Frances L. Van Voorhis
Michelle F. Maier
Joyce L. Epstein
Chrishana M. Lloyd
October 2013

THE IMPACT OF
FAMILY INVOLVEMENT ON THE
EDUCATION OF CHILDREN
AGES 3 TO 8
A Focus on Literacy andMath Achievement Outcomes andSocial-Emotional Skills

The Impact of Family Involvementon the Education of Children Ages 3 to 8
A Focus on Literacy and Math Achievement Outcomes
and Social-Emotional Skills

Frances L. Van Voorhis(Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships
at Johns Hopkins University)
Michelle F. Maier(MDRC)
Joyce L. Epstein(Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships
at Johns Hopkins University)
Chrishana M. Lloyd(MDRC)
with
Therese Leung(MDRC)

October 2013

This literature review is being funded through a grant from the Heising-Simons Foundation
under Grant Number 2013-30.
Dissemination of MDRC publications is supported by the following funders that help finance
MDRC’s public policy outreach and expanding efforts to communicate the results and implications of our work to policymakers, practitioners, and others: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The
George Gund Foundation, Sandler Foundation, and The Starr Foundation.
In addition, earnings from the MDRC Endowment help sustain our dissemination efforts. Contributors to the MDRC Endowment include Alcoa Foundation, The Ambrose Monell Foundation,
Anheuser-Busch Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, The Grable Foundation, The Lizabeth andFrank Newman Charitable Foundation, The New York Times Company Foundation, Jan Nicholson, Paul H. O’Neill Charitable Foundation, John S. Reed, Sandler Foundation, and The Stupski
Family Fund, as well as other individual contributors.
The findings and conclusions in this report do not necessarily represent the official positions or
policies of the funders.

For information about MDRC and copies of our publications, see our Web site: www.mdrc.org.
Copyright © 2013 by MDRC®. All rights reserved.

Overview
This report summarizes research conducted primarily over the past 10 years on how families’
involvement in children’s learning and development through activities at home and at school
affects the literacy, mathematics, and social-emotional skills of children ages 3 to 8. A total of
95 studies of family involvement are reviewed. These include both descriptive, nonintervention
studies of the actions families take at home and at school and intervention studies of practices
that guide families to conduct activities that strengthen young children’s literacy and mathlearning. The family involvement research studies are divided into four categories:• Learning activities at home, including those that parents engage in to promote their child’s

literacy and/or math skills outside school• Family involvement at school, including the actions and interactions that families have

while in the school building• School outreach to engage families, including the strategies that schools and teachers use

to engage families and make them feel welcome• Supportive parenting activities, including the nature and quality of the parent-child rela-tionship and home environment, rule-setting, and caring behaviors

Key Findings• Family involvement is important for young children’s literacy and math skills. The ma-

jority of studies, including some randomized control trials (RCTs), demonstrate this positive
link. A few studies show positive relations with social-emotional skills. The weakest association was between family involvement at school and children’s outcomes.

• Parents from diverse backgrounds, when given direction, can become more engaged

with their children. And when parents are more engaged, children tend to do better.

• This review also provides recommendations for additional lines of inquiry and implica-

tions to guide next steps in both research and practice. While there is still more to learn
about how to connect with and support caretakers’ efforts to promote children’s learning,
what we already know from extant research can help guide this process.

More children attend preschool and all-day kindergarten than ever before, and educators arebeing urged by federal, state, and local institutions to use research-based or evidence-based approaches to improve their work with families and families’ involvement with their children andthe school. This review strengthens the belief that interventions to boost family involvement
may be a critical piece when trying to support children’s early learning.

iii

Contents
Overview
List of Exhibits
PrefaceAcknowledgments
Executive Summary

iii
vii
ix
xi
ES-1

Chapter
1

Introduction

1

2

Family Involvement in Reading and Literacy Activities and Results forChildren’s Literacy Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills

7

3

Family Involvement in Math Activities and Results for Children’s Math
Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills

51

4

Summary, Reflections, and Recommendations

75

AppendixA

Studies of Family Involvement in Literacy Activities and Math Activities
and Social-Emotional Outcomes

87

B

Examples from the Field: Family Involvement Activities with YoungChildrenGlossary

163
181

C

References

General References
References for Chapter 2: Reading and Literacy Activities
References for Chapter 3: Math Activities

v

187
191
198

List of Exhibits
Table
1.1

Description of Journal Articles for Literacy and Math Reviews

6

A.1

Studies of Family Involvement in Literacy Activities and Literacy and SocialEmotional Outcomes

89

A.2

Studies of Family Involvement in Math Activities and Math and Social-Emotional
Outcomes127

B.1

Examples from the Field from Preschool to Elementary School: Family Involvement
Activities of Reading with Young Children

169

B.2

Examples from the Field from Preschool to Elementary School: Family Involvement
Activities of Math with Young Children

173

B.3

Examples from the Field from Preschool: Transition Activities with Young Children
and Families

177

2.1

Feature Study: Family Involvement in Reading Activities at Home

13

2.2

Feature Study: Effects of Parent Intervention on Play and Learning Strategies(PALS) on Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills

16

2.3

Feature Studies: Parent-Child Conversations at Home

18

2.4

Feature Study: Multiple Measures of Family Involvement in Learning Activities at
Home Versus Other Types of Family Involvement

21

2.5

Feature Study: Effects of Family Involvement at Home on Learning and Behavior

22

2.6

Feature Study: Effects of Family Involvement at School Over Time

28

2.7

Feature Study: Composite Measure of Parental Involvement and Children’s
Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills

39

2.8

Feature Study: Intervention on Supportive Parenting and Achievement Outcomes

43

2.9

Feature Study: Change in Supportive Parenting and Results for Children’s
Achievement and Social-Economical Skills

45

3.1

Feature Study: Intervention to Increase Parent Involvement in Math Activities at
Home

55

3.2

Feature Study: Intervention to Increase Parent Involvement in General Learning
Activities at Home

58

Box

vii

Box
3.3

Feature Study: Nonintervention Exploration of Composite Measures of Parental
Involvement and Children’s Learning and Behavior

60

4.1

Reading and Literary-Related Activities Engaged in by Children and Families

84

4.2

Math-Related Activities Engaged in by Children and Families

85

viii

Preface
In recent years, large investments have been made in the early childhood field with the goal of
positively affecting young children’s outcomes through two areas of inquiry: (1) parenting andhome visiting and (2) early childhood care and education. This commitment is underscored byPresident Obama’s Early Learning Initiative, with its focus on a continuum of high-quality earlylearning for every child in America from birth to age 5 and its aim of “leveling the playing
field” for children from lower-income families. The family involvement research that issummarized in this report is firmly situated at the nexus of these two important areas of work,
connecting what happens in the home with what happens in the school — while keeping thechild and positive child development as the primary focus. Given this context and the increased
expectation that education systems use research-based or evidence-based approaches in theirwork with families, the connection between home and school — and how best to support it —is likely a critical piece of the puzzle of how to comprehensively promote children’s earlylearning.
This report on almost 100 family involvement research studies focusing on the literacy,
math, and socio-emotional skills of children ages 3 to 8 is a timely contribution to the field. It
presents the most rigorous empirical work that has been conducted, primarily over the past 10
years. The review finds that parents from diverse backgrounds, when given direction, canincrease their involvement with their children’s learning at home and at school and that, when
parents are more involved and more engaged, children tend to do better academically andsocially. More importantly, this review makes explicit recommendations for further lines ofinquiry and offers several implications to guide next steps in both research and practice. While
there is still much more to learn about how to connect with and support families’ efforts topromote children’s learning across the home and school contexts most effectively, this report isa much-needed first step.
Gordon L. Berlin
PresidentixAcknowledgments
This literature review was conducted with the Heising-Simons Foundation. We extend our sincere thanks to Holly Kreider, Program Officer, and Deanna Gomby, Executive Director, from
Heising-Simons for their ongoing support and guidance.
We want to thank the authors of, and the families and children who participated in, thenumerous studies that we drew on for this report. We also acknowledge a number of colleagues
from MDRC who were involved in this literature review. Virginia Knox, Families and Children
Policy Area Director and Senior Adviser for this work, provided valuable feedback on initial
drafts of this report. Jennifer Garcia and Jennifer Somers assisted in the initial literature review
and in producing detailed appendix tables.
We extend much thanks to M. Elena Lopez, Associate Director at Harvard Family Research Project, for her incredibly detailed and thorough review of this report. Her thoughts andguidance pushed our thinking in multiple ways, leading to additional emphasis on how the findings can be applied to practitioners and the field at large. We also thank Laurie Miller Brotman,
Prevention Science Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychiatry and the Director of the Institute for Prevention Science at the Child Study Center at New York University, forlending her expertise and providing two rounds of thoughtful comments and review.
Robert Weber edited the report, and Stephanie Cowell prepared it for publication.
The Authorsxi

Executive SummaryChildren benefit when parents and family members get involved in their learning and development. This conclusion is supported by decades of research that suggests that family engagement is positively linked to children’s outcomes in preschool, kindergarten, and early
elementary grades.
Yet it has been unclear how families affect their children’s learning at home and inschool and how the establishment of a partnership between families and schools can lead topositive outcomes for children. We still do not know what aspects of family involvement areimportant for children’s learning. For example, is it better for parents to conduct early learning
activities at home or at school? And what types of early learning activities can parents do with
their children that are critical to learning and development? And in what ways can schools andteachers guide and encourage parents to do these things with their children?
To help answer these questions, this report summarizes the research conducted overthe past 10 years on the effects of family involvement activities at home and at school onliteracy, mathematics, and social-emotional skills for children ages 3 to 8. In addition, it
provides new information on the impact of family involvement on these skills specifically forpreschool children, and it pays special attention to the practices necessary to help prepare
parents and children for the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Finally, this report
identifies the gaps in knowledge that future research should address, and it discusses how to
use research findings to inform and improve practice.
Several terms in this report are used interchangeably both in the field and in research.
For instance, “involvement” and “engagement” are both used but convey the same meaning.
And while we recognize that many individuals in a family may play important roles in a child’s
learning at home and at school, most studies examine parents or caregivers; therefore, we use
the words “family” and “parent” interchangeably. Finally, in this report, “children” and “students” are used synonymously.

Overview of the Research
The studies reviewed in this report represent the most rigorous work conducted over the past
decade on the nature and effects of family involvement on young children’s literacy, math, andsocial-emotional skills. A total of 95 studies of family involvement practices as they affectyoung children’s literacy and math learning and social-emotional skills are reviewed: 52 studies
on literacy and 43 studies on mathematics. These include both descriptive, nonintervention(nonexperimental) studies of the actions that families take at home and at school and intervention (both experimental and quasi-experimental) studies of programs that help structure fami-

ES-1

lies’ engagement in activities that could strengthen or increase young children’s literacy andmath learning.
Unfortunately, only a limited number of intervention studies have used rigorous, experimental designs. Chapter 2, on family involvement in reading and literacy activities, reports on 9
individual intervention studies and more than 120 interventions included in 8 meta-analyses.
Chapter 3, on family involvement in math activities, reports on 7 intervention studies and morethan 20 intervention studies included in 2 meta-analyses. These studies embrace varying
standards of evidence. Although some use randomized control trials (RCTs), the vast majority
of individual intervention studies do not provide enough information about analytic or methodological weaknesses, such as not using an intent-to-treat analysis or not reporting on intervention
implementation or study design flaws (that might result, for example, in differential attrition).
Nevertheless, these studies do provide useful guidance when determining the future directionsof family involvement research. (Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2 provide details about all thereviewed studies.)
The family involvement research on both literacy and math were divided into four categories to reflect how parents support their children’s learning in a variety of ways and indifferent settings (Epstein, 2011; Epstein et al., 2009): 1
1. Learning activities at home. These studies focused specifically on the home
activities that parents engage in to promote literacy, math, or both (or moregeneral academic activities). These activities may also occur wherever children learn with their parents, such as in libraries, museums, and family resource centers.
2. Family involvement at school. These studies examined the actions and interactions that parents and other family members have while at the schoolbuilding (for example, during an open house or parent-teacher conference,
while participating in the classroom, or volunteering).
3. School outreach to engage families. These studies examined the strategies
and practices that schools and teachers use to engage families and make themfeel welcome. Special attention was paid to the processes that schools used toprepare preschool children and families for the move to kindergarten.
1

Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving
schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., and Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R. (Rodriquez), Van
Voorhis, F. L., Martin, C. S., Thomas, B. G., Greenfield, M. D., Hutchins, D. J., and Williams, K. J. (2009).
School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

ES-2

4. Supportive parenting activities. These studies examined activities that parents conduct to support their children’s development and well-being, including the nature and quality of the parent-child relationship; parenting activities, such as setting rules at home; and caring behaviors that characterize thehome environment in general. This is in contrast to parents’ conducting specific literacy or math activities at home with their children.

Research Results
Across the studies reviewed, we were able to draw two main conclusions. First, the majority ofstudies — including some RCTs — demonstrate that family involvement is positively linked tochildren’s literacy and math skills in preschool, kindergarten, and the early elementary grades.
A few studies also show increases in children’s social-emotional skills. The weakest link was
between family involvement at school and children’s outcomes.
Second, the most rigorous studies that use random assignment show that parents fromdiverse backgrounds, when given direction, can become more engaged with their children on
literacy and math activities — and that their children can increase their reading and math skills,
on average, more so than children whose parents are operating without support or direction.
These studies demonstrate that family-focused intervention has small-to-moderate effects on children’s learning. Note, however, that the study designs varied and that only fivestudies demonstrating positive effects also employed the gold standard from which to draw
causal conclusions: random assignment. Eight other studies had comparison groups but not
random assignment and also demonstrated positive results, providing additional, yet cautious,
confidence in the conclusions. Importantly, these conclusions indicate that there is much more
to be learned in the field of family involvement and early childhood, and they point to the needfor more rigorous work in this area.

Implications for Improving Practice
Although more research is needed to fully understand family involvement, its impact on young
children’s early reading and math skills and readiness for school, and the implications forpractice, a number of lessons are emerging that can immediately inform the field.
The studies in this review indicate that, with guidance, many parents — across all socioeconomic, educational, and racial or ethnic backgrounds — are interested in and able to conduct
learning activities at home with their young children. Parents and their children engaged in ahost of activities (including shared book reading, dialogic reading, home tutoring, and family
conversations), and these activities were related to positive results for children’s vocabulary,
listening comprehension, rates of word reading, story comprehension, and other reading skills.
ES-3

Similarly, when parents and their children are engaged in various math-related activities–– such as counting, playing with shapes and puzzles, money math, and addition and subtraction –– such activities are associated with positive results on children’s math knowledge andskills across a variety of assessments.
The interventions that were both sustained and targeted were the most effective. Interventions that lasted for longer periods of time and that were clearly defined in relation to
outcomes that logically flow from a theory of change were associated with greater gains inachievement.
Many preschools and elementary schools are implementing involvement activities withfamilies to strengthen children’s reading and math skills and to improve the transition processfrom preschool to kindergarten. Appendix B summarizes a few of the hundreds of activities thathave been implemented by practitioners in schools in the National Network of Partnership
Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University and that are reported in annual books of Promising Partnership Practices.
But the connection between research findings and their practical implications can bestrengthened even further to promote greater and more equitable parental involvement. Someparents conduct activities that support and increase their young children’s learning without any
encouragement, but the studies in this review demonstrate that all parents can be more involved in literacy and math activities. Parents may not be aware of which activities to conduct
and how to conduct them to support their young children’s literacy and math skills and school
behaviors, so schools and teachers need to take an active role in engaging all families. Preschools and elementary schools, community groups, and leaders must be intentional about
including families as an integral part of their school or program philosophy. This outreach isimportant for all parents — and especially so for those whose children are most at risk of
having learning problems.

Implications for Future Research
Regardless of the type of family involvement and the methodological design of these studies,
the results reveal critical insights that can direct future research:•More studies are needed that specifically identify which family involvement practices and which school outreach strategies are most effective
for all students and families, specific subgroups of students and families,
and at varying grade levels. In addition, studies should examine fathers’(and mothers’) roles in family involvement, potential moderators to ascertain
whom or under what conditions interventions are effective, and the mechanisms by which family involvement works to influence children’s learning.

ES-4

Finally, more research –– particularly, experimental work –– needs to reporton the fidelity of implementation of a program or intervention model.
•

More well-designed, rigorous experimental studies are needed that examine immediate and cumulative effects of family involvement interventions. The literature review found few experimental studies compared withnonexperimental studies, and, even within the experimental ones, there were
varying levels of evidence with (unreported) analytic or methodologicalweaknesses. In addition, most studies paid minimal attention to measuring
fidelity of implementation to the intended model of family involvement. Ideally, future experimental studies would use random assignment and an intentto-treat analysis; would report on fidelity of implementation; and would include theoretically linked child outcome measures, which would provide
stronger evidence of a positive impact of specific family involvement activities on particular child outcomes. Finally, studies should examine both immediate and cumulative effects of interventions across age and grade levels.

•

Studies that use longitudinal data can show how the trajectory of family
involvement changes as children develop and how that may relate tospecific outcomes. Studies based on cross-sectional data can demonstrate therelationship between family involvement and children’s outcomes at one
point in time, but longitudinal studies can measure change in family involvement and the dynamics between family involvement and outcomes overtime. The studies reviewed in this report show not only that family involvement does matter at one point in time but also that positive change in family
involvement is associated with better outcomes.

•

More research should examine the link between family involvement andboth math and social-emotional skills. Compared with literacy studies,
fewer studies examined the effects of family involvement on math, and evenfewer focused on social-emotional skills. Often, measures of children’s social-emotional skills were casually added onto studies without a strong theoretical rationale, which dilutes the importance of these kinds of critical skills
that help children understand and control their feelings and get along withpeers and teachers.

•

Future studies should examine how to expand and scale up the researchtested programs and practices of family involvement with children on
reading and math activities. The ultimate goal is to understand how to scale
up good practices that will help a significantly large number of parents become involved in productive, feasible, and fun ways to help their children’s

ES-5learning and development. We need more studies that examine the processes
necessary to scale up effective interventions, moving the conduct of treatment and control group practices from researchers’ tight controls to realworld tests of teachers’ practices.
•

Studies should align specific family involvement activities — as well as
measures of them — with explicit child outcomes. Many studies illustratethat highly specific measures of family involvement are more likely linked topositive child outcomes, in contrast to studies that use composite measures offamily involvement, which tend to confound the separable types of involvement (Epstein, 2011). For example, studies that examine whether parents areengaged in guided reading and math activities help to produce specific results
for students in reading and math. Conversely, composite outcome measures(such as combined reading and math test scores) tend to obscure an understanding of whether and which family involvement actions contribute to particular learning outcomes.

•

Studies should pay more attention to the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Several nonintervention studies indicate that specific, well-planned
strategies and welcoming practices not only help children and their parents adjust to a new school but also are associated with better child outcomes.

Conclusion
More children attend preschool and all-day kindergarten than ever before, and the strong push
for universal preschool education by various policymakers suggests that the number willcontinue to increase.
Educators are being urged by federal, state, and local institutions to use research-basedor evidence-based approaches to improve their practices around family involvement so that they
can produce positive results for all children. This review strengthens the position that interventions to bolster family involvement are likely to be part of the solution when the goal is toimprove children’s early learning. It offers several important recommendations — for bothresearchers and educators — that guide the next steps in an important policy agenda of promoting children’s development and learning.

ES-6

Chapter 1

Introduction
It is well established that parents matter greatly for their children’s development and successboth in and out of school. Yet there are no manuals or sure strategies for raising happy, caring,
confident, and successful children. Parents do their best with the information that they have or
receive to teach their infants to walk and talk, help toddlers learn and play, and help young
children get ready to succeed in school. Teachers, too, work diligently to foster their students’
academic achievement and social and emotional development. As they work with good intentions to guide their children, parents and teachers experience many bumps in the road.
Research has been accumulating for decades on the importance of high-quality preschool education to prepare children for their journey through school (Reynolds, 2000; Reynolds,
Temple, Robertson, and Mann, 2001). At the same time, for more than 30 years (Kagan, 1984;
Epstein, 1995; Becker and Epstein, 1982), research on family and community involvement has
shown that children are more successful in school when their parents and teachers communicate
well and work together effectively (Epstein, 2011; Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, and Davies,
2007). Countless studies indicate that, at any grade level, including prekindergarten, challenging
curriculum, important learning goals, effective assessments, responsive feedback for students,
and parental involvement are important for increasing student achievement, attendance, behavior, and other important school outcomes (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton,
2011; Marzano, 2003; Sheldon, 2003). Although the relevant studies vary in size, duration, datacollected, and methods of analyses, the body of literature points in one direction: Children benefit
when parents and teachers work together as partners in education.
Despite the generally positive findings of hundreds of studies, the application of research findings in homes and schools is rare, often occurring with families who are alreadyengaged and sometimes without attention to what has been learned to be particularly effective inresearch. Popular media have played a role in helping to educate parents on ways to support
children’s development, making it easier for parents to understand, internalize, and apply
general research findings (such as Capretto, 2012; Feiler, 2012; Larsen and Rodgers, n.d.). For
example, more parents now than in the past read with their young children and conduct otherevidence-based early reading and math activities with infants and toddlers. The percentage ofprekindergarten children (ages 3 to 5) who were read to frequently by a family member (that is,three times or more in the week preceding the survey) increased from 78 percent in 1993 to 86
percent in 2005 (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Over this time period, parents or otherfamily members also were more likely to frequently tell their children stories (from 43 percent
in 1993 to 54 percent in 2005); work with their children on letters, words, and numbers (from58 percent to 77 percent); and teach their children songs or music (from 41 percent to 54
1

percent). Although family poverty level affected the number of students read to by a parent (90percent of children in families over the poverty line, compared with 78 percent of children infamilies below the poverty line), there were no significant differences by poverty level inparents’ telling stories; working with letters, words, or numbers; and teaching songs to theirchildren. In these data, parental involvement with children on “letters, words, and numbers” iscombined in one composite, making it impossible to identify a trend in parents’ engagementwith young children on math readiness specifically. Over time, however, the trend is noticeable:
In the past 20 years, parents of young children are engaging in more “best practices” forsupporting children’s competencies, demonstrating that change in family involvement ispossible, given sufficient information and widespread dissemination.
Early learning experiences at home may be initiated by informed parents and/or may be
guided by children’s preschool teachers. The findings above suggest that, regardless of theireconomic circumstances, parents conduct reading readiness activities with their children. Still, alarge proportion of parents are unsure about the best way to engage in other reading-related
activities with their children at particular age and grade levels. Even more are uncertain how tointeract with their children on math activities (Pan, Gauvain, Liu, and Cheng, 2006), especiallywhen the way in which math is taught differs from how it was taught when the parents were inschool. Many studies indicate that nearly all parents agree that they want more and betterguidance from teachers on how to help their children at home on specific skills as their children
progress through the grades (Epstein, 2011; Pianta, Kraft-Sayre, Rimm-Kaufmann, Gercke, andHiggins, 2001; Van Voorhis, 2011). These concerns loom large for parents of preschool
children because they know that their children’s early education sets the trajectory for success or
problems in school (Weiss, Caspe, and Lopez, 2006).
This social landscape prompts important questions: What aspects of how families are
involved in their children’s learning — such as learning activities at home or involvement at
school — are important for children’s learning? What are the early learning activities thatparents can do with their children that are most related to learning and development? What isneeded to help more parents — indeed, all parents — conduct activities that enable theirchildren to gain the skills and positive attitudes that they need to be “ready” for preschool andkindergarten? What can parents do on their own and what information and guidelines do theyneed to conduct learning activities with their children at home and at school? What can preschool and kindergarten teachers, and other professionals in the community, do to guide parents
in conducting enjoyable and useful activities to promote children’s learning and development?
This report summarizes research that addresses these questions. It examines the effects of family involvement activities at home and at school –– as well as the ways in which
schools and teachers engage families in their children’s learning –– on literacy, mathematics,
and social-emotional skills for children ages 3 to 8. It presents what is known now and what2

remains to be learned on this important agenda in new research and in practice. The report has
three main goals:•

Review. Update and expand prior reviews of the effects of family involvement on the literacy, math, and social-emotional skills of children by examining the most current and rigorous research across the past 10 years (through2012) and by placing a focus on young children in preschool, kindergarten,
and the primary grades•

Inform. Provide new information on the impact of family involvement onliteracy, math, and social-emotional readiness skills specifically for preschool
children•

Discuss. Discuss the implications of the extant research for education practice and for future research and development

It is important to note the various terms used in the field and in research on this topic
area. For the purposes of this report, the terms “involvement” and “engagement” are usedinterchangeably. And while we recognize that many individuals in a family may play importantroles in the child’s learning at home and at school, most studies examine parents — particularly,
mothers — or caregivers; therefore, we also use the words “family” and “parent” interchangeably. Finally, in this report, “children” and “students” are used synonymously.

Method: Criteria for Selection of Articles
This report reviews descriptive, nonintervention (nonexperimental) studies and intervention (bothexperimental and quasi-experimental) studies conducted primarily over the past decade on theeffects of family involvement activities on literacy, mathematics, and social-emotional skills forchildren ages 3 to 8. Because of the breadth of the topic, the authors limited the search to studies
published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2012 with samples of more than 30
subjects (including students, teachers, parents, and parent-child dyads). Criteria were set to selectstudies that framed clear research questions about aspects of family involvement in young
children’s literacy, math, and social-emotional development; used strong research methods thatwere appropriate for the questions, with special attention to experimental studies that examinedinterventions; and studies that collected longitudinal data on family involvement and student
outcomes. Because fewer studies have been conducted on family involvement in math (compared with reading), some studies were included in the math review that were outside the original
criteria (age range, time frame, and sample size) in order to be comprehensive. Additional details
on the search criteria are explained in each section. The criteria ensured that the review andsummary of the literature would be based on the best available information at this time.

3The intensive search for studies that fit these criteria took on many forms. We reviewed
available bibliographic lists of journal articles on family involvement compiled by the Harvard
Family Research Project (HFRP; www.hfrp.org) published from 2000 to 2006 and in 2009 and2010 as well as early childhood publications from 1999 to 2005. These resources yielded over
300 references on family involvement in reading or math, from which we selected several
articles that met our criteria. To supplement these resources, we searched online databases ––including ERIC, JSTOR, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Teachers’ Reference Center –– using
such key words as “family/parent involvement,” “family/parent engagement,” “parent/school
relationship,” “family/parent participation,” “home learning environment,” “math/numeracy orreading/literacy,” and “preschool or elementary.”

Report Overview
The report summarizes results of 95 studies of family involvement practices on young children’s literacy and math learning and social-emotional skills: 52 studies of family involvement
in literacy and 43 studies of family involvement in math. These include descriptive, nonintervention (nonexperimental) studies of the actions that families take at home and at school andintervention (both experimental and quasi-experimental) studies of systematic practices thatguide families to conduct activities that strengthen or increase young children’s literacy andmath learning. Chapter 2, on family involvement in reading and literacy activities, reports on 9
individual intervention studies and more than 120 interventions included in 8 meta-analyses.
Chapter 3, on family involvement in math activities, reports on 7 intervention studies and morethan 20 intervention studies included in 2 meta-analyses. It is important to note that there aredifferent levels of evidence across these studies. The report notes whether studies were randomized control trials (RCTs) or not; however, the vast majority of individual intervention studies(even RCTs) do not provide enough information to fully determine any analytic or methodological weaknesses, including not using an intent-to-treat analysis and not reporting on intervention
implementation or study design flaws, such as whether there was differential attrition.
Within both Chapters 2 and 3, the literacy and math studies are grouped into four categories of family involvement:
1.

Learning activities at home. These studies focused specifically on literacy
home activities, on math home activities, or on general academic home learning activities (for example, math and literacy). It should be noted that families’ promotion of learning activities are not limited to the home and may occur wherever children learn, such as in libraries, museums, and family
resource centers.

4

2.

Family involvement at school. These studies examined the actions and interactions that parents and other family members have at the school building(for example, during an open house or parent-teacher conference, while participating in the classroom, or volunteering).

3.

School outreach to engage families. These studies examined the strategies
and practices that schools and teachers use to engage families and make themfeel welcome. Special attention was paid to family involvement in transition
processes that prepare preschool children and families for the move to kindergarten.

4.

Supportive parenting activities. These studies examined activities that parents conduct to support their children’s development and well-being, including the nature and quality of the parent-child relationship; parenting activities, such as setting rules at home; and caring behaviors that characterize thehome environment in general. This is in contrast to parents’ conducting specific literacy or math activities at home with their children.

These categories reflect the foci of all research indicating that parents support their children’s learning in a variety of ways and in different places — at home, at school, and in theircommunity (Epstein, 2011; Epstein, Sanders, Sheldon, Simon, Salinas, Jansorn, Van Voorhis,
Martin, Thomas, Greenfield, Hutchins, and Williams, 2009). In each category, intervention(experimental and quasi-experimental) and nonintervention (nonexperimental) studies arereviewed separately, and particular studies are highlighted as “feature” studies because theypresent important findings and/or summarize research on that topic.
The rest of this report is organized as follows: Chapter 2 discusses family involvement
in reading and literacy activities and results for children’s literacy achievement and socialemotional skills. Chapter 3 examines family involvement in math activities and results forchildren’s math achievement and social-emotional skills. And Chapter 4 presents a summary,reflections, and recommendations.
Table 1.1 outlines the general characteristics across all the studies reviewed in the literacy and math sections (Chapters 2 and 3). The report also includes three appendixes. Appendix
A provides details about each reviewed study in the chapters on literacy (Appendix Table A.1)
and math (Appendix Table A.2), with information about the form of family involvement, study
citation, age of children, study design and sample characteristics, results and measures forchildren’s cognitive and social-emotional skills, and other results of interest. Appendix B
includes three tables that summarize selected practical activities used in the field that reflect theresults of research. Appendix C is a glossary of research and evaluation terms. Finally, theReferences are organized into three lists by chapter, for easier identification.

5

Family Involvement Literature Review

Table 1.1
Description of Journal Articles
for Literacy and Math Reviews
Articles Reported in
Chapter 2,
Literacy Section(N = 52)

Articles Reported
in Chapter 3,
Math Section(N = 43)aAge span (%)
Preschool
Kindergarten
Starting in first grade and higher
Starting in fourth grade and higher
Meta-analyses

46
33
6
0
15

33
35
9
19
4

Method/design (%)
LongitudinalIntervention
ANOVA/t -tests/chi-square/correlations
Regression/path
Multilevel analysis
Effect sizes only

84
34
25
44
15
15

51
23
28
40
28
5

Sample size (%)
40 or fewer
41-100101-550551-5,000
5,000 or more
Other notations of size

6
17
37
13
12
15b

14
23
23
14
14
12c

Publication date2012
2010-20112008-20092005-2007
2002-2004
2000-2001
1992-1998

17
19
21
15
21
6
0

9
26
7
26
12
12
9

NOTES: Some of the studies are directly related to a particular age span, but the authors
may identify outcomes from the study in later elementary school or even high school. Tenstudies included in the math section (Chapter 3) are international studies.
aBecause fewer studies on family involvement in math were found than studies inliteracy, criteria for inclusion were extended to include studies published since 1992, withchildren beyond grade 3, and with smaller samples sizes.
bThese are meta-analyses with an average number of 30 studies each.
cThese studies reported number of schools at 1, 18, or 39. Two meta-analyses included
15 and 25 studies.

6

Chapter 2

Family Involvement in Reading and Literacy Activities
and Results for Children’s Literacy Achievement
and Social-Emotional Skills
Chapter 2 summarizes research regarding family involvement with young children in literacy
activities. The 52 studies reviewed include 24 preschool studies (46 percent), 17 kindergarten
studies (33 percent), 3 first-grade-and-beyond studies (6 percent), and 8 meta-analyses (15percent. (See Table 1 in Chapter 1 and Appendix Table A.1 for, respectively, general characteristics of and specific details about the studies.) Noteworthy is the fact that 8 of the 24 preschoolstudies followed students beyond preschool, as did 7 of the 17 kindergarten studies. The resultsof the studies were published between 2000 and 2012, and all had sample sizes of 30 or more,ranging from 30 to 21,255. The largest percentage of studies (37 percent) include samples of
100 to 500 participants. About one-third (17) of the studies were interventions to increase
family involvement in activities linked to reading with students, and over 80 percent (44) of thestudies included longitudinal measures of students’ reading or social-emotional skills.
Researchers used various appropriate methods for their study designs, including regression analyses or path modeling (23 studies); hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) (8studies); and other methods, such as analysis of variance / analysis of covariance(ANOVA/ANCOVA) (8 studies), t-tests (2 studies), correlations (2 studies), and chi-square
tests (1 study). The meta-analyses reported summary statistics and effect sizes for more than
230 studies (8 meta-analyses). The variety of designs and methods enabled us to look acrosswell-planned studies for consensus or confirmation of patterns of results of family involvement activities on student literacy achievement and social-emotional outcomes. Appendix
Table A.1 summarizes each of the 52 studies of literacy-linked family involvement, presenting information on the form of parental involvement, study citation, age of children, study
design and sample characteristics, results for children’s cognitive (reading) skills, socialemotional skills, and other results of interest.
Across the preschool and early primary grades, most studies focused on questions
about family involvement in learning activities at home (39 percent) and at school (29percent). Another focus was on supportive parenting activities, in general (22 percent),
followed by a subset of studies using general or composite measures of family involvement
both at home and at school (9 percent). Most studies reported results for more than one
literacy and/or behavior outcome.

7

There were interesting differences in the foci of studies that were conducted at the preschool and kindergarten levels. A striking — but logical — contrast indicated more studies offamily involvement in learning at home (49 percent) than at school (23 percent) at the preschoollevel, compared with more studies of family involvement at school (42 percent) than at home
(24 percent) at the kindergarten level. This pattern was recently captured in a longitudinal study
by Powell, File, and Froiland (2012).
The following pages in Chapter 2 focus on four categories of family involvement andtheir relations with children’s literacy learning: learning activities at home, supportive parenting, family involvement at school, and school outreach to engage families. They summarize theresearch findings in each of the four family involvement categories, highlight “feature” studies
that present important findings and summarize research on a topic, and discuss implications for
future research and practice.

Family Involvement in Literacy Learning Activities at Home
Several studies measured literacy-linked activities that parents (mainly mothers) conducted athome with their young children. Measures included frequencies, such as number of books readat home, how often parent and child read together, and visits to the library; shared reading anddialogic reading interventions (discussed below); home teaching of literacy skills (such aspracticing ABCs, sounding out words, asking questions about pictures in a book); mealtime andplay conversations; and elaborative reminiscing (that is, parents’ conversational storytellingwith their children about past events).
Description of Studies: Learning Activities at Home
About half (28) of the studies in this review focused on literacy activities that parents
conducted with their children at home, mostly at the preschool level. These studies focused on amultitude of topics areas, including different reading activities at home and parent-childconversations at home. Eleven of these studies were interventions, and the rest were analyses oflarge data sets (6) or researchers’ samples (10). Combined, this collection of studies provides an
up-to-date picture of the results for students of parent involvement with literacy learning
activities at home in the preschool, kindergarten, and early elementary years.
Intervention Studies
Of the intervention studies, five were meta-analyses that included intervention and nonintervention studies of home-based reading programs and shared/dialogic reading strategies(Mol, Bus, de Jong, and Smeets, 2008; Sénéchal and Young, 2008; van Steensel, Herppich,
Kurvers, and McElvany, 2011; Jeynes, 2012) or of parent training for helping with or checking

8homework (Jeynes, 2012; Patall, Cooper, and Robinson, 2008). The other six interventions
were small-scale explorations of a preschool-level eight-week dialogic reading program(Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie, 2003); a preschool-level adaptation of Home Instruction for
Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) for Dutch students lasting two years (van Tuijl andLeseman, 2004); a preschool-level program to teach parents to conduct elaborative reminiscingor dialogic reading with children conducted over five months (Reese, Leyva, Sparks, and
Grolnick, 2010); a series of 25 one-hour kindergarten-level literacy workshops for parents,
which provided such resources as Leap Pads to use at home (St. Clair, Jackson, and Zwieback,2012); a family literacy program lasting one school year for Canadian parents and first-gradestudents (Saint-Laurent and Giasson, 2005); and a first-grade phonics program with initial
workshops for parents and weekly “Words to Go” activities conducted over one year (Reutzel,
Fawson, and Smith, 2006).
Nonintervention Studies
Six nonintervention studies were based on analyses of existing large-scale data sets. Researchers used data from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (Chazan-Cohen,
Raikes, Brooks-Gunn, Ayoub, Pan, Kisker, Roggman, and Fuligni, 2012) and the Head Start
Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) (Hindman and Morrison, 2011). Others
analyzed data from the National Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (Mistry,
Benner, Biesanz, and Clark, 2010; Rodriguez, Tamis-LeMonda, Spellmann, Raikes, Lugo-Gil,and Luze, 2009) and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten Cohort(ECLS-K) (Crosnoe and Cooper, 2010; Galindo and Sheldon, 2012).
The remaining 10 studies represented researcher-defined samples to address questionsof home learning in preschool, kindergarten, and first grade and above. These were studies of
126 preschool children of young African-American mothers in the Newark Young Family
Study within the Teenage Parent Demonstration Program (Britto, Brooks-Gunn, and Griffin,2006); 229 preschool children (Hindman and Morrison, 2012); 140 preschool children (Powell,Son, File, and San Juan, 2010); 79 mothers of preschool children (Weigel, Martin, and Bennett,
2006); 144 preschool children enrolled in Head Start in the urban Northeast (Fantuzzo,
McWayne, Perry, and Childs, 2004); 143 Australian preschool children followed throughsecond grade (Hood, Conlon, and Andrews, 2008); 53 low-income children attending preschool
or Head Start (Weizman and Snow, 2001); 42 preschool children followed to ages 9 or 10 (Hartand Risley, 2003); 307 African-American kindergarten children (many who attended Head
Start) (McWayne, Hampton, Fantuzzo, Cohen, and Sekino, 2004); and 168 children in kindergarten and first grade followed through third grade, mostly from English-speaking whitefamilies in Ontario, Canada (Sénéchal and Lefevre, 2002).

9

Research Findings: Reading and Literacy Activities at Home
Dialogic and Shared Reading
Because of the consistently positive reports of motivational and achievement benefits
for young children, shared book reading and related home literacy discussions and activities
have been called an “essential aspect of responsible parenting” (McBride-Chang, 2012). Thereis widespread agreement and support within education, psychological, medical, and business
communities and among the general public to encourage parents and children to read together.
There are different ways to promote literacy discussions, such as through dialogic reading andshared reading. Dialogic reading is a specific form of interactive shared reading in which theadult serves as a guide and active listener and helps the child become the storyteller. This isdifferent from the general paradigm for shared reading in which an adult reads a story and thechild listens. Dialogic reading may activate a “PEER” sequence, whereby the parent begins byprompting (P) the child to talk about something in or related to the book. Then, the parent
evaluates (E) the child’s response and expands (E) the response by rephrasing or adding
information. Finally, the parent or adult repeats (R) the prompt in an effort to ensure that thechild has learned something from the expansion. Other dialogic strategies include asking a childto recall and retell a story after it is read or to think about how the illustrations tell what ishappening in a story. Who, what, where, when, and why questions help a child think about thestory, the pictures, and the ideas. Other prompts ask children to make connections with theirown experiences. For example, if an adult were reading a book about a vacation with a young
girl, the adult reading partner might ask the child to think about her last vacation and what madethat time special (Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, Angell, Smith, and Fischel, 1994).
Shared reading includes an adult reading a book to a single child or small group ofchildren without requiring much interaction, whereas interactive shared reading involves anadult reading a book and using a variety of techniques, including systematic dialogic strategies
of asking children questions to engage them in the book (Trivette and Dunst, 2007).
Meta-Analyses
Overall, the meta-analyses found moderate, but impressive, effect sizes ranging fromd = 0.51 to d = 0.65 reported by Jeynes (2012), Mol and colleagues (2008), and Sénéchal andYoung (2008), while a small effect size (d = 0.18) was reported in the study by van Steensel andcolleagues (2011). (Effect sizes vary by context, but it is generally accepted that an effect size islarge at 0.8 [that is, 8/10 of a standard deviation unit], moderate at 0.5, and small at 0.2; Cohen,1988). These meta-analyses indicate positive results of reading interventions and home literacy
activities on children’s early literacy and language skills. The studies controlled potentially10important variables, such as type of parental involvement activity, age of child, children’s
reading risk factors, and amount or time of parent training.
Sénéchal and Young (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of 16 home-based literacy interventions in both experimental and quasi-experimental studies and reported a moderate andpositive effect size on children’s reading acquisition between kindergarten and third grade (d =0.65). This represented a 10-point gain in standardized test scores for children exposed to homebased activities, compared with children who lacked those experiences. Among the interventions, certain types of learning activities at home had stronger effects, including home tutoring(d = 1.15) and listening to children read (d = 0.52). There were no differences due to age or
grade level, with similar effects being found for students in kindergarten through grade 3.
There were differences in effects of the interventions due to the time that parents spentin training sessions, with shorter sessions (1 to 2 hours) relating to stronger effects for children(d = 0.97) than longer training sessions (3 to 13.5 hours) (d = 0.37). Although, initially, thisseems counterintuitive, the differential results may have to do with shorter training sessions
having a clearer purpose regarding what tasks to conduct at home. This kind of unexpected
result requires that intervention studies pay more attention to the link between content durationof parent trainings and resulting behaviors and outcomes for students. In addition, new technologies (for example, Web-based training sessions and downloadable materials) may be useful for
providing short sessions and guidelines to parents to conduct basic reading activities with their
young children at home.
Positive results also were reported in a study of 16 dialogic reading intervention programs (Mol et al., 2008). These experimental or quasi-experimental interventions had positive,
small-to-moderate effects on students’ overall vocabulary skills (d = 0.42; Mol et al., 2008). The
authors reported a stronger effect of dialogic reading on students’ expressive vocabulary (oralexpression; richness of spoken vocabulary) (d = 0.59) and a smaller effect on students’ receptive vocabulary (understanding of spoken works) (d = 0.22). In contrast to the review by
Sénéchal and Young (2008), Mol and colleagues (2008) found smaller effects for older children
ages 4 to 5 (d = 0.14) than for younger children ages 2 to 3 (d = 0.50). Also, at-risk children
from families with low income or low maternal education — and, therefore, at risk for language
and literacy impairments — benefitted less from (or responded less quickly to) (d = 0.13) theintervention than children who were not at risk (d = 0.53).
Another meta-analysis of some of the same and some newer studies of parents and children reading together reported a positive and moderate effect (d = 0.51) on student achievement(Jeynes, 2012). The intervention and nonintervention studies included various programs thatencouraged parents and children to read together or an adult reading to a small group of children, not necessarily dialogic strategies.

11

A final, sizable meta-analysis explored the effects of 30 intervention studies of family
involvement with literacy at home (van Steensel et al., 2011). Parents attended workshops tolearn to conduct activities at home with their children to strengthen specific reading readinessskills. These included code-related skills (such as letter identification, concepts about print,
rhyme, alphabet knowledge, reading rate, and spelling) and comprehension-related skills (suchas vocabulary, storytelling, and writing). The authors reported small but significant effects ofparents’ engagement with students on both sets of skills (d = 0.17 and d = 0.22, respectively).
Effects were strongest for programs combining shared reading with other activities (d = 0.21)
compared with shared reading (d = 0.05, NS [not significant]) or literacy exercises (d = 0.17)
alone. Programs lasting five months or longer (d = 0.21) produced significantly stronger effects
than those lasting fewer than five months (d = 0.13).
Overall, the meta-analyses of intervention and nonintervention studies of dialogic reading and other literacy learning activities at home reported consistently positive results forstudents. The results strongly suggest that it would be beneficial to guide all families in productive ways to enjoy reading and literacy readiness activities with their preschool and kindergarten
children.
Some studies indicate that dialogic reading techniques may be particularly effectivewith 2- and 3-year-olds and that, with guidance, parents can conduct and enjoy these interactive
reading strategies with their children. Other studies indicate that preschool students with serious
risk factors will need focused interventions that are appropriate for their age and ability so that
their reading readiness will grow on a positive slope over time.
With increasing enrollments of 3- to 5-year-olds in full-day preprimary education (innursery school and kindergarten) (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2012), young children are and will
be expected to have higher reading readiness skills and positive attitudes about reading andlearning than they were expected to have in the past. It seems plausible to believe that if
teachers had ways to help more parents support their children’s reading skills and attitudes withfeasible and fun activities at home and if parents had the time and support to do them, morechildren would be ready to build their reading skills in the early primary grades.
Box 2.1 features a study of family involvement in reading activities at home that benefited young children’s reading readiness and abilities through third grade.
Intervention Studies
Five nonrandomized studies reported results of interventions for parents to conduct literacy-linked activities with children at home on preschool-level reading readiness skills (Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie, 2003; van Tuijl and Leseman, 2004); first-grade outcomes (Reutzel,

12Box 2.1

Feature Study: Family Involvement in Reading Activities at Home
A study by Sénéchal and Lefevre (2002) indicated that different reading-related activities
at home, starting in the early years, were associated with specific kinds of reading readiness skills at the preschool level and had direct and indirect long-term links to reading
abilities through third grade. The authors conducted a descriptive study of 168 kindergarten and first-grade children in Canada to understand how parental engagement with children in reading books together and doing other reading and writing activities at home
affected student outcomes over time. First, children’s exposure to books at home related
positively to their vocabulary and listening comprehension skills in kindergarten andgrade 1. These skills, in turn, directly related to children’s reading ability in grade 3.
Second, parents’ involvement in teaching specific reading and writing skills at homerelated directly to other early literacy skills, predicted rates of word reading at the end of
first grade, and related positively to children’s reading ability at the end of third grade.
A series of fixed-order hierarchical regression analyses identified these paths of effects,
which, as in the meta-analyses reported here, indicated that exposure to books, sharedreading, and attention to specific reading readiness skills at home benefitted students’reading skills over time. Other researchers have tested the influence paths that were identified by Sénéchal and Lefevre (2002) and reported similar results (Hood, Conlon, andAndrews, 2008).

Fawson, and Smith, 2006; Saint-Laurent and Giasson, 2005); and long-term effects for fifthand sixth-grade students’ achievement (St. Clair et al., 2012). The interventions included
various forms of parent-teacher communications, networking among parents, and a focus on
writing in conjunction with reading. Also reviewed was a randomized study on Play and Learn
Strategies (PALS), a parenting curriculum designed to increase effective shared book reading(Landry, Smith, Swank, Zucker, Crawford, and Solari, 2012).
In one intervention with kindergarteners, trained research assistants showed parents
videotapes of other parents and students modeling dialogic reading techniques. Parents also
were given written guidelines on dialogic reading strategies and eight books to read and reread
five times with their children. Kindergarten students in the intervention group showed significant positive improvement (from February to November) in spelling and reading as well as on
concepts about print (CAP) (Clay, 1979) and final consonant identification, compared with
control group students (Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie, 2003). This underscores the importanceof providing multiple forms of information on dialogic reading to parents and specific guidelines for interactions with their children. The clarity and intensity of the intervention may
explain students’ gains in spelling and reading achievement.

13

Researchers found that migrant children who experienced an intervention for family
involvement on reading activities at home in kindergarten had significantly higher reading
skills in fifth and sixth grades compared with a control sample of students (St. Clair et al.,2012). This intervention included 25 one-hour sessions for parents during the students’ year
in kindergarten. The sessions covered educational topics, such as how to work with students
on specific skills in the kindergarten curriculum (for example, letter of the week, sight words,
and themes in stories) and time for parents to “network” with each other. Staff who wereexperienced in working with migrant families modeled ways for parents to interact with theirchildren in reading. In addition, families in the intervention group could borrow resource
materials (for example, Playstation equipment, Light Span AchieveNOW software, Leap
Pads, Leap Desks, and books) and sample descriptions of how to use them at home with theirchildren on reading activities (St. Clair et al., 2012).
This intervention showed the benefit of helping parents focus on the same learning
goals in the kindergarten curriculum that students were working on in school, and it provided
new and useful equipment for use at home. Building in time for parents to network with eachother made the goal-linked training sessions more social for the participants and establishedconnections that showed that other parents would be working with their children in the designated ways.
A yearlong intervention in Canada that aimed to improve first-grade students’ literacy
skills also showed positive effects on student’s outcomes. Nine 90-minute sessions for parents
were led by researchers over the school year (Saint-Laurent and Giasson, 2005). The parent
sessions addressed topics of students’ book reading at home and school success. Parents wereguided to visit the library with their children, play with letters, write plays, and do other reading
and writing activities. In each session, leaders asked parents for feedback on the literacy
activities suggested in the previous session, presented a new theme, discussed with parents theirattitudes and apprehensions about conducting the activities at home, demonstrated activities,
guided parents’ practice with children in day sessions or in evening role-play activities, andsummarized the session. The intervention families also received written guidelines and materials to use at home (for example, a scrapbook, plastic letters, and a notebook for a student
journal). Compared with students in the comparison group, students in the literacy programintervention had significantly higher scores on specific measures of sentence structure skills,
vocabulary, spelling, and length of their written narratives. They also performed significantly
better on general reading and writing tests after the intervention. This illustrates that wellplanned, focused workshops for parents are important for producing positive reading andwriting results for students.
The three nonrandomized interventions summarized above were designed with a clear
vision that parents could reinforce students’ literacy skills at home with well-focused, goal-

14

linked activities. All showed sustained commitments to parents over time; multiple creative
methods for conveying information in day and evening sessions; live, videotaped, and written
forms of communication; provision of related and enriching equipment or materials for use athome; and opportunities for parents in similar circumstances to meet each other and network.
These components likely contributed to more parents conducting literacy-linked activities with
their children at home, which, if continued in focused ways from grade to grade, should improve students’ reading attitudes and performance in reading, writing, and other literacy skills.
The randomized study of Play and Learning Strategies (PALS) –– a parenting curriculum for increasing shared book reading –– reported small-to-moderate increases in mothers’
praise and encouragement of their preschool children (d = 0.34) and large increases in mothers’
verbal support for demonstration of problem-solving skills (d = 0.86) (Landry et al., 2012). This
study suggests that early and sustained interventions may be best. With the random assignmentof mothers to four treatment groups, the researchers found the strongest results on positiveparenting and evidence of shared reading when mothers participated in the intervention when
their children were infants and toddlers, compared with mothers participating in the intervention
during one time period or mothers in the control group. Sustained guidance by an intervention
helped mothers conduct enjoyable and age-appropriate interactions — such as shared reading— which set the children on a more positive path for learning in school and potentially set themother-child relationship on a positive path that could last from preschool to elementary schooland beyond. When mothers saw their infants respond to reading together, they may have beenencouraged to continue their close connections and reading together. By contrast, if mothers are
unsure or unable to establish these connections, and they persist with awkward or negatively
laden interactions with their infants and toddlers, the mothers may retreat and avoid sharedreading and other connections with their children’s learning at home.
Box 2.2 features the PALS study and illustrates that learning activities at home andsupportive parenting actions can overlap and reinforce each other, to young children’s benefit.
Parent Involvement in Homework
Two studies reported results of parent involvement with students on homework in theearly grades. One meta-analysis of family and school partnership programs reported thatintervention and nonintervention studies of parents checking homework had a small, positiveeffect (d = 0.27) on students’ overall achievement (Jeynes, 2012). Another meta-analysis
reviewed 14 studies of the effects of training parents to be positively involved with theirchildren on homework, reporting improved homework completion rates of elementary children(d = 0.22) and a small, significant, and positive effect on students’ academic achievement (d =0.23) (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson, 2008). The results suggest that, as they move from15

Box 2.2

Feature Study: Effects of Parent Intervention on Play and Learning
Strategies (PALS) on Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills
An intervention study by Landry and colleagues (2012) explored the results of Play andLearning Strategies (PALS) — a parenting curriculum to increase effective shared bookreading. PALS provided videotaped demonstrations of mothers and children in everyday
activities, such as feeding, dressing, and playing. PALS sessions, designed for parents ofinfants (PALS I: about 6 months old) and parents of toddlers (PALS II: about 24 to 28
months), required 10 and 12 weekly sessions, respectively. The researchers randomly
assigned 166 mothers and children who were expected to be at high risk for literacy
problems to one of four intervention groups: PALS in both infancy and toddlerhood,
PALS in infancy and control group in toddlerhood, control group in infancy and PALS
in toddlerhood, and control group in both infancy and toddlerhood.
The authors measured the effects of PALS on mothers’ behaviors in shared book reading. The strongest effects were reported for mothers who participated in PALS during
both developmental stages — infancy and toddlerhood. For these mothers, there weresignificant small-to-moderate effects, including increased use of open-ended prompts (d= 0.38) and language facilitation techniques (d = 0.30) during shared reading sessions.
Also, there were large effects for mothers’ verbal support of students’ problem-solving
skills (d = 0.86) and strong moderate effects on increased engagement or enthusiasm inreading (d = 0.65) for PALS families over non-PALS families.
The PALS-prompted maternal behaviors were linked to higher-level language responses
by their children, including more comments during the book reading task (d = 0.23) andmore cooperative behavior, compared with non-PALS I students (d = 0.92). In addition,
children whose mothers had PALS I and II intervention showed more engagement andenthusiasm about the shared reading activity than did children in the PALS I-only group(d = 0.65). Overall, children born with very low birth weights benefited from their mothers’ participation in the parenting intervention as much as children born full term, withthe strongest impact for those whose mothers were in the intervention at both infancy
and toddlerhood. Positive changes in children’s shared reading behaviors were mediatedby mothers’ supportive behaviors.
Learning activities at home and supportive parenting actions sometimes overlap andreinforce each other, as shown in this featured study. Warm and loving parent-child relationships may promote and affect parent-child interactions on such learning activities asshared reading. Interventions that blend aspects of positive parenting and enjoyable approaches to learning activities at home appear to be likely to produce stronger results foryoung children than either interaction alone.

16

preschool to the elementary grades, students may be more motivated to learn if their parents
know about and enact specific roles in the homework process.
Summary: Reading and Literacy Learning Activities at Home
Overall, the studies summarized above in this section suggest that children at the preschool level and early elementary grades show increased achievement and specific literacy
skills if their parents conduct interactive/dialogic reading strategies, do other shared reading
activities at home, and tutor or help students practice emergent literacy skills.
The extant studies do not, however, answer all important questions about effects forstudents of parents’ involvement at home on literacy learning. In particular, there are too few
studies that address such questions as: Which skills are most dramatically helped by interactions
or practice with a parent at home? Which students are most helped by these interactions? Whatis the best way to prepare more and diverse types of parents to conduct shared reading and otherliteracy-related activities with their children at home?
Research Findings: Parent-Child Conversations at Home and Literacy
Development
The majority of studies of family involvement at home focus on reading interventions
and on helping parents to teach, tutor, or practice literacy skills with their children. Other studies
are accumulating that demonstrate the power of rich, cognitively demanding family conversations in book reading and family storytelling on children’s language and literacy development(Bond and Wasik, 2009; Reese et al., 2010; Weizman and Snow, 2001). These studies highlightthe importance of parent-child conversations — talk and interactions at home — for children’s
literacy outcomes and have important implications for educators. If educators used researchfindings on specific conversational strategies and book reading when creating materials andguidelines for parents, they could help busy parents use their limited time to conduct a balanced
mix of natural conversations, shared book reading, and practice on specific reading readinessskills with their children.
Box 2.3 explores which particular aspects of parent-child conversations can promotechildren’s literacy achievement.
Research Findings: Family Involvement in Learning Activities at Home(Multiple Measures)
Ten preschool and kindergarten studies analyzed the effects of parents’ conduct of literacy-linked activities at home (such as reading with children, providing cognitively stimulating
materials, singing songs) in conjunction with one or more other measures of family involvement

17

Box 2.3

Feature Studies: Parent-Child Conversations at Home
Two studies shed some light on what particular aspects of parent-child conversations canpromote children’s literacy achievement. Weizman and Snow (2001) analyzed the frequency and type of vocabulary used in over 1,000 mother-child conversations between
53 low-income parents and their 5-year-old children in five different home settings: toyplay, magnet play, mealtime conversation, information book reading, and storybook
reading. The authors found that although all settings offered children opportunities tohear sophisticated maternal vocabulary (for example, such words as “vehicle,” “cholesterol,” “predictability”), mealtimes and toy play offered the highest frequency of suchwords. In fact, the settings of toy play, magnet play, and mealtime generated 20 sophisticated word tokens — nearly seven times as many sophisticated word tokens as weregenerated in the book reading settings.
Overall, the density of sophisticated words (the ratio of unique words to the number ofwords) spoken by mother, or embedded in helpful or instructive interactions between
mother and child at home, independently predicted over one-third of the variance inchildren’s vocabulary scores (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised [PPVT-R]) in
both kindergarten and second grade. The density and helpfulness of vocabulary –– alongwith mother’s education, child’s nonverbal IQ, and amount of child’s talk in the homesettings –– predicted as much as 50 percent of the variance in children’s second-grade
vocabulary scores, measured by the PPVT-R.
The 2001 findings, summarized above, were supported and extended by a study of anintervention at the preschool level involving 33 low-income parents of 4-year-olds in
Head Start (Reese et al., 2010). One group of parents was trained by the researchers in atechnique called “elaborative reminiscing,” in which parents and children discussed
shared past events. Another group of parents was trained in dialogic reading techniques.
Parents in a control group received neither intervention. The interventions were modeledby mothers on videotape and were shared via laptop computers with each group of participants. For five months, parents in the elaborative reminiscing and dialogic readingintervention groups kept logs of their conversations and book reading with their children.
After controlling for key child and mother covariates, elaborative reminiscing had a significant effect on the quality of children’s narrative, compared with dialogic reading. But
children in the elaborative reminiscing intervention did not differ significantly on thequality of their narrative from control group students, though tending in the expected
direction. The elaborative reminiscing intervention had a small positive effect on students’ story comprehension, compared with dialogic reading and control group students.
There were no differences between the intervention group and the control group on print
skills, story recall, or expressive vocabulary.

18

(for example, general parenting, volunteering at school). These studies revealed how literacy
learning activities at home compared with the other kinds of involvement to influence young
children’s learning.
Seven of the studies were conducted at the preschool level, and six of these reported
positive effects of selected measures of family engagement on preschool students’ outcomes.
•

The home learning environment –– measured by the Learning and Literacy
subscale of the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment(HOME) –– was positively associated with preschool students’ vocabulary
and letter-word identification skills (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2012).

•

Home stimulation of language (also measured by the HOME) was positively
related to a composite score of preschool students’ reading, math, and vocabulary measures (Mistry et al., 2010).

•

Hindman and Morrison (2011) demonstrated that, over and above a series ofcontrol variables, children of parents who more often were involved at homein teaching about letters and words had better gains during preschool in decoding skills, which are used to make sense of printed words. These authors(2012) also noted that parents who conducted more home learning activities(such as teaching letter sounds and letter names, reading words, helping children with writing and math games and activities) had preschool children who
exhibited higher levels of alphabet knowledge and decoding skills.

•

Parents’ reports on a 13-item measure of the home learning environment
were positively correlated with preschool students’ receptive vocabulary andwere the only significant predictor of children’s receptive vocabulary (asmeasured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, PPVT-III) when otherfamily involvement dimensions (that is, home-school conferencing andschool-based involvement) were included in the effects model (Fantuzzo etal., 2004).

•

Higher levels of home literacy activities (such as being read to a few times aweek or daily, singing nursery rhymes, visiting a children’s museum) andprovision of home learning activities (books, toys requiring eye-hand coordination) were positively and significantly associated with cognitive and language scores on the Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) and PPVT-III
at 14 months, 24 months, and 36 months (Rodriguez et al., 2009).

•

One study at the preschool level that used multiple measures of parental engagement reported no effects on early reading skills of preschoolers (Powell19

et al., 2010). The study may have been limited by its lack of longitudinal data
for analyses of effects.
Three of the ten multidimensional studies of family involvement conducted at the kindergarten level examined the effects of literacy activities conducted at home separately fromother types of parental involvement. Two reported positive associations of home learning andachievement outcomes (Crosnoe and Cooper, 2010; McWayne et al., 2004). One reported no
relationship between learning at home and reading-related kindergarten student outcomes(Galindo and Sheldon, 2012).
The Crosnoe and Cooper (2010) and Galindo and Sheldon (2012) studies both used
ECLS-K data but reported different results. This may be explained by the measures of parents’
activities with their children at home that were used in the different analyses. Galindo and
Sheldon used a general or composite measure of involvement at home, whereas Crosnoe andCooper used two specific measures of cognitively stimulating materials at home and parenting
rules and routines. The general measure resulted in null effects, whereas the specific measures
each related to positive and significant associations with reading.
Box 2.4 features a study showing that children in high-poverty areas and those withproblem behaviors can benefit from several layers of support, including the family, school, andcommunity.
Research Findings: Effects of Family Involvement in Learning Activities
at Home on Social-Emotional Skills
Thirteen studies of the connections of family involvement in reading and learning at
home reported results for children’s social-emotional behaviors. Eleven of these included
samples of preschool students. It is generally agreed that young children’s social skills affectcognitive skills and school learning and vice versa. Here, we add information that, acrossstudies, family engagement with students in learning at home affected students’ behavior, suchas increased ability to self-regulate (Mistry et al., 2010); motivation to learn, attention, andpersistence with difficult or challenging tasks (Fantuzzo et al., 2004); higher levels of cooperation and positive interactions with peers at home and at school (Hindman and Morrison, 2012;
McWayne et al., 2004); reduced problem behaviors (Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Mistry et al., 2010);
reduced hyperactivity (Fantuzzo et al., 2004); improved school readiness skills (Britto et al.,2006); increased time in shared book reading and more frequent language activities at home
(Weigel et al., 2006); and higher levels of social-emotional support from mothers (van Tuijl andLeseman, 2004).
Two of the thirteen studies reported null results for the relationship between parental
involvement at home and student behavior (Powell et al., 2010; van Tuijl and Leseman, 2004).

20

Box 2.4

Feature Study: Multiple Measures of Family Involvement inLearning Activities at Home Versus Other Typesof Family Involvement
Utilizing a large, extant database and specific, multiple measures of family involvement,
Crosnoe and Cooper (2010) examined child protective and risk factors and their relations
to kindergarten students’ reading skills. Based on the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study’s Kindergarten (ECLS-K) data set of over 17,000 kindergarten students, the researchers’ strongest multilevel model showed significant effects of the school the childattends, children’s characteristics, family resources, teachers’ credentials, and type of
instruction on children’s reading achievement. Specifically, young children’s reading
skills were strongly influenced by the average poverty rate of the school; the child externalizing behaviors (such as physical aggression, bullying, theft vandalism); the child’sinternalizing problem behaviors (depression, anxiety, withdrawal); parents’ mental
health (depression); the families’ cognitively stimulating home materials; rules and routines at home; the teacher’s elementary certification; tenure in grade-level taught; and useof whole language instruction.
This study reinforces the fact that schools in high-poverty areas and those with high concentrations of children with internalizing problem behaviors (depression, anxiety, withdrawal) and externalizing problem behaviors (physical aggression, bullying, theft, vandalism) can benefit from several layers of support, including the family, school, andcommunity. The families may also benefit from referrals for mental health instruction.

In fact, the latter study reported mixed results, finding that an intervention was effective inincreasing mothers’ emotional support for their children in parent-child interactions but that it
had no effect on increasing the quality of instruction in the parent-child interaction.
Box 2.5 features a study in which language skills at home were found to be positively
associated with preschool students’ achievement, and maternal warmth was associated withfewer problem behaviors.
Summary: Results of Family Involvement in Literacy Activities at Homefor Student Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills
Across the studies reviewed above in this section, the overwhelming majority reported
positive results of parents’ engagement with students on learning at home for students’ reading
readiness and literacy learning in preschool, kindergarten, and the elementary grades. The

21

Box 2.5

Feature Study: Effects of Family Involvement at Homeon Learning and Behavior
The research of Mistry and colleagues (2010) is instructive for understanding theeffects of family involvement activities at home on preschool students’ social andcognitive outcomes. The authors analyzed data from a diverse sample of 1,851 students and families (38 percent white, 33 percent African-American, and 23 percent
Latino) in the National Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. They analyzed the connections of measures of cumulative family and child risk factors assessed during infancy and preschool with children’s preschool achievement (that is,measures of math, vocabulary, and emergent literacy skills assessed by the Woodcock-Johnson tests and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test [PPVT]), selfregulatory skills, and social behavior.
The authors reported that children’s exposure to risk factors in infancy had negative
effects on all readiness skills in preschool. However, positive changes through toddlerhood and preschool in parental warmth and home literacy stimulation (measured
by the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment [HOME]) related tohigher levels of achievement and self-regulation abilities for preschool children andlower incidents of problem behavior. For example, activities that stimulated preschool students’ language skills at home were positively associated with preschool
students’ achievement, and maternal warmth was associated with fewer problem
behaviors.

studies reviewed in this section reported that parent-child interactions at home were associatedwith students’ increased code-related skills, including:•Print knowledge and preschool phonological awareness (Cottone, 2012;
Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie, 2003; Weigel et al., 2006)•

Preschool alphabet knowledge and decoding (Fielding-Barnsley and Purdie,
2003; Hindman and Morrison, 2011)•

Spelling rates and letter-word identification (Hood and Andrews, 2008)•

Initial and final consonant recognition of preschoolers (Fielding-Barnsley
and Purdie, 2003)•

Code-related skills, in general (van Steensel et al., 2011)22

Positive parent-child interactions at home were associated with students’ increased
comprehension-related literacy skills, including:•

Active or receptive preschool vocabulary development (Britto et al., 2006;
Chazan-Cohen et al., 2012; Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Hindman and Morrison,
2012; Hood and Andrews, 2008; Mistry et al., 2010; Mol et al., 2008; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Sénéchal and Lefevre, 2002; Tamis-Lemonda, Shannon,
Cabrera, and Lamb, 2004; van Tuijl and Leseman, 2004; Weizman andSnow, 2001)•

Preschool narrative comprehension and quality (Reese et al., 2010)•

Comprehension-related skills, in general (van Steensel et al., 2011)

Other studies reported positive associations of parent and child learning activities athome with reading acquisition (Sénéchal and Young, 2008; St. Clair et al., 2012); preschool
students’ interest in reading (Weigel et al., 2006); and overall preschool, kindergarten, andelementary achievement (Crosnoe and Cooper, 2010; Jeynes, 2012; McWayne et al., 2004;
Mistry et al., 2010; Raver, Gershoff, and Aber, 2007; van Steensel et al., 2011). Finally, the
PALS study demonstrated improved parent and child preschool reading behaviors (that is,mothers using more praise and encouragement and children asking more questions and being
more engaged in reading activities) (Landry et al., 2012).
Null Findings
Four studies reported null results (no significant associations) between family involvement with children on learning activities at home and students’ achievement outcomes. In one
study, although children with mothers who taught literacy skills at home had higher print
knowledge skills than did children whose mothers conducted “mothering as usual,” there were
no differences between the two groups on emergent writing skills (Weigel et al., 2006). Anotherstudy found that family involvement at home was unrelated to preschool students’ early reading(Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification), mathematics (Woodcock-Johnson Applied
Problems), or language (PPVT-III) (Powell et al., 2010).
One intervention study in which mothers learned elaborative reminiscing techniques reported no difference between preschool students in the intervention and control groups on
expressive vocabulary, story recall, or print skills (Reese et al., 2010). Finally, there were no
significant associations between a general, composite measure of family involvement at homewith student math and reading gains in kindergarten (Galindo and Sheldon, 2012).
The preponderance of research evidence points to a positive link between family involvement with students on learning activities at home and reading-related skills, attitudes, and23

experiences and many measures of preschool students’ literacy skills and social behaviors. The
most notable results are reported in carefully crafted studies with longitudinal data.
Next Steps
Overall, studies show that parents’ involvement with students in rich conversations athome and on constructive reading-related skills, attitudes, and experiences has significant andpositive effects on many measures of preschool children’s literacy skills, other achievements,and social-emotional skills. These findings emerged because, within study samples, there werecritical differences in parents’ levels of knowledge, time, and resources for structuring andengaging in these activities with their children. The variations in parents’ actions — someinduced by interventions and some naturally occurring — produce the reported research results.
Although more research is needed to delve deeply into details — especially to determine whether general patterns are reproduced for diverse populations of students at different
ability levels — enough is known for educators to apply the results of research in practice. The
results have important implications for improving early education and the chances for morechildren not only to be “ready” for school but also to perform well in later grades. Presently,
some parents conduct literacy-related actions and interactions that increase their children’s
learning. The intervention studies reveal that all parents could do so.
Parents –– often with limited time at home –– need and want clear information, ideas,
and guided practice to interact with their children in effective ways. The extant studies that
included diverse populations of families living in poverty indicated that even families in
distressed economic situations can respond to clear and feasible ideas for conducting basic andenjoyable reading activities with their children in the preschool and elementary years. One next
step then suggests that outreach to parents should include those whose children are most at risk
for language lags and reading delays. This is particularly important given evidence that when
parents are provided good, clear information to support children’s learning and development at
home, they are responsive. Given these findings and the fact that the achievement gap starts
early, persists, and widens (Baydar, Brooks-Gunn, and Furstenberg, 1993; Phillips, Crouse, andRalph, 1998) throughout children’s educational careers, pursuit of this goal is an importantendeavor that has the potential to put children on an early and positive path to learning.

Family Involvement at School“Family involvement at school” refers to the actions and interactions that parents and otherfamily members have at the school building. This includes attending open-house events andparent-teacher conferences, volunteering for tasks at the school, and serving in classrooms astutors, helpers, or guest lecturers and on field trips or in other locations; participating in work-24

shops at school; and attending or leading PTA/PTO meetings or other committees. At thepreschool and kindergarten levels, activities at school also include orientations and discussions
about transitions to a new school or grade level, as discussed below in the section entitled“School Outreach to Engage Families.”
Description of Studies: Family Involvement at School
Of the 50-plus studies on parental involvement with young children on literacy-linked
activities, 17 focused on family involvement at school. Half of these related to preschool
students, and the other half related to families of students in kindergarten or the early elementary grades. Some studies (9 of the 17) included multiple measures of parental involvement at
school and at home. The results of these studies strengthen knowledge about parents’ engagement with their children’s teachers and other staff at school, and they inform educators
about practices that may be used or adapted to engage all families in ways that support theirchildren’s learning.
Three studies were interventions, including one meta-analysis of many intervention andnonintervention studies of involvement at school from preschool through high school (Jeynes,2012); another meta-analysis of randomized studies of parental volunteers from preschool
through eighth grade (Ritter, Barnett, Denny, and Albin, 2009); and one focused intervention at
the preschool level on reading and writing (Aram and Biron, 2004). Three other studies examined parent involvement at school at the preschool level. One used the Head Start Family andChild Experiences Survey (FACES) (Hindman and Morrison, 2011); another included a diverse
sample of 140 preschool students (Powell et al., 2010); and a third included 144 children
enrolled in a Head Start Center in the urban Northeast (Fantuzzo et al., 2004). Five studies ofkindergarten students included two using ECLS-K data (Crosnoe and Cooper, 2010; Galindo
and Sheldon, 2012); a study of 223 kindergarten children in the NICHD study of Early Child
Care (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, Cox, and Bradley, 2003); a study of 72 Canadian kindergarten
teachers (Lynch, 2010); and a study of 307 African-American kindergarten students who had
attended Head Start (McWayne et al., 2004).
Three longitudinal studies followed students across grade levels, including a study of 72
low-income Spanish-speaking Mexican-American families following kindergarten students tothe third grade (Tang, Dearing, and Weiss, 2012); a study of 281 children from kindergarten to
the fifth grade (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, and Weiss, 2006); and a study of 187 low-incomepreschool students through third grade (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, and Egeland, 2004).

25

Research Findings: Family Involvement at School
Intervention Studies
A major meta-analysis of over 50 intervention and nonintervention studies (Jeynes,2012) reported significant, small-to-moderate effects on student achievement of parent andteacher collaborative programs (d = 0.35) and systematic parent-teacher communications (d =0.28). There were small, positive, but nonsignificant effects on student achievement of English
as a Second Language programs for parents (d = 0.22).
Ritter and colleagues (2009) reviewed 21 interventions concerning tutoring volunteers
that randomly assigned children in kindergarten through the middle grades to treatment andcontrol groups. The researchers reported significant, small-to-moderate effect sizes of community volunteer tutoring on students’ reading scores (d = 0.30), reading letters and words (decoding skills) (d = 0.41), and writing skills (spelling, number of words written or spelled correctly
in a writing sample) (d = 0.45).
An Israeli study of preschool children in a low-income community involved a readingintervention for 35 children, a writing intervention for 36 children, and a control group of 24
children (Aram and Biron, 2004). University student volunteers met at school with intervention
groups of 4 to 6 students for 20 to 30 minutes on focused reading or writing activities, whereas
students in the control group had regular reading and writing activities in class. The intervention
groups of students completed about 66 sessions with the volunteers. Parents of the intervention
students were invited for two workshops on encouraging students’ reading or writing activities.
In the reading intervention, preschool children discussed 11 children’s books andconducted related drama and other creative activities. In the writing intervention, the preschoolers focused on creative activities and games to improve letter knowledge, phonologicalawareness, and functional writing activities. Children practiced writing in innovative ways
and learned to recognize their own written name, their friends’ names, and word segmentations. They turned their practice work into a functional project: a phonebook of names andnumbers of their classmates. Although there were some missing measures for the control
group, the children in both intervention groups progressed significantly more than control
group students on orthographic awareness (for example, rules for letter order, letter-soundcorrespondence, and mental images of written words). There were no significant differenceson students’ listening comprehension.
The results of the Ritter meta-analysis and the study by Aram and Biron converged toprovide positive support for parent and community volunteers or mentors on children’s literacy
outcomes — specifically, for helping children with lagging skills. Aram and Biron’s study alerts
educators that community volunteers, college students, and parents all may serve as helpful

26

volunteers, particularly if they are guided by the classroom teachers to conduct well-planned,goal-linked activities to directly assist students who need extra time and encouragement tomaster basic skills. The findings of these interventions suggest that parent-teacher communications and tutoring interventions with parent and other volunteers in reading and writing at thepreschool and kindergarten levels may increase young children’s skills and positive attitudes
about school and learning.
Research Findings: Multi-Measure Studies of Family Involvement at
SchoolNine studies used multiple measures of family involvement at school to study theirconnections with students’ reading and literacy skills and behavior. One, using HLM analyses,
reported mixed results, showing family involvement at school to be associated with children’s
better social skills (d = 0.55) and fewer problem behaviors (d = –0.47) but unrelated to children’s receptive vocabulary (Powell et al., 2010).
Another preschool study that measured several aspects of parental involvement foundno significant effects of involvement at school (for example, volunteering and parent-teacher
conferences) on children’s receptive vocabulary (PPVT-III), learning behaviors (that is, competence motivation, attention and persistence, and attitude toward learning) as measured by the
Preschool Learning Behaviors Scale (PLBS), or behavior problems as measured by the Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale-28 (Fantuzzo et al., 2004).
Other studies also reported mixed or contradictory results of aspects of involvement at
school. For example, parents’ direct school contact was positively related to students’ sense of
responsibility and to less hyperactivity (McWayne et al., 2004). A study by Rimm-Kaufman etal. (2003) showed positive results of family involvement at school with kindergarten students’language skills but no significant relationships with seven measures of students’ behavior.
Box 2.6 features a study showing that when family involvement increased over time,kindergarten through fifth-grade students’ literacy skills improved, compared with students’
whose families’ involvement remained the same or declined over time.
Summary: Results of Family Involvement at School on Student
Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills
There were 22 positive results for student outcomes reported in studies of family involvement at school (15 on achievement and 7 on social-emotional skills, out of 17 studies).

27

Box 2.6

Feature Study: Effects of Family Involvement at School Over Time
Although few studies have analyzed patterns of family involvement over time, Dearing,
Kreider, Simpkins, and Weiss (2006) studied family involvement at school and its relation to the literacy skills of 281 low-income, ethnically diverse students from kindergarten to grade 5. The researchers examined mothers’ reports of their involvement at school
when their children were in kindergarten, third, and fifth grades. The eight-item
measures asked “yes/no” questions about the parents’ attendance at parent-teacher conferences, visits to the child’s classroom, and attendance at school performances, field
trips, PTA meetings, volunteering in the classroom, and so on.
When family involvement increased over these years, students improved their literacy
skills (pr = 0.23, indicating a small but significant effect), compared with students’
whose families’ involvement remained the same or declined over time. Family involvement at school was more strongly linked to students’ literacy skills and gains in literacy
skills than was family income, maternal education level, or ethnicity. Interestingly, thegap in initial literacy skills of children whose mothers had more formal education, compared with children whose mothers who had less formal education, disappeared whenfamily involvement was high. The study’s measures and reports of longitudinal patternsof results are important, although yes/no questions are, usually, weaker than response
categories that require reports of the frequency of the activities (such as how often theparent volunteers, attends meetings, and so on).

Achievement in Preschool•

Parents’ volunteering at the preschool level positively related to students’ vocabulary skills (Hindman and Morrison, 2011).

•

Parents’ perceptions and reports of teacher responsiveness to parents andchildren positively related to students’ early reading skills (for example, letter
and word recognition) (Powell et al., 2010).

•

A reading and writing intervention at school with university student volunteers and parent workshops resulted in significantly higher preschool students’ orthographic awareness skills (Aram and Biron, 2004).

28

Achievement in Kindergarten and Above•

Partnership programs had small-to-moderate effects on overall achievement(Jeynes, 2012).

•

Family involvement at school positively related to kindergarten students’reading achievement (Galindo and Sheldon, 2012).

•

Family involvement at school positively related to kindergarten students’language skills (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2003).

•

Parent-initiated involvement at school predicted kindergarten students’ academic achievement (that is, composite scores on reading, math, and generalknowledge) (Schulting, Malone, and Dodge, 2005).

•

Increased levels of family involvement at school in kindergarten throughfifth grade were associated with higher levels of literacy achievement (Dearing et al., 2006).

•

Increased family involvement over time in elementary school related positively to students’ literacy skills in third grade, especially for struggling readers. The rate of the increase in family involvement between kindergarten andfirst grade was greater for children with Spanish-speaking bilingual teachers(Tang et al., 2012).

•

Parental involvement at school in third grade added significantly to thirdgrade achievement (Englund et al., 2004).

Preschool Social-Emotional Skills
Parent involvement at school was linked to students’ good behavior (generally reported
as a negative association with problem behaviors) and positively related to students’ social skills(Powell et al., 2010).
Kindergarten Social-Emotional Skills•

Direct family-school contact was associated positively with student responsibility (McWayne et al., 2004).

•

More direct family-school contact was positively associated with student cooperation (McWayne et al., 2004).

29•More direct family-school contacts were linked to lower student hyperactivity (reported as a negative association with hyperactivity) (McWayne et al.,2004).

•

School outreach and transition practices were positively associated with parents’ school involvement (Galindo and Sheldon, 2012; Schulting et al.,2005).

Null Findings
A few studies reported nonsignificant results of family involvement at school forachievement or behavior. In some of these studies, other measures were associated withsignificant positive results, as reported above.
Preschool•

There was no significant relationship between parental involvement at schoolwith preschool students’ scores on the PPVT (Powell et al., 2010).

•

Separate measures of parent involvement at school and parent-teacher conferencing had no effect on students’ receptive vocabulary skills if parent involvement at home was included in the model (Fantuzzo et al., 2004).

•

Family involvement at school and participation in parent-teacher conferences
had no significant relationships with measures of students’ learning behaviors when home-based involvement was included in the model (Fantuzzo etal., 2004)•

A measure of family involvement at school was unrelated to seven measuresof students’ behaviors and social skills and behaviors in kindergarten (RimmKaufman et al., 2003).

Kindergarten•

Parents’ contacts with teachers were unrelated to kindergarten students’ academic competence (McWayne et al., 2004).

•

Parent involvement at school had no significant association with students’reading skills in kindergarten (Crosnoe and Cooper, 2010).

•

Family involvement activities at school were unrelated to kindergarten students’ social skills (whether well-liked or disliked by peers), whether children were prone to start fights with peers, and observed student self-reliance.

30

A negative association of family involvement at school and students’ behavior problems is reported (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2003) but should be questioned due to apparent ridge regression issues in the analyses and because itis an anomaly among many studies.
Although studies summarized in sections above strongly confirmed that parental support and involvement at home benefited young children’s learning, the studies of family
involvement at school painted a mixed picture of results for students. In the nonintervention
studies, mixed results may be due to the survey items that were available for secondary analyses
in large-scale data sets that were not developed to comprehensively answer the questions wewant to answer. Moveover, the lack of longitudinal data limited researchers’ options to control
important background variables and starting points on student outcomes prior to the measure of
involvement behavior and resulting outcomes.
Measures of involvement at school in large-scale data sets are often very general, withitems that have different meanings. For example, some researchers simply classify items onoutreach to parents to attend a PTA meeting or a parent-teacher conference as “involvement
at school.” These actions have different meanings for parents of children who are having
learning problems in school. Unless involvement at school is goal-linked (such as measuring
outreach and actions of reading volunteers for their tutee’s reading skills versus a comparisongroup), researchers should not hypothesize that just “any” measure of family involvement will
influence students’ learning (Epstein, 2011). Future research on family involvement at school
must be clearer about the theoretical connections of the measure of engagement with theoutcome of interest. For example, if the question is whether involvement helps students
improve behavior and school discipline, then measures of family involvement at school tohelp students produce those behaviors will be more likely to produce positive results for thisoutcome than unrelated involvement behaviors at the school building. Studies that contrast
goal-linked involvement activities and general measures with particular outcomes will help tobetter understand these issues.

School Outreach to Engage Families“School outreach to engage families” refers to the strategies and practices that schools andteachers use to engage families and make them feel welcome. These strategies and practices
may look different, depending on the age of the child. Three related, nonintervention studies
addressed transition issues from preschool to kindergarten, including one with a sample of 132
parents of children enrolled in early childhood education (McIntyre, Eckert, Fiese, DiGennaro,
and Wildenger, 2007); an ECLS-K study (Schulting et al., 2005); and a descriptive study of
3,595 kindergarten teachers (Early, Pianta, Taylor, and Cox, 2001). These studies reported
results of practices designed to help students and their families make successful transitions to31

kindergarten, and focused on one goal-linked way that parents become involved at school.
Measures included information on parents’ concerns about the transition, teachers’ transition
practices, and the effects of transition programs on student adjustment to kindergarten andacademic achievement.
Research Findings: Family Concerns About Transition to Kindergarten
McIntyre and colleagues (2007) studied the concerns and experiences of 132 parents
with children who were transitioning to kindergarten from a preschool program. Parents wanted
to be actively involved in preparing their child’s “readiness” for kindergarten and in planningfor the transition. Most parents had concerns about the information they needed (74 percent) or
about the new school’s academic program and expectations for behavior (53 percent). They
wanted to help their children learn to follow directions at school (72 percent), make their needs
known to others (52 percent), prepare to separate from the family (37 percent), and get alongwith their new teacher (35 percent). The study indicated that families receiving financial orother kinds of aid were significantly less likely than other families to attend meetings at thepreschool, communicate with preschool teachers, visit the child’s future kindergarten classroom, or gather information about kindergarten. The study showed that all parents wanted tounderstand and help their children with the transition process and wanted to share their concernswith their children’s preschool educators. Importantly, some parents needed teachers to tailor
their outreach activities so that they could help their children transition to kindergarten.
Research Findings: Teachers’ Conduct of Transition Activities
In a national survey of over 3,500 kindergarten teachers, Early and colleagues (2001)
investigated teachers’ transition activities and found five prominent practices for communicating with individual students and families or with whole groups either before the school year
began or during the school year:•

29 percent of teachers conducted individual activities before the school year
started with each family whose child was transitioning into kindergarten (examples: home visits, phone calls to meet).

•

59 percent of teachers implemented practices before the school year started
to communicate with all families of students transitioning into kindergarten(examples: letter to parents and letter to children before school, Open House
night or day activities, kindergarten registration).

•

44 percent of kindergarten teachers conducted individual activities after theschool year started with each family or selected families of students in need32

of extra help (examples: home visits, conversations with a child’s parent, facilitating contacts between and among parents of children in the class).
•

65 percent of teachers implemented practices after school started to communicate with the families of all students in the class (examples: letters ornotes to parents or children, Open House after school starts).

•

36 percent of teachers made coordinated efforts before school started withthe “feeder” preschool programs and other community groups (examples:obtaining written records for each child entering kindergarten, visiting preschool programs for 4-year-olds in the community, conducting regularlyscheduled formal meetings or informal contacts with preschool teachers
about the “rising” children, inviting preschool teachers to bring their students
to visit the kindergarten class, working together with preschool educators todevelop a coordinated curriculum for easing the transition to kindergarten).

More kindergarten teachers conducted transition and welcoming activities with andfor all parents and children in the class after the school year started than before. Fewer were
engaged in collaborative work with the “feeder” preschools that sent their students to kindergarten. The activities varied by size of class, as teachers of larger classes implemented fewer
individual or group activities before school started. Teachers who received their class lists
earlier than the average of 15.4 days before school started implemented more individual andgroup transition activities before the year began than did other teachers. More teachers who
had kindergarten or primary-grade certification conducted more individualized practices than
did teachers with other kinds of training, and more of those who had some professional
development on the transition process (22 percent) reported using more of all types oftransition practices. High-quality teachers and those with goal-linked professional development conducted more responsive practices to help parents and their children make successfultransitions to kindergarten.
Research Findings: Effects of Transition Activities on Children’s
Achievement
A few studies examined the effects of preschools’ transition activities on parents’ participation and children’s achievement. Using the ECLS-K data from 992 schools and over
17,000 kindergarten students, Schulting and colleagues (2005) identified teacher-reported use of
seven different school transition practices including:•

Provide information about kindergarten via phone or mail (86 percent)•Conduct orientation session for parents prior to the school year (76 percent)33

•Invite parents and children to visit kindergarten prior to the start of the school
year (76 percent)•Invite preschoolers to spend time in the kindergarten classrooms (39 percent)•

Shorten school days at the beginning of the school year to ease transition (18percent)•

Visit students’ homes at the beginning of the year (4 percent)•

Other transition activities (26 percent)Overall, teachers reported using an average of 3.4 of these practices; fewer were used inschools serving families with low income. Using a three-level hierarchical linear model (HLM)
that accounted for the “nesting” of children within classes and within schools, these authors
found that more transition practices predicted more family involvement, with involvement
increasing for families with low income as teachers increased the number of transition activities
that they conducted (Schulting et al., 2005).
This study also revealed that schools’ transition practices and parents’ school involvement were positively and significantly associated with kindergarten students’ composite
achievement scores of reading and math and general knowledge. In particular, the transition
practice of children and parents visiting kindergarten classrooms before school started had asignificant main effect on achievement, and the largest impact was on students from families
with low income. The results point to the need for kindergarten teachers to conduct feasible andthoughtful practices to engage and inform families and students to ease the transition to kindergarten, with expected benefits for students’ achievement in kindergarten.
Implications of Transition Studies for Practice and Research
As more students attend preschool in the United States, more will be transitioning fromthe home to preschool to kindergarten every year. Many kindergarten teachers, based on theirschools’ policies, fail to conduct activities to guide students and their families through a successful transition from preschool to kindergarten in elementary school.
Given that few studies of the important transition process have been conducted, research is needed — particularly, well-designed interventions — to understand the effects ofspecific transition activities on family involvement and student outcomes. The existing studies,
however, are clear that professional development for teachers about the transition process andtime to plan and conduct transition activities would help many more preschool and kindergarten
teachers to connect with parents and prepare young children to move to a new school.

34

A recent report from the Harvard Family Research Project highlights activities in six
states (California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Virginia) where state andlocal education leaders are working together to improve the transition process to kindergarten(Patton and Wang, 2012). Suggested activities include surveys of parents’ concerns about
upcoming transitions; a “transition team” of preschool teachers, parents, kindergarten teachers,
community providers, and others to meet monthly and plan and evaluate kindergarten transitions; articulation teams of teachers to examine and bridge course content in preschool andkindergarten; summer transition programs for students; parent education about the transition
process and students’ new schools through information and Web sites; and aligned professional
development for teachers. This project may illuminate different ways to form effective transition teams, engage families to increase their comfort with the transition process, increase thepositive response of families to varied transition activities, and determine the effects of thetransition activities and family engagement on student success in kindergarten.
Research Findings: Teachers’ Roles in Family Involvement at School
Five studies examined teachers’ roles in promoting family involvement at school(Hindman and Morrison, 2011; Jeynes, 2012; Lynch, 2010; Powell et al., 2010; Tang et al.,2012). They focused on teachers’ communications with and invitations for parents to be
involved at school and at home.
Across studies in a meta-analysis, communications between parents and teachers werepositively associated with overall student achievement (d = 0.28) (Jeynes, 2012). One study
that used multilevel (HLM) analyses (Powell et al., 2010) found that, at the preschool level,
parents’ perceptions of the responsiveness of their child’s teachers (based on a scale with nine
items, such as whether the teacher takes an interest in the child, whether the child gets a lot of
individualized attention, whether the teacher is warm and affectionate toward the child, andwhether the child is treated with respect by the teacher) was related to children’s early reading
skills positively (d = 0.43), problem behaviors negatively (d = –0.61), and social skills
positively (d = 0.43).
Two other studies show the power of school outreach. A study of Head Start Centers
indicated that when these school programs reached out to families about children’s reading
readiness and skills, more families were involved at home (Hindman and Morrison, 2011).
Further, when Head Start Centers invited families to specific activities and events, morefamilies become involved at school (Hindman and Morrison, 2011). Another study withbilingual teachers increased the involvement of Spanish-speaking Mexican-American families
from the time their children were in kindergarten to grade 3 through personal outreach (Tang etal., 2012). Additionally, the students, who started with low literacy scores in kindergarten,
improved their literacy scores in third grade.

35

Summary: School Outreach to Engage Families
Parents at all income levels and of all ethnic backgrounds conduct many good parenting
practices with their children at home. Yet most say that they need more and better information
about how to help their children at each school level in ways that produce real results for student
learning and behavior. Those whose children face learning difficulties want and need even moreassistance and would benefit from early and sustained guidance from teachers to help themmeet their children’s needs. The studies reviewed in this section confirm that when educators
meet and talk with parents about their children and offer guidelines, information, workshops,
and specific activities to help families become active partners in their children’s education, moreparents respond as guided to contribute to their children’s success in school, starting at thepreschool level.
The study by Lynch (2010) suggests that teachers’ beliefs may influence their actions
with certain groups of families. Many teachers — especially young teachers who are more
affluent and more educated than the families of the children they teach — may enter the
profession with strong stereotypes that poor families and those with less formal education do
not value education or care about their students’ success. Teachers’ skeptical or stereotypic
views, however, are not supported by studies of parents conducted over the past 30 years.
Professional development in preservice and inservice settings, therefore, will be needed to help
all teachers recognize families’ strengths and learn how to communicate with families in waysthat support student success in school (Dauber and Epstein, 1993; Epstein, 1995; HooverDempsey and Sandler, 1997). As noted by one teacher (Lynch, 2010, p. 163), “I think that if wegive parents the proper set of tools — good, useful tools — they [the parents] can make anincredible difference.”
There were clear and consistent findings of the value of “transitioning” activities to help
students and families adjust as they move from preschool settings to kindergarten in elementary
schools. Schulting and colleagues (2005) reported that families with low incomes typicallyexperienced fewer transition practices than did economically advantaged families. Yet, whentransition practices were implemented with underserved families and students, more parents
were engaged and more students improved their literacy skills. Teachers who had professional
development about transition activities implemented more such practices before the start of theschool year (Early et al., 2001), with an eye to preparing parents and students to know that theirclasses welcomed the newcomers.
The studies point to the need for professional development, technical assistance, andsupport for all teachers about effective transition activities as well as systematic preparations bypreschools and their “receiving” elementary schools. There are practical approaches that seem
to work well. For example, a team of teachers, parents, and others may work together in thespring and summer before the transition to design and implement activities that will help the36

“rising kindergartners” and their families feel welcome at the new school and to set the stage forparents to remain active partners in their children’s education. New studies should focus on thelong-term results of effective designs of transition activities for parents and for students —particularly, students who are at risk of reading lags, parents with less formal education, andthose who speak languages other than English at home. Research also would be useful on the“scale-ability” of alternative designs for transition activities for use by “feeder” preschools and“receiver” elementary schools, so that all young children would be guided to adjust and succeedin their new schools.

Composite Measures of Family Involvement
Nine studies used composite or general measures that included attention to family involvement
activities at home and at school. These studies measured parents’ practices and attitudes about
education that aimed to encourage children’s learning at home and/or at school. Three of thestudies focused on preschool students; four studies involved kindergarten students; and two
studies were meta-analyses of other interventions for families of children in kindergarten or first
grade and above.
The general measures in these studies were called “parent involvement at home and at
school”; “family context” (which included the home literacy environment, parent involvementin school, and parental role strain); “greater family involvement” (which included communications with the teacher, volunteering at school, expectations about learning, care about education); and “concerted cultivation” (which referred to the number of the child’s extracurricular
activities, parent involvement with school, and number of children’s books in the home). Acrossthese studies, seven reported positive effects of the general measure on student achievement or
behavior, and three reported null results for students.
Research Findings: Composite Measures of Family Involvement
Meta-Analysis
Fan and Chen (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies, mostly nonintervention
studies, and concluded that parental involvement had small-to-moderate positive effects onreading. They reported average correlations between family involvement and overall student
achievement and a weaker, positive relationship between family involvement and reading,specifically. The composite measures of involvement included parents’ educational expectations
for children, communication with children about school-related matters, parental supervision orhome structure related to school matters, parental participation at school, and a mix of othergeneral involvement activities. The authors also explored separate dimensions of involvement
and found that parents’ aspirations for their children’s education had the strongest relationship37with student achievement and that parents’ supervision at home (for example, rules at home forwatching TV, doing schoolwork) had the weakest relationship with student achievement.
By contrast, other authors reviewed 41 studies, mostly interventions, of parental involvement programs in kindergarten through twelfth grade (Mattingly, Prislin, McKenzie,
Rodriguez, and Kayzar, 2002). The programs in the studies varied greatly, with an average of
3.4 intervention components; most programs included learning at home activities (79 percent)and/or supportive parenting (60 percent). The authors concluded that the general measure ofparent involvement was not strongly linked to students’ overall achievement. The authors’tables, however, indicated that most of the studies that they reviewed focusing explicitly onparental involvement with children on reading reported positive results on students’ literacy
learning (Sheldon and Epstein, 2005b).
These two meta-analyses convey mixed messages about the effects of composite
measures of parental involvement on students’ general achievement. When the composite
measures were separated into specific types of involvement or were grouped so that the intervention’s focus (for example, family involvement with reading) was linked to corresponding
reading goals for students, there were positive effects of family involvement on the intended
student outcome (such as reading skills).
Nonintervention Studies at the Preschool Level
Three studies investigated the effects of composite measures of family involvement andreported mixed results for students. Arnold, Zeljo, and Doctoroff (2008) found that greaterfamily involvement (that is, communication with teacher, volunteering, expectations about
learning, care of education) was associated positively with preschoolers’ literacy skills andremained significant after controlling for parents’ socioeconomic status (SES). By contrast,
there were no significant results of a composite measure of parents’ involvement on kindergarteners’ social skills, problem behavior, or student-teacher relationships (Wildenger and McIntyre, 2012). This study did not include a measure of student achievement.
Box 2.7 features a study that used a composite measure of family involvement and preschoolers’ academic and social-emotional development through fifth grade and points to someproblems in linking a general measure of involvement with specific student outcomes.
Nonintervention Studies at the Kindergarten Level
Four studies used the ECLS-K data set to examine composite measures of family involvement. All four reported positive associations of family involvement with children’s
literacy skills, including across different socioeconomic and ethnic subgroups of students.

38

Box 2.7

Feature Study: Composite Measure of Parental Involvement
and Children’s Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills
El Nokali, Bachman, and Votruba-Drzal (2010) examined the association between acomposite measure of family involvement and preschoolers’ academic and socialemotional development in a sample of 1,364 children across first, third, and fifth grades.
The composite measure included items on parents’ attitudes about education, volunteering or visiting the school, and perceived correspondence of family and school goals forstudents. Students’ cognitive skills were measured with the Woodcock-Johnson PsychoEducational Battery-Revised, and socio-emotional development was measured by theChild Behavior Checklist. There were positive results of family involvement on students’social skills and behaviors but no significant connections with the cognitive measure.
The authors of the feature study discussed the problem of linking a general measure of
involvement with specific student outcomes. This point also has been made by otherresearchers, who recommend that theoretically linked, subject-specific involvement
measures should be used for the strongest and clearest effects on subject-specific outcomes for students (Sheldon and Epstein, 2005b; Van Voorhis, 2003, 2011). Althoughcomposite measures may be used to generate clues about the effects of involvement on
student learning or behavior, they often mix “apples and oranges” in data and cannot beinterpreted with confidence unless the component concepts are separated for analysis.

Cheadle (2008) conducted an analysis of how “concerted cultivation” (that is, measuresof parent involvement with school, number of books at home, and extent of children’s extracurricular activities) affected students’ reading and math achievement. Results indicated that higher
levels of the composite measure of family involvement related to children’s reading skills inkindergarten and growth in reading during the school year, though not over the summer. The
composite measure partially explained reading score differences attributable to SES andstrongly related to black-white and Hispanic-white achievement gaps, controlling for SES.
In a related study, Raver and colleagues (2007) studied how a composite measure ofparents’ educational investments mediated the connections of family income with students’
academic and social outcomes. Higher levels of parents’ investments in education reduced theeffects of family income on student outcomes, particularly for African-American and Hispanic
students. Thus, even in relatively poor households, attention to educational goals, enrichedlearning opportunities, and parents’ engagement at home and at school increased students’success in school. These results are reinforced by Durand (2011), whose study reported that a39general measure of involvement at home and at school was positively associated with Latino
children’s literacy skills.
Another study examined whether a general measure of family involvement and schooland neighborhood factors affected children’s reading trajectories (Aikens and Barbarin, 2008).
The study showed that the family context (that is, resources, experiences, and relationships) was
associated with initial reading gaps between groups of students in kindergarten. The connectionof SES with children’s reading competency was mediated by the composite that included homeliteracy environment, number of children’s books at home, parental involvement at school, lowparental role strain, and center-based care prior to kindergarten. Students’ acquisition of reading
skills — especially during the spring of kindergarten and spring of first grade — also wasstrongly associated with school and neighborhood conditions. Because the composite measureof family involvement cannot be separated, one cannot distinguish among the effects of thehome environment, school programs, and community characteristics on reading achievement in
the early grades. The general results are not very informative, leaving the details for future
longitudinal studies with distinct family context measures.
Summary: Results of Composite Measures of Family Involvement forStudent Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills
The studies reviewed in this section presented a mix of many positive and a few nullconnections of family involvement with students’ cognitive and social-emotional outcomes.
The various analyses of ECLS-K data produced mainly positive results of general measures ofparents’ investments and involvement on students’ reading scores, including some attention tosocioeconomic, racial, and ethnic subgroups of students. On average, children in economicallystrapped homes have fewer literacy-linked materials, resources, and experiences and enterschool lagging behind economically advantaged students.
Schools may be able to help students close achievement gaps if they implement activities that strengthen parents’ beliefs about the importance of literacy; increase parental homeliteracy activities; provide information on reading, writing, and literacy skills to families; enlist
volunteers to work with groups of student at risk on a sustained basis; and reward students’progress in literacy achievement.

Supportive Parenting Practices“Supportive parenting practices” refers to activities that parents conduct to support theirchildren’s development and well-being. This includes the nature and quality of the parent-childrelationship and parenting activities, such as setting rules at home. Supportive parenting also
includes caring behaviors that characterize the home environment, in general. This is in contrast40

to parents’ conducting specific literacy learning activities at home, which is addressed in thesection above.
In this review, 12 of 15 studies that measured supportive parenting practices reported
positive results for students’ achievement and social-emotional skills. Three studies reported
null results — neither positive nor negative — of parenting practices on achievement. Varying
topics within supportive parenting practices are discussed, including the quality of parent-childinteractions, parental beliefs, and the role of fathers. The following sections summarize important findings, highlight feature studies, and discuss implications for future research on
supportive parenting and for improving practice.
Description of Studies of Supportive Parenting Practices
Fifteen of the 52 studies summarized in this review measured parenting practices; ofthese, nine were at the preschool level, five focused on kindergarten, and one involved parentsof elementary students in grades 1 through 4. Three of the preschool and kindergarten studies
followed students into elementary school (Hart and Risley, 2003; Englund et al., 2004) and highschool (Gregory and Rimm-Kaufman, 2008). Ten of the studies included multiple measures ofboth supportive parenting and learning activities at home, and they reported the effects of thesedifferent emphases. Among the studies were two interventions: Getting Ready (Sheridan,
Knoche, Kuypzyk, Pope Edwards, and Marvin, 2011), at the preschool level, and an intervention that was designed to help parents involve their children in daily family routines that
contribute to children’s learning in school (Powell and Peet, 2008).
The studies of supportive parenting practices included large and small samples and employed varied methodologies. Two studies were based on the Early Head Start Research and
Evaluation project (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2012; Mistry et al., 2010). Smaller studies at thepreschool level included one study of 229 preschool children (Hindman and Morrison, 2012);
one study of 290 preschool children, with most mothers receiving government assistance(Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004); one study of 42 preschool children through third grade (Hart andRisley, 2003); one study of 187 low-income preschool children through third grade (Englund etal., 2004); and one study of 92 preschool children (Cottone, 2012).
Five other studies related to kindergarten students, including three based on the
ECLS-K data (Crosnoe and Cooper, 2010; Galindo and Sheldon, 2012; Raver et al., 2007), one
study of 223 kindergarten students in an NICHD sample (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2003), and one
study of 142 kindergarten students following effects on their success in school through highschool (Gregory and Rimm-Kaufman, 2008).

41

Research Findings: Supportive Parenting Practices
Interventions
Of two interventions to guide parenting practices, one focused on the preschool level(Sheridan et al., 2011) and one on the primary grades (Powell and Peet, 2008). Both reported
positive effects of the intervention on students’ cognitive or behavioral outcomes. Researchersreporting effect sizes found significant and large effects on preschool children’s language use (d= 1.11) (Sheridan et al., 2011) and on children’s involvement in daily family routines, childparent conversations, and teachers’ ratings of the family’s influence on the child’s school
performance (Powell and Peet, 2008).
Box 2.8 features the preschool intervention to illustrate key findings across studies of
supportive parenting practices.
Nonintervention Studies
Nine nonintervention studies of supportive parenting explored the warmth or quality ofparenting interactions, the nature of beliefs about parenting, and effects of fathers’ and mothers’
supportive parenting practices on student development. This section summarizes three studiesof the warmth of interactions, one study of parents’ attitudes and beliefs, and one study offathers’ parenting practices.
Quality of Parenting Interactions. Hart and Risley (2003) studied the conversationsof 42 families with low and high incomes and reported significant differences in the number ofencouraging versus discouraging statements by parents of preschool children. In families withhigh incomes (professional occupations), the ratio of encouraging to discouraging words was
6:1, compared with the ratio of 2:1 for families with low incomes (working class occupations)and with a reversed ratio pattern of 1:2 for families on welfare. The study confirmed earlier
work showing that, on average, more words per hour (wph) were spoken and exchanged infamilies with high income (2153 wph) than in families with low income (1,251 wph) and infamilies on welfare (616 wph). There are serious implications of these factors for students’language skills over time, as the early home language experiences of children at age 3 waspositively correlated with receptive vocabulary scores (PPVT-R) in third grade, language scores(Test of Language Development 2; TOLD), and reading comprehension (Comprehensive Testof Basic Skills) in elementary school.
Another study involved a group of 187 preschool children in families with low income
and examined the relation between the quality of mother-child interactions and children’s
outcomes (Englund et al., 2004). The quality of mother-child interactions was assessed during a42

Box 2.8

Feature Study: Intervention on Supportive Parenting
and Achievement Outcomes
The Getting Ready intervention’s well-designed structure for home visits promoted more positive parenting and better results for preschool students. Sheridan
and colleagues (2011) conducted a randomized study of the Getting Ready intervention with parents of 217 Head Start children to examine its impact on preschool students’ language, reading, and writing skills. The overarching goal of
the intervention was to increase positive parenting behaviors and to improve preschool students’ literacy readiness skills and prospects for success in school. Theintervention treatment group of families received an average of 8.35 home visits,
each about one hour, over two years, whereas the control group families conducted parenting as usual.
At the home visits, Head Start teachers helped parents to conduct learning activities in daily routines and to learn strategies that increase positive parent-childinteractions, parental warmth and sensitivity to children’s needs, and support forchildren’s autonomy and self-directed activities. Professionals introduced thetheme or goal for the meeting, encouraged conversations and questions that arose
since the previous visit, observed parent-child interactions, provided information,modeled positive strategies, affirmed the parent’s competence, summarized thevisit, planned the next visit, and identified learning opportunities for the parent to
conduct with the child in the upcoming week.
Using measures from the Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy(TROLL) and Preschool Language Scale-4th Edition, the researchers found significant and large differences favoring students in the treatment group over control group students on teachers’ reports of stronger language use (d = 1.11), reading (d = 1.25), and writing (d = 0.93). There were no differences between groups
on an observational measure of students’ expressive communication. Changes or
growth rates for students were positively affected by the intervention but wereunrelated to child gender, parent education, and primary language at home. Theintervention had stronger, compensatory effects for students who started with
developmental delays and who spoke languages other than English at home.

videotaped laboratory procedure involving a set of four developmentally appropriate problemsolving situations; quality ratings were based on mothers’ instructional behavior (how well she
structured the situation and coordinated her behavior to the child’s activity and needs forassistance), with higher ratings indicating more effective instruction. The quality of motherchild interactions at 42 months had significant direct effects on children’s IQ and achievement43

in grade 1 and had indirect effects on achievement in grade 3, with the mediating variables ofachievement in grade 1 and parents’ expectations in grades 1 and 3. These results were reinforced by a study that followed 142 kindergarten children into high school (Gregory and RimmKaufman, 2008). Using logistic regression analyses to identify probabilities, the researchers
found that students were 3.5 times more likely to graduate from high school for every one unit
higher of mother-child positive parenting interaction scores collected in kindergarten. The
quality of parenting was the most predictive of high school graduation of all variables measured
in the study, including maternal education, race, gender, and IQ.
The three studies discussed above combine to show the powerful and predictive rolesof early positive mother-child interactions for later elementary and high school student
achievement.
Parental Beliefs. Two dimensions of parenting — observed maternal sensitivity andteachers’ reports about parental beliefs or attitudes about school — were examined in a study ofstudents’ achievements and social behaviors in kindergarten (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2003).
Using the Teacher-Child Rating Scale, the ECLS-Academic Competence Rating Scale, and theSociometric Status Scale, the researchers found that maternal sensitivity (observed using a toy
play task when children were 3 years old) was positively associated with teachers’ ratings ofkindergarten students’ language and math outcomes, student competence, and being well liked
by peers and, conversely, were negatively linked to behavior problems and being disliked bypeers. “Family attitudes about school,” which was measured in kindergarten, was positively
associated with eight of the nine measured outcomes of student achievement and behavior(except for observed student self-reliance). The study revealed that early parent-child interactions and parents’ concurrent attitudes about school when the child was in kindergarten were
important aspects of parenting for student success in school.
Father’s Roles in Parenting. A study of 290 children ages 2 to 3 in families with low
incomes examined the relative impact of the mother’s and the father’s supportive parenting
practices on their preschool child’s achievement (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). The researchersreported that each parent’s parenting activities significantly, separately, and positively predicted
results for students. In regression analyses that included other important covariates (including
mother’s and father’s level of education and father’s income), mother’s and father’s supportiveparenting practices significantly (or nearly significantly) predicted the scores of 2-year-old
children on the MDI and PPVT and the scores of 3-year-olds on these same measures. For
example, children’s mental acuity, memory, verbal and math concepts, and skills measured by
the MDI were associated with father’s supportive parenting, mother’s supportive parenting, andfather’s education. Together, these variables explained 28 percent of variance in MDI scores.

44

Box 2.9 features a study showing that the parents’ initial behaviors as well as the rate ofchange in positive or negative directions may affect students’ achievement and behavioral
outcomes over time.

Box 2.9

Feature Study: Change in Supportive Parenting and
Results for Children’s Achievement and Social-Economical Skills
Although it is clear that parenting is not a static skill, few studies have simultaneously
examined the impact of the quality of parenting at one point in time and the effects ofchanges over time on students’ outcomes. A study by Chazan-Cohen and colleagues(2012) measured the quality of early parenting and the effects of improvements in quality
over time on child cognitive outcomes and behavior. In this study, 1,273 Early Head
Start children and their families participated when the children were 1, 2, 3, and 5 yearsof age. The authors measured parents’ depressive symptoms, parenting stress, the homelearning environment, and supportive parenting when children were between the ages of
14 months and 5 years old, to calculate the change and slope of these indicators.
Supportive parenting — which formed a constellation of positive behaviors with parental
sensitivity and cognitive stimulation at home — was positively associated in multivariate
linear regression analyses with measures of students’ emotion regulation, vocabulary
measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test — PPVT-III, and the WoodcockJohnson Letter-Word Identification Scale. Positive change in supportive parenting was
significantly associated with children’s emotion regulation and vocabulary. Both theparents’ initial behaviors and the rate of change in positive or negative directions, then,
may affect students’ achievement and behavioral outcomes over time.

Summary: Results of Supportive Parenting on Children’s Achievement
and Social-Emotional Skills
Of the 15 parenting studies reviewed (including three interventions), 13 reported positive results for students’ learning, and three reported null or no significant results. Positiveparenting effects on achievement-related outcomes included:•

Preschool vocabulary (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2012; Tamis-Lemonda et al.,
2004)

•

Preschool letter-word identification (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2012)45

•

Preschool Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) scores (TamisLemonda et al., 2004)•

Preschool language use, reading and writing (Sheridan et al., 2011)•

Preschool, kindergarten, first-grade, third-grade, and high school reading
achievement (Crosnoe and Cooper, 2010; Englund et al., 2004; Galindo and
Sheldon, 2012; Gregory and Rimm-Kaufman, 2008; McWayne et al., 2004;
Mistry et al., 2010; Raver et al., 2007; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2003)•

Third-grade Test of Language Development 2 (TOLD) (Hart and Risley,
2003)

•

Higher graduation rates (Gregory and Rimm-Kaufman, 2008)

Null Findings
Three studies reported null effects of particular aspects of supportive parenting on student outcomes:•

Supportive parenting was unassociated with students’ Woodcock-Johnson
Letter-Word Identification scores (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2012).

•

Autonomy support and management of discipline was unrelated to students’
literacy skills (such as alphabet knowledge, decoding, and vocabulary)(Hindman and Morrison, 2012).

•

Mothers’ reading beliefs were unrelated to children’s phonological awareness (Cottone, 2012).

Social-Emotional Findings
Eight studies that are reviewed in this section reported positive associations of positiveparenting practices and students’ social-emotional outcomes. There were no studies with null or
negative results. These studies found:•More positive preschool and kindergarten emotion regulation (for example,
sharing, developing confidence, behaving appropriately in different contexts,
and other self-regulated social behaviors) (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2012;
Hindman and Morrison, 2012; McWayne et al., 2004; Mistry et al., 2010;
Raver et al., 2007)46

•Reduced preschool and kindergarten child behavior problems (Mistry et al.,2010; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2003)•

Increased cooperation in preschool (Hindman and Morrison, 2012)•

Greater likelihood of a kindergarten child being liked by peers (RimmKaufman et al., 2003)•

More conversations between parents and elementary children and involvement of children in adult daily routines (Powell and Peet, 2008)

Like the studies of parental involvement with children on learning activities at home,the studies of parenting practices, overwhelmingly, reported positive cognitive and socialemotional results for children. Recent investigations, such as the study by Chazan-Cohen andcolleagues (2012), included several measures of parenting, not just one practice. Multidimensional concepts of parenting enrich our understanding inasmuch as –– depending on the methods of analyses –– composite measures may instantly confirm or contradict each other and may
encourage discussions of nuances of results. Using different methods and models, the studies
agreed that early warm and sensitive parent-child relationships positively affected children inpreschool and that these effects may be sustained through high school (Gregory and RimmKaufman, 2008).
One recent study reviewed here extended our understanding by addressing changes inparenting support and attitudes over time (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2012; see Box 2.9). By measuring whether the quality of parenting changed as students proceeded through school, the research
improved understanding of the kinds of practices that help parents guide their children effectively from preschool through high school.
Next Steps
More research on fathers’ roles in parenting and in children’s education at home and at
school is needed to balance the overwhelming attention to mothers in past studies. A few studies
of supportive parenting included separate measures of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting actions
and found that they were independently and positively associated with preschool children’s
outcomes (Leavell, Tamis-LeMonda, Ruble, Zosuls, and Cabrera, 2012; Rimm-Kaufman andZhang, 2005; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). More comparative research of mothers and fathers
would improve our understanding of whether, when, and how they are similarly or differently
involved and influential in their children’s education and school attitudes. Further, studies could
examine whether maternal and paternal involvement and its influence on child outcomes differs
by gender, grade level, race/ethnicity, and other measures of family background. A deeper

47

repertory of such studies would guide educators to broaden practices to engage fathers at school
and at home in their children’s education.
Even as the research agenda grows, enough is known to suggest that teachers (and others outside the school who are in regular contact with families) could conduct activities toincrease the number of parents who are confident about their parenting skills and support forchildren’s reading development. This will require teachers, administrators, and parent leaders toreach out to involve more and different families in workshops and training activities on positiveparenting beliefs, skills, and behaviors using new technologies. In the studies summarized inthis section and many prior studies, parents’ beliefs about parenting and about education
affected whether and how they interacted with their children in reading and how they influenced
their children’s attitudes, work, and progress in school (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1997).
This finding, confirmed across studies, should persuade early childhood educators to reach out
to all parents to strengthen their beliefs about their influence on children’s learning and successin school. Although new research will continue to strengthen the knowledge base, it is possible
to use the extant research to develop concrete, feasible, and “fun” activities that, when conducted, will enable all parents to have interactions that share the joy of thinking and learning with
their children.

Summary and Reflections: Family Involvement with Children on
Reading and Literacy Activities
Chapter 2 reviews results of 52 research investigations of the links of family involvement athome and at school with students’ literacy learning and social-emotional skills. The intervention
and nonintervention studies overwhelmingly agree that learning activities at home, supportiveparenting, and other involvement activities conducted at school and at home are positively
associated with students’ reading and literacy achievement and social-emotional outcomes.
Although most studies measured students’ cognitive skills, several studies explored changes inparents’ involvement, students’ behavior, and students’ emotions or attitudes. Only a few
studies reported null associations of family involvement and student literacy learning.
The intervention studies provide the most credible results. They strongly suggest thatstudents benefit most when parents, teachers, and students conduct shared reading and otherenjoyable literacy-linked activities with confidence and with pleasure at home or at school. The
studies of family involvement with children on literacy learning have implications for research
and for practice. New research should:•

Better understand communications between families and schools about literacy.

48

•

Explore and compare fathers’ and mothers’ involvement with students on literacy learning.

•

Conduct more goal-linked studies of family involvement with subjectspecific measures and outcomes.

Most studies reviewed here confirm that children had higher reading skills and greater
growth in reading and literacy competencies if they had more opportunities to practice reading
through shared storybooks, interacted with parents in conversations and other literacy-linked
activities at home, got help as needed from school volunteers, and interacted with caring andhighly competent teachers from preschool on.
The strong agreement across studies should encourage educators to engage all parents
in productive and enjoyable literacy-related activities with their children at home and at school
and to ensure that all children master reading readiness skills for a successful transition tokindergarten. However, confirmed results across studies have not translated into clear “how to”
guidelines for all educators of students in diverse family, school, and community contexts.
Because of this, school practices lag behind the formidable research base summarized in thisreport. However, research results should inform practice. Based on the studies reviewed here
and many prior studies, it is possible to:•Provide more and better information to families to strengthen literacy learning activities that can be conducted at home by all parents with their young
children•

Expand family knowledge of literacy-linked activities in a family-friendly
way, particularly for families whose first language is not English•

Offer early and sustained interventions to engage families in literacy learning
activities with students who are most at risk of lags in reading readiness or
school failure•

Encourage parents’ to understand and communicate their beliefs about theimportance of literacy and learning to their children•

Urge educators and parents in preschools and kindergartens to work together
to plan and implement effective transition programs to help students and theirfamilies prepare for and adjust to their new schools

There is also a real need to develop and to study more high-quality and research-based
professional development materials, workshops, and courses to expand early educators’knowledge of effective practices that will enable them to:49

•Guide parents’ on learning activities at home•

Organize successful programs for volunteers to help children with reading
readiness and related literacy skills at school•

Construct responsive transition programs and activities to prepare students
and their families for their new school•

Conduct positive communications with parents on reading readiness, mathreadiness, social readiness, and other age-appropriate skills that are linked to
student success in preschool and kindergarten

Over many years, the researchers conducted and reported on their studies, which included many examples of effective interventions and collaborations of teachers and parents. Yet
the tested connections, communications, and activities that linked consistently to student
success have not been translated into easy-to-use materials for general teaching practices. In too
many preschools and elementary schools, teachers and parents remain unconnected, with eachgroup trying to help the children in its own way. Moving forward, it should be possible tocontinue to strengthen the research agenda, improve professional development, and enableeducators to use the results of research in practice to engage more and different families and tobenefit more children in preschool and beyond.

50

Chapter 3

Family Involvement in Math Activities andResults for Children’s Math Achievement
and Social-Emotional Skills
Chapter 3 summarizes research regarding family engagement with young children on mathematics activities. Because fewer studies have been conducted on family involvement in numeracy readiness or early mathematics learning than on family involvement in literacy activities,
this chapter on math expands the review criteria to comprehensively cover the research base.
Criteria for inclusion were extended to include studies published since 1992, with children
beyond grade 3, and with smaller samples (that is, fewer than 40 children or 40 parent-childdyads). Thus, the 43 studies reviewed were published between 1992 and 2012, most (84percent, or 36 studies) in 2001 or later. Ten international studies (23 percent) found on this topic
were conducted outside the United States and will be reviewed separately.
Of the 43 articles on family involvement in math, 33 percent (14 studies) focused onpreschool children; 35 percent (15 studies) included kindergarten children; 9 percent (4 studies)
reported on children in grades 1 through 3; and the remaining 19 percent (8 studies) reported onchildren in fourth grade and beyond. Two articles were meta-analyses of varied studies. (SeeTable 1 in Chapter 1 and Appendix Table A.2 for, respectively, general characteristics of andspecific details about the studies.)
The studies ranged in sample size. Just over one-fourth of the studies (28 percent, or 12
studies) had samples of 1,000 or more; 23 percent (10) had samples of 101 to 550 children; 23
percent (10) included samples of 41 to 100; and 14 percent (6) reported on samples of 40 or
fewer children. Three studies reported their sample sizes by the number of schools investigatedrather than by the number of participating children; they reported having 1, 18, and 39 schools.
The two meta-analyses reviewed, respectively, 15 intervention studies and 25 intervention andnonintervention studies with varied sample sizes. Because of the limited number of studies offamily involvement in math with students in the early grades, a few informative studies were
included that had small sample sizes.
The studies of family involvement with children in math varied in design and inmethods of analysis. About one-fourth, (23 percent, or 10 studies) were based on interventions to increase family involvement in math, but only 7 of them met criteria and are reported
in this chapter. Others (31) were nonintervention studies that used correlational designs to
examine the links between family involvement in math and children’s math skills. Over half
(51 percent, or 23 studies) reported longitudinal data. The majority of these (61 percent, or 14

51

studies) examined data over a single school year. Others (35 percent, or 8 studies) followed
children across multiple school years, typically from the preschool into elementary school.
One intervention study lasted only two weeks but reported on children’s math skills before
and after the intervention.
Several of the longitudinal studies analyzed large data sets, such as the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-NLSY (Crane, 1996; Zhan, 2006); National Institute of Child Healthand Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth DevelopmentSECCYD (El Nokali, Bachman, and Votruba-Drzal, 2010); National Education Longitudinal
Study of 1988-NELS:88 (Catsambis and Beveridge, 2001; Haghighat, 2005; Holt and Campbell, 2004); Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort-ECLS-K (Galindo and
Sheldon, 2012; Greenman, Bodovski, and Reed, 2011; Schulting, Malone, and Dodge, 2005);
and Childhood and Beyond-CAB (Jacobs and Bleeker, 2004). These large data sets provided
researchers with general or composite measures of family involvement at school –– not family
involvement at school or at home with children specifically in math. The one exception was
CAB (Jacobs and Bleeker, 2004), which included parents’ reports of their involvement withmath and science activities at home.
Among the studies reviewed, 28 percent (12 studies) employed multilevel analysis
techniques, whereas others (40 percent, or 17 studies) used regression analyses or path models.
Another 28 percent (12 studies) used t-tests or analysis of variance/analysis of covariance(ANOVA/ANCOVA), chi-square tests, or other analyses to report findings. The two metaanalyses examined and summarized effect sizes.
Taken together, the studies — with their varied designs, samples, and methods — provided the most recent and most comprehensive results available on patterns of family involvement in math in the early grades and their influence on children’s math achievement. Appendix
Table A.2 summarizes each of the 43 studies on math-linked family involvement and gives
information on the form of parental involvement, study citation, age of children, study designand sample characteristics, results for and measures of children’s math and social-emotional
skills, and other results of interest.
The following pages in Chapter 3 focus on four categories of family involvement andtheir relations with children’s math learning: learning activities at home, family involvement at
school, school outreach to engage families, and supportive parenting. They summarize theresearch findings in each of the four family involvement categories, highlight “feature” studies
that present important findings and summarize research on a topic, and discuss implications for
future research and practice.

52

Family Involvement in Children’s Math Learning Activities at
Home
Studies examining family involvement in math learning activities at home and its effects onchildren’s math achievement had two main foci: (1) those that specifically promoted mathlearning at home and (2) those that promoted students’ learning or achievement more generally(for example, math and literacy). Most of these studies were correlational in nature, althoughfour studies used randomized designs to implement interventions that engaged parents ofpreschool-age children in math activities at home; one of these also engaged parents in literacy
activities at home. The next several sections report on intervention and nonintervention study
findings on family involvement in both math and learning at home.
Research Findings: Family Involvement in Math Learning at HomeIntervention Studies
Three early childhood interventions explored whether and how specific guidelines forparents to engage in math activities with their young children at home affected students’ mathreadiness skills. In one intervention, parents with low socioeconomic status (SES) whosechildren were enrolled in Head Start participated in the Family Mathematics Curriculum, which
consisted of a series of meetings about math content and activities conducted over half a school
year (Starkey and Klein, 2000). The intervention was tested in two randomized studies of,respectively, predominantly African-American families (28 mother-child dyads) and predominantly Latino families (31 mother-child dyads). In both studies, the researchers controlled forpretest math scores and found that the intervention had positive effects on preschool children’s
posttest scores of informal mathematics knowledge (that is, math skills on researcher-creatednumerical and spatial/geometric tasks).
The other two intervention studies engaged middle-to-high-income parents with theirpreschoolers on everyday math activities at home in two short-term interventions: one day(Vandermaas-Peeler, Boomgarden, Finn, and Pittard, 2012) or two weeks (VandermaasPeeler, Ferretti, and Loving, 2011). In the two-week intervention group, parents were given
suggestions and directions for conducting numeracy activities while playing a board gamewith their child (Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2011). In the daylong intervention group, parents
were given suggestions and directions for incorporating numeracy activities when cooking
with their child (Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2012). Suggestions were provided to parents by
the researchers in a list or on recipe cards, respectively. Parent-child dyads were randomly
assigned to the intervention (the “numeracy awareness group”) or to the comparison groupthat conducted normal activities at home without receiving explicit suggestions about math.
As observed and coded by the researchers, children in the numeracy awareness groups

53

generated more correct math responses to their parent’s questions than did children in thecomparison groups. However, there were no significant differences in math scores of theintervention and control groups of students on directly assessed math posttests (Test of Early
Mathematics Ability-3rd Edition [TEMA-3] in the 2011 study and a researcher-createdmeasure based on the TEMA-3 in the 2012 study). It is important to note that the two interventions involved relatively small samples: 29 and 25 parent-child dyads, respectively(Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2011; Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2012).
These three randomized intervention studies showed that parents at varied income levels could use information provided in an intervention to become engaged with their children inmath activities at home. The parents’ involvement in children’s math learning had mixed results
across studies, however. In the Head Start sample, children whose families were in the Family
Mathematics Curriculum intervention group improved tested math skills (on researcher-createdmath measures) compared with children in the control group. By contrast, children in families
with higher incomes in the short-term everyday interventions did not differ on measured mathskills (TEMA-3 or researcher-created math measure) from those in the control groups.
These results could be due to differences between the interventions in their duration,
content, and targeted population. The numeracy awareness interventions lasted for a short time,
whereas the Family Mathematics Curriculum was a semester-long intervention. It may be, forexample, that enhancing parent interactions with children on numeracy in typical home activities like cooking and board games over a longer time period would yield positive effects onchildren’s tested math skills.
Further, the numeracy awareness intervention was tested in parent-child dyads frommiddle-to-high-income homes, whereas the Family Mathematics Curriculum was tested infamilies from low-income homes. Given that children from economically disadvantaged homes
tend to begin preschool with lower math skills and fewer math experiences at home thanchildren from high-income homes, interventions that guide parents’ involvement in math may
be more useful and more effective for children and parents from low-income households. (Box
3.1 features the study of the Family Mathematics Curriculum.)
Finally, the content of the interventions differed from a structured curriculum to a few
suggested impromptu math activities at home, where other learning may be happening. It may
be that parents are more likely to participate regularly and faithfully with their children on
activities that are guided in specific rather than in general or suggestive ways. By increasing
parents’ understanding of and comfort in conducting targeted, systematic, and enjoyable mathrelated learning activities at home, more preschool and early elementary students may be likely
to improve their math competencies.

54

Box 3.1

Feature Study: Intervention to Increase Parent Involvementin Math Activities at Home
This study by Starkey and Klein (2000) of the Family Mathematics Curriculum is one of
the few longer-term interventions for parents that focused on math and that has beentested in a randomized controlled trial using diverse families. The Family Mathematics
Curriculum provides a structured mathematics course in which parents with low incomes
and their preschool children attended family math classes and were given access to mathmaterials to use at home. Eight classes were conducted every two weeks over fourmonths by two trained teachers at Head Start Centers.
Two randomized studies examined the effects of the intervention on children’s earlymathematics and literacy scores. One study included predominantly African-American
families (28 mother-child dyads), and the other included predominantly Latino families(31 mother-child dyads). The children in the intervention group in both studies had significantly higher posttest mathematics scores than did children in the comparison group.
Additionally, the intervention was effective for preschoolers in both the lower and upperparts of the developmental range in mathematics. The Family Mathematics Curriculum
did not produce any significant results on preschoolers’ literacy skills. It is important tonote that the authors reported that attrition reduced Study 1 by four families and Study 2
by one family.

Nonintervention Studies
Six nonintervention studies of family involvement with math-focused learning activities
at home were reviewed. Four were cross-sectional, and three included child characteristics ascovariates. Most reported positive associations between family involvement and children’s mathoutcomes. For example, the frequency of mothers’ involvement with their children in number
learning was positively related to kindergarteners’ performance on a math task, controlling forchild age and individual test performance (Pan, Gauvain, Liu, and Cheng, 2006). A study with asample of Chinese-American, Euro-American, and Taiwan-Chinese preschoolers and kindergarteners found a positive association between parents’ math teaching at home and children’smath scores, controlling for child age and ethnicity and for parents’ math attitudes and beliefs(Huntsinger, Jose, Liaw, and Ching, 1997). Across all ethnicities, children had higher mathscores if their parents reported using more formal and direct teaching, as well as focusedpractice activities, with their children, compared with children whose parents reported using
more informal and spontaneous math practices. Similarly, in a study of European-American andChinese-American children, parents who reported using more formal and direct methods to55

teach their children math in preschool –– in comparison with parents who used more informal,
spontaneous, or play-oriented methods –– tended to have children with better math test scoreson a standardized math test in third and fourth grades (Huntsinger, Jose, Larson, Krieg, andShaligram, 2000).
Another nonintervention study also produced important results that may guide futurestudies of more organized approaches to family involvement in math. Parents’ reports of theirchildren’s common activities at home with arithmetic and with money were positively related tothe children’s scores on different mathematic tasks (researcher-created math problem tasks) in
grades 1 through 3 (Guberman, 2004). When parents reported that they and their children
frequently conducted instrumental activities using money at home, the children correctly solved
more problems using money than did children whose parents reported fewer home activities
with money. In contrast, children whose parents conducted more math activities with them athome that did not involve money solved more math problems using “chips” than did children
whose parents reported fewer math activities that did not focus on money (Guberman, 2004).
Not only did this study highlight a positive link of family involvement with math to children’smath skills and test performance, but it also suggested that children’s skill on different kinds ofmathematics tasks may be linked to or depend on the kinds of math activities that are conductedor reinforced at home (Guberman, 2004).
Finally, another longitudinal, correlational study of children in first, second, and fourth
grades also showed a positive relationship between math activities at home and children’s mathoutcomes, controlling for children’s gender and interest in math as well as parents’ value ofmath and perception of their child’s math ability (Jacobs and Bleeker, 2004). In this study,
maternal reports of time spent modeling math and of math or science purchases and activities
were positively related to both mothers’ reports of children’s later math involvement outsideschool and children’s report of their interest in math (Jacobs and Bleeker, 2004).
Among the studies reviewed in this section, only one reported a nonsignificant correlation between parents’ reports of the frequency of home mathematics activities and preschoolers’
mathematics scores on the Test of Early Mathematics Ability-2 (TEMA-2; Blevins-Knabe,
Austin, Musun, Eddy, and Jones, 2000). The authors noted that parents’ reports of their attitudes
toward and use of math-related activities suggest that math was not high on their priority list,
compared with reading and social activities. They also suggested that parents may view math asless important, may enjoy math less, and may have less knowledge about math than otherlearning activities.
These five nonintervention studies included a variety of parent reports about the homeenvironment as their measure of family involvement with children on math. The parent reports
ranged from general measures of the frequency that different mathematics activities were56

conducted at home to specific measures, such as whether children were involved in activities
with and without money and whether parents’ teaching practices were more formal and academic or more informal. Despite these differences, almost all findings identified a positive link
between math-focused home learning involvement and children’s math outcomes. Althoughnone of these correlational studies used sophisticated statistical analyses, most accounted forchild characteristics and, thus, provided evidence — albeit relatively weak — for the positive
relation between family involvement with children on math activities at home and children’smath outcomes. The studies are strengthened by the confirmation of findings across studies, butthey still must be considered preliminary and in need of confirmation in studies that moreobjectively measure home-based interactions and behaviors.
Research Findings: Family Involvement in General Learning at HomeIntervention Study
One intervention study measured family support for and involvement in children’s
learning at home more generally (that is, math and reading) and effects of this involvement onpreschool children’s math-related outcomes. Focused on families and preschool children, theGetting Ready for School (GRS) program was a semester-long, curriculum-based intervention
designed to support parents in increasing their preschool children’s school readiness skills inmath and reading (Noble, Duch, Darvique, Grundleger, Rodriguez, and Landers, 2012). A pilot
study (N = 56) conducted in Head Start classrooms demonstrated that children who wererandomized into GRS improved significantly more on their math scores (Woodcock-Johnson
Applied Problems but not Quantitative Concepts) than did children in the comparison group.
Additionally, parents in focus groups said they had positive reactions to the GRS program. They
also reported seeing positive changes in their own abilities to teach and support their child aswell as improvements in their child’s skills and attitudes about learning.
It is interesting that this early childhood intervention that focused on helping parents
engage with their children in math and literacy readiness had positive effects on children’s mathskills but not on their literacy skills (Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification, Passage
Comprehension, Understanding Directions, and Picture Vocabulary). There could be manyreasons for this that may be clarified if future studies follow the provocative pilot study. For
example, it is generally accepted that parents tend to provide fewer math-related activities athome than literacy-related activities (Anders, Rossbach, Weinert, Ebert, Kuger, Lehrl, and von
Maurice, 2012). Thus, parents may have more room to grow in providing math support at home.
The intervention likely provided parents and children in the intervention group with new ideas
and strategies that were not part of the repertory of the parents and children in the control group
and, therefore, would not have been previously conducted on their own at home.

57

Box 3.2 features the pilot study of the GRS program and its effects on preschoolers’
math and reading readiness skills.

Box 3.2

Feature Study: Intervention to Increase Parent Involvement inGeneral Learning Activities at Home
The intriguing findings of the pilot study for the Getting Ready for School (GRS) program (Noble et al., 2012) adds to the few longer-term interventions for parents that focused on math and that have been tested in a randomized controlled trial. The GRS program is a nine-unit curriculum designed to help parents promote preschool children’s
school readiness skills in math and reading. It included weekly, two-hour workshops for
15 weeks led by a trained facilitator. Parents used familiar items and everyday interactions in the home and community (for example, buttons, laundry, cooking) to prompt
children’s learning, including solving math problems, connecting math with real life,
estimating numbers and sizes, and exploring shapes.
A pilot study in four Head Start classrooms with 56 parents of preschoolers demonstrated that the children of the intervention group improved significantly more than did thechildren of the comparison group on the Applied Problems subtest of WoodcockJohnson III (for example, showing two fingers, counting objects, and adding or subtracting small numbers). There were no significant differences between the intervention andthe comparison groups scores on the Quantitative Concepts (such as oral questions aboutmathematical factual information, number patterns) or on the Letter-Word Identification,
Passage Comprehension, Understanding Directions, and Picture Vocabulary subtests.

Nonintervention Studies
Three correlational studies were found that examined composite measures of parents’support and conduct of various learning activities at home –– including but not limited to math–– and children’s math outcomes. These studies examined data from parents and children at thepreschool or kindergarten level but found no significant connections of the frequency of parent
engagement with children in a variety of learning activities at home on children’s math learning(Galindo and Sheldon, 2012; Powell, Son, File, and San Juan, 2010; Roopnarine, Krishnakumar, Metindogan, and Evans, 2006).

58

In one correlational study, neither mothers’ nor fathers’ reports of involvement withchildren in academic activities at home were related to kindergarteners’ number skills (theNumber Skills subtest of the Kaufman Survey of Early Academic and Language Skills),
controlling for parenting style and parent’s education (Roopnarine et al., 2006). This study did
find, however, that fathers’ reports of involvement with children in academic activities athome were positively associated with parents’ reports of children’s social behaviors. Twostronger studies using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and strong controls of child,family, and school factors reported related results (Galindo and Sheldon, 2012; Powell et al.,2010). Both Galindo and Shelden (2012) and Powell and colleagues (2010) asked parents
about the frequency of engaging in educational activities with their children, such as tellingthe child a story; teaching letters, words, or numbers; teaching songs or music; playing
counting games; playing with blocks; playing with puzzles; playing with shapes; counting
different things; and reading together. Neither study found a significant relationship between
the composite measure of parent-reported involvement with their children at home and thepreschoolers’ mathematics scores (ECLS-K math; Woodcock-Johnson Applied Problems).
Powell and colleagues found that parental home involvement was not predictive of children’ssocial skills, either. Interestingly, in both studies, the researchers reported a significant,positive connection between parents’ reports of their involvement at their children’s school
and children’s mathematics scores. (See Box 3.3.)
In sum, relatively few focused, longitudinal, nonintervention studies have been conducted that examine parents’ support for or interactions with children on general learning
activities at home. The three studies that were found and included in this review –– all of which
had strong statistical controls in their analyses –– reported nonsignificant associations withchildren’s math outcomes. This is in contrast to the nonintervention studies discussed above thatfound positive links between parents’ support for and interactions in math learning and children’s math skills. This pattern of results may be due to the lack of specificity in these studies of
the composite measures of home involvement in general learning activities. Future studies
should systematically examine specific learning activities that parents conduct and discuss athome that are linked to specific academic subjects. In that way, new studies would be better
able to identify which parental involvement activities at home are related to which academic
outcomes for children.
Summary: Parent Involvement in Learning Activities at Home
The intervention and nonintervention studies reviewed in this section reported mainly
positive results of parental involvement on learning activities at home with children’s mathematics skills. In particular, two well-designed randomized interventions that used strong,
curriculum-based approaches to increase parental involvement in young children’s math59

Box 3.3

Feature Study: Nonintervention Exploration of Composite Measuresof Parental Involvement and Children’s Learning and Behavior
In a study of the relations between parental involvement in learning activities at home, as
well as at school, and children’s math skills, Powell and colleagues (2010) used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and a strong set of covariates (that is, fall math scores,
ethnic background, maternal education, parents’ perception of teacher responsiveness tothe parents and child, and observed quality of teacher interactions with children) in a
relatively large sample of 140 four-year-olds.
Involvement in learning activities at home was measured by parents’ reports of the frequency of engagement with their children in such activities as counting; telling or reading a story; teaching letters, words, and numbers; and playing with shapes. This composite measure, which mixed parent involvement in reading and math activities at home,
was not significantly related to preschoolers’ scores on the Applied Problems subscale ofthe Woodcock-Johnson III.
Involvement at school was a composite measure of parents’ reports of the frequency ofparticipation in such activities as attending a parent-teacher conference; volunteering in aclassroom; helping with a field trip; attending school social events, workshops, or meetings; participating in fundraising; and calling another parent. Involvement at school was
significantly related to children’s school readiness skills. The authors reported moderate
effect sizes of parent involvement at school with students’ scores on the Applied Problems subscale (d = 0.36). Further, stronger parent-school relationships established byinvolvement at school also were related to children’s higher social skills (d = 0.55) andfewer problem behaviors (d = 0.47), as measured by the Social Skills Rating System.
(Effect sizes vary by context, but it is generally accepted that an effect size is large at 0.8[that is, 8/10 of a standard deviation unit], moderate at 0.5, and small at 0.2; Cohen,1988).

learning at home showed, convincingly, that parents — including those with low income whosechildren are in Head Start programs — were willing and able to support their children’s mathdevelopment in the home. The curriculum-based interventions (Noble et al., 2012; Starkey and
Klein, 2000), which were comprehensive and long term, demonstrated positive effects onchildren’s math skills. Two other studies of interventions that offered suggestions to parents (butnot explicit training) to encourage parent-child interactions on naturally occurring, everyday
math-related activities did not find significant effects on children’s assessed math learning.

60However, these two studies did find positive effects on children’s observed responses toparents’ math questions during the activities.
The pattern of results gives good information that a randomized design, specific mathcontent, and clear activities are important in an intervention for improving and increasing
parents’ interactions with children on math activities at home. Further, the findings suggest thatinterventions that include workshops or training for parents — for example, meetings in which
they are provided with examples of math activities — conducted over several weeks may be
more effective than short-term interventions that merely provide suggestions for math activities
in the moment. Such preparation for and with parents may help them feel confident, positive,
and more knowledgeable about interacting with their children about math. Poor or weak designs
may sustain common math fears and limit math knowledge (or even promote incorrect mathknowledge), constraining parents’ interactions with their children about math, even at thepreschool level.
Reflections and Implications for Future Research
There is still a sizable gap in our understanding of what kinds of interventions (andwhich aspects of an intervention) increase parents’ home involvement with children on math,leading to the active participation by different groups of parents and, ultimately, to improved
numeracy readiness and mathematics skills in young children. This is due to several limitationsin the extant intervention studies.
For example, the intervention studies reviewed here were conducted in cities with respectable but relatively small samples — ranging from 28 to 56 child-parent dyads. Certain
samples were connected to particular interventions. Mainly minority families with low incomes
participated in the two strong curriculum-based interventions, whereas mainly Caucasian,
middle-to-high-income families were included in the numeracy awareness interventions. The
strong, randomized study of the Family Mathematics Curriculum (Starkey and Klein, 2000), as
well as the Getting Ready for School program (Noble et al., 2012), provides good information
about the potential strength of curriculum-based interventions for families with low incomes,
but the results cannot be generalized to other populations. In the numeracy awareness interventions (Vandermaas-Peeler and colleagues, 2011, 2012), it may be that middle-to-high-income
parents in the control groups of these studies already conducted math-related interactions with
their children (for example, activities that involve counting, measuring, sharing, and paying
with money) when opportunities arose in everyday life; therefore, there was not a large enoughdifferential between the groups to see the effects of the intervention. Future research with larger
and more diverse samples and with measures of specific learning activities at home conductedby parents in treatment and control groups will be needed to clarify some of the unknowns
about family involvement at home on math learning.

61

The nonintervention studies also contribute valuable information for future research andfor teachers’ practices to engage parents on math. For example, studies that used direct andspecific measures of parents’ activities at home or their attitudes about math were more likely
than studies using composite measures of involvement to report positive results on children’smath skills. This suggests that studies examining the link between the home environment andoutcomes should use domain-specific measures in the home and that educators aiming toincrease children’s math skills through learning activities at home should guide parents’
understanding and conduct of targeted and enjoyable math activities.
Overall, more research — particularly, testing well-designed interventions on diverse
populations in randomized studies using intent-to-treat designs — is needed on family involvement with children on math at the preschool, kindergarten, and early elementary grade levels.
The research base, at present, is promising but too slim to know for sure that all parents —regardless of educational, socioeconomic, and linguistic backgrounds or other family circumstances — will overcome typical fears or avoidance of math (Boaler, 2009; National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 2012) to conduct enjoyable and productive activities with their young
children that will reinforce school goals for math learning. With more studies of feasible familyinterventions tested by strong research designs, it should be possible to grow the knowledge
needed to guide schools’ practices to engage parents in ways that improve more students’numeracy readiness both for the transition from preschool to kindergarten and for the transition
from kindergarten to the primary grades.
Research Findings: International Studies of Family Involvement inLearning Activities at Home
Ten studies that were found of family involvement at home and children’s mathematics
outcomes were conducted outside the United States. Because there may be cultural differencesin parenting and in schooling, the international studies that met the criteria for this review arereported in this section. As in the United States, some international studies examined family
involvement specifically in math, whereas others used general or composite measures of family
involvement in learning at home.
Of the five nonintervention studies selected for review, three focused specifically onfamily involvement in math, and two used a composite measure of family support for learning
in general –– all with statistical controls on child and family background variables. All but one
study reported positive effects of the home learning environment on young children’s mathskills and scores.
Studies that examined parents’ reports of their involvement in and support for mathlearning at home showed positive effects on children’s math skills across a range of ages andcountries, including 3-year-olds in Germany (Anders et al., 2012); 3- to 5-year-olds in Canada

62

(Skwarchuk, 2009); 5-year-olds in Canada (LeFevre, Skwarchuk, Smith-Chant, Fast, Kamawar,
and Bisanz, 2009) and Greece (LeFevre, Polyzoi, Skwarchuk, Fast, and Sowinski, 2010); and 5and 7-year-olds in the Netherlands (Kleemans, Peeters, Segers, and Verhoeven, 2012). The twostudies that examined parents’ reports of the frequency of their promotion of general learning at
home (for example, letters, numbers, words, and reading) also found positive associations withmath skills in 3- to 5-year-olds in Canada (LeFevre, Clarke, and Stringer, 2002) and in 5- and 7year-olds in Great Britain (Melhuish, Phan, Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, and Taggart,2008). Most of these studies utilized standard math assessments, such as the arithmetic subscaleof the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, the quantitative concepts subscale of the
Woodcock-Johnson, the Keymath Test-Revised, and the Utrecht Early Numeracy Test-Revised.
Only one study (LeFevre et al., 2002) used researcher-created assessments of rote counting,object counting, and number recognition. (For all measures, see the individual studies inAppendix Table A.2.)
The study in Germany, which examined parents’ reports of their involvement with children’s math and literacy learning at home separately, found that both measures of parent
involvement were positively related to children’s initial math scores at age 3 but not to growthor change in math over time (Anders et al., 2012). Ironically, this study suggested that family
involvement in reading activities at home was more strongly related to young children’s mathscores than to family involvement in math activities at home.
Additionally, two of these studies — both from Canada — provide a nuanced understanding of family involvement at home by delving deeper into specific math learning activities
that parents conducted. Findings indicate that participation in more advanced or complex
mathematics activities at home was more beneficial than relatively simple or basic activities forincreasing children’s math skills. Parents’ reports of their children participating in complex
numeracy activities at home (such as adding or subtracting objects, comparing, counting by 2s)
were positively related to preschool children’s Quantitative Concepts scores (on the WoodcockJohnson; Skwarchuk, 2009). By contrast, participation in basic numeracy activities at home(such as counting objects, reciting numerals, printing numbers) was negatively related topreschool children’s Quantitative Concepts scores. A related study found that a composite
measure of parents’ efforts to teach complex math and literacy activities (for example, printing
letters, numbers, and words; reading words) was positively related to French- and Englishspeaking preschool children’s scores on researcher-created object-counting and numberrecognition tasks (LeFevre et al., 2002).
The one international study that did not find an association between parent involvement
and children’s math skills examined Canadian teachers’ ratings of how involved parents were in
their kindergarteners’ education (Harper and Pelletier, 2010). The measure was based on justone question: “How often is this child’s family involved in his/her education?” This is a weak63

measure, based on teachers’ views of parents’ behaviors. The nonsignificant result, though,raises several questions for future research concerning the accuracy of teacher reports aboutparent engagement. The study also raises questions about whether teachers followed thecommon practice of asking parents to be involved only if their children had poor or failingskills. Adding these parents to others who were highly involved could produce null effects, suchas those found in this study, if parents of both high- and low-ability students are purposely
highly engaged with their children about math.
The international studies confirm and extend the studies conducted in the United Stateswith additional correlational evidence of positive associations of family involvement in mathlearning activities at home and young children’s math skills. They also raise interesting questions for future research, such as whether parents’ reports of their activities with children athome are more accurate and better predictors of children’s tested mathematics scores than areteachers’ reports of which parents are involved and what they do at home. One study’s provocative finding that parents’ interactions on more complex math activities at home may be more
beneficial for children’s math outcomes (Skwarchuk, 2009) raises important questions about
what is the optimal content of age-appropriate and ability-challenging activities — both basic
and advanced — that should be encouraged at home, how to guide parents so that all parents
and children can participate, and what effects these efforts have on children’s math learning.

Family Involvement at School
Eight nonintervention studies across a range of children’s ages and grade levels examined
connections of family involvement at school and children’s mathematics skills. All the studies
included strong statistical controls of family background factors, and most based analyses onlarge, longitudinal data sets. Although each study defined parent engagement or family involvement at school in slightly different ways, most included composite measures of parents’participation in parent-teacher meetings, parent-school organizations, volunteering, and school
fundraising.
The studies reported mixed results, as family involvement at school had some positiveand some nonsignificant relationships with students’ math learning. In two studies using
hierarchical linear modeling and strong control variables, a composite measure of parents’
involvement at school had small-to-moderate positive results for preschoolers’ math readiness(d = 0.36; Woodcock-Johnson Applied Problems) (Powell et al., 2010) and kindergarteners’
math skills (effect size = 0.04; ECLS-K math) (Galindo and Sheldon, 2012). A meta-analysis ofintervention and nonintervention studies mainly of older children reported that family involvement at school was related to children’s math skills and even more clearly was linked to
students’ general or composite achievement than specifically to math achievement (Fan andChen, 2001).

64

In contrast, one study using a composite measure of family involvement at school (thatis, items on parental investment, educational attitudes, and encouragement of education) was
unrelated to growth in children’s math skills (Woodcock-Johnson Applied Problems) from
grades 1 to 5 (El Nokali et al., 2010). It is important to note that this study did find positive
connections of family involvement at school — and patterns of change in that involvement —on children’s social-behavioral outcomes but not on their academic outcomes. Two otherstudies also reported no significant relationships between parental involvement at school(measured as a composite by child report) and children’s math skills in kindergarten (Peabody
Individual Achievement Test [PIAT]; Zhan, 2006) and eighth grade (standardized math testscores; Haghighat, 2005).
It is noteworthy that some studies of older children (that is, early elementary and middle
grades) provide an interesting finding that should be followed up in future studies. Parental
involvement at school has been shown to boost math outcomes of children in economically
distressed neighborhoods more than for children in other neighborhoods (Catsambis andBeveridge, 2001; Greenman et al., 2011). To check this result, future research should examine
the moderating role of neighborhood environment and socioeconomic status on family involvement at school and its impact on preschool children’s math skills.
In sum, the strongest or clearest nonintervention studies in this review (those utilizing
large, longitudinal data sets; a strong set of control variables; and analyses of effect sizes)
measured the connections of family involvement at school and children’s mathematics outcomes. To date, it appears that large-scale survey items on family involvement tend to focus on
involvement at school more than involvement at home. These large studies, however, yieldedinconsistent results of the connections of family involvement at school and children’s mathoutcomes. The discrepancies may be due, in part, to the often-limited measures within large
data sets that address many school topics with just a few questionnaire items, which are completed by different reporters — children, teachers, or parents. The lack of focus, depth, andconsistency of measures of parental involvement at school and at home make syntheses andcomparisons across studies difficult. Nevertheless, across all the studies reviewed here, reports
from parents about their involvement resulted in more positive associations with students’ mathoutcomes than reports from school-age children (Haghighat, 2005; Zhan, 2006).

School Outreach to Engage Families
The studies summarized above overwhelmingly agree that family involvement at home helps
boost children’s math skills in preschool and the early elementary grades. Most of the nonintervention studies on learning activities at home measured parent reports about their own naturally
occurring learning activities at home, not whether they were guided by teachers. The intervention studies, although prompting for more family involvement, were based on designs and65evaluations by researchers and not teachers. The general agreement across studies of theimportance of parental involvement for child outcomes suggest that teachers would find many
good partners by using the results of research to develop programs or to conduct practices thatguide more and different parents to interact with their children on math.
Several studies examined how schools reach out to involve families with their children
at home and at school. School programs to engage families have been studied by researchers invarious ways, including reports from principals (for example, Galindo and Sheldon, 2012; Holtand Campbell, 2004) and from teachers, parents, and students (for example, Haghighat, 2005;
Van Voorhis, 2011). School outreach specifically on math also tends to include various activities linked to six different types of involvement (Epstein et al., 2009; and see Appendix B), suchas home visits or workshops with parents about math, parent-teacher conferences for students
who need extra help on math, math volunteers at school, family math nights, math interactive
homework or other home learning activities, math projects and materials supported by theparent organization, and community partners’ investments and assistance on math readiness andearly math skill development.
Research Findings: School Outreach to Engage Families
Intervention Studies
The Partnership Schools Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) model organized school
improvement teams that included attention to family and community engagement. The Math
Partnership Team (like the teams for improving reading, school behavior, or other goals)
included parents along with teachers, administrators, and community partners as team members
focused on the school’s math program’s strengths and needed improvements. A case study
investigating the implementation of the CSR model over three years in a Title I elementary
school showed that when math teachers across the grades (K-5) implemented the Teachers
Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) process in math, most parents became involved, weregrateful for the guidance that the TIPS activities provided without asking parents to come tomeetings at school, and children’s math scores on state tests improved over time, comparedwith scores in comparison schools (Epstein, 2005). (Title I provides federal funding to schoolsthat have low poverty levels, in order to help students who are at risk of falling behind academically.) The percentage of students at grade level in grade 4, for example, on the state’s mathachievement test increased from 54 percent to 63 percent to 66 percent over three years,
whereas the percentage of students at grade level in a comparison school changed from 54
percent to 51 percent to 60 percent (Epstein, 2005).

66

Other Intervention Studies with Older Students
Two interventions designed to improve parental involvement with children on mathhomework in the elementary grades showed positive impacts on children’s math outcomes. In alongitudinal study that followed students from grade 3 to grade 4, randomly assigned teacherseither used the Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) Interactive Math Homework
process for one year or two years or conducted homework as usual with their children. Students
in the TIPS classes had significantly higher patterns of parental involvement in and enjoymentof math homework, and TIPS students had higher standardized mathematics scores than did
control group students (Van Voorhis, 2011). Although TIPS math materials are available forstudents and their families starting in kindergarten and have received good anecdotal reports
from parents and teachers, controlled studies examining the effects of TIPS on math learning
have not been conducted in the youngest grades.
Additionally, a nonrandomized intervention study of fourth- and fifth-grade students ina “math pairs” program that was designed to use parents as partners for problem-solving
assignments at home reported that students made greater gains in problem-solving skills than
did comparison students who did not have parent partners (O’Connell, 1992).
Nonintervention Studies
Schools’ systematic outreach to involve parents has been shown to be significantly andpositively related to mathematics outcomes of preschool to high school children, after controlling for child, family, and school characteristics (Galindo and Sheldon, 2012; Haghighat, 2005;
Holt and Campbell, 2004; Schulting et al., 2005; Sheldon, Epstein, and Galindo, 2010). For
example, studies conducted at the time of students’ transition from preschool to kindergarten
reported positive associations between preschool programs’ outreach efforts and (1) kindergarteners’ gains in math skills on the ECLS-K math test over one year (Galindo and Sheldon,2012) and (2) kindergarteners’ composite academic achievement scores (ECLS-K composite) atthe end of the kindergarten year (Schulting et al., 2005). Schulting and colleagues (2005)
examined several school-level transition practices, finding that one — parents and children
visiting kindergarten classrooms while still in preschool — was significantly and positively
associated with kindergarteners’ achievement. This transition activity also interacted withparents’ socioeconomic status (SES) such that the positive effect of parents’ engagement in thetransition process on achievement scores in kindergarten was greater for children from families
with lower SES than for children from families with higher SES.
The small number of nonintervention studies provided initial clues that schools’ outreach to engage parents is positively related to children’s math and other achievement outcomes. There also is some evidence that parents’ involvement at school strengthens thisrelationship, suggesting that school outreach efforts may increase family involvement at school,

67

which, in turn, may help improve children’s math outcomes (Galindo and Sheldon, 2012). The
studies of school outreach –– particularly, the intervention studies in the elementary grades that
focused on math –– provide a base for future research on the effectiveness of specific outreachstrategies to engage all families. The current research — from which practical implications may
be gleaned — would help preschool, kindergarten, and primary-grade teachers develop clear
and enjoyable materials for parents and children to use at home to reinforce and extend classroom math lessons.

Supportive Parenting Practices
Many studies conducted over decades confirm the importance of supportive parenting practices–– including warm, caring, and intellectually stimulating home environments –– for children’s
learning and development. In this overview, we reviewed seven studies of supportive parenting
activities in which researchers also measured students’ numeracy readiness or early mathematics skills.
Nonintervention Studies
Nonintervention studies that were reviewed for this report found positive concurrent
and longitudinal connections of supportive parenting and children’s math outcomes. For
example:•Parents’ intellectual stimulation and emotional support observed at home waspositively related to 5- to 9-year-old children’s mathematics scores on the
Peabody Individual Achievement Tests (PIAT) in mathematics (Crane,1996) and TEMA-2 (Blevins-Knabe, Whiteside-Mansell, and Selig, 2007).

•

A study of kindergarteners showed that the positive association of theirmothers’ involvement at home on math achievement (PIAT) became evenstronger if the mother and child had a warm and supportive relationship(Simpkins, Weiss, McCartney, Kreider, and Dearing, 2006).

•

Other factors –– such as parents’ beliefs or expectations about their child’s
liking of and ability in math –– were positively related to children’s mathematics scores on TEMA-2 (Blevins-Knabe et al., 2007), a math test developed by Educational Testing Service (ETS; Catsambis and Beveridge,2001), ECLS-K math (Galindo and Sheldon, 2012), Sequential Assessmentof Mathematics Inventories (SAMI; Huntsinger et al., 2000), and PIAT
(Zhan, 2006).

68

In sum, the studies revealed that supportive and positive parenting was linked to children’s math skills. Studies varied in concluding whether parents’ engagement in learning
activities at home was associated more with children’s development of “informal” mathknowledge through everyday math activities and spontaneous play that requires counting andrelated skills (Blevins-Knabe et al., 2007) than with children’s development of formal mathknowledge or formal math test scores (Crane, 1996). This topic will need attention and clarification in future studies of supportive parenting for learning at home and children’s math outcomes.

Summary of Results of Studies of Family Involvement withChildren in Mathematics
Stepping back to look at the broad field of research on school, family, and community partnerships, it must be recognized that there are more studies of and a greater emphasis on family
involvement in reading and literacy activities at home than in math or other subjects. Fewerstudies have focused on math, with fewer details about family involvement activities and lessspecific results for children’s math learning. Despite this, the studies reviewed in this chapter
indicate that parents with diverse backgrounds can and do engage their children in math-related
learning activities at home. They may do so on their own, or they may be guided by children’steachers. They may conduct activities that promote basic and/or more advanced mathematics
skills (for example, Skwarchuk, 2009). They may use formal, direct teaching strategies orinformal, indirect, and spontaneous interactions to facilitate their children’s development inmath (for example, Huntsinger et al., 1997).
Although some parents support and promote their children’s math skills at home, parents tend to place greater emphases on literacy, as they report activities and resources related
to pre-reading and literacy more often than they report numeracy-related activities andresources (Anders et al., 2012; LeFevre et al., 2009). This may be because not all parents feel
comfortable and confident about conducting math activities with their children, even in theearly years (Pan et al., 2006). Many parents have math phobias, based on their own poor
experiences with the subject (Boaler, 2009; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,2012). They worry that they do not know math well enough to teach it or that they will dosomething “wrong” if they show their children even simple math skills in a different way
from the teacher. This may be particularly true for parents who find it easy — even joyful —to read stories with their children and, thus, may turn to literacy readiness activities at homemore often than math readiness activities.
The fact that some parents may have negative attitudes toward or fear of math makes
the findings from the studies reviewed here even more important. New studies can build on
the encouraging results from the stronger intervention studies, as well as the relatively weakercorrelational studies, of parental involvement with math in the early years. Emerging topics

69

for new research include (1) studies that capture measures of parents’ attitudes about math;(2) studies that address parents’ attitudes about math when implementing well-designed
interventions to increase the involvement of parents with children on math skills; and (e)studies of educators’ outreach through practical presentations, workshops, and materials
designed to ease parents’ fears and increase parents’ and children’s knowledge of and positive
attitudes toward math.
Positive Association of Family Involvement at Home and at School withChildren’s Math Outcomes
U.S. and international nonexperimental studies overwhelmingly reported positive associations of parent involvement activities in the home, particularly those that match mathfocused measures of involvement with children’s mathematics outcomes. It is interesting that
more direct or formal practice activities (Huntsinger et al., 1997; LeFevre et al., 2010) andparent-child interactions promoting age-appropriate yet challenging math skills (LeFevre et al.,
2002; Skwarchuk, 2009) may improve children’s math skills and scores more than indirect orinformal parent-child interactions and activities that are focused on basic math skills. Other
studies reported related findings that the general responsiveness and intellectual stimulation of
the home environment was positively related to children’s math outcomes.
If these patterns of results are supported in new studies, they have implications for thedesign and content of materials developed by educators to reach out to engage all families with
their young children in math learning. They tell teachers not to shy away from helping parents
and children engage in and enjoy stimulating math activities that will strengthen and advance
students’ math skills. However, teachers may need to provide explicit math guidance andexample activities, especially for parents who may feel less comfortable or even afraid of math.
Studies indicate that most parents would welcome guidance and prefer a more coordinatedeffort between them and the teachers regarding teaching their children (Noble et al., 2012; Van
Voorhis, 2011).
The few intervention studies reviewed here corroborated the positive associations offamily engagement on math and students’ math learning, providing promising evidence for acausal link between family involvement and math. But the paucity of experimental work on this
topic in the early years does not allow strong, causal conclusions to be drawn regarding theimpact of parent involvement activities in the home on children’s math outcomes. Nonetheless,the interventions demonstrated several different ways that educators might guide parents tobecome more supportive of and engaged with their children’s math development. The interventions included both explicit training in workshops for parents and other kinds of communications and materials to guide these interactions.

70

Two types of interventions had strong, positive effects for improving child outcomes.
First, targeted workshops conducted over several weeks that prepared and actively involved
parents in conducting specific math activities with their children increased young children’smathematics skills compared with “preschool-as-usual” situations. By contrast, short-term
interventions that simply suggested that parents get involved in impromptu math-related
experiences that occur in daily life did not differentially affect children in treatment and comparison groups. Despite relatively small samples, the effective intervention studies are valuablefor their several strengths, including randomized designs, targeted parent training sessions
conducted by trained staff, and the development and use of relatable math activities. Most
importantly, these studies showed the potential of such targeted, curriculum-based parent
interventions to effectively impact children’s math outcomes.
Second, well-designed interactive homework activities that guide parents’ interactions
with students on core-learning math skills increase students’ math scores compared with“homework as usual,” which typically does not help parents discuss math and real-world
applications of specific skills with their children (Epstein, 2005). Such interactive homework
approaches broaden our view of the types of interventions with parents and children related tomath that may effectively improve children’s math outcomes (Van Voorhis, 2011).
Although all students may benefit from well-designed, goal-linked family engagement
activities, several studies indicated that minority group students in underserved settings (such as
Head Start Centers) may benefit most from family engagement in math at home and fromthoughtful transition activities that prepare preschoolers for the move to kindergarten (Greenman et al., 2011; Schulting et al., 2005). Children from families with low incomes may be lesslikely to have parents who are comfortable and confident about conducting math experiences athome unless given some guidance from teachers. These children also are more likely to be inpreschool settings that have fewer math-related resources, less qualified teachers for math
instruction, and fewer activities to guide children’s and parents’ transition to kindergarten. It
may be that, in these settings, school policies that encourage parental engagement in math atschool and at home, well-designed outreach activities, and well-articulated transition activities
will be particularly helpful to increase parents’ confidence in and interactions with their children
on math as well as their children’s math skills.
Finally, several studies showed small-to-moderate direct effects of school outreach efforts to promote family involvement on children’s math skills. One study indicated that involvement at school was a partial mediator of the relation between school outreach to parents
and children’s math outcomes (Galindo and Sheldon, 2012). This suggests that teachers’ efforts
to engage parents at school may send a message about their school’s culture — that recognizes
all parents as partners in children’s education — which may encourage parents who are typically uninvolved to become engaged at school and with their children at home.

71Summary and Reflections: Family Involvement with Children on
Math Activities
Most of the research reviewed here linking parents’ engagement with their children at home andat school in the early grades with children’s math skills were nonintervention studies. The
results of these studies are correlational and cannot provide evidence of causal effects onchildren’s math learning. At this early stage of research on family involvement with students in
math, the studies completed to date produced many important patterns and many unansweredquestions for future research to build a stronger knowledge base and clearer conclusions about
the impact of parent engagement in math on children’s math outcomes.
In this review, the strongest nonintervention studies — those conducted with large,
longitudinal, and diverse samples and with data based on comprehensive measures of family
and student backgrounds — focused on family involvement at school more than family
involvement at home. The lack of comprehensive measures of involvement at home in largescale data sets suggests that such measures must be developed and added to future longitudinal studies to learn more about the nature and effects of parental engagement at school and athome for student learning.
New research on parent involvement with children on math activities should use
measures of parents’ engagement with their children at home that differentiate between activities related to learning in general and activities related to specific academic domains matchingbasic school subjects (for example, literacy and math readiness in preschool). Measures ofsubject-specific involvement are needed to clarify the links between specific ways that parents
engage their children at home in math and theoretically linked math outcomes.
In addition, new nonintervention studies will be most useful if the measures zero in on
the particular methods used at home by parents (for example, formal versus informal methods)
to teach different kinds of math skills (for example, basic versus advanced). Studies that include
subgroups of parents from diverse cultures, parents with varying attitudes toward math, andboth mothers and fathers will advance our understanding of how and how often math is supported at home and whether there are cultural or group differences in how to increase parents’
involvement in math.
Interestingly, the vast majority of studies examined parents’ reports of their own involvement in math with their children at home. Like any measure, however, self-reports havetheir own drawbacks, including potential social desirability bias. Future studies that use multiple
methods — such as in-depth interviews of parents with behavior-based questions, students’reports and reactions to interactions about math at home, teachers’ surveys or interviews withbehavior-based questions, and observational measures of math activities in the home environment — may deepen our understanding of parents’ promotion of math learning. Multiple72

measures with views from differing reporters also will help determine the kinds of home mathactivities that are most beneficial to children and most enjoyable for parents and children. Suchinformation could inform educators and researchers about design strategies or interventions that
may increase parental engagement in math learning at home.
A few studies shone a spotlight on potential differences in how families with diverse
cultural backgrounds may conduct math learning activities at home. The results of thesestudies suggested that families with different cultural backgrounds may be more familiar withor more comfortable conducting particular kinds of math activities with their children at home
(Guberman, 2004; Huntsinger et al., 1997; Pan et al., 2006). This has implications for how
children from different backgrounds respond to math activities and experiences provided inschool, depending on the alignment with what was taught at home. There were, however, too
few studies to draw conclusions about cultural differences in family engagement or theireffects on child outcomes in math. Future research may illuminate cultural differences inparents’ interactions with their children and whether this has implications for teachers’culturally relevant pedagogy and for designing activities to promote parent engagement inmath with children at home.
The findings from a few intervention findings are promising, although experimental
research on family involvement with students in math is still very limited. Intervention studies
that are randomized and well implemented with larger and more diverse research samples are
critically needed across the early childhood and early elementary school years. These studies
should try to clearly identify the kinds of home math activities conducted by parents that are
most beneficial to children. The studies also should make explicit how educators may help
more parents to feel comfortable about initiating math interactions and to conduct learning
activities successfully with their children at home. Such work also needs to consider how to
guide all parents in supporting their children’s learning in math (and other subjects), startingin the earliest grade levels, regardless of their cultural, educational, socioeconomic, or
linguistic backgrounds.
Very few intervention studies reported on parents’ reactions, but those that did foundpositive responses to the information and guidance that they received in the intervention
group (Noble et al., 2012; Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2011, 2012). Future parent-focusedintervention studies need to consider how they affect not only children’s math outcomes but
also parents’ math attitudes, knowledge, skills, and teaching methods. For instance, future
research should include parents’ reactions as “interim outcomes” that may help explain
whether the intervention leads to the “ultimate outcome” of improving students’ numeracy
readiness and early math skills.

73

Chapter 4

Summary, Reflections, and Recommendations
The studies reviewed in this report are, to our knowledge, the strongest conducted primarily
over the past decade on the nature and effects of family involvement on young children’s
reading and math readiness and behavior for success in school. Chapters 2 and 3 –– which
review research on the connections of family involvement with children on literacy- and mathlinked activities –– present separate and specific conclusions, recommendations for new
research, and implications for practice. This chapter summarizes general findings for the full setof 95 studies on family involvement and children’s literacy and math learning and discusses
crosscutting recommendations for research and for improving practice.
Across the studies reviewed, we were able to draw two main conclusions. First, the majority of studies, including some randomized controlled trials, demonstrate that — across thefour categories of involvement — family involvement is positively linked to children’s outcomesin preschool, kindergarten, and the early elementary grades. A preponderance of research
confirms the link between family involvement and children’s literacy skills, and a number ofstudies demonstrate positive relations with children’s math skills. A few studies also show
positive associations with children’s social-emotional skills. This shows that naturally occurringor spontaneous family involvement is related to child outcomes. In general, the weakest link
between family involvement and children’s outcomes that was found in this review was forfamily involvement at school; many of those studies found mixed results for the association
between children’s academic outcomes and the actions and interactions that parents and otherfamily members have at the school building with school staff. Many studies were strong
nonexperimental studies that analyzed longitudinal data and/or statistically controlled importantchild, family, and school background factors. These studies provide intriguing considerations
and implications for research and practice.
Second, the studies that specifically tested parent interventions demonstrated that intervention matters. As noted in Chapter 2 and 3, there is variability in the rigor of study designs,
with only a minority of studies employing the strongest design from which to draw causal
conclusions: experimental studies that use random assignment. Across all studies, random
assignment of parents or children to treatment and control conditions occurred in a total of fivestudies that demonstrated positive results. Additionally, eight intervention studies with comparison groups but no random assignment also provide evidence for positive results for children,
lending considerable confidence in these conclusions. These intervention studies (both randomized and not randomized) tended to show that parents with diverse backgrounds can respond todirect guidance and become more engaged with their children on literacy and math activities.

75

When they do, their children increase their reading and numeracy skills, on average, more thanchildren whose parents are operating on their own. It should be noted that this review indicatesthat even well-designed intervention studies have small-to-moderate effects on student learning.
In sum, the review supports and extends conclusions of prior overviews and countlessstudies demonstrating that children who face economic, health, and social challenges; language
lags; and other risk factors need more and better learning opportunities at home and at school. In
some instances, targeted attention and extra help increased these students’ achievement andreduced typical gaps in achievement between these students and those without such problems.
Several studies, particularly in Chapter 2, indicate that parents of children who lagged in literacy
skills responded to well-planned outreach activities and used well-designed materials to supportand strengthen their children’s learning at home or became partners with teachers at school.

Crosscutting Implications
Several crosscutting implications for research and practice can be gleaned from this review.
They are discussed below.
Importance of Aligning Family Involvement Activities — and Measures ofThem — with Specific Child Outcomes
Many studies in this review illustrate that goal-linked and subject-specific measures offamily involvement are more likely to show positive associations with children’s reading, math,and social-emotional skills. Both literacy and math nonintervention studies reveal that composite or general measures of involvement make it difficult to know whether or how particularparental practices affect specific results for students. Composite measures of parental involvement at school, for example, confound separable types of involvement (Epstein, 2011) andconfuse the reasons that parents communicate with teachers or use their time and talent to assist
teachers and children at school. Similarly, composite outcome measures (for example, combined reading and math test scores) often confound and muddy our understanding of whether
and which parental involvement actions contributed to specific learning outcomes.
The randomized intervention studies underscore, support, and give credibility to theconclusions of most of the nonintervention studies that goal-linked family involvement activities help to produce goal-linked results for students. For example, in the studies of reading
readiness, children increased their reading and vocabulary skills when parents were engaged inrelated activities, such as shared-book-reading and discussion activities. One math study directly
tested this assumption, finding that preschoolers did better in math (but not in literacy) when
parents were engaged with them on math-related activities at home. Confirmation by manystudies about the strength of matching goal-linked involvement of parents with specific-subject

76

outcomes of students should end lingering beliefs that just doing “anything” with parents willproduce achievement results for students. More than prior overviews, then, this report shows
why future studies should use subject-specific and goal-linked measures of family involvement
and theoretically linked achievement and behavioral outcome measures to test whether and how
parental involvement affects children’s learning and development.
Importance of Targeted and Sustained Interventions
Although there is still much to be learned about the particulars in terms of how to design interventions that effectively promote family involvement and child outcomes, there aresome crosscutting themes that can be drawn from both the experimental and the nonexperimental studies. To date, interventions seem to be more effective when they are targeted andsustained. Studies are more likely to show effects on whatever outcomes the intervention was
specifically designed to influence. Thus, the strongest effects tend to emerge when studies
examine clearly defined and goal-linked interventions in relation to outcomes that theoreticallyand logically flow from that intervention’s theory of change.
In addition, several experimental studies demonstrate the power of extended or sustained intervention over time. The importance of interventions being sustained was suggested
by experimental math studies that found positive effects for semester-long, curriculum-based,
intensive interventions (Noble, Duch, Darvique, Grundleger, Rodriguez, and Landers, 2012;
Starkey and Klein, 2000) but not for weeklong, less intensive interventions (Vandermaas-Peeler
et al., 2011; Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2012). This conclusion was supported in experimental
studies that specifically examine cumulative effects of interventions. For example, children
whose parents participated in the Play and Learning Strategies (PALS) intervention in bothinfancy and toddlerhood experienced greater gains in language and behavior than children inintervention groups participating in only one developmental stage or the control group (Landry
et al., 2012). When teachers used the Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) intervention over two years, effects were stronger for student math gains than when TIPS was used only
for one year (Van Voorhis, 2011). Similarly, the Partnership Schools Comprehensive School
Reform (CSR) model showed gains for students on the state’s math achievement test after three
years of TIPS math implementation (Epstein, 2005).
Importance of Longitudinal Data and Measures of the Change ProcessThis review spotlights several studies that measure change in family involvement. The
studies demonstrate not only that family involvement — at one point in time — is likely tomatter for children’s outcomes but also that positive change in family involvement is associatedwith better outcomes, as well. Such longitudinal studies add critical new information to crosssectional findings. For example, if a cross-sectional study finds that families are more involved

77when children are in younger grades than when they are in older grades, we are unable to tellwhether this difference is due to natural changes in family involvement over time or because
there are different families at the different grade levels. Longitudinal research can help clarify
such findings. They are able to show with more rigor than cross-sectional studies whether andhow the trajectory of family involvement changes as children develop and move throughdifferent grades. They are also able to explore whether different family involvement trajectories
are related differentially to children’s outcomes. Finally, longitudinal studies that measurechange in both family involvement practices and student outcomes are better equipped to
examine the dynamics — and potential bidirectionality — between family involvement andchildren’s outcomes over time.
Importance of Attention to the Transition from Preschool to Kindergarten
More than prior reviews, this report highlights studies of the transition process frompreschool to kindergarten as an indicator of schools’ outreach to communicate and connect withparents of young children. In this review, only nonintervention studies addressed this topic, butthey all indicated that specific, thoughtful, and well-planned strategies and creative orientation
and welcoming practices not only helped children and their parents adjust to a new school but
also were associated with better child outcomes. The studies suggest an important area of
inquiry for future research on school outreach to engage all parents in ways that affect young
children’s learning as well as their attitudes toward and behavior in school.
Importance of Examining Mediating and Moderating Processes
This review identified several variables that may serve as moderators, influencing thestrength of the relation between family involvement and children’s achievement and behavior.
These include characteristics of the child and family, such as child age (some studies demonstrated differences in relations for preschool children in comparison with older children); familysocioeconomic status (some studies suggested that children in underserved settings may benefit
more from family involvement and transition activities that prepare preschoolers for kindergarten); and child ability level (certain interventions seem to be less or more effective for different
populations of students — for example, children with no learning disabilities versus those withlanguage delays). Potential moderators at the school level include the expertise and effectiveness of teachers in engaging students and families as well as the school partnership culture andwelcoming environment.
Studies also suggested some potential mediating variables that may explain the relation between family involvement and child outcomes, including parents’ beliefs and attitudes(for example, about math, literacy, learning in general, their role in their child’s learning, theimportance of an intervention); children’s beliefs and attitudes about learning; and teachers’

78beliefs and attitudes about family involvement. Mediating processes will become clearer as
more research investigations assess child, family, and teacher attitudes before and after
interventions.
Importance of Linking Research to Practice
It is well documented by nonexperimental studies that, presently, some parents conduct
activities that support and increase their young children’s learning without any encouragement,
although their focus tends to be more on literacy-related activities than on math-related activities. In this review, the intervention studies of family involvement in literacy- and math-linked
activities reveal that all parents can do so.
Many surveys of parents, conducted over decades, have indicated that parents want andneed clear information, ideas, and guided practice to interact with their children in effective
ways. Studies in both Chapters 2 and 3 reveal that all parents — in diverse racial, ethnic, andsocioeconomic groups — can become more involved in their children’s education, particularly
when provided with clear and feasible ideas for conducting basic and enjoyable reading andmath activities with their children in preschool and in the early elementary grades. The findings
across studies suggest that it will be necessary to do more than entreat parents to be involved.
Rather, preschool and elementary schools, as well as community groups and leaders, must be
intentional about including family involvement as an integral part of their school or programphilosophy and about engaging families who, presently, may not be aware of which activities to
conduct and how to conduct them to support their young children’s literacy and math skills andschool behaviors. This outreach is important for all parents, but especially so for those whosechildren are most at risk of having learning problems.
Furthermore, this review highlights an opportunity to strengthen the research-practicepolicy connection in the field of family involvement. The integration of both empirical evidence
and practice wisdom into the design, implementation, and evaluation of family involvement
programs and strategies will help, in the long run, to ascertain knowledge of which specificpractices are most effective and which are not. For example, the evaluation of family involvement interventions can be designed to include continuous feedback loops between researchersand practitioners. In this way, knowledge gained and adaptations made to make a program
better suited to local contexts or families’ and schools’ needs can be fed back to the researchersand developers, where it can inform program refinement and, hopefully, increase program
effectiveness. This idea of a data-driven, continuous improvement model is aligned with recent
recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation to help
promote their New Parent, Family, and Community Engagement framework and strengthen
Head Start programs’ efforts in this important area (Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation, 2012). Thus, an integrated and collaborative approach with both practi-

79tioners and researchers working together — and policy supporting such a collaboration —would likely lead to the development of effective family involvement programs that can be
implemented successfully in real-world contexts.

Recommendations for New Research
There always are more questions to ask and deeper details to uncover to fully understandcomplex and important issues, such as family involvement in young children’s literacy andmath readiness for school. This review suggests five kinds of studies in the preschool and early
elementary school grades that will advance knowledge and influence practice — particularly if
the field is able to strengthen the connections among research, practice, and policy.
Studies That Delve into Details Unknown
The extant studies indicate, convincingly, that family involvement in subject-specificlearning activities at home are positively related to children’s outcomes. They also demonstratethat parent-teacher communications are important. But to be more useful in practice, studies areneeded that identify which involvement practices and which parent-school communications andstrategies not only have direct and indirect effects on specific reading, math, and social skills but
also increase the number of literacy- or math-learning activities that parents conduct withconfidence –– a likely key mediator to achieving change for children. Further, such studies need
to identify which practices and communications are most effective for child outcomes (1) for all
students and families, (2) for specific subgroups of students and families, and (3) at varying
grade levels. And, finally, research needs to thoroughly examine and report on how thesepractices, communications, and strategies are implemented successfully. Such knowledge will
have important implications for the design and implementation of interventions that hope topromote family involvement both at home and at school.
In addition, more studies are needed that examine potential moderators to ascertain forwhom or under what conditions interventions that are designed to promote family involvement
produce an effect on particular child outcomes. Studies that specifically examine potential
mediators –– such as child, parent, and teacher beliefs –– can help provide details on themechanisms and paths of influence that show how family involvement works to influencechildren’s learning in specific areas. They can also help to better inform parent interventions
and school outreach. Finally, more research on fathers’ roles in family involvement is needed tobalance the overwhelming attention paid to mothers in past studies. Just as intriguing is thatbasic research suggests that fathers’ role in children’s language and math development may
often differ from the role of mothers, so it is important to consider whether effective strategies
to support fathers’ involvement might look different than strategies designed for mothers.

80Well-Designed, Rigorous Studies That Examine Immediate andCumulative Effects of Family Involvement Interventions
Across the literacy and math studies in Chapters 2 and 3, there are, relatively speaking,few experimental studies in comparison with nonexperimental studies. The levels of evidence
vary, as many of the individual intervention studies (even randomized controlled trials) may
have some analytic or methodological weaknesses, including not using an intent-to-treat
analysis or not reporting on study design flaws, such as whether there was differential attrition.
Further, most of these studies paid minimal attention, if any at all, to implementation processes
or intervention fidelity to an intended program model. (This issue is discussed further below, in
connection with “scaling up” effective interventions.)
Intervention studies that randomly assign individuals to treatment and control groups
are critical, particularly if they focus on previously understudied populations of parents andchildren with diverse backgrounds and learning problems. The nonintervention studies provide
some ideas that may be useful to educators to help improve family involvement or transition
activities. But strong experimental studies will be needed to clarify questions about whichfamily involvement activities or interventions are optimal for improving child outcomes as well
as for creating smooth transitions for children and parents from preschool to kindergarten andfrom kindergarten to the primary grades (and other major school transitions). Additionally,
experimental studies would also be able to address such questions as whether and how particular interventions create more equitable involvement for diverse groups of parents and whether
and how parental involvement contributes to closing the achievement gap between economically advantaged and disadvantaged students with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.
It should be noted again that this review shows that even well-designed intervention
studies have small-to-moderate effects on student learning. Similarly, the best-designed nonintervention studies with longitudinal data and strong statistical control variables also yielded
small-to-moderate effects on students’ learning. (Effect sizes vary by context, but it is generally
accepted that an effect size is large at 0.8 [that is, 8/10 of a standard deviation unit], moderate at
0.5, and small at 0.2 [Cohen, 1988].) Yet, what has been missed by researchers’ and educators’
impatience with small-to-moderate effects is that these effects can be cumulative across age andgrade levels if the interventions and good practices are sustained over time. For example,
proximal effects of family involvement activities in reading or math readiness may be small tomoderate, but sustained guidance for family involvement in subsequent years may build onchildren’s initial achievement gains and may help them continue a successful trajectory inpreschool, elementary school, and beyond. Further, studies of cumulative effects of interventions could show whether and how teachers’ attitudes about and interactions with parentschange over time, whether and how parents establish and improve their attitudes and confidence

81about supporting their child’s learning at home and involvement at school, and the cumulative(or additive) effects of these things on children’s learning.
Studies That Collect and Analyze Longitudinal Data
This review notes the important information that can be gleaned from studies thatmeasure change in family involvement and child outcomes. More studies are needed on theeffects of increasing or decreasing/sustaining family involvement activities over time. Thesestudies will strengthen the knowledge base on the nature and effects of patterns of change infamily involvement in learning activities at home, supportive parenting, family involvement at
school, and parents’ attitudes and expectations about their children’s school and learning.
Studies That Examine the Link Between Family Involvement and Both
Math and Social-Emotional Skills
The results of this review indicate that additional, rigorous research is needed to examine the links between family involvement and math and social-emotional outcomes to catch up
with the status of the more prevalent studies of reading and literacy. These are important areas
for future research, especially as some have articulated that young children’s social and emotional preparation for school may be most important for advancing reading and math skills inkindergarten and the early grades (Powell, Son, File, and San Juan, 2010). In this review,
measures of children’s social-emotional skills were typically “tacked on” to studies of earlyreading readiness more than to studies of math. Questions were typically general, not specific.
Few studies that we examined were able to show a link between specific strategies of parental
involvement to particular behavioral outcomes, simply because they did not typically include
those outcome measures.
Studies That Examine the “Scale-Ability” of Research-Tested Programs
and Practices of Parental Involvement with Children on Reading andMathPresently missing and much needed in the field are studies of the processes to “scaleup” effective interventions and the results of those efforts to engage all parents; change parents’behaviors; and improve reading, math, and social-emotional readiness of young children inpreschool and kindergarten. Taking good practice to scale may help large numbers of parents
become involved in productive, feasible, and fun ways and could be useful for large numbers ofstudents — particularly those with risk factors that affect learning and development — be readyfor preschool and kindergarten. Such studies are critical to help ascertain the most successful
ways to scale up effective, research-based practices for general use. Of course, this is a huge
agenda that only can be addressed incrementally over an extended time period.

82

Scale-up studies can take intervention studies to the next level by moving the conductof treatment and control group practices from researchers’ tight controls to real-world tests ofteachers’ practice in preschools in economically and geographically diverse communities.
Scale-up studies are able to ask new questions, such as: How can proven practices of family andcommunity engagement with children in reading readiness, math readiness, and school-related
behaviors become the “new normal” of all preschool and elementary school organizations?
What leadership positions, official policies, professional development, ongoing technicalassistance, sharing of best practices, and other processes are effective in engaging families ingoal-linked reading, math, and behavioral activities with their young children? These issues oforganizational design recognize that scale-up of research-based practice cannot rely on eachparent or each teacher interpreting the results of research individually but, instead, that effective
structures and processes must be in place to enable teachers to conduct tested practices withstudents’ parents in feasible ways.
Finally, one important aspect of scaling up that tends to be overlooked is strategicallyfocusing on program implementation and on documenting the details regarding how a program
was implemented. This can provide a clearer understanding not only of what it takes to implement and scale up a program (successfully or not) but also of how a program is able to achieve(or not achieve) outcomes — within some particular context. It is not enough to know whether acertain program or strategy works, because this does not tell us how it works to achieve outcomes. For example, sometimes both short-term, low-intensity programs and long-term, highintensity programs show effects, but sometimes they do not; sometimes a particular strategy
works in one program but not in another. More often than not, we do not understand these
discrepancies because the studies did not keep track of or report on how the program was
implemented (Walker, 2013). Thus, studying how programs and strategies are implemented canilluminate whether what made them less or more effective was the way in which they were
implemented or a particular context. Regarding the study of program implementation as animportant and necessary component of a scale-up study can help start the process of disentangling what features or aspects of programs work and for whom.

Implications for Improving PracticePresently, many preschool, kindergarten, and primary grade teachers develop and implement
family involvement activities to encourage parents to conduct shared-reading and other reading
and numeracy readiness activities at home. Their creative work is mainly voluntary, often
guesswork, and usually inequitable — engaging already-involved parents while excluding
parents who are already less involved. Scale-up studies of interventions that place an emphasison examining and documenting both program effectiveness and program implementation will83

help develop and test research-based strategies for outreach with more and different parents —working toward a goal of improving children’s learning and behavior.
Although more research is needed to fully understand parental involvement and its importance for young children’s early reading and math skills and readiness for school, enough is
known to begin immediately to improve practice. The studies in this review indicate that, withguidance, many parents — regardless of socioeconomic, educational, and racial or ethnic
backgrounds — are ready and able to conduct supportive parenting and learning activities athome with their young children. This review and many previous reviews and studies put to rest
any notion that –– if treated and guided with respect, good planning, and clear materials ––certain groups of parents do not care or will not become involved in their children’s education.
For example, across studies of family involvement in reading and literacy, diverse parents and their children engaged in a variety of activities including but not limited to the ones
shown in Box 4.1. These parent-child interactions were associated with positive results forBox 4.1

Reading and Literary-Related Activities Engaged in byChildren and Families
Shared book reading (general)

Visits to public libraries

Dialogue reading (specifics)

Family stories (reminiscing)Home tutoring

Creative dramatics

Listening to a child read

Practicing specific reading readinessskills (such as letter of the week, sounding words, rhyming, looking at print,
vocabulary, early writing, storytelling

Family conversations of feelings/events

children’s vocabulary, listening comprehension, rates of word reading, reading achievement testscores, quality of children’s narrative storytelling, story comprehension, and other reading
readiness skills. These skills were measured by a host of assessments, including the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification subscale,
Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI), Caldwell Preschool Inventory, Stanford Early
School Achievement Test (SESAT), Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL),

84

third-grade Test of Language Development 2 (TOLD), Concepts About Print (CAP) test, andRecognition of Initial Consonant Sound and Alphabet (RICSA).
Across studies of family involvement in mathematics, diverse parents and their children
engaged in a variety of activities including but not limited to the ones shown in Box 4.2. These
parent-child interactions were associated with math knowledge and skills on variety ofmeasures, including formal math assessments (ECLS-K standardized math test, Kaufman
Assessment Battery arithmetic subscale, Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement mathcomposite, KeyMath-Revised, PIAT, SAMI, TEMA-2, TEMA-3, Utrecht Early Numeracy
Test-Revised, Woodcock-Johnson Applied Problems), researcher-created assessments (forexample, enumeration task, numerical reasoning task, geometric reasoning task, how-many
task, and number-recognition task), and state math tests.

Box 4.2

Math-Related Activities Engaged in by Children and Families
Counting

Recipes and cooking

Number learning

Money math

Home tutoring

Math skills on homework

Playing with shapes and puzzles

Addition and subtraction

Board games

Early addition at home

Today, more children attend preschool and all-day kindergarten than ever before. Educators are being urged by federal, state, and local policies to use research-based or evidencebased approaches in their practice. This review points toward family involvement as a potentially potent ingredient in efforts to improve children’s early learning and development. It puts
forth several suggestions and implications — for both researchers and educators — on how to
support family involvement at home and at school so that it effectively improves children’s
learning. Moving forward, a stronger research-to-practice partnership that integrates both
empirical evidence and practice wisdom into the research process — including the design,
implementation, and evaluation of programs — will, in the long run, advance the field of family
involvement further to understanding what works and promotes young children’s learning.

85

Appendix A

Studies of Family Involvement in
Literacy Activities and Math Activities
and Social-Emotional OutcomesFamily Involvement Literature Review

Appendix Table A.1
Studies of Family Involvement in Literacy Activities
and Literacy and Social-Emotional Outcomes (N = 52)
NOTES: Kinds of parental involvement (PI) measured in the study: LH = learning activities at home; P = supportive parenting; FIS = family involvement inschool; C = composite measure of family involvement at home and at school.
*An asterisk indicates that the study measured a social-emotional outcome.
d = report of effect size; b = unstandardized beta coefficient; β = standardized beta coefficient; PK = prekindergarten: ages 3 to 5; K =kindergarten.
A two-tailed t-test was used for all statistical tests presented in this table. Effect sizes are based on the standard deviation of an outcome for all
members of a sample. Levels of statistical significance are indicated as follows: *** = .01 percent; ** = 1 percent; * = 5 percent.

Studies of Preschool Children (17 Studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement
Joint writing andjoint readingintervention
paired with two
PI workshop
sessions on
related topics
FIS

Citation
Aram, D. and Biron,
S. (2004). Joint
storybook reading andjoint writing
interventions among
low SES preschoolers:Differential
contributions to early
literacy. Early
Childhood Research
Quarterly, 19, 588610.

Age Group /Study Design
PK (ages 3-5)
Longitudinal,
intervention,
control group
ANOVA

Type of Study /N (Number) /SampleN = 35 in reading
program
N = 36 in writing
program
N = 24 in control
group
Tested beginningand end of schoolyear
Low-SEStownship in
central Israel

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)Overall / Other Results

Children in both literacy programs progressedsignificantly more than the control group on
orthographic awareness F (2, 89) = 17.29, p = 0.00.
There were 2 literacy sessions weekly (20 minutes)
with student-mediator leader and 4-6 children, forabout 66 sessions. Parents attended two PI workshops
on related topics at the school. Joint writing(encouraged letter knowledge, phonologicalawareness and functional writing activities) did better
than both control and reading groups (11 children’sbooks for focusing on language and exploring major
concepts raised by books) on phonological awareness(F [2, 89] = 11.27, p = 0.00), word writing,orthographic awareness, and letter knowledge. All

Important implications
for PK literacy
intervention content anddesign. Also, this study
provided an interestingcombination ofintervention efforts inpreschool, enlisting
university students andpairing class efforts withrelated PI workshops.
Intervention withmultiple contexts
converging for success.

Appendix Table A.1
89Form ofParental
Involvement

Parental
involvement inchildren’s
education (10items from
Parent-Teacher
Involvement
Questionnaire),
communication
with teacher,volunteering,
expectations
about learning,care about
education

Citation

Age Group /Study Design

Arnold, D. H., Zeljo,A., and Doctoroff, G.
L. (2008). Parent
involvement inpreschool: Predictors
and the relation of
involvement topreliteracy
development. School
Psychology Review,
37(1), 74-90.

PK

Britto, P. R., BrooksGunn, J., and Griffin,
T. M. (2006).
Maternal reading andteaching patterns:
Associations withschool readiness in
low-income AfricanPK

Notlongitudinal
Correlations /multipleregression

Type of Study /N (Number) /Sample163 PK children
from mainly lowincome families
32% Puerto
Rican,
29% AfricanAmerican,
32% white,
7% multiracial
5 of 7 centers low
SES,
2 of 7 centers highSES

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)groups performed similarly on listening
comprehension. Children ages 3-4 gained as much as
did children 4-5 except for receptive vocabulary(PPVT), with the younger group progressing morethan the older group.

Overall / Other Results

Greater FI (communication with teacher,volunteering, expectations about learning, care about
education) was associated with stronger preliteracy
skills as measured by the PPVT-R. The relationshipbetween involvement and literacy skills was positiveand significant (r [154] = 0.27, p = 0.001).
Involvement remained significantly correlated withthe literacy composite controlling for SES (β [152] =0.23, p = 0.003). The literacy composite included the
PPVT, Developing Skills Checklist (DSC),
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Score, andPrint Concepts.

Greater FI (measured inways tapping FI at
school and at home) was
associated with stronger
preliteracy skills. Higher
SES was positively
associated withinvolvement, butinvolvement still
predicted preliteracy
development, controllingfor SES.

Children with mothers expressing actions in the story
tellers/support and teaching (β = 0.43, p = < 0.0001)
and storytellers/support and low-teaching group (β =0.39, p = < 0.0001) demonstrated more expressive
language use (average number of total words spoken)
than other groups.
Children with mothers who were story readers/
support and teaching had higher school readinessOverall, mothers who
were classified as story
tellers had children withhigher expressive
language use than story
readers. Story readers
did not talk much to theirchildren during bookC
*Maternal
language use,questions,
positive
feedback,
support, andstimulation

Longitudinal
Regression
Seen at baseline
and at 24

126 PK childrenof young AfricanAmerican mothers
in Newark Young
Family Study(NYFS) within
the Teenage
ParentAppendix Table A.1
90Form ofParental
Involvement
LH*Early parenting
and changes
over time,
maternal
supportiveness,home learning
environment,
parental stress
LH, P

Citation
American families.
Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(1), 6889.

Chazan-Cohen, R.,
Raikes, H., BrooksGunn, J., Ayoub, C.,
Pan, B. A., Kisker, E.
E., Roggman, L. A.,
and Fuligni, S. A.
(2012). Low-income
children’s school
readiness: Parent
contributions over the
first five years. Early
Education andDevelopment, 20(6),958-977.

Age Group /Study Design
months and 40
months after
baseline; age at
Time 1, about 7
months; age at
Time 3, about 4
years

Type of Study /N (Number) /SampleDemonstration(TPD) programPK

N = 1,273

Longitudinal

Early Head Start
Research and
Evaluation Project

Ordinary leastsquares (OLS)
regression

Assessments atages 1, 2, 3, and 5
42% white,
31% black,
22% Hispanic,
52% Early Head
Start

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)skills (β = 0.23, p = < 0.05). School readiness wasmeasured using the Caldwell Preschool Inventory (48items; taps colors, shapes, and general information).

Overall / Other Results
reading together, whilestory-teller mothers used
decontextualized
language, asked morelabeling questions, andprovided more positive
feedback. However,story readers withsupport and teaching had
higher school readinessskills (colors, shapes,
general information).

Study assessed impact of learning environment andsupportive parenting on behavior problems (12-item
parent report from FACES study), approaches tolearning (7-item parent report from FACES), emotion
regulation (Leiter-R Examiner Rating Scales: reflects
child self-regulation of affect and attention during
challenging tasks), receptive vocabulary (PPVT-III),and letter-word knowledge (Woodcock-Johnson
Letter-Word Identification [WJLWI] subscale).
Learning environment had a positive relationshipwith vocabulary (β = 0.20***) and WJLWI (β =0.17***). Change in learning environment did as well,though relationships were weaker (β = 0.12**,0.13**).
Supportive parenting had a positive relationshipwith vocabulary and WJLWI at 0.22***, 0.14***.
Change in parenting had a positive effect on
vocabulary 0.10** but null effect on WJLWI.
Learning environment had negative relationship to

Early positive dyadic
experiences between
mother and child havepositive academic andsocio-emotional
outcomes for children.
Concepts of parent
stress, learning
environment, andsupportive parenting are
not static. They canremain stable, increase,or decrease within a year
and over a child’s entire
schooling experience.

Appendix Table A.1
91Form ofParental
Involvement

An examinationof the mediatingrole of maternalreading beliefs
and activities
betweenmaternal
education andemergent
literacy skills
P

Citation

Cottone, E. A. (2012).
Preschoolers’
emergent literacy
Skills: The mediatingrole of maternalreading beliefs. Early
Education andDevelopment, 23(3),351-372.

Age Group /Study DesignType of Study /N (Number) /SamplePK

N = 92Not
longitudinal

79% white,
16% black,
2% Hispanic

Regression/mediation
analyses

39% of parents
had high school
education only

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)behavior problems (–0.10*) and positive relationshipto approaches to learning (0.16***). Change inlearning approached significance for behavior andemotion and was positive for approaches to learning(0.08*).
Supportive parenting was positive for emotion
regulation (0.17***). Change in parenting was
positive for emotion regulation (0.11**) and null forbehavior and approaches.

Overall / Other Results

Maternal reading beliefs (Parental Reading Beliefs
Inventory [PRBI]) and maternal education collectively
accounted for 18.6% of the variance in children’s
print knowledge (Phonological Awareness Literacy
Screening [PALS] - Preschool): significant effect F(2, 89) = 10.17, p = < 0.001. Maternal education,
however, did not have a significant and uniqueassociation with children’s print knowledge, whereasmaternal reading beliefs did (β = 0.32, p = < 0.05).
Maternal beliefs and education explained 10.4% of
the variance in phonological awareness, which wassignificant, but education and beliefs were notsignificant individually. Beliefs approachedsignificance. Beliefs were still a factor when maternal
practices were included in model of print knowledge
but were not a factor for phonological awareness.
Phonological awareness was not related to literacy
practices or maternal reading beliefs. Print knowledge
was related to both reading beliefs and practices.
Study emphasizes the importance of beliefs toeffectiveness of home learning interventions. The
specific type of PI program that may have aThis study points to thepowerful mediation
effect of maternalreading beliefs between
maternal education level
and PK children’s print
knowledge andphonological awareness.
Practices also play animportant role, and bothbeliefs and practices
should be addressed inintervention aspects of
PI instruction relating to
PK literacy.

Appendix Table A.1
92Form ofParental
Involvement*Home-based
involvement,
schoolconferencing,school-based
involvement(multiple
dimensions) on
multipleoutcomes(conduct,motivation tolearn,
vocabulary, task
persistence)
LH, FIS

Citation

Fantuzzo, J.,
McWayne, C., Perry,
M. A., and Childs, S.
(2004). Multiple
dimensions of family
involvement and theirrelations to behavioral
and learningcompetencies forurban, low-income
children. School
Psychology Review,
33(4), 467-480.

Age Group /Study DesignPK
Notlongitudinal
Correlations /multipleregression

Type of Study /N (Number) /SampleN = 144 children
enrolled in central
city Head Start inurban Northeast
96% AfricanAmerican,
64% with annual
income less than
$9,000Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)significant impact on outcomes is one that includes asmuch about parents’ expectations or belief systems
about their child’s literacy development as about thekinds and the number of literacy activities in which
parents participate.

Overall / Other Results

Home-based involvement was the strongest predictor
of child outcomes, and it related positively tomotivation to learn (r = 0.35***), attention andpersistence (r = 0.36***), attitude toward learning (r =0.30***), receptive vocabulary (r = 0.41***),
negatively related to low conduct problems(r = -0.30***), negatively to hyperactivity(r = -0.24**), and negatively to inattention/passivity (r= -0.20*).
School-based involvement and home-schoolconferencing related positively to outcomes inbivariate relations. However, school-based
involvement and school conferencing did not factor
into child outcomes when considered simultaneouslywith home-based involvement. Home-based
involvement positively predicted competence
motivation (β = 0.30**) 15% of variance, attention
and persistence (β = 0.31***) 14% of variance,
attitude toward learning (β = 0.24**) 11% of variance,
receptive vocabulary (β = 0.33***) 19% of variance;
it negatively predicted conduct and hyperactivity (β= -0.22*, -0.21*) 12% and 6% of variance,
respectively. The approaches to learning wereassessed using the Preschool Learning Behavior Scale(PLBS); classroom problem behaviors were assessedusing the Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale-28; andFamily involvement
factors play different
roles at different points
in children’sdevelopment andinfluence outcomes
depending on when they
are assessed andmeasured. Home-based
involvement is critical toboth cognitive and social
outcomes of PK
children.

Appendix Table A.1
93Form ofParental
Involvement*Study of family
involvement athome (reading athome; 11 home
practices, suchas talking about
letters) and at
school(volunteering),
as well as
communicationbased and Head
Start family
outreach

Citation

Hindman, A. H., andMorrison, F. J.
(2011). Family
involvement andeducator outreach in
Head Start: Nature,extent, andcontributions to early
literacy skills.
Elementary School
Journal, 111(3), 359386.

LH, FIS*Three aspectsof parenting
behavior(materials andhome learning
environment[HLE]); warmth,

Hindman, A. H., andMorrison, F. J.
(2012). Differential
contributions of threeparenting dimensions
to preschool literacy
and social skills in a

Age Group /Study Design

PK
Longitudinalhierarchicallinear model(HLM)
Academic skills
assessed in falland spring;parental home
involvement
interviews infall and spring
as well as
school andcommunicationbased
involvement
PK
Notlongitudinal
Path modelType of Study /N (Number) /SampleN = 3,100
children andfamilies enrolled
in Head Start
Family and Child
Experiences
Survey (FACES)
33% AfricanAmerican,
34% white,
29% Hispanic,
5% otherN = 229 PK
children (half in
PK year justbefore K andother half in PK)
80% white,

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)receptive vocabulary was assessed using the PPVTIII.

Overall / Other Results

HLM analyses revealed that family home involvement(letters and words) positively related to decoding
skills (WJLWI-R) of children b = 1.30, p = < 0.05).
Family shared book reading related to vocabulary (b =0.25** [PPVT-III]).
Family school involvement (volunteering) related
positively to vocabulary (b = 0.54***).
Family home involvement –– including teaching
about letters and words, conversations, and counting
games –– all had positive impacts on approaches tolearning (7 items on approaches to learning andwillingness to try new things [Zill, 2005]) (b = 0.18,
0.14, 0.21**).
Home visits from Head Start had positive
relationships to approaches to learning (b = 0.12**).
Center outreach encouraging reading related
positively to family home involvement (b = 0.17, p =< 0.05), and center invitations and communication
related positively to family in-school involvement (b= 0.09, p = < 0.05).

Head Start families were
often involved in
activities related to thelearning of theirchildren, and Head Start
educators reached out.
Both of these factors
related to children’s
decoding, vocabulary,and positive approaches
to learning,demonstrating theimportance of theseconnections forchildren’s early literacy
and development.

HLE (home learning environment) significantly
predicted code-related skills: alphabet knowledge (β =0.24***), decoding (β = 0.21** [WJLWI]), andcooperation (β = 0.17* [Social Skills Rating SystemParent Version]).
Book reading approached significance withvocabulary (expressive [Woodcock-Johnson III

This study supports thenotion of amultidimensional
construct of parenting
behavior in support ofliteracy, including HLE,
WSE, and MD. Each ofAppendix Table A.1
94Form ofParental
Involvement
autonomy,
expectations(WSE); andmanagement anddiscipline ofchild behavior(MD) onalphabet
knowledge,
vocabulary,social skills, andcooperation of
PK students

Citation
middle-income
sample. MerrillPalmer Quarterly,
58(2), 191-223.

Age Group /Study DesignType of Study /N (Number) /Sample10% AfricanAmerican,
5% Asian, 3%
Arab-American,
2% Hispanic

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)Picture Vocabulary subtest]) (β = 0.11, p = < 0.10).
Autonomy support (WSE) and management of
discipline (MD) did not predict literacy skills(alphabet knowledge, decoding, or vocabulary). WSE
predicted cooperation (β = 0.23***). MD predictedself-control (β = 0.19**) and cooperation (β =0.18**).
Higher levels of education predicted more frequent
home focus on letters and sounds, book reading, andmath, and white families read more than minority
families.

Overall / Other Resultsthese facets predicted
cognitive and social
skills in different ways.
Limitations include thenondiverse sample.

Randomized longitudinal evaluation of the effects of a
responsive parenting intervention on the mother andchild behaviors related to reading. Increases inmothers’ praise and encouragement (d = 0.34) weregreatest when mothers had PALS I and PALS II
interventions. Many behaviors required bothinterventions: open-ended prompts (d = 0.38),
language facilitation techniques (d = 0.30), andgeneral verbal support that encouraged ordemonstrated problem-solving skills (d = 0.86).
Comments and engagement of child in activity also
required PALS I and II. Intervention in both infancy
and toddlerhood was most effective in terms ofresults. These PALS-prompted parent behaviors
related to children using higher-level language
responses, including more comments during the book-

Early and sustained
responsive parenting
intervention had thestrongest impacts on
mother-child reading
behaviors. “Parenting
programs will need to beadequately funded tospan multiple
developmental periods inorder to maximize
likelihood ofeffectiveness” (page 984,
Authors).

LH, P*Experimental
investigation ofa responsive
parentingprogram(infancy andtoddlerhood) on
shared reading
between motherand child
LH

Landry, S. H., Smith,
K. E., Swank, P. R.,
Zucker, T., Crawford,
A. D., and Solari, E.
F. (2012). The effects
of a responsive
parenting intervention
on parent-childinteractions during
shared book reading.
Developmental
Psychology, 48(4),969-986.

PK
Longitudinal,
randomized,
intervention,
control group
Effect sizes,
mixed model
repeatedmeasures
ANOVA

N = 167
Play and Learning
Strategies (PALS)(PALS I-II)(PALS I-DAS II)(DAS I-PALS II)(DAS I-II)

Appendix Table A.1
95Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation*Familyprovision of toys
for literacy,
verbalcommunication
with child,

Mistry, R. S., Benner,
A. D., Biesanz, J. C.,
and Clark, S. L.
(2010). Family andsocial risk, andparental investments

Age Group /Study Design

PK
Longitudinal
Structural
equation

Type of Study /N (Number) /SampleLongitudinal
study ofcumulative risk
with NELS(National Early
Head Start [EHS]

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)reading task (d = 0.23) and children showing greater
cooperation at posttest for PALS I, compared with
non-PALS I students (d = 0.92). In addition, children
born at term with mothers having PALS I and II
interventions showed more engagement andenthusiasm about the shared reading activity thanchildren in PALS I only (d = 0.65). Overall, however,children born with very low birth weight benefited asmuch as those born at term from their mothers’
participation in the parenting intervention, with themost impactful results posted from intervention at
both infancy and toddlerhood. Positive changes inchild shared reading behaviors showed evidence ofmediation by mothers’ supportive behaviors.
PALS home coaching program was designed as apreventive intervention to strengthen the parent/childbond and stimulate early language, cognitive, andsocial development. Curriculum is offered in 10- and12-week sessions during first year of life andtoddler/preschool, uses videotaped examples of realmothers and children to demonstrate different topics
and allow mothers to critique these examples before
practicing with children. Teaching included
responding to a child’s signals, building on a child’sinterests, and using rich language.

Overall / Other Results

Parental warmth and linguistic/literacy stimulation in
PK (Home Observation for Measurement of theEnvironment [HOME]) were associated with higher
levels of achievement and self-regulation and lower
levels of poor social behavior.
Language stimulation in PK, with PK achievement

Children’s exposure torisk at infancy has
negative effects on all
school readiness skills.
Warmth and literacy
stimulation acrossAppendix Table A.1
96Form ofParental
Involvement
parental warmthandresponsiveness
LH, P*Parental
involvement athome and at
school as well as
perceived
teacher
responsivenesson social skills,
behavior
problems, mathand reading

Citation
during the earlychildhood years as
predictors of lowincome children’s
school readinessoutcomes. Early
Childhood Research
Quarterly, 25, 432449.

Age Group /Study Designmodeling(SEM)

Type of Study /N (Number) /SampleResearch and
Evaluation
Project)
N = 1,851
38% white,
33% AfricanAmerican,
23% Latino,
5% otherPowell, D. R., Son, SH., File, N., and San
Juan, R. R. (2010).
Parent-school
relationships andchildren’s academic
and social outcomesin public school prekindergarten. Journalof School Psychology,
48, 269-292.

PK

N = 140

Not
longitudinal

43% AfricanAmerican,
36% EuropeanAmerican,
14% other

Reese, E., Leyva, D.,
Sparks, A., and
Grolnick, W. (2010).
Maternal elaborativePK

N = 33Longitudinal,
intervention,

Low-income Head
Start 4-year-olds

Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

LH, FISElaborative
reminiscing anddialogic readingintervention

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)(β = 0.15***), PK regulation (β=.12***), and PK
problem behavior (β = –0.07*).
Maternal warmth in PK, and PK achievement (β =0.11***), PK regulation (β = 0.10*), and PK problem
behavior (β = –0.19***).
PK achievement was looked at globally but
included measures from Woodcock-Johnson, PPVT,CAP (Concepts About Print), math, reading
vocabulary, book knowledge, and reading
comprehension. Behavior assessed through LeiterInternational Performance Scale.

Overall / Other Results
toddlerhood and PK are
positively related withoutcomes. These
mediated some of theinfluence of cumulativerisk in infancy on PK
outcomes.

HLM analyses revealed that parental school
involvement positively predicted children’s social
skills (Social Skills and Problem Behavior Scales of
the Preschool [SSRS]) (d = 0.55) and math (d = 0.36)(Woodcock-Johnson Applied Problems) but
negatively predicted problem behaviors (d = –0.47)(SSRS).
Perceived teacher responsiveness to child/parent
was positively related to early reading (d = 0.43)(WJLWI) and social skills (d = 0.43) but negatively to
problem behaviors (d = –0.61).
Parental involvement at home was unrelated toearly reading, math, language (PPVT), social skills,
and problem behaviors.
No impact of PI at home or at school on the PPVT.

Parental involvement at
school and teacher
responsiveness werepositively related tochildren’s academic andsocial outcomes. Like
the Galindo and Sheldon(2012) study,
involvement at home did
not prove to havepositive associations
with these outcomes.

Elaborative reminiscing had a significant, moderate
effect size impact on children’s narrative quality (F2[(partial eta squared) ηp = 0.57]) (means: elaborative= 6.9; dialogic = 1.75.; control = 4.71) and a smallThis intervention study
suggests support forteaching elaborative
reminiscing to parents

Appendix Table A.1
97Form ofParental
Involvement
study onnarrative,
vocabulary, print
skills.
LH

Home literacy
environment
from birth to age
3 (children’s
participation inliteracy
activities,
quality of
mothers’
engagementswith children,
provision of ageappropriate
learning
materials)
LH

Citationreminiscing increases
low-income children’s
narrative skills
relative to dialogic
reading. Early
Education andDevelopment, 21(3),318-342.

Rodriguez, E. T.,
Tamis-LeMonda, C.
S., Spellmann, M. E.,
Pan, B. A., Raikes,
H., Lugo-Gil, J., andLuze, G. (2009). The
formative role ofhome literacy
experiences across thefirst three years of lifein children from lowincome families.
Journal of Applied
Developmental
Psychology, 30, 677694.

Age Group /Study Design
control group

Type of Study /N (Number) /Sampleand their mothers

ANCOVA

36% Hispanic,
39% black,
25% whitePK(birth to age 3)

N = 1,046 mothersof Englishspeaking children
and home literacy
experiences at 14,
24, and 36months
after the Early
Head Start
Research and
Evaluation ProjectLongitudinal
Nestedhierarchicalmultipleregression

Over 1/3 teenage
mothers,
43% white,
29% AfricanAmerican,
24% Hispanic,

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)2effect on story comprehension (ηp = 0.24) (means:elaborative = 3.41; dialogic = 1.67; control = 1.9),
after controlling for covariates. Elaborative training
did not have an effect on expressive vocabulary, story
recall, or print skills. No positive effects for dialogic
reading training on expressive vocabulary, narrativeor print skills, after controlling for covariates. Anothertype of reading instructional strategy that may beeffective in promoting early learning. Print skills
assessed using CAP adaptation; narrative skills
assessed using two narrative tasks; vocabulary skills
from the PPVT-III (receptive); and Expressive
Vocabulary Test (EVT) used to measure spoken
lexical skills at both time points.

Overall / Other Results
while pairing it with
dialogic reading in PK
classrooms. Need morestudies to investigate
quality of interactions ininterventions.

Hierarchical multiple regression revealed that qualityof engagement (cognitive stimulation and sensitivity),
literacy activities (participation in shared bookreading, storytelling), and learning materials (books
and toys) predicted children’s language and cognitive
skills over and above significant demographic
predictors at 14, 24, and 36 months.
The authors used the Bayley MDI, PPVT-III, andInfant and Toddler Short Forms of the MacArthur
Communicative Development Inventories. For
example, for the PPVT at 36 months, literacy
activities (β = 0.06*), maternal engagement (β =0.17***), and learning materials (β = 0.14***). These
were significant predictors above relevant backgroundand predicted 20% of the variance in the PPVT.
Similar significant results for Bayley and scoresappeared at earlier ages. These factors alone

This study suggests theimportance ofmultifaceted literacy
experiences beginning as
early as the first year of
life. The homeenvironment matters!

Appendix Table A.1
98Form ofParental
Involvement“Getting Ready”
intervention
seeks tostrengthen
parental warmthand sensitivity
and improveparentalcompetence ineveryday parentchildinteractions

Citation

Age Group /Study Design

PK (followed 2
academic years)

P

Sheridan, S. M.,
Knoche, L. L.,
Kuypzyk, K. A., Pope
Edwards, C., andMarvin, C. A. (2011).
A randomized trial
examining the effectsof parent engagement
on early language andliteracy: The Getting
Ready intervention.
Journal of School
Psychology, 49, 361383.

Father andTamis-LeMonda, C.

PKLongitudinal,
randomized
trial, control
group
Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

Type of Study /N (Number) /Sample53% receiving
Head Start
services

N = 217 children,
211 parents,
29 Head Start
teachers in 21
schools
32% white,
18% black,
27% Latino,
3% Native
American,
1% Asian,
19% otherN = 290

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)accounted for 4-8% of child outcomes at 14 months,
3-7% of variance at 24 months, and 6% of variance at
36 months, with the full models accounting for 6-10%
at 14 months, 9-17% at 24 months, and 20% at 36
months. Children’s literacy at the three ages jointly
explained 6% and 7% of the variation in children’s
Bayley MDI and PPVT scores at 36 months, with thefull models of each accounting for 27% of thevariance in these outcomes.

Overall / Other Results

Significant differences in favor of the treatment groupover 2 academic years on teacher reports of children’s
language use (d = 1.11), reading (d = 1.25), andwriting (d = 0.93) (Teacher Rating of Oral Language
and Literacy [TROLL]). There were no differences
across groups in expressive communication(Preschool Language Scale Expressive
Communication). Intervention, on average, was a 60minute home visit 8.3 times over 2 years in home withparent, child, and Head Start teacher.

Rate of growth was
greater for children at agreater disadvantage due
to developmental
concern or language
spoken. Intervention
students made gains insummer when thecontrol group did not.
This suggests the powerof the intervention to
improve academic andsocial outcomes.
Previous studies showed
positive impact on
reduced anxiety,improved initiative, andincreased attachmentwith adults (Sheridan etal., 2010).

Composite measures of fathers’ and mothers’

Importance of supportive

Appendix Table A.1
99Form ofParental
Involvement
mothersensitivity,
positive regard,
cognitive
stimulation(positive
parenting),
intrusiveness,
negative regard,and detachment(negative
parenting) on
Bayley Scales at
24 and 36
months and on
the PPVT at 36
monthsCitation
S., Shannon, J. D.,
Cabrera, N. J., andLamb, M. E. (2004).
Fathers and mothers
at play with their 2and 3-year olds:
Contributions tolanguage andcognitive
development. Child
Development, 75(6),1806-1820.

Age Group /Study Design
2- and 3-yearold low-income
childrenLongitudinal
Regression
analyses

Type of Study /N (Number) /SampleMother andfathers:
60% white,
20% black,
13% Latino,
30% of parents
had 11 or fewer
years of highschool. All
mothers received
some form ofgovernment
assistance.

P*Opstap
Opnieuw (Dutch
version of
HIPPY)
preschool homelearning
intervention
effects on
quality of
mother-childinteraction —effects on social-

van Tuijl, C., andLeseman, P. P. M.
(2004). Improving
mother-childinteraction in lowincome TurkishDutch families: A
study of mechanisms
mediating
improvements
resulting fromparticipating in aPK
4- to 6-yearolds in homebased
intervention
program in the
Netherlands
Longitudinal,
intervention,
control group

N = 3017 in program
group, 13 incontrol group

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)supportive parenting (positive regard, cognitive
stimulation, and sensitivity) were independently
associated with children’s Bayley MDI (memory,
problem solving, classification, vocalization, language
and social skills) and the PPVT (receptive vocabulary)scores even after considering association witheducation level and employment. Fathers’ positive
behaviors appear to benefit children directly. Negative
parenting did not play a significant statistical role.
For example, 36-month MDI predictive model,
father’s supportive parenting (β = 0.25**), mother’s
supportive parenting (β = 0.20*), mother’s education
not significant, father’s education (β = 0.18*). The
model explains 28% of variance in MDI and is similar
for the 36-month PPVT in significance except thatmother’s supportive parenting approaches
significance. Father’s education consistently predicted
the quality of mother-child engagements.

Overall / Other Resultsparenting from bothmothers and fathers in
PK for receptive
vocabulary and emergent
literacy skills.

This intervention study sought to examine the specificaspects of the interaction quality of the mother-childrelationship that were affected by a preschool homelearning intervention. The two areas studied included
social-emotional support and cognitive distancing.
These home activities included progressively more
complex playful educational activities over 2 years;
150 planned activities were supported byparaprofessionals visiting families every 2 weeks.
Mothers in the program group were more
supportive than control group mothers (F [1, 29] =9.44, p = < 0.001). Also, controlling for gender, forThis program
contributed significantly
to improving socialemotional support ofmothers. Theintervention could be
strengthened by working
on the cognitive
distancing component of
the program to reachfurther outcomes forstudents and families.

Appendix Table A.1
100Form ofParental
Involvement
emotional
support andcognitive
distancing
LH

Family literacy
beliefs and homeliteracy practices
and their
relationship tochildren’s print
knowledge,
interest inreading, andemergent
writing.
LH

Citationhome-based preschoolintervention program.
Infant and Child
Development, 13,323-340.

Weigel, D. J., Martin,
S. S., and Bennett, K.
K. (2006). Mothers’
literacy beliefs:
Connections with thehome literacy
environment and preschool children’s
literacy development.
Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 6,
191-211.

Age Group /Study DesignType of Study /N (Number) /SampleRegression/correlations

PK
Longitudinal(over 1 year)
Clusteranalysis,
multivariate
logistic
regression
MANCOVA

N = 79 mothers
and children overage 1
94% white,
3% Hispanic
8% had GED
certificate;
35% completed
high school andsome college;
24% had college
degree;34% had graduate
degreeCognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)pretest vocabulary and IQ, and for pretest support anddistancing, the program group had significantly higher
Turkish vocabulary (F [1, 29] = 24.19, p = < 0.01) andpre-math skills assessed in Dutch (F [1, 29] = 8.28, p= < 0.01 at posttest.
No differences were found on cognitive distancing.
Emotional support was positively related to
vocabulary and pre-math skills, and distancing tovocabulary. Overall the effect of the program onliteracy and math outcomes was partially mediated byinteraction quality, namely, social-emotional support.

Overall / Other Results

Mothers with higher education and those with higher
grades in school tended to be facilitative mothers.
Also those who enjoyed reading and writing weremore likely to be facilitative mothers thanconventional mothers.
Facilitative mothers were significantly more likely
to spend more time in shared book reading (β = 0.94*)
and to be engaged in language activities (β = 0.41**)than conventional mothers. Finally, in a repeatedmeasures analysis, the authors found significantly
more positive gains over the year in print knowledge(F [3, 75] = 7.26**) and child reading interest (F [3,75] = 29.94***) for children of facilitative thanconventional mothers. No differences were
demonstrated across the groups in emergent writing.
CELT (Children’s Emergent Literacy Test) was used
to measure literacy skills of print knowledge andemergent writing.

This research supports
other research withdifferences in literacy
beliefs by maternal
education level. It is
important for any and allintervention efforts toaddress family beliefs
about literacy.

Appendix Table A.1
101

Studies of Prekindergarten and Above (7 Studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement*Parental
involvementfrom parents andteachers —frequency andquality of PI inchild’s education
at home and at
school (Parent
Teacher
Involvement
Questionnaire)

Citation

Age Group /Study Design

El Nokali, N. E.,
Bachman, H. J., andVotruba-Drzal, E.
(2010). Parent
involvement andchildren’s academic
and social
development inelementary school.
Child Development,
81(3), 988-1005.

Assessments at
PK and grades
1, 3, 5Englund, M. M.,
Luckner, A. E.,
Whaley, G. J. L., andEgeland, B. (2004).
Children’sachievement in early
elementary school:
Longitudinal effectsof parental
involvement,
expectations, andquality of assistance.

PK to grade 3

Longitudinal
Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

P, FISN = 1,364
National Instituteof Child Healthand Human
Development
study of Early
Childcare andYouthDevelopment
76% white,
13% black,
6% Hispanic,
5% otherC

Level of parental
involvement at
school, motherchild problem
solving, qualityof interaction,
parental
expectations
about schoolingType of Study /N (Number) /SampleLongitudinal
Path analysis

N = 187
Low-income
firstborn children
and mothers from
Minnesota
66% white,
12% AfricanAmerican,
19% mixed orminority

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)Overall / Other Results

HLM study indicated that within-child improvements
in PI predicted declines in problem behaviors andimprovements in social skills. Between-child analyses
indicated that children of involved families had
increased social functioning and fewer behavior
issues.
There were no associations with PI and increased
achievement as measured on Woodcock-Johnson testsof vocabulary, letter-word identification, and mathskills.
Increases in teacher reports of PI were related toteacher- and mother-reported child social skills(SSRS) intercept (SE) = 6.56***, 2.58***.
Increases in PI were negatively associated withteacher reports of behavior problems (Child Behavior
Checklist CBCL), SE = –3.81***. Mother reports
were similar to teacher reports.

Parental involvement athome and at school was
positively associatedwith improved social
skills and fewer behavior
problems for children in
the elementary grades.
Possible reason for lackof association withgrades was the global
measure of achievementwith a global measure ofFI.

PK mother-child interactions had a significant direct
effect on children’s IQ (β = 0.38) and direct effects onachievement in grade 1 (β = 0.18). At grade 3,
parental involvement (school-based involvement: Didteachers know parents? Did parents express concern
about schoolwork, participate in conferences?) added
significantly to predicting 3rd-grade achievement(teacher-rated achievement) after controlling forprevious achievement (β = 0.15). Parental
expectations at grade 1 (β = 0.11) and mothers’ PK
quality of instruction at 42 months (β = 0.16) had
indirect effects on achievement at grade 3.

Overall, mother’s
instruction quality in PK,
PI at school, andexpectations influenced
children’s achievement
in 3rd grade over andabove mother’s
education, child IQ, andprevious achievement.

Appendix Table A.1
102Form ofParental
Involvement*Observations oftypical homebehavior ofchild-parent
communicationand learning totalkCitation
Journal of
Educational
Psychology, 96(4),723-730.
Hart, B., and Risley,
T. R. (2003). The
early catastrophe.
Education Review,
17(1), 110-118.

PK
7-9 months
through 3 years
and tests at 9-10
years

Type of Study /N (Number) /SampleCognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)Overall / Other Results

N = 42This intensive observational study involved an hour
each month of families of children from 7 to 9 months
through age 3. Of the 42 families, 13 were upper SES,
10 were middle SES, 13 were lower SES, and 6 wereon welfare. Data indicated that children on welfare
have half as much experience per hour (616 words perhour) as the average working-class child (1,251
words) and less than one-third that of the child in a
professional family (2,153). The study also looked at
the ratio of encouragements to discouragements, by
SES, finding 166,000 encouragements to 26,000
discouragements for professional families; 62,000
encouragements to 36,000 discouragements forworking-class families; and 26,000 encouragements to
57,000 discouragements for welfare families. Welfare
families were more likely to provide discouragements,
whereas professional families were more likely toprovide encouragements.
The rate of vocabulary growth at age 3 was strongly
and positively associated with PPVT-R scores at age
9-10 (r = 0.58) and Test of Language Development 2(TOLD) (r = 0.74). Vocabulary use at age 3 wasassociated with reading comprehension scores on theComprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) (r =0.56).

The study shows thenumber of hours ofintervention needed toequalize children’s earlyexperience. It also points
to the need for early andintense intervention forchildren most at risk.

N = 143

Parental teaching was independently related to

Both reading andLongitudinal

LH, PHome literacy

Age Group /Study Design

Correlations

Hood, M., Conlon, E.,

PK to grade 2

Appendix Table A.1
103Form ofParental
Involvement
practices(parent-childreading; parental
teaching ofletters, name,and words) on
later vocabulary
andphonologicalskills
LH*Study of thefamilyexperiences andinvolvement in
K transition
activities
FIS

Citationand Andrews, G.
(2008). Preschool
home literacy
practices andchildren’s literacy
development: A
longitudinal analysis.
Journal of
Educational
Psychology, 100(2),252-271.
McIntyre, L. L.,
Eckert, T. L., Fiese,
B. H., DiGennaro, F.
D., and Wildenger, L.
K. (2007). Transition
to kindergarten:
Family experiences
and involvement.
Early Childhood
Education Journal,
35(1), 83-88.

Age Group /Study Design
Longitudinal
Hierarchicalregression
analyses

PK to K
Not
longitudinal
Chi-squareanalyses

Type of Study /N (Number) /SampleCaucasianAustralianchildren

N = 132 parents ofchildrenpreviously
enrolled in earlychildhoodeducation andtransition to K
62% white,
22% black,
10% Hispanic,
6% other
40% reported
government
assistance

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)preschool letter-word identification scores (R2 change =4.58%, p = 0.008). This mediated relationships withteaching and grades 1 and 2 letter-word identification,
single-word reading and spelling rates, andphonological awareness. Parent-child reading was
independently related to grade 1 vocabulary (R2 change= 5.6%, p = 0.005).

Overall / Other Results
teaching are importantfactors related tochildren’s literacy
outcomes. Professional
development for teachersand families should
include both components
for maximum success.
This study provides
additional support for the
Sénéchal and LeFevre(2002) model.

Concerns related to 74% attending a new school, 72%
following directions at school, 55% behavior, 54%
academics, 53% getting along with peers, 52%
making needs known to others, 37% separation fromfamily, 35% getting along with teacher
Significant differences in type of involvement bywhether or not families received government aid (55received aid, and 75 did not):–– Attend annual meetings at preschool: X2 = 9.22**–– Have monthly communication with preschool: X2= 5.17*–– Visit K classroom: X2 = 6.71*–– Obtain information about K from books: X2 =8.45**Overall, families want to
be involved in the K
transition and need more
information about how
they best can support
their children. Families
receiving aid weresignificantly less likely
than those not receiving
aid to attend meetings at
the preschool, havemonthly communication
with the preschool, visit
a K classroom, andobtain K informationfrom books andmagazines. PK and K
teachers would benefit
from professional

Appendix Table A.1
104Form ofParental
Involvement

Maternal-childconversations
andsophisticatedinput during toy
play, magnet
play, mealtime,elephant book,and bear book
LH

Citation

Weizman, Z. O., andSnow, C. E. (2001).
Lexical input asrelated to children’s
vocabularyacquisition: Effects ofsophisticatedexposure and support
for meaning.
Developmental
Psychology, 37(2),265-279.

Age Group /Study Design

Maternal
interactions at
PK to K (age5), PPVT at endof K and grade
2Longitudinal
Regression
analyses

Type of Study /N (Number) /SampleN = 53 lowincome children
attending Head
Start or otherpreschool
75% white,
16% AfricanAmerican,
7% Hispanic
40% single
parents,
25% not finishedhigh school

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)Overall / Other Results
development to ease thetransition with childspecific and other global
activities for families
and their children
moving to elementary
school.

Vocabulary in K and 2nd grade related more to theoccurrence of sophisticated lexical items than to thequantity of lexical input overall. Density ofsophisticated words heard and density with whichsuch words were embedded in helpful or instructive
interactions at age 5 at home independently predicted
over a third of the variance in children’s vocabulary(PPVT-R) in K and 2nd grade.
Density of instructive and helpful interactions,particularly during mealtime conversations, wasstrongly related to vocabulary scores in K (r = 0.53, p= < 0.001) and in 2nd grade (r = 0.47, p = < 0.001).
Magnet play and toy play were also significant but
less so, and the overall effect of the 5 settings was acorrelation of about 0.52***. These two variables ––with controls for maternal education, nonverbal IQ ofchild, and amount of child’s talk produced during
settings at age 5 –– predicted 50% of the variance inchildren’s 2nd-grade vocabulary. For 2nd grade,
controlling for mother education, child nonverbal IQ
and child word production, and exposure density
accounted for significant prediction in PPVT 2ndgrade scores (β = 1.36**). The full model explained
50% in children’s 2nd-grade vocabulary.

This study emphasizes
the importance of warm
and instructive maternalchild interactions in K
that are predictive of
later receptive
vocabulary in K and 2nd
grade. Mealtimes andplay often relate to highlevels of instructive talkand should be included
with book readinginteractions as a way tofoster positive literacy
development in children.

Appendix Table A.1
105Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation*Effect ofparental
involvement andPK in a publicschoolattendance onsocial skills,
problembehaviors, andparent-teacher
relationships

Wildenger, L. K., andMcIntyre, L. L.
(2012). Investigating
the relation between
kindergarten
preparation and childsocio-behavioral
school outcomes.
Early Childhood
Education Journal,
40, 169-176.

C

Age Group /Study Design
PK to K
Longitudinal
Hierarchicalregression
analyses
Early education
experiences andpreparation onsociobehavioral
outcomes in K

Type of Study /N (Number) /Sample86 general
education
students, theirparents, andteachers
77% white,
11% black,
6% mixed,
2% Asian,
1% Latino

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(s)Overall / Other Results

Overall, public school pre-K attendance (preschool inpublic school building) had positive effects on social
skills (β = 0.16), negatively related to problem
behavior (β = –0.34), and positively related to studentteacher relationships (β = 0.35). Total family
involvement in K transitions was unrelated to social
skills, problem behavior, and student-teacher
relationships.

This study focuses on thepositive relationship ofattendance in PK in
public school and sociobehavioral outcomes likesocial skills, studentteacher relationships,
and problem behavior.
Family involvement was
unrelated to theseoutcomes, and perhaps it
may be more importantwith at-risk populations
or may relate to different
outcomes than thosemeasured here.

27% free or
reduced-pricelunch

Appendix Table A.1
106

Studies of Kindergarten (9 studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement
Effects ofparental
involvement (PI)at home and at
school on K
literacy as wellas predictive
factors of Latino
children’s homeand school
involvement

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Durand, T. M. (2011).
Latino parental
involvement inkindergarten:
Findings from the
Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study.
Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences,33, 469-489.

K

N = 2,051

LongitudinalLowest SES (35%),
2nd quintile (25%),
3rd quintile (19%),
4th quintile (15%),
5th quintile (7%)

Early, D. M., Pianta,
R. C., Taylor, L. C.,

K

Citation

Regression
analyses
Involvement
measures in falland spring of KC

*K transition
practices of a

N = 3,595 K
teachers

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Overall PI (at home and at school) was positively
predictive of children’s literacy skills (β = 0.11**),
as was maternal education (β = 0.18***), income (β= 0.10**), child age (β = 0.13***), and gender (β =0.11***).
Predictors of home involvement included maternal
education (β = 0.19***), acculturation (parents’nativity and children’s home language) (β =0.19***), and social capital (β = 0.18***). This
explained 14% of variance in home involvement.
Predictors of school involvement included income(β = 0.13**), maternal education (β = 0.14**),acculturation (β = 0.16***), any language barrier (β= –0.06*), teacher outreach (β = 0.11**), meetingtime (β = –0.15***), and social capital (β =0.25***). This explained 26% of the variance.
ECLS-K reading assessment measures of early
literacy skills included print familiarity, letter
recognition, identifying beginning and ending
sounds, word reading, vocabulary, and reading
comprehension.
PI measure was a global measure of PI at home
and at school. PI at home included reading, tellingstories, singing songs, doing chores. School
involvement included conferences, open house, PTA
meetings, advisory groups, volunteering, fundraising, and attending class events.

Overall, PI was
positively related toLatino children’s
literacy, and school
involvement was related
to social capital andteacher outreach. Social
capital also predicted
home literacy activities.

Most common practices were class as a whole after
school starts (65%), practices as a whole before

Training in transitions,primary certification,

Appendix Table A.1
107Form ofParental
Involvement
large sample ofteachers
FIS

Dialogic readingin PK (asking
questions,providing
feedback,developing
concepts about
rhyme)
LH

Citationand Cox, M. J. (2001).
Transition practices:
Findings from anational survey ofkindergarten teachers.
Early Childhood
Education Journal,
28(3), 199-206.

Fielding-Barnsley, R.,
and Purdie, N. (2003).
Early intervention in
the home for children
at risk of reading
failure. Support for
Learning, 18, 77-82.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Notlongitudinalt-tests andcorrelations

K
Longitudinal,
intervention,
control group
ANOVA
Time 1:

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)
80% white,
7% black,
5% Hispanic,
1% Asian,
6% mixed

N = 4926 in treatmentgroup, 23 incontrol group

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
school starts (59%), individualized practices after
school starts (44%), coordination with preschool(36%), and individualized practices before school
starts (29%).
Teachers of larger classes use fewer individualized
and group practices before school begins. Teacherswith primary certification were more likely thanthose without to use individualized practices before
and after school starts. Also, teachers who received
class lists earlier reported using more transition
practices before the school year starts (r [3400] =0.06, p = < 0.01), for those aimed at individual
child/family and for those aimed at the whole class,and fewer transition practices after the beginning of
the school year.
Teachers with training in transitions reported
significantly more practices in all areas than teachers
without training in transitions. Finally, whiteteachers were more likely to use both group andindividualized practices before the beginning of theschool year than either black or Hispanic teachers.

Overall / Other Results
generation of class lists,and smaller classes were
all factors that positively
influenced the use of
more and individualizedpractices in the move ofchildren from PK to K.

Study of an 8-week dialogic reading intervention.
Dialogic reading involves reading with children(rather than to them), asking questions, providing
feedback, and developing concepts about print
knowledge and rhyme. The trained researcher
brought picture books and videotaped instruction to
the home demonstrating best practice in dialogic
reading.
Six domains were addressed: PPVT, initialconsonant, final consonant, rhyme, CAP, andDialogic reading seems
to be a beneficial
intervention for at-riskchildren before formal
schooling. Results ofintervention lasted over a
year later. Comparedwith children in thecontrol group, children
in the intervention group

Appendix Table A.1
108Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation

Age of Sample /Study Design
February,
before reading
instruction

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Time 2:
November*Family
involvement at
school,involvement at
home,educational
expectations,and schooloutreach efforts
FIS, LH, P

Galindo, C., andSheldon, S. B. (2012).
School and homeconnections andchildren’skindergarten
achievement gains:
The mediating role offamily involvement.
Early Childhood
Research Quarterly,
27, 90-103.

K
Longitudinal
Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

N = 16,425
children from
Early Childhood
Longitudinal
StudyKindergarten(ECLS-K)
57% white,
17% black,
19% Latino,
3% Asian,
4% other
64% two-parent
families,

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
alphabet-RISCA. The intervention successfully
improved pre-reading skills of the intervention groupat Time 1, with significantly higher scores on 4 of 6
domains (PPVT, initial consonant, rhyme, and CAP).
Both groups improved over time, but there wassignificant improvement of the intervention groupover the control group on final consonant, asmeasured by the PPVT (means: intervention group =88.69; control group = 81.65) and CAP (Concepts
About Print means: intervention group =17.04;
control group = 14.52) at Time 2. Spelling andreading (word identification) were also better for theintervention group (spelling: 39.73; reading: 14.96)
than for the control group (spelling: 26.17; reading:
6.70).

Overall / Other Results
were advanced in
specific skills as well as
in tests of reading andspelling.

After controlling for family and student backgroundvariables, HLM regression analyses indicated that
schools that made more efforts to engage families
tended to have parents reporting higher levels of
involvement at school but not higher involvement athome or higher educational expectations. Each unit
increase on school outreach was associated with a
0.02 point increase of family involvement in school
activities.
Students whose parents were more involved atschool or who had higher educational expectations
demonstrated greater gains in reading and math at
the end of kindergarten. Each unit increase in family
involvement in school was associated with a 1.10
and 0.97 point increase in math and reading,respectively. When involvement at school,

School outreach, family
involvement at school,and educational
expectations positively
related to levels offamily involvement andgains in reading andmath, even after
controlling for previous
achievement. Lack offindings withinvolvement at home
(Fan and Chen, 2001;
Fantuzzo et al., 2004)
may have to do with how
the concept was

Appendix Table A.1
109Form ofParental
Involvement*Investigation ofteachers’ beliefs
about K
children’s print
knowledge andtheir beliefs
about parent
involvement in
the process, by
SES
FIS

Citation

Lynch, J. (2010).
Kindergarten
teachers’ beliefs about
students’ knowledgeof print literacy andparental involvementin children’s print
literacy development.
Alberta Journal of
Educational
Research, 56(2), 157171.

Age of Sample /Study Design

K
Longitudinalmeasures ––beginning/endof-year
measures ofchildren’s
literacyknowledge:
sounds ofletters, readfrom top tobottom, capitalletterType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)
13% non-Englishspeaking homes

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
involvement at home, educational expectations,school outreach, and other relevant variables were
included in the reading model, school outreach (b =0.38*), involvement at school (b = 0.74**), andeducational expectations (b = 0.19**) all posted
significant and positive associations withkindergarten reading. Involvement at home failed todemonstrate significant associations. Math andreading measures came from ECLS-K. Involvement
at home was unrelated to math and reading gains.

Overall / Other Results
measured and the related
outcome. Home
involvement wasmeasured as a basic setof activities, rather thanfocusing on the quality
or nature of theexperience orinteractions.

N = 72 teachers ina large city in
CanadaSignificant differences at the beginning and the endof the year in children’s print knowledge were found,by SES, in sounds of alphabetic letters, reading from
top to bottom, and identifying a capital letter.
In addition, teachers significantly differed in theirbeliefs about PI in knowledge of literacy activities (t[38] = 3.10; p = < 0.01); interest in children’s
literacy (t [38] = 2.08; p = < 0.05), engagement withwriting activities (t [35] = 2.49; p = < 0.05), andstory reading (t [36] = 3.18; p = < 0.01), by higher
and lower SES.
However, overall, no significant differences inteachers’ beliefs about PI, by SES, just within certain
activities. Print knowledge and beliefs were
measured using an author-created instrument basedon CAP and The Kindergarten Program-Revised(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2006).

Preservice and inservice
teachers should haveopportunities to examine
and reflect on researchon diverse types ofliteracy events occurringin all families andaddress stereotypes
about parent
involvement. We muststrengthen teacher
beliefs about how to
involve parents inliteracy developmentwith undergraduateteacher education
programs where there islittle focus on
involvement of parents.

N = 307

Correlations between supportive home learning

Overall, it is helpful tot-tests*Supportive

McWayne, C.,K

Appendix Table A.1
110Form ofParental
Involvement
home learning
environment,
direct school
contact,
inhibited
involvement on
academic andsocial and playcompetencies of
ethnic-minority,
low-income K
childrenCitation
Hampton, V.,
Fantuzzo, J., Cohen,
H. L., and Sekino, Y.
(2004). A multivariate
examination of parent
involvement and thesocial and academic
competencies of urban
kindergarten children.
Psychology in the
Schools, 41(3), 363377.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Notlongitudinal
Correlations

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)
95% AfricanAmerican,
61% attended HeadStart

LH, FIS*Parenting
investment andRaver, C. C.,
Gershoff, E. T., andK

21,255 children
from the Early

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
environment were associated with general social
skills (SSRS-P) like cooperation (r = 0.41***),
responsibility ( = 0.29***), self-control (r =0.28***), and assertion (r = 0.25***). It was
negatively related to hyperactivity (r = –0.16*).
Dimensions of Home-Based Peer Play (PIPPS-P)
also related to supportive home learning
environment, like play interaction (r = 0.31**), andnegatively with play disconnection (r = –0.18).
Similar relations were found with School-Based Peer
Play (PIPPS-T).
Supportive home learning environment also
related to reading (r = 0.19*) (SSRS-teacher rating ofreading and math) and math (r = 0.19*), motivation(r = 0.26) (SSRS-T) and intellectual ability (r =0.17*).
Direct school contact was associated with generalsocial skills and play interaction, and inhibited
involvement was most strongly associated withhyperactivity and with externalizing andinternalizing problems.
Involved families were most likely to provide arich learning environment, and disconnected families
had less direct school contact and more inhibited
involvement. Involved families had children withhigher levels of cooperation, self-control, andresponsibility, while disconnected families had
children with more internalizing and externalizing
problems and hyperactivity.

Overall / Other Results
conceptualize PI in theearly years with home,school, and warmth
dimensions. Specifically,home involvement
dimensions werecorrelated with academic
and social competencies
of children, while directschool contact andinhibited involvement
related more to social
skills, lower academics,
and reading abilities.

Authors use SEM to look at the mediating role ofparental investment (purchase of cognitively

For white students,
income’s effects on

Appendix Table A.1
111

Form ofParental
Involvement
positiveparentingbehavior
P, C

Citation
Aber, J. L. (2007).
Testing equivalenceof mediating models
of income, parenting,and school readinessfor white, black, andHispanic children in anational sample. Child
Development, 78(1),96-115.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Longitudinal
Structural
equationmodeling(SEM)

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Childhood
Longitudinal
StudyKindergarten(ECLS-K) cohort:specific patterns
for white, black,and Hispanic
children
55% white,
18% Hispanic,
15% black,
6% Asian,
2% Native
American
75% two-parent
families*Early maternalsensitivity,
teachers’ reports

Rimm-Kaufman, S.
E., Pianta, R. C., Cox,
M. J., and Bradley, R.

KLongitudinal

N = 223
NICHD study of

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
stimulating materials, parental activities outside
home, extracurricular activities outside home,parents’ report of involvement at school, stress) andpositive parenting (parental warmth, cognitive
stimulation, use of physical punishment, rules androutines) to income and hardship and cognitive andsocial-emotional competence. Cognitive skills
included PPVT-3, Woodcock-Johnson reading, math,and general knowledge subtests. Social-emotional
competence was measured using the Social Skills
Rating Scale (SSRS). Children’s cognitive and social
skills were examined globally.
Clear evidence that low family income covaries
with lower parental investment and lower cognitivecompetence for white and ethnic children. Parental
investment does mediate the role of income on
outcomes.
Positive parenting behavior was positively andsignificantly related to child social-emotional
competence for white (unstandardized b = 1.93), forblack (unstandardized b =1.31), and for Hispanic
students (unstandardized b = 1.99). Parent
investment influenced child cognitive outcomes andmediated effects for family income for black andHispanic students. Parent investment and cognitive
skills for white students (unstandardized β =6.45),
for black students (unstandardized β =3.98), and for
Hispanic students (unstandardized β =5.20).

Overall / Other Results
outcomes is mediated byparental processes. For
black and white students,
the effect is partiallymediated. It is important
to look at subgroupdifferences when policy
and intervention
practices are in play. On
the whole, there weremany similarities inmodels across thesesubgroups (reading,math, generalknowledge, school
readiness; internalizing
and externalizing
behavior constructs seemto measure appropriate
things), though there
were differences by
ethnic group in physicalpunishment, warmth, andrules.

Family involvement as measured by attitudes was
significantly and positively associated with 8 of 9social and academic outcomes, including language (βAs noted by Christenson,“family-school
collaboration is an

Appendix Table A.1
112

Form ofParental
Involvementof FI in school(attitudes towardschool andactivities withschool)P, FIS*Kindergarten
transition
practices andparent-initiatedinvolvement at
school during K
FIS

Citation
H. (2003). Teacherrated family
involvement andchildren’s social andacademic outcomes inkindergarten. Early
Education andDevelopment, 14(2),179-198.

Schulting, A. B.,
Malone, P. S., andDodge, K. A. (2005).
The effect of schoolbased transition
policies and practices
on child academic
outcomes.
Developmental
Psychology, 41(6),Age of Sample /Study Design
Two-steplogistic
regression

K
Longitudinal
Three-level
Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Early Child Care(from NC, VA,
AR)
85% EuropeanAmerican,
12% AfricanAmerican,

N = 17,212
children from Early
Childhood
Longitudinal
StudyKindergarten(ECLS-K) sample
57% white,
14% black,
17% Hispanic,

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome= 0.24; p = < 0.05) and math (β = 0.27; p = < 0.05).
However, family involvement activities weresignificantly associated with only 2 of 9 outcomes ––and, with behavior problems, a significant andpositive association emerged (β = 0.24*), meaningthat increased family involvement related to more
student behavior problems.
Family involvement activities did relate positively
to higher language outcomes (β = 0.22; p = < 0.05).
Higher maternal sensitivity related to fewer behavior
problems (β = –0.23). Higher SES (β = 0.19, 0.18)
and sensitivity (β = 0.27, 0.29) predicted higher
language and math scores. Overall, however, themajority of outcomes were positive, especially forfamily attitudes, and both attitudes and activities
related positively to student language outcomes.
Maternal sensitivity at 36 months: Videotapes ofthree box task with toys and coders assessed
mother’s supportive presence, respect for child’s
autonomy, stimulation of cognitive development,
hostility, and confidence.

Overall / Other Results
attitude, not merely an
activity.” Families
whose attitudes are inalignment with school,
regardless of their atschool involvement, mayconvey messages that
promote school success.

HLM demonstrated that the number of school-basedtransition practices in fall of K was associated withmore positive academic achievement scores at end ofK, controlling for SES and other demographic traits.
The effects of transition practices were stronger forlow- and middle-SES children than for high-SES
children. Specifically:
Parent-initiated school involvement significantly
predicted academic achievement (β = 0.89***)measured by a composite score of reading, math, andSchools should use
transition practices tohelp children andfamilies in K. In fact,
fewer transition practices
are used in low-SES
schools –– the schoolsthat benefit most fromsuch practices.
Transitions’ effects on

Appendix Table A.1
113Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation
860-871.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)
6% AsianCognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
general knowledge, as obtained from ECLS-K.
School-level transition practices significantly
predicted academic achievement at the end of K (β =0.51; p = < 0.0001).
School-level transition practices significantly
predicted school involvement (β = 0.08; p = 0.0001).
Children of average SES or 1 standard deviation
below the mean of SES experienced the largest gains
in parent-initiated school involvement for each
additional transition activity.
The practice of children and parents visiting the Kclassroom before school started demonstrated asignificant main effect on achievement (β = 1.26; p =0.009). This also interacted with SES, with the effectof making the transition greatest for low-SES
students.
K transition practices had a positive effect onparent-initiated school involvement, and thismediated the effect of transition practices onachievement. Teacher-initiated PI was negatively
associated with child outcomes. Practices included
information about K sent or phoned to parents, PK
spend time in K classes, school day short at
beginning of the year, parents and children visit
before school starts, teacher visits homes, parents
attend orientation, and other.

Appendix Table A.1
114

Overall / Other Results
achievement werepartially mediated byparent-initiatedinvolvement at school,suggesting the possibilityof transitions inencouraging higher
levels of PI.

Studies of Kindergarten and Above (8 Studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement
Parental rolestrain, parental
warmth,involvement at
school, homeliteracyC

Citation
Aikens, N. L., andBarbarin, O. (2008).
Socioeconomic
differences in reading
trajectories: The
contribution offamily, neighborhood,and school contexts.
Journal of
Educational
Psychology, 100(2),235-251.

Age of Sample /Study Design
K to grade 3
Longitudinal
Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)
Growth curvemodelsType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)10,998 children
from the Early
Childhood
Longitudinal
StudyKindergarten(ECLS-K) cohort
58% white,
16% black,
19% Hispanic,
4% AsianCognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Family context (home literacy environment, PI inschool, and parental role strain) best accounts for SES
disparities in children’s initial reading achievement asthey enter school. Schools and neighborhoods,
however, contributed more than family characteristics
to SES differences in learning rates in reading. Muchof the gap is still unexplained by models. The numberof children reading below grade and the presence of
low-income peers were consistently associated withinitial achievement and growth rates.

Analyses suggest acompounding effect of
low-quality
environments. “No one
solution or efforts
targeted to any single
context will ameliorate
the reading achievement
gap. Those involved inpolicy and intervention
must recognize theecological, dynamic
nature of development
and functioning.
Children’s development
is multi-determined andembedded in dynamic,
interconnected systems”(Aikens and Barbarin,
2008, p. 250).

Concerted cultivation includes a child’s activities(participated in dance athletic clubs, music, art, or
performing art); parental involvement at school;number of children’s books in home. CC played asignificant and positive predictive role of children’s
reading skills at K entry. Educational investments are
an important mediator of SES and racial/ethnic
disparities in skills, completely explaining the blackwhite reading gap at K entry and consistently

These parenting
practices and activities
and involvement at
school helped partially to
explain some differencesin black-white andHispanic-whiteachievement gaps, after
controlling for SES.

21% below
poverty line

“Concerted
cultivation”(CC)examination:
parentingpractices,
including child
activities;
parental

Cheadle, J. E. (2008).
Educational
investment, family
context, andchildren’s math andreading growth fromkindergarten throughthe third grade.
Sociology of

K to grade 3
Longitudinal
HLM

Over 14,000
children in the
Early Childhood
Longitudinal
Study (K class)
Reading: 14,544
Math: 14, 579

Appendix Table A.1
115Form ofParental
Involvement
involvement at
school; numberof children’sbooks in home

Citation
Education, 81(1), 131.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)
60% white,
13% black,
17% Hispanic,
5% AsianC

Parentingbehavior(cultural
activities,
cognitively
stimulating
materials,
organized
activities, homelearning
activities,
school-based PI,
physicaldiscipline,
routines, family
adjustment,
hardship,socialization

Crosnoe, R., andCooper, C. E. (2010).
Economicallydisadvantaged
children’s transitions
into elementary
school: Linking
family processes,
school contexts, andeducational policy.
American Educational
Research Journal,
47(2), 258-291.

Fall of K
through springof grade 1
Longitudinal
Multilevel
models

N = 17,401 from
Early Childhood
Longitudinal
StudyKindergarten(ECLS-K) cohort
57% white,
14% AfricanAmerican,
6% Asian,
17% Latino,
5% other

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
explaining 20-60% and 30-50% of the black-whiteand Hispanic-white disparities in growth parameters,
respectively. Though not over the summer, it remains
a statistically significant predictor of reading growthduring the school year.
For math, CC played a significant role in initial
status through K and summer. It does not play a role
beyond that in grades 1 to 3.
CC relates to important early academic advantages.
It is only a partial explanation for SES advantages. It
related to black-white and Hispanic-white gaps, after
controlling for SES. Black and Hispanic children had
lower levels of CC.

Overall / Other Results
Black and Hispanic
students tended to havelower levels of CC thanwhite students. Thissuggests that the practice
plays a more significant
role than Lareau (2002)
thought.

Children had smaller gains on math and reading tests
between K and 1st grade with each additional marker
of family economic disadvantage (especially when athird disadvantage was added to the pair of parent
education and poverty). Different aspects of PI
mattered more for math than for reading.
For math and reading, cognitively stimulating
materials impacted achievement. For reading,cognitively stimulating materials (β = 0.06; p = <0.001) had a significant effect.
While school-based PI mattered for math (β = 0.03;
p = < 0.01), it did not impact reading. Rules androutines mattered for reading (β = 0.04; p = < 0.001).
Both math and reading were positively impacted byorganized activities and negatively impacted by thechild’s problems with internalizing (β = -0.05; p = <0.001) and externalizing (β = -0.07; p = < 0.001). An
interesting effect was grade tenure as being positively

Examines many child,family, and school
dynamics in K and theirrelationship to math andreading achievement.
Practical implications
include the importanceof retaining K teachers ingrade for its relationshipto reading achievement
and the need for moremental health services
for children at risk at thisage and for theirfamilies.

Appendix Table A.1
116Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)LH, P, FIS
Familyinvolvement at
school(attending
conferences,
PTA, open
houses, helping
in class or on
field trips, andso on)FIS

Mother-childinteractions inkindergarten(supportive
presence, qualityof instruction,
respect forautonomy) andtheir association
with grade point
average (GPA)

Dearing, E., Kreider,
H., Simpkins, S., andWeiss, H. B. (2006).
Family involvementin school and lowincome children’s
literacy performance:Longitudinalassociations between
and within families.
Journal of
Educational
Psychology, 98, 653664.

K to grade 5

Gregory, A., andRimm-Kaufman, S.
(2008). Positive
mother-childinteractions inkindergarten:
Predictors of school
success in highschool. School
Psychology Review,
37(4), 499-515.

K effects onhigh school
graduation andacademicachievement

Longitudinal
Latent growthmodelsLiteracy at K
and grades 3, 5

N = 281children from
Comprehensive
Child
Development
Program (CCDP)
and School
Transition Study(STS)
Low-income
childrenCognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
associated with reading achievement (β = 0.03; p = <0.05). Math and reading assessments were from the
ECLS-K.

Overall / Other Results

Children whose families increased FI over time hadlarger gains in literacy achievement (WoodcockJohnson Letter-Word Identification [WJLWI] subtest)
after kindergarten than children whose families werestable or decreased FI over time. The effect size forthis association (pr = 0.23) was the second largest;
only K literacy performance was higher (pr = 0.38).
Average FI was positively associated with average
literacy performance for children of less educatedmothers.

Increased family
involvement in schoolfrom K through grade 5
had stronger implications
for children’s literacy
than family income,maternal education level,or child’s race/ethnicity.
High levels of family
involvement were mostbeneficial for children of
mothers with lesseducation.

In a logistic regression model, a child with one unit
higher mother-child interaction score was 3.54 times
more likely to graduate successfully from high school.
This was the highest of all variables, including
maternal education, race/ethnicity, gender, and IQ.
Maternal education and higher IQ in K werepositively associated with higher scores in reading andmath. Quality of mother-child interactions was anonsignificant predictor of GPA for children of white,
educated mothers. However, for children of AfricanAmerican mothers who had not graduated from highGraduation rates werehigher for all groups ofstudents having
supportive mother-childinteractions (promotive
effect). Protective effects
for mother-childinteractions on GPA
occurred for AfricanAmerican children
whose mothers had

36% AfricanAmerican
21% Latino

Longitudinal
Logistic
regressionmodel

N = 142
60% white,
40% AfricanAmerican
Education level =3.6 on a scale of 1
to 6

Appendix Table A.1
117Form ofParental
Involvement
and graduation
rates

Citation

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)P

Formal andinformal home
print / literacy
activities(storybook
reading,teaching
reading, andwriting words)

Sénéchal, M., andLeFevre, J. (2002).
Parental involvementin the development ofchildren’s reading
skills: A five-year
longitudinal study.
Child Development,
73(2), 445-460.

K and grade 1,
followed
through grade 3

St. Clair, L., Jackson,

K and grades 1,

Longitudinal
Hierarchicalregression

LH

Educational andTwo cohorts from
K (N = 110) and
one cohort from
grade 1 (N = 58)
Most fromEnglish-speaking
homes of whitefamilies in
Ottawa, Ontario,
CanadaN = 42 end of

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
school, the quality of mother-child interactions
predicted GPA. Taking into account gender, maternal
education, and IQ, the coefficient for mother-childinteraction was significant in the African-American
sample (β = 0.44; p = < 0.05).

Overall / Other Results
lower education. These
early interactions mayhelp promote children’s
emotion regulation,
and/or this success insensitivity relates to later
success in helping
children academicallythroughout theireducation.

Children’s exposure to books related positively to thedevelopment of vocabulary and listening
comprehension skills. These skills directly related tochildren’s grade 3 reading. Parental involvement inteaching about reading and writing related to early
literacy skills, and these predicted word reading at endof grade 1 and indirectly predicted reading at grade 3.
Authors used hierarchical regression techniques.
Receptive language was measured from vocabulary
using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised(PPVT-R), and listening comprehension wasmeasured by listening to stories from the Stanford
Early School Achievement Test (SESAT).
Phonological awareness was measured using a soundcategorization task from SESAT. Emergent literacy
from CAP (Concepts About Print ), alphabet
knowledge (label 10 uppercase and 4 lowercase
letters), invented spelling (print 10 words), decoding(read 5 consonant-vowel-consonant words).

Clear support for theimportance of family
reading and teaching ofreading to different
aspects of literacy, grade
1 skills and grade 3
skills. Early homeliteracy experiences
indirectly relate toreading in grade 3.

Parents participated in an average of 50% of the 25

This study suggests the

Appendix Table A.1
118Form ofParental
Involvement
networking
sessions withparents andresourcematerials forhome checkout(Leap Pads, Play
Station reading
and math games,
Leap desks,
books)

CitationB., and Zweiback, R.
(2012). Six years
later: Effect of family
involvement training
on the language skillsof children from
migrant families.
School Community
Journal, 22(1), 9-19.

LH*Family
involvement inschool-based
activities (attend
conferences,
PTA or PTO
meetings, open
houses)FIS

Longitudinal,

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)grade 1
N = 33 end ofgrade 5/6

intervention,

97% Hispanic

Age of Sample /Study Design
5, 6

control group
Intervention in
K and followup in grades 1
and 5/6
ANOVA

Tang, S., Dearing, E.,
Weiss, H. B. (2012).
Spanish-speaking
Mexican-American
families’ involvementin school-based
activities and theirchildren’s literacy:
The implications of
having teachers who
speak Spanish andEnglish. Early
Childhood Research
Quarterly, 27, 177187.

K to grade 3
Longitudinal
Cross-lagged
path analysis,
randomintercept
regression, andordinary leastsquares (OLS)
regression

N = 72 lowincome Spanishspeaking
MexicanAmerican families

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcomehour-long sessions offered in K year, with a range of
8-25 sessions. Content included information fromchild’s K curriculum (such as letter of the week,
literacy skills, sight words). Modeled ways of
supporting children and also provided resource
materials (PlayStation with Lightspan Achieve Now
software to be played, Leap Pads, Leap Desks, andbooks). Broad differences in grade 1 on WoodcockMuñoz Language Survey: control group = –1.83;
treatment group = 4.68 (F [1, 41] = 9.59; p = < 0.005).
In grade 5/6, significant positive differences, again in
favor of treatment group (n =33), on the Nebraska
State Reading Assessment: control group = 69.3;
treatment group = 92.5.

Overall / Other Results
positive impact of
culturally sensitiveparent training /networking sessions forlong-term reading
outcomes for Hispanic
migrant children. By lateelementary school,
control group students
were not meeting
standards, while thetreatment group did“meet standards.”

Rate of increase of family involvement between K
and grade 1 was greater for children who consistently
had bilingual teachers than for those who did not.
Increased family involvement related positively toliteracy skills at grade 3, especially for strugglers. For
example, families with children who had low K
literacy scores (WJLWI) but who consistently
attended classes with Spanish-English teachers
displayed significant increases in involvement
between K and grade 3 (b = 0.061; p = 0.01). For
those with relatively low achievement at kindergarten,
an increase of 1 SD in involvement (that is, anadditional 1.60 school involvement activities)
predicted 47% of an SD increase in grade 3 literacy
scores (b = 0.28; p = 0.002).

This study demonstrates
the power of increasing
the number of
elementary school
teachers who are fluent
in Spanish and English
for Spanish-speaking
elementary students’
literacy outcomes andlevels of family
involvement.

Appendix Table A.1
119

Studies of First Grade and Above (3 Studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation*Parenting
intervention
involvinginquiry andteaching parents
and teachers touse questions to
help children
become theteller or readerof the book andrelating book to
ideas out of life

Powell, D. R., andPeet, S. H. (2008).
Development andoutcomes of acommunity-based
intervention to
improve parents’ useof inquiry in informal
learning contexts.
Journal of Applied
Developmental
Psychology, 29, 259273.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Grades 1 to 4

N = 128

Longitudinal,

47% white,
26% black,
20% Latino, 5%
otherintervention,
control group
ANCOVA

16% less thanhigh school
education,
66% some
postsecondary
education

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Positive effect of the intervention with significant
program/control group differences (10 sessions of 90
minutes each) on child involvement in daily routines(F [1, 126] = 5.69; p = 0.04), conversations with thechild (F [1, 127] = 2.28; p = 0.01), and school
performance influences (F [1, 127] = 6.41; p = 0.01).
Sessions featured topics concerning children’s futures,family-school relations, extracurricular activities,
libraries, and parental expectations of children.

This iterative program
development strategy
resulted in positiveeffects for program
participants over control
group students in termsof conversations withchildren, involvement indaily routines, and ratingof school performanceindicators.

Results of the intervention indicated positive results
for word reading (F [1, 141] = 35.4; p = < 0.0001 —large effect size), word writing (F [1, 141] = 40.1 —large effect size; p = <.0001), and end-of level test in
language arts (F [1,141] = 36.2; p = < 0.0001 —moderate-to-large effect size).
Words to Go was used weekly for one school year.
There were 3 parent training sessions at the beginningof the year, and only 65% of parents attended one.

This study demonstrated
effective achievement
results of a program tohelp parents engage theirchildren in phonics athome in ways similar to
the ways that they aretaught in school.

Students in the literacy program demonstrated

This study supports theP
PI program forearly literacy
called “Words toGo” — homeliteracy
activities
LH

Family literacy

Reutzel, D. R.,
Fawson, P. C., andSmith, J. A. (2006).
Words to go:
Evaluating a first
grade parental
involvement programfor “making” words at
home. Research andInstruction, 45, 119159.

Grade 1Saint-Laurent, L., andGrade 1Longitudinal,
intervention,
control group
ANOVA

N = 144(67 in Words toGo, 77 in matchedschools withphonics but not
Words to Go)
35% diversity(black, Asian,Hispanic)
50% free/reducedprice lunch
N = 108

Appendix Table A.1
120Form ofParental
Involvement
program for 1stgraders (bookreading withparents adapting
PI to increasing
skill; support for
writing,enjoyable home
activities
complementing
teaching)

Citation
Giasson, J. (2005).
Effects of a family
literacy program
adapting parental
intervention to first
graders’ evolution ofreading and writing
abilities. Journal of
Early Childhood
Literacy, 5, 253-278.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Longitudinal,
intervention,
control group
ANOVA

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)(53 in workshops,
55 in control
group)
96% Caucasian
students from
French-speaking
homes inMontreal andQuebec City

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
significantly higher levels of sentence structure,
vocabulary, spelling, and length of text. They also
performed significantly better on the reading (F [1,107] = 7.61; p = < 0.01) and writing tests (F [1, 107]=14.13; p = < 0.001).
Treatment was for 1 year and involved 9
workshops, lasting 90 minutes, on topics of bookreading and school success, book reading even ingrade 1, library visit, playing with letters, functional
reading and writing, writing plays, and so on.

Overall / Other Results
importance ofinterventions with both
writing and reading
elements and the utilityof programs that adapt
with children’s changing
knowledge.

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Positive relationship between PI and academic
achievement (r = +0.25). Lower relationships withmath (r = 0.18) and reading (r = 0.18).

Specific types of family
involvement)have
different relationships todifferent outcomes. In
this study, aspirations foreducation had thestrongest relationshipwith achievement, while
supervision (forexample, rules about TV
viewing) had theweakest relationship.

LH

Meta-Analyses, 2001-2012 (8 Studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement
Aspirations,communications,homesupervision,
participation at
schoolC

Citation
Fan, X., and Chen, M.
(2001). Parental
involvement in
students’ academic
achievement: A metaanalysis. Educational
Psychology Review,
13(1), 1-21.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Various ages
Effect sizes

Meta-analysis of
25 studies
representing over
130,000 students

Specific types of involvement had more significant
relationships than others. For example:
Aspirations for education, r = 0.39
Communication, r = 0.19
Supervision, r = 0.09
Participation, r = 0.32
Strongest effects resulted when GPA (or a global

Appendix Table A.1
121Form ofParental
Involvement

Shared reading
programs,
partnershipprograms,
homework
checking,
communication
between parents
and teachers,
Head Start,
English as a
SecondLanguage (ESL)

Citation

Age of Sample /Study Design

Jeynes, W. (2012). A
meta-analysis of theefficacy of different
types of parental
involvement programs
for urban students.
Urban Education,
47(4), 706-742.

PK to grade 12

Mattingly, D. J.,
Prislin, R., McKenzie,
T. L., Rodriguez, J.
L., and Kayzar, B.
(2002). Evaluating
evaluations: The caseof parent involvement
programs. Review of
Educational
Research, 72, 549576.

K to grade12 PI
programs

Effect sizes

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
achievement measure) was used, rather than a subjectspecific measure.

Overall / Other ResultsMeta-analysis of
51 studies
between 1964 and2006

Results demonstrated many positive results fordifferent forms of PI and overall achievement. For
example:Overall achievement and PI, d = 0.30**
Younger students, d = 0.29**
Shared reading, d = 0.51**
Partnership programs, d = 0.35*
Homework check, d = 0.27*
Communication between parents and teachers, d =0.28*
ESL and Head Start and ESL, d = 0.22 (notsignificant)Significant and positive
evidence for the efficacy
of family involvement
programs relating topositive achievement;
notably, shared readingand partnershipprograms were thestrongest forms.

Review of 41
studies

The analysis did not suggest that PI programs are aneffective means of improving student achievement.
However, the authors’ table summarizing results forliteracy-related programs indicates that about 75% ofthem (21 of 28) had some benefits for students and/or
parents in literacy-related outcomes or behaviors.
Most programs were multidimensional andincluded an average of 3.4 intervention components.
Most included help for parents to support student
learning at home or improving parenting skills. Few
studies had pre- or posttests and matched control
groups. Little demographic information was collected,
and outcome measures were not great. Many studies

The analysis did notsuggest that PI programs
are an effective means ofimproving student
achievement. Serious
design, methodological,
and analytical errors
inherent in studies
prevent definite
conclusions. Later
studies tend to do a
better job of linking PI toappropriate outcomes.

LH, FIS
Parentingprograms, parent
home learning,communicating,volunteering,
community
supportC

At least half thestudies are
longitudinal.

Appendix Table A.1
122Form ofParental
Involvement
Interactive bookreading between
parents andchildren(dialogic readingintervention)
LH

Citation
Mol, S. E., Bus, A.
G., de Jong, M. T.,
and Smeets, D. J. H.
(2008). Added valueof dialogic parentchild book readings:
A meta-analysis.
Early Education andDevelopment, 19(1),7-26.

Age of Sample /Study DesignPK(ages 2-5)
Effect sizes

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Meta-analysis of
16 studies
involving 626
parent-child dyads(313 in treatmentgroup, 313 incontrol group)

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
failed to be goal-linked to reasonable outcomes.

Overall / Other Results

Moderate effect of dialogic reading on expressive
vocabulary (d = 0.59) and small effect on receptive
vocabulary (d = 0.22).
The effect was more pronounced for preschool
children (d = 0.50) than for K children (d = 0.14).
Children not at risk (d = 0.53) benefited more thanthose at risk (d = 0.13).

Interactive book reading,compared with reading
as usual, is an effective
way to improve
expressive and receptive
vocabulary.

Training parents to be involved in homework resultsin higher rates of homework completion, fewer
homework problems, and (possibly) improved
academic performance of elementary school children(d = 0.23**). Meta-analysis of 20 studies showed
positive association for elementary and high school
students, negative for middle school students for PI
and achievement, strong association for rule setting
and achievement, negative for math, and positive forverbal and PI.
Elementary (grades 1-6), r = 0.06**
Rule setting, r = 0.54**
Direct aid, r = 0.10**
Reading outcomes, r = 0.20**
Language arts, r = 0.12**
Math (negative), r = –0.19**
Low SES, r = 0.36**

Positive support forparental involvement inhomework on verbal
outcomes in theelementary grades. Rulesetting was also aneffective type of
involvement related toachievement.

d = 0.30* for volunteer tutoring on reading overall.

Compared with students

14 experiments, 2
quasi-experiments

Parent training
in homework
strategies,
checking
homework
LH

Patall, E. A., Cooper,
H., Robinson, J. C.
(2008). Parent
involvement inhomework: A
research synthesis.
Review of Educational
Research, 78, 10391101.

Elementary
grades to grade12

Volunteer

Ritter, G. W., Barnett,

K-8

Effect sizes

Meta-analysis of
36 studies
9 randomized
experiments,
5 quasiexperiments,
3 NELS studies,
18 studies using
regression
techniques

Meta-analysis of

Appendix Table A.1
123Form ofParental
Involvement
tutoring
programs inliteracy
FIS

Home-based
family literacy
interventions(read to child,listen to childread books, tutor
specific skills)
LH

Home-based
familyCitationJ. H., Denny, G. S.,
and Albin, G. R.
(2009). The
effectiveness ofvolunteer tutoring
programs forelementary andmiddle school
students: A metaanalysis. Review of
Educational
Research, 79, 3-38.

Age of Sample /Study Design(14 studies
focused on
grade 1)

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)21 studies ofrandomized fieldtrials.

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(Results obtained from overall batteries on suchstandardized reading achievement tests as GatesMacGinitie Reading Tests [GMRT], Comprehensive
Tests of Basic Skills [CTBS], and Stanford
Achievement Tests-Reading.)
d = 0.41* for volunteer tutoring on reading letters(word and letter identification and word attack tests,
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills[DIBELS]).
d = 0.45* for volunteer tutoring on writing(spelling, observational survey or writing).
No effects by tutor type. Effects on global readingwere stronger for structured programs (d = 0.59) thanfor unstructured programs (d = 0.14).

Overall / Other Results
not tutored, those who
had volunteer tutoring
had positive effects onliteracy achievement
related to letters andwords, oral fluency, andwriting. More structured
programs tended to be
more effective than lessstructured programs.

Effect sizes

N = 1,676
students(873 tutored, 803
in control group)(770 in grade 1
and 906 in grades
2 and above)

Sénéchal, M., andYoung, L. (2008). The
effect of family
literacy interventions
on children’s
acquisition of readingfrom kindergarten tograde 3: A metaanalytic review.
Review of Educational
Research, 78, 880907.

K to grade 3

Meta-analysis of
16 intervention
studies involving
1,340 families

PI in home-based literacy interventions had a positiveeffect on children’s reading acquisition: d = 0.65. This
represents a 10-point gain on a standardized test for
the intervention group, compared with the control
group. Strongest effects resulted for tutoring, with aneffect size of 1.15, followed by listening to children(0.52), and reading to children (0.18). The optimal
amount of parent training seemed to be short (1-2
hours) rather than long (3.0-13.5 hours). The effectsize for shorter parent training sessions is quite large:d = 0.97.

This meta-analysis
indicates very positive
support for home literacy
interventions to promotechildren’s reading
acquisition. It includes
few studies of bookreading, so the lack ofeffects should beinterpreted with caution.
Intervention effects weresimilar for children ingrades 1 to 3 as for K
children.

van Steensel, R.,
McElvany, N.,

PK to primary
gradesMeta-analysis of
30 intervention ord = 0.17 for code-related literacy skills (emergent
literacy skills, like letter identification, initial or final

A small but significant
mean effect emerged (dEffect sizes

Appendix Table A.1
124Form ofParental
Involvement
involvement inliteracy (homeactivities andtraining ofparents)
LH

Citation
Kurvers, J., andHerppich, S. (2011).
How effective arefamily literacy
programs?: Results ofa meta-analysis.
Review of Educational
Research, 81(1), 6996.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Effect sizes

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)effect studies withexperimental andcontrol groups

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
consonant recognition, and reading rate).
d = 0.22 for comprehension-related literacy skills(active or receptive vocabulary, narrative
comprehension, story writing).
Effects were stronger for programs longer than 5months (d = 0.21***) than for programs shorter than 5months (d = 0.13**). Additionally, programs thatcombined shared reading with other activities proved
more effective (d = 0.21***) than those with only
shared reading (d = 0.05; not significant) or literacy
exercises alone (d = 0.17; not significant).

Appendix Table A.1
125

Overall / Other Results= 0.18) for the relationof home-based literacy
activities and code- andcomprehension-related
skills.

Family Involvement Literature Review

Appendix Table A.2
Studies of Family Involvement in Math Activities
and Math and Social-Emotional Outcomes (N = 43)
NOTES: Kinds of parental involvement (PI) measured in the study: LH = learning activities at home; P = supportive parenting; FIS = family involvement inschool; C = composite measure of involvement at home and at school.
*An asterisk in the leftmost column indicates that the study measured a social-emotional outcome.
d = report of effect size; b = unstandardized beta coefficient; β = standardized beta coefficient; PI = parent involvement; PK = prekindergarten: ages 3 to 5;
K = kindergarten.

Studies of Preschool Children (9 Studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement
Home learning
environment
LH

Home learning
environment
LH

Citation

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Blevins-Knabe, B.,
Austin, A. B., Musun,L., Eddy, A., andJones, R. M. (2000).
Family home careproviders’ andparents’ beliefs andpractices concerning
mathematics withyoung children. Early
Child Development
and Care, 165(1), 4158.

PK

Correlation

N = 64 children,
54 parents
Majority wereEuropeanAmerican

Huntsinger, C. S.,
Jose, P. E., Liaw, F.
R., and Ching, W. D.
(1997). Cultural

PK to KN = 120

Not longitudinal

EuropeanAmerican,

Not longitudinal

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined whether the reported activities ofparents and family daycare providers predictedchildren’s mathematics skills (Test of Early
Mathematics Ability [TEMA]‐2).
The frequency of math activities reported byparents or family daycare providers was not
significantly correlated with children’s mathematics
achievement scores in either age group.

Parents and family
daycare providers tend toreport similarfrequencies for engaging
children in mathactivities. The frequency
of math activities
reported by parents andfamily daycare
providers, however, wasunrelated to children’smath scores.

Study scored parent-reported mathematics teaching
methods on a 3-point scale from 1 (informal, indirect,
spontaneous, and play-oriented) to 3 (formal, direct,
regular, and work oriented) and examined theirChinese-Americanparents and (to a lesser
degree) Taiwan-Chineseparents used more formal

Appendix Table A.2
127Form ofParental
Involvement

Home learning
environment
LH

Home learning
environment,
supportiveparenting,curriculum-Age of Sample /Study Design
Hierarchicalmultipleregression

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)ChineseAmerican,
Taiwan-Chinese

MANOVAHigh SES

Huntsinger, C. S.,
Jose, P. E., Larson, S.
L., Krieg, D. B., andShaligram, C. (2000).
Mathematics,
vocabulary, andreading development
in Chinese Americanand European
American children
over the primaryschool years. Journalof Educational
Psychology, 92(4),745-760.

PK to KN = 80 children
and families

Noble, K. G., Duch,
H., Darvique, M. E.,
Grundleger, A.,
Rodriguez, C., andLanders, C. (2012).

PK

N = 56

Longitudinal,
intervention,
randomized

95% Hispanic or
Latino,91% speaking

Citationdifferences in earlymathematics
learning: A
comparison of EuroAmerican, ChineseAmerican, andTaiwan-Chinesefamilies.
International Journalof Behavioral
Development, 21(2),371-388.

Longitudinal
Hierarchicalmultipleregression

40 EuropeanAmerican,
40 ChineseAmerican
Middle-class

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
relation to children’s mathematics knowledge(TEMA-2) and maturity of numeral formation.
Controlling for child age and ethnicity, parent mathattitudes, parent child-specific math beliefs, andparent work-oriented practices positively predicted
TEMA-2 scores (β = 0.23**) significantly andmaturity of numeral formation (β = 0.17; p = < 0.06)
at a trend level.

Overall / Other Results
teaching with theirchildren, and theirchildren spent more timepracticing math.
Children who received
more formal teaching
and who spent more timein practice had higher
math scores and moremature written numerals.

Study examined parental practices (for example,
work-oriented math methods) and parental beliefs aspredictors of children’s math scores on the Sequential
Assessment of Mathematics Inventories (SAMI) in
grades 1-2 and grades 3-4.
Parent’s work-oriented math methods (β = 0.20)
and parental beliefs (β = 0.20) in preschool orkindergarten positively predicted math scores ingrades 3-4 but not in grades 1-2.

Parental practices at an
early age influencechildren’s mathematics
achievement 4 years
later.

Intervention (small pilot) study that tested the effect of
the Getting Ready for School (GRS) program onpreschoolers’ math (Woodcock-Johnson Applied
Problems and Quantitative Concepts subscales) andliteracy (Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word

Targeted intervention
that actively involves
parents has potential to
improve children’s mathskills over and above

Appendix Table A.2
128Form ofParental
Involvement
based
LH, P

Citation
Getting ready forschool: A preliminary
evaluation of aparent-focused
school-readinessprogram. Child
Development
Research, 2012, 1-14.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Multivariate,
repeatedmeasures
Generalized
linear model(GLM)

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)primarily Spanish
at homeHead Start

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
Identification, Passage Comprehension,
Understanding Directions, and Picture Vocabularysubscales). The GRS program is a parent-focusedcurriculum designed to help parents promotechildren’s school readiness skills in reading and maththrough weekly 2-hour workshops led by a trained
facilitator over 15 weeks.
Intervention group improved significantly morethan comparison group on Applied Problems (F [1,46] = 5.9; p = < 0.019).
GRS program was unrelated to all other subscales,
but change from pre- to posttest was in the predicteddirection for most subtests.

Appendix Table A.2
129

Overall / Other Results
Head Start as usual.
Positive response toprogram and materials,
with parents reporting
positive changes inchildren’s skills andattitude toward learning.
Parents also reported thatthe program taught them
how to teach and support
their child and that acoordinated effort
between them and theteachers would improvechild’s outcomes.

Form ofParental
Involvement*PI at home,
PI at school
C

Citation
Powell, D. R., Son, S.
H., File, N., and San
Juan, R. R. (2010).
Parent-school
relationships andchildren’s academic
and social outcomesin public school prekindergarten. Journalof School
Psychology, 48, 269292.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)PK

N = 140Longitudinal

Assessments at
beginning andend of school
year

Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

43% AfricanAmerican,
36% EuropeanAmerican,
14% Latino,
14% other,
7% not reported

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined parental home and school
involvement as predictors of children’s math, literacy(Applied Problems and Letter-Word Identification
subtests of Woodcock-Johnson III), vocabulary(Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test [PPVT]-III), andsocial skills and behavior problems (Social Skills
Rating Scale [SSRS]). Parental home involvement
was assessed by a composite score from parent reportsof the frequency that they engaged with their child in
9 activities (reading, telling a story, teaching
letters/words/numbers, playing counting games,
playing with blocks, playing with puzzles, and playing
with shapes). Parental school involvement was also
assessed by parent reports of the frequency ofparticipation in 11 activities (such as attending parentteacher conferences, volunteering or observing in theclassroom, helping with field trips, preparing ordelivering materials or newsletters, attending schoolsocial events or workshops or meetings, andparticipating in fund-raising). Models controlled for
fall score, minority status, maternal education,
parents’ perceptions of the teacher’s responsiveness tothem and their child, and observed quality of teacher
interactions with children.
Stronger parent-school relationships related tohigher math scores (d = 0.36).
Parental home involvement was not predictive of
math scores.
Stronger parent school involvement was related tobetter social skills (d = 0.55) and fewer problem
behaviors (d = 0.47).
Parental home involvement was not predictive ofsocial skills.

Study examined 2
dimensions of parentschool relationships in
pre-K. Effect sizes were
medium. Study did not
find any significant
results between parental
home involvement andchildren’s outcomes, but
it used a composite
measure and did not
differentiate between
parents’ promotion ofliteracy versus mathactivities.

Appendix Table A.2
130Form ofParental
Involvement
Home learning
environment,
supportiveparenting
LH, P

Home learning
environment,
supportiveparenting,curriculumbased
LH, P

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Sears, N., andMedearis, L. (1992).
Natural math: A
progress report on
implementation of afamily involvement
project for earlychildhoodmathematics amongchildren of the
Oklahoma Seminole
Head Start and Boley
Head Start. Paper
presented at the
Rocky MountainResearch
Association,
Stillwater, OK,
October 1992.

PK

N = 140

Starkey, P., andKlein, A. (2000).
Fostering parental
support for children’smathematicaldevelopment: Anintervention with
Head Start families.
Early Education andDevelopment, 11(5),659-680.

PK

Citation

Longitudinal,
intervention,
nonrandomized,

Head Start

t-testLongitudinal,
intervention,
randomized,
control group
ANOVA,ANCOVA

Study 1:
N = 28 motherchild dyads,
predominantly
AfricanAmerican
Study 2:
N = 31 motherchild dyads,
predominantly
LatinoHead Start

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

In the Natural Math Project, schools provided takehome packs to supply materials that families needed
for math activities. Monthly family meetings were
held to explain the activities, and a math fair was heldat the end of the school year. The study used a staticgroup comparison and compared intervention
students’ kindergarten screening data (ABC Inventory–– composite of verbal, math, and social learning) tostudents from prior year.
Children participating in Natural Math Project
showed no significant differences on screening scoresthan children from the previous year.

No significant
differences were foundbetween groups.
However, this was alimited study design; thedegree of program
involvement was notcontrolled for; and theintervention group
included children who
did and did notparticipate fully in the
project. Some parents
reported increased use ofmath games and more
attention to the use of
numbers.

The Family Mathematics Curriculum provides lowincome families with a structured intervention inwhich parents and children attend family math classes
and have access to math materials for use at home.
Study 1 tested the effect of the curriculum onchildren’s informal math knowledge (composite ofnumerical tasks [enumeration and numericalreasoning] and a spatial/geometric task [spatialreference]) and emergent literacy (print awareness,reading conventions). Study 2 tested the effects on thesame numerical and emergent literacy tasks as well ageometric reasoning task.
Children receiving the curriculum had significantly
higher posttest scores than the comparison group

Two intervention studies
show that low-income
parents are willing andable to support children’smath development whenprovided with training.
Informal mathknowledge of theintervention children
developed significantly
over the course ofpreschool. Intervention
was effective forchildren in both the

Appendix Table A.2
131Form ofParental
Involvement

Home learning
environment
LH

Home learning
environment
LH

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Vandermaas-Peeler,
M., Boomgarden, E.,
Finn, L., and Pittard,
C. (2012). Parental
support of numeracy
during a cooking
activity with fouryear-olds.
International Journalof Early Years
Education, 20(1), 7893.

PK

N = 25 dyads

Vandermaas-Peeler,
M., Ferretti, L., andLoving, S. (2011).
Playing the ladybug
game: Parent
guidance of young
children's numeracy
activities. Early Child
Development andCare, 182(10), 12891307.

PK

N = 28 dyads

Longitudinal,
intervention,
randomized,
control group

Majority were
Caucasian

CitationNot
longitudinal,
intervention,
randomized,
control group

100% CaucasianMiddle to highSES

ANOVA,
t-testANOVA,
correlation

Middle to highSES

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(Study 1: F [1, 25] = 5.51; p = < 0.05; Study 2: F [1,28] = 4.76; p = < 0.05.

Overall / Other Results
lower and upper parts ofthe developmental range
in math knowledge.

Intervention study in which parents were asked to
conduct a cooking activity in their home with theirchild. Parents were given recipe cards, and children
were given simple, illustrated recipe cards. Parents
who were randomized into the numeracy group
received special recipe cards with suggested numeracy
activities to include in different recipe steps, andcomparison group parents received regular recipecards.
Children in the numeracy group generated morecorrect math responses (42 correct responses,
compared with 15), although they were also asked
more questions.
No significant differences were found between
groups on posttest math skills (based on TEMA-3).

Parents can incorporate
math into ongoing events
but do not spontaneously
provide advanced
numeracy guidance ineveryday interactions(such as cooking).
Numeracy group parents
provided more numeracy
guidance (for example,
question, hints).
However, no significant
differences in posttest
scores were found acrossgroups.

Intervention study in which parents played a board
game (Ladybug Game) with their child in 3 sessions
over 2 weeks. Parents who were randomized into thenumeracy awareness group were given suggested
numeracy activities to incorporate into the games,
while comparison group parents did not havesuggested activities. Study examined parents’guidance (that is, asking questions and providing
explanations regarding number skills). Children in theintervention and control groups were compared on
their math skills (TEMA-3).
Children in the numeracy awareness group
generated a higher percentage of correct responses(82%) than the comparison group (80%).

Parents are able toincorporate numeracy
into games without
training. Numeracy
group parents
incorporated twice as
many basic andadvanced number
activities into the games.
Children exposed tomore numeracy
questions generated morecorrect responses anderrors but did not show

Appendix Table A.2
132Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
Parent guidance for addition/subtraction at sessions
2 (r = 0.45) and 3 (r = 0.58) related to math skills.
Parent guidance for counting, number recognition,
number comparison, and number sequencing wereunrelated to math skills.

Appendix Table A.2
133

Overall / Other Results
differences across groups
in math skills.

Studies of Kindergarten Children (11 Studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement
Supportiveparenting

Citation

Age of Sample /Study Design

Crane, J. (1996).
Effects of homeenvironment, SES, andmaternal test scores onmathematics
achievement. Journalof Educational
Research, 89(5), 305314.

Ages 5 to 9

School outreach Epstein, J. L. (2005). A
case study of thepractices
Partnership Schools
Comprehensive SchoolO
Reform (CSR) model.
Elementary School
Journal, 106(2), 151170.

K to grade 5

PLongitudinal
Weighted leastsquaresregression

Longitudinal,
intervention,
nonrandomized

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
Overall / Other Results
Study examined intellectual stimulation and emotional The combined effect of
N = 1,123 children
support in the home (Home Observation forhome environment
from a subsample
Measurement of the Environment [HOME]), predicting variables (1 percentileof the Nationalchildren’s mathematics scores (Peabody Individual
point increase in both
Longitudinal
Achievement Tests [PIAT]). Intellectual stimulation intellectual stimulation
Survey of Youth
had the largest effect on math scores (SD increase by
and emotional support)(NLSY)
4.6 percentiles), controlling for child’s race/ethnicity,
raised mathematics scoresfamily SES, and mother’s cognitive ability.
0.44 percentile point.
Nationally
representative
N = 1 elementary
school (about 375
children)About 51% of
students received
free or reducedprice lunch

Case study of implementation of the Partnership
Schools Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) modelover three years in a Title I elementary school. A Math
Partnership Team –– including parents, teachers,
administrators, and community partners –– focused on
the school’s math program strengths and needed
improvements. Parent engagement activities included
math motivators (activities each year, including a“Mathathon”), Teachers Involve Parents in
Schoolwork (TIPS) interactive homework at all gradelevels, math vocabulary project to help parents
understand their children’s math program. Fourthgrade students math state test scores (Connecticut
Mastery Test [CMT]) were compared across theelementary school implementing the CSR model and acomparison school with similar test scores at the
beginning of the study.
In the CSR school, the percentage of students with
Level 4 (grade-level) scores on the CMT math test

Appendix Table A.2
134

When math teachers
across the grades (K-5)
implemented TIPS in
math, most parents
became involved andwere grateful for theguidance the TIPS
activities provided
without asking parents tocome to meetings at
school, and children’smath scores on state tests
improved over time,compared with scores incomparison schools

Form ofParental
Involvement

Global homelearning
environment,
familyinvolvement at
school, schooloutreach
LH, FIS, C, O

Citation

Galindo, C., andSheldon, S. B. (2012).
School and homeconnections andchildren’skindergarten
achievement gains:
The mediating role offamily involvement.
Early Childhood
Research Quarterly,27(1), 90-103.

Age of Sample /Study Design

K
Longitudinal
Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)N = 16,425
children from the
Early Childhood
Longitudinal
Study ofKindergarten(ECLS-K) cohort
Nationally
representative:
60% non-Latino
whites,
14% non-Latino
blacks,18% Latino,
5% Asian,
3% other

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
increased from 54% to 63% to 66% over the 3 years,
while the percentage of students at grade level in acomparison school changed from 54% to 51% to 60%.

Overall / Other Results

Study examined the influences of practices designed
to engage parents in their children’s education onparent behaviors and children’s math and reading
gains in kindergarten (ECLS-K assessments). Family
involvement at school was measured by parent reportsof participation in school-related activities, including
attending open house, parent-teacher-student andparent-teacher conferences, class events, volunteering,fund-raising. Family involvement at home wasassessed by parent reports of the frequency that they
engaged their child in educational activities, such as
reading books, telling stories, singing songs, doingarts and crafts, doing chores, playing games or doing
puzzles, talking about nature and doing science
projects, and building things together. Schooloutreach was assessed by principal reports of thefrequency of activities that the school conducted toengage families (such as PTA/PTO meetings, reportcards, parent-teacher conferences, home visits, school
performances, and classroom programs like plays,
book nights, and family events). Parents’ educational
expectations were assessed by parent reports of how
far they thought their child would go in school.
Analyses controlled for child, family, and school
background characteristics.
Family involvement at school was associated withgains in math (β = 1.03) and reading (β = 0.85).
Family involvement at home was not related to

Family involvement at
school (but not at home)
was significantly
positively associatedwith reading and mathgains. Family
involvement at schoolpartially mediated theassociation between
school outreach andachievement gains.

Appendix Table A.2
135

Effect sizes of family
involvement onchildren’s outcomes were
small: family
involvement at school for
reading = 0.05 and formath = 0.04.
Even smaller effectsizes were found forparents’ educational
expectations and forfamily involvement at
home: 0.02 for reading
and 0.01 for math gains

Form ofParental
Involvement

Global measureof child out-ofschool activities,
PI at school andhome learning
C

Home learning
environmentAge of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Greenman, E.,
Bodovski, K., andReed, K. (2011).
Neighborhood
characteristics,
parental practices andchildren’sachievement inelementary school.
Social Science
Research, 40, 14341444.

K to grade 5

N = 10,049

Longitudinal

11% black,
19% Hispanic,
7% Asian,
4% other

Jacobs, J. E., andBleeker, M. M. (2004).
Girls’ and boys’

K and grades 1,
3

Citation

Multilevel
modeling

N = less than 500
Over 95%

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
Overall / Other Results
gains in reading or math.
Parents’ educational expectations were associatedwith gains in math (β = 0.15) and reading (β = 0.18).
School outreach associated with students’ gains inreading (b = 0.38) and math (b = 0.37).
Family involvement at school was a significant
mediator of the influence of school outreach efforts on
gains in reading and math.
Study examined neighborhood characteristics andeducation-related parental practices early in children’s
schooling (K to grade 1) and their association withchildren’s math achievement in grade 5 (ECLS-K
standardized math test score).
Education-related parental practices were assessed
as a composite of 3 domains: (1) whether childparticipates in activities outside school, such as dance
lessons, athletics, and educational outings; (2) PI inchildren’s school (such as whether parent participatedin parent-teacher conferences, open house, PTA); and(3) parents’ provision of home learning environment(number of children’s books in the home). Models
controlled for child and family characteristics.
A significant interaction was found between
neighborhood disadvantage and education-relatedparental practices (β = 0.08) in predicting 5th-grade
math scores.

Early parental educationrelated practices werepositively related to mathachievement in grade 5,particularly for children
in highly disadvantaged
neighborhoods. Positiveeffects of parental
practices on mathachievement did not
differ by race/ethnicity.

Study examined how PI in promoting math andscience activities at home predicted parent reports ofchildren’s math and science involvement 2 years later

PI in math activities athome is positively related
to their children’s later

Appendix Table A.2
136

Study also found that asneighborhood
disadvantage becomes
more severe, educationrelated parental
practices, as well as mathtest scores, decrease.

Form ofParental
Involvement
LH

Citationdeveloping interests inmath and science: Do
parents matter. New
Directions for Childand Adolescent
Development, 106, 521.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Longitudinal
3 time points:
Grades 1, 2, 4Grades 3, 4, 5Grades 7, 8, 9

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)EuropeanAmerican
Middle-class

Hierarchicalmultipleregression

Home learning
environment,
parentingpractices
LH, P

Pan, Y., Gauvain, M.,
Liu, Z., and Cheng, L.
(2006). American andChinese PIPI in young
children’smathematics learning.
Cognitive
Development, 21(1),17-35.

Ages 5 and 7

N = 72Not
longitudinal

32 American
mothers:
81% EuropeanAmerican,
13% AfricanAmerican or
Latino,6% other

Hierarchicalmultipleregression

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
and child reports of their math and science interest 6
years later. PI was assessed by parent reports of (1)how often they participated in math and science
activities with their child, (2) the number of math andscience items purchased for the child in the past year,
and (3) the frequency of modeling –– how often they
participated in math and science activities themselves.
Mothers’ and fathers’ involvement was examined
separately. Models controlled for child’s gender,
cohort, child’s math interest, parent’s math value,
parent’s perception of child’s math ability.
Mothers’ time spent math modeling (β = 0.17) andmath and science purchases (β = 0.21) at Year 2(grades 1, 2, 4) positively predicted children’s mathand science involvement outside school 2 years later.
Fathers’ math and science purchases (β = 0.19) at
Year 2 positively predicted children’s math andscience involvement outside school 2 years later aswell as children’s math interests (β = 0.13) 6 years
later.

Overall / Other Resultsinterests and activities inmath. This involvement,
though, seems to dependon the gender of the childand the parent: Mothers
were more likely topurchase math andscience items for sonsthan for daughters,
regardless of the child’s
grade in school. Bothmothers and fathers weremore likely to be
involved in math andscience activities at homewith their daughters thanwith their sons.

Study examined parent reports of involvement inchildren’s everyday number learning and children’s
performance on a math interaction task. Mothers
reported how frequently they used everyday activities
to help their child learn about numbers. Mothers andchildren completed 12 math interaction tasks in a lab
or school where they distributed food to baby,
mommy, and daddy troll dolls. Mothers’ statements
were coded for math-concept-focused instruction (thatis, pertaining to mathematical relations, such ascorrectly specifying the ratio relations of the problem),

Chinese mothers
reported helping their 7year-olds with number
learning more than
American mothers did,but no differences were
found between mothersof 5-year-olds. Chinese
mothers of both 5- and 7year-olds were more
likely than American

Appendix Table A.2
137

Form ofParental
Involvement*Home learning
environment,
familyinvolvement at
school
LH, FIS

Citation

Roopnarine, J. L.,
Krishnakumar, A.,
Metindogan, A., andEvans, M. (2006).
Links between
parenting styles,
parent-child academic
interaction, parentschool interaction,and early academic
skills and social
behaviors in young
children of Englishspeaking Caribbean
immigrants. Early
Childhood Research
Quarterly, 21, 238252.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)40 Chinese
mothersK

N = 70Not
longitudinal

English-speaking
Caribbean
immigrantfamilies who
represent diverse
ethnic groups:
African-,Indo-,
Chinese-, andPortugueseCaribbean

Hierarchicalmultipleregression

Majority offamilies earned
between $50,000
and $99,999 per

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
Overall / Other Results
more or less instruction, and calculation-focusedmothers to report
instruction.
teaching their children
Controlling for age and child’s individual test
math calculation.
performance (arithmetic items), frequency of maternal Mothers’ instruction
involvement in number learning at home positively
during the lab/school
related to children’s performance on math interaction
task was unrelated totasks among both American (β = 0.34) and Chinese (β children’s math test
= 0.26) children.
performance.
Controlling for age, calculation-focused instruction
was negatively related (β = –0.81), while conceptfocused instruction was positively related (β = 0.44),
to Chinese children’s performance on math interaction
tasks.
Study examined how the 3 parenting styles
Children of Caribbean(authoritative, authoritarian, permissive) and 2 parent
immigrants received
reports of academic socialization behaviors (parentbroad support forschool involvement in academic activities at home and academic activities atparent-school contact) were related to children’shome; however, this wasnumber, expressive, and vocabulary skills (Kaufman
unrelated to children’s
Survey of Early Academic and Language Skills) andtested number skills.
parent ratings of children’s social behavior. Analyses
Fathers’, but not
examined maternal and paternal involvement
mothers’, contact withseparately and controlled for child’s age, parents’children’s school was
education, and length of stay in the United States.
associated with children’s
Neither maternal nor paternal involvement inearly academic skills,
academic activities at home was associated with
controlling for maternal
number skills, controlling for parenting styles.
influences. Positive
Neither maternal nor paternal school contact was
associations between
associated with number skills, controlling forfathers’ parenting andparenting styles.
children’s outcomes
Father-school contact was associated withbeyond the effects ofAppendix Table A.2
138Form ofParental
Involvement

School outreach(transition
practices),familyinvolvement at
schoolO, FIS

Citation

Schulting, A. B.,
Malone, P. S., andDodge, K. A. (2005).
The effect of schoolbased kindergarten
transition policies andpractices on childacademic outcomes.
Developmental
Psychology, 41(6),860-871.

Age of Sample /Study Design

K to grade 1
Longitudinal
Hierarchicallinear modelingType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)year

N = 17,212(ECLS-K)
57% white,
14% black,
17% Hispanic,
6% Asian,
1% Native
Hawaiian / other
Pacific Islander,
2% Native
American or
Alaskan Native,
3% more than one
race
20% living below
poverty line

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
expressive skills (β = 0.33) and with vocabulary skills(β = 0.25), over and above maternal parenting styles,
academic involvement at home, and contact withschool.
Fathers’ academic interactions at home (β = 0.33)
and mothers’ contact with school (β = 0.22; p = <0.10) were positively associated with child’s social
behaviors.

Overall / Other Results
mothers suggests thatfathers may carry more
influence in facilitating
academic and social
skills in children.

Study examined the effect of school-based K transition
practices on preschoolers’ academic achievementscores at the end of K (composite of ECLS-K
standardized scores in reading, math, and generalknowledge). Also examined parent-initiatedinvolvement at school as a mediator of this relation.
School transition practices were measured by the total
number of practices endorsed by K teachers as being
implemented at their school (for example, information
about K program sent home to parents, preschoolers
spend time in K classrooms, shorter school days atstart of year, parents and child visit K classroom,
teachers do home visits, parents attend orientation
session). Parent-initiated involvement was assessed byparent reports of how often they participated in
activities and events at the school over the course of
the K year (such as open house, back-to-school night,
PTA meeting, parent-advisory group or policy council
meetings, parent-teacher conferences, school or classevents, volunteering, fund-raising). Models controlled
for child, teacher, and school factors
Number of school-level transition practices
predicted academic achievement (β = 0.51).

K transition polices havea modest positive effecton children’s academic
achievement and parentinitiated school
involvement during K,
even after controlling for
SES and otherdemographic factors. The
effect of transition
practices was stronger forchildren from average- or
low-income families thanfor children from highincome families. Lowincome children,
however, were more
likely to receive the moregeneric and low-intensity
transition practices.

Appendix Table A.2
139

Increases in SES werecorrelated with greater

Form ofParental
Involvement

School outreach,family andcommunity
collaboration
with schools
FIS, O

Citation

Sheldon, S. B.,
Epstein, J. L., andGalindo, C. (2010).
Not just numbers:
Creating a partnershipclimate to improve
math proficiency inschools. Leadershipand Policy in Schools,
9(1), 27-48.

Age of Sample /Study Design

Mostly K tograde 8; somemiddle or highschools
Longitudinal
Ordinary leastsquares (OLS)
regression

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)N = 39 schools
Predominantly
low-income

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
Parents and children visiting K was the onlytransition practice showing a main effect onachievement (β = 1.26). This practice also interactedwith SES (β = –0.58) and SES2 (β = –0.39); the effectof transition practices was greater at lower SES.
Parent-initiated school involvement also predicted
academic achievement (β = 0.89).

Overall / Other Results
rates of PI at school,
higher academic
achievement, and a larger
number of transition
practices.

Study examined what schools are doing to effectively
involve families and community members,
particularly in terms of math, and whether thisimproves math achievement for schools (standardized
math achievement tests).
Strategies used by schools included a variety ofthings, such as parent workshops or conferences
regarding math, math activities in school or classroom
newsletters, sending math progress reports, andhosting math nights.
Schools reporting more positive partnershipclimates had higher percentage of students proficientin math on state achievement tests (β = 0.27),
controlling for poverty, prior math performance, andaverage partnership practice effectiveness.

Better implementation of
math-related school
practices that look toengage parents andcommunities was related
to stronger support fromparents for schools’
partnership programs.
Only a few schools usedcommunity connections
to improve students’
math achievement.

Appendix Table A.2
140Form ofParental
Involvement
Familyinvolvement inschool,supportiveparenting
FIS, P

Citation
Simpkins, S. D.,
Weiss, H. B.,
McCartney, K.,
Kreider, H. M., andDearing, E. (2006).
Mother-childrelationship as amoderator of therelation between
family educational
involvement and childachievement.
Parenting: Science andPractice, 6(1), 49-57.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)K

N = 175

Not longitudinal

48% AfricanAmerican,
28% Latin
American,
21% EuropeanAmerican,
1% biracial,
10% other

HierarchicalOLS
regression

Low-income;median householdincome: $12,001$15,000

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined moderating effect of mother-childwarmth and conflict on relations between family
educational involvement and kindergarteners’ math
(PIAT-R) and literacy skills (average of standardized
scores on letter/sound identification, word reading,writing, oral comprehension, overall reading, andverbal fluency).

The positive association
between maternal
involvement in children’s
education and child’s
math and literacy
achievement became
stronger when the motherand child had a warm
relationship. Maternal
involvement was not
related to child outcomeswhen conflict was in themodel. Findings suggestthat efforts to increase PI
in schools may be most
likely to improve
achievement when theoverall quality of theparent-child relationshipis addressed.

Family educational involvement was assessed bymother report of participation in school activities, suchas parent-teacher conference, open house, school
meeting, curriculum event, performance, social event,
field trip, classroom visits, volunteering. Mother-childrelationship was measured by mother report of warmthand conflict in the relationship (abbreviated version ofChild’s Relationship with Me Scale).
Controlling for child and family factors, maternal
perceptions of warmth had significant moderating
effect on relations between family educational
involvement and children’s math (β = 0.65) andliteracy (β = 0.62) achievement. There was little
evidence that the interaction varied across different
types of families (although the moderating effect ofwarmth was significant in predicting math for families
in which the mother had a partner who lived in thehome, but not for mothers without a partner).

Appendix Table A.2
141Form ofParental
Involvement
Familyinvolvement inschool,homeworksupervision,
parents’
expectations
FIS, P

CitationZhan, M. (2006).
Assets, parental
expectations andinvolvement, andchildren’s educational
performance. Children
and Youth Services
Review, 28, 961-975.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Ages 5 to 14
Longitudinal
Ordinary leastsquares (OLS)
regression

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)N = 1,370(NLSY79)
Mother’s
race/ethnicity:
69% white,
25% AfricanAmerican,
6% other
Mean householdincome over past
5 years: $55,766

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined parental assets (net worth), PI inchildren’s education (in school activities andsupervision of homework), and parents’ expectationsof how far their child will go in school, when children
were ages 5 to 12, as predictors of math and readingscores (PIAT) 2 years later. PI in school activities wasassessed by child reports of how frequently either of
their parents attended school meetings, spoke toteacher and counselors, attended school events, andvolunteered at school. PI in homework supervision
was measured by child reports of how frequently theirparents checked on whether they had done homeworkand how their parents helped with their homework.
Parents’ expectations were assessed by mother reports.
Controlling for child and family factors, mothers’
expectations of how far child will go in school was
significantly related to math scores (b = 2.79) andreading scores (b = 3.24).
Supervision of homework significantly predicted
reading scores (b = 0.23) but not math scores.
PI in school activities was unrelated to math orreading.

The association between
PI and children’s
academic performance
was weak; only
supervision of homework
was related to children’s
reading scores. Parents’
expectations were more
related to academic
performance.

Appendix Table A.2
142

Parental assets werepositively related toacademic performance,
controlling for income
and other parent
characteristics. Parents’
expectations partiallymediated the associations
between assets andchild’s performance.

Studies of Children in First Grade and Beyond (11 Studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement
SupportiveparentingP

Citation
Blevins-Knabe, B.,
Whiteside-Mansell, L.,
and Selig, J. (2007).
Parenting andmathematicaldevelopment.
Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 11(2), 7680.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Age 7
Not longitudinal
Structural
equationmodeling(SEM)

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)N = 177
Mothers:
89% Caucasian,
7% AfricanAmerican,
3% otherParticipating
children met
Head Start
povertyrequirements

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined mediation of maternal mathematics
achievement on child mathematics development
through maternal parenting behaviors and maternal
attitudes or perceptions of their child’s ability inmath. Parenting behaviors were assessed as thequality and quantity of stimulation and support
available in the home (Home Observation for
Measurement of the Environment [HOME) andchildren’s math development –– their formal andinformal math skills –– was assessed with the Test of
Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-2).
Parenting behaviors had a direct effect onchildren’s informal math skills.
Maternal attitudes/perceptions about their child’s
ability in math had direct effects on both formal andinformal math skills.

Responsive parenting andstimulation are importantfor providing everyday
activities that stimulate
learning. Study found a
direct link between
parenting behaviors andinformal, but not formal,
math skills. This may be
because informal mathknowledge is based on
everyday activity, which
is likely captured by the
HOME, which examines
the home environment
broadly but not narrowaspects of parenting
behavior related to math.

Appendix Table A.2
143Form ofParental
Involvement
SupportiveparentingP

Learning athome, family
involvement at
schoolFIS, HL, C

Citation
Cancio, E. J., West,
R. P., and Young, R.
(2004). Improving
mathematics
homeworkcompletion andaccuracy of students
with EBD throughself-management andparent participation.
Journal of Emotionaland Behavioral
Disorders, 12(1), 922.
Catsambis, S., andBeveridge, A. A.
(2001).
Neighborhood andschool influences on
the family life andmathematics
performance ofeighth-gradestudents. Baltimore
and Washington, DC:
Center for Researchon the Education ofStudents Placed At
Risk.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Grades 6 to 8

N=6

Longitudinal,

100% boys

intervention,
nonrandomized,

Parents had atleast a highschool diploma;
about 50% had
some college
study

no control group
Baseline andposttest

Grade 8Not longitudinal
Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

N = 24,500(NELS:88)

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Intervention study of parent training focused on
helping parents to establish and maintain ahomework completion program based on teaching
children to manage their own behavior. Study
examined intervention effects on 6th- to 8th-gradestudents’ percentage of homework assignmentscompleted, accuracy of homework assignments, andmath achievement (Kaufman Test of Educational
Achievement [KTEA-Math]).
Students whose parents participated in the
homework completion program showed an increasein their math grade equivalent scores of 1 year inapproximately 4 months (from 5.3 to 6.3).

Very small study of boys
with emotional behavioral
disorders. Authors did notreport significance levels
or other information to
help interpret scorechange.

Study examined PI and neighborhood and school
influences on math achievement (math test scores
were part of test battery developed by Educational
Testing Service [ETS]) in 8th-graders. PI wasassessed through 7 indicators: parents’ educational
expectations, parental activities at home (parentchild communication and parental supervision),parent-school contacts (frequency of participation inschool governance), and out-of-school learning
opportunities. Analyses controlled for child andfamily factors (race/ethnicity, SES, maternal work
status), child’s school-related behavior (attendanceand engagement in academic activities), and school
characteristics.
Indicators of PI predicted math achievement:
academic communication (b = –0.28),

Children fromdisadvantaged
neighborhoods andschools with highpercentages of student
poverty and absenteeism
tend to have lower mathachievement.
Characteristics of
disadvantaged
neighborhoods tend to
influence mathachievement indirectly by
reducing parental
practices that areassociated with high mathAppendix Table A.2
144

Form ofParental
Involvement*Global family
involvement athome and school
C

Citation

El Nokali, N. E.,
Bachman, H. J.,
Votruba-Drzal, E.
(2010). Parent
involvement andchildren’s academic
and social
development inelementary school.
Child Development,
81(3), 988-1005.

Age of Sample /Study Design

Grades 1, 3, 5Longitudinal
Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)N = 1,364
students from
National Instituteof Child Healthand Human
Development(NICHD) andStudy of Early
Child Care andYouthDevelopment

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
academic/behavioral supervision (b = –0.91),
communication with school (b = –1.10), PTO
participation (b = 0.21), music/dance lessons (b =0.78), and museum visits (b = 0.46); the strongest
predictor was parents’ educational expectations (b =3.03).
Also found interactions with neighborhood
characteristics:
o The positive association between parents’
educational expectations and math achievement
was weakened by negative neighborhood
characteristics, suggesting that parental
supervision is particularly important for children
living in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
o The negative association between mathachievement and academic communication withthe child and parental supervision occurs only for
those living in advantaged neighborhoods; that is,parental supervision is particularly important forchildren living in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Overall / Other Results
achievement.

Study examined within- and between-childassociations among maternal and teacher reports of
PI and children’s achievement scores (Applied
Problems, Picture Vocabulary, Letter-Word
Identification subtests of Woodcock-Johnson–
Revised), social skills (Social Skills Rating System[SSRS]), and problem behaviors (Child Behavior
Checklist, Teacher Report Form) from grades 1 to 5.
Parent and teacher reports of PI were separate
composites of the frequency and quality of parents’
involvement in children’s educational progress in

The between- and withinchild analyses of PI andachievement showed
consistent findings.
Greater engagement in PI
practices were mostly
unrelated to academic
achievement, andimprovements in PI did
not predict gains inachievement. Increases inAppendix Table A.2
145

Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)(SECCYD)
78% nonHispanic white,
13% black,
6% Hispanic,
5% other
Generally high
SES; average
income-to-needs
ratio = 4.12

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
school and at home. Items reflected parental
encouragement of education, parental investment ineducation, and parental educational attitudes. PI wasassessed at grades 1, 3, and 5.
Within-child effects:
Increases in PI were unrelated to individual
growth in academic skills, regardless of reporter.
(Exception: Increase in teacher reports of PI related
to decline in reading.)
Increases in mother reports of PI related to teacher
reports of social skills (0.22 SD) and problem
behaviors (0.12 SD) as well as mother reports ofproblem behaviors (0.08 SD).
Increases in teacher reports of PI related to teacher
reports of social skills (0.12 SD) and problem
behaviors (0.08 SD).

Overall / Other Results
PI over time were related
to increases in social
skills and declines inproblem behaviors forboth reporters of
involvement.
PI may be globallybeneficial for academic
performance but may notpromote achievement in aparticular domain.

Between-child effects:
Average levels of PI unrelated to average level or
growth in achievement.
Higher average mother reports of PI predicted
higher average mother (0.09 SD) and teacher reports(0.15 SD) of social skills but not growth inachievement.
Higher average teacher reports of PI related tohigher average mother (0.43 SD) and teacher reports(0.21 SD) of social skills and teacher reports ofproblem behaviors (0.36 SD) but not growth inachievement.
Home learning
environment

Guberman, S. R.
(2004). A

Grades 1 to 3

N = 49Study examined parent interview reports ofchildren’s out-of-school activities and their relation
Appendix Table A.2
146

Study highlights thepotential connection

Form ofParental
Involvement
LH

Familyinvolvement at
school, schooloutreach
FIS, O

Citationcomparative study ofchildren’s out-ofschool activities andarithmeticalachievement. Journal
for Research in
Mathematics
Education, 35(2),117-150.

Haghighat, E. (2005).
School social capitaland pupils’ academic
performance.
International Studies
in Sociology of
Education, 15(3),213-235.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Not longitudinalt-testGrade 8Not longitudinal
Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Korean Americanand Latin
AmericanN = 24,599(NELS:88)
Nationally
representative
sample of 8thgraders

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
to children’s performance on math problem tasks in
Latin American and Korean American children.
Parents reported on and described children’s
everyday activities with arithmetic and money.
Children with high home involvement inacademic activities without money correctly solved
more problems using “chips” than children with low
home involvement: t (36.87) = 3.0; p = < 0.005.
Children with high home involvement in
instrumental activities with money correctly solved
more problems using money than did children withlow home involvement with money: t (28.94) = 2.2;
p = < 0.05.

Overall / Other Results
between culture andchildren’s developing
mathematicalunderstanding,emphasizing theimportance of culturally
relevant school
instruction that builds on
the informal mathknowledge that children
may be developing at
home.

Study examined PI factors and their relation to
student academic performance in math and reading(standardized math and reading test scores).

This study highlighted theimportance the school canplay in creating anenvironment wherechildren to learn andparents become involved.
While parental
connectedness andinvolvement – asmeasured by the child –was positively related toreading test scores but
unrelated to math testscores, school ambiancepredicted both childoutcomes and schooloutreach efforts to
involve parents predicted

PI factors included parental connectedness andinvolvement, school outreach, and school ambiance.
Parental connectedness was measured by childreports of parental connectedness with the school(whether either parent attended a school meeting,spoke to teacher/counselors, visited classes, attended
a school event; contacted the school about academic
performance, academic program, or child behavior;
did volunteer work; belonged to a PTO, attended
parent-teacher meetings; how often child talked toparents about planning high school program andabout selecting courses or programs at school).
School outreach was assessed by an averaged
composite at the school level of parent, child, andteacher reports of the school’s systematic outreach toAppendix Table A.2
147

Form ofParental
Involvement

School outreachO

PI at school,home learning
activities

Citation

Holt, J. K., andCampbell, C. (2004,
May 31). The
influence of school
policy and practice onmathematics
achievement duringtransitional periods.
Education Policy
Analysis Archives,
12(23).

Patel, N., andStevens, S. (2010).
Parent-teacherstudent discrepancies

Age of Sample /Study Design

Grades 8-12
LongitudinalType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)N = 16,489(NELS:88)

Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

Students whocompleted all
three surveys:
from 1988, 1990,
and 1992

Grades 6 to 8

N = 179

Not longitudinal

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
involve parents. School ambiance was measured byan averaged composite of parent, teacher, andprincipal reports of the school’s learning anddiscipline atmosphere. Analyses controlled for child,family, and school factors.
Parental connectedness and PI were unrelated tomath test scores but positively related to readingscores (b = 0.50).
School outreach (b = 2.75) and school ambiance(b = 1.05) contributed to math scores, and school
ambiance (b = 1.26) predicted reading scores.

Overall / Other Results
math scores. Althoughthese analyses accounted
for some child factors, it
was unable to account forchildren’s earlier
academic scores.

Study examined effects of school policies andpractices on math achievement growth (IRT-scaled
mathematics achievement score) as children
transition from middle to high school (grades 8 to
12). School promotion of PI was assessed by aquestionnaire completed by school administrators.
Analyses controlled for school context variables (forexample, percentage Hispanic, African-American;
single parents; free and reduced-price lunch;absenteeism; school violence).
Whether school promoted PI significantly
contributed to acceleration in (quadratic) growthfrom grades 8 to 12 (β = 0.09).

The quadratic growthmodel provided better fit
to the data than the linear
growth model, suggestingthat the math achievement
and the change in mathgrowth increased bygrade level. Study also
found a positive influenceof school policies andpractices on mathachievement growth
while controlling forschool contextual
variables.

Study examined discrepancies among parent,teacher, and child perceptions of child’s ability inpredicting PI and school programs for involvement.
PI and school programs for involvement were

In general, as parentteacher or parent-childdiscrepancies increased,
parents tended to be lessAppendix Table A.2
148Form ofParental
Involvement

C

School outreachO

Citationin academic ability
beliefs: Influences onparent involvement.
School Community
Journal, 20(2), 115136.

Sheldon, S. B., andEpstein, J. L. (2005a).
Involvement counts:
Family andcommunity
partnerships andmathematics
achievement. Journalof Educational

Age of Sample /Study Design
Regression

Elementary andmiddle or highschools
Longitudinal
Partialcorrelation

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)N = 18 schools
Predominantly
low-income

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
assessed by parent reports on items from the School
and Family Partnerships Survey. PI reflected 4factors: PI, parenting activities, volunteering
activities, and activities for learning at home. School
programs consisted of school programs, school
programs for volunteering, school programs forcommunication, and school programs for learning at
home. Discrepancies in child’s ability were assessed
through absolute differences in perceptions of ability
between parents and the math teacher and between
parents and their children. Parents, children, andteachers reported on their perceptions of the child’s
general scholastic abilities, and parents reported on
the grade that they thought their child should haveearned in math, given the child’s ability.
As parent-child discrepancy in perceptions ofgeneral scholastic ability increased, the amount of PI
activities increased.
Parent-teacher discrepancies in English Language
Arts ability and in math ability predicted parents’negative reports of collective school programs forfacilitating their involvement.

Although much PI
literature suggests lack ofEnglish fluency as abarrier to involvement,that was not the case here:
Spanish-speaking parentsof middle-schoolers weremore involved in
activities related to theirchildren’s education.
They also reported more
school programs tofacilitate PI.

Study examined schools’ learning at-homepartnership practices in relation to changes inpercentages of students who scored at or above
proficiency levels on math. Partial correlations
controlling for prior achievement and school level
were examined to see the relation between
implementation of practices and math proficiency
levels.
Two partnership practices were positively related

Controlling for priorlevels of mathachievement, findings
showed that effective
implementation ofpractices that encouraged
families to support theirchildren’s math learning
at home was associatedAppendix Table A.2
149

Overall / Other Results
involved, and the school
offered fewer
opportunities for PI.

Form ofParental
Involvement

Home learning
environment
LH

PI in homework
HL

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)O’Connell, S. R.
(1992). Math pairs:
Parents as partners.
Arithmetic Teacher,40(1), 10-12.

Grades 4 and 5

Van Voorhis, F. L.
(2011). Adding
families to thehomework equation:
A longitudinal studyof mathematics
achievement.
Education and Urban
Society, 43(3), 313-

Citation
Research, 98(4), 196206.

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
to changes in percentages of students scoring at or
above proficiency levels, controlling for (1) priorachievement and (2) whether the school was aelementary, middle, or high school:o Assigning students math homework that requires
them to show and discuss math skills with a family
member: (1) r = 0.60; (2) r = 0.60.
o Offering parents or students math game packets
or lending-library activities to use at home: (1) r =0.59; (2) r = 0.55.

Overall / Other Resultswith higher percentagesof students who scored at
or above proficiency onstandardized mathachievement tests.

N = 70Intervention study examining the effect of a “mathpairs” program on children’s problem-solving
ability. The program was designed to use parents aspartners for students’ problem-solving assignments
done at home.
Students with parent partners made greater gains
in problem-solving ability; that is, students without
partners showed 28% improvement after 8 weeks ofclassroom lessons, while those with home partners
averaged a 39% improvement in problem-solving
skills over the same time.

Students with and without
partners showed nodifferences in problemsolving abilities at pretest.
This is a preliminary
study that shows theimportance of involving
parents in the educational
process at home.

Grades 3 and 4

N = 153

Longitudinal,
intervention,
randomized

57% AfricanAmerican,
43% CaucasianMultipleregression

Over 70%
qualified for freeor reduced-priceIntervention study was designed to improve PI in
homework and to promote student learning andparent-teacher communication in grades 3 and 4.
Teachers were randomly assigned either to use theTeachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS)
math process for 1 or 2 years or to conduct
homework as usual with their students. Differences
between standardized math scores for theintervention and control groups were examined

TIPS had several positiveeffects, such as higher
levels of family
involvement in mathhomework, more positive
math homework attitudes
and feelings in students
across both grades, andhigher math achievement.

Longitudinal,
intervention,
nonrandomized

Appendix Table A.2
150Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation338.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)lunch

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome(Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program[TCAP]).
Controlling for prior achievement, gender,
race/ethnicity, free/reduced-price lunch, students
who used TIPS for 1 year (β = 0.13) or 2 years (β =0.19) had significantly higher standardized mathscores than the control group.

Appendix Table A.2
151

Overall / Other Results

International Studies (10 Studies)
Form ofParental
Involvement
Home learning
environment
LH

Citation
Anders, Y., Rossbach,
H. G., Weinert, S.,
Ebert, S., Kuger, S.,
Lehrl, S., and von
Maurice, J. (2012).
Home and preschool
learning environments
and their relations to
the development ofearly numeracy skills.
Early Childhood
Research Quarterly,
27, 231-244.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)PK

N = 532

Longitudinal

Germany

Latentgrowthmodeling

20% had one orboth parents withnative language
other than German
Varioussocioeconomic
and cultural
backgrounds

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined parents’ report of the home learning
environment (HLE) in terms of both literacy andnumeracy as a predictor of preschoolers’ change innumeracy skills (Arithmetic subscale of Kaufman
Assessment Battery for Children).
The HLE positively predicted baseline scores, but
not growth, in numeracy, controlling for child andfamily factors as well as preschool structural andprocess-quality characteristics. HLE literacy had astronger relation with initial numeracy skills (β =0.29) than HLE numeracy did (β = 0.14).

Pre-reading andliteracy-related
activities andresources were foundto be more prevalent athome than numeracyrelated activities andresources althoughparents reported
engaging in both. Bothliteracy- andnumeracy-related
aspects of the HLE
were positively related
to children’s mathskills.

Appendix Table A.2
152Form ofParental
Involvement
SupportiveparentingP

Citation
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz,T., Pekrun, R., andWatt, H. M. G.
(2010). Developmentof mathematics
interest inadolescence:
Influences of gender,family, and school
context. Journal of
Research on
Adolescence, 20(2),507-537.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Grades 5 to 9

N = 3193

Longitudinal

Germany

Hierarchicallinear modeling(HLM)

Varied SES

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
Study examined students’ math interest over time
and whether family values for math predicted mathinterest. Family values for mathematics was assessedby parent rating of the value that math held in thefamily.
Positive effect of family values on student mathinterest (b = 0.10), controlling for classroom mathvalues, teacher enthusiasm, gender, ability group(German school track).
Relative to their individual mean interest levels,
students’ interest scores tended to be higher in years
when their parents and classmates expressed higher
levels of math values and when the math teacher
expressed more enthusiasm.

Appendix Table A.2
153

Overall / Other Results
Downwarddevelopmental
trajectory of mathinterest was foundleading intoadolescence.

Form ofParental
Involvement
Home learning,
parentcommunication
with teacher
LH, FIS

Citation
Harper, S. N., andPelletier, J. (2010).
Parent involvement inearly childhood: A
comparison ofEnglish language
learners and English
first language
families. International
Journal of Early
Years Education,
18(2), 123-141.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)K

N = 42

Not longitudinal

CanadaMultipleregression

EL1 families:
92% English
only
ELL families:
66% East Indian
language,
15% East Asian
language,
7% European
language,
4% Arabic,
1% African
language,
7% other

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined PI in early childhood among parents
who spoke English as a first language (EL1) andparents who were English language learners (ELL) andthe relation of PI to children’s numeracy (Number
Knowledge Test) and reading (Test of Early Reading
Ability [TERA-3]). Teachers rated how frequently theparents communicated with the teacher and how
involved the parents were in their child’s education.
The frequency of parents’ communication with theteacher and their involvement in the child’s education
were unrelated to children’s math and reading scores.

Parents’ frequency ofcommunication withthe teacher and theirinvolvement in thechild’s education did
not mediate the relation
between parent ratingsof child achievement
and children’s actual
test scores. The 2
language groups did not
differ in the level ofinvolvement in theirchild’s education, butteachers reported that
ELL parents
communicated lessfrequently with themthan EL1 parents did.

Appendix Table A.2
154Form ofParental
Involvement
Home learning
environment,
parents’numeracy
expectations
LH

Home learning
environment
LH

Citation

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)N = 89

Kleemans, T., Peeters,
M., Segers, E., andVerhoeven, L. (2012).
Child and homepredictors of earlynumeracy skills inkindergarten. Early
Childhood Research
Quarterly, 27, 471477.

2nd year of K
(ages 5 to 7)

LeFevre, J., Clarke,T., and Stringer, A. P.
(2002). Influences oflanguage and parental
involvement on thedevelopment ofcounting skills:
Comparisons ofFrench- and Englishspeaking Canadianchildren. Early Child
Development andCare, 172(3), 283300.

PKN = 65

Not longitudinal

CanadaMultipleregression

French-speaking(n = 27) andEnglish-speaking(n = 38) children

Not longitudinal
Hierarchicalmultipleregression

The Netherlands
60% of parents
completed higher
education or
academic
education(university)

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined parent-child numeracy activities (theextent to which parents participated in numeracyrelated activities with their child) and parents’numeracy expectations (the extent to which parents
expected their child to master a variety of earlynumeracy skills by the end of K) as predictors ofchildren’s numeracy (Utrecht Early Numeracy TestRevised).
Both parent-child numeracy activities (β = 0.33) andparents’ numeracy expectations (β = 0.19) explained
unique variance (13.3%) in children’s numeracy
scores, controlling for cognitive and linguistic
abilities.

Parent-child numeracy
activities wereconcurrently related tochildren’s early literacy
skills (r = 0.33).

Study examined PI as the frequency of parents’teaching their children about numbers, letters, andwords and its relation to children’s rote counting,object counting, and number recognition.
Parent reports of teaching about numbers and letters
predicted children’s variability in object counting (β =0.37) and number recognition (β = 0.45).

This study examined PI
in complex activities(printing letters,
numbers, and words;
reading words) and notbasic activities (naming
letters and numbers,
counting), finding
positive relations withchildren’s math-related
outcomes.

Appendix Table A.2
155

Home numeracy
practices and parents’
expectations werepositively related toearly numeracy skills.

Form ofParental
Involvement
Home learning
environment
LH

Citation
LeFevre, J., Polyzoi,
E., Skwarchuk, S. L.,
Fast, L., andSowinski, C. (2010).
Do home numeracy
and literacy practices
of Greek andCanadian parents
predict the numeracy
skills of kindergarten
children?
International Journalof Early Years
Education, 18(1), 5570.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)K

N = 204

Not longitudinal

Canada, Greece

Multipleregression

100 Greek
children (99%spoke Greek athome) and104 Canadianchildren (90%spoke English athome)

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined the effect of parents’ reports of thefrequency of various home practices in literacy(writing letters or stories, reading together, number ofchildren’s books) and numeracy on Greek andCanadian children’s numeracy scores (composite of
the Next Number Task and the Numeration subtest of
KeyMath-Revised). Home practices in numeracy
included both direct activities (counting out money,
memorizing math facts, doing math in your head,learning simple sums) and indirect activities (using acalculator, measuring lengths/widths, making/sortingcollections, measuring while cooking, playing board
games or card games). Analyses controlled forparents’ expectations of their children, parents’ mathattitudes, parents’ education, and child’s gender.
Direct numeracy practices (β = 0.20) and book
exposure (β = 0.40) were related to numeracy scoresfor Greek children.
Direct numeracy practices (β = 0.24) were related
to numeracy scores for Canadian children.
Indirect numeracy practices were unrelated tonumeracy outcomes.

Reported home activities
differed across thecountries: Canadianparents reported reading
more frequently, hadmore children’s books,
made/sorted collections,and used computer
software. Greek parents
reported greater
frequency of playing
board games or card
games.

Appendix Table A.2
156

Frequency of homenumeracy activities thatinvolved direct
experiences with numbers
or math content was
positively related tochildren’s numeracy
skills in both countries.
For Greek children, homeliteracy experiences also
predicted numeracy
outcomes.

Form ofParental
Involvement
Home learning
environment
LH

Familyinvolvement at
home
LH

Citation
LeFevre, J.,
Skwarchuk, S. L.,
Smith-Chant, B. L.,
Fast, L., Kamawar,
D., and Bisanz, J.
(2009). Home
numeracy experiences
and children’s mathperformance in theearly school years.
Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science,41(2), 55-66.

Maher, M. (2007).
Home-school
partnership withmathematics
intervention.
Australian Journal of

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)K to grade 2

N = 146

Not longitudinal

CanadaHierarchicalmultipleregression

Year 1 (age 5)
and Year 2
Longitudinal,
intervention,
nonrandomized

N = 30
New ZealandHigh SES

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined parent reports of the frequency of
involvement in home activities (40 items),
including numeracy-related activities (direct andindirect), literacy-related activities, fine motor
skills, and general activities unrelated to math orliteracy. Using principal components analysis,
authors found 4 factors: number skills, games,
applications (that is, number-related artifacts), andnumber of children’s books. These 4 homenumeracy factors were entered as predictors ofchildren’s math knowledge (Numeration, Addition,
Subtraction subtests of KeyMath-Revised) andmath fluency (accuracy and median latency on
correct responses in a test of single-digit addition).
Analyses controlled for child’s grade, city, gender,
vocabulary skills, spatial span, and home literacy
factors.
Frequency of parent-child involvement in games(β = 0.18) significantly predicted math knowledge.
Frequency of parent-child involvement in
number skills (β = 0.21), games (β = 0.21), andapplications (β = 0.24) significantly predicted mathfluency.
The number of books was unrelated to outcomes.

Numeracy activities fell
into 2 broad categories:
direct activities that relate
to acquisition of specificmath skills (counting or
recognizing digits) andindirect activities thathave quantitative
components (playing
board games, measuringwhile cooking) but are notexplicitly aimed atteaching math skills.

Study about a math intervention for low-achieving
5-year-old children in one primary school and its
effects on children’s numeracy (NumPA –– adiagnostic interview that allows children to
demonstrate what their strategy stage is for:addition and subtraction, multiplication andThis small study foundthat most intervention
children showed progressin terms of numeracy, but
it did not compare theintervention group

Appendix Table A.2
157

Parents reported printing
numbers and naming
numbers as occurring lessfrequently than printing
letters and naming letters.

Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation
Early Childhood,32(3), 48-58.

Age of Sample /Study Design
Examined trends

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
divisions, and proportion and ratio). Theintervention was implemented for 15 of the lowest
achievers in each of Year 1 and Year 2. Children
were withdrawn from class 30 minutes per day for
20 weeks in small groups (3 groups of 5 students).
Parents were involved in a “working bee,” whereby
they were encouraged to reinforce math that theirchild would be learning at school and were
provided with raw materials and helped make mathequipment that could be used in the classroom.
Children’s numeracy performance was examined at
the beginning and end of the intervention.
All but 3 severely developmentally delayed 5year-old students progressed. Fewer Year 2 students
progressed.

Appendix Table A.2
158

Overall / Other Results
children with acomparison group. Nor
was it able to directlycompare intervention
group and general
students around New
Zealand who also take the
NumPA.

Form ofParental
Involvement
Home learning
environment
LH

Home learning
environment

Citation
Melhuish, E. C.,
Phan, M. B., Sylva,
K., Sammons, P.,
Siraj-Blatchford, I.,
and Taggart, B.
(2008). Effects of thehome learning
environment andpreschool center
experience uponliteracy andnumeracydevelopment in early
primary school.
Journal of Social
Issues, 64(1), 95114.

Skwarchuk, S.-L.
(2009). How doparents support

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)PK to age 7

N = 2,603

Longitudinal

EnglandMultinominal
logistic
regression,
hierarchicallinear modeling
(HLM)

PK

N = 25Longitudinal

CanadaCognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study examined the relationship between the homelearning environment (HLE) and children’s
numeracy at age 5 (Early Number concepts subscaleof the British Ability Scales [BAS] II) and age 7(nationally standardized, teacher-conducted national
assessment in math) as well as literacy at age 5(Letter Recognition Test, Phonological Awarenessassessment) and reading at age 7 (nationallystandardized, teacher-conducted national assessment
in reading). HLE was assessed as a composite ofparent reports of the frequency that children engagedin activities with clear learning opportunities (forexample, playing with letters or numbers; being readto; learning activities with the alphabet, numbers, or
shapes). Models controlled for child-, family-, andcenter-level characteristics.
HLE was positively associated with numeracy atages 5 (d = 0.65) and 7 (d = 0.50) and with literacy atage 5 (d = 0.73) and reading at age 7 (d = 0.60).
At age 5, children with higher HLE scores weremore likely to be overachievers in literacy, while
lower HLE scores were associated with
underachievement. Effects were significant fornumeracy but were not as strong.
At age 7, lower HLE scores were associated withincreased likelihood of underachievement in reading
and math.

HLE was moderately
associated with SES
and parents’
educational beliefs (r =0.28 to 0.32). Studyalso examined each
HLE item as a separate
predictor of over- or
underachievement;
playing with numbers
had positive effects on
unexpected
achievement.
Multilevel models forage 7 outcomes
showed that links
between HLE andachievement at age 7
were significant in only
one direction:
Unsupportive HLE wasassociated withincreased likelihood of
underachievement forreading (d = 0.60) andmath (d = 0.50).

Study examined children’s numeracy scores(Woodcock-Johnson Quantitative Concepts subtest)
and home numeracy activities in several ways: (1)Both basic andcomplex homenumeracy activities

Appendix Table A.2
159

Form ofParental
Involvement
LH

Citationpreschoolers’numeracy learning
experiences at home?
Early Childhood
Educational Journal,
37(3), 189-197.

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Multipleregression

Predominantly
Caucasian
Mostly middle
class

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
Overall / Other Resultsparent reports of the frequency of basic and complex (that is, going beyond
math activities at home, (2) parent diaries of mathcounting) predictedactivities with their child (told to spend 10-15
preschool numeracy
minutes for 14 days using materials supplied), andscores but in opposite(3) quality of parents’ ability to draw out numericalways. Diary
content when playing with the child using a toy and a descriptions and lab
game in videotaped lab sessions.
observations showed
Exposure to complex numeracy-related activities
parents are able topositively predicted children’s math scores (β =introduce numerical
0.94), controlling for child’s age and parents’content, but much of
background.
the content was not
Exposure to basic numeracy-related activities
numeracy-related
negatively predicted children’s numeracy scores (β = despite instructions to–0.60).
conduct math activities
Quality of PI, parent ratings of activity enjoyment, with their children.
and time spent on numeracy tasks during home playsessions were unrelated to numeracy scores.

Appendix Table A.2
160

Meta-Analyses (2 Articles)
Form ofParental
Involvement
Family-schoolinterventions
C

Aspirations,communications,homesupervision,
participation at
schoolC

Citation

Age of Sample /Study Design

Bates, S. L. (2005).
Evidence-based
family-schoolinterventions withpreschool children.
School Psychology
Quarterly, 20(4),352-370.

PK

Fan, X., and Chen,
M. (2001). PIPI instudents’ academic
achievement: A
meta-analysis.
Educational
Psychology Review,
13(1), 1-21.

Various ages

Effect sizes

Type of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Meta-analysis of
15 intervention
studies
representing
over 3,400
students
Participants inmost of thestudies werefrom low-SES
backgrounds

Effect sizes

Meta-analysis of
25 intervention
andnonintervention
studies
representing over
130,000 students

Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome

Overall / Other Results

Study synthesized 15 studies of family-schoolinterventions with preschool children conducted
between 1980 and 2002. More studies looked at socialand emotional development than at academic factors,
with one examining cognitive development (asmeasured by IQ). Effect sizes ranged from 0.16 to
0.19.

Family-schoolinterventions withpreschoolers are varied,target a range of problems
and behaviors (conduct
problems, academic
development, cognitive
development, social
competence, parenting
behavior, classroom
management skills), andgenerally show positiveeffects of medium size.

Meta-analysis that integrated quantitative articles
about the association between PI and children’s
academic achievement. PI variables included general
involvement, parent-child communication, homesupervision, educational aspirations and expectations
for child, and school contact and participation.
Achievement outcome variables included overall
grade point average (GPA); GPA for math, reading,science, and social studies; test scores in math,reading, science, social studies, and music; and grade
promotion and grade retention.
Effect size = 0.18 for PI and students’
math/quantitative achievement.
The overall effect of PI on academic achievement
was of medium size (about 0.30).
PI (supervision of children at home) had the

Small-to-moderateassociation between PI
and academic
achievement. The
association was stronger
when academic
achievement wasrepresented by a global
indicator like GPA thanby a domain-specificindicator like math
grades.

Appendix Table A.2
161Form ofParental
Involvement

Citation

Age of Sample /Study DesignType of Study /Number in
Sample (N)Cognitive/Socio-Emotional/Behavioral Outcome
weakest relation with academic achievement (r =0.09) and the strongest relation with parents’
aspiration and expectations for children’s educational
achievement (r = 0.40).

Appendix Table A.2
162

Overall / Other Results

Appendix B

Examples from the Field:
Family Involvement Activities with Young Children

Based on research to date, which overwhelmingly reports positive results of family engagement
on children’s learning and development, many preschools and elementary schools are
implementing involvement activities with families to strengthen children’s reading and mathskills and to improve the transition process to kindergarten. Appendix B summarizes a few ofhundreds of activities that have been implemented by schools in the National Network ofPartnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University and that are reported in annual booksof Promising Partnership Practices. The tables below include a summary of each activity, theoriginating school, and the date published. They illustrate how educators are using NNPS
training and guidelines to put research to work in action (Epstein, Sanders, Sheldon, Simon,
Salinas, Jansorn, Van Voorhis, Martin, Thomas, Greenfield, Hutchins, and Williams, 2009).
Some caveats must be stated about the selected activities. Most importantly, no single
activity to engage families with students in reading, math, or the transition from preschool tokindergarten will, by itself, improve students’ reading or math skills or their attitudes or schoolready behaviors. Rather, the examples in Appendix Tables B.1, B.2, and B.3 are embedded in
the schools’ comprehensive partnership programs. Each activity can be one entry in a school’s
annual Plan for Partnerships linked to specific goals for creating a welcoming school climate,for improving children’s reading or math readiness, or for preparing students and their families
to transition to kindergarten. The schools that shared these practices also conducted otherpartnership activities during the school year. And schools’ partnership programs are operating
simultaneously with other efforts to improve teaching, the curriculum, instruction, andassessments of students.
•

Schools. NNPS assists several hundred schools at any point in time, but not
all schools remain active members of NNPS indefinitely. They may proceed
to develop programs independently as they advance their expertise. Thus, thedates in the tables tell when the school reported the illustrative activity but
not, necessarily, that the school continued the practice or is still being guided
by NNPS. The activities, however, remain instructive for educators whowant to know how other schools (at the same grade level or serving similar
populations of students) have engaged families successfully.

•

Activities. Some schools conduct the same activities every year and try to
improve their design and conduct to engage more and different families.
Other schools implement new activities from year to year to increase thevariety of opportunities, attract new participants, and increase the depth andquality of the school’s partnership program. For example, a preschool’s“meet and greet” for teachers, parents, and newly enrolled students may berepeated with planned improvements to fulfill the purpose of welcoming
each new group. By contrast, a school’s Family Reading Night may change165genres each year (for example, from a focus on Mother Goose rhymes one
year to nonfiction books on locomotion the next). Math nights may berepeated or may change themes (for example, from math in the circus one
year to math in sports the next).
Programs and practices may improve from year to year as schools learn to solve
challenges to reach all families. For example, NNPS guides schools to take seriously the factthat not all parents can attend meetings and events at school. Schools in NNPS are urged toconsider ways to provide information from workshops and family nights to those who could notattend. (See, for example, Math Games at Home in Appendix Table B.2 for a school that isworking to meet this challenge.)
Some activities were conducted with large groups of parents (perhaps all parents in theschool) or with community members (for example, senior citizens come to read their favorite
picture books with students). Other activities were conducted with one class or one grade levelor targeted groups of parents and students (for example, first-graders demonstrate to parents
math skills that meet state standards).
The activities reflect teamwork by teachers, parents, administrators, and others on eachschool’s Action Team for Partnerships to engage all students’ parents and other family members
in ways that motivate, inform, and encourage family involvement and student learning. Some
activities bring in “celebrities” (such as local sports figures, community leaders, and others) toreinforce the importance, joy, and fun of reading and math and the importance of school andlearning.
The activities aim to establish a spirited and caring learning environment at school andto encourage parents and children to interact at home in ways that boost students’ interests andskills in reading, math, and good behavior.

Links with the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS)
The schools listed in the tables are or have been members of the National Network ofPartnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University. Schools in NNPS use a researchbased framework of six types of involvement (parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning
at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community) to organize comprehensive,
goal-oriented programs of family and community involvement (Epstein et al., 2009).
Two schools with the same goal (for example, to increase students’ reading readiness)
may design and implement very different parental engagement activities. Their designs may bebased on their students’ starting skills and needs, the parents’ backgrounds and cultures, or otherdemographic characteristics and circumstances. In NNPS, each school is different and must

166

customize its activities to meet its own goals for student achievement and success in school, but
all schools must establish important structures (such as an Action Team for Partnerships,
annual written goal-linked plans, evaluations) to organize and continually improve outreach toall families in ways that support student success in school. (See Epstein et al., 2009, for
specifics on the essential elements of effective partnership programs.)
In addition to the sample activities in this appendix, over 1,200 other basic, advanced,
innovative, and effective activities for the six types of involvement are reported in the annual
books of Promising Partnership Practices, consisting of reports from NNPS schools for otherschools (Thomas, Greenfeld, Sender, and Hutchins, 2012).

167

Family Involvement Literature Review

Appendix Table B.1
Examples from the Field from Preschool to Elementary School:
Family Involvement Activities of Reading with Young Children
READING: With parents and children reading together, these events reinforced that reading can be fun. They also increased parents’ abilities to interact with theirchildren on reading-related activities at home and to become more actively involved at school.
Title of Activity(Alphabetically)
Location
Year Reporteda
Almost Sleepover
Early Childhood Family
Education Center — Central
School Road
Saint Charles, MO
2010

Dr. Seuss on the Loose
Oconto Elementary School
Oconto, WI
2008

Grade Levels
Goals / Purposes
Number of Participants (If Reported)

Program’s Summary of Implementation
Children and their families came to school clad in their pajamas for anight of reading, music, craft making, and snacks. They explored several
themed rooms, each with a set of books, distinctive music, and a handson creative activity. For example:
In the Let’s Go Camping! room, families toted flashlights into tents
to read camping books. A recording of nature sounds played in the
background, and parents and kids “toasted marshmallows” on pretzel
sticks over a make-believe fire.
The Winter Wonderland room featured winter-themed books, andchildren made coffee-filter snowflakes to take home.
In the Hush Little Baby room, a lullaby played, and children andparents read good-night books, while resting on blankets on the floor.
Other activities included making “family books” and working with
Legos (guided by Bob the Builder). A librarian — strategically locatedin the same room as cookies, milk, and juice — distributed information
to parents on literacy skill development and helped students and parents
sign up for library cards.
Students and parents at Oconto Elementary School celebrated Dr. Seuss’sbirthday at the school’s biggest reading event ever. The Cat in the Hat
was there, as were guest readers, including the principal, librarian, andparents. Activities included a book walk, displays of student-publishedbooks, and other activities. Teachers and members of the Action Teamfor Partnership (ATP) talked with parents about strategies to encourage
their children to read for pleasure at home. Each student created a
169

Pre-K
Parent-child time reading together
Enjoy reading and connect reading with other hands-on
activities
Gather information from (and join) the public library
N = 60

Early childhood to grade 4.
Help students and families enjoy listening to stories,
sharing books, and reading together
Welcome parents to the school; provide information forthem to encourage children’s reading at home(continued)

Appendix Table B.1 (continued)
Title of Activity(Alphabetically)
Location
Year Reporteda

Program’s Summary of Implementation
bookmark with the help of local stamp business and received a book totake home, donated by the Parent-Teacher Organization (PTO).
Snacks were served at the Green Eggs and Ham Snack Shack, andactivities included the Fox in Socks sock-hop dance space with music bya local disc jockey.

Grade Levels
Goals / Purposes
Number of Participants (If Reported)
Include community partners
NOTE: Many schools conduct creative family readingnights in connection with Read Across America and Dr.
Seuss’s Birthday every March. In NNPS, these are notisolated activities but part of the comprehensive OneYear Action Plan for Partnerships, with other goallinked involvement activities to advance children’s
reading, math, behavior, and other important outcomes.
N = 90 students, 120 parents

Family Literacy Night
Roosevelt Early Childhood
Center #65
Buffalo, NY
2009

Curious George, Mother Goose, The Cat in the Hat, and Old Mother
Hubbard wandered through Roosevelt Early Childhood Center
telling their tales and talking with children and their parents. In the
Fairytale Theater, some students performed Goldilocks andthe Three Bears and Little Red Riding Hood.
Also on the program were a book exchange, music and literacy
presentations, and make-and-take activities. The Riverside Branchlibrarian was on hand to read aloud from award-winning children’s books
and helped children and adults apply for library cards. All books andreading activities were targeted to particular grade levels, from pre-K tograde 4.

Pre-K to grade 4
Enjoy rhymes, stories, and children’s reading-related
plays and presentations
Spark students’ interest in reading; increase parental
involvement with children on reading
N = 125 students, 100 parents

Teachers and parents met to talk about children’s progress and needs inreading and how parents could support learning at home.
Literacy Breakfasts
Integrated Arts Academy
Burlington, VT
2012

Breakfast and a book to read is a good way to start the day with food forstrength and food for thought. At its Literacy Breakfasts, the Integrated
Arts Academy (IAA) welcomed all parents to the classroom to reinforce
the importance and enjoyment of reading.
Children retrieved their individual “book boxes,” which included about
eight grade-level books. They elected to read one of their favorites to aparent, while enjoying breakfast together.

Pre-K to grade 5
Spotlight students’ progress in reading aloud and talking
about books at their reading levels
Extend parents’ information about the school’s reading
program and their child’s progress in reading
N = 250 students, 180 parents

To ensure that every student could participate in Literacy Breakfasts,
children whose parent or guardian could not attend were invited to bring
170(continued)

Appendix Table B.1 (continued)
Title of Activity(Alphabetically)
Location
Year Reporteda

Program’s Summary of Implementationa sibling from another grade. Also, other adults in the building joined
students who did not have a parent or sibling there.

Grade Levels
Goals / Purposes
Number of Participants (If Reported)

Literacy Breakfasts were held for pre-K to grade 2 in the fall and forgrades 3 to 5 in the spring, each for about one hour. The planners usedflyers, the school newsletter, a voice message from the principal, andindividual phone calls to increase parents’ attendance. Home-School
Liaisons called families of English language learners in their languages
to encourage them to attend. They also were there as interpreters totranslate conversations between parents and teachers at the Literacy
Breakfasts.
Memory Makers
T. H. Watkins Elementary
SchoolLake Charles, LA
2009

One way to engage more families with children on reading and writing
is with an activity that is about the uniqueness of each family. Parents
and children brought their favorite family memories to the school’s
Memory Makers Family Book Writing Event.

Pre-K to grade 5
Link reading and writing by having parents and students
write and illustrate a short book on a favorite family
memoryStudents in pre-K to grade 5 engaged a parent in homework in whateverlanguage was spoken at home to identify a family story and create aflowchart of the plot. In school, they wrote and illustrated the story.
Using commercially available bookmaking kits, parents and children
bound and “published” their family book. They read the story andshared it with other families. The school combined the Memory Makers
event with a Book Fair to maximize attendance.

NOTE: aThe activities in Appendix B were conducted since 2008 by preschools, kindergartens, and/or elementary schools in the National Network of Partnership Schools(NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University. They were reported in annual books of Promising Partnership Practices. The schools planned their programs and practices using
research-based training and tools in Epstein et al. (2009). Five activities were selected from hundreds of others on parental involvement with young children in reading, math,and the transition from preschool to kindergarten. See details on the practices, by year, at http://www.partnershipschools.org in the section “Success Stories in the Spotlight.”

171

Family Involvement Literature Review

Appendix Table B.2
Examples from the Field from Preschool to Elementary School:
Family Involvement Activities of Math with Young Children
MATH: Preschools and elementary schools that include pre-K and/or kindergarten invited parents and children to conduct grade-appropriate math activities
together. The events reinforced that math is all around us and can be fun to do. The activities also helped parents feel welcome at their child’s school, meet teachers,
learn something about the math curriculum, and become more involved with their children at home on math. Some activities also encouraged parents to become
involved at school in other ways.
Title of Activity(Alphabetically)
Location
Year Reporteda
Dads Involved with YouthDay (DIY)
Timrod Elementary School
Florence, SC
2012

Grade Levels
Goals / Purposes
Number of Participants (If Reported)

Program’s Summary of Implementation
One Saturday, pre-K through sixth-grade students and their dads,
uncles, grandfathers, and male community volunteers worked together
to practice math concepts and skills as they constructed their own
birdfeeders. Community volunteers filled in for fathers who could notattend. Other volunteers included a local artist and carpenter to help
where needed.

Pre-K to grade 6
Use math for real-world construction
Increase involvement of dads and father figures
N = 56 students, 48 fathers/father figures

At each step of construction, painting, and measurement, there wererelated math problems for the children to solve and submit. Teachers
were on hand to meet the dads and to help students recall their skills inmeasurement, prediction, shape identification, and comparing angles.
At the final measurement station, children measured birdseed donatedby Lowe’s and completed the final math problems.
Children took home their completed birdfeeders along with their own
donated tape measure and screwdriver set.
(continued)

173

Appendix Table B.2 (continued)
Title of Activity(Alphabetically)
Location
Year Reporteda
Family Night at Bottom
Dollar Food StoreLee Hall Elementary School
Newport News, VA
2010

Program’s Summary of Implementation

Grade Levels
Goals / Purposes
Number of Participants (If Reported)

Lee Hall Elementary School took its Family Math Night to the grocery
store. One evening, students in kindergarten through fifth grade andtheir parents went to the Bottom Dollar Food Store in their community.
Each student received a grade-specific math activity with instructions
about where to go in the store and what to do. For example,
kindergartners were directed to the aisles to “Count the different typesof edible dog/puppy treats” and record the numbers. They also wereasked to “Find a pattern on this aisle and describe it to your parents.”

K to grade 5

The activities focused on patterns and shapes, weights andmeasurements, estimation, budgeting, and packaging and labels. An
added bonus of the event was its timing — to reinforce math skills aweek before the state achievement test was administered.
Each child received a goody-bag and a book to take home. Adults
received coupons and entered raffles for extra prizes. Refreshments
were served; these were donated by the store as a school-community
partner.
Having a Ball with Math
Emerson Elementary School
Pasco, WA
2011

Make a Math Date withYour Child

400 attendees (including students, moms, dads, and teachers) and adozen community partners (including professional hockey players)
gathered to use math while playing various sports and games. The
planners linked sports for students at different age levels with gradelevel math activities that were linked to state standards for mathproficiency.

Apply math skills to real-world problems
Increase the involvement of moms and dads in math-linked
activities
Build goal-linked community partners in a full partnershipprogram
N (unreported)
Grades 1-5
Link math with sports
Inform parents about state math standards taught at each
grade level and how to help children practice and use mathat homeA series of athletic games and stations included shooting hoops in thegym, bowling in the hallways, and playing hockey on an improvised
rink in situations where addition, subtraction, and multiplication could
be put to use. Also, the computer lab was open for parents and children
to explore math sites and games that they could play at home on theInternet. In classrooms, games with math manipulatives wereavailable.

N = 400

Parents were invited to their child’s math class to see the teacher andstudent in action and learn the math objectives and standards at each

Pre-K to grade 5

174

Encourage parents to “see” math classes in action and(continued)

Appendix Table B.2 (continued)
Title of Activity(Alphabetically)
Location
Year Reporteda
Birdneck Elementary
SchoolVirginia Beach, VA
2009

Program’s Summary of Implementation
grade level. Teachers prepared hands-on math activities that adults andchildren could do together.
Resource teachers and school administrators made presentations toparents about the school’s math program. Each grade level had its own
day so that parents with more than one child at the school could
participate with each child. The school accommodated parents’ busy
schedules by hosting math class visits in both the morning and theafternoon.

Grade Levels
Goals / Purposes
Number of Participants (If Reported)
learn about math standards for each grade level
N = 100 parents or caregivers

Parents and children received a packet of math games and activities
and an Everyday Math deck of cards to play at home to reinforce
specific math skills. Parents were invited to have lunch with their childbefore or after the math class.
Math Games at Home
Edison Elementary School
Kennewick, WA
2011

Attendance at Edison’s prior math night was high — about 50% offamilies attended –– but the Action Team for Partnership (ATP)wanted to reach all families to connect them, the school, and children
on math. Knowing that some parents simply cannot come to an
evening event, the ATP and math teachers prepared clear and usable
materials that were used at the Math Game Night for all families,
whether they attended or not. They compiled a grade-specific list ofmath games and prepared take-home instructions and bags containing
all pieces for everyone at the school.

Pre-K to grade 5
Take the challenges of providing information andmaterials to those who could and could not attend Family
Math Night
Encourage parent-child interactions on grade-specificmath games and skills at home
N = 400+ (all students’ families)

At Math Game Night, students practiced addition, subtraction, andother major math operations while having a great time with theirparents and siblings. The attendees took their math games home tokeep playing; other children took the math games home the next day.
NOTE: aThe activities in Appendix B were conducted since 2008 by preschools, kindergartens, and/or elementary schools in the National Network of Partnership
Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University. They were reported in annual books of Promising Partnership Practices. The schools planned their programs andpractices using research-based training and tools in Epstein et al. (2009). Five activities were selected from hundreds of others on parental involvement with young
children in reading, math, and the transition from preschool to kindergarten. See details on the practices, by year, at http://www.partnershipschools.org in the section“Success Stories in the Spotlight.”

175

Family Involvement Literature Review

Appendix Table B.3
Examples from the Field from Preschool:
Transition Activities with Young Children and Families
TRANSITIONS: When teachers reach out to inform and engage parents and children in activities to smooth the transition from preschool to kindergarten, more parents gain
confidence about helping their children adjust to the new school, and more students enter kindergarten ready to learn.
Title of Activity(Alphabetically)
Location
Year Reporteda
Kindergarten Boot Camp
Alicia Cortez Elementary School
Chino, CA2010

Grade Levels
Goals / Purposes
Number of Participants (If Reported)

Program’s Summary of Implementation
The goal of Kindergarten Boot Camp was to help teachers plan instruction
and to help parents prepare their children for school. At a required meetingwith the kindergarten teacher, children completed individual assessments
to show whether they could name letters, colors, and shapes and print theirnames. Parents filled out a readiness inventory for the teacher. It was clearthat some students needed a jump-start to be ready for kindergarten in thefall.
20 children were selected to attend a 2-week boot camp. Parents cameonce a week to observe how the children were learning the alphabet,
poems, and songs and school skills, such as lining up and taking turns. The
parents also discussed parenting strategies, including ideas for reading
together at home. At the end of boot camp, teachers reassessed thestudents to determine how much their readiness skills had grown.

Pre-K
Give students an opportunity to “practice school”
Increase basic reading readiness for new learning inkindergarten
Prepare parents to reinforce school skills at home
N = 20 students and their parents in boot camp
N = 70 incoming students who took assessments

All incoming kindergarteners and parents toured the school and classroom
and received materials and guidelines to conduct readiness activities overthe summer. All were given information on community programs andservices (for example, library story time) that would increase reading andother school readiness skills.
Kindergarten Connect
Ann Reid Early Childhood
CenterNaperville, IL

Kindergarten Connect helped the parents of future kindergarteners to meet
one another, ask questions, relieve anxiety, and learn about school
requirements and academic programs for their children. Children in this
Early Childhood Center will attend one of 14 elementary schools in the
area.
177

Pre-K
Learn about the child’s new school and meet teachers
Meet other parents whose children will be attending thesame kindergarten(continued)

Appendix Table B.3 (continued)
Title of Activity(Alphabetically)
Location
Year Reporteda
2012

Program’s Summary of Implementation
Volunteer translators, Home and School presidents, and School Family
Community Partnership (SFCP) chairpersons from each elementary school
conducted school-specific presentations and conversations with the parentsof their incoming students. Parents also attended breakout sessions on
Interventions, Social Skills, and Dual-Language programs. Parents also
got a preview of a typical day at their child’s future kindergarten.

Grade Levels
Goals / Purposes
Number of Participants (If Reported)
N = 100(NOTE: Another preschool provided videodiscs to allparents to introduce them to a typical day inkindergarten. [Roger Wolcott Early Childhood Center,
Windsor, CT, 2011].)

Ice breakers in each session helped parents meet each other.
Kinder Party
Alfred F. Forrest Elementary
SchoolHampton, VA
2012

Kinder Party was held to make the transition from Pre-K to K as smooth as
possible. In May, parents and Pre-K students met the school’s 5kindergarten teachers and administrators to learn more about the school’s
programs and philosophy. Parents were guided to complete earlykindergarten registration and were given math and reading readinessmaterials to use at home. Teachers and parents discussed school policies,
procedures, and expectations for students, and parents’ questions orconcerns were addressed.

Pre-K
Prepare for transition from Pre-K to K
Help parents relate to the child’s new school
Provide readiness activities to use at home the summer
before entering kindergarten
N = 50Pre-K students and their parents visited interesting “stations” set up aroundthe cafeteria and gathered information on registering for school,transportation and bus behavior, the cafeteria, the Parent Teacher
Association (PTA), and services of the school nurse. As parents completed
paperwork, children worked with the art teacher to make self-portraits forthe “Growing Kindergarten” tree, which reflected the school’s theme: The
Place to Grow. The children also worked with the physical educationteacher to play games using school sports equipment.
Little Coyote Kinderbags
Wilkinson Elementary School
Williston, ND
2009

At a spring Open House for future kindergarteners, each child received anylon backpack (decorated with a little coyote) filled with storybooks, aget-ready-for-kindergarten videodisc, word games, and other summer
activities for parents and children to conduct at home. Parents who could
not attend the Open House picked up a bag at the school or when theyregistered their child for kindergarten.
Parents wanted to know what they could do at home during the summer
before kindergarten to foster their children’s success in school. The school
and many community organizations contributed the information andactivities in the bags. The bags also contained a postcard for parents’
178

Pre-K
Provide resources: backpack for children and guidancefor parents to conduct reading and math readinessactivities at home
N = 180(continued)

Appendix Table B.3 (continued)
Title of Activity(Alphabetically)
Location
Year Reporteda
New Parent Orientation
Valeska Hinton Early Childhood
CenterPeoria, IL
2008

Grade Levels
Goals / Purposes
Number of Participants (If Reported)

Program’s Summary of Implementationcomments and suggestions.
The New Parent Orientation helps parents prepare for the transition into
preschool — the first major transition from home to school. The
orientation is mandatory so that all parents receive vital information to
support their children’s success in school. Registration is not considered
complete unless the parent has attended the orientation session on theschool’s program and education philosophy.
At the end of the session, parents visit their children’s classrooms where
teachers address all parents’ questions. Each teacher conducts a creative
introductory activity with the parents of the children in that class. They
also discuss and demonstrate all classroom routines, so parents can talkthem over with their children.

Pre-K
Prepare for entrance to preschool, meet teachers, learn
school routines
Inform and engage parents to guide their children for
entrance to preschool
N = 100

NOTE: aThe activities in Appendix B were conducted since 2008 by preschools, kindergartens, and/or elementary schools in the National Network of Partnership Schools(NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University. They were reported in annual books of Promising Partnership Practices. The schools planned their programs and practices using
research-based training and tools in Epstein et al. (2009). Five activities were selected from hundreds of others on parental involvement with young children in reading, math,and the transition from preschool to kindergarten. See details on the practices, by year, at http://www.partnershipschools.org in the section “Success Stories in the Spotlight.”

179

Appendix C

Glossaryassociation: Two variables are associated with one another if some of the variability of one variable can be accounted for by the other variable. This association, or relationship, between two
variables is not necessarily causal, and variables can be positively or negatively associated with
one another.
attrition: a reduction in numbers, as when research subjects withdraw from a study after datacollection begins. Differential attrition occurs when the subjects who withdraw have systematically different characteristics than the subjects who stayed in the study. Differential attrition
may lead to bias (systematic error) and may impact the internal validity of a study –– the degree
to which observed changes can be attributed to the treatment or intervention and not to otherpossible causes.
bidirectionality: a relationship between two entities in which each influences the other; the actions of X impact the actions of Y, and the actions of Y impact the actions of X. For instance, theparent’s behavior influences the child’s behavior, and the child’s behavior also influences theparent’s behavior.
Childhood and Beyond! (CAB): a longitudinal study examining students’ experiences inschool, including achievement and learning. CAB data collection began in 1987 and reviewed
students from kindergarten through twelfth grade, asking students about activities in school,
behaviors, and beliefs. CAB looked at the development of students’ and teachers’ motivational
beliefs, the relationship between motivational beliefs and the activities that children chose toparticipate in, and the influence of home and school factors on children. Over 12 years, there
were nine waves of surveys and interviews with 850 children and with 65 percent of their parents. Student records were also collected and analyzed (Gender and Achievement Research
Program, 2013).
chi-square: a statistic that tests for associations between variables. It compares observed datawith data that we would expect to obtain according to a specific hypothesis. The statistic is calculated as the sum of the squares of the observed values minus the expected values, which is allthen divided by the expected values.
covariate (or control variable): a secondary variable not of primary interest that can affect therelationship between the dependent variable and other independent variables of primary interest.
It is included in the analysis to reduce the confounding effect of variations in the covariate that
may also affect the value of the dependent variable.
correlation: a statistic that shows the degree to which there is a relationship between variables.
Early Childhood Longitudinal Program–Kindergarten (ECLS-K): a national, longitudinal
study that follows children starting in kindergarten. There are two ECLS-K cohorts, one withthe kindergarten class of 1998-1999 and one with the kindergarten class of 2010-2011. ECLS-K
reviews child development, readiness for school, and early experiences in school, and it provides data on children’s growth in school through eighth grade. ECLS-K also examines rela183

tionships impacting children’s experiences, including the influence of the family, school, andcommunity systems on children’s development, learning, and school performance (Institute of
Education Sciences, 2013a).
Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (EHSRE), 1996-2010: a national, largescale, random assignment evaluation of the Early Head Start program, including both an impact
evaluation and an implementation evaluation. The evaluation followed Early Head Start children and their families from when the children were born through when they were in elementary school. EHSRE included three phases, a Birth to Three Phase from 1996 to 2001, a PreKindergarten Follow-Up Phase from 2001 to 2004, and an Elementary School Follow-Up Phasefrom 2005 to 2010 (Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 2013).
effect size: a statistical calculation that measures the magnitude of an effect. This statistic is often used to show the effectiveness of an intervention. The effect size is generally consideredlarge if it is 0.8 (8/10 of a standard deviation unit), moderate if it is 0.5, and small if it is 0.2(Cohen, 1988).
experimental study: a research design in which a treatment is applied to participants and thenparticipants are observed to see the effect of the treatment. Participants with similar characteristics are randomly assigned into treatment and control groups, and the groups’ results are compared. The treatment group receives the intervention, and the control group does not receive theintervention. Also see “nonexperimental study.”
Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES): a national, longitudinal study
that follows a random sample of 3,200 children and families in 40 Head Start programs. FACES
reviews the social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development of children in Head Start,
along with the characteristics and achievements of the children’s family, the quality of Head
Start classrooms, and the characteristics and opinions of Head Start teachers and staff (Zill,
Resnick, Kim, McKey, Clark, Pai-Samant, Connell, Vaden-Kiernan, O’Brien, and D’Elio,
2001). To date, there have been five FACES cohorts: 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009 (Moiduddin, Aikens, Tarullo, West, and Xue, 2012).
hierarchical linear model (HLM): a multilevel statistical model that handles data in situations
where observations are not independent of one another. That is, the data are “nested”: Individuals are nested within larger units, which themselves are nested within other units. For instance,children are nested within classrooms, which are nested within schools. Also see “multilevel
model.”
intent-to-treat analysis: a method of analyzing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that isbased on an individual’s initial assignment to treatment and not on the treatment that is actually
received. Randomization is a sampling method in which subjects are randomly assigned to thetreatment group or the control group. The intent-to-treat analysis strategy includes every subject
who is randomized, regardless of whether the subject received the treatment; after randomization, all subjects are included in the analysis despite possible noncompliance, not meeting entry
184criteria, early departure from the study, or any changes made in the protocol. Intent-to-treat
methodology ensures that the treatment and control groups are similar.
longitudinal study: a research design in which the same subjects are followed and observed
over a period of time.
mediator/mediating variable: a variable that accounts for, or explains, the relationship between two variables.
meta-analysis: a research design in which data that are gathered in separate but similar studies
are systematically reviewed and combined in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance.
moderator/moderating variable: a variable that influences or changes the relationship between two variables, affecting the strength or direction of the relationship.
multilevel model: a statistical model that takes into account and can compare variables at several levels, such as at both the child level and at the school level. Also see “hierarchical linear
model.”
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS 88): a longitudinal study following
youth starting from when they were in eighth grade. The study surveyed a nationally representative sample of eighth-graders in 1988 and followed up on the sample in 1990, 1992, 1994, and2000. The study also surveyed students’ teachers, parents, and school administrators. NELS 88
provides data on educational processes and outcomes, including learning, predictors of droppingout of school, and the effects of school on students’ ability to access programs and have an
equal opportunity to learn (Institute of Education Sciences, 2013b).
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early
Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD): formerly the NICHD Study of Early Child
Care (SECC), this study began in 1991 and followed over 1,300 children and their families
from when the children were babies until they turned 15. SECCYD examined how various childcare arrangements impacted children’s health, behavior, performance in school, and other development indicators in infancy, early childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence (National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2012).
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY): a longitudinal, nationally representative
survey intended to provide data on the labor market activities and significant life events ofyouth. The NLSY79 is the survey of 12,686 men and women who were first surveyed in 1979,
when they were between ages 14 and 22, and who continued to be surveyed every two years.
The NLSY97 is the survey of 9,000 youths who were between ages 12 and 16 in 1996. For the
NLSY97 cohort, both the youth and their parents were interviewed, and youth continued to beinterviewed yearly (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013).

185

nonexperimental study: a research design in which there is no intervention or controlled environment and there is no manipulation of independent variables (items being measured that will
not be changed by other variables); the preexisting situation is observed and measured in its
natural state. Also see “experimental study.”
null finding (or null effect or null result): result that occurs when we fail to reject the null hypothesis (H0). The null hypothesis states, for the comparison of the means of two groups, thatthe difference between the groups in the population is zero. This is commonly referred to as a“nonsignificant (ns) result.”
path analysis: a statistical method used to examine the causal relationships among variables
and to determine the comparative strength of direct and indirect relationships among variables.
predictor: a variable that can be used to predict the value of another variable; also called an“independent variable.”quasi-experimental study: a research design that tests the effectiveness of an intervention.
This design is similar to an experimental design, but it does not include randomization: Subjects
are not randomized into treatment and control groups, as described in “randomized controlled
trial.”
randomized controlled trial (RCT): a research design in which subjects are randomly, yetmethodically, assigned to either the group receiving the intervention (the treatment group) or to
the group not receiving the intervention (the control group). The subjects in both groups are
similar in every characteristic except for whether or not they receive the intervention. This research design is generally considered to be the most rigorous of all designs and is the gold
standard of studies.
regression analysis: a statistical method that shows the relationship between two variables,such as an independent variable (an item being measured that will not be changed by other variables) and a dependent variable (an item being measured that can be changed by other variables). This method can predict the value of the dependent variable when the independent variable changes.
Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD): See “National Institute ofChild Health and Human Development (NICHD).”t-test: a statistical method that compares the means of two samples or compares a fixed value
with the mean of a sample.

186

General References
NOTES: The references are in three sections. General References include all sources cited in the Executive
Summary, Chapters 1 and 4, and the appendixes. These are followed by reading and literacy sources cited in
Chapter 2 and then by math sources cited in Chapter 3. An asterisk (*) in the later two sections indicates thatthe study is discussed in this literature review.

Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation. (2012). Final report. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Becker, H. J., and Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A study of teacher practices. Elementary School Journal, 83, 85-102.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., and Easton, J. Q. (2011). Organizing
schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). National Longitudinal Surveys. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/nls/.
Capretto, L. (2012, June 18). 38 easy ways to get involved in the classroom. Oprah.com. Retrieved from http://www.oprah.com/relationships/38-Ways-for-Parents-to-Get-Involved-inthe-Classroom-Back-to-School.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.
Epstein, J. L. (2005). A case study of the partnership schools comprehensive school reform(CSR) model. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 151-170.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators andimproving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R. (Rodriquez), Van Voorhis, F. L., Martin, C. S., Thomas, B. G., Greenfield, M. D., Hutchins, D.
J., and Williams, K. J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Feiler, B. (2012, August 31). It’s OK to skip that bake sale. New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/fashion/finding-the-right-amount-of-parentalinvolvement-in-school.html?ref=parenting&_r=0.
Gender and Achievement Research Program. (2013). Childhood and beyond. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/cab/.
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., and Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale.
New York: New Press.

187

Institute of Education Sciences. (2013a). Early Childhood Longitudinal Program (ECLS). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/index.asp.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2013b). National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988
(NELS: 88). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nels88/.
Kagan, S. L. (1984). Parent involvement research: A field in search of itself. Boston: Institutefor Responsive Education.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., Zucker, T., Crawford, A. D., and Solari, E. F. (2012).
The effects of a responsive parenting intervention on parent-child interactions during
shared book reading. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 969-986.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and whitefamilies. American Sociological Review, 67, 747-776.
Larsen, E. F., and Rodgers, L. (n.d.). New math homework help. Parenting. Retrieved fromhttp://www.parenting.com/mathematics-reasoning-homework-help.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Moiduddin, E., Aikens, N., Tarullo, L., West, J., and Xue, Y. (2012). Child outcomes and classroom quality in FACES 2009. OPRE Report 2012-37a. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2012). NICHD Study of Early Child
Care and Youth Development (SECCYD). Washington, DC:, U. S. Department of Health andHuman Services, National Institutes of Health.
Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/Pages/seccyd.aspx.
Noble, K. G., Duch, H., Darvique, M. E., Grundleger, A., Rodriguez, C., and Landers, C.
(2012). Getting ready for school: A preliminary evaluation of a parent-focused schoolreadiness program. Child Development Research, 2012, 1-14. doi:10.1155/2012/259598.
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. (2013). Early Head Start Research and Evaluation
Project (EHSRE). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/
research/project/early-head-start-research-and-evaluation-project-ehsre-1996-2010.
Ontario Ministry of Education. 2006. The Kindergarten Program-Revised.
Web site: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.
Pan, Y., Gauvain, M., Liu, Z., and Cheng, L. (2006). American and Chinese parental involvement inyoung children’s mathematics learning. Cognitive Development, 21(1), 17-35.
doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.08.001.

188

Pianta, R. C., Kraft-Sayre, M., Rimm-Kaufmann, S., Gercke, N., and Higgins, T. (2001). Collaboration in building partnerships between families and schools: The National Center for Early Development and Learning’s Kindergarten Transition Intervention. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 16, 117-132.
Powell, D. R., Son, S-H., File, N., and San Juan, R. R. (2010). Parent-school relationships and children’s academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 269-292.
Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., and Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of anearly childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year followup of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the American Medical Association,285(18), 2339-2346.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban elementary schools
to student achievement on state tests. Urban Review, 35, 149-166.
Sheldon, S. B., and Epstein, J. L. (2005a). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 196-206.
Starkey, P., and Klein, A. (2000). Fostering parental support for children’s mathematical development: An intervention with Head Start families. Early Education and Development,
11(5), 659-680. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1105_7.
Thomas, B. G., Greenfeld, M. D., Sender, C., and Hutchins, D. J. (eds.). (2012). Promisingpartnership practices 2012. Baltimore: Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Early literacy
activities (Indicator 33-2006).
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_elh.asp.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Boomgarden, E., Finn, L., and Pittard, C. (2012). Parental support ofnumeracy during a cooking activity with four-year-olds. International Journal of Early
Years Education, 20(1), 78-93.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Ferretti, L., and Loving, S. (2011). Playing the ladybug game: Parent
guidance of young children’s numeracy activities. Early Child Development and Care,
182(10), 1289-1307. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2011.609617.
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011). Costs and benefits of family involvement in homework: Lessons
learned from students and families. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 220-249.
Walker, K. (2013, May 3). What we don’t know about evidence-based programs. Web log post retrieved from http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ostrc/doclibrary/documents/
WhatWeDontKnowaboutEvidenceBasedPrograms.pdf.

189

Weiss, H., Caspe, M., and Lopez, M. E. (2006). Family involvement in early childhood education.
Research Brief No. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
Zill, N., Resnick, G., Kim, K., McKey, R. H., Clark, C., Pai-Samant, S., Connell, D., VadenKiernan, M., O’Brien, R., and D’Elio, M. A. (2001). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal findings
on program performance. Third progress report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

190

References for Chapter 2
Family Involvement in Reading and Literacy Activities and Results forChildren’s Literacy Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills
NOTE: An asterisk (*) indicates that the study is discussed in Chapter 2 of this literature review.

*Aikens, N. L., and Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The
contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 235-251.
*Aram, D., and Biron, S. (2004). Joint storybook reading and joint writing interventions among
low SES preschoolers: Differential contributions to early literacy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 588-610.
*Arnold, D. H., Zeljo, A., and Doctoroff, G. L. (2008). Parent involvement in preschool: Predictors and the relation of involvement to preliteracy development. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 74-90.
*Bates, S. L. (2005). Evidence-based family-school interventions with preschool children. School
Psychology Quarterly, 20(4), 352-370. doi: 10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.352.
Baydar, N., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Furstenberg, F. F. (1993). Early warning signs of functional
illiteracy: Predictors in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 64, 815-829.
doi: 10.2307/1131220.
Bond, M. A., and Wasik, B. A. (2009). Conversation stations: Promoting language development inyoung children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 467-473.
*Britto, P. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Griffin, T. M. (2006). Maternal reading and teaching patterns:
Associations with school readiness in low-income African American families. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 68-89.
*Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., Brooks-Gunn, J., Ayoub, C., Pan, B. A., Kisker, E. E., Roggman, L.
A., and Fuligni, S. A. (2012). Low-income children’s school readiness: Parent contributions
over the first five years. Early Education and Development, 20(6), 958-977.
*Cheadle, J. E. (2008). Educational investment, family context, and children’s math and reading
growth from kindergarten through the third grade. Sociology of Education, 81(1), 1-31.
Clay, M. M. (1979). Stones: The Concepts About Print test. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Cottone, E. A. (2012). Preschoolers’ emergent literacy skills: The mediating role of maternalreading beliefs. Early Education and Development, 23(3), 351-372.

191

*Crosnoe, R., and Cooper, C. E. (2010). Economically disadvantaged children’s transitions intoelementary school: Linking family processes, school contexts, and educational policy.
American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 258-291.
Dauber, S. L., and Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Pages 53-71 in N. Chavkin (ed.), Families andschools in a pluralistic society. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
*Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., and Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in schooland low-income children’s literacy performance: Longitudinal associations between andwithin families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 653-664.
*Durand, T. M. (2011). Latino parental involvement in kindergarten: Findings from the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 469-489.
*Early, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Taylor, L. C., and Cox, M. J. (2001). Transition practices: Findings
from a national survey of kindergarten teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal,
28(3), 199-206.
*El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., and Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and children’s
academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81(3), 988-1005.
*Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., and Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s achievementin early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, andquality of assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 723-730.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators andimproving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., and Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R. (Rodriquez), Van Voorhis, F. L., Martin, C. S., Thomas, B. G., Greenfield, M. D., Hutchins,
D. J., and Williams, K. J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
*Fan, X., and Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement in students’ academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-21.
*Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., and Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, lowincome children. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467-480.
*Fielding-Barnsley, R., and Purdie, N. (2003). Early intervention in the home for children at
risk of reading failure. Support for Learning, 18, 77-82.
*Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., and Watt, H. M. G. (2010). Development of mathematics
interest in adolescence: Influences of gender, family, and school context. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 507-537. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00645.x.

192

*Galindo, C., and Sheldon, S. B. (2012). School and home connections and children’s kindergarten achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 90-103.
*Gregory, A., and Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2008). Positive mother-child interactions in kindergarten:
Predictors of school success in high school. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 499-515.
*Hart, B., and Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe. Education Review, 17(1), 110-118.
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., and Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale:
The essential guide to family-school partnerships. New York: New Press.
*Hindman, A. H., and Morrison, F. J. (2011). Family involvement and educator outreach in
Head Start: Nature, extent, and contributions to early literacy skills. Elementary School
Journal, 111(3), 359-386.
*Hindman, A. H., and Morrison, F. J. (2012). Differential contributions of three parenting dimensions to preschool literacy and social skills in a middle-income sample. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 58(2), 191-223.
*Hood, M., Conlon, E., and Andrews, G. (2008). Preschool home literacy practices and children’s
literacy development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 252271.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in theirchildren’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3-42.
*Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement
programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706-742.
*Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., Zucker, T., Crawford, A. D., and Solari, E. F.
(2012). The effects of a responsive parenting intervention on parent-child interactions during shared book reading. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 969-986.
Leavell A. S., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Ruble, D. N., Zosuls, K. M., and Cabrera, N. J. (2012).
African American, white and Latino fathers’ activities with their sons and daughters in early childhood. Sex Roles, 66, 53-65.
*Lynch, J. (2010). Kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about students’ knowledge of print literacy
and parental involvement in children’s print literacy development. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(2), 157-171.
*Maher, M. (2007). Home-school partnership with mathematics intervention. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32(3), 48-58.
*Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L., and Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72, 549-576.

193

McBride-Chang, C. (2012). Shared-book reading: There is no downside for parents. Pages 5258 in S. Suggate and E. Reese (eds.), Contemporary debates in childhood education anddevelopment. London: Routledge.
*McIntyre, L. L., Eckert, T. L., Fiese, B. H., DiGennaro, F. D., and Wildenger, L. K. (2007).
Transition to kindergarten: Family experiences and involvement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 83-88.
*McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., and Sekino, Y. (2004). A multivariate
examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban
kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 363-377.
*Mistry, R. S., Benner, A. D., Biesanz, J. C., and Clark, S. L. (2010). Family and social risk,
and parental investments during the early childhood years as predictors of low-income
children’s school readiness outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 432-449.
*Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., de Jong, M. T., and Smeets, D. J. H. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent-child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19, 7-26.
*Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: A research
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1039-1101.
*Patel, N., and Stevens, S. (2010). Parent-teacher-student discrepancies in academic ability beliefs: Influences on parent involvement. School Community Journal, 20(2), 115-136.
Patton, C., and Wang, J. (2012). Ready for success: Creating collaborative and thoughtful transitions into kindergarten. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
Phillips, M., Crouse, J., and Ralph, J. (1998). Does the black-white test score gap widen afterchildren enter school? Pages 229-272 in C. Jencks and M. Philips (eds.), The black-white
test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
*Powell, D. R., and Peet, S. H. (2008). Development and outcomes of a community-based intervention to improve parents’ use of inquiry in informal learning contexts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 259-273.
Powell, D. R., Son, S-H., File, N., and Froiland, J. M. (2012). Changes in parent involvement
across the transition from public school prekindergarten to first grade and children’s academic outcomes. Elementary School Journal, 113, 276-300.
*Powell, D. R., Son, S-H., File, N., and San Juan, R. R. (2010). Parent-school relationships andchildren’s academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. Journal of
School Psychology, 48, 269-292.
*Raver, C. C., Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L. (2007). Testing equivalence of mediating models of
income, parenting, and school readiness for white, black, and Hispanic children in a national sample. Child Development, 78(1), 96-115.

194

*Reese, E., Leyva, D., Sparks, A., and Grolnick, W. (2010). Maternal elaborative reminiscing
increases low-income children’s narrative skills relative to dialogic reading. Early Education and Development, 21(3), 318-342.
*Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., and Smith, J. A. (2006). Words to go: Evaluating a first grade
parental involvement program for making words at home. Research and Instruction, 45,
119-159.
*Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., and Bradley, R. H. (2003). Teacher-rated
family involvement and children’s social and academic outcomes in kindergarten. EarlyEducation and Development, 14, 179-198.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., and Zhang, Y. (2005). Father-school communication in preschool andkindergarten. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 287-308.
*Ritter, G. W., Barnett, J. H., Denny, G. S., and Albin, G. R. (2009). The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 3-38.
*Rodriguez, E. T., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Spellmann, M. E., Pan, B. A., Raikes, H., Lugo-Gil,J., and Luze, G. (2009). The formative role of home literacy experiences across the first
three years of life in children from low-income families. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30, 677-694.
*Saint-Laurent, L., and Giasson, J. (2005). Effects of a family literacy program adapting parental intervention to first graders’ evolution of reading and writing abilities. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 5, 253-278.
*Schulting, A. B., Malone, P. S., and Dodge, K. A. (2005). The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 860-871.
*Sears, N., and Medearis, L. (1992, October). Natural math: A progress report on implementation of a family involvement project for early childhood mathematics among children of
the Oklahoma Seminole Head Start and Boley Head Start. Paper presented at the Rocky
Mountain Research Association, Stillwater, OK.
*Sénéchal, M., and LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s
reading skills: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445-460.
*Sénéchal, M., and Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children’s
acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78, 880-907.
Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent involvement.
Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 301-316.
Sheldon, S. B, and Epstein, J. L. (2005b). School programs of family and community involvement to support children’s reading and literacy development across the grades. Pages 107-195

138 in J. Flood and P. Anders (eds.), Literacy Development of Students in Urban Schools:
Research and Policy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association (IRA).
*Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Kuypzyk, K. A., Pope Edwards, C., and Marvin, C. A. (2011).
A randomized trial examining the effects of parent engagement on early language and literacy: The Getting Ready intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 361-383.
*St. Clair, L., Jackson, B., and Zweiback, R. (2012). Six years later: Effect of family involvement training on the language skills of children from migrant families. School Community
Journal, 22(1), 9-19.
*Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. J., and Lamb, M. E. (2004). Fathers andmothers at play with their 2- and 3-year olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development, 75(6), 1806-1820.
*Tang, S., Dearing, E., W., and Weiss, H. B. (2012). Spanish-speaking Mexican-American families’ involvement in school-based activities and their children’s literacy: The implicationsof having teachers who speak Spanish and English. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
27, 177-187.
Trivette, C. M. and Dunst, C. J. (2007). Relative effectiveness of dialogic, interactive, andshared reading interventions. Center for Early Literacy Learning (CELL) Reviews, 1(2), 15.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011. NCES 2011-015, Chapters 1 and 2.
*van Steensel, R., McElvany, N. Kurvers, J., and Herppich, S. (2011). How effective are family
literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 6996.
*van Tuijl, C., and Leseman, P. P. M. (2004). Improving mother-child interaction in lowincome Turkish-Dutch families: A study of mechanisms mediating improvements resulting
from participating in a home-based preschool intervention program. Infant and Child Development, 13, 323-340.
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involvement and science achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), (323-338).
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011). Costs and benefits of family involvement in homework: Lessons
learned from students and families. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 220-249.
*Weigel, D. J., Martin, S. S., and Bennett, K. K. (2006). Mothers’ literacy beliefs: Connections
with the home literacy environment and pre-school children’s literacy development. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6, 191-211.
*Weizman, Z. O., and Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 265-279.

196

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., and Fischel, J. E.
(1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from lowincome families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.
*Wildenger, L. K., and McIntyre, L. L. (2012). Investigating the relation between kindergarten
preparation and child socio-behavioral school outcomes. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 169-176.

197

References for Chapter 3
Family Involvement in Math Activities and Results forChildren’s Math Achievement and Social-Emotional Skills
NOTE: An asterisk (*) indicates that the study is discussed in Chapter 3 of this literature review.

Altschul, I. (2011). Parental involvement and the academic achievement of Mexican American
youths: What kinds of involvement in youths’ education matter most? Social Work Research,
35, 159-170. doi: 10.1093/swr/35.3.159.
*Anders, Y., Rossbach, H. G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., and von Maurice, J.
(2012). Home and preschool learning environments and their relations to the development ofearly numeracy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 231-244.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.08.003.
Anderson, A. (1997). Families and mathematics: A study of parent-child interactions. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 28(4), 484-511.
Anderson, D. D., and Gold, E. (2006). Home to school: Numeracy practices and mathematical identities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 261-286. doi: 10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_4.
Aubrey, C., Bottle, G., and Godfrey, R. (2003). Early mathematics in the home and out-of-homecontexts. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(2), 91-103.
doi: 10.1080/09669760304708.
Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban
schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9-31.
Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family involvement with children’s homework: Anintervention in the middle grades. Family Relations, 47, 149-157.
Balli, S. J., Wedman, J. F., and Demo, D. H. (1997). Family involvement with middle-grades
homework: Effects of differential prompting. Journal of Experimental Education, 66, 31-48.
Bartels, S. M., and Eskow, K. G. (2010). Training school professionals to engage families: A pilot
university/state department of education partnership. School Community Journal, 20(2), 45-71.
*Blevins-Knabe, B., Austin, A. B., Musun, L., Eddy, A., and Jones, R. M. (2000). Family home careproviders’ and parents’ beliefs and practices concerning mathematics with young children. Early Child Development and Care, 165(1), 41-58. doi: 10.1080/0300443001650104.
Blevins-Knabe, B., and Musun-Miller, L. (1996). Number use at home by children and their parents
and its relationship to early mathematical performance. Early Development and Parenting,5(1), 35-45.
*Blevins-Knabe, B., Whiteside-Mansell, L., and Selig, J. (2007). Parenting and mathematicaldevelopment. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 11(2), 76-80.

198

Bjorklund, D. F., Hubertz, M. J., and Reubens, A. C. (2004). Young children’s arithmetic strategies in social context: How parents contribute to children’s strategy development while
playing games. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(4), 347-357.
doi: 10.1080/01650250444000027.
Boaler, J. (2009). What’s math got to do with it? How parents and teachers can help children
learn to love their least favorite subject. New York: Penguin Group.
Cancio, E. J., West, R. P., and Young, R. (2004). Improving mathematics homework completion and accuracy of students with EBD through self-management and parent participation.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(1), 9-22.
*Catsambis, S., and Beveridge, A. A. (2001). Neighborhood and school influences on the family life and mathematics performance of eighth-grade students. Baltimore and Washington,
DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.
Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., and Gorny, Y. D. (1992). Family factors and student achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success. School Psychology Quarterly, 7(3), 178206. doi: 10.1037/h0088259.
Civil, M., and Bernier, E. (2006). Exploring images of parental participation in mathematics
education: Challenges and possibilities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 309330. doi: 10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_6.
Civil, M., Bratton, J., and Quintos, B. (2005). Parents and mathematics education in a Latino
community. Multicultural Education, 13(2), 60-64.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cousins, L., and Mickelson, R. A. (2011). Making success in education: What black parents
believe about participation in their children’s education. Current Issues in Education,
14(3), 1-15.
*Crane, J. (1996). Effects of home environment, SES, and maternal test scores on mathematics
achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 305-314.
Dearing, E., Casey, B. M., Ganley, C. M., Tillinger, M., Laski, E., and Montecillo, C. (2012).
Young girls’ arithmetic and spatial skills: The distal and proximal roles of family socioeconomics and home learning experiences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 458470. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.01.002.
Dearing, E., Kreider, H. and Weiss, H. B. (2008). Increased family involvement in school predicts improved child-teacher relationships and feelings about school for low-income children. Marriage and Family Review, 43, 226-254. doi:10.1080/01494920802072462.
De La Cruz, Y. (1999). Reversing the trend: Latino families in real partnerships with schools.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(5), 296-300.

199

Eccles, J. S., and Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescentyears. Teachers College Record, 94(3), 568-587.
*El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and children’s
academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81(3), 9881005.
Eloff, I., Maree, J. G., and Miller, L. H. (2006). The role of parents’ learning facilitation modein supporting informal learning in mathematics. Early Child Development and Care, 176,
313-328. doi: 10.1080/03004430500092217.
Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elementary
School Journal, 86(3), 277-294.
*Epstein, J. L. (2005). A case study of the Partnership Schools Comprehensive School Reform(CSR) model. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 151-170.
Epstein, J. L., and Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 91(3),289-305.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., and Sheldon, S., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R. (Rodriquez), Van Voorhis, F. L., Martin, C. S., Thomas, B. G., Greenfield, M. D., Hutchins,
D. J., and Williams, K. J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
*Fan, X., and Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.
doi: 10.1023/A:1009048817385.
Farrell, A. F., and Collier, M. A. (2010). School personnel’s perceptions of family-school communication: A qualitative study. Improving Schools, 13(1), 4-20.
Farver, J. M., Xu, Y., Eppe, S., and Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Home environments and young Latino children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 196-212.
Ferrara, M. M., and Ferrara, P. J. (2005). Parents as partners: Raising awareness as a teacher
preparation program. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues andIdeas, 79(2), 77-82. doi: 10.3200/TCHS.79.2.77-82.
*Galindo, C., and Sheldon, S. B. (2012). School and home connections and children’s kindergarten achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 90-103.
Gelber, A., and Isen, A. (2011). Children’s schooling and parents’ behavior: Evidence from theHead Start impact study. Working Paper No. 17704. Washington, DC: National Bureau of
Economic Research.

200

Giallo, R., Treyvaud, K., Matthews, J., and Kienhuis, M. (2010). Making the transition to primary school: An evaluation of a transition program for parents. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 10, 1-17.
Ginsburg, L., Rashid, H., and English-Clarke, T. (2008). Parents learning mathematics: For
their children, from their children, with their children. Adult Learning, 19, 21-26.
González, N., Andrade, R., Civil, M., and Moll, L. (2001). Bridging funds of distributed
knowledge: Creating zones of practices in mathematics. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, 6(1-2), 115-132. doi: 10.1207/s15327671espr0601-2_7.
Graham-Clay, S. (2005). Communicating with parents: Strategies for teachers. School Community Journal, 16(1), 117-129.
Graue, M. E., Weinstein, T., and Walberg, H. J. (1983). School-based home instruction andlearning: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 76(6), 351-360.
*Greenman, E., Bodovski, K., and Reed, K. (2011). Neighborhood characteristics, parental
practices and children’s achievement in elementary school. Social Science Research, 40,
1434-1444. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.04.007.
Greenwood, G. E., and Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and practice in parent involvement:
Implications for teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 279-288.
*Guberman, S. R. (2004). A comparative study of children’s out-of-school activities and arithmetical achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 117-150.
*Haghighat, E. (2005). School social capital and pupils’ academic performance. International
Studies in Sociology of Education, 15(3), 213-235. doi: 10.1080/09620210500200141.
Halgunseth, L. (2009). Family engagement, diverse families, and early childhood programs: An
integrated review of the literature. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
*Harper, S. N., and Pelletier, J. (2010). Parent involvement in early childhood: A comparison ofEnglish language learners and English first language families. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 18(2), 123-141.
Hill, N. E., and Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic
assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3),740-763.
*Holt, J. K., and Campbell, C. (2004). The influence of school policy and practice on mathematics achievement during transitional periods. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
12(23). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n23/.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M., Reed, R. P., de Jong, J. M., and Jones,
K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195209. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_5.

201

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A.
S., and Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.
*Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Larson, S. L., Krieg, D. B., and Shaligram, C. (2000). Mathematics, vocabulary, and reading development in Chinese American and European American children over the primary school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4),745-760.
*Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Liaw, F. R., and Ching, W. D. (1997). Cultural differences inearly mathematics learning: A comparison of Euro-American, Chinese-American, andTaiwan-Chinese families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(2), 371388. doi: 10.1080/016502597384929.
Hyde, J. S., Else-Quest, N. M., Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E., and Romberg, T. (2006). Mathematics in the home: Homework practices and mother-child interactions doing mathematics.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(2), 136-152.
Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., and Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal assessment of teacher’s perceptions of parental involvement in children’s education and school
performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817-839.
Jackson, K., and Remillard, J. T. (2005). Rethinking parent involvement: African American
mothers construct their roles in the mathematics education of their children. School Community Journal, 15(1), 51-73.
*Jacobs, J. E., and Bleeker, M. M. (2004). Girls’ and boys’ developing interests in math andscience: Do parents matter? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 106,
5-21.
Jacobs, J. E., Davis-Kean, P. E., Bleeker, M., Eccles, J. S., and Malanchuk, O. (2005). I can doit but I don’t want to. The impact of parents, interests, and activities on gender differences
in math. Pages 246-263 in A. M. Gallagher and J. C. Kaufman (eds.), Gender difference inmathematics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. L., and Walker, T. (1991). A follow-up evaluation of the Houston parent-child development center school performance. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(3), 226-236.
doi 10.1177/105381519101500302.
*Kleemans, T., Peeters, M., Segers, E., and Verhoeven, L. (2012). Child and home predictors ofearly numeracy skills in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 471-477.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.004
Kliman, M. (1999). Beyond helping with homework: Parents and children doing mathematics athome. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(3), 140-146.
Kliman, M. (2006). Math out of school: Families’ math game playing at home. School Community Journal, 16(2), 69-90.

202

Landerholm, E., Rubenstein, D., and Losch, M. (1995). Involving parents of young children inscience, math, and literacy activities. School Community Journal, 5(2), 49-58.
Lee, J. S., and Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement
gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 193218.
*LeFevre, J., Clarke, T., and Stringer, A. P. (2002). Influences of language and parental involvement on the development of counting skills: Comparisons of French- and Englishspeaking Canadian children. Early Child Development and Care, 172(3), 283-300.
*LeFevre, J., Polyzoi, E., Skwarchuk, S. L., Fast, L., and Sowinski, C. (2010). Do home numeracy and literacy practices of Greek and Canadian parents predict the numeracy skills ofkindergarten children? International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(1), 55-70.
doi: 10.1080/09669761003693926.
*LeFevre, J., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., and Bisanz, J.
(2009). Home numeracy experiences and children’s math performance in the early school
years. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(2), 55-66.
Lewis, L., Kim, Y. A., and Bey, J. A. (2011). Teaching practices and strategies to involve innercity parents at home and in the school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 221-234.
Lopez, C. O., and Donovan, L. (2009). Involving Latino parents with mathematics through family math nights: A review of the literature. Journal of Latinos and Education, 8(3), 219230. doi: 10.1080/15348430902888666.
Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and publicschool inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance. School Psychology Review, 28, 395-412.
Marschal, M. (2006). Parent involvement and educational outcomes for Latino students. Review
of Policy Research, 23(5), 1053-1076.
Marshall, L., and Swan, P. (2010). Parents as participating partners. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(3), 25-32.
*Melhuish, E. C., Phan, M. B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., and Taggart, B.
(2008). Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center experience uponliteracy and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues,
64(1), 95-114.
Mena, J.A. (2011). Latino parent home-based practices that bolster student academic persistence. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 490-506.
doi: 10.1177/0739986311422897.
Miserandino, A. D. (1995). Identifying and nurturing mathematical talent in urban schools.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 6(4), 245-257.

203

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2012). Search for parents’ math anxiety. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org.
*Noble, K. G., Duch, H., Darvique, M. E., Grundleger, A., Rodriguez, C., and Landers, C.
(2012). Getting ready for school: A preliminary evaluation of a parent-focused schoolreadiness program. Child Development Research, 2012, 1-14. doi:10.1155/2012/259598.
*O’Connell, S. R. (1992). Math pairs: Parents as partners. Arithmetic Teacher, 40(1), 10-12.
*Pan, Y., Gauvain, M., Liu, Z., and Cheng, L. (2006). American and Chinese parental involvement in young children’s mathematics learning. Cognitive Development, 21(1), 17-35.
doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.08.001.
*Powell, D. R., Son, S. H., File, N., and San Juan, R. R. (2010). Parent-school relationships andchildren’s academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. Journal of
School Psychology, 48, 269-292. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.03.002.
*Roopnarine, J. L., Krishnakumar, A., Metindogan, A., and Evans, M. (2006). Links between
parenting styles, parent-child academic interaction, parent-school interaction, and early academic skills and social behaviors in young children of English-speaking Caribbean immigrants. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 238-252.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.007.
*Schulting, A. B., Malone, P. S., and Dodge, K. A. (2005). The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 860-871. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.860.
Scott, P. (2007). Successfully bringing parents into the classroom. Education Digest, 73(2), 4749.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in Elementary schools tostudent achievement on state tests. Urban Review, 35(2), 149-165.
Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equation model of partnership program implementation and parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 171-187.
doi: 10.1086/499197.
Sheldon, S. B., Clark, L. A., and Williams, K. J. (2001, April). Exploring school-familycommunity partnerships and achievement in Baltimore city elementary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle,
WA.
*Sheldon, S. B., Epstein, J. L., and Galindo, C. (2010). Not just numbers: Creating a partnershipclimate to improve math proficiency in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1),27-48.
Sheldon, S., and Galindo, C. (2012). School and home connections and children’s kindergarten
achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 27(1), 90-103. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.05.004.

204

Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., Bovaird, J. A., and Kupzyk, K. A. (2010). Parent engagement and school readiness: Effects of the getting ready intervention on preschool children’s social-emotional competencies. Early Education and Development,
21(1), 125-156. doi: 10.1080/10409280902783517.
*Simpkins, S. D., Weiss, H. B., McCartney, K., Kreider, H. M., and Dearing, E. (2006). Mother-child relationship as a moderator of the relation between family educational involvement
and child achievement. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6(1), 49-57.
*Skwarchuk, S. L. (2009). How do parents support preschoolers’ numeracy learning experiences at home? Early Childhood Educational Journal, 37(3), 189-197.
doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0340-1.
Smit, J. (2011). Parent involvement in urban charter schools: New strategies for increasing participation. School Community Journal, 21(1), 71-94.
*Starkey, P., and Klein, A. (2000). Fostering parental support for children’s mathematical development: An intervention with Head Start families. Early Education and Development,
11(5), 659-680. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1105_7.
Szemcsak, D. D., and West, O. J. (1996). The whole town is talking about it . . . math month,that is. Teaching Children Mathematics, 3(4), 170-173.
Tucker, C. M., Chennault, S. A., Brady, B. A., and Fraser, K. P. (1995). A parent, community,
public schools, and university involved partnership education program to examine andboost academic achievement and adaptive functioning skills of African-American students.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28(3), 174-185.
Valencia, R. R., and Black, M. S. (2002). Mexican Americans don’t value education! — On thebasis of the myth, mythmaking, and debunking. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1, 81103.
*Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Boomgarden, E., Finn, L., and Pittard, C. (2012). Parental support ofnumeracy during a cooking activity with four-year-olds. International Journal of Early
Years Education, 20(1), 78-93.
*Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Ferretti, L., and Loving, S. (2011). Playing the ladybug game: Parent
guidance of young children’s numeracy activities. Early Child Development and Care,
182(10), 1289-1307. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2011.609617.
*Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011). Adding families to the homework equation: A longitudinal study ofmathematics achievement. Education and Urban Society, 43(3), 313-338.
Wanat, C. L. (2010). Challenges balancing collaboration and independence in home-school relationships: Analysis of parents’ perceptions in one district. School Community Journal,20(1), 159-185.
Whiteford, T. (1998). Math for moms and dads. Educational Leadership, 55(8), 64-66.

205

Zellman, G., and Waterman, J. M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent school involvement on children’s educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 91(6), 370380.
*Zhan, M. (2006). Assets, parental expectations and involvement, and children’s educational
performance. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 961-975.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.10.008.

206

About MDRCMDRC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan social and education policy research organization dedicatedto learning what works to improve the well-being of low-income people. Through its researchand the active communication of its findings, MDRC seeks to enhance the effectiveness of social and education policies and programs.
Founded in 1974 and located in New York City and Oakland, California, MDRC is best known
for mounting rigorous, large-scale, real-world tests of new and existing policies and programs.
Its projects are a mix of demonstrations (field tests of promising new program approaches) andevaluations of ongoing government and community initiatives. MDRC’s staff bring an unusual
combination of research and organizational experience to their work, providing expertise on thelatest in qualitative and quantitative methods and on program design, development, implementation, and management. MDRC seeks to learn not just whether a program is effective but also
how and why the program’s effects occur. In addition, it tries to place each project’s findings inthe broader context of related research — in order to build knowledge about what works acrossthe social and education policy fields. MDRC’s findings, lessons, and best practices are proactively shared with a broad audience in the policy and practitioner community as well as with thegeneral public and the media.
Over the years, MDRC has brought its unique approach to an ever-growing range of policy areas and target populations. Once known primarily for evaluations of state welfare-to-work programs, today MDRC is also studying public school reforms, employment programs for exoffenders and people with disabilities, and programs to help low-income students succeed incollege. MDRC’s projects are organized into five areas:•

Promoting Family Well-Being and Children’s Development•

Improving Public Education•

Raising Academic Achievement and Persistence in College•

Supporting Low-Wage Workers and Communities•

Overcoming Barriers to Employment

Working in almost every state, all of the nation’s largest cities, and Canada and the United
Kingdom, MDRC conducts its projects in partnership with national, state, and local governments, public school systems, community organizations, and numerous private philanthropies.