parents' educational involvement: a developmental ecology perspective

Parents’ Educational Involvement: ADevelopmental Ecology Perspective

Rachel Seginer

SYNOPSIS

The objective of this review is to examine research on home-based andschool-based parental involvement and generate new research questions byemploying Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework consisting of the micro-,meso-, exo-, and macrosystems. This analysis shows that, although both fam-ily-based and school-based parental involvement are positively related to edu-cational outcomes, their examination in the ecological framework prompts con-sideration of additional aspects of the micro- and mesosystems and theirembeddedness in four exosystemic aspects (parents’ networks and workplace,neighborhood, and educational policy) and two macrosystemic types (immi-grant and ethnic groups). Guided by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological thinking andthe availability of advanced multivariate analysis methods, the next stage ofthis research should test multiple-step models describing factors that promptparental involvement and mediate and moderate the parental involvement –educational outcomes links in different sociocultural settings.

INTRODUCTION

Parents’ educational involvement is a phrase used to describe different paren-tal practices ranging from educational beliefs and academic achievementexpectations to the multiple behaviors parents employ at home and in theschool to advance children’s educational outcomes. Early interest in paren-tal involvement was prompted by three factors: concerns about the lowachievement of lower class and ethnic minority children (Hess & Hollo-way, 1984), research findings (Coleman et al., 1966; Marjoribanks, 1972)about the effect of family environment on academic achievement, andBronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986, 1989) ecological thinking particularly signif-icant for the inclusion of parents in Head Start programs (Zigler &Muenchow, 1992).

More recent research has examined the effect of a variety of parentalpractices on the educational outcomes of children ranging in age from pre-school to high school and children growing up in different social groups.

PARENTING: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.January–March 2006 Volume 6 Number 1 Pages 1–48

These studies have been summarized in earlier reviews that focused onthree issues: the attitudes to and implementation of parental involvement(Epstein, 1995, 2001), parents’ involvement in homework (Hoover-Demp-sey et al., 2001), and parental involvement in interpersonal andsociocultural contexts (Eccles & Harold, 1993, 1996; Ryan & Adams, 1995).

Drawing on the nature of existing research and on the benefits of multi-ple contexts analysis and particularly on the relevance of Bronfenbrenner’s(1979, 1986, 1989) developmental ecology framework to parental involve-ment, this review focuses on two issues: (1) the analysis of parental in-volvement in terms of home- and school-based practices (Eccles & Harold,1996; Trusty, 1999) and their correspondence to Bronfenbrenner’s micro-and mesosystems, respectively, and (2) the embeddedness of home- andschool-based practices in multiple contexts. The extent to which each is af-fected by social networks, the workplace, neighborhoods, educational pol-icy, and sociocultural settings is analyzed in terms of the exosystem andthe macrosystem, respectively. Thus, the main aim of this review is to de-scribe research on the relations between parents’ educational involvementand children’s educational outcomes and generate new research questionsby employing Bronfenbrenner’s developmental ecology framework.

Contending that parental involvement has been relevant to masseducation since its inception, the review opens with a brief account of thehistory of parental involvement, proceeds to summarize parental in-volvement research conducted in the last 15 years, and then focuses onthe analysis of parental involvement in terms of the micro-, meso-, exo-,and macrosystems. In light of the growing number of multicultural na-tions and the importance of studying culturally and ethnically diversegroups (Cooper, 2003; Eccles, 2002), this review particularly focuses ontwo macrosystem types: immigrant and minority groups.

Historically, the inclusion of lower class, minority, and immigrant par-ents in school programs came to reestablish parents’ participation in theirchildren’s education, after a century earlier schools viewed parents as in-terfering with the induction of hegemonic society and industrial produc-tivity values (Bowles & Gintis, 2000; Johnson, 1970, 1976; Katz, 1976; Lowe,2000; Rogoff, 2003). Consequently, the divide between schools and lowerclass minority and immigrant parents deepened, and children experiencedfamily and school as two separate worlds (Cooper & Denner, 1998; Phelan,Davidson, &Yu, 1998).

From its beginning in 1965, educational reform under the Title I pro-gram encouraged schools to involve parents in educational matters.Starting with participation of parent representatives in parent advisorycouncils (PAC), parental involvement grew into programs allocatingresources to all eligible families, school parent compacts (D’Agostino,

2 SEGINER

Hedges, & Borman, 2001), and school – family – community partnerships(Epstein & Hollifield, 1996). Although research indicating the effect of thehome learning environment on educational outcomes (Central AdvisoryCouncil for Education, 1967) was published in the United Kingdom thesame time Coleman et al.’s (1966) report was published in the UnitedStates, the British government strategy for parental involvement was is-sued only in 1997, under the white paper on Excellence in Schools (Wil-liams, Williams, & Ullman, 2002).

Led by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986, 1989) ideas about the ecology ofhuman development, the one American program that from its inceptionemphasized the involvement of individual parents (rather than parent rep-resentatives) was Head Start. However, parents’ participation was imple-mented against the strong voices of leading scholars such as Bettleheimwho believed that the involvement of lower class parents in Head Startcenters recreated “the home background from which we want to removethese children” (cited in Zigler & Muenchow, 1992, p. 15). Research find-ings showing positive effects of Head Start parental involvement pro-grams on child outcomes prompted a similar emphasis on parent partici-pation in the Early Head Start program (Raikes & Love, 2002).

The reaction of both teachers and parents to parent school partnershipswas mixed. Teachers’ responses varied from support (Comer, 1980; Mor-gan, Fraser, Dunn, & Cairns, 1993; Pelco & Ries, 1999) to unawareness ofparents’ desire for greater school involvement (Hughes, 1996; Munn, 1985;Ramirez, 2001) and overall rejection of parents’ request for more contact(Prescott, Pelton, & Dornbusch, 1986) and other forms of involvement(Cullingford & Morrison, 1999; Todd & Higgins, 1998). Parents’ reactionsranged from a desire to participate in their children’s education (Epstein,1995) and know more about their academic achievement (Hughes, 1996) tononacceptance — especially among working and lower class parents — ofadded responsibility (Cullingford & Morrison, 1999; Lareau & Shumar,1996). Moreover, for some parents, exclusion from educational institutionsagreed with their uneasiness with the school (Crozier, 1999; Lareau, 1996;Ritter, Mont-Reynaud, & Dornbusch, 1993) as well as with their childcareneeds (Sagi & Dolev, 2001).

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT RESEARCH

Empirical studies included in this analysis are drawn from a literaturesearch of electronic databases using the following keywords: parents’ educa-tional involvement, parental involvement, parent – teacher communication, parent– school interaction, parent – school relationships, parents’ school participation,

PARENTS’ EDUCATIONAL INVOLVEMENT 3

and home- and family learning environment. When combined with educationaloutcome keywords (i.e., academic achievement, motivation, educational out-comes) the result was 620 PsychLIT and 109 ERIC journal articles, books, andbook chapters entries. Of these, 60 studies that analyzed the relation be-tween parental involvement and child outcomes are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 is divided into three age-related sections: preschool and kinder-garten; elementary school; and middle, junior, and senior high school.Each of the sections summarizes research on the relations between home-and school-based parental involvement and educational outcomes.Age-related changes in parents’ responsibilities are reflected in research onboth home- and school-based practices.

Specifically, home-based behaviors shifted from facilitating schoollearning skills in preschool and kindergarten to helping with and checkinghomework in elementary school to motivational support (e.g., monitoringschool progress, communicating with child on school matters) in juniorand senior high school. Similarly, school-based behaviors shifted from par-ents’ help with classroom activities in the preschool and kindergarten toparent – teacher contact, attendance of school initiated programs, and Par-ent Teacher Organization meetings in middle, junior, and senior highschool.

The definition of educational outcomes too was altered with age. Al-though all studies assessed intellective outcomes, researchers’ interest innonintellective indicators waned so that two-thirds of the preschool andkindergarten studies, half of the elementary school, but only one-third ofthe middle, junior, and senior high school studies also measurednonintellective outcomes. The nature of the nonintellective outcomes var-ied with age: The preschool and kindergarten studies examined psycho-logical (e.g., externalizing) and classroom behavior problems; the middle,junior, and senior high school studies contained motivational mediators(e.g., perceived competence); and elementary school studies included be-havior problems or motivational mediators (e.g., control understanding).However, few studies tested mediating models.

Table 1 shows that as children move from preschool to high school pa-rental involvement shifts from home to both home and school, cognitivepractices are replaced by motivational facilitation of school learning, andgreater emphasis is put on intellective than on nonintellective educationaloutcomes. Nevertheless, the positive relation between parental involve-ment practices and educational outcomes is maintained across differentparental practices and outcome definitions and withstands age differencesand environmental specificity (Wachs, 2000).

By itself, the overall positive relation between home- and school-basedinvolvement and educational outcomes renders the distinction between

4 SEGINER

5

TABLE 1Studies that Examine Relations Between Home-Based and School-Based Parental Involvement and Educational Outcomes

Variables/Measures Main Findings

Study ParticipantsParental/Family

Involvement OutcomesSource and Methodof Data Collection

Summary of MainFindings

NonintellectiveOutcomes

Preschool and kindergartenHome-based involvement

Christian,Morrison, andBryant (1998)

Kindergarten children(N = 538)

Home-basedinvolvement (familyliteracy environment)

School readiness skills(e.g., letterrecognition skills,receptivevocabulary,mathematics)

Questionnairesresponded to bythe parents andchildren testing

Family literacyenvironment hadpositive causal linkswith four of the fiveoutcome measures (notspecified by authors).

Culp, Schadle,Robinson, andCulp (2000)

Kindergarten andfirst-grade children(N = 25, M age=6.2)

Home-basedinvolvement (e.g.,availability, influencein child rearingdecision)

Internalizing/externalizingproblems and selfcompetenceindicators

Questionnairesresponded to byfathers andmothers (apart)and child’s report

Mothers’ involvement wasnegatively related tochildren’s externalizingproblems.

Externalizingproblems

Fagan and Iglesias(1999)

Head Start children andfathers (N = 96, 58%African-American and29% Latino-American)

Home-basedinvolvement (e.g.,playing , reading,caregiving)

Academic readiness inreading andmathematics andchild’s socialbehavior.

Three telephoneinterviews withfathers over aperiod of 3 weeks,observations ofplay and schooltests

At the end of fathers’involvementintervention, children ofthe participation groupimproved mathematicsreadiness scores, andchildren of thecomparison groupshowed more behaviorproblems.

Behavior problems

(continued)

6

Parker, Boak,Griffin, Ripple,and Peay (1999)

Latino Head Startchildren (N = 173, age ˜4 years) and mothersfrom poor singlewomen headedfamilies

Home-basedinvolvement (e.g.,facilitate child’slearning, help child tolearn school-readinessskills)

School readiness:cognitive and socialcompetence andadaptation toclassroom

Mothers reportsabout involvementand teachersreports aboutschool readiness

Mothers’ involvementchange scores at the endof the school yearpredicted higher verbalintelligence andnonintellectivecharacteristics likeextroversion, creativity,and independence.

Characteristics suchas extroversion,creativity, andindependence

Senechal andLeFevre (2002)

Middle and uppermiddle class children(110 kindergartenchildren and 58 firstgraders) and parents

Home-basedinvolvement (facilitatereading skills bylibrary visit, teachreading and writing)

Reading achievement Parents reports andreading andliteracy test scoresin kindergarten,first and thirdgrade

Parent involvement inteaching children toread and write wasrelated to early literacyskills; children’sexposure to books wasrelated to vocabularyand listeningcomprehension skills inthird grade.

School-based involvementMarcon (1999) 4-years-old urban

children attendingpublicprekindergarten orHead Start program(N = 708)

School-basedinvolvement (e.g.,help with classroomactivity)

Basic school skills GPAand VineyardAdaptive BehaviorScales (e.g.,language, social, andmotor adaptivedevelopment).

Teachers’ responsesto questionnairesand children’s testscores

Increased and more activeforms of school-basedinvolvement wereassociated with greatermastery of early basicschool skills and morepositive adaptivedevelopment.

Adaptivedevelopment

TABLE 1 (Continued)






7

Miedel andReynolds (1999)

Chicago LongitudinalStudy children (N =704, 53% girls) andparents

School-basedinvolvement (e.g.,participate in schoolactivities, volunteer tohelp in classroom)

Kindergarten andeighth grade readingachievement, rate ofgrade retention, andspecial educationplacement

Parents’retrospectivereport on schoolinvolvement inpreschool/kindergarten(phone interview),teachers’ ratings ofparents’involvement, andschool records

Preschool participationhad a positive net effecton reading achievementin kindergarten andeighth grade andnegative effect on graderetention and years inspecial education(demographic variablesand first and secondgrade teacher ratings ofparental involvementcontrolled for).

Seefeldt, Denton,Galper, andYounozai (1999)

80 Head Start childrenand parentsparticipating inparents’ program and50 comparison group

Participation in theSchool TransitionDemonstration

Language andmathematicalabilities assessed bystandardized tests(PPVT–R, WJ–R 22,WJ–R 25)

Children’s testingand parents’interviews andquestionnaires

The relationship betweenparents’ participation inthe Demonstrationprogram (aftercontrolling for parents’education) andacademic achievementwas mediated byparents’ self efficacy

Taylor andMachida (1994)

Head Start children (N =63, mean age at T1 =4.42)

School-basedinvolvement (e.g.,classroom volunteer,attend schoolmeetings)

School adjustment:learning skills,classroom behavior,perceivedcompetence, andpeer play skills

Children’sinterviews, testingand observations,and teachers’ratings

Parents’ school-basedinvolvement wasmoderately related toschool adjustment(learning skills andimproved classroombehavior) 1 year later.

Classroombehavior, peerplay skills

(continued)

8

Home- and school-based involvementHill (2001) Euro- and African

Americankindergarten childrenand their mothers (N =103, 54 AfricanAmerican) above andbelow state medianannual family income($32,000)

Home-involvement (e.g.,playing to teach child;educational andoccupationalexpectations) andschool-based (e.g.,visiting child’s school,initiating contact withteacher, parent –teacher relationships)

School readiness skills(sound-lettercorrespondence andquantitativeconcepts scales)

Questionnairesresponded to bymothers, teachers,and children(school readiness)

Mothers’ educationalexpectations werepositively related tosound–letter andquantitative skills;mothers’ educationalvalues were related tosound–lettercorrespondence, andmothers’ homeinvolvement waspositively related toquantitative skills.Ethnicity moderated therelations betweenmothers’ educationalvalues, school- andhome-involvement andquantitative skills.

TABLE 1 (Continued)






9

Manzicopoulos(2003)

Head Start children (N =261, 129 girls, M age =76.05, SD = 3.60, 76%European Americans)and mothers (40%single with no otheradults in household)

Reading andmathematicsachievement, socialschool adjustment; thecriterion variable:nonpromotion to firstgrade

Home- (discuss withchild school day)and school-basedinvolvement(contact teacher,volunteer, andparticipate in schoolprograms)

Parents’ andteachers’ reports,standardizedachievement tests,and teachers’ratings of socialschool adjustment.

Mothers of childrenpromoted to first gradediscussed school withchildren andparticipated in schoolactivities morefrequently than mothersof children notpromoted to first grade.Promoted childrenscored higher onreading andmathematics, and loweron behavior problems.

Behavior problems

Elementary schoolHome-based involvement

DAilly (2003) Taiwanese 4–6 gradestudents (N = 806) andteachers (N = 50)

Home-basedinvolvement (e.g., talkto child aboutproblems, spend timewith child)

Student motivation,perceived control,diligence, andacademicperformance

Teachers’ andstudents’ reports

Maternal involvement wasindirectly related toacademic achievementvia perceived control.a

Student motivation,perceivedcontrol, diligence

Dinh, Roosa, Tein,and Lopaz(2002)

Hispanic 4–8 graders (N= 330)

Home-basedinvolvement (e.g.,checking homework,ask about school)

Self-esteem andproblem behaviorproneness (e.g.,association withdelinquent peers,gang involvement)

Children’s responsesto questionnaires

Parental involvement(perceived), but notself-esteem, mediatedbetween acculturation(immigrant status,language spoken athome, language used tocomplete the survey) atT1 to children’s problembehavior proneness atT2.

Problem behavior

(continued)

10

Epstein (2001) Third and sixth graders(N = 293) and teachers(N = 14)

Home-basedinvolvement (e.g.,discuss school, playlearning facilitatinggames)

Reading and mathachievement

Parents’ report Parents responsiveness toteachers’ encouragementof using home-basedinvolvement waspositively related toreading but not to mathscore improvement(parents’ level ofeducation controlled for).

Grolnick, Ryan,and Deci (1991)

Third and sixth graders(N = 456), mothers (N= 248) and fathers (N =188)

Home-basedinvolvement (e.g., talkto child aboutproblems, spend timewith child)

Motivational variables(perceivedcompetence, controlunderstanding,relative autonomy)and academicachievement (schoolgrades, achievementtest scores)

Questionnairesresponded to bychildren, parents,and teachers

Mothers’ and fathers’perceived involvementwas indirectly linked toacademic performancevia controlunderstanding.a

Motivationalvariables

Reynolds (1992) First grade low-incomeminority children (N =481)

Home- (e.g., read tochild, provide learningexperiences) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g., talkwith teacher aboutchild)

Reading and mathachievement testscores

Children’s, parents’,and teachers’ratings

Home-based involvement(child report) andschool-based involvement(parents and teachersreports) were positivelyrelated to reading andmath achievement(demographic variables,prekindergartenexperience controlled for).

TABLE 1 (Continued)






11

School-based involvementBrody and Flor

(1998)6- to 9-year rural African

American childrenand single mothers

School-based (e.g.,attend schoolmeetings, schoolactivities volunteer)

Children’s cognitivecompetence(language and mathtest scores, teachers’ratings), socialcompetence,internalizing andconduct problems(teachers’ ratings),self-regulation

Children’sself-report,standardizedachievement tests,and teachersreports re:mothers’involvement,academic andsocial competence,and BehaviorProblem Checklist

The relationships betweenmothers’ schoolinvolvement andcognitive and socialcompetence andinternalizing problemswere indirectly linkedvia children’sself-regulation.a

Internalizingproblems, socialcompetence, self-regulation

Griffith (1997) Third to sixth graders (N= 26,904) and parents(N = 33,244)

School-basedinvolvement (e.g.,participate in schoolactivities)

Student academicachievement (e.g.,reading, writing,math)

Parents’ andstudents’questionnaireresponses

Parental involvement wasone of three bestpredictors of studentperformance.

Reynolds,Weissberg, andKasprow (1992)

Inner-citykindergarteners andfirst graders (N = 683)

School-basedinvolvement (e.g.,attend parent –teacher organizationmeeting, teacher –parent contact)

Reading and mathachievement, schoolabsences,competence, andproblem behaviors

Teachers ratings andschool records

Quality of parentalinvolvement (assessedby teachers) was relatedto reading and mathachievement, schoolabsences, competence,and problem behaviors.

Competence andproblembehaviors.

Stevenson andBaker (1987)

Children andadolescents age 5–17(N = 179)

School-basedinvolvement (e.g.,involved in schoolactivities, parent –teacher conferences)

Child schoolperformance, andperformance toability

Mothers’ andteachers’questionnaires

Parental involvementmediated almost all theassociation betweenmother education andchild schoolperformance; parents ofyoung children andboys scored higher onparental involvement.

(continued)

12

Home- and school-based involvementGoldenberg (1989) Three at-risk first

gradersHome- (e.g., home

reading, parents’attitude to school) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,parent – teachercontact)

Reading achievementand groupplacement

Teacher ratings andinterviews,classroomobservations,parent interviewsand child testing(qualitativeanalysis)

Parents’ involvementaffected children’sreading skills which ledto teachers’ perceptionof children’s ability andmotivation,subsequently leading tochildren’s placement inan advanced readinggroup.

Izzo, Weissberg,Kasprow, andFendrich (1999)

Urban kindergartenthrough third graders(N = 1,205, 49% girls)

Home- (e.g.,participation ineducational activitiesat home) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,parent – teachercontact, participate inschool activities).

School performance(math problemsolving and readingcomprehension) andnonintellectivefactors (e.g., numberof absences)

Teachers’ reports Parents’ home- andschool-basedinvolvement indicators(based on teachers’reports) weremoderately related toschool performance;however, participationin educational activitiesat home was linked tothe widest range ofperformance variables.

TABLE 1 (Continued)






13

Reynolds and Gill(1994)

Low income, at riskblack sixth gradersand parents (N = 729)

Home- (monitor, engagein educationalactivities) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g., talkto the teacher aboutchild’s progress,attend school events)

Reading and mathachievement,problem andcompetencebehavior (e.g.,assertive socialskills)

Parents’ andteachers’ reports

Parents were moderatelyinvolved in theirchildren’s educationboth at home and in theschool, and theirinvolvement did notcontribute to children’sschool adjustment. Onlyparents’ educationalexpectations andsatisfaction wereassociated with readingand math achievement,competence andproblem behavior.

Competence andproblem behavior

Seginer (1986) Israeli fifth grade boys &mothers(N = 107)

Home- (educationalexpectations, schoolsupporting behaviors)and school-basedinvolvement (contactwith teachers)

Teachers’ ratings ofoverall academicperformance

Mothers’ reports andteachers’achievementratings

Mothers’ educationalexpectations were linkedto academicachievement bothdirectly and indirectlyvia mothers’achievement-relatedbehaviors.

Shumow, Vandell,and Kang (1996)

Urban low-income fifthgraders (N = 73),mothers, teachers

Home- (monitor readingand homework;discuss with childeducational topics)and school-basedinvolvement (attendschool function)

Reading and mathachievementcomposites (ITBSand grade point),child’s schoolorientationcomposite(self-report,teachers’ rating andconduct grades)

Teachers’ ratings ofmothersinvolvement;school districtITBS scores andschool reports

Mothers’ schoolinvolvement waspositively related toreading and mathachievement and schoolorientation

(continued)

14

Zellman andWaterman(1998)

Second and fifth gradersand mothers (N = 193)

Home-based (help withhomework) andschool-based ( e.g.,attend scheduledevents)

Reading skills andteachers’ ratings

Mothers’, children’sand principals’interviews,teachers’questionnaires

Mothers’ school-basedinvolvement waspositively related toreading test scores andnegatively related toteachers’ ratings oflearning problems.

Middle, junior and senior high schoolHome-based involvement

Bandura,Barbaranelli,Caprara, andPastorelli,(1996)

Italian sixth and seventhgraders, mothers andteachers (N = 279, 44%girls)

Home-basedinvolvement (mothers’educationalaspirations)

School grades Mothers’, children’s,and teachers’questionnaires

Mothers’ educationalaspirations were linkedto adolescents’ schoolgrades both directly andindirectly via academicefficacy andself-regulated learningefficacy.a

Academic efficacy,self-regulatedlearning efficacy

Fehrman, Keith,and Reimers(1987)

High school and beyondhigh school seniorsand parents (N =28,051)

Home-basedinvolvement (e.g.,keeps close track ofchild’s schoolprogress, influencefuture plans)

School grades Students’ andparents’questionnaires

Parents home-basedinvolvement had bothdirect and indirect effecton school grades;parental involvement ledto increase in time spenton homework, which inturn had a positive effecton grades.

TABLE 1 (Continued)






15

Gotfried, Fleming,and Gotfried(1994)

PredominantlyEuropean-Americanchildren (43% girls)and mothers (N = 101),age 9–10 participatingin a longitudinal study

Home-basedinvolvement relatingto academic intrinsicand extrinsicmotivationencouragement

Percentile scores onreading and mathscales (age 10)

Mothers’questionnaires,children abilitytesting

Mothers’ intrinsic andextrinsic motivationencouragement werepositively andnegatively, respectivelyrelated to intrinsicmotivation (age 9) andvia it to achievement(age 10).a

Academic intrinsicmotivation

Hao andBonstead-Bruns(1998)

NELS: 88 immigrant(Chinese, Filipino,Koreans, Mexicans; N= 1,373) and nativestudents (Mexicans,blacks, whites; N =16,539) and parents

Home-based parentalinvolvement (e.g.,discuss schoolprograms, participatein cultural activities)

Academicachievement(standardized testscores in math andreading and GPA)

Students’ andparents’questionnaires andschool records(standardized testscores)

Parents’ home-basedinvolvement wasindirectly linked toacademic achievementvia children andparents’ sharedparent-childexpectations.

Educationalexpectations

Juang andSilbereisen(2002)

German adolescents,mothers, fathers, andteachers (N = 641, 52%girls)

Home-basedinvolvement(academic aspirations,parental involvement,parent-adolescentdiscussion ofintellectual/culturalmatters)

Grade average ofmath, history,biology, and German

Parents’ (academicexpectations),teachers’ (parentalinvolvement) andchildren’squestionnaires(discussions,beliefs, and grades)

Parents’ home-basedinvolvement variablesassessed at sixth gradewere positively linked toninth grade schoolgrades via sixth gradecapability beliefs.a

Capability beliefs

Keith, Keith,Quirk,Sperduto,Santillo, andKillings (1998)

NELS: 88 adolescentswho completed thefirst follow-up (1990)and parents (N =15,703, 50% girls, 72%European-American,6% to 11% Asians,African- andHispanic- Americans)

Home-basedinvolvement(parent-childcommunication onschool matters,educationalaspirations)

GPA Adolescents’ andparents’questionnaires(1988) about homeinvolvementadolescents’ reportof ninth and tenthgrade GPAs

Parents’ home-basedinvolvement wasdirectly related to GPAacross all ethnic groups,but also showed someethnic specific effects.

(continued)

16

Keith, Reimers,Fehrmann,Pottebaum, andAubey (1986)

High school and beyondhigh school seniors (N= 28,051)

Home-basedinvolvement (e.g.,monitor child’s schoolprogress, influencefuture plans)

High School andBeyond Reading,Math I and IIstandardized tests

Adolescents’questionnaires

Parents’ home-basedinvolvement (asperceived byadolescents) had bothdirect and indirect effecton standardized testsscores.

Kurdek andSinclair (1988)

Middle class eighthgraders (N = 219, 56%girls)

Home-basedinvolvement(Achievement-intellectual orientation)

Mean grade score(English, reading,math, science, socialstudies)

Students’ self-report Parents’achievement-intellectualorientation (perceivedby adolescents) had anet effect on mean gradescore.

Marjoribanks(1996)

Australian sixth graders(N = 800) and theirGreek-, SouthernItalian-,Anglo-Australian- orEnglish-born parents

Home-basedinvolvement(educationalaspirations, parentsinvolvement inteaching)

Intellectual ability(Raven ProgressiveMatrices) andacademicachievement(mathematics andword performance)

Children and parents Parents’ home-basedinvolvement mediatedthe relation betweenparents’ level ofeducation and boysword performance.

TABLE 1 (Continued)






17

Seginer andVermulst (2002)

Israeli Arab (N = 329,49% girls) and Jewish(N = 357, 54% girls)eighth graders

Home-basedinvolvement(perceived parentalschool-related supportand demandingness)

Final grades in mathand English

Adolescents’questionnaires andschool records

Parental support anddemandingness(perceived byadolescents) werepositively andnegatively linked toacademic achievementvia educationalaspirations and parentaldemandingness wasdirectly (negatively)related to academicachievement for all butArab girls, whoseachievement was linkedto educationalaspirations.

Educationalaspirations

Van Voorhis (2003) European American(53%), AfricanAmerican (36%) andother ethnic groups(11%) sixth and eightgraders (N = 235) andparents

Family memberinvolvement instudent’s homework

Students’ and parents’attitudes towardscience homework;students’ scienceachievement scores

Parents’ andstudents’questionnaires;school records

Students who completedTeachers Involve Parentsin Schoolworkassignments reportedhigher levels of familyinvolvement, turnedmore accurateassignments and hadhigher science reportcard grades than controlgroup.

Attitudes towardsciencehomework

(continued)

18

School-based involvementRodriguez (2002) First, second, and third

generation MexicanAmerican high schoolstudents (N = 3,681)

School-basedinvolvement (e.g.,attend schoolprograms, attendconferences withteachers-counselors)

GPA Students’questionnaires

School-based involvement(perceived by students)was positively related toschool grades across allthree generations.

Shumow andLomax (2002)

Adolescents, 10–17 yearsold and parents (73%mothers; 42%European, 28%African, 30% LatinAmericans; N = 929)

School-basedinvolvement (e.g.,attend schoolactivities)

Academic adjustment(school grades,academic level) andschool problems

Adolescents’ andparents’ telephoneinterviews

Parents’ school-basedinvolvement wasdirectly linked toacademic adjustment aswell as to socialemotional adjustmentfor all ethnic groups.

Social emotionaladjustment

Home- and school-based involvementBogenschneider

(1997)9–12 graders (66%

European Americans,17% Asians, 12%Hispanics, and 5%African American, N =3,915)

Home- (e.g., help choosecourses) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,attend schoolprograms)

GPA Questionnairesresponded to byadolescents

Parental involvement(perceived byadolescents) had apositive effect on schoolgrades for all ethnicities,both parents, girls andboys. Involvement wasmore beneficial foradolescents fromsingle-mother than fortwo-parent families.

TABLE 1 (Continued)






19

Catsambis (2002) NELS: 88 adolescentsand parents surveyedin 1988 and 1992(N = 13,580)

Home- and school-basedinvolvement (differentindices were used foreighth and twelfthgrades)

Twelfth gradeacademic success:achievementgrowth, math,science & Englishcredits; academicprogram enrollment

Questionnairesresponded to bystudents, parents,teachers, andschooladministrators

Parental involvementbehaviors were relatedpositively andnegatively to academiccourse enrollment andcredit points but not toachievement growth.

Catsambis andBeveridge(2001)

NELS: 88 adolescentsand parents surveyedin 1988(N = 19,702)

Home- (e.g., educationalexpectations,academiccommunication) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,parent-schoolcontacts)

Mathematics testscores

Questionnairesresponded to bystudents andparents

Parental involvement isassociated with parents’personal resources(socioeconomic status,being African American)and child characteristics(gender, schoolbehavior); parent-schoolcontact is negativelyrelated to math testscores; neighborhoodcharacteristics moderatethe effect of parentalinvolvement on mathtest scores.

Desimone (1999) NELS: 88 adolescents(eighth graders in1988) and parents(70% EuropeanAmericans, 12%Hispanics, 11%African Americans,6% Asians,N = 19,386)

Home- (e.g.,involvement in homelearning) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,volunteering )

GPA, standardized testscores inmathematics andreading

Questionnairesresponded to byadolescents andparents

Parental involvement andachievementrelationships differed byethnicity and familyincome, source(adolescent vs. parentreport) and achievementmeasure.

(continued)

20

Grolnick andSlowiaczek(1994)

11 to 14-year-oldadolescents (N = 300)and teachers

Home- (e.g., personal,cognitive/intellectualactivities) andschool-basedinvolvement (attendparents’ schoolactivities )

School competence(grades, academiccompetence level),motivationalresources(self-regulation,perceivedcompetence, controlunderstanding)

Adolescents’ andteachers’ reports

Mothers’ and fathers’perceived behavior(school-basedinvolvement) andintellectual/cognitiveactivities (home-basedinvolvement) wereindirectly linked toschool grades viaperceived competence;mothers’ behavior wasdirectly and indirectly(via controlunderstanding) linkedto school grades.a

Perceivedcompetence;controlunderstanding

Gutman andMidgley (2000)

First year middle schoolstudents (N = 62) fromfamilies belowpoverty threshold andparent (79% mothers,10% fathers, 11%guardian)

Home- (e.g., checkchild’s homework,discuss school withchild) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,classroom volunteer)

GPA Parents’ report(interview) offamilyinvolvement,children’s reportof schoolbelongingness andteachers’ support,school records ofGPA

Family involvement waspositively linked to GPAonly when child feltbelonging to school andteachers’ support(interaction effects ofschool factors by familyinvolvement).

TABLE 1 (Continued)






21

Hill et al. (2004) African- andEuropean-Americanadolescents (N = 463)and their mothers andteachers whoparticipated in alongitudinal study(sixth to eleventhgrade)

Home- (e.g., awarenessof school progress,school-relateddiscussions) andschool-based (e.g.,parent sends things toschool, participates inparent – teacherassociation meetings)

Academicachievement (ninthgrade), educationaland occupationalaspirations (eleventhgrade)

Questionnairesresponded to byadolescents,mothers, andteachers

Parents’ educationalinvolvement (seventhgrade) was directlyrelated to aspirations(eleventh grade) andindirectly—via schoolbehavior problems(eighth grade)a—toacademic achievement(eighth grade). For loweducation families,educationalinvolvement was relatedto aspirations only. ForAfrican Americanfamilies, educationalinvolvement waspositively related toacademic achievement.

School behaviorproblems (eighthgrade)

Keith, Keith,Troutman,Bickley, Trivette,and Singh(1993)

NELS: 88 adolescentsand parents (N =21,814)

Home- (e.g., educationalaspirations,school-related parent –child communication)and school-basedinvolvement (e.g.,belonging toparent-teacherorganization)

Standardized tests inreading, math,science, and socialstudies

Adolescents’ andparents’ report

Parental involvement(composite variable)positively linked totests’ scores.

Kim (2002) Korean Americanseventh and eighthgraders (N = 209) andparents

Home- (parent – childcommunication aboutlearning) andschool-basedinvolvement (schoolparticipation)

Academicachievement GPA(English, math,science, socialscience)

Parents’ report ofparentalinvolvement,adolescents’ reportof academicachievement

Home-based but notschool-based parentalinvolvement was linkedto academicachievement.

(continued)

22

Ma (1999) Longitudinal Study ofAmerican Youthparticipants(N = 3116)

Home- (discussion,home expectation) andschool-basedinvolvement (parents’school participation,home– schoolcommunication)

Enrollment inadvanced math class

Students’ self-report The effect of parentalinvolvement (asperceived byadolescents) onadvanced mathparticipation wasgrade-specific (e.g.,home discussion tenthand eleventh graders;parent participation foreighth to tenth graders).

Marchant,Paulson, andRothlisberg(2001)

Fifth and sixth graders(N = 230, 53% girls)

Home- (parents’ valuesabout effort andacademic success) andschool-basedinvolvement (parents’involvement in schoolfunctions)

School grades,academicmotivation, schoolcompetence

Adolescents’self-report

Parental values(home-basedinvolvement) asperceived byadolescents—but notparental involvement inschool functions—werelinked to studentachievement viaacademic motivationand school competence.a

Academicmotivation andschoolcompetence

TABLE 1 (Continued)






23

Muller (1995) NELS: 88 adolescentsand parents(N = 13,881)

Home- (e.g., discussschool matters) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,participate in schoolactivities) andcommunity-basedinvolvement (e.g.,unsupervised timeafter school)

Math achievement testscores in eighth andtenth grades

Adolescents’ andparents’ self-report

Parents’ home-basedinvolvement was linkedto math achievementboth positively (e.g., talkabout high school planswith mother, parentsrestrict TV) andnegatively (talk abouthigh school plans withfather, parents checkhomework). Similarresults were reported forthe school- andcommunity-basedinvolvement.

Muller (1998) NELS: 88 adolescentsand parents whoparticipated in allthree surveys (N=12,766, 51% girls)

Home- (e.g., discussschool matters, restrictTV and going out withfriends) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,attend school events)

Mathematics testscores and gains intest scores (eighth totenth, tenth totwelfth grades)

Adolescents’ andparents’ self report

Parents’ home- andschool-basedinvolvement had bothpositive and negativeeffect on math scores;e.g., discussion aboutschool had positiveeffect and discussionabout program hadnegative effect;attending schoolmeeting had a positiveeffect, attending schoolevent had a negativeeffect

(continued)

24

Paulson (1994) Ninth graders andparents fromtwo-parent families,mainly EuropeanAmerican (86%),middle (44%) orworking (56%) class(N = 247, 60% girls)

Home- (achievementvalues, interest inschoolwork) andschool-basedinvolvement(participation inschool functions)involvement

Average grade basedon five core courses

Parents andadolescentsreported aboutparenting;adolescentsreported aboutgrades

Adolescents’ report: forgirls, all three measuresof perceived mother’sinvolvement andfathers’ values reachievement werelinked to grades; forboys, both mothers’ &fathers’ achievementvalues and schoolfunctions were linked togrades. Parents’ reports:only the report ofmothers of girls (values,participation) werelinked to grades

Russell and Elder(1997)

Seventh to tenth gradechildren from 377families

Home- (e.g., help childwith homework, talkto him/her) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,attend parent –teacher associationand school meetings)

GPA Parents’ reports andschool records

Children from farmfamilies show thehighest level ofacademic performance,owing largely to thehigh level of parentalinvolvement.

TABLE 1 (Continued)






25

Shumow andMiller (2001)

Longitudinal Study ofAmerican Youthseventh and eighthgraders and parents(N = 1,857)

Home- (help withhomework) andschool-basedinvolvement (e.g.,school visits, parent –teacher organization)

GPA, standardizedachievement tests(math and science),school orientation(e.g., homework)

Parents’ interview,adolescents’questionnaires,and school records

Parents’ homeinvolvement wasnegatively and schoolinvolvement waspositively linked toacademic grades; homeinvolvement waspositively linked toschool orientation.

Singh, Bickley,Trivette, Keith,Keith, andAnderson(1995)

Students and parentsfrom the NELS: 88 (N= 21,834)

Home- and school-basedinvolvement (Keith etal., 1993, 1998)

Standardized tests inreading, math,science, and socialstudies

Parents’ andadolescents’reports

Parents’ educationalaspirations and homestructure/rules(home-based) weredirectly related toachievement scores.

Sui-Chu andWillms (1996)

NELS: 88 eighth gradersand parents(N=24,599)

Home- (e.g., superviseTV and homework)and school-basedinvolvement (e.g.,schoolcommunication)

Academicachievement (mathand reading)

Adolescents’ andparents’ self-reportand school tests

Parents’ home-basedinvolvement, especiallydiscussion, had positivenet effect on academicachievement; schoolcommunication andparticipation had lowpositive and negativenet effect, respectively,on academicachievement.

(continued)

26

Teachman,Paasch, andCarver (1997)

NELS: 88 twelfth gradersand parentsparticipating in allthree waves (N =10,889)

Home- (parent – childconnectivity) andschool-basedinvolvement (schoolconnectivity)

School drop out(twelfth grade)

Adolescents’ andparents’ self reportof parentalinvolvement andschool recordsabout school dropout

Parents’ home-basedinvolvement in eighthgrade had a negativeeffect on school dropout; school-basedinvolvement had anegative effect on schooldrop out only amonghigher level parentalincome (income xinvolvement interactioneffect).

School drop out

Trusty (1999) NELS: 88 eighth gradersand parents (N =9,929)

Home- (discuss schoolmatters) andschool-basedinvolvement (attendschool meetings)

Adolescents’educationalexpectations (lessthan vs. universitydegree), 6 years later

Adolescents’ andparents’ self report

Parents’ home-based(perceived byadolescents) andschool-based (reportedby parents) involvementwere related toeducational expectationsand was stronger foradolescents from highersocioeconomic status(interaction effect).

Educationalexpectations

Useem (1992) Mothers of sixth andseventh graders(N = 86)

Home- (e.g., familiarwith the trackingsystem) andschool-basedinvolvement (schoolactivities)

Placement in mathability groups (1-3)

Mothers’ interviews Mothers’ involvement(overall scores) partiallymediated parents’ levelof education and child’smath placement.

aMotivational mediators.

TABLE 1 (Continued)






the two bases unwarranted. However, examining them in the frameworkof the micro- and mesosystems brings to the fore additional aspects such asfamily environment (microsystem) and parent – teacher relationships(mesosystem) that place parental involvement in a broader perspective ofparenting and raise new questions.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT:AN ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

The Microsystem: Home-BasedInvolvement Expanded

Bronfenbrenner (1989, p. 227) described the microsystem as:

a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by thedeveloping person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physicaland material features, and containing other persons with distinctive charac-teristics of temperament, personality, and systems of beliefs.

Applying this account to parents’ education-promoting practices, thissection reviews studies addressing four issues: home-based involvement,education relevant family environment, family structure and family size,and the physical aspects of the home learning environment.

Home-based involvement. By prompting motivation for learning, helpingwith cognitive tasks, and guiding school-relevant behavior (Scott-Jones,1995), parents perform school-like functions and support their children’sschool learning and motivation from their home. However, as indicated inTable 1, as children move from kindergarten and elementary to junior andhigh school, parents judge themselves less able to help with school subjects(Dauber & Epstein, 1995) and their involvement is limited mainly to moti-vation prompting.

Regardless of the parental practice investigated, most research exam-ines the direct link between parental involvement and educational out-comes and only several studies tested multivariate models comprisingchild or parental characteristics. In these studies, children’s characteristicswere indexed by motivational variables mediating the parental involve-ment – academic achievement link (e.g., Brody & Flor, 1998; Grolnick,Ryan, & Deci, 1991), and parental characteristics served as either anteced-ent or moderating variables. Specifically, parents’ personality characteris-tics, such as self-efficacy, served as antecedents of parental involvement


(Seefeldt, Denton, Galper, & Younozai, 1999; Shumow & Lomax, 2002), andparental involvement moderated the effect of family income (Teachman,Paasch, & Carver, 1997), showing that remaining in school (vs. droppingout) was linked to parents’ income only if adolescents and parents inter-acted regarding school-related matters.

Education-relevant family environment. Ryan and Adams (1995) delin-eated education promoting home environment as consisting of five levels.One of them — school-focused parent – child interaction — is conceptuallyoverlapping with home-based involvement, and three others — generalparent – child interactions (e.g., authoritative parenting style; Steinberg,Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992), general family relations (e.g., pa-rental discord; Emery, 1982), and parents’ personal characteristics (e.g.,parents’ mental health; Forehand, Long, Brody, & Fauber, 1986) — relate toother aspects of the microsystem. The fifth level pertains to exogenous so-cial/cultural (e.g., socioeconomic status) and biological (sex of parent andof child) variables, thus partly overlapping with Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)macrosystem.

Research conducted since the publication of the Ryan and Adams’(1995) review continues to show the effect of parenting and family relation-ships on academic achievement. To illustrate, parental responsiveness wasassociated with math scores both longitudinally and concurrently(Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal, McAdoo, & Garcia Coll, 2001), adolescentswith at least one authoritative parent performed better academically thanadolescents from nonauthoritative families (Fletcher, Steinberg, & Sellers,1999), and parental awareness of the child’s needs was positively related toacademic achievement both longitudinally and concurrently (Bronstein etal., 1996). Mothers’ and fathers’ harsh and inconsistent discipline (Wenzel,1994) and maternal depression were negatively associated with academicachievement among early adolescent girls (Silverberg, Marczak, &Gondoli, 1996).

Family structure and family size. The negative effect on academic achieve-ment of growing up in single-mother (Biblarz & Raftery, 1999; Coley, 1998;Demo & Acock, 1996; Downey, 1994; Entwistle & Alexander, 1996) or inlarge families (Brosch & Peres, 2000; Cheung & Andersen, 2003; Downey,1995; Marjoribanks, 2001, 2002) has been explained in terms of resourcescarcity. However, Bogenschneider’s (1997) findings that parental involve-ment has a stronger effect on the academic achievement of adolescentsfrom single- than from two-parent families indicate that by enhancingtheir parental involvement single mothers reversed the ill effects of re-source scarcity. Nonetheless, questions pertaining to the extent to which

28 SEGINER

parental involvement mediates the family structure – educational out-comes link, which variables moderate the family structure – parental in-volvement link, and whether these findings apply to the family size – edu-cational outcomes links as well are yet to be tested.

Physical aspects of the home learning environment. Although early analy-ses of home environment (e.g., Central Advisory Council for Education,1967) showed positive relations between the physical home setting andmaterials (e.g., area for reading or studying, number of books) and aca-demic achievement, research in this area is scarce. However, several recentstudies (Bradley et al., 2000; Mullis, Rathge, & Mullis, 2003; Teachman,1987) continue to show their positive effect and hence their relevance to ed-ucational outcomes.

In sum, each of the aspects reviewed showed its effect on educationaloutcomes, even if some of the aspects have been only scantly researched.Applying the developmental ecology framework to this analysis invites amultivariate design that can examine (1) the net effect of each microsystemaspect on educational outcomes, (2) the extent to which parental involve-ment mediates family structure – educational outcomes links, and (3)whether family structure and family environment moderate relations be-tween parental involvement and educational outcomes. Given that par-ents’ educational beliefs are culturally embedded, this aspect of themicrosystem is discussed in the macrosystem section.

The Mesosystem: School-Based Involvement Expanded

Bronfenbrenner (1979, p. 25) stated:

A mesosystem comprises the interrelations among two or more settings inwhich the developing person actively participates (such as, for a child, the re-lations among home, school, and neighborhood peer group; for an adult,among family, work, and social life).

Applied to parents’ education related practices, this section reviewsstudies relating to parents’ school-based involvement and parent – teacherinteraction and points out factors affecting school-based involvement, par-ticularly relating to teachers’ attitudes and school structure.

School-based parental involvement. Parents’ school-based involvementconsists of activities intended to advance children’s educational outcomesthat parents perform at school. Helping teachers with educational andpara-educational tasks and participating in parent – teacher conferences


are examples of school-based involvement. Table 1 shows that the natureof parents’ school-based involvement changes with age so that early edu-cation parents are directly involved in educational tasks and junior andsenior high school parents engage mainly in school meetings andpara-educational activities. As in the case of the home-based involvement,the relation between school-based involvement and educational outcomesis positive across the different definitions of parental involvement and ed-ucational outcomes.

Parent – teacher interaction. The positive effect of school-based involve-ment on educational outcomes is explained by parent – teacher interactionthat (1) acquaints parents (particularly of lower grades children) with chil-dren’s homework assignments and consequently facilitates parents’home-based involvement (Epstein, 1990, 2001; Van Voorhis, 2003), (2) re-duces school absenteeism (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002) and discipline prob-lems (Sheldon & Epstein, 2002), and (3) fosters parent – teacher coopera-tion, mutual respect of values, and greater parents’ endorsement of schoolgoals and school personnel, which indirectly promote children’s schoolmotivation (Comer, 1980; Epstein, 1990; Smith, 1968). The interpersonal as-pect of parent – teacher interaction was emphasized by Bronfenbrenner(1979, p. 214), who posited that the effectiveness of the parent – teacher in-teraction depended on “mutual trust, positive orientation, goal consensusbetween settings and an evolving balance of power responsive to action inbehalf of the developing person.”

Thus, findings showing that in middle and high school, parents’ schoolparticipation had a negative effect or no effect on students’ educationaloutcomes (Muller, 1995, 1998; Seginer, 1986; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996) mayindicate that if teachers do not encourage further action by parentsschool-based involvement may be ineffective. Overall, parent – teacher in-teraction affects educational outcomes by promoting across-settings regu-larity (Super & Harkness, 2002), which is important for the development ofall children and especially for minority and immigrant children, as dis-cussed in relation to macrosystem effects.

Factors affecting school-based involvement. In light of the overall positiverelation between parents’ school-based involvement and educational out-comes and parents’, teachers’, and students’ awareness of it (Barge &Loges, 2003), the factors underlying parents’ low rate of participation inschool-based activities (Bauch, 1988; Dornbusch & Ritter, 1988; Epstein,1990) and ways for increasing participation are important. Existing re-search has focused mainly on teachers and on school structure factors andmuch less on parents.

30 SEGINER

Research about teachers explains their reluctance to involve parents asemanating from concerns that participation would turn into interference(Cullingford & Morrison, 1999), unawareness of parents’ interest andhome-based involvement (Baker, Kessler-Sklar, Piotrkowski, & Parker,1999), and lack of training in parent – teacher relations (Epstein, 1995;Moles, 1993). Thus, even teachers who express positive attitudes towardparental involvement do not implement them because they lack theknow-how and the school support (Epstein & Dauber, 1991).

Four school structure factors have been identified as relevant to theamount and quality of parent-teacher interaction: school grade, tracking,school culture, and school size. The first two factors apply mainly to themiddle and high school years. Underlying the effect of school grade (Eccles& Harold, 1993, 1996) is parents’ interpretation of adolescents’ autonomystrivings as a cue for reduced parental involvement, which is, in turn, sup-ported by teachers’ attitudes (Prescott et al., 1986). The effect of tracking(Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996) is related to educational management con-siderations. Teachers’ specialization particularly leads to fewer interac-tions with more students and parents, and teachers assigned tolow-achieving students are of lower professional competence and less in-clined to involve parents (Dornbusch & Glasgow, 1996; Eccles & Harold,1996). The importance of school culture has been demonstrated by a studyof parental involvement in public and alternative schools (Lewis &Forman, 2002), which showed that parental participation led to a sense ofcontestation in the public school and a sense of collaboration in the alterna-tive school. Consequently, the alternative school, which served lower classfamilies overcame the negative impact of social class on parent – teacherrelationships (e.g., Lareau, 1989) and engaged parents in school activities.Finally, one study (Gardner, Ritblatt, & Beatty, 2000) on school size showedthat small high schools (enrollment between 200 to 600) had higher rate ofparental involvement in the school.

In sum, like research on home-based parental involvement, research onschool-based involvement showed a positive relation between parental in-volvement and educational outcomes, but neglected to study the antecedents,mediating processes, and the relations between home- and school-based in-volvement as well as the nature of the parent – teacher relationship.

The Exosystem: Four Parental Involvement Contexts

Bronfenbrenner (1979, p. 25) described the exosystem as:

one or more settings that do not involve the developing person as an activeparticipant, but in which events occur that affect, or are affected by, what


happens in the setting containing the developing person. Examples of anexosystem in the case of a young child might include the parent’s place ofwork, a school class attended by an older sibling, the parents’ network offriends, the activities of the local school board, and so on.

Thus, the exosystem affects the developing person in various ways viaone or several successive links. Applied to the effect of parental involve-ment on the child’s educational outcomes, four settings that directly affectparental practices are parents’ social networks (Dornbusch & Glasgow,1996; Lareau, 1987, 1996; Useem, 1991, 1992), parents’ workplace(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Kohn, 1977; Weiss et al., 2003), neighborhoods (e.g.,Catsambis & Beveridge, 2001; Greenberg, Lengua, Coie, & Pinderhughes,1999), and educational policy (D’ Agostini et al., 2001).

Social networks. The pertinence of parents’ networks to home- andschool-based involvement draws on the nature of interpersonal relation-ships as transmitting information and providing social support, and affect-ing individuals’ behaviors, attitudes, expectations, norms, and values.However, empirical research in this area has been scarce and assessed onlythe direct effect of knowing parents of friends of one’s child(“intergenerational closure;” Coleman, 1990) on twelfth graders’ educa-tional outcomes. This research shows that parents knowing parents offriends is positively related to adolescents’ mathematics grades and nega-tively related to their school drop out (Carbonaro, 1998). The relevance ofparental involvement to the link between social network participation andeducational outcomes was suggested by a study (Teachman et al., 1997)showing that the negative link between knowing other parents and schooldrop out was maintained only when other indicators of social capital suchas family income, family structure, and parental involvement were notheld constant.

Workplace. Although sociologists describe the workplace as an impor-tant setting for learning skills, attitudes, and value orientations (Kohn,1977; Kohn, Slomczynski, & Schoenbach, 1986) and for making contactswith individuals outside their social sphere (Harpaz & Fu, 2002), only fewstudies have examined the effect of the workplace on education related is-sues. Of particular relevance to this discussion is a study (Weiss et al., 2003)that examined how individuals use the workplace as a resource for devel-oping parenting knowledge and school involvement. The case in pointwas low-income working mothers who increased their knowledge abouteducation-relevant issues by interacting with peers and employers, obtain-

32 SEGINER

ing from them information and advice, and using workers and employersfrom higher social classes as their role models.

The nature of the workplace as a cross-class socializing setting and thescarcity of available research on its effect on parenting call for examiningthe conditions prompting specific involvement practices and their effecton educational outcomes. Among the relevant conditions are the numberof higher education personnel in the workplace and the extent to whichcross-class communication channels are open and provide low-incomeand minority workers opportunities for learning and advancement.

Neighborhoods. The multiple characteristics of neighborhoods placethem both under the exosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1986) and themacrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Wachs, 2000). However, to the extentthat neighborhood characteristics facilitate or hinder child and adolescentdevelopment through their effect on family processes (Bronfenbrenner,1986) or peer relationships (Darling & Steinberg, 1997), neighborhoods areinstances of the exosystem.

Although at present research on the indirect influences of neighborhoodon children and youth is scant (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000, 2004), exist-ing data show that the effect of neighborhood on the educational outcomesof children from different age groups is mediated particularly byhome-based parental involvement (Catsambis & Beveridge, 2001;Greenberg et al., 1999; Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, Chase-Lansdale, & Gordon,1997; Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, McCarton, & McCormick, 1998).

Using hierarchical linear modeling to examine the effect of individual,neighborhood, and school variables on eighth graders’ mathematicsscores, Catsambis and Beveridge (2001) showed that neighborhood char-acteristics moderated the effect of parental involvement on educationaloutcomes. Thus, the strong association between parental expectations andmathematics achievement was hampered by neighborhood negative char-acteristics, and parental supervision was particularly important forthe mathematics achievement of adolescents from disadvantagedneighborhoods.

Legislation and policy making. Although legislation affects educationaloutcomes directly, the focus of this analysis is on its indirect effect via pa-rental involvement, prescribed by both the 1965 Title I program of the Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Act and the 2001 No Child Left BehindAct. As noted earlier, guided by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ideas about de-velopmental ecology, parental involvement has become an important com-ponent of the Head Start (Zigler & Muenchow, 1992) and the more recent


Early Head Start programs (Raikes & Love, 2002; Robinson & Fitzgerald,2002).

Overall, programs that promoted parental involvement had a positiveeffect on children’s basic school skills (e.g., Marcon, 1999) and social com-petence (e.g., Webster-Stratton, 1998). Given that much of this research hasbeen cross sectional (Levine, 1993), more longitudinal studies are neededthat examine the sustainability of parental involvement and its effect oneducational outcomes over time.

In sum, research on the effect of parents’ social networks and work-places and of neighborhoods and educational policy on parental involve-ment and via it on children’s educational outcomes has been scant. How-ever, earlier findings on the role of networks as sources of information andbehavior shapers (Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995; Stanton-Salazar &Spina, 2000) and on parental involvement as mediating the links betweenneighborhood characteristics and educational outcomes indicate the needto continue this research. More research should be performed on the condi-tions and processes that facilitate or hinder the development of specific pa-rental involvement practices.

The Macrosystem: Ethnic and Sociocultural Effectson Parental Involvement

Revising his initial definition of the macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner,1979) Bronfenbrenner (1989, pp. 228–229) contended:

The macrosystem consists of an overarching pattern of the micro-, meso-,and exosystem characteristic of a given culture, subculture, or other broadersocial context, with particular reference to the developmentally-instigative beliefsystems, resources, hazards, life-styles, opportunity structures, life course options,and patterns of social interchange that are embedded in each of these systems. Themacrosystem may be thought of as a societal blueprint for a particular cul-ture, subculture, or other broader social context.

In the last analysis, what defines the macrosystem is sharing in commonthe kinds of characteristics specified in the previously noted formal defini-tion (i.e., similar belief system, social and economic resources, hazards, lifestyles, etc.). From this perspective, social classes, ethnic or religiousgroups, or persons living in particular regions, communities, neighbor-hoods, or other types of broader social structures constitute a macrosystemwhenever these previously noted conditions are met.

In essence, these descriptions underline the three main dimensions of amacrosystem pertaining to (1) its developmentally relevant characteristics;

34 SEGINER

(2) its major types as consisting of (although not solely) social classes, im-migrant and minority groups, which serve as “proxy variables”(Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 229); and (3) its nature “as the outermost regionof the environment” (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 237), encompassing allother systems and lending them their special “color.” Hence, analysisshould focus on specifying how particular macrosystem types and theircharacteristics, and particularly developmentally relevant belief systems,affect the micro-, meso-, and exosystem aspects of parental involvementand indirectly children’s outcomes.

For reasons of colonial take-over, immigration, and migrant labor, themajority of contemporary nations are multicultural. Therefore, this reviewfocuses on ethnic minority and immigrant groups as two macrosystemtypes that constantly negotiate terms of inclusion and exclusion with themajority society (Berry, 1997). This negotiation is especially challenging forminority and immigrant children and adolescents who often bear the re-sponsibility for bridging the multiple worlds embodied by their families,schools, and peers (Cooper, 2003; Cooper, Cooper, Azmitia, Chavira, &Gullatt, 2002; Cooper & Denner, 1998; Laosa, 1999). Drawing on anthropo-logical analyses (Gibson & Ogbu, 1991), this discussion distinguishes be-tween voluntary (immigrant) and involuntary minorities.

The analysis first addresses the effect of immigrant and minority groupmembership on parental involvement and the beliefs underlying it. Draw-ing on research addressing specific ethnic or immigrant groups, it pro-ceeds with issues related to home-based (microsystem) and school-based(mesosystem) involvement. Because empirical studies of the effect of theexosystem on parental involvement have been scarce and none applied tominority or immigrant parents, this issue cannot be reviewed here.

Parental involvement of ethnic minorities and immigrants. The overall con-clusion of early analyses that minority parents were less involved in theirchildren’s education than majority parents (e.g., Baker & Stevenson, 1986)was not corroborated by later research (Catsambis, 2002; Fan, 2001). How-ever, some studies showed that parental involvement was culture specific.Thus, parental involvement varies with immigration status (U.S.- or Mexi-can-born; Rodriguez, 2002) and ethnicity (Garcia Coll et al., 2002; Ritter etal., 1993) and within ethnic minorities by level of education (Cooper et al.,2002; Desimone, 1999; Rodriguez, 2002; Seginer & Vermulst, 2002).

Findings on the moderating effect of ethnicity on the parental involve-ment – educational outcome link are inconclusive. Whereas some studiesshowed that the effect of parental involvement on academic achievementis not moderated by ethnicity (Bogenschneider, 1997; Keith et al., 1998), astudy (Desimone, 1999) examining similar ethnic groups showed that the


effect of parental involvement was stronger for more advantaged (Euro-pean American, Asian, and middle income) than for less advantagedgroups (African American, Hispanic, and low income). Thus,Bronfenbrenner’s (1995; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994) hypothesis predict-ing that proximal processes (such as parental involvement) have a strongereffect on developmental competence in more advantaged and stable envi-ronments have been only partly supported (see also Bogenschneider,1997).

The effect of pertinent belief systems. The different beliefs that voluntary(immigrant) and involuntary minorities hold about the benefits of school-ing lead them to form different parental involvement practices. Thus,Sikhs in Britain and the United States (Gibson & Bhachu, 1991), Koreans inthe United States (Lee, 1991), and Chinese in Britain (Ran, 2001) who devel-oped “effort optimism” (Ogbu, 1994) and trusted the schools to educatetheir children and ultimately facilitate their social advancement also devel-oped high educational expectations, closely monitored their children’sschoolwork, and encouraged them to excel at school.

In contrast, the mistrust involuntary minorities such as the Afri-can-American community (Ogbu, 1982), U.S.-born Mexicans (e.g., Rodri-guez, 2002), and the Korean minority in Japan (Lee, 1991) have developedabout schooling as a means for improving their children’s academicachievement or helping them gain better jobs (Ogbu, 1994) led them to beless involved in their children’s schooling.

Home-based involvement of minority and immigrant parents. The culturalrift and language difficulties experienced by immigrants have led them toprefer home-based to school-based involvement (Garcia Coll et al., 2002)and to develop distinct parental involvement practices. A case in point isMexican migrant parents (Lopez, 2001). These parents instilled in theirchildren the value of education through hard work in the fields, thus teach-ing them two lessons: the relevance of hard work to any task and the valueof education as a means for breaking out of the cycle of poverty. Nonethe-less, by employing parental involvement that focused on educational out-comes (academic achievement and motivation) rather than onschool-prescribed practices (school-related activities) these parents’ in-volvement was not recognized as such by the school.

School-based involvement of minority and immigrant parents. Sikh immi-grants in Britain whose mastery of the English language facilitated theirparticipation in school activities (Gibson & Bhachu, 1991; Hanafin & Lynch,2002) and non-English speaking mothers who preferred home-based in-

36 SEGINER

volvement (Garcia Coll et al., 2002) illustrate the dependency of minorityand immigrant parents’ school-based involvement on language profi-ciency. However, even as language difficulties are resolved, communica-tion problems between majority teachers and minority parents persist, dueto the different beliefs immigrants from India (Gibson & Bhachu, 1991) andChina (Ran, 2001) to Britain and Latino parents in the United States (Green-field, Quiroz, & Raeff, 2000) hold about students’ (Greenfield et al., 2000;Ran, 2000) and teachers’ roles (Greenfield et al., 2000). Special programs(e.g., Brizuela & Garcia-Sellers, 1999; Shumow, 1998) may reduce these dif-ficulties and thus increase education relevant across-setting regularity(Super & Harkness, 2002) between the family and the school.

In sum, parental involvement varies by ethnicity and within ethnicgroups by social class, and first-generation immigrant parents have greaterfaith in the benefits of education than do ethnic minority parents. More-over, language and cultural barriers limit the participation of immigrantparents in school activities and their direct communication with teachersand draws these parents to prefer home-based involvement. Missing fromcurrent research are findings on (1) interpersonal and structural conditionsfor promoting mutual trust and dialogue about educational goals andpractices between minority parents and majority teachers and (2) the ex-tent to which the home- and school-based involvement practices of parentsfrom different ethnic groups mediate the link between parent – teachercommunication and educational outcomes.

SUMMARY AND DIRECTIONSFOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The main objective of this article is to overview relations between parents’educational involvement and children’s educational outcomes and gener-ate new research questions. Using Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1986, 1989) de-velopmental ecology framework, the home- and school-bases of parentalinvolvement have been analyzed in terms of the micro- and themesosystem, respectively, and their interpersonal and cultural contexts de-scribed in terms of the exo- and the macrosystem. The review substantiatesthe positive association between different parental involvement practicesand various educational outcome indicators across a range of age and so-cial groups and indicates the advantages of using the developmental ecol-ogy framework. Specifically, analysis applying the micro- and meso-systems results in viewing parental involvement as only one aspect ofeducation-supporting parenting, and analysis applying the exo- and mac-rosystem analyses points out that in spite of the importance of studying


parental involvement in its social (exosystem) and cultural (macrosystem)contexts, relevant research is scarce.

In addition to the specific questions posed at the end of each section, di-rections for future research draw on applying Bronfenbrenner’s (1979,1986, 1989) ecological thinking to parental involvement issues that untilnow have not been sufficiently studied. Whereas the review of existing re-search could be served well by Bronfenbrenner’s developmental ecologyframework, the issues presented here are better guided by Bronfen-brenner’s (1995) bioecological model, which, rather than focusing on as-pects of the environment, emphasizes variables pertaining to Process –Person – Context – Time and hence can directly relate to the target child.

The relevance of the Process – Person – Context – Time model lies inhighlighting three issues that, although important, have received little at-tention in parental involvement research to date. These issues relate to (1)interpersonal relationships (Bronfenbrenner’s, 1995, proximal Processes),(2) intrapersonal characteristics (Person), and (3) across-time and socialand historical events (Time). Applied to parental involvement research,they define three questions. One pertains to the effect of child and parentcharacteristics (Person variables) and of parent – child, parent – parent,and parent – network relationships (Process variables) on parental in-volvement and on the child Person variables that mediate parental in-volvement – educational outcomes. The second relates to the effect of Per-son and Process variables on the parental involvement – educationaloutcomes links. The third asks whether these links differ by social and his-torical events (Time) and ethnic groups (Context).

Thus, future research should go beyond testing direct links and focus onthe antecedents of parental involvement practices and the mediators(Question 1) and moderators of parental involvement – educational out-comes links (Question 2). It should also focus on environmental specificity(Wachs, 2000) and, rather than controlling for ethnicity, compare betweendifferent ethnic and immigrant groups as well as groups undergoing socialchange (Question 3). The strength of this analysis rests in usingmultivariate methods such as structural equation models, hierarchical lin-ear models, and latent growth curve analysis.

To illustrate, a structural equation model consisting of four steps can ex-amine the context, interpersonal processes, and personal characteristics ofchildren and parents that prompt parents’ educational involvement andmediate the parental involvement – child outcomes link. The first step per-tains to context variables such as school climate (Eccles & Harold, 1996;Toren, 2004), processes such as parent – teacher communication and Per-son variables such as child’s personality characteristics and parents’ edu-cational expectations for their child. The second step pertains to parents’

38 SEGINER

educational involvement processes such as parent – child communicationon school related matters (home-based involvement) and parent participa-tion in school activities (school-based activities). The third step pertains tochild Person variables such as educational self-efficacy, academic aspira-tions, and self-regulation that mediate the parental involvement – educa-tional outcomes link. The fourth step applies to child educational out-comes such as academic achievement.

Estimating this model for various ethnic groups and testing the differ-ences among them will indicate their environmental specificity. Finally, la-tent growth curve analysis can examine the initial levels and growth trajec-tories of parental involvement and educational outcomes for differentgroups and explain them by relevant Process and Person predictorvariables.

In sum, the next stage of parental involvement research should draw onexisting findings on the effect of various parental involvement practices oneducational outcomes across different ages and social groups and focus onquestions that address the dynamics of parental involvement and its effecton educational outcomes. Among them are questions about the conditionsand personal attributes that prompt parental involvement, processes con-tributing to the parental involvement – educational outcomes link andtheir change over time, and the universality versus environmental speci-ficity of parental involvement patterns and effects.

AFFILIATION AND ADDRESS

Rachel Seginer, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Is-rael. E-mail: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I acknowledge the help of Shirli Shoyer and Maya Shitrit in the preparationof this review.

REFERENCES

Baker, A. J. L., Kessler-Sklar, S., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Parker, F. L. (1999). Kindergarten andfirst grade teachers’ reported knowledge of parents’ involvement in their children’s edu-cation. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 367–380.


Baker, D. P., & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mothers’ strategies for children’s school achievement:Managing the transition to high schools. Sociology of Education, 59, 156–166.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact ofself-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.

Barge, J. K., & Loges, W. E. (2003). Parent, student, and teacher perceptions of parental in-volvement. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 140–163.

Bauch, J. P. (1988). Early childhood education in the schools. Washington, DC: National EducationAssociation.

Berry, J. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An Interna-tional Review, 46, 5–34.

Biblarz, T., & Raftery, A. E. (1999). Family structure, educational attainment, and socioeco-nomic success: Rethinking the “pathology of matriarchy.” American Journal of Sociology,105, 321–365.

Bogenschneider, K. (1997). Parental involvement in adolescent schooling: A proximal processwith transcontextual validity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 718–733.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2000). The origins of mass public education. In R. Lowe (Ed.), Historyof education: Vol. 2. Major themes (pp. 61–91). London: Routledge Falmer.

Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H. P., & Garcia Coll, C. (2001). Thehome environments of children in the United States: Part II. Relations with behavioral de-velopment through age thirteen. Child Development, 72, 1869–1886.

Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Caldwell, B. M., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Wasserman, G. A., &Mink, I. T. (2000). Measuring the home environments of children in early adolescence.Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 247–288.

Brizuela, B. M., & Garcia-Sellers, M. J. (1999). School adaptation: A triangular process. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal, 36, 345–370.

Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and child compe-tence in rural, single-parent African American families. Child Development, 69, 803–816.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context of human development: Re-search perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child develop-ment: Vol. 6. Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp.187–249). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspec-tive. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on hu-man development (pp. 619–647). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmentalperspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586.

Bronstein, P., Duncan, P., D’Ari, A., Pieniadz, J., Fitzgerald, M., Abrams, C. L., et al. (1996).Family and parenting behaviors predicting middle school adjustment: A longitudinalstudy. Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies, 45, 415–426.

Brosch, I., & Peres, Y. (2000). Camut mul “eichut” shel yeladim: Dilemma clalit bemusagimyisraelim [Child quantity versus “quality:” A general dilemma in Israeli terms]. Megamot,40, 185–198.

Carbonaro, W. J. (1998). A little help from my friend’s parents: Intergenerational closure andeducational outcomes. Sociology of Education, 71, 295–313.

Catsambis, S. (2002). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondaryeducation: Connections with high seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of Educa-tion, 5, 149–177.

40 SEGINER

Catsambis, S., & Beveridge, A. A. (2001). Does neighborhood matter? Family, neighborhood,and school influences on eighth-grade mathematics achievement. Sociological Focus, 34,435–457.

Central Advisory Council for Education. (1967). The Plowden report: Children and their primaryschools. London: HMSO.

Cheung, S. Y., & Andersen, R. (2003). Time to read: Family resources and educational out-comes in Britain. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 413–433.

Christian, K., Morrison, F. J., & Bryant, F. B. (1998). Predicting kindergarten academic skills:Interactions among child care, maternal education, and family literacy environments.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 501–521.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfield, F. D., etal. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health,Education, and Welfare.

Coley, R. L. (1998). Children’s socialization experiences and functioning in single-motherhouseholds: The importance of fathers and other men. Child Development, 69,219–230.

Comer, J. P. (1980). School power: Implications of an intervention project. New York: Free Press.Cooper, C. R. (2003). Bridging multiple worlds: Immigrants youth identity and pathways to

college. International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development Newsletter, 2, 1–4.Cooper, C. R., Cooper, R. G., Azmitia, M., Chavira, G., & Gullatt, Y. (2002). Bridging multiple

worlds: How African American and Latino youth in academic outreach programs navi-gate math pathways to college. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 73–87.

Cooper, C. R., & Denner, J. (1998). Theories linking culture and psychology: Universal andcommunity-specific processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 559–584.

Crozier, G. (1999). Is it a case of “We know when we are not wanted”? The parents’ perspec-tive on parent–teacher roles and relationships. Educational Research, 41, 315–328.

Cullingford, C., & Morrison, M. (1999). Relationships between parents and schools: A casestudy. Educational Review, 51, 253–262.

Culp, R. E., Schadle, S., Robinson, D., & Culp, A. M. (2000). Relations among parental involve-ment and young children’s perceived self-competence and behavioral problem. Journal ofChild and Family Studies, 9, 27–38.

D’Agostino, J. V., Hedges, L. V., & Borman, G. D. (2001). Title I parent–involvement programs:Effects on parenting practices and student achievement. In G. D. Borman, S. C. Stringfield,& R. Slavin (Eds.), Title I: Contemporary education at the crossroads (pp. 117–136). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

D’Ailly, H. (2003). Children’s autonomy and perceived control in learning: A model of moti-vation and achievement in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 84–96.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1997). Community influences on adolescent achievement and de-viance. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.). Neighborhood poverty: Vol. II.Policy implications in studying neighborhoods (pp. 120–131). New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1995). Effects on students of an interdisciplinary program link-ing social studies, art, and family volunteers in the middle grades. Journal of Early Adoles-cence, 15, 114–144.

Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1996). Family structure, family process, and adolescentwell-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 457–488.

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and in-come matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 11–30.


Dinh, K. T., Roosa, M. W., Tein, J., & Lopaz, V. A. (2002). The relationship between accultura-tion and problem behavior proneness in a Hispanic youth sample: A longitudinal media-tion model. Journal of Abnormal and Child Psychology, 30, 295–309.

Dornbusch, S. M., & Glasgow, K. L. (1996). The structural context of family–school relations.In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How to affect educational outcomes? (pp.35–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dornbusch, S. M., & Ritter, P. L. (1988). Parents of high school students: A neglected resource.Educational Horizons, 66, 75–77.

Downey, D. B. (1994). The school performance of children from single-mother and sin-gle-father families: Economic or interpersonal deprivation? Journal of Family Issues, 15,129–147.

Downey, D. B. (1995). When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and chil-dren’s educational performance. American Sociological Review, 60, 746–761.

Eccles, J. (2002, Fall). President’s column. SRA Newsletter, 1–2.Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent–school involvement during the early adolescent

years. Teachers College Record, 94, 568–587.Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ school-

ing. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational out-comes? (pp. 3–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 92, 310–330.

Entwistle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1996). Family type and children’s growth in reading andmath over the primary grades. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 341–355.

Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications for in-tegrating sociologies of education and family. Marriage and Family Review, 15, 99–126.

Epstein, J. L. (1995, May). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the childrenwe share. Phi Delta Kappan, 701–712.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improv-ing schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involve-ment in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 91, 289–305.

Epstein, J. L., & Hollifield, J. H. (1996). Title I and school–family–community partnerships:Using research to realize the potential. Journal of Education for Children Placed at Risk, 1,263–278.

Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student atten-dance through family and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95,308–318.

Fagan, J., & Iglesias, A .(1999). Father involvement program effects on fathers, father figures,and their Head Start children: A quasi experimental study. Early Childhood Research Quar-terly, 14, 243–269.

Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A growth model-ing analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 27–61.

Fehrman, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M. (1987). Home influence on school learning: Di-rect and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school grades. Journal of Educa-tional Research, 80, 330–337.

Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Sellers, E. B. (1999). Adolescents’ well-being as a function ofperceived interparental consistency. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 599–610.

Forehand, R., Long, N., Brody, G. H., & Fauber, R. (1986). Home predictors of young adoles-cents’ school behavior and academic performance. Child Development, 57, 1528–1533.

42 SEGINER

Garcia Coll, C., Akiba, D., Palacios, N., Bailey, B., Silver, R., DiMartino, L., et al. (2002). Paren-tal involvement in children’s education: Lessons from three immigrant groups. ParentingScience and Practice, 2, 303–324.

Gardner, P. W., Ritblatt, S. N., & Beatty, J. R. (2000). Academic achievement and parental in-volvement as a function of high school size. High School Journal, 83, 21–27.

Gibson, M. A., & Bhachu, P. K. (1991). The dynamics of educational decision making: A com-parative study of Sikhs in Britain and the United States. In M. A. Gibson & J. U. Ogbu(Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minori-ties (pp. 63–96). New York: Garland.

Gibson, M. A., & Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immi-grant and involuntary minorities. New York: Garland.

Goldenberg, C. N. (1989). Parents’ effects on academic grouping for reading: Three case stud-ies. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 329–352.

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational prac-tices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 86, 104–113.

Greenberg, M. T., Lengua, L. J., Coie, J. D., & Pinderhughes, E. E. (1999). Predicting develop-mental outcomes at school entry using multiple-risk model: Four American communities.Developmental Psychology, 35, 403–417.

Greenfield, P. M., Quiroz, B., & Raeff, C. (2000). Cross-cultural conflict and harmony in the so-cial construction of the child. In S. Harkness & C. Raeff (Eds.), Variability in the social con-struction of the child. New directions for child and adolescent development, No. 87 (pp. 93–108).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Griffith, J. (1997). Linkages of school structural and socioenvironmental characteristics to pa-rental satisfaction with public education and student academic achievement. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 27, 156–186.

Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Mo-tivational mediators of children perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 83, 508–517.

Grolnick,W.S.,&Slowiaczek,M.L. (1994).Parents’ involvement inchildren’sschooling:Amulti-dimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237–252.

Gutman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the academicachievement of poor African American students during the middle school transition. Jour-nal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 223–248.

Hanafin, J., & Lynch, A. (2002). Peripheral voices: Parental involvement, social class, and edu-cational disadvantage. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23, 35–49.

Hao, L., & Bonstead-Bruns, M. (1998). Parent–child differences in educational expectationsand the academic achievement of immigrant and native students. Sociology of Education,71, 175–198.

Harpaz, I, & Fu, X. (2002). The structure and meaning of work: A relative stability amidstchange. Human Relations, 55, 639–668.

Hess, R. D., & Holloway, S. D. (1984). Family and school as educational institutions. In R.D.Parke (Ed.), Review of child development research (Vol. 7, pp. 179–222). Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Hill, N. E. (2001). Parenting and academic socialization as they relate to school readiness: Therole of ethnicity and family income. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 686–697.

Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., et al. (2004).Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations:Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1491–1509.


Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P.(2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 195–209.

Hughes, M. (1996). Parents, teachers and schools. In B. Bernstein & J. Brannen (Eds.), Children,research and policy (pp. 96–110). London: Taylor & Francis.

Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal assessmentof teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children’s education and school perfor-mance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817–839.

Johnson, R. (1970). Educational policy and social control in early Victorian England. Educa-tional Policy and Social Control, 49, 96–119.

Johnson, R. (1976). Notes on the schooling of the English working class 1780–1850. In R. Dale,G. Esland, & M. Macdonald (Eds.), Schooling and capitalism (pp. 44–54). London:Routledge/Kegan Paul.

Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2002). The relationship between adolescent academic capa-bility beliefs, parenting and school grades. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 3–18.

Katz, M. B. (1976). The origins of public education: A reassessment. History of Education Quar-terly, 16, 381–407.

Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Quirk, K. J., Sperduto, J., Santillo, S., & Killings, S. (1998). Longitudi-nal effects of parent involvement on high school grades: Similarities and differencesacross gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 335–363.

Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P. S., & Singh, K. (1993). Doesparental involvement affect eighth-grade student achievement? Structural analysis of na-tional data. School Psychology Review, 22, 474–496.

Keith, T. Z., Reimers, T. M., Fehrmann, P. G., Pottebaum, S. M., & Aubey, L. W. (1986). Parentalinvolvement, homework and TV time: Direct and indirect effects on high school achieve-ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 373–380.

Kim, E. (2002). The relationship between parental involvement and children’s educationalachievement in the Korean immigrant family. Journal Comparative Family Studies, 33,529–540.

Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Gordon, R. (1997). Are neighbor-hood effects on young children mediated by features of home environment? In J.Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Vol. I. Context and con-sequences for children (pp. 119–145). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., McCarton, C. M., & McCormick, M. C. (1998). The contribu-tion of neighborhood and family income upon developmental test scores over the firstthree years of life. Child Development, 69, 1420–1436.

Kohn, M. L. (1977). Class and conformity: A study in values (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Kohn, M. L., Slomczynski, K. M., & Schoenbach, C. (1986). Social stratification and thetransmission of values in the family: A cross-national assessment. Sociological Forum, 1,73–102.

Kurdek, L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (1988). Relation of eighth grades’ family structure, gender, andfamily environment with academic performance and school behavior. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 80, 90–94.

Laosa, L. M. (1999). Intercultural transitions in human development and education. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 20, 355–406.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family–school relationships: The importance ofcultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73–85.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education.London: Falmer.

44 SEGINER

Lareau, A. (1996). Assessing parental involvement in schooling: A critical analysis. In A.Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How to affect educational outcomes? (pp.57–64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lareau, A., & Shumar, W. (1996). The problem of individualism in family–school policies. So-ciology of Education [extra issue], 24–39.

Lee, Y. (1991). Koreans in Japan and the United States. In M. A. Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (Eds.), Mi-nority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp.131–168). New York: Garland.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhood they live in: The effects of neigh-borhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309–337.

Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). Diversity in developmental trajectories across adoles-cence: Neighborhood influences. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adoles-cent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 451–486). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Levine, J. A. (1993). Involving fathers in Head Start: A framework for public policy and pro-gram development. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 4, 4–21.

Lewis, A. E., & Forman, T. A. (2002). Contestation or collaboration? A comparative study ofhome-school relations. Anthropology & Education, 33, 60–89.

Lopez, G. R. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons on parent involvement from an (im)mi-grant household. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 416–437.

Lowe, R. (2000). History of education: Major themes (Vol. 2). London: Routledge Falmer.Ma, X. (1999). Dropping out of advanced mathematics: The effects of parental involvement.

Teachers College Record, 101, 60–81.Mantzicopoulos, P. (2003). Flunking kindergarten after Head Start: An inquiry into the contri-

bution of contextual and individual variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,268–278.

Marchant, G. J., Paulson, S. E., & Rothlisberg, B. A. (2001). Relations of middle students’ per-ceptions of family and school contexts with academic achievement. Psychology in theSchools, 38, 505–519.

Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and publicschool inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance. School Psychol-ogy Review, 28, 395–412.

Marjoribanks, K. (1972). Environment, social class, and mental abilities. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 63, 103–109.

Marjoribanks, K. (1996). Ethnicity, proximal family environment, and young adolescents’cognitive performance. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 340–359.

Marjoribanks, K. (2001). Sibling dilution hypothesis: A regression surface analysis. Psychologi-cal Reports, 89, 33–40.

Marjoribanks, K. (2002). Sibling effects, environmental influences, and school dropout. Psy-chological Reports, 91, 1276–1278.

Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvan-taged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379–402.

Moles, O. C. (1993). Collaboration between schools and disadvantaged parents: Obstaclesand openings. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 21–49).Albany: State University of New York Press.

Morgan, V., Fraser, G., Dunn, S., & Cairns, E. (1993). A new order of co-operation and involve-ment? Relationships between parents and teachers in the integrated schools. EducationalReview, 45, 43–52.

Muller, C. (1995). Maternal employment, parent involvement, and mathematics achievementamong adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 85–100.


Muller, C. (1998). Gender differences in parental involvement and adolescents’ mathematicsachievement. Sociology of Education, 71, 336–356.

Mullis, R. L., Rathge, R., & Mullis, A. K. (2003). Predictors of academic performance duringearly adolescence: A contextual view. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27,541–548.

Munn, P. (1985). Accountability and parent–teacher communication. British Educational Re-search Journal, 11, 105–111.

Ogbu, J. U. (1982). Cultural discontinuities and schooling. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,13, 290–307.

Ogbu, J. U. (1994). From cultural differences to differences in cultural frame of reference. In P.M.Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp.365–391). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Parker, F. L., Boak, A. Y., Griffin, K. W., Ripple, C., & Peay, L. (1999). Parent–child relationship,home learning environment, and school readiness. Social Psychology Review, 28, 413–425.

Paulson, S. E. (1994). Relations of parenting style and parental involvement with ninth-gradestudents’ achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 250–267.

Pelco, L. E., & Ries, R. (1999). Teachers’ attitudes and behaviors towards family–school part-nerships. What school psychologists need to know. School Psychology International, 20,265–277.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Yu, H. C. (1998). Adolescents’ worlds: Negotiating family, peers, andschool. New York: Teachers College Press.

Prescott, B. L., Pelton, C. L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1986). Teacher perceptions of parent–schoolcommunication: A collaborative analysis. Teacher Education Quarterly, 13, 67–83.

Raikes, H. H., & Love, J. M. (2002). Early Head Start: A dynamic new program for infants andtoddlers and their families. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 1–13.

Ramirez, A. Y. (2001). “Parental involvement is like apple pie”: A look at parental involve-ment in two states. High School Journal, 85, 1–9.

Ran, A. (2001). Traveling on parallel tracks: Chinese parents and English teachers. EducationalResearch, 43, 311–328.

Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects on aca-demic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 441–462.

Reynolds, A. J., & Gill, S. (1994). The role of parental perspective in the school adjustment ofinner-city black children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 671–694.

Reynolds, A. J., Weissberg, R. P., & Kasprow, W. J. (1992). Prediction of early social and aca-demic adjustment of children from the inner city. American Journal of Community Psychol-ogy, 20, 599–624.

Ritter, P. L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Mont-Reynaud, R. (1993). Minority parents and their youth:Concern, encouragement and support for school achievement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.),Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 107–119). Albany: State University of NewYork Press.

Robinson, J. L., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2002). Early Head Start: Investigations, insights, andpromises. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 250–257.

Rodriguez, J. L. (2002). Family environment and achievement among three generations ofMexican American high school students. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 88–94.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. London: Oxford University Press.Russell, S., & Elder, G. H. (1997). Academic success in rural American family background and

community integration. Childhood, 4, 169–181.Ryan, B. A., & Adams, G. R. (1995). The family–school relationships model. In B. A. Ryan, G.

R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P. Weissberg, & R. L. Hampton (Eds.), The family–school connec-tion. Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46 SEGINER

Sagi, A., & Dolev, S. (2001). Horim, misgarot chinuchiot veyeladim beisrael: Chamutz matok[Parents,educationalsettings,andchildreninIsrael:Sweetandsour].Megamot,41,217–195.

Scott-Jones, D. (1995). Parent–child interactions and school achievement. In B. A. Ryan, G. R.Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P. Weissberg, & R. L. Hampton (Eds.), The family–school connection:Theory, research, and practice (pp. 75–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seefeldt, C., Denton, K., Galper, A., & Younozai, T. (1999). The relation between Head Startparents’ participation in a transition demonstration, education, efficacy and their chil-dren’s academic abilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 99–109.

Seginer, R. (1986). Mothers’ behavior and sons’ performance: An initial test of an academicachievement path model. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 32, 153–166.

Seginer, R., & Vermulst, A. (2002). Family environment, educational aspirations, and aca-demic achievement in two cultural settings. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 33,540–558.

Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’sreading skills: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445–460.

Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline withfamily and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 4–26.

Shumow, L. (1998). Promoting parental attunement to children’s mathematical reasoningthrough parent education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 109–127.

Shumow, L., & Lomax, R. (2002). Parental efficacy: Predictor of parenting behavior and ado-lescent outcome. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 127–150.

Shumow, L., & Miller, J. D. (2001). Parents’ at-home and at-school academic involvement withyoung adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 68–91.

Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Kang, K. (1996). School choice, family characteristics, andhome–school relations: Contributors to school achievement? Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 88, 451–460.

Silverberg, S. B., Marczak, M. S., & Gondoli, D. M. (1996). Maternal depressive symptoms andachievement-related outcomes among adolescent daughters: Variations by family struc-ture. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 90–109.

Singh, K., Bickley, B. G., Trivette, P., Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., & Anderson, E. (1995). The effectsof four components of parental involvement on eighth-grade students achievement:Structural analysis of NELS: 88 data. School Psychology Review, 24, 299–317.

Smith, M. B. (1968). School and home: Focus on achievement. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), De-veloping programs for the educationally disadvantaged (pp. 87–107). New York: Teachers Col-lege Press.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of in-equality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology ofEducation, 68, 116–135.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D., & Spina, S. U. (2000). The network orientations of highly resilient urbanminority youth: A network analytic account of minority socialization and its educationalimplications. The Urban Review, 32, 227–261.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parentingpractices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, andencouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–1281.

Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family–school relation and the child’s school per-formance. Child Development, 58, 1348–1357.

Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-gradeachievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141.

Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (2002). Culture structures the environment for development. Hu-man Development, 45, 270–274.


Taylor, A. R., & Machida, S. (1994). The contribution of parent and peer support to Head Startchildren’s early school adjustment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 387–405.

Teachman, J. (1987). Family background, family resources, and educational attainment. Amer-ican Sociological Review, 52, 548–557.

Teachman, J. D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. (1997). Social capital and the generation of humancapital. Social Forces, 75, 1343–1359.

Todd, E. S., & Higgins, S. (1998). Powerlessness in professional and parent partnerships. Brit-ish Journal of Sociology of Education, 19, 227–236.

Toren, N. K. (2004). Parental involvement: Links to young adolescents’ self-evaluation and academicachievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Haifa, Israel.

Trusty, J. (1999). Effects of eighth-grade parental involvement on late adolescents’ educationalexpectations. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 224–233.

Useem, E. L. (1991). Student selection into course sequences in mathematics: The impact ofparental involvement and school policies. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 231–250.

Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parents’ involvement in children’splacement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263–279.

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involve-ment and science achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 323–338.

Wachs, T. D. (2000). Necessary but not sufficient: The respective roles of single and multiple influ-ences on individual development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct problems in Head Start children:Strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,715–730.

Weiss, H. B., Mayer, E., Kreider, H., Vaughan, M., Dearing, E., Hencke, R., et al. (2003). Makingit work: Low-income working mothers’ involvement in their children’s education. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal, 40, 879–401.

Wenzel, K. R. (1994). Family functioning and academic achievement in middle school: A so-cial-emotional perspective. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 268–291.

Williams, B., Williams, J., & Ullman, A. (2002). Parental involvement in education. London: De-partment for Education and Skills.

Zellman, G. L., & Waterman, J. M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent school involve-ment on children’s educational outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, 370–380.

Zigler, E., & Muenchow (1992). Head Start: The inside story of America’s most successful educa-tional experiment. New York: Basic Books.

48 SEGINER

parents' educational involvement: a developmental ecology perspective

Documents