safe and caring community. A community like River Garden Estates, with over 550
residents of varying ethnicities, ages and backgrounds lives by a commitment to maintain
a safe environment for residents. Not only is it one of the largest communities, it is also
the most diverse. Out of a total of 115 households, 54 households identified as Hispanic,
32
28 as Slavic, ten as Pacific Islander and eight as African American with only four houses
identifying as Caucasian (Mutual Housing Demographic, 2012). Compare these numbers
to the US Census (2010) data in the city of Sacramento where 45% identified as White
Alone, 26% as Hispanic and 14% as Black or African American. This demonstrates a
large overrepresentation of non-whites who seek affordable housing.
River Garden Estates is also unique to Sacramento because of the high volume of
children: 287 of the 550 residents (about 52%) are youth age 17 or under (Mutual
Housing Data, 2012). Because of the high numbers of children and families living in the
apartment complex, the importance of youth education is a factor that many residents
potentially have in common. While there is age disparity, along with ethnic diversity
there are many language barriers the complex faces in uniting as a community.
Exploring the common ground of youth education through engagement of parents may
help neighbors see their similarities and commonalities which could strengthen the
community on many levels. Engaging families of all ethnicities in a discussion about
education through the use of a focus group would benefit the entire community to reach
them in an area they can understand.
33
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between parent
engagement and children’s education. The main research question was based on the
working hypothesis that there was a positive correlation between increased parent
engagement and child academic success. This study explored the idea that although
parents report barriers to their involvement in their child’s education, they want strategies
to increase their engagement. Furthermore, not only did parents seek new strategies to
increase engagement but if given the resources, the researcher believed parents had some
ideas of what they would do to help their children succeed. The research design
comprised the use of four focus groups, as well as a data collection tool which included a
brief questionnaire and a focus group discussion guide. The development of the brief
questionnaire as well as the discussion guide were informed by the literature review and
guided by the research question.
The researcher chose to design the study to include a focus group and a
questionnaire for many reasons. A focus group could provide a researcher with insights
that a written questionnaire could not and the group format gave participants a sense of
collectiveness that one on one interviews could not offer. Focus groups were a great way
for researchers to truly understand the issue being discussed through personal experience
and through the eyes of the participants (Krueger & Casey, 2009). It was important to
collect qualitative data through testimonies and personal experience that reflected the true
nature of how parents engaged. Through the use of focus groups, parents were able to
34
speak freely on a topic for several minutes and describe an incident or a particular
situation to other parents in full detail. This promoted a sense of community and
collectiveness because as one parent described their personal experience, another parent
listened and may have identified with that situation. Parents felt connected to neighbors
and other parents through their shared experiences about their children, which helped to
encourage unity amongst parents who may differ on other levels. An understanding of
parent engagement through personal stories from the community was gained by the
researcher who was better able to capture the way parents in the local community
perceived their involvement in their child’s education.
Sampling Procedures
The focus groups were conducted with parents at the River Garden Estates
apartment complex owned and operated by the non-profit Mutual Housing California.
Approval for the research was obtained prior to start of the study with Mutual Housing
California. The researcher intended to have 30 parents participate in the focus group and
respond to the brief questionnaire. To qualify for the study, participants must have had a
child (or children) enrolled in pre-kinder, elementary school, junior high school, or high
school in Sacramento County. The researcher first sought out participants of existing
groups or committees at the apartment complex; for example members of the
Neighborhood Watch Group and the Parent Action Committee were invited to participate
in the focus groups. As well as relying on existing groups and committees, the researcher
used snowballing and convenience sampling to gather more participants to meet the
35
sample goal. No inducements were offered to encourage participants to attend the focus
groups, but participates were informed there would be light refreshments offered.
Although the researcher had a target sample of 30 participants, the end sample
was 20 and there are several reasons why this occurred. As mentioned the researcher did
not offer any incentives to participate and this may have lessened the number of
participants who were willing to come to a focus group on their own accord. In addition,
some parents provided reasons to the researcher why they opted not to participate. One
reason many parents gave was limited free time in the evening. These parents stated they
had to cook dinner for their children and help with homework and were unable to take
time away from those activities. Other parents stated that they had to work and were
unable to come in at the evening time frame. Although the researcher spoke both English
and Spanish, there were a significant number of parents who did not speak these
languages and the researcher was unprepared to translate materials or the focus group
into other languages. Unable to outreach and find translation for all participants at the
complex may have deterred groups like the Hmong or Pakistani from participation.
Data Collection Procedures
The focus groups were all conducted on site in the River Garden Estates
community room and were one hour. The researcher introduced herself, the study, and
the purpose of the focus group and gave instructions on the order of the activities for the
hour. Along with the researcher, there was a note taker who volunteered to assist in the
focus group. The activities started with participants being asked to sign a written consent
(Appendix C) which they were asked to return to a sealed envelope at the back of the
36
room. This was followed by participants being asked to complete a three page brief
questionnaire, which was then followed by the open ended focus group discussion. All
four focus groups were conducted in the same format mentioned above with the same
order of activities. Three of the four focus groups were held on different nights of the
week and one was held in the morning. They all took place over a span of two weeks. A
total of 13 residents participated in both the brief questionnaire and the focus group
discussion. The other 7 participants in the sample completed only the brief questionnaire
and did not participate in the focus group discussion for the aforementioned reasons.
The focus group discussion was semi structured and loosely followed a set of
discussion questions designed by the researcher (Appendix B). The questions were
broken down into three main categories for participants to comment on: positive aspects
in their engagement at their child’s school, challenges and barriers to their engagement,
and suggestions and ideas for increasing engagement. The format of questioning by the
researcher was designed to be informal to promote the most discussion on the part of the
participants. The researcher chose a style that included open ended questions and space
for discussion which permitted the most freedom to comment in any manner participants’
chose. For example, the researcher asked for positive aspects in engagement to the entire
focus group and waited as each parent commented without much interruption or follow
up questioning. This allowed parents to freely disclose their stories and opinions without
feeling like the researcher was going to judge their answers by asking many detailed
follow up questions.
37
Due to the diverse nature of the sample of participants at the apartment complex
where 47% of the units at River Garden Estates identify as Hispanic (Mutual Housing
Demographics, 2012), the researcher prepared to conduct the focus groups in English and
in Spanish. The researcher was fluent in both languages which allowed for more Hispanic
residents to participate. Three out of the four focus groups were conducted in Spanish as
all attendees spoke Spanish; the few participants who were bilingual decided to mainly
speak in Spanish. The researcher translated participant’s comments into English for the
note taker, who was not bilingual. The fourth focus group was conducted in English and a
mixture of Ukrainian and Russian with a translator present.
Instruments
The data collection comprised a brief questionnaire that was a mix of quantitative
questions about demographic information like gender, ethnicity, and if the parent worked
outside the home (Appendix C). The questionnaire contained a total of five questions and
asked participants to note how many children they had living with them and also how
many adults lived in the home.
The questionnaire also asked parents to mark an ‘X’ to denote how often they
participated in 14 listed activities. The participants’ choices included: “not often”,
“often”, and “very often” (Appendix C). Some of the listed activities were: picking up or
dropping off the child at school, doing a school project with their child, and attending
school orientations or back to school nights. On the final page of the questionnaire,
parents were asked to report challenges they felt they faced in engaging in their child’s
education. Parents could check boxes referring to challenges such as: not enough time, no
38
access to computer, not speaking English well and not knowing what type of involvement
the teacher expects at school.
The final question for parents was open ended and gave parents three spaces to
write in answers to the following question: “If you were awarded $100,000 to spend on
improving your child’s education, what would you spend it on?” Parents were asked to
write in suggestions and ideas on their own to complete the questionnaire. Parents
competed this in English and Spanish depending on the language they are more confident
in. Spanish answers were translated into English by the researcher.
Data Analysis
The data analysis was basic descriptive and inferential statics that guided the
researcher to a better understanding of parent engagement strategies. The data analysis
was conducted using the SPSS software to input data collected from the brief
questionnaire including all demographic information, list of activities, and list of
challenges. The final answer in the questionnaire and the notes collected from the focus
group discussion were translated and transcribed by the researcher to determine themes
from the opinions of the parents.
The researcher used an independent reader for the content analysis of the
qualitative data. This reader was a student in the Master of Social Work program at
California State University Sacramento in the Mental Health Stipend program. The
themes that were generated from the focus group discussion were analyzed by both the
reader and the researcher and were determined to fall loosely under the following
categories: successes in engagement, challenges to engagement, and ideas to strengthen
39
engagement in child education. The researcher separated the participants’ comments into
notes and direct quotes to better capture the focus group discussion. Direct quotes from
participants were captured as best they could and the researcher used these to help
support the emerging themes and give substance to the transcription of the entire
discussion with all parents.
Protection of Human Subjects
The subjects’ rights to privacy and safety were considered throughout the research
project and were mentioned in the written consent form and verbally explained to all
participants. There were no names or personal identifiers on the brief questionnaire and
during the focus group, participants were not required to reveal any of their personal
information when speaking. Participants were given verbal notice by the researcher that
none of their names or identifiers would be captured in the note taking process, that they
would only be labeled as a “parent”. The participants did not have to sign in upon
entering the room and were not labeled as attending any specific focus group by the
researcher. Confidentiality was addressed in the opening portion of the focus group and
in the informed consent because some parents felt that their ideas and comments could
cast certain local agencies or local schools in a negative light and they did not want this
information revealed. The researcher informed the participants that no names would be
shared in any of the notes or in future write up and that only general data, anonymous
“parent quotes” and ideas from the focus group would be shared.
For the protection of the privacy of participants, the focus group data was
collected and stored in a locked file cabinet that only the researcher could access. The
40
data was stored for a period of three months after the completion of the study and then
was destroyed. There were no issues of safety during the focus groups or the completion
of the questionnaire because it took place in the comfort of the community room on the
site of River Garden Estates.
According to the Human Subject Regulations Decision Charts (U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, 2004) this research was considered exempt due to the use
of educational interviewing only and to the fact that there was not any participant
identifiers recorded in the data collection. This research did not include any recorded
data that could be used to identify subjects and no disclosure from respondents was
shared that would place the participants at risk. This research was exempt under Chart 4,
45 CFR 46.101 (b)(2) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004). The
Protocol for the Protection of Human Subjects was submitted and approved by the
Division of Social Work Research Review Committee as exempt research.
41
Chapter 4
STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between parent engagement
and child academic success through the lens of parents at the affordable housing complex
River Garden Estates. The parents were asked to participate in a focus group that
included a brief questionnaire and a focus group discussion. The results were presented
with emphasis on the parents own voice, their quotes and themes which were generated
in the focus group. Although the quotes from the focus group were written by a note
taker, they were first translated into English (if it was spoken in another language). The
quotes are interpretations of what the participants stated in their native language.
The demographic data collected from the researcher’s brief questionnaire (Appendix
C) is provided first to offer an idea of the makeup of the participants in the study. This
data is presented along with demographic data collected from the Mutual Housing survey
in 2012 done by agency staff which contributes to the data collected by the researcher of
this study. The next set of data presented is the results from the questionnaire’s list of
activities and list of challenges which parents were asked to respond. Next, the opinions
from parents are presented and those are categorized into themes generated by the
researcher to help explain the data. Lastly, the parent suggestions for strategies to
increase engagement, both from the brief questionnaire and the focus group, are
presented. The results of the study increased the understanding of many of the challenges
parents faced and highlighted the parents’ desires to improve their engagement. This
42
insight could act as a potential guide to program developers in the area of how to improve
parent engagement with this population or similarly diverse populations.
Overall Findings
A total of 20 parents took part in the brief questionnaire and responded to the
questions on the survey. While the River Garden Estates apartment complex has a
population of just under 50% Hispanic as reported in the Mutual Housing survey from
2012, the vast majority of the participants of the focus group identified as
Hispanic/Latino (80%, n=16) on the questionnaire as seen in Figure 1.
5%
5%
10%
80%
Hispanic/Latino 80% (n=16)
African American 10% (n=2)
Ukrainian 5% (n=1)
White/Caucasian 5% (n=1)
Figure 1 Identified race of participants
Among the respondents in the study, the gender breakdown was 15 females and 5 males
as seen in Figure 2.
43
Total parents 20
(N=20)
18
16
14
15
12
10
8
6
5
4
2
0
Female
Male
Figure 2 Gender of participants
To get an idea of average family size, parents were asked how many children were
currently living with them. Parents (N=20) reported the most common number of
children living with them was two (35%, n=2), followed by three and five children each
at 20% (n=3, 5) of the participants. Participants were asked if there was another adult
living in the home with them and 75% (n=15) responded yes. This aligned with the data
collected from the Mutual Housing survey which stated that 70% of households at this
apartment complex were joint households with children.
In order to capture the amount of time parents were in the home, participants were
asked about their current employment status (See Figure 3). If parents marked that they
were currently employed, they had the option to state if it was part time or full time. A
little over half (55%, n=11) stated they were not employed at the time of the study, and
44
25% (n=5) reported holding part time employment while 20% (n=4) reported full time
employment.
Percentage of total
parents (N=20)
60%
50%
55%
40%
30%
25%
20%
20%
10%
0%
No employment
Part Time
Full Time
Figure 3 Employment Status of Participants
There were no questions about income on the questionnaire although data gathered
for the Mutual Housing survey reported the average income at River Garden Estates was
$29,315. Just under half (49%) of residents also reported that employment was their only
source of income, as compared to households who received government assistance or a
mixture of employment and government assistance. These figures suggested that the
majority of the time participants in the focus group identified as Hispanic, lived with
another adult, had two children or more, and a slight majority reported not being
employed. These were some of the identified characteristics in the literature that tended
to label parents as being inactive in their child’s education.
45
Findings from List of Activities
The next section in the questionnaire asked participants about their level of
engagement. Participants were given the opportunity to respond to a list of activities in
the questionnaire and mark a response of “Not often”, “Often”, or “Very often”, to
indicate how many times they participated in this type of engagement. The list of
activities included items like: “Attend PTA meetings (Parent Teacher Association)”, “Get
my child ready for school in the morning”, “Monitor school grades”, “Do homework with
my child”, and “Speak to office personal or administrators”.
When the researcher analyzed this section of data, the choices of “Often” and “Very
often” were combined and recoded as “Often” to more simply understand if a parent
engaged in that activity or not. Multiple analysis revealed that the top five activities were
chosen almost equally by participants (See Figure 4). There were 209 total responses for
activities that parents do often. The top five choices were: “Pick up/drop off my child at
school” (n=19, 95%), “Do homework with my child” (n=19, 95%), “Monitor school
grades” (n=19, 95%), “Get my child ready for school in the morning” (n=18, 90%), and
“Attend teacher/parent conferences” (n=18, 90%).
The majority of participants selected “Often” as their answer on most activities in the
list. Out of the 14 total activities, there were only two where less than a third of parents
selected “Often” indicating less frequent participation in these two activities (See Figure
4). These two activities were: "Assist with yard duty at my child’s school” with 20%
(n=4) selecting “Often” and, “Volunteer at school i.e. field trips, in classroom etc.” with
30% (n=6) of participants selecting “Often”.
46
Total Number of
Parents
20
18
19
19
19
16
18
18
14
12
10
8
6
6
4
4
2
0
Selection of
how often
Pick up/Drop Do homework Monitor school Get my child
Attend
Volunteer at Assist with
off my child at with my child
grades
ready for
teacher/parent school field yard duty at my
school
school in the conferences
trips, in
child's school
morning
classroom etc.
Figure 4 Most and Least Activities Selected
Findings from List of Challenges
After parents identified their level of engagement in activities related to their child’s
education, participants were then given the opportunity to consider any challenges they
may face to engagement. Participants were asked to mark as many responses as they
believed applied to the following statement, “I do not engage in my child’s education as
much as I would like because…”. The responses given were items such as: “I do not have
time”, “I do not have transportation”, “I do not have a computer”, “I do not speak good
enough English”, and “I do not know the teacher well enough to call/email him/her”.
There was also a final choice which was “other” followed by a blank line to provide
parents with an alternative answer of their choosing, or for parents to write in that they do
not have any problems engaging in their child’s education.
47
Out of the total 20 participants, 14 of those selected at least one challenge out of the
list; 6 did not select any challenge. Out of the 14 respondents, there were 32 varied
responses. On average, parents selected 1.5 challenges (N=20, SD= 1.6) out of the list of
10 challenges. The maximum number of challenges was 5 and the minimum was zero.
The most common challenge that respondents selected was, “I do not speak good
English” (n=8, 57.1%). The next most common response was, “I do not enough money”
(n=6, 42.9%). The third option that was most commonly selected by participants was “I
do not have a computer” (n=5, 35.7%).
Findings from $100,000 Question
The final question on the questionnaire was in regards to parent’s suggestions for
resource allocation in child education. The question was posed, “If you were awarded
$100,000 to spend on improving your child’s education, what would you spend it on?”
Parents were given three separate spaces to write in their own answers. There were a total
of 52 responses; 8 spaces were left blank amongst all the questionnaires. Of those
responses given, the researchers categorized them into 10 different responses and are
shown as the most frequent to least frequent in Figure 5. Parents’ responses were coded
into categories to more simply represent their preferred interest in what they would
purchase for their children. For instance, a parent’s response of, “Purchase everything
they need for school” was categorized as “Materials”. Similarly, “Help with homework”
was put in the category with “Tutors”. The category of “Home Environment” includes the
responses, “A home”, “Clothing”, and “Have more time with the children”.
48
Frequency
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
11
9
8
8
4
3
3
2
2
2
Choice
Figure 5 Response to Program Service Needs Question
Specific Findings from Focus Group Discussion
Of the four focus groups, one was conducted in English with a Russian translator and
the other three were conducted in Spanish. The groups were loosely structured with the
prompts from the researcher including mostly open ended questions (Appendix B). Some
of these open ended questions were, “What do you feel are the things you do very well in
engaging in your child’s education?” and “What is working or successful right now with
your child’s education?” The researcher allowed for pauses and silence after these
questions in an attempt to provide the best opportunity for the voices of the participants
to dominate the conversation and not the researcher’s.
The responses and notes from the focus groups were divided into three main
categories and then further divided into themes and sub themes (see Figure 6). The first
category was strengths which included any opinion from parents on the positive aspects
49
in their engagement in their child’s education. The next category was any reported
challenges faced by parents in their engagement. The final category was for any
suggestions parents may have for the future of how to improve parent engagement in
child education.
Category:
Strengths
Category:
Challenges
Category:
Suggestions
Theme:
Partnership between
school, parents and
children
Theme:
Lack of funding for K12 schools
Theme:
Commitment at the
community level
Sub Themes:
Cultural Competence,
Communication, Male
Participation, SocialEmotional Support
Sub Themes: Parent
Education, Partnership
with Parents and
Educators, Law
Enforcement,
Reclaiming Cultural
Identity, Community
Building
Sub themes:
Classroom Volunteering
Home Environment,
School Pride,
Communication
Figure 6 Categories and Themes from the Focus Group Discussions
Strengths: School, Parent, Child Partnership
The themes that emerged under strengths were: classroom volunteering, home
environment, school pride, and communication. The researcher wanted to give parents an
opportunity to speak on their successes and strengths in parent engagement first because
it can be difficult to identify strengths. In many of the focus groups, parents wanted to
begin the discussion with a problem they had that was negative; the researcher
encouraged parents to begin with positives and showcase the successes. Although in this
50
section many parents were more hesitant to explain the good things they do, once parents
started talking, other were encouraged and spoke up as well.
Classroom Volunteering
Many mothers discussed their involvement at the school in the Helping Hands Club
which was the parent volunteer club at one of the local elementary schools. There was a
‘salon de padres’ or parent room that was open to parents and has lounge chairs, coffee
and was a designated space for parents to assist the teachers with work. Parents reported
that if there was not a lot to be done, parents hung around, sewed and chatted. Parents
mentioned that the schools their children attended required parents to volunteer 30 hours
per year either in the classroom or in the Helping Hands Club. Many parents stated their
joy in participating in these activities as it gave them a sense of community with other
parents. Some parents stated that volunteering in the school helped build their own
confidence in their parenting abilities because the teachers recognized and praised the
parents for their efforts at the school. The prospect of volunteering in the classroom was
generally thought of as a good idea and an important part of being engaged in their
child’s education and their community.
Home Environment
Many participants conversed about the importance of the home environment or
‘medio ambiente’ and stressed what it meant to maintain a household where academics
were emphasized and encouraged. One mother used herself as an indicator of what makes
a productive home environment; she expressed, “I’m a good example for them. They
have the world in their hands. I help them dream.” Another mother talked about the
51
importance of demonstrating that education was a priority in their house and shared,
“school is the only way out of a bad situation.” Goal setting and organizing the house
rules to suit the needs of academic success was another area where parents felt they were
doing a good job. Parents expressed that when their home environment was respected by
the children, when items were neatly stored in their right place, then the child could focus
more acutely on academics. Another part of the home environment that was helpful was
the benefit of having an older sibling in the house to help with homework and provide
extra supervision.
School Pride
In the discussion on strengths, parents also spoke about the effect that the school had
on their family specifically the importance of school uniforms. A father shared a story
when he, his wife, and their two children were out walking. The children had their school
uniforms on and another woman approached them to comment on how nice the uniforms
looked on the children. This woman declared that her own children did not have
uniforms. This made the parents feel very proud and was one of the most important parts
of parent engagement, showing school pride in and outside of the school campus.
One parent discussed her own pride in the school her child attended because of the
individual attention and courses offered. This parent stood out to some degree in this
category because she expressed such high praise for the teachers and the school, which
was not a typical response for many other parents as their comments did not include
much praise for individual attention from teachers. This mom stated her teenager
attended a public charter high school in Sacramento County. The mom spoke about her
52
teenager’s access to college preparatory classes and what high level of significance this
placed on planning for college. Her teen had the opportunity to choose advanced science
courses like biology that the parent believed truly prepared her for the future. Only one
other parent mentioned extracurricular activities in the strengths section, and this mom
shared that her child loved the art classes because she received one-on-one attention in
this class.
Communication
In all four focus group, the conversation came up about communication between the
teachers and administrators. In both the strengths and challenges section communication
was mentioned and there seemed to be mixed attitudes. In the strengths discussion, many
parents described their daily face to face interaction with the teacher helped keep them on
the same page, ‘la misma página’, of their child’s progress. Those parents, who noted
that they pick up and drop off their children at school, stated it gave them an opportunity
to talk to the teacher about any issues. Some parents reported that their teacher used many
forms of communication to reach parents: phone, email and face to face. One parent
stated it was extremely easy to communicate with her child’s teacher via email and to
check the child’s grades online. A parent talked about how nice it was to receive
telephone calls from the teacher.
One parent expressed that communication was the most important and successful
factor for her with her child’s education. She said she seeks advice from the teachers
because she feels the teachers are like second parents. The mom shared that she may not
53
always know what is going on at school just from interacting with her child, but she
values being able to ask for notes from the teacher to determine the full story.
Challenges: Cultural Competence and Advocacy
Once the researcher moved on to the challenges section, many parents sat up
straighter in their chair and were prepared with stories about challenges to engagement.
The researcher asked parents questions like, “What are some major obstacles to you
engaging in your child’s education?” The discussion shifted back and forth from
statements of personal challenges, to complaints and negative experiences their children
had at the school. One area that many of the Hispanic parents discussed was the feelings
of separateness and lack of cultural competency on part of the school staff related to their
language barrier.
Cultural Competence
Cultural competency means recognizing cultural differences and being sensitive and
inclusive to people from other backgrounds. In the focus groups, the phrase cultural
competency was not brought up but many participants disclosed stories of discrimination,
feelings of embarrassment due to language and the need for more understanding from
teachers who are not multi-lingual. These stories below exemplified the issue of cultural
competency. One was from a mom who stated that she thought her son was being treated
differently in class by the teacher because he was the only Hispanic student in a class full
of white students. This mom stated, “Son puros güeros en su clase, él es el único
mexicano. La maestra se trata diferente.” “There are only white kids in his class, he is
54
the only Mexican. The teacher treats him differently.” The mom further shared that she
felt her son felt inadequate in class even though she believed he is very smart.
Another mom, also Latina, shared that her child’s teacher was treating the white
parents respectfully but was not acknowledging her as a parent. The mom expressed her
perception that, “teachers feel [the parents] don’t engage because we do not speak
English… but we feel that [the teachers] don’t engage with us because they don’t speak
Spanish. Just saying ‘buenos días’ to us in the morning would be nice.” This mom
explained that it may be possible that both teachers and parents blame the lack of
involvement on each other for not speaking the each other’s language.
One mom had been eager to share a story the entire focus group. This mom, who
spoke Spanish, shared a very passionate story about her child in elementary school who
had a negative encounter with a lunch lady. She stated:
The lunch lady who collects the meal tickets in line at lunch was very rude to my
daughter. One day the lunch lady told my daughter that she didn’t pay for lunch that
week and couldn’t eat lunch that day. Now, my daughter doesn’t qualify for free or
reduced fee lunches due to my immigration status but I know I had paid for lunches
that week. The next day, I came into the cafeteria to speak to the lunch lady. I asked
for a translator because I only speak Spanish. This white lunch lady was very racist
and said she would not serve my child if she didn’t pay. At this point, I yelled (in
very colorful and strong language) that this lady was being discriminatory and that
she should never deny a child lunch.
55
This mom continued that she told the office secretary that if anyone else complained
about this lunch lady, action should taken to fire her. To this mom’s knowledge, no one
else has complained and the lunch lady was still at the school. This passionate story was
an example of a parent who felt discrimination against her and her child due to her
immigration status and language abilities.
Communication
Inevitably, some parents had opposing attitudes regarding communication with
the teachers and administrators at their child’s school. Many parents cited communication
as one of the main barriers to participation, especially regarding teacher communication
about classroom volunteering. One parent expressed that for her, it was difficult to fulfil
the 30 hours of required volunteer time due to the nature of her job. The parent stated she
told the teacher she would be unable to come to the ‘salon de padres’ on the designated
day with the other parents but would be willing to assist in other ways like donate
Kleenex or soap once a month. The parent shared that this type of monetary or itemized
donation did not count towards the 30 hours which, she felt, made her look like she does
not want to help even though she attempted in a different way. This parent commented
that if the teachers were able to let parents know exactly what type of activities counted
towards volunteering the parents could fulfill their obligation. Again, this brought up how
many parents were labeled as apathetic even though they wanted to participate.
Male Participation
The majority of participants in the focus groups were women and this aligned with
the research that stated females tend to participate more in their child’s education than
56
men (Gottzen, 2011). The topic of gender imbalance only surfaced in one or two of the
focus groups and was not labeled as gender inequality but the discussion centered on the
workload of the mother. Some moms talked about their responsibilities in the home, for
example the time it takes to prepare the children for school, the drive to school and what
it takes to fix their meals. Parents added to this list and mentioned their assumed
responsibility for all the other chores they do during the day to keep the house in good
condition.
Some moms concluded that the women do everything; that they are working inside
and outside of the house. One mom stated emphatically, “Nunca participan [los
hombres]. No nos ayudan, o muy poco.” “They [the men] don’t participate. They don’t
help us, or very little.”
Social-Emotional Support
To varying degrees, parents in the challenges section discussed topics about
children’s social and emotional support at school. Some parents focused on the fact that
there was not as much opportunity for students to engage in extracurricular activities due
to budget cuts. Parents reported years when there was more programming for sports and
other activities, but many agreed that there just was not as much funding anymore for
those programs.
One mom shared a story about her daughter who was struggling with her behavior
and temperament. The mom stated that her daughter was very impulsive and was causing
a lot of problems. The mother enrolled the child in special education testing and then
switched schools to place her in what she considered a more controlled environment,
57
including a 10:1 ratio of children to teachers. The mom stated at the other school there
was not enough individual attention. The mom stated that the daughter attended an after
school program but there was not enough individual attention there either.
A theme that emerged in only one of the focus groups centered on the issue of
bullying. Several moms swapped stories about their concern that children today, in
general, participate in more fights and behave badly at home and in school with no
consequences. These moms shared their experiences with what they deemed bad behavior
through the stories of other children, not necessarily talking about their own children.
One mom shared that her biggest issue at school was the other children’s behavior and
the lack of consequences.
One of these moms elaborated on this using the children at River Garden Estates.
She stated that if there was a problem between her child and another child, she often
would try and talk to the parents about it to resolve the issue. She said this did not usually
provide any relief, as the children took the fight to school and fought there without any
consequences. This prompted the moms to comment on the actions of other parents. One
mom stated, “kids are a reflection of how their parents are.” This mom mentioned that the
fighting was so bad once between her child and other children, she was forced to switch
schools. The moms stated that unfortunately many children have no consequences for
their bad behavior and the school does not reinforce punishments. These parents felt that
security and a lack of consequences was the main issue for their children at school.
58
Suggestions for the Future: More Parent Involvement
The focus group discussions finished with questions about what parents thought
would improve their involvement in their child’s education. The researcher asked open
ended questions like, “What would help you to be more engaged in your child’s
education?” and “What ideas do you have for the schools or for the community to gain
more parent engagement?”
Parent Education
Many parents focused on the concept of parent education as a strategy that could
help increase their engagement. Parents had ideas about providing English as a Second
Language (ESL) classes to parents and computer literacy classes. Parents stated that one
major reason many parents cannot help with their child’s homework was because they
did not speak English well enough. One parent stated that she can help with her child’s
math homework because it was all numbers, but anything else, she cannot help with.
Some parents talked about the previous ESL classes that schools had offered, but due to
budget cuts, many schools no longer provided that as an option. Parents expressed the
importance of ESL classes and stated that they cannot pay for them so it would be nice if
they were offered at the schools for free. In the same realm as ESL classes, some parents
suggested the district or school should translate notes and phone calls into Spanish for
parents who do not speak English as this would make it easier to communicate.
For computer literacy, many parents voiced that parents may have access to a
computer, for instance in the computer lab at the apartment complex, but they did not
59
know how to use it. Parents wanted basic computer classes to teach them how to check
email and monitor their child’s grades on the school website.
Partnership with Parents and Educators
Although the discussion of teacher communication was mixed as some parents
expressed the ease of communication, other parents expressed the difficulty in discerning
a teacher’s expectations of them as parents. One parent suggested that teachers should do
a better job of explaining to parents what exactly they would like from them throughout
the school year. The parents nodded and said they would like to be told how to help. One
mom said she could offer to do things at home, like cut paper for activities or sharpen
pencils; she just needed to be told what to do.
In the discussion about children’s behaviors, a parent suggested that the school
employ a person who could be a counselor or advisor that would help the parents and
children with any issues that are going on at home. Another parent suggested that to help
combat the stress that children have at school, they wanted more after school sports and
programming to help children relax. This parent shared that engaging in extracurricular
activities was a good distraction for the kids. It helped the kids relax first, get out all of
their energy and then they are ready to do homework. Her daughter was in cheerleading
last year and she would like to see programs like that return.
Law Enforcement
The issue of security was brought up by some parents who shared that they would
like to see an increase in consequences for students with bad behavior. These moms
stated that at all levels of K-12th grade education there could be more consistency in
60
citations for students. They suggested implementing the system that one junior high has
which incorporates a Saturday school for students who get into trouble. They also
advocated for a better expulsion policy or a three strikes policy which they have seen in
some schools. One parent shared that if there were more actions taken to suspend the
children who are causing problems, there would be more safety for all the children who
attend the school.
Reclaiming Cultural Identity
Although some parents expressed their desire for English classes for themselves,
one parent had a different perspective on language classes in the schools. .. One parent
advocated for both English and Spanish to be spoken in the child’s classroom to
strengthen both their native language and English. This parent expressed that his child did
not feel confident to speak Spanish outside the house even though that was the primary
language spoken at home. He believed it was important for the parents to have their child
speak their own native language even in school.
The father said:
My son speaks English with his friends but I want him to speak Spanish too
because that is what he’ll speak to his grandmother in Mexico on the phone. To
me, it is very interesting when the Mexicans living here in the United States don’t
speak any Spanish. I’ll say ‘buenos días’ to someone with a last name like
Gomez, Sanchez, Dominguez, and they look at me like “what?” They are from
Guadalajara or Juarez, Mexico but they don’t speak Spanish anymore.
61
This parent believed that strengthening his children’s native language skills was a
responsibility of the school and they should provide that opportunity for families who
would like to reinforce both languages.
Community Building
There were some parents who felt that an important step for increasing engagement
in their child’s education would be to promote more activities for parents at the apartment
complex. Some parents suggested adult programming at River Garden Estates like
socialization for couples or parents to get to know each other. This mom suggested
Zumba classes and movie nights. She posited that if parents knew each other they might
be more inclined to discuss their child’s education and trouble shoot problems amongst
themselves. One parent advocated for the researcher and Community Organizer at the
property to, “ayudarnos como padres” to “help them as parents”. Another parent chimed
in, “es bueno [juntarnos aqui] porque tu puedes ayudarnos hacer algo” meaning that it
was good of the researcher to bring the parents together like this because the researcher
could help the parents accomplish something.
Summary
There were four focus groups that were conducted at River Garden Estates the
affordable housing complex in Sacramento. While the goal for the focus group sample
was 30 participants, a total of 20 participants filled out a brief questionnaire and 13
participated in the focus groups. Participants had to have at least one child in the K-12th
grade schools in Sacramento and were asked to comment on their strengths, challenges
and ideas for the future of engagement in their child’s education. Although the sample
62
size was small, the opinions and perceptions of the participants provided an idea of the
types of challenges many parents face to engagement and what suggestions they have to
improve parent involvement in the child’s education.
The findings from the brief questionnaire suggested that many parents were
already involved in activities linked to their child’s education, despite numerous
challenges. Out of the 14 total listed activities parents could select from, 11 were selected
as “often” by the majority of parents (n=15) which suggested that most parents perceived
their activity level as high. This suggested that parents who faced several barriers like
lack of transportation or basic English literacy still remained involved in their child’s
education through activities many teachers may not physically see. For instance, a teacher
may not be as empathetic when a parent does not complete the 30 required hours of
volunteering because he or she may not understand a parent’s employment situation or
immigration status. If the teacher was informed about the parent’s unique situation, she or
he may change their perception. The findings suggested that increased culturally
competent and effective communication between teachers and parents may boost
engagement.
63
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study aimed to capture the opinions of parents with children in grades K-12th
regarding their views and perceptions about their own parent engagement in child
education. The purpose of this study was to present the data gathered from the focus
groups back to the community and the Community Organizing department at Mutual
Housing with the hope they could use it to organize programming or enhance the way
parents engage with their children in some fashion. Another goal of the focus groups
were to increase mutual aid amongst parents who face similar issues and bring to light the
possibility for unity among the diverse apartment complex.
Summary of Study
The study was conducted with a total of 20 participants who were parents of at least
one child enrolled in the K-12 schools in Sacramento County. While 20 parents filled out
and completed the brief questionnaire, 13 of those participated in the focus group
discussion which lasted one hour. The study participants mostly identified as Latino,
(80%); this provided a more homogenous group which may have encouraged participants
to feel comfortable sharing a variety of situations, particularly about feelings of
discrimination and language abilities. The researcher’s choice to utilize a focus group
method was informed by literature that stated focus groups can be effective for use with
diverse populations as it reflects the opinions of those apart from whom are typically
surveyed (Engel & Schutt, 2012). For the local Sacramento community, a broader
understanding of the needs of low income parents was gained from the use of focus
64
groups with such a diverse population. Although the sample size was limited to 20
participants, the information gathered provided useful information for parents, schools
and the community in regards to better ways to improve parent engagement in child
education.
One of the most important results that emerged from the participants was the amount
of activities parents engaged in. The majority of parents identified that they already were
doing most of the listed activities on the questionnaire. This signified that although the
parents had many characteristics the literature signified often leads to lower levels of
parent engagement, the level of participation for these parents at its current state was
overwhelmingly active. These parents reported high levels of engagement on the
questionnaire and this was reinforced by statements made in the focus group discussions
where parents reported assisting with homework despite it being in another language.
Many parents were happy to report that they were responsible for picking up and
dropping off their children at school just to have the opportunity to talk to the teacher to
ensure they were on the same page.
In the focus group discussion, the reported challenges to engagement were more
pronounced than on the questionnaire and this could have been due to parents comfort in
exchanging their experiences in a group setting. Many parents shared stories about
communication issues with teachers, discrimination due to lack of cultural competency
on part of school staff and teachers, and problems linked to social skills, safety, and
disruptive behaviors at home and in school. This indicated many parents felt issues of
cultural competency and lack of understanding for unique situations within families
65
contributed to lower levels of engagement. Parents felt that if language barriers were
reduced and teachers were more direct about their expectations, many parents would
participate more.
Another finding from the focus group discussion pointed to a resource that may be
underutilized at the schools in its current state: the parent room. Many parents discussed
the “Helping Hands” club or “salon de padres” where parents volunteer for the teachers
at the school. Some parents reported that when there is nothing to do, often parents sit
and interact with one another, drinking tea or sewing. While “parent only” time is very
important and gives parents the opportunity to relate to one another, the helping Hands
club for volunteering could be expanded and improved upon. If parents were given the
opportunity to help shape the way they are volunteering at the school, teachers, parents
and students may benefit from more structured and efficient use of parents time.
Implications for Social Work
While the interconnectivity of community, schools and child education is still being
understood, it is important for social workers to be at the forefront of the discovery.
Social Workers typically wear many hats and have the flexibility to work with a variety
of populations of all diverse ranges of age, gender and ethnicity. As such, it is pivotal
that Social Workers use their knowledge and diverse skill sets in less typical roles such as
community organizing to help create programming that works to prevent many of the
crises clinical Social Workers observe with clients. The main duties of a Social Worker in
a community setting with regard to parent engagement may take the form of a liaison
between the teachers and parents, a program developer that creates meaningful and
66
successful programs with input from parents, or an advocate on behalf of parents when
issues arise in the school system. These roles provide a simplified spectrum of ideas that
many parents in the study mentioned as a possible suggestion to help increase parent
engagement.
While the duties described above could be fulfilled by a school social worker, the
two local elementary schools closest to River Garden Estates did not have full time social
workers on staff according to the administrators. One school had social work interns who
were on campus a limited number of days a week, and one school only had a school
psychologist and no social workers (personal communication, March 27, 2014). This gap
in socio-emotional services for children provides a strong argument for social workers in
the school setting.
Social Workers could combine their skills of direct intervention in working with
parents who are struggling with a particular situation, and also expand their work to
include a macro lens to evaluate if this is a persistent problem with many parents. By
incorporating the direct practice along with advocacy and macro level policy work,
Social Workers could help strengthen the partnership between the community, the school
and the family which research has shown is essential in helping children succeed
academically (Epstein, 1992).
Recommendations
The purpose of the study was to provide the community near River Garden Estates
with the valuable opinions of parents about their engagement in their child’s education.
With this information, the researcher recommends that the community spend time
67
reflecting on the voices of the parents in order to better strengthen the partnership
between the school and the parents in the community. With a stronger partnership,
parents and teachers could work together to ensure clear expectations.
Create Unity
Creating opportunities for parents to gather in their community to discuss
engagement at their child’s school could be another way to increase overall involvement.
Parents expressed their desire to unite as adults and stated that getting to know one
another was important to build community. If parents act together and share stories, like
they did in the focus group, there may be more opportunity for resolving issues as other
parents may have suggestions if the same situation happened to them. As one parent
noted in the focus group, she was grateful for the researcher for giving her and the other
parents an occasion to talk as a group about issues in the school; “Gracias por juntarnos,
es bueno porque tu puedes ayudarneos hacer algo. Thank you for gathering us, it is good
because you can help us do something.”
Parents also nodded in agreement when the prospect of parent outings on site at
River Garden Estates was brought up by a mom. Parents enjoyed the idea of having
couples nights or movie nights on sight to increase their sense of community and build
unity as parents who have children in school. Some parents voiced concern over the
gender imbalance and stated they did not see as many men participating in children’s
education as women. This insight could be useful when planning activities at the site and
would be helpful in developing outreach strategies to recruit more men to participate.
68
Strengthen Partnership
It was believed by many parents that communication methods like phone
conversations, email or face to face interactions were very important to engagement with
their child’s education. It was observed that if parents with language abilities were able to
overcome these communication barriers through enrollment in ESL classes or computer
literacy classes, it would be easier for parents to know what was going on at the school.
To help parents increase communication methods, community based organizations
could facilitate this in several ways. At River Garden Estates for instance, the computer
lab often sits vacant during the day although it can be made available to parents and
youth upon request. Parents who are interested could assist in bringing in computer
courses for parents similar to those that are offered at career centers such as the local
Greater Sacramento Urban League (Greater Sacramento Urban League, 2013). Parents,
with the help of the community organizer, could advocate for more availability of ESL
classes either on site at River Garden Estates, or at the school like those offered at the
local elementary school Smythe Academy for Arts and Sciences (Twin Rivers Unified
School District, 2014).
Increase Cultural Competency
Many parents shared stories of either their child’s feelings of discrimination or their
own difficulties expressing themselves to teachers and other school staff due to language
barriers. Many parents reported on the difficulties in helping children with homework or
checking school grades due to language barriers and lack of translated materials sent
home from the teachers. While the majority of participants in the study were Hispanic,
69
the diversity of the River Garden Estates community lends itself to many other ethnicities
not represented that could also benefit from cultural competency training on behalf of the
school. The local schools could implement training for staff that would increase cultural
competency which includes a deeper understanding of cultures and an increased
awareness of diversity. This could include creating more flyers in diverse languages and
offering translating capabilities to provide to parents who do not speak English. If
teachers do not speak the native language of the parent, the availability of multilingual
staff should be accessible to parents and teachers.
Success Stories
There are many examples of how the partnership between the school, community
and parents could be developed to enhance child achievement and parent involvement.
One example is highlighted as part of the National Network of Partnership Schools
(NNPS) which was founded by Dr. Joyce Epstein and recognizes schools that
demonstrate the NNPS evidence based strategies to improve family, school, community
partnership (The Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns
Hopkins University, 2010). The NNPS honors schools, districts and states with awards
each year, (any school that applies is recognized) and the top recipients receive a cash
prize. This incentivizes outreaching to parents and increasing the parent engagement at
the local, regional and state level for schools.
On the NNPS website are success stories from districts that have implemented ideas
with two focal points that must be met. One is called “meet a challenge to involve more
families” and there are listed examples such as a school in Washington that implemented
70
“Fridays with the Principal”. The school hosted six 90 minute informational sessions with
the principal and parents where a presenter discussed topics like understanding report
cards and the importance of attendance. Another example is “Our Mindful School” in
Illinois where the school, children, families, the PTA and the community came together
to encourage students’ knowledge of soft skills and teach new life skills through drama
and theater. This event had over 100 participants and was a great example of the power of
the partnership in order to increase parent engagement at the local level.
The second goal for the schools to meet for NNPS was “reach results for student
success in school”. One elementary school in Los Angeles started a “Parent University”
which was a one day event with four informational sessions containing important literacy
material for parents to increase the time spent at home on their child’s academics.
Another method to increase literacy with parents who do not speak English as their first
language was developed by a PTA group in Washington. This school recognized that
parents who are learning English as a second language often struggle with reading to their
child at home. This method gave parents three steps to help: together the parent and child
discuss the pictures in the story, then the child reads the story aloud in English, and
finally the child retells the story in his/her native language to the parent (The Center on
School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University, 2010). These
examples highlight the school’s investment in assisting parents to create a home
environment that is conducive to academic success. These examples and hundreds more
exist on to provide schools, families and community based organizations simple and
effective tools to improve parent engagement in child education.
71
Limitations
Due to the time allotted for this study there were several limitations. Although the
researcher had a goal of including 30 participants in the brief questionnaire and the focus
group discussion, the sample size was smaller due to several reasons. One possible reason
for the small sample size could be explained by the relatively small number of residents
who typically participated in any event or meeting on site at River Garden Estates. The
Community Organizing team of Mutual Housing made efforts at their properties to
engage the residents for certain events and action items. At River Garden Estates there
were 571 residents; out of this number 287 were children under the age of 18. The
remaining 284 residents were adults over 18 years. Utilizing the Mutual Housing statistic
that 70% of households were joint households with children under 18, the approximation
of how many parents reside at the complex was just under 200 (.70 x 284= 198).
This signifies that out of 200 parents, the researcher was able to reach out to 20
parents to participate in the study, or 10% of that targeted population. The Community
Organizer on site recorded participant levels at meetings and events held on site and
stated approximately 12 residents participated on average. This means that on average, an
event was attended by 4.2% (12 / 284= .0422 x 100) of the adults over 18. The researcher
may have reached a total that was slightly above average for participants in an event held
by Mutual Housing, although the researcher held four events total to gain this number
instead of one.
The research did not reach the point of saturation due to limitations in time and
language abilities. The researcher would have liked to schedule more focus groups and
72
include more participants but due to a variety of reasons like not implementing an
incentive, limited time availability of residents and unfamiliarity to the researcher this
may have limited the sample size and the diversity of participants. The sample size was
thus not representative of the apartment complex as a whole and cannot be used to make
generalizable conclusions about parents at the site. If the researcher had been able to
match the demographics at the apartment complex in the study, the findings may have
suggested more generalizable results for other apartment complexes in the area with
similar diversity.
Another limitation to this study was the fact that only the voices of the parents were
reflected in the research and the study did not include other entities such as school
administrators or teachers. Including data from teachers and administrators would
enhance the value of the study because it may provide reasons or answers to support
many of the opinions of the parents. If the researcher had more time and resources, focus
groups would have been conducted with teachers and administrators at local schools to
include their important perspective on parent engagement.
Conclusion
This study provided a unique perspective from parents about their engagement in
their child’s education. The study produced original data from parents on their strengths,
challenges and suggestions for parent engagement in children’s schools. The suggestions
to increase parent involvement at the local level could be used by community based
organizations, the local schools or the parents themselves to create programming to
develop better partnerships between these entities to help children succeed. The focus
73
group discussion demonstrated the importance of the partnership between community,
school and family and created a space for parents to discuss their opinions on ways they
currently engage and the difficulties they often face in participating. It would be a
significant first step to build unity amongst residents at River Garden Estates based on the
fact that many parents have a child in the K-12 education system. Activities that engage
both parents and children together in a supportive environment could enable unity.
For future research in this area, it would be interesting to gather data from the
schools to gain an understanding of the same issues; what do they believe are the current
strengths, challenges and what ideas do they have to expand involvement by parents. This
information would help lay the groundwork for a completed picture of the partnership
between the schools, the families and the community near River Garden Estates which
ultimately could benefit the local area.
74
Appendix A
Informed Consent to Participate
I, ________________________________, give my consent to participate in this research study.
Title: The title of this project is Parent Engagement in Child Education.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore parent participation in child education of
residents living at the River Garden Estates complex operated by Mutual Housing California. The
results of the focus group will highlight strengths and identify challenges parents face in
participating in their child’s education. With these results, there is a hope that strategies for
improving parent engagement can be implemented on the complex for the benefit of the children
and families.
Duration and Location: This study will include a focus group that may last between 30 minutes
and 1 hour and will take place on site at River Garden Estates.
Procedures: The focus group discussion will be led by the researcher and will include a set of
guided questions for the group to respond to, with an additional participant brief questionnaire.
There will be butcher paper up on the wall for the researcher to take notes.
Risks/Discomforts: This is an exempt study. If a participant feels uncomfortable they will be
advised to contact Sacramento County Mental Health at 916-875-1055 or Turning Point
Community Programs at 916-393-1222. Beyond the discomfort, the participant should not
experience any risk while participating in the focus group.
Benefits: There are no direct benefits to participating in this study, but indirectly, the results of
the discussion may aid the River Garden Estates community in developing appropriate programs
to meet the needs identified in the focus group.
Confidentiality: The confidentiality and privacy of the participant will be protected by not
asking for any identifying information on any materials used in the focus group. During the focus
groups, no names will be recorded as to who stated what and no identifying information will be
transcribed during the discussion. No individual information will be released, only group data
without identifiers will be reported. The materials and notes taken by the researcher will be stored
in a locked facility of which only the researcher will have access. The notes and data collected
will be shredded 3 months after the completion of the study.
Right to Withdraw/Voluntary Participation: After beginning the focus group, the participant
has the right to not answer any or all of the questions. The participant has the right to withdraw
for any reason at any time without any consequences from the researcher.
Consent: I understand all of the above statements and give my consent to participate in this
study. I have been given all the information necessary to make this decision, and have been given
the opportunity to ask clarifying questions. I understand that by signing this form, I am
volunteering to participate. I am signing this form prior to the commencement of any focus group.
I also have received a duplicate copy of this form for my own records.
_____________________________
______________
Participant signature
Date
75
Appendix B
Focus Group Discussion Guide
-Definition of parent engagement
- What types of activities do you do that you consider to be engaging in your child’s
education?
-How much of these activities are at home vs. school?
-Do you consider yourself more engaged or less engaged than last academic year?
-Is there a grade (or a time) in your child’s life that you were particularly engaged in?
-Why do you think that is?
-What made you more engaged?
-What are some successes you have had in engaging in your child’s education?
-What helped you to be more engaged?
-What do you see are challenges to staying engaged in your child’s education?
-What role does the school play in engaging parents in education?
-What role do you play?
-What role does the community play?
-What are factors that contribute to your child’s academic success? After
school programs? Tutoring? Sports?
-What types of barriers do you have?
-Are there strategies that you have tried to be more engaged in your child’s education?
-What worked?
-What could be improved upon?
-What would you like to see develop in your community to help increase parent
engagement?
-How can River Gardens Estate help? What could be developed to meet these needs?
76
Appendix C
Brief questionnaire
Dear Participant,
Thank you for participating in this study about parent engagement in child education.
This study includes a focus group with some materials to aid in the discussion. First, you
will be given a brief questionnaire. Following this there will be a focus group discussion
about parent engagement in child education. Your answers to all questions will be kept
confidential. The researcher will take notes during the focus group discussion and only
the researcher will have access to this information.
Once you have completed the brief questionnaire, please place it in the sealed box at the
back of the room. Your participation is greatly appreciated.
1. Please select the answer that best applies:
I am ___ M ___F ___ Other
2. I identify as (Please select all that apply):
___Hispanic/Latino
___White/Caucasian
___African American
___Hmong
___Russian
___Other European
___Ukrainian
___Other Asian
___Multi-Racial
___Other:___________
3. Are there any other adults in the home to care for the children? ___Yes ___No
If yes, how many? ___1 ___2 ___3 ___ other
4. Please fill in the blank:
I have #____ children living with me
How many children are enrolled (in Sacramento County):
PreK or K ____
Elementary School _____
Junior High _____
High School _____
5. Are you currently employed?
___No/ stay at home
___Yes
If yes, please select:___ Part time ___ Full time
___ Daytime ___ Evening ___ Night
77
Brief questionnaire
Parent Engagement Activities
Directions: Please read each activity and
select how often you participate in this
activity.
Seldom
Often
Very Often
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1. Attend PTA Meetings (Parent
Teacher Association)
2. Assist with yard duty at my child’s
school
3. Pick up / drop off my child at school
4. Volunteer at school (field trips, in
classroom etc. )
5. Do homework with my child
6. Read to my child
7. Do a school project with my child
8. Get my child ready for school in the
morning
9. Attend teacher/parent conferences
10. Attend school events (Talent show,
sports game)
11. Attend school orientation/ back to
school nights
12. Monitor school grades
13. Use school website to get
information
14. Other ______________
78
Challenges
Please read each statement and consider if this is a challenge for you in engaging in your
child’s education.
I do not engage in my child’s education as much as I would like because…(Check all that
apply)










I do not have time
I do not have transportation
I do not have enough money
I do not have a computer
I do not have the supplies
I do not speak good enough English
I do not have anyone to watch my other kids while I attend school events
I do not know what type of involvement the teacher/ school expected
I do not know the teacher well enough to call/email him/her
other______________________
Programs Service Needs
If you were awarded $100,000 to spend on improving your child’s education, what would
you spend it on?
1.
2.
3.
79
REFERENCES
Abramovitz, M. (2010). Definition and functions of social welfare policy: Setting the
stage for social change. In J. Blau & M. Abramovitz (Eds), The dynamics of
social welfare policy (pp.19-61). New York: Oxford Press.
Bender, K., Brisson, D., Jenson, J., Forrest-Bank, S., Lopez, A., & Yoder, J. (2011).
Challenges and Strategies for Conducting Program-Based Research in AfterSchool Settings. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28(4), 319-334.
doi:10.1007/s10560-011-0236-y
Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., Scales, P. C., & Blyth, D. A. (2012). Beyond the “Village”
Rhetoric: Creating Healthy Communities for Children and Adolescents. Applied
Developmental Science, 16(1), 3-23. doi:10.1080/10888691.2012.642771
Bloomquist, M., August, G., Lee, S., Piehler, T., & Jensen, M. (2012). Parent
Participation Within Community Center or In-Home Outreach Delivery Models
of the Early Risers Conduct Problems Prevention Program. Journal of Child &
Family Studies, 21(3), 368-383. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9488-6
CalWORKs Safety Net and Sanction Cases. (2008, March). Child and Family Policy
Institute of California (Policy Brief).
Casby-Nichols, L., Cooper, L.B. (2011). Individualism and its discontents in social work.
Journal of Progressive Human Services, 22 (1), 84-100. doi:
10.1080/10428232.2011.565508
80
Clay Jr., R. A., & Jones, S. R. (2009). A Brief History of Community Economic
Development. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development
Law, 18(3), 257-267.
Cox, F.M., Erlich, J.L., Rothman, J. & Tropman, J.E. (Ed.). (1979). Strategies of
community organization. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Press
Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. J. (2010). Investing in our young people. In A. J. Reynolds, A.
J. Rolnick, M. M. Englund, & J. A. Temple (Eds.), Childhood programs and
practices in the first decade of life: A human capital integration (pp. 381-414).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engel, R. J., & Schutt, R.K. (2012). The Practice of Research in Social Work. California:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships (Report No. 6). Center on Families,
Communities, Schools and Children's Learning. Johns Hopkins University.
Baltimore, MD
Epstein, J. L. (2008). Improving Family and Community Involvement in Secondary
Schools. Education Digest, 73(6), 9-12.
Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent Involvement: Reflections on Parents, Power, and Urban
Public Schools. Teachers College Record. 94(4), 682-729.
Fuentes, E. (2009). Learning Power and Building Community: Parent-Initiated
Participatory Action Research as a Tool for Organizing Community. Social
Justice, 36(4), 69-83.
81
Greater Sacramento Ubran League. (2013). Education Center. Retrieved March 25th,
2014 from, http://www.gsul.org/index.php/programs-services/education
Gottzen, L. (2011). Involved fatherhood? Exploring the educational work of middle class
men. Gender and Education, 23(5), 619-634.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). The Effects of Parental Involvement on the Academic
Achievement of African American Youth. Journal of Negro Education, 74(3),
260-274.
Kao, G. (2004). Parental Influences on the Educational Outcomes of Immigrant
Youth. International Migration Review, 38(2), 427-449.
Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied
research. Sage Publications, Inc.
Lareau, A., & Muñoz, V. (2012). “You’re not going to call the shots”: Structural conflicts
between the principal and the PTO at a suburban public elementary school.
Sociology of Education, 85(3), 201-218. doi:10.1177/0038040711435855
LaRocque, M., Kleiman, I., & Darling, S. M. (2011). Parental Involvement: The Missing
Link in School Achievement. Preventing School Failure, 55(3), 115-122.
doi:10.1080/10459880903472876
Le, V., Kirby, S., Barney, H., Setodji, C., & Gershwin, D. (2010). School readiness and
the reading achievement gap: Can full-day kindergarten level the playing field? In
A. J. Reynolds, A. J. Rolnick, M. M. Englund, J. A. Temple (Eds.), Childhood
programs and practices in the first decade of life: A human capital
integration (pp. 266-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.
82
Mueller, E. J., & Tighe, J. (2007). Making the Case for Affordable Housing: Connecting
Housing with Health and Education Outcomes. Journal of Planning
Literature, 21(4), 371-385. doi:10.1177/0885412207299653
Mutual Housing California. (2012). Leadership Development. Retrieved March 25th,
2014, from http://www.mutualhousing.com/community-organizing-at-mutualhousing/leadership-development-3/
Mutual Housing California. (2012). Demographics as of June 30, 2012.Sacramento, CA.
National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach (2013). Report of the NLIHC Out
of Reach. Retrieved from http://nlihc.org/oor/2013
Ouellette, M., Hutchinson, A. M., Frant, N. (2005). The Afterschool Hours: A New
Focus for America's Cities. National League of Cities, The Institute For Youth,
Education and Families. Retrieved from ERIC Institute for Education Sciences
website http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536883.pdf
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., & Ou, S. (2010). Impacts and implications of the childparent center preschool program. In A. J. Reynolds, A. J. Rolnick, M. M.
Englund, & J. A. Temple (Eds.), Childhood programs and practices in the first
decade of life: A human capital integration (pp. 168-187). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Robertson, B.A. (2001, April 16). This block's census is really child's play. The
Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from http://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Shaw, L. L., Horton, J., & Moreno, M. H., (2008). Sanctions as everyday resistance to
welfare reform. Social Justice, 35(4), 83-98.
83
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement Counts: Family and Community
Partnerships and Mathematics Achievement. Journal of Educational Research,
98(4), 196-206.
Shiffman, C. D. (2011). Making It Visible: An Exploration of How Adult Education
Participation Informs Parent Involvement in Education for School-Age
Children. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5(3), 161-170.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State and County QuickFacts: Sacramento City. Retrieved
from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0664000.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Human Subject Regulations
Decision Charts. Retrieved from
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/checklists/decisioncharts.html
The Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins
University. (2010). Success Stories in the Spotlight. Retrieved March 25, 2014,
from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/success.htm
Twin Rivers Unified School District. (2014). Parents. Retrieved March 25th, 2014, from
http://smythek6-trusdca.schoolloop.com/cms/nothing?d=x&group_id=1320735734312
Weil, M. (2005). Social Planning with Communities. In M.Weil, M. Reisch, D.N.
Gamble, L. Gutierrez, E.A. Mulroy, R. A. Cnaan (Eds.), The handbook of
community practice (pp.215-243). California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Weiss, H. B., Lopez, M., Rosenberg, H., Harvard Family Research, P., & SEDL. (2010).
Beyond Random Acts: Family, School, and Community Engagement as an
84
Integral Part of Education Reform. National Policy Forum for Family, School, &
Community Engagement. Harvard Family Research Project
Wilson, R. M. (2011, January 1). Taking on the Perspective of the Other: Understanding
Parents' and Teachers' Perceptions of Parent Involvement in Students' Educational
Experiences. ProQuest LLC,
Yoder, J., & Lopez, A. (2013). Parent’s perceptions of involvement in children’s
education: Findings from a qualitative study of public housing residents. Child &
Adolescent Social Work Journal, doi:10.1007/s10560-013-0298-0