Since the turn of the century, parental participation in education has been an unabated topic of interest to educators, researchers, politicians and parents (Epstein, 1984, 1985; Fein, 1980; Floren & Dokecki, 1983; Henderson, 1987; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler & Brissie, 1987; Kroth, 1989; Power, 1985). This momentum to involve parents in education continues as we enter into a new millennium. The eighth National Educational Goal, Goals 2000: Educate America Act, states that "by the year 2000, every school will promote partnerships that will increase parent involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional and academic growth of children" (USDE, 1994). Although legislation and sociopolitical factors vigorously promote parent involvement in all aspects of education, scientific research and systematic evaluation has vacillated in documenting the beneficial effects of parent involvement in early intervention programs (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999).
The majority of research in the area of intergenerational early intervention programs began in the late 1960s as a federal response to the increasing difficulties facing low socioeconomic status (SES) families (Becher, 1986). Comprehensive two-generational intervention programs were mandated to prepare children to be successful in their school careers, while preparing adults to be successful wage-earners and partners in their children's education and development (Becher, 1986). Although there is evidence indicating that parent involvement in early intervention programs improves the intellectual functioning of children (see Becher, 1986), some researchers attest that evidence is ultimately inconclusive (Barnett, Young & Schweinhart, 1998; White, Taylor, & Moss, 1992). The debate between these two camps has brought to light many valid criticisms and challenges for future research in the area of home-school partnerships and early intervention programs.
Two variables we explore are the prolonged effects of early intervention programs and potential intervening factors. For instance, in a literature review of parental participation in early intervention programs, White, Taylor and Moss (1992) noted the lack of research as to whether the benefits of parent involvement were sustained over time. Furthermore, Becher (1986) asserted that educational paradigms, which explore the links between parental participation and children's academic achievement, have not researched the possibility of intervening variables, such as the amount of exposure to the program. In response to this deficit in research, the present study investigates whether early intervention family literacy programs cultivate enduring parental involvement habits, as measured by teachers' reports of parental involvement. This study will also examine how differing levels of exposure to family literacy programs are related to differences in parent involvement. If the findings in this investigation are significant, this study will reveal that one of the benefits of early intervention programs, increased parental involvement, is sustained over time.
Brief History of Family Literacy Programs
The concept of family literacy is not new; Huey, in 1908, asserted that children's education and academic ability " . . . all begins with parents reading to children" (p.103). For centuries, we have recognized the intergenerational landscape of literacy and education (Morrow, 1995). Furthermore, we have valued the family, not school, as the primary and foremost institution of learning (Morrow, 1995). Johann Pestalozzi, an eighteenth century educational philosopher, was classified as the father of parent education (Goldberg, 1997). He professed, "For children the teachings of their parents will always be the core, and as for the school master, we can give thanks to God if he is able to put a decent shell around the core" (Pestalozzi, 1951, p. 26). In recent years, educators, policy makers and researchers have begun to see the potential of harnessing family strengths to improve the literacy and life skills of adults and children through family literacy programs (Morrow, 1995).
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 decreed "maximum feasible participation" of parents in all programming efforts for young children (Parker, Piotikowsi, Horn & Greene, 1995, p. 137). This legislation marked the birth of the first two-generational intervention program, Head Start. Parker et al. defined a two-generational program as "an intervention designed to promote both the child's healthy development and improvements in a cluster of adult self-sufficiency outcomes that include the parents educational level, employment status, income and welfare status" (1995, p. 136). Almost since its conception, Head Start was solely acknowledged for providing extensive child development services to families of low SES (Morrow, Tracey & Maxwell, 1995). Although Head Start was conceived with a two-generational vision, Zigler and Styfco (1993) asserted that Head Start's parent involvement module is the most abandoned of their original goals. Parker et al. notes that Head Start is ill equipped to help parents create or achieve self-sufficient goals (1995). Furthermore, the Head Start program is unable to provide resources, such as family planning, substance abuse programs, or services for infants and toddlers, which may impede the parents' progress toward goals of education achievement and employment opportunities (St.Pierre & Swartz, 1995). Finally, most Head Start's half-day schedules and limited services duration (most sites serve only 3 and 4-year-old children) does not give a working parent time to make significant progress toward self-sufficiency (St.Pierre & Swartz, 1995).
In the face of these limitations, Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, through the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988, to create the Even Start Family Literacy Program (St.Pierre & Swartz, 1995). The National Literacy Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-73) further amended and charged the Even Start program to:
" . . . improve the educational opportunities of the Nation's children and adults by integrating early childhood education and adult education for parents into a unified program . . . The program shall be implemented through cooperative projects that build on existing community resources to create a new range of services." (St.Pierre & Swartz, 1995, p.38)
This legislation defined three goals and service counterparts to highlight Even Start's emphasis on family versus parent or child-focused programs. First, the early childhood education component strives to enhance the children's social, physical and educational development as to prepare them for a successful school career (National Center for Family Literacy, 1997). Services focus on developing the children's pre-literacy skills, active learning, and sharing abilities (1996). Second, the adult education module aims to develop workforce skills, through literacy training, to improve parents' opportunities in life (St.Pierre & Swartz, 1995). Services include basic adult education (ABE), adult secondary education (ASE), English as a second language (ESL), or training to gain a General Education Development (GED) certificate (St.Pierre & Swartz, 1995). Third, the parent education segment fosters the growth of the parent-child relationship and supports parents' efforts in becoming partners in the their children's education (St.Pierre & Swartz, 1995). In Parent and Child Together (PACT) time, parents hone their skills, as their children's most important teachers, through guided play-time activities (National Center for Family Literacy, 1997). Parent Time services integrates adult education and PACT time; it is designed to help parents understand and support their children's growth and development (1996).
National Evaluation of the Even Start Program
Within the Even Start legislation, an independent national program evaluation was mandated to document the efficacy of the Even Start program and to add to the growing research on the effectiveness of family literacy programs (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). The reported effectiveness of the Even Start program was based on data from a subset of five Even Start projects (In-Depth Study), approximately 200 families, and from an annual survey of all Even Start projects and participating families (the National Evaluation Information System, or NEIS) (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). The principal difference between the In-Depth and the NEIS studies was in how the data sets dealt with families who left the program (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). The In-Depth study measured participants at fixed intervals regardless of the participants' active enrollment in the Even Start program (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). Evaluators claimed this facet of the In-Depth study enabled a longitudinal look into the varying participation levels in the program (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). On the other hand, the NEIS posttests were collected either at the end of the program year or just before the participant left the program (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). Therefore, analysis of the NEIS surveys focused on the question of the possible effect Even Start has on families who continue to participate in the program (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). The national evaluation, which ran from 1990 to 1994, reported on many issues including the effects of the Even Start program on children, parents, and families (St. Pierre et al., 1995b).
The In-Depth study documented statistically significant gains in school readiness and pre-literacy skills for Even Start children as compared to their control group counterparts (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). However, the In-Depth posttest, collected 18 months later, reported no statistically significant difference between the Even Start children and the control group on the three measures: school readiness, hearing vocabulary, and emergent literacy skills (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). Evaluators noted that participant dropout from the Even Start program and/or control group participants' enrollment into preschool or kindergarten mediated these follow-up outcomes (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). The NEIS data showcased a positive, statistically significant relationship between program participation and child outcomes (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). The more participation, as measured by the hours in the programs, (early childhood education and the parenting education) the more improvement in the child's school readiness and hearing vocabulary (St. Pierre et al., 1995b).
The evaluation of Even Start program effects on parents was analyzed in two sections: parent literacy skills and parenting skills. GED attainment, functional literacy skills, and home-based reading and writing activities were the measures used to gauge parent literacy skills. According to the In-Depth and the NEIS studies, parents' GED attainment was the only strong, statistically significant effect the Even Start program had on parental literacy (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). Furthermore, the national evaluation reported that Even Start program did not generate any noteworthy effects on parenting skills as measured by adults' personal skills, the home learning environment, parent-child reading task, and parents' expectations for their children (St. Pierre et al., 1995b).
The In-Depth and NEIS studies reported that the Even Start program had no notable effects on participating families as measured by social support for families, family resources, and employment status (St. Pierre et al., 1995b). Evaluators asserted that it would be unlikely that family effects would be evident in the short time frame of the evaluation (St. Pierre et al., 1995b).
Criticisms and Extension of the National Evaluation of Even Start
The National Center for Family Literacy contends that the In-Depth and NEIS data sources obscure evidence of program effectiveness because the national Even Start evaluations included all funded programs regardless of their intensity or adherence to the founding Even Start principles (NCFL, 1997). To illustrate the effects of properly implemented Even Start principles, the NCFL conducted research that pooled samples from "good quality" Even Start programs. The additional research that the NCFL conducted supplements the national evaluation's findings on the effects of the Even Start program has on children, parents and families.
The NCFL asserts, "Children who attend family literacy programs have taken an intermediate step away from undereducation and poverty. They are succeeding in elementary school" (1995). As measured by their elementary school teachers' ratings, students entering kindergarten leave the Even Start program prepared to learn. Teachers also report that Even Start children are performing as well or better than average students, in first and second grades. Furthermore, Even Start students were measured as having significantly high ratings on attendance (88%), classroom behavior (88%), and relations with other students (92%) (NCFL, 1997).
The NCFL reinforce the national evaluation finding that parents in the Even Start programs have a higher percentage of obtaining a GED; however, the NCFL research was able to document other effects the Even Start program had on parent literacy and parenting skills. The NCFL reported that Even Start parents make statistically significant gains in language and math, improve confidence in self and parenting skills, obtain and maintain employment (1996). In addition, adults reduce their dependence on public assistance and continue their spiral of improvement by seeking enrollment in educational programs and employment (NCFL, 1997).
Unlike the national survey, NCFL documented effects of the Even Start program on families. The NCFL reports that Even Start families stay enrolled in the program longer and their attendance is better than most adult-focused programs (1996). Parent involvement in their children's educational careers and schools surpasses any level of parental participation before enrollment into the Even Start program (NCFL, 1997). Furthermore, the NCFL reports that 86% of the Even Start children were rated average or above average on family support and on expectation of educational achievement (1996).
Efficacy of Family Literacy Programs
"One of the most frequent claims of researchers, administrators, and practitioners involved in early intervention is that programs which involve parents are more effective than those that do not" (White, Taylor & Moss, 1992, p. 91). White, Bush and Castor (1985) documented the prevalence of this assertion by analyzing 52 previous reviews of early intervention programs (White, Bush, & Castor, 1985, for a summary of these reviewers conclusions). The majority of reviews concluded that early intervention programs increased in effectiveness when programs harnessed parental involvement (White, Bush, & Castor, 1985; White, Taylor & Moss, 1992). For instance, Bronfenbrenner concluded his review of early family literacy programs by asserting, "Without family involvement, intervention is likely to be unsuccessful, and what few effects are achieved are likely to disappear once the intervention is discontinued" (1974, p. 300).
Although the benefits of parental involvement in early intervention programs have been repeatedly acknowledged in the literature, some researchers assert that these findings are supported by popular belief versus vigorous, scientific examination of the evidence (White, Taylor & Moss, 1992). White, Taylor and Moss (1992) evaluated prior reviews and experimental studies, which proclaimed the benefits of parental involvement in early intervention programs. White et al. (1992) concluded that these prior findings were spurious; moreover, they contend that the data was ultimately inconclusive (Barnett, Young & Schweinhart, 1998; White, Taylor, & Moss, 1992).
Rebuttal responses to these critical reviews contest that the irresolute outcomes were based on inadequate measures, such as IQ, which are not sensitive to the effects of parental involvement (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). In Bronfenbrenner's (1974) review of early intervention efficacy, he declared: "In completing this analysis, we reemphasize the tentative nature of the conclusions and narrowness of IQ and related measures as aspects of the total development of the child (p. 301). Other research contends that retention rates, special education placement, school absenteeism, and academic achievement are more appropriately sensitive measures to detect and document the benefit of parent involvement on the children's success throughout their educational careers (Lally, Mangione, & Honig, 1988, Marcon, 1998; Seitz, 1990). This ongoing debate has provided challenges and questions for future research in early intervention programs with parental involvement. Within this area of research, one conclusion seems to be unanimously confirmed: the need for further research.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study investigates two questions. First, does participation in a family-literacy, early intervention program affect the typical pattern of parental involvement throughout a student's primary grades? Present research dictates a pattern of developmental shifts, which shows separate family-school spheres in infancy, increasing overlap during the preschool years and early elementary grades, and decreasing the overlay as the student progresses through school (Epstein, 1987; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; U.S Government Document, 1996). We hypothesize that participants in a multigenerational, early intervention program will show average to above average parent involvement throughout the child's primary grades.
Second, does the intensity of the family intervention affect the relative patterns of parent involvement? Ramey, Ramey, Gaines, and Blair (1995) asserted that "More intensive educational interventions, as indexed by variables such as the number of hours per day, days per week, and weeks per year, produce larger positive effects than do less intensive programs" (p 204). Therefore, we hypothesize that the intensity of exposure, intensity of the program or amount of years enrolled in the program, to the intervention program will affect the patterns of parent involvement. Although we hypothesize that completion of the Family Tree Program will increase parental participation, we further speculate that the intervening variable of exposure to the program will correspond to higher levels of parental involvement in their children's educational careers.
Methods
Research Design
This study was made possible due to the partnership between the Mesa Family Tree Program and Arizona State University. The study's design is an exploratory retrospective review of data collected and maintained by the Family Tree Program. The range of data analyzed allows cross-sectional as well as a longitudinal view of the effects of the Family Tree Program on parental involvement in education.
Program
Family Tree is an Even Start family literacy program that is operating in the largest district in the state of Arizona, Mesa Unified School District (Arizona Department of Education, 1998). This early intervention program provides preschool programs to at-risk children from age three until the start of kindergarten, as well as parenting and adult literacy education to their parents, all in one combined program. The Family Tree Program is located in the seven schools evaluated as most "at-risk"; the program services families confronting difficulties with poverty, mobility, and limited English skills (ADE, 1998). Demographic data on Family Tree Project participants indicates higher levels, as compared to the district average, of minority enrollment (61% versus 30%), limited English proficiency (40% versus 11%), and family poverty (74% versus 38%) (ADE, 1998). Families are recruited to participate in this program through aggressive community and school campaigns, referrals, and word of mouth (ADE, 1998).
The Family Tree Program is acknowledged as a model program by the National Center for Family Literacy, and was selected to serve as a national and state mentoring program for family literacy programs (ADE, 1998). Family Tree's philosophy is one that encourages parents to become advocates for their children's education by increasing their own literacy and furthering their own education. As modeled by the Even Start legislation, the Family Tree Program provides adult education, early childhood education, and parenting education. The program also assists parents to become familiar with community services, and shows them how schools can serve as both a resource for the family and a partner in the education and development of their children (ADE, 1998).
Participants
Participants of this study span four cohorts: 1992-1993, 1993-1994, 1995-1996, and 1998-1999. The 1992-1993 cohort represents the first group of graduates from the Family Tree Program. This cohort consists of 25 participants, 10 males and 15 females. Data collection for this cohort includes information from kindergarten, first grade, third grade, and sixth grade. The second cohort, 1993-1994, is made up of 41 participants, 23males and 18 females, which were followed through kindergarten, second grade, and fifth grade. The 1995-1996 cohort includes information from kindergarten and third grade for the 128 members, 63 males and 65 females. The final cohort, 1998-1999, draws information from the 106 members, 51 females and 55 males , enrolled in kindergarten.
Independent Variables
Exposure to the Family Tree Program: This criterion variable denotes the participants' completion of the Family Tree Program.
Intensity of Exposure to the Family Tree Program: Our analysis of the intensity of exposure is twofold. "It is important to recognize that intensity of an intervention is determined both by the program's delivery of a certain amount and frequency of service and by families' participation in the services and by families participation in services that are offered" (Smith, 1995, p. 206). First, we will examine the program's intensity by comparing cohorts enrolled in a two-day a week program, 92-93, 93-94 and 95-96, to the cohort enrolled in a five-day a week program, 98-99. Second, the exposure variable will be indexed by comparing participants who were enrolled two versus one year in the program. This analysis will combine participants with first and second graders from two cohorts: 95-96 and 96-97.
Dependent Variable and Measure
Parental Involvement: The Mesa Family Tree Program designed and
circulated a teacher survey, made up of six multiple-choice questions.
This instrument was developed to index Family Tree parents' involvement
in their children's education. During the years of the survey circulation,
teachers were asked to answer six questions related to parental involvement
for each student from the Family Tree Program in their class. While the
program tried to document the progress of each student, the teacher responses
to the survey may or may not document the same Family Tree students throughout
the grades.
Analysis
Efficacy of the Family Tree Program on Parental Involvement Patterns
Across the Grouped Grade Levels
The majority of Family Tree parents were consistently indexed by teachers as the same as or better than typical parents on measures of parental involvement across the grouped grades: kindergarten and first grades, second and third grades, and fifth and sixth grades (see Table 1). Table 1 shows that the majority of the Family Tree parents, across the grouped grades, have been consistently indexed as attending some or all of the parent-teacher conferences. Cross-sectionally, mean percentages indicate that teachers consistently rated the majority of Family Tree parents' conference attendance as the same as or better than typical parents. Furthermore, throughout the grade levels measured, the majority of Family Tree parents were rating as showing the same as or better levels of interest in their children's classroom performance as compared to the typical parent. Finally, teachers consistently rated their working experience with the majority of Family Tree parents as satisfactory.
Across the Family Tree Cohorts
Due to the nature of the previously used cross-sectional design, our mean percentages may be influenced by a cohort effect. The analysis of the between cohort effects showed no noticeable cohort effect; therefore, indicating a relatively stable program effect across the cohorts. As documented in Table 2, the majority of the Family Tree parents, in every cohort, have been consistently indexed as attending some or all of the parent-teacher conferences. Furthermore, the majority of Family Tree parents were rated as the same as or better than typical parents on measures of parental involvement at the kindergarten level across the four cohorts: 92-93, 93-94, 95-96 and 98-9. Mean percentages indicate that teachers consistently rated the majority of Family Tree parents' conference attendance as the same as or better than typical parents. Across the cohorts, the majority of Family Tree parents were rating as showing the same as or better levels of interest in their children's classroom performance as compared to the typical parent. Furthermore, the majority of Family Tree parents were rated as having a satisfactory working relationship with the kindergarten teacher across the cohorts.
Across Time
The longitudinal perspective documents the average to above average pattern of parental involvement the 92-93 Family Tree cohort has shown across time. Table 3 shows that the majority of the 92-93 Family Tree cohort has been consistently indexed as attending some or all of the parent-teacher conferences. This attendance rate has been consistently rated, by teachers, as the same or better than the typical parent in the corresponding classrooms. Table 3 shows an erratic pattern of classroom volunteering across the grades by the 92-93 Family Tree cohort. Teacher effects or teacher rating may be manipulating this pattern. This Family Tree cohort was consistently rated as the same or better in their interest in their children's classroom performance as compared to the typical parent. This rating was relatively stable across the grades, as seen in Table 3. Finally, Table 3 indicates that teachers, across the grades, consistently rated their working relationship with the majority of this cohort as being satisfactory.
Dosage of the Family Tree Program on Parental Involvement Patterns
Program Intensity
By comparing the mean percentages of the two-days a week to the five-days a week program, we can flesh out the effects of program intensity. With exception to the level of classroom volunteering, the measures of parental involvement indicate that the five-day a week program cohort is constantly rated higher as compared to cohorts in the two-day a week program (see Table 4). A larger majority of participants in the Family Tree cohort enrolled in the five-day a week program were rated as the same as or better than the typical parent's conference attendance, as compared to the two-day a week cohorts. Furthermore, teachers' ratings of parental interest in child's class performance showed a similar trend. Finally, a larger percent of five-day a week participants were rated as having a satisfactory working relationship with the teachers.
Participation Intensity
Our second exposure variable compares the patterns of parental involvement of parents enrolled for two-years versus one year of the Family Tree Program. Parents enrolled for two years were constantly rated higher on the measures of parent involvement, as compared to parents enrolled in one-year of the intervention program (see Table 5). Although the majority both groups were rated better than or the same as typical parents in conference attendance and interest in child's performance, a larger majority of parents enrolled for two-years received these favorable evaluations. In addition, a larger mean percentage of parents enrolled for two-years volunteered for class related activities, as compared to parents enrolled for one year. Finally, a larger majority of participants enrolled for two-years were rated as having a satisfactory working relationship with the teachers.
Discussion
Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed that human development occurs within and between diverse, interactive environments. Through his ecosystem framework of various, embedded systems, we can study the developing child in a complex and holistic manner. This study investigated the interaction, or mesosystem, between two distinct micosystems: The home microsystem refers to the quality and quantity of interactions afforded children by their parents or other significant participants in the home (Iverson, Brownlee, & Walberg, 1981). The school microsystem refers to children's interactions with educational instruction, social-psychological exercises, learning, educators and peers within their school (Iverson et al., 1981). The focus of this study is the region of interaction between home and school: the mesosyetem of the home-school partnership. The objective of this study was to explore the effects of early intervention programs on parent participation in education.
Although Bronfenbrenner's model of overlapping environments provides the foundation of this study's theoretical orientation, it falls short as we try to study the dynamics of developmental change within multiple systems across the lifespan. Epstein (1987) extends Bronfenbrenner's nested circles of development into dynamic interactions between overlapping spheres of influence. Both Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Epstein (1987) center the developing child in the interplay and influence of their models. Epstein's theory (1987) "is based on the assumption that children's learning, development, and success are the main reasons for home and school partnerships" (1987, p.130). The child is seen as actively interacting with, influenced by and influencing their families and schools, especially parents and teachers, as these spheres interact and change (1987). Within the theoretical framework of Bronfenbrenner and Epstein, we are able to study the complex, changing dynamics of family and school interactions. In essence, Epstein animates Bronfenbrenner's mesosystem of family and school partnerships. "Pictorially, this model is shown as spheres that can, by design, be pushed together or be pulled apart by practices and interpersonal forces in each environment" (Epstein, 1992, p. 1140). In this animated developmental paradigm, parent involvement is seen as a process that is responsive to growth and change over time (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).
The external structure of the model consists of spheres representing the family and school environments, the degree of overlapping spheres depends on three forces (Epstein, 1987). Time (Force A) accounts for changes in age, grade level, and historical influence on students, families, and schools (1987). "There will be a 'typical' or expected pattern of separation or overlap at different times based on the age of the child, level of school, and the historical period when the child is in school" (Epstein, 1987, p. 128). This study's first analysis examined if participation in a family-literacy program, Mesa Family Tree Program, affected the typical pattern of parental involvement throughout a student's primary grades. As hypothesized, participants in the Family Tree Program consistently showed average to above average parent involvement throughout the child's primary grades. These findings were confirmed across grouped grades, across cohorts and across time.
Force B and Force C represents the experiences and demands in families and schools, which can alter the family-school partnership. Epstein explained, "When parents maintain or increase interest in their children's schooling (Force B), they create greater overlap of the family and school spheres than would be expected on the average. When teachers make parents part of their regular teaching practices (Force C), they create greater overlap than would be typically expected" (1987, p. 128). Our second research question is found within Epstein's description of Force B. Our study asked whether the intensity of the family intervention would affect the relative patterns of parent involvement? As hypothesized, the intensity of exposure to the intervention program affected the patterns of parent involvement. Greater exposure to the intervention, either by program intensity or participation intensity, coincided with a larger majority of participants being rated as better than or the same as typical parents in the areas of conference attendance and interest in child's performance. Theoretically speaking, we can hypothesize more exposure to an early intervention program may increase the likelihood of that parent's skill or dedication to create a greater overlap between the home-school mesosystem by becoming and maintaining involvement in their child's education.
This study was able to document a relationship between the completion of an early intervention program, Family Tree Program, and improved parental involvement patterns. Furthermore, we were able to report the effects of dosage or intensity of the early intervention program on parent involvement habits. However, like most research, this study has its fair share of limitations. First, the procedures for data collection and the design of the teacher survey limited this study's sample size. Furthermore, not withstanding the built-in comparison afforded by the teacher survey, this study does not have an independent comparison group.
In conclusion, this study represents a first step in the study of the
efficacy of the Family Tree Program on parent involvement. Although, this
exploratory analysis has many limitations, it afforded the researchers
with a wealth of knowledge and a base from which to grow. Just as Slaughter
(1983) found "the importance of tailoring curriculum to the life-styles
and experiences of the participants" in a study on intervention strategies,
we have found the importance of tailoring our research to address the specific
needs of the programs which service those participants (p. 75-76).
Arizona Department of Education. (1998). Mesa Family Tree: Even Start application. Arizona: Author.
Barnett, S. W., Young, J. W. & L. J. Schweinhart (1998). How preschool education influences long-term cognitive development and school success: A causal model. In S. W. Barnett &S. S. Boocock (Eds.). Early care and education for children in poverty: Promises, programs, and long term results. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Becher, H. J. (1986). Parents' responses to teachers' parent involvement practices. Papers presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Is early intervention effective? Teachers College Record, 76, 279-303.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
Dauber, S.L., & Epstein, J.L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 289-305.
Epstein, J. L. (1984). School policy and parent involvement: Research results. Educational Horizons, 62, 70-72.
Epstein, J. L. (1985). A question of merit: Principals' and parents' evaluations of teachers. Educational Researcher, 14 (7), 3-10.
Epstein, J.L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement across the school years. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp.121-136). New York: de Gruyter.
Epstein, J.L., & Dauber, S.L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle school. Elementary School Journal, 91 (3), 289-305.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 6, 1139-1151.
Fein, L. G. (1980). Traits assessed under differently structured milieus: Predictive potential and intervention designs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44 (4), 420-426.
Floren, P. R. & Dokecki, P. R. (1983) Changing families through parent and family education: Review and analysis. In I. E. Sigel and L. M. Laosa (Eds.), Changing families. New York: Plenum.
Goldberg, S. (1997). Parent involvement begins at birth. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Henderson, P. (1987). Effects of planned parental involvement in affective education. School Counselor, 35 (1), 22-27.
Hoover-Dempsey K.V., Bassler, O.C. & Brissie, J.S. (1987). Parent involvement: Contributions of teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 417-435.
Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandler H.M. ( 1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of educational Research, 67, 3-42.
Huey, E. B. (1908). The history and pedagogy of reading; with a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, texts, and hygiene in reading. New York: Macmillan.
Iverson, B. K., Brownlee, & Walberg H. J., (1981). Parent^teacher contacts and student learning. Journal of Educational Research, 74 (6), 394-396.
Kroth, R. (1989). School-based parent involvement programs. In M. J. Fine (Ed.), The second handbook on parent education: Contemporary perspectives. Educational Psychology (pp. 119-143). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lally, J., Mangione, P. L., & A. S. Honig (1988). M More pride, less delinquency: Findings from the ten-year follow-up study of the Syracuse University Family Development Research Program. Zero to Three, 8 (4), 13-18.
Marcon, R. A. (1998). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public inner-city preschoolers' development and academic performance. School Psychology Review, 28 (3), 395-412.
Miedel, W.T., & Reynolds, A.J. (1998). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Paper presented at the Fourth National Head Start Research conference, July 10, 1998, Washington, DC.
Morrow, L.M. (1995). Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities. New Jersey: Rutgers University.
Morrow L. M., Tracey D.H. & Maxwell C.M. (Eds.) (1995). A survey of family literacy in the United States. Newark: International Reading Association.
National Center for Family Literacy (1997). Even Start: An effective literacy program helps families grow towrads independence. Louisville, KY: Author.
Parker, F.L., Piotrkowski, S. S., Horn, W.F., & Greene S. M. (1995). The challenge for Head Start: Realizing its vision as a two-generational program. In S. Smith (Ed.), Two generation programs for families in poverty: A new intervention strategy (pp.135-160). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Pestalozzi, J. H. (1951). The education of man. New York: Philosophical Library.
Power, T. J. (1985). Perceptions of competence: How parents and teachers view each other. Psychology in the Schools, 22 (1): 68-78.
Ramey, C.T., Ramey, S. L., Gaines, K.R., & Blair, C. (1995). Two-generational
early intervention programs: A child development perspectives. In S. Smith (Ed.), Two generation programs for families in poverty: A new intervention strategy (pp.199-228). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Seitz, V. (1990). Intervention programs for impoverished children: A comparison of educational and family support models. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development: A research annual, Vol 7 (pp.73-103). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Slaughter, Diana T. (1983). Early intervention effects on maternal and child development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (4), 1-83.
St. Pierre, R.G., & Swartz, J.P. (1995). The Even Start Family Literacy Program. In S. Smith (Ed.), Two generation programs for families in poverty: A new intervention strategy (pp.37-66). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
St. Pierre, R., Swartz, J., Gamse, B., Murray, S., Deck, D., & Nickel, P. (1995b). National evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong schools: Building community partnerships for learning. Washington, DC: Author.
White, K. R., Bush, D. W. & Casto, G. C. (1985) Learning from previous reviews of early intervention. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 417-428.
White, K.R., Taylor, M.J., & Moss, V.D. (1992). Does research support claims about the benefits of involving parents in early intervention programs? Review of Educational Research, 62, 91-125.
Zigler, E., & Styfco, J. S. (1993). Head Start and beyond: A
national plan for extended childhood intervention. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Mean Percentages: Teacher Report of Parental Participation
| Survey Questions | Responses |
|
Second & Third Grade
N=48 |
Fifth and Sixth Grade
N=21 |
| Did parent(s) attend scheduled parent-teacher conferences? | All |
|
63.40 | 50.00 |
| Some | 19.46 | 17.60 | 28.60 | |
| None | 7.95 | 19.00 | 21.45 | |
| How did this child's parent(s) attendance at conferences compare with typical parent attendance for your class? | Better | 32.08 | 20.13 | 30.25 |
| Same | 52.00 | 54.83 | 47.25 | |
| Worse | 15.92 | 25.03 | 22.55 | |
| Did this child's parent(s) do any class-related volunteering this year? | Yes | 16.02 | 23.10 | 7.15 |
| No | 83.28 | 76.90 | 92.85 | |
| How did parent(s)' interest in child's classroom performance compare with that of other parents? | Better | 35.54 | 25.30 | 21.45 |
| Same | 38.00 | 53.97 | 60.70 | |
| Worse | 21.34 | 19.50 | 10.70 | |
| Please rate your experience working with this child's parent(s)? | Satisfactory | 77.52 | 77.87 | 78.55 |
| Unsatisfactory | 13.98 | 16.43 | 14.30 | |
Cross-Sectional Comparisons of Cohorts in Kindergarten
| Survey Questions | Responses |
|
Cohort
93-94 |
Cohort
95-96 |
Cohort
98-99 |
| Did parent(s) attend scheduled parent-teacher conferences? | All |
|
70 | 63.2 | 82.1 |
| Some | 12.5 | 30 | 26.3 | 10.3 | |
| None | 12.5 | 0 | 10.5 | 7.7 | |
| N=16 | N=10 | N=19 | N=39 | ||
| How did this child's parent(s) attendance at conferences compare with typical parent attendance for your class? | Better or Same | 86.7 | 80 | 84.2 | 89.8 |
| Worse | 13.3 | 20 | 15.8 | 10.5 | |
| N=15 | N=10 | N=19 | N=38 | ||
| Did this child's parent(s) do any class-related volunteering this year? | Yes | 12.5 | 9.1 | 23.8 | 2.6 |
| No | 85.7 | 90.9 | 76.2 | 71.8 | |
| N=16 | N=10 | N=21 | N=39 | ||
| How did parent(s)' interest in child's classroom performance compare with that of other parents? | Better or Same | 68.8 | 70 | 81 | 84.2 |
| Worse | 25 | 20 | 9.5 | 15.8 | |
| N=16 | N=10 | N=21 | N=38 | ||
| Please rate your experience working with this child's parent(s)? | Satisfactory | 71.4 | 87.5 | 71.4 | 84.6 |
| Unsatisfactory | 14.3 | 12.5 | 9.5 | 15.4 | |
| N=14 | N=8 | N=21 | N=39 |
Longitudinal Comparisons across the Grades for 92-93 Family Tree Cohort
| Survey Questions | Responses |
|
First Grade
N=11 |
Third Grade
N=11 |
Sixth Grade
N=7 |
| Did parent(s) attend scheduled parent-teacher conferences? | All |
|
72.70 | 90.90 | 42.90 |
| Some | 12.50 | 18.20 | 0 | 42.90 | |
| None | 12.50 | 9.10 | 9.10 | 14.30 | |
| How did this child's parent(s) attendance at conferences compare with typical parent attendance for your class? | Better or Same | 86.7 | 80 | 90.9 | 85.7 |
| Worse | 13.3 | 20 | 9.1 | 14.3 | |
| Did this child's parent(s) do any class-related volunteering this year? | Yes | 12.5 | 9.1 | 54.5 | 0 |
| No | 87.5 | 90 | 45.5 | 100 | |
| How did parent(s)' interest in child's classroom performance compare with that of other parents? | Better or Same | 68.8 | 63.7 | 90 | 85.7 |
| Worse | 50 | 36.4 | 10 | 0 | |
| Please rate your experience working with this child's parent(s)? | Satisfactory | 71.4 | 72.7 | 90 | 85.7 |
| Unsatisfactory | 14.3 | 18.2 | 10 | 0 | |
Comparison between Two and Five-Day a Week Program: Percentages in Kindergarten
| Survey Questions | Responses |
|
Five-Day Program
Cohort: 98-99 |
| Did parent(s) attend scheduled parent-teacher conferences? | All |
|
82.10 |
| Some | 29.93 | 10.30 | |
| None | 7.66 | 7.70 | |
| N=45 | N=39 | ||
| How did this child's parent(s) attendance at conferences compare with typical parent attendance for your class? | Better or Same | 83.63 | 89.80 |
| Worse | 16.37 | 10.50 | |
| N=44 | N=38 | ||
| Did this child's parent(s) do any class-related volunteering this year? | Yes | 15.13 | 2.60 |
| No | 84.27 | 71.80 | |
| N=47 | N=39 | ||
| How did parent(s)' interest in child's classroom performance compare with that of other parents? | Better or Same | 73.27 | 84.20 |
| Worse | 18.17 | 15.80 | |
| N=47 | N=38 | ||
| Please rate your experience working with this child's parent(s)? | Satisfactory | 76.77 | 84.60 |
| Unsatisfactory | 12.10 | 15.40 | |
| N=43 | N=39 |
Table 5
Comparison of Teacher Ratings for Parents Enrolled in the One versus
Two Years
| Survey Questions | Responses |
|
Two-Years
Enrollment N=14 |
| Did parent(s) attend scheduled parent-teacher conferences? | All |
|
92.9 |
| Some | 12.2 | 7.1 | |
| None | 12.2 | 0 | |
| How did this child's parent(s) attendance at conferences compare with typical parent attendance for your class? | Better or Same | 85.7 | 100 |
| Worse | 14.3 | 0 | |
| Did this child's parent(s) do any class-related volunteering this year? | Yes | 6.1 | 21.4 |
| No | 93.9 | 78.6 | |
| How did parent(s)' interest in child's classroom performance compare with that of other parents? | Better or Same | 83.7 | 92.8 |
| Worse | 14.3 | 0 | |
| Please rate your experience working with this child's parent(s)? | Satisfactory | 73.5 | 85.7 |
| Unsatisfactory | 6.1 | 0 | |