School and Family Relationships: Bridging the Gap

1
School and Family Relationships Bridging the Gap

• A Dissertation Defense
• by
• A. Carlos Garza

2
Defense Format

• Purpose of the Study
• Review of the Literature
• Significance of the Study
• Research Questions/Findings
• Recommendations
• Recommendations for Further Study

3
Purpose of the Study

• To identify various factors that influence
  parental involvement in Texas secondary schools.
• Specifically family, socioeconomic as well as
  school adopted intervention strategies that
  influence parent involvement.

4
Review of the LiteratureFamily Factors

• Diversity of language influencing parental
  involvement in public education.
• Racial/ethnic backgrounds influencing parental
  involvement in public education.
• Family structure, two parents or single parent,
  influencing parental involvement in public
  education.

5
Review of the LiteratureSocioeconomics

• Level of Education
• Household Income

6
Review of the LiteratureAdditional Factors

• School Structure
• Communication Between Schools and Parents

7
Review of the LiteratureSchool Implemented
Strategies

• Educating parents and educators
• Translation services
• Schools design a collaborative environment
• Soliciting aid from parents

8
Significance of the Study

• This research attempted to disclose information
  regarding the factors influencing parental
  involvement in education.

9
Significance of the Study

• Benefit to educators by providing
• Information to increasing their knowledge of
  parents and students.

10
Significance of the Study

• This information has the potential of benefiting
  schools by
• decreasing the dropout rates among students.
• improving academically appropriate behavior.

11
Research DesignDescriptive Study

• Data was generated in a quantitative form by
  surveying families from a purposive sample of 4
  high schools across the state with similar
  demographics and size.

12
Research DesignDescriptive Study
Central
Eastern
Coastal Bend
Southern
13
Design Population

• Target Population
• Parents and households that have children
  attending Texas secondary schools, grades
  9th-12th .
• Sample Population Random Sample
• 100 individuals within 4 schools
• 400 Individuals from Target Population
• 219 Individuals responded to the survey

14
Design Instrumentation

• A survey was used for the study by utilizing
  questions in a
• 30 Likert scale items were analyzed to form a
  single construct.
• Items recorded the familys perspectives of the
  school.
• Additional questions related to demographics were
  then asked.
• Each demographic variable was then analyzed on
  how the individual responded to a single
  construct of items (family perspectives).

15
Design Validity

• In order to improve the internal validity of the
  questionnaire the survey was administered
  respondents in a pilot study in exactly the same
  way as it was administered in the main study
  (Teijlingen Hundley, 2001).

16
Methodology

• Surveys were administered to the four groups in
  March of 2005.
• The study recorded the amount of surveys that
  were expedited and the amounts returned, as well
  as use a two-week follow-up card, to remind the
  participant of the date the forms were needed.

17
Methodology

• Regression Analysis- to measure the extent to
  which an independent variable contributed to the
  dependent variable.
• ANOVA- used to measure the means of each factor.

18
Organization of the Study

• This study examined two of the four factors that
  influence family involvement.
• These factors are family background and the
  familys socio-economic status.
• The two factors additional factors and school
  implemented strategies are not in the scope of
  the study.

19
Descriptive StatisticsBackground Characteristics

• Secondary Schools
• Specifically, four high schools in the Southern,
  Eastern, Coastal and Central regions of Texas
  were selected as target schools within a school
  district. The high schools within each region are
  described in terms of 1) the ethnic make up of
  the student body, 2) English proficiency of
  students household, 3) economic standing of the
  household and 4) a percentage of minority staff
  members.

20
Descriptive StatisticsBackground Characteristics

• Secondary Schools
• Southern Region.
• Ethnic Distribution of Students- 99.6 were
  Hispanic American with less than one percent
  being Caucasian.
• English Proficient- 17 were identified as
  limited English proficient students.
• Economically Disadvantaged- 91.4 of the student
  population.
• The classification of an economically
  disadvantaged student is the percentage of
  students who are in free/reduced-price lunch
  programs (Okpala, Okpala Smith, 2001).
• Minority Staff Members- 83.2

21
Descriptive StatisticsBackground Characteristics

• Secondary Schools
• Eastern Region.
• Ethnic Distribution of Students- 54 Hispanic
  Americans with a smaller percentage (43)
  Caucasians. 3 percent of the student population
  was of an ethnic group other than Caucasian and
  Hispanic.
• English Proficient- 2 were identified as limited
  English proficient students.
• Economically Disadvantaged- 44.7 of the student
  population.
• Minority Staff Members- 19

22
Descriptive StatisticsBackground Characteristics

• Secondary Schools
• Coastal Bend.
• Ethnic Distribution of Students- 60 were
  Caucasian, 39 were Hispanic American with lt2 of
  the student population being of an ethnic group
  other than Caucasian and Hispanic.
• English Proficient- .6 were identified as
  limited English proficient students.
• Economically Disadvantaged- 25.6 of the student
  population.
• Minority Staff Members- 18

23
Descriptive StatisticsBackground Characteristics

• Secondary Schools
• Central Region.
• Ethnic Distribution of Students- 30 were
  Caucasian, 63.6 were Hispanic American with lt6
  of the student population being of an ethnic
  group other than Caucasian and Hispanic.
• English Proficient- 3 were identified as limited
  English proficient students.
• Economically Disadvantaged- 46.5 of the student
  population.
• Minority Staff Members- 29

24
Descriptive StatisticsBackground
CharacteristicsSecondary Schools- Ethnic
Population
25
Descriptive StatisticsBackground
CharacteristicsSecondary Schools
26
Descriptive StatisticsBackground Characteristics

• Secondary Schools
• The school strategies for encouraging parental
  involvement were very similar in the four high
  schools surveyed.

27
Descriptive StatisticsBackground Characteristics

• Table 4.1
• Descriptive Statistics for Family Background
  Characteristics of Family Respondents, N 219.
• In the current study the racial/ethnic make up of
  the family participants included Hispanic/Latino,
  White/Caucasian, African American/ Black or of
  other ethnic background.
• The table demonstrates the frequency distribution
  regarding single-parent households.
• As shown in Table 4.1, the overwhelming majority
  of family participants reported speaking English
  in their homes.

28
(No Transcript)
29
Descriptive StatisticsBackground Characteristics

• Table 4.1
• Descriptive Statistics for Socioeconomic
  Characteristics of Family Respondents, N 219.
• Table 4.1 indicates the years of education
  completed for the family participants of this
  research study.
• The parents level of income is indicated in
  Table 4.1 with 35.2 percent of the families
  having a yearly income of 57,000 or higher and
  29.7 percent having an average yearly income of
  26,000 to 40,000.
• Twenty-six percent of families had and average
  yearly income of 41,000 to 56,000 with 9.1
  percent of the families rating 11,000 to 25,000
  per year as their average yearly income.

30
(No Transcript)
31
Descriptive StatisticsBackground Characteristics

• Table 4.1
• Descriptive Statistics for Additional Factors of
  Family Respondents, N 219.
• The additional factors that were identified in
  the survey, number of children in school and
  number of school visits per year are indicated in
  Table 4.1.
• Moreover, the additional factor number of school
  visits per year is recorded in Table 4.1.

32
(No Transcript)
33
Research Question/Results

• 1) What family background factors influence
  school-family relationships in Texas secondary
  schools?

34
Hypothesis one (H1)

• The variable representing, languages spoken at
  home was dropped from further analysis because 95
  percent of the respondents reported that English
  was the primary language spoken in the home.
• Therefore, H1 was not tested because there were
  no appropriate comparison groups.

35
Hypothesis two (H2)

• Hypothesis two (H2) focuses on the relationship
  between ethnic groups and school-family
  relationships.

36
Hypothesis two (H2)

• In sum, the data indicated that there is a
  relationship between ethnicity and respondents
  perception of school-family relationships.
• Specifically, being of another ethnicity
  (non-Hispanic American, non-Caucasian) is
  associated with a less positive view of
  school-family relationships.
• In contrast, being a Hispanic or being a
  Caucasian parent seems to be associated with more
  positive views of school-family relationships.
• Overall, H2 is accepted.

37
Hypothesis three (H3)

• Hypothesis three (H3) focuses on the relationship
  between household composition and school-family
  relationships.

38
Hypothesis three (H3)

• In sum, these data indicated that there is no
  relationship between one and two parent families
  and respondents perception of school-family
  relationships.
• Specifically, one and two parent households had
  similar views of school-family relationships.
• Overall, H3 is rejected.

39
Research Question/Results

• 2) What socio-economic factors influence
  school-family relationships in Texas secondary
  schools?

40
Hypothesis five (H5)

• Hypothesis five (H5) focuses on the relationship
  between respondents level of education and
  school-family relationships.

41
Hypothesis five (H5)

• In sum, these data indicated that there is a
  relationship between parents of differing levels
  of education and respondents perception of
  school-family relationships.
• Specifically, having a graduate degree is
  associated with positive views of school-family
  relationships.
• Overall, H5 is accepted.

42
Hypothesis six (H6)

• Hypothesis six (H6) focuses on the relationship
  between differing levels of household income and
  school-family relationships.

43
Hypothesis six (H6)

• In sum, these data indicated that there is a
  relationship between respondents levels of
  household income and respondents perception of
  school-family relationships as shown in Table
  4.6.
• Specifically, having a low level of income is
  associated with positive views of school-family
  relationships.
• Overall, H6 is accepted.

44
Additional Data Gathered

• Hypothesis four (H4) focuses on the association
  between respondent-students relations and
  school-family relationships.

45
Additional Data Gathered

• Hypothesis four (H4). In sum, these data
  indicated that there is a relationship between
  relationship to students and respondents
  perception of school-family relationships.
  Specifically, being a parent is associated with
  positive views of school-family relationships.
  Overall, H4 is accepted.

46
Additional Data Gathered

• Hypothesis seven (H7) focuses on the relationship
  between regions of Texas and school-family
  relationships.

47
Additional Data Gathered

• The independent variable, regions, included four
  levels Southern, Eastern, Coastal, and Central.
• The dependent variable was the perceived
  school-family relationships of the participants
  surveyed.
• In sum, these data did not support the
  hypothesis, which indicates a relationship
  between regions and perceived school-family
  relationships. Overall, H7 is rejected.

48
Conclusion

• Family Background
• Language Spoken in the Home
• Overwhelming majority of the respondents spoke
  primarily English in the home.
• The hypothesis was not tested since 95 percent of
  the respondents reported that English was the
  primary language spoken in the home.

49
Conclusion

• Family Background
• Race/Ethnicity
• Hispanic Americans view their relationship with
  the school in a more positively than the other
  racial/ethnic groups surveyed.
• There was a statically significant relationship
  in the mean scores of perceived school-family
  relationships among ethnic groups.

50
Conclusion

• Family Background
• Two-Parent Households
• The survey instrument indicates that an
  overwhelming majority of the respondents were
  two-parent households.
• Both two-parent and single parent households had
  a positive view of their relationship with the
  school.
• There was no significant relationship in the mean
  score of the two groups.

51
Conclusion

• Family Background
• Respondents-Students Relation
• The survey suggests that the majority of
  respondents were parents.
• There was a statically significant relationship
  in the perceived school-family relationship by
  respondents-student relations.
• This suggests that respondent-student relation
  has an impact on the level of parental
  involvement in a childs education.

52
Conclusion

• Socio-economic Factors
• Household Education
• Data collected from the survey suggests that the
  participants completing a graduate degrees view
  their relationship with the school in a more
  positive light than the other participants in the
  study.
• There was a statically significant relationship
  between respondents level of education and
  school-family relationships.

53
Conclusion

• Socio-economic Factors
• Household Income
• The survey indicates that households with a lower
  income view their relationship with the school in
  a more positive when compared to the participants
  from other household incomes.
• There was a statically significant relationship
  between respondents level of income and
  school-family relationships.

54
Conclusion

• School-Implemented Strategies
• School-implemented strategies variable was not
  significantly tested.
• However, this study indicates that the four
  schools surveyed had parental involvement
  strategies in place.

55
Recommendations

• Family Factors
• Although in this study language diversity was not
  significant, it is recommended that schools
  provide communication assistance to educators
  that are in need of communicating with
  non-English speaking parents.
• It is recommended that schools celebrate racial
  and ethnic diversity so that all stakeholders
  feel welcome on campus.
• It is recommended that staff development training
  be offered in how single and two parent
  households impact a students learning.

56
Recommendations

• Family Factors
• It is recommended that schools offer training on
  the impact of attendance issues and how it
  relates to whom the student is living with
  (students relation to caregiver).

57
Recommendations

• Socio-economic Factors
• It is recommended that educators are aware of
  the level of education that is in a students
  household when sending homework home or
  communicating with a parent.
• It is recommended that staff development training
  be offered on how household income impacts a
  students learning.

58
Recommendations

• School-Implemented Strategies
• It is recommended that school-implemented
  parental involvement strategies be ever changing
  to fit the needs of the community.

59
Recommendations for Further Study

• It is recommended that a comparative study be
  conducted with other states to compare factors.
• It is recommended that a comparative study be
  conducted with other countries to compare
  factors.
• It is recommended that comparative study be
  conducted between rural and urban schools.

60
Recommendations for Further Study

• It is recommended that another study be conducted
  that analyses the perspectives of educators in
  the parental involvement process.
• It is recommended that a qualitative component be
  added to this study.
• It is recommended that further research be
  conducted in other factors that influence
  parental involvement.

61
School and Family Relationships Bridging the Gap

• A Dissertation Defense
• by
• A. Carlos Garza