OSIPP Discussion Paper : DP-2016-E-008

Empirical Analysis of Informative School Outreach on
Home-based Parental Involvement
August 29, 2016

Midori Otani
Ph.D. Candidate, Osaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)【Keyword】Parental Involvement, School Outreach, TIMSS【JEL Codes】I21, I24【Abstract】Parental involvement is essential for children’s education. Several studies
have examined relationships between parental involvement and parents’ socioeconomic
status. However, less attention has been placed on school influences on parental
involvement even though schools play an important role in children’s education, andcan also, in turn, affect the parents as well. This study addressed the question: how
informative school outreach influence parents of children in different school levels to
get involved in their children’s education? The present study examined a nationally
represented sample of elementary and middle school children in Japan (3,939 fourth
grade students from 140 schools and 4,143 eighth grade students from 133 schools)
from Trends International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2011. Findings
revealed that different types of informative school outreach have different effects
depending on the school level.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Hisakazu Matsushige and Tetsuya
Matsubayashi of Osaka University for their helpful comments.
Correspondence: Midori Otani
Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University, 1–31 Machikaneyama,
Toyonaka, Osaka 560–0043, JAPAN.
E-mail: m-otani@osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp.
11Introduction
Parents play important roles in their children’s education. A number of researchers have observed

the importance of child-parents relationship in this matter. For example, Coleman and his colleague
argue that the child-parents relationship has a great importance as social capital for a child’s
intellectual development and education (Coleman, 1987, 1988, 1991; Coleman and Hoffer, 1987).
When there is a strong social capital in the family, parents devote their resources, such as time andefforts, toward their children’s education. In fact, various studies conclude that parental involvementin children’s education has positive impacts on school achievement (e.g., Sui-Chu and Willms, 1996;
Englund et al., 2004; Galindo and Sheldon, 2012), attitude (e.g., Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Shumow et al,2011), and behavior(e.g., Hill et al., 2004). As a result, many reports and studies encourage parental
involvement to increase academic performance (e.g., Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Blazer, 2009;
Galindo and Sheldon, 2012).
However, not all parents are involved to the same degree in their children’s education andschooling. Studies have been conducted to understand its mechanism. A common approach has been
to examine the relationship between parental involvement and socioeconomic status (SES). Although,researchers claim that status variables do not explain parents’ decision of involvement and that it is
not the most important measures to understand it either (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1995;
Epstein, 1990). Then what would prompt parents to get involved in their children’s education?
It is assumed that schools have an influence on not only children but also their parents. From
ecological perspectives, Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1979) stresses that environmental factors and theirinteractions have an influence on human development and behaviour. From this point of view, sinceparents interact with the school through their children’s school years, the school can be one of thefactors that influence them. Besides, when parents and school have a shared common goal, children
are more likely to succeed in education (Epstein, 1992; Epstein and Sanders, 2000). It is because
students are influenced not only by their parents but also by the school concurrently (Epstein, 1992;
Epstein and Sanders, 2000). A number of studies address the importance of school-family
partnerships (Epstein, 1992; Epstein and Sanders, 2000; Eccles and Harold, 1996: Shimizu, 2012;
Ochanomizu University, 2015). However, few studies have tried to analyse its effects on parental
involvement so far, and, seemingly no studies have compared the effects of informative schooloutreach among different school levels (e.g., elementary and middle schools).
The present study examines the effects of informative school outreach on parental involvement
using data from Trends International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2011. The uniquecontribution of the study is the comparison of effects of informative school outreach between
elementary and middle schools. Also, the study advanced the understanding of the effects in two
ways: firstly, it controls not only students characteristics but also school characteristics that many
previous studies examining parental involvement fail to control; secondly, utilizing both2

multidimensional and separate measures of home-based parental involvement as dependent variables
to examine the robust effects of informative school outreach. The findings reveal that different typesof informative school outreach have different effects depending on the age of the children. It
indicates the importance of taking into account the school level.

2

Definition
2.1

Parental Involvement

Parental involvement includes a range of practices by the parent toward their children that are
intended to promote the latter’s motivation and educational achievement. However, since parental
involvement is multidimensional it has made it difficult to define it (Hill and Taylor, 2004), several
different researchers make different categorizations. For example, Epstein (2001) suggests six
categories of involvement: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision
making, and collaborating within the community. Grolnick and Sowiaczek (1994) describe three
categories of involvement: behaviour, cognitive-intellectual, and personal.
Most commonly, parental involvement is categorized in home-based and school-based
involvement (e.g. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1997; Galindo and Sheldon, 2012; Deslandes andBertrad, 2005; Green and Walker, 2007; Pomerantz et al., 2007; Anderson and Minke, 2007; Dauberand Epstein, 1989; Shumow and Miller, 2001). School-based involvement includes practices taking
place at school; for example, attending school events, conference, and volunteering. Home-based
involvement is related to practices taking place outside of school such as learning activities at home,reviewing the child’s work, monitoring their progress, helping them with homework, and discussions
about school events (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1997;0 Pomerantz et al., 2007).
The present study adopts the home-based versus school-based categorization. However, sinceschool-based involvement can be more affected by external reasons which cannot be controlled bythis study (e.g. nonflexible work schedule of parents), I refrain from using it as a measure of parental
involvement. Since home-based involvement is less likely to be affected by such problems andshould be a better indicator of the actual outcomes. In this study, home-based involvement includes
communication with children about schoolwork (communicating) and monitoring their homework(monitoring).
Communicating and monitoring are commonly used as measures of parental involvement (e.g.,
McNeal, 2014; Sui-Chi and Willms, 1996). These measures reflect the level of social capital within
the family, which in turn promotes the child’s intellectual development (Coleman, 1987, 1988, 1991;
Coleman and Hoffer, 1987). Parent-child communication regarding education conveys theimportance of schooling to the child (McNeal, 1999, 2014). Monitoring is the regulation of activities
that children engage in (e.g. watching TV or playing video games) and the supervision of homework.
It protects children from harmful influences and helps to construct habits that are associated with3

desirable behaviour and educational performance (McNeal, 1999). Empirical studies show that theseparental involvement prevent problematic behaviour and positively influence on achievement (e.g.,
Sui-Chi and Willms, 1996; Pong, 1997; McNeal, 1999, 2014)
The present study examines parental involvement both as multidimensional and separate measures.
It is because even though parental involvement is a multidimensional construct, the inclusion of too
many measures could mislead its intention. Therefore, to understand robust effects of schooloutreach, multidirectional analyses are conducted.
2.2. School Outreach
There is no concrete definition of school outreach. As a measure of school outreach, prior studies
include various approaches and practices: informing parents about children’s grades and behavior,
informing them about school activities, asking parents about volunteering, arranging meetings andconferences, and providing workshop sessions. The present study examines school outreach that
informs the parents about their children as students and the school.

3. Literature Review about Determination of Parental Involvement
3.1. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s Model
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995, 1997) presented a theoretical model of parental involvement
process to understand why parents choose to become involved. According to the Hoover-Dempsey
and Sandler’s Model (the HDS model), parents’ decision to become involved in their children’s
education is based on three factors: (a) parental role construction: parents’ beliefs about what they
are supposed to do in relation to their children’s education, (b) parents’ self-efficacy for helping
children succeed in school, (c) parents’ perception of invitations/demands and opportunities for
involvement. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) contend that parental role construction is themost important factor, and when it is significant, positive involvement decision would be likely tooccur. Parental role construction is described in part by general role theory: expectations held bygroups are the major generator of roles, and it is learned through experiences (Hoover-Dempsey andSandler, 1997; Biddle, 1986). It indicates that parental role construction is shaped by the interactions
between schools and parents and by the expectation that schools hold about parents’ responsibilities
toward their child’s schooling (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1997).
Tests of the model have been conducted, and its utility among parents of elementary school
children (Green et al., 2007; Anderson and Minke, 2007), middle school students (Deslandes andBertrand, 2005), and high school adolescents (Park and Holloway, 2013) was confirmed.
Additionally, Green et al. (2007) analysed parents of children in elementary through middle schooland revealed that the model predicted parental involvement even when controlling for SES. The
theory was also tested in the Japanese context. Yamamoto et al. (2006) examined mothers of children
in preschool and showed that their self-efficacy and role construction were associated with strategies
4for selecting preschools and frequency of engaging in home reading.
The predictions of this study are based on the HDS model. Given parental role construction isshaped by the interactions between schools and parents, informing parents about school and children
would prompt parental role construction through enhancing their sense of responsibility for theirchild’s education and, in turn, it would increase parental involvement (see Figure1).

3.2. School Outreach
Even though relatively few studies examined effects of school outreach on parental involvement,
studies have mostly shown positive influences of school outreach. Dauber and Epstein (1989) foundthat elementary and middle school outreach influenced parental involvement positively regardless ofthe parents’ education, family size, student ability, and school level (elementary or middle school).
Stacer and Perrucci (2013) investigated parents of children from kindergarten to the fifth grade, andthe results revealed that school outreach efforts increased home-based involvement. Sheldon et al.
(2011) analysed from elementary to high schools and found a positive association between theeffectiveness of math-focused school outreach and school level of parental involvement. Park andHolloway (2013) found that informative high school outreach (e.g., sending information aboutchildren, how to help homework, and college planning) is strongly associated with both school- andhome- based parental involvement.
Some of the prior studies, however, did find negative or no association at all. Simon (2004) foundmost informative high school outreach, including information about academic programs,
volunteering, how to help out with homework, positively predicted school- and home-based parental
involvement. Meanwhile, high frequency of school contact to parents about their children’s
attendance and behaviour is negatively associated with most types of the parental involvement.
Galindo and Sheldon (2012) did not find any association between school outreach (kindergarten) andhome-based involvement. Likewise, Feuerstein (2000) did not find associations between most of theschool outreach and parental involvement among eighth grade.
These discrepant results are likely reflecting the varying definitions of school outreach andparental involvement. Studies using a single index that includes various types of practices fromproviding workshops to informing about volunteering to measure school outreach (e.g., Galindo and
Sheldon, 2012; Stacer and Perrucci, 2013) could lead to less precise results and fail to examine
effects of different types of outreach. Additionally, studies that utilized combined data of schoollevels (kindergarten, elementary, middle, and high school) (Dauber and Epstein, 1989; Stacer and
Perrucci, 2013; Sheldon et al., 2011) failed to examine the effects of school outreach on parental
involvement at different stages of children’s development. Since relatively few studies investigated
the relationship between school outreach and parental involvement, more research is needed tounderstand the relationships between these two factors.
5

3.3. Socioeconomic Status
Prior studies largely show a positive association between parental involvement and socioeconomic
status (SES); namely, parent’s level of education and family income (e.g., Kohl and McMahon,
2000; Waanders et al., 2007; Simon, 2004). Contradicting results, however, do exist (Galindo and
Sheldon, 2012; Stacer, and Perrucci, 2013; Bhargava and Witherspoon, 2015; Anderson and Minke,
2007; Shumow et al., 2011, Yamamoto et al., 2006). For example, when focusing on home-based
parental involvement, Galindo and Sheldon (2012) found a positive sign for parent’s education but anon-significant value for income against home-based involvement. Also, some studies did not findany significant association between parents’ SES and home-based involvement (Shumow et al.,2011; Holloway et al., 2008). When the components of home-based involvement are disentangled,
results have shown to be mixed too (Lee and Bowen, 2006; Shumow and Miller, 2001; Park andHolloway, 2013; Grolnick et al., 1997). Shumow and Miller (2001), for instance, found that highschool graduates parents helped their children’s homework more than college graduate parents.
Other studies find different family-school relationships and parenting style according to SES (e.g.,
Lareau, 1987; Yamamoto, 2015; Honda, 2008; Matsuoka, 2015). Lareau (1987) examined parents inworking-class and middle-class communities and found that, in both communities, parents valued
educational success but the ways in which they promoted it differed. Parents in working-classcommunities believe that teachers are responsible for education, while, parents in middle-classcommunities have more interdependent relationships with schools and teachers, and they attended
school events more often (Lareau, 1987). Yamamoto (2015) also found the similar result thatworking-class mothers are less likely to know how to intervene effectively to improve theirchildren’s academic performance and tend to rely on teachers for their child’s academic direction. In
addition to this, higher SES parents are more likely to have strict parenting style compared to lower
SES parents (Yamamoto, 2015; Honda, 2008; Matsuoka, 2015). For instance, Yamamoto (2015)
found that middle-class mothers tend to create routines to develop learning habits such as setting
aside time for their children to complete homework compared to working-class mothers.
Even though the precise direction of the association is still unclear, it is important to take into
account the effects of SES on parental involvement. Therefore, family SES is used as control
variables to examine the true effects of informative school outreach.

3.4. Environmental Factors
From ecological perspectives, Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1979) stresses the importance of taking into
account environmental factors and their interactions to understand human development andbehaviour. Therefore, addition to individual-level factors like parents’ SES, environment factors suchas neighbourhood and school characteristics (e.g., class size and school SES) can influence parental
involvement. Previous studies show the influence of these factors on parental involvement
6

(Waanders et al., 2007: Smith et al., 1997; Bhargava and Witherspoon, 2015; Datar and Mason,
2008; Bonesrønning, 2004) and parental role construction (Whitaker and Hoover-Dempsey, 2015).
For example, Datar and Mason (2008) analysed panel data from the kindergarten and first grade
waves and found that increases in class size are associated with a decrease in home-based parental
involvement.
Many studies that examine parental involvement fail to control school characteristics variables,
however, since they have the influence on parental involvement, it is necessary to control thesefactors.

4. Pursues of the Present Study
The aim of the study is to examine the effects of informative school outreach on home-based
parental involvement for elementary and middle school separately. As described above, previous
studies mainly show positive relations between school outreach and parental involvement. However,these analyses fail to find precise effects because they use pooled data including different schoollevels altogether (e.g., Stacer and Perrucci, 2013; Dauber and Epstein, 1989; Sheldon et al., 2011).
It is important to take into consideration children’s school levels since it may affect parents’decision and types of involvement. For example, studies show that parental involvement tends todecrease for upper levels because of the level of difficulty of schoolwork and a more complicatedstructure of middle school system (e.g., students have several teachers) (Eccles and Harold, 1996;
Hill and Tyson, 2009). Also, elementary school children and middle school children have fairly
different needs and parents seem to respond to them in different ways. According to a survey, whileparents of elementary school children tend to care more about their behaviour and relationships;
parents of middle school children are more concerned about educational achievement (Benesse
Educational Research and Development Institute, 2011). These beliefs can affect the parents’decision of involvement. In addition to this, Hill and Taylor (2004) mention that studies may havefailed to capture types of parental involvement that appear only for upper school levels: a middle
schooler who is in the process of choosing his or her future high school would receive particular
involvement types that are not available for elementary school. Therefore, taking into consideration,
developmental changes is recommended (Hill and Taylor, 2004).
In this way, the effects of school outreach on parental involvement are also expected to vary
according to the school level. Given the policy relevance of school outreach, the estimates of its
effects should be as accurate as possible. Therefore, it is necessary to take the school level into
account. However, some previous studies have utilized data that combined school levels, and as far
as the author is concerned, no studies have compared the effects of school outreach between
different school levels.
The present study intends to address this gap by investigating the following research question:
7

how informative school outreach influence parents of children in different school levels (elementaryand middle schools) to get involved in their education at home? It is hypothesized that schooloutreach will present positive effects. It would prompt parental role construction, which in turnaffects parental involvement positively (see Figure 1). As it was mentioned previously, parental role
construction happens when schools transmit the expectations that they hold toward how parents
should participate in children’s education. I assume that school outreach would convey these
expectations and create parental role construction as shown by the empirical evidence in Whitakerand Hoover-Dempsey (2013). In addition to this, different patterns of association between
informative school outreach and parental involvement according to school level are expected toemerge.

5. Method
5.1. Data
This study uses the Japanese sub-sample from Trends International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) 2011. The survey was conducted by the International Association for the Evaluationof Educational Achievement (IEA). TIMSS is an international assessment of student achievement inmathematics and science in the fourth and eighth grades. It also collects a wide range of informationfrom students, teachers and school principals. This study uses the Student and the Schoolquestionnaires. A two-stage random sample design was employed to collect the sample. Schools
were drawn as a first stage and, in Japan, one class of students were selected from each of thesampled schools as a second stage. After deleting missing data, this study involves 3,939 fourth
grade students from 140 schools and 4,143 eighth grade students from 133 schools.

5.2. Variables
Dependent Variables (Home-Based Parental Involvement)
As measures of home-based parental involvement, four questions from the Student questionnairesthat asked students to rate their perception of their parents’ home-based involvement are used. The
questions were asked and labelled as follow: How often do your parents ask you what you learned inschool? (Ask); How often do you talk about your schoolwork with your parents? (Talk); How often
do your parents make sure that you set aside time for your homework? (Time)and How often do yourparents check if you do your homework? (Check). Answer categories were coded as follows: 1=
Never or almost never, 2= once or twice a month, 3= once or twice a week, 4= every day or almost
every day.
Based on this, three component variables and a binary variable were also created. The simple
correlations between four measures are positive in the range from 0.28 to 0.54 for fourth and 0.34 to
0.70 for eighth grade. Among the four questions, Ask and Talk are strongly correlated (0.54 for
8fourth and 0.62 for eighth grade), as well as Time and Check (0.45 for fourth and 0.70 for eighth
grade). Therefore, two composite measures were created by principal component analysis:
Communicating (Ask and Talk) and Monitoring (Time and Check). Factor analysis was also
performed (promax rotation) with Ask, Talk, Time, and Check for each grade. Factors with an
eigenvalue greater than 1 were retained, and it yielded one factor for both grade and labelled as Pi4.
Finally, one binary variable was created and labelled as Pi0 that measures if parents engage in atleast one type of the home-based practices. The variables are coded as follows: 1= more than once amonth, 0= Never or almost never.

Independent Variables (Informative school outreach)
Informative outreach measures include six questions from the School questionnaires. School
principals were asked the questions regarding frequency of informative outreach. All of the questions
began with “How often does your school inform parents about …?” The questions were: their child’s
learning progress? The behaviour and well-being of their children at school? The overall academic
achievement of the school? School accomplishments, the educational goals and pedagogic principlesof the school? The rules of the school? Answer categories were coded as follows: 1= never, 2= oncea year, 3=2-3 times a year, 4=more than three times a year. Factor analyses were performed (promax
rotation) separately for elementary and middle school (see Table 3). Factors with an eigenvalue
greater than 1were retained and it yielded a two-factor solution. Two composites were created for
fourth grade: informing about students and informing about school. However, as for eighth grade,the result indicated a Haywood case. Hence, a factor analysis was conducted again with the samequestions that composed informing about school for fourth grade. It yielded one factor andcomposed as informing about school. The two questions that were relevant to informing aboutschool were used independently for eighth grade.

Control Variables
Several student and school level variables were included in the models to control statistically forimportant background factors (see Table 1 for fourth grade and 2 for eighth grade).
Student level control variable
Students’ gender is dummy coded, 1=female 0=male. The measure of SES used in this study
includes a number of books and materials related to educational well-being at home and the highest
level of education completed by parents. The questions were answered by students. The number ofbooks at home was coded as follows: 1= 0-10 books, 2=11-25 books, 3=26-100 books, 4=101-200
books, 5=more than 200. Index of possessions at home was created through adding eleven questions
that ask if students have a specific item that is relevant to educational well-being (e.g. a computerand a desk for him/her own etc.). Since the distribution of addition of the eleven questions is not9normal but truncated, a dummy variable was created to capture the effect of external value. The
highest level of education completed by mother and father was asked but only to eighth gradestudents. Binary variables were created for each educational level both mother and father. More than
30% of students in the sample did not know one of their parents’ highest levels of education. Since it
is too large to drop from the data, a dummy variable was created as unknown instead of droppingthem from the data. It enables to control effects of parents’ educational level while keeping thestudents that do not know it in the sample.
School level control variables
The total enrolment of students was divided into hundreds. A Percentage of students from
economically disadvantaged home was coded as follows: 1= 0 to 10%, 2= 11 to 25%, 3= 26 to 50%,4= more than 50%. The immediate area in which the school was located was coded as follows: 1=
small town, 2= medium size city, 3= suburban, 4= urban. The income level of school's immediatearea was coded as follows: 1= low, 2= middle, 3= high. Class size is the number of students in theclass. Different types of schools (only for eighth grade) were coded as follows: 1=private/national,
0=public. All the questions were answered by a school principal.

5.3. Data analysis
Due to the sampling procedure used in TIMSS 2011, weighted multilevel model and weighted
multilevel ordered logit model, and weighted multilevel logit model analysis was conductedaccording to each independent variable. The analysis was conducted with students representing thelevel-1 units and schools representing level-2 units. Multilevel model is also known as a hierarchicallinear model. Eight models are estimated to analyse whether informative school outreach is
associated with home-based parental involvement. These models are statistically controlled student
and school background variables.

5.4. Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 provides weighted descriptive statistics for each grade. The proportion of parents that do
not engage in any types of involvement is not negligible. For fourth grade, about 4 percent and foreighth grade, about 10 percent of parents do not engage in any types of home-based involvement.
Parents’ highest levels of education were measured only for the eighth grade. Among mothers, 3%completed elementary school or did not graduate from any school, 33% completed junior highschool, 22% completed junior college, 16% graduated from university, college, or graduate school,and 26% lists as unknown. As for to fathers, 4%completed elementary school or did not graduate
from any school, 26%completed junior high school, 8% completed junior college, 28% graduatedfrom university, college, or graduate school, and 33% lists as unknown.

106. Results
6.1. Fourth grade
Table 3 shows the eight models that estimate effects of informative school outreach on eachvariable that measures home-based parental involvement. Model 1 to 4 are estimated with weighted
multilevel ordered logit model, model 5 to 7 are estimated with a weighted multilevel model, andfinally model 8 is estimated with weighted multilevel binary logit model. Informing about school ispositively associated with all the variables of parental involvement. That is when parents tend to get
more involved as they receive school information. On the other hand, informing about students is not
significantly associated with most variables and is negatively associated with Monitoring andPi0.
As for the student level variables, parents tend to communicate with their children about school
more and are more likely to engage in at least one type of involvement when their child is female(Ask, Talk, Communicating, and PI0). SES variables are largely related to parental involvement. The
number of possessions at home is positively associated with all home-based parental involvements.
Likewise, the numbers of books at home are also positively associated with most variables except for
Pi0.
On the school level variable, the income level of school area and class size is largely associatedwith parental involvement. The Higher income level of school area is negatively associated with Ask,
Check, Communicating, Pi4 and Pi0. Larger class size is negatively associated with most variables
except Ask and Time. Other variables do not show significant association largely. The total enrolmentof students in hundreds is positively associated with Talk and Pi0. A higher percentage of students
from economically disadvantaged homes is negatively associated with Pi0. When schools locate inbigger cities, parents tend to Ask more.

6.2. Eighth grade
Table 4 shows the results of the estimation for eighth grade. The same as for fourth grade, model 1
to 4 are estimated with the weighted multilevel ordered logit model, model 5 to 7 are estimated withweighted multilevel model, and finally model 8 is estimated with a weighted multilevel binary logit
model. School outreach about learning progress is positively associated with all the types ofhome-based parental involvement. However, a frequency of informing about behaviour andwell-being of children is negatively associated with Ask, Talk, Communicating, and Pi4. Lastly, theresults did not show any significant association between informing about school and home-based
parental involvement.
As student level variables, as with the fourth grade, parents are more likely to get involved andcommunicate when their child is female. The number of books is positively associated with most of
the parental involvement except for variables that measure monitoring related. The number ofpossessions at home is positively associated with all the types of home-based parental involvement.
11

A higher level of parents’ education is positively associated with home-based parental involvement
in large. However, the tendency is relatively weak for mothers’ educational level. While a higher
level of education is positively associated with Ask, Time, Monitoring, and Pi4, there are no
significant associations between Talk, Check, Communicating, andPi0. When children do not know
their mothers’ educational level, it is negatively associated with Talk but positively related to Timeand Monitoring.
As for school level variables, the percentage of students from economically disadvantaged homes
shows the strongest association with parental involvement. The higher percentage of economicallydisadvantaged students in the school is negatively associated with all the types of involvement. As
other variables, total enrolment of students is positively associated with Ask, Talk, Time, andCommunicating. Larger area of school location is negatively associated with Ask, Communicating,and Pi0. Higher income level of school area is negatively associated with Communicating and Pi4.
Larger class size is negatively associated with Talk and Communicating. However, a private or
national school does not have any influence on parental involvement.

7. Discussion
The present study investigates effects of informative school outreach on home-based parental
involvement elementary and middle school separately. Results reveal that different types of
informative school outreach have different effects depending on whether the student is in the fourthor eighth grade. Association of home-based parental involvement with informative school outreach,
students and school level variables are discussed.

Home-based parental involvement and its association with informative school outreach
For fourth grade, informing about school is positively associated with home-based parental
involvement. For eighth grade, informing about the learning progress had the similar effect. These
factors also positively influence parents who do not engage in any involvement. The effects of
informative school outreach are robust as they are significant on both multidimensional and separate
measures of home-based parental involvement.
However, for elementary school, informing about students and, for middle school, informing
about behaviour and well-being of students are negatively associated with some variables. The
results are consistent with Simon (2004). She refers that parents of children with attendance or
behaviour problems reported more school contacts about children’s attendance and behaviour.
Likewise, the same reason is considered for the negative result, and schools tend to inform parents
about behavior and well-being of students more frequently especially when there are more childrenthat have problems.
The differences in results between elementary and middles school may reflect the parents’ focus
12

of concern at different school levels of their children. Parents of elementary school children tend toconcern more about their children’s relationships with other friends, and behaviour of everyday life
rather than their academic achievement (Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute,2011). If the parents still do not place importance on their children’s academic achievement, theschool can play an important role to convey the importance of education and developing learning
habits. Information about the school such as rules or educational goals would make them aware ofwhat they are supposed to do in relation to their children’s schooling and prompt them to engage
more in their education.
On the other hand, parents of middle school children tend to care more about their children’s
education (Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute, 2011). In Japan, competitive
entrance exams are not used until it is time to enter high school. Hence, information about theirchildren’s educational progress becomes imperative to parents of middle school children. Even if
parents are less concerned about their education, frequent information about the learning progresscan make them aware of the importance of education and the high school entrance examinations.
Since working-class mothers tend to rely more on teachers for their children’s education (Lareau,
1987; Yamamoto, 2015), some parents might not consider the necessity to get involved in theirchildren’s education if they do not receive the information at all. Therefore, receiving information
about the learning progress prompt parents to get involved and try to lend their support.

Home-based parental involvement and its association with students level variables
On individual levels, results show that regardless of school level, when children are female,parents tend to get involved more, especially in the communicating type of involvement. Parents’
SES, especially economic resources, is largely associated with home-based parental involvement.
However, parents’ educational level, which is examined only for the eighth grade because of thelimited data, show different tendencies between mothers’ and fathers’ educational level.
In large, a higher level of fathers’ education is associated with more parental involvement, while
the mother’s educational level is not significantly associated with some types of involvement. A
higher level of mothers’ education is relatively associated with stricter parenting style such as
enforcing discipline and routines (Monitoring and Time), which is consistent with previous studies(Yamamoto, 2015; Honda, 2008). However, it is not significantly associated with Check. It is likely
that, in general, mothers hope that their children finish their homework regardless of theireducational level. In addition to this, as it was also pointed out by Yamamoto (2015), mothers with ahigher level of education would expect their children to develop learning habits through making sureif their children set aside time for their homework or not. As for communicating types of
involvement, Talk is not significantly associated with mothers’ educational level, but Ask is
associated with a higher level of it. Yamamoto (2015) argues that the working-class mother is less13

likely to know how to intervene effectively to improve their children’s academic performance. It is
assumed that mothers with lower educational level may hesitate to initiate to ask or do not know
how they should ask about those topics because they feel they lack knowledge or self-efficacy tounderstand what their children learn at school.

Home-based parental involvement and its association with school level variables
School level characteristics that influence parental involvement have somewhat different impacts
on elementary and middle school. A higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students isnegatively associated with all the measures for middle school but only with Pi0 for elementary
school. It is possible that information is less likely to be accessible for the parents whose children go
to schools with a higher concentration of economically disadvantaged students and it affects to theparents of children in middle school more than in elementary school.
Lareau (1987) points out that parents whose children attend school in middle-class communities
tend to socialize with other parents in school environments, such as school events, much more thanthose in working-class communities. The former receives more information compared to the latter,
and which affects the level of parental involvement positively.Therefore, it is considered that parents
whose children go to schools with a higher concentration of middle-class students receive more
information from the school and other parents than those with a large percentage of students from
economically disadvantaged homes.
In addition to the difficulty of keeping up with the more advanced level of studies, parents ofchildren in middle school need specific information regarding high school selection to be able to get
involved in their children’s education; for example, information about entrance examinations andhow to choose the appropriate high school. The information differs depending on the high school
they would like to attend, and its located area that is usually within a commuting distance of the area
the family lives in. If there are more parents who socialize with each other in or around school, itestablishes information exchange networks and especially when the information varies by locality,
the parents are more likely to get useful information there. On the other hand, educational
information related to elementary school children is more general, and parents can still get it fromdifferent sources. Therefore, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students can be more
influential for middle school since it changes the amount of the specific information that the parents
can get.
In addition to this, it is also possible that when a school consists of a large percentage of students
from economically disadvantaged homes, it may not give as much information as other schools witha higher concentration of middle-class students. Usually, higher SES parents tend to have higher
educational expectations (how far in school parents expect their children to advance) (e.g., Park andHolloway, 2013; Galindo and Sheldon, 2012). Accordingly, they are prone to demand more from the14

schools than their lower counterparts. Schools would respond to this and offer more information. As
a result, it prompts parents to get more involved.
A higher income level in the school area and larger class size are more negatively associated withparental involvement for fourth grade than eighth grade. One possible reason for stronger school
neighbourhood influence for fourth grade is that elementary schools have smaller school districts
compared to middle schools, hence elementary school neighbourhoods more overlaps with thefamily neighbourhood. Taking this into account, the result is consistent with Bhargava andWitherspoon (2015). They found that parents engage in more home-based involvement if they live inmore disadvantaged neighbourhoods to protect their children from negative influences.
The negative influence of larger class size is in line with previous studies (Datar and Mason,
2008; Bonesrønning, 2004). One of some plausible explanations for this is that when children are
still young, school-child-parent communication would be smoother in smaller classes. For example,
Blatchford and his colleagues (1997) examined effects of class size on a teaching of pupils aged 7 –11 years and found that pupils in smaller classes got more individual attention and better quality ofteaching. Usually, pupils play a role to convey information from schools such as handing letters or acommunication notebook to their parents. Since children in smaller classes get more attention fromteachers compared to those in a larger one, they are less likely to misunderstand information thatthey are supposed to tell their parents. As a result, school-child-parent communication becomessmoother in smaller classes and the parents would get more frequent or more accurate information
that, in turn, prompts involvement.

Limitations
Because of lack of data, the present study is unable to control the education level of parents offourth grade students. To see how the results can change without controlling it, the models of eighth
grade without controlling parents’ educational level were also estimated. The results were very
similar to Table 4 and informing about the learning progress is positively associated with all thevariables of involvement. Additionally, concerning the explanation presented by Simon (2004) for
the negative results, it is impossible to analyse whether it applies to this case or not sincecross-section data is used in the study. Further study using panel data is needed in order to test that
explanation.

8. Conclusion
The study investigated the effects of school outreach on parental involvement. Samples of
elementary and middle school children were analysed separately using a weighted multilevel model.
The results show that the associations are different according to the levels of school among thechildren. For the sample of elementary school children, informing about school is positively
15

associated with home-based parental involvement. On the other hand, informing about children’s
learning progress is positively associated with it for eighth grade.
This study addressed gaps in the literature on parental involvement making an important
contribution by showing the effects of informative school outreach and the importance of taking into
account the school levels. The results of the study suggest that schools and educators can increase
the frequency of parental involvement through implementing the practices according to the schoollevel.

Bibliography
Anderson, K. J., & Minke, K. M. (2007). Parent involvement in education: Toward an understandingof parents' decision making. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 311-323.
Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute. (2011). Dai 4 Kai Kosodate Seikatsu
Kihon Chyosa (SyoChyu Ban) [第４回子育て生活基本調査（小中版）]
Bhargava, S., & Witherspoon, D. P. (2015). Parental Involvement Across Middle and High School:
Exploring Contributions of Individual and Neighborhood Characteristics. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 44(9), 1702-1719.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent development in role theory. Annual review of sociology, 67-92.
Blatchford, P., Russell, A., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Martin, C. (2007). The effect of class size on theteaching of pupils aged 7–11 years. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(2),147-172.
Blazer, C. (2009). The Effect of Poverty on Student Achievement. Information Capsule. Volume
0901. Research Services, Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
Bonesrønning, H. (2004). The determinants of parental effort in education production: do parents
respond to changes in class size? Economics of Education Review, 23(1), 1-9.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and
Design. Harvard University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16(6), 32-38.
Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and Private High Schools: The Impact ofCommunities (p. 213). New York: Basic Books.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, S95-S120.
Coleman, J. S. (1991). Parental Involvement in Education. US Dept. of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Programs for the Improvement of Practice.
Datar, A., & Mason, B. (2008). Do reductions in class size “crowd out” parental investment in16

education?. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 712-723.
Dauber, S. L. & Epstein, J. L. (1989) Parent Attitudes and Practices of Parent Involvement inInner-City Elementary and Middle Schools. Center for Research on Elementary and Middle
Schools, Report No.33.
Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involvement in secondary-levelschooling. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 164-175.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’schooling. Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes, 3-34.
Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children's achievement inearly elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and qualityof assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 723.
Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications for
integrating sociologies of education and family. Marriage & Family Review, 15(1-2), 99-126.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and Family Partnerships. Report No. 6.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2000).Connecting home, school, and community. In Handbook of
the Sociology of Education (pp. 285-306).Springer US.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators andImproving Schools. Westview Press.
Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family
involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income
children. School Psychology Review,33(4), 467-480.
Feuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on participation inchildren's schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 29-40.
Galindo, C., & 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.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents' motivations
for involvement in children's education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental
involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532.
Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997).Predictors of parent
involvement in children's schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 538.
Grolnick, W. S., &Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents' involvement in children's schooling: A
multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65(1), 237-252.
Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S.
(2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations:
Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75(5), 1491-1509.
17

Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004).Parental school involvement and children's academic achievement
pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 161-164.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic
assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740.
ISO 690
Holloway, S. D., Yamamoto, Y., Suzuki, S., &Mindnich, J. D. (2008). Determinants of Parental
Involvement in Early Schooling: Evidence from Japan. Early Childhood Research &Practice, 10(1), n1.
Honda, Y., (2008). Katei Kyoiku no Airo.[Obstacles of Home Education].KeisoShobo, Tokyo.
Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sander, H. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why doesit make a difference? The Teachers College Record,97(2), 310-331.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in theirchildren’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3-42.
Hoover‐Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S.,&Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The
Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000).Parent involvement in school conceptualizing
multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of
School Psychology, 38(6), 501-523.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural
capital. Sociology of Education, 73-85.
Lee, J. S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap
among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218.
Matsuoka, R., Nakamuro, M., & Inui, T. (2015).Emerging inequality in effort: A longitudinal
investigation of parental involvement and early elementary school-aged children’s learning time inJapan. Social Science Research, 54, 159-176.
McNeal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on scienceachievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117-144.
McNeal Jr, R. B. (2014). Parent Involvement, Academic Achievement and the Role of Student
Attitudes and Behaviors as Mediators. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(8), 564-576.
OchanomizuUniversiy.(2015)

Heisei25

Nendo

Zenkokugakuryoku

Gakushujyoukyou(KimekomakaiChyosa) no Kekka wo Katuyoushita Gakuryoku ni Eikyo wo Ataeru Youinbunseki ni
Kansuru Chyosa Kenkyuu. [平成２５年度全国学力・学習状況調査（きめ細かい調査）の結果を活用した学力に影響を与える要因分析に関する調査研究].
Park, S., & Holloway, S. D. (2013). No Parent Left Behind: Predicting Parental Involvement in
Adolescents' Education Within a Sociodemographically Diverse Population. The Journal of18

Educational Research, 106(2), 105-119.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., &Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’
involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational
Research, 77(3), 373-410.
Pong, S. L. (1997).Family structure, school context, and eighth-grade math and reading
achievement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 734-746.
Sheldon, S. B., Epstein, J. L., & Galindo, C. L. (2010). Not just numbers: Creating a partnershipclimate to improve math proficiency in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 27-48.
Shimizu, K. (2009). Chikaranoaru Gakkou no Tankyu.[「力のある学校」の探求] Osaka University
Press.
Shumow, L., Lyutykh, E., & Schmidt, J. A. (2011).Predictors and Outcomes of Parental Involvementwith High School Students in Science. School Community Journal, 21(2), 81-98.
Shumow, L., & Miller, J. D. (2001).Parents’ at-home and at-school academic involvement withyoung adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 68-91.
Simon, B. S. (2004). High school outreach and family involvement. Social Psychology of
Education, 7(2), 185-209.
Smith, E. P., Connell, C. M., Wright, G., Sizer, M., Norman, J. M., Hurley, A., & Walker, S. N.
(1997). An ecological model of home, school, and community partnerships: Implications forresearch and practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8(4), 339-360.
Stacer, M. J., &Perrucci, R. (2013). Parental involvement with children at school, home, andcommunity. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(3), 340-354.
Sui-Chu, E. H., &Willms, J. D. (1996).Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade
achievement. Sociology of Education, 126-141.
Yamamoto, Y. (2015). Social class and Japanese mothers’ support for young children’s education: A
qualitative study. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(2), 165-180.
Yamamoto, Y., Holloway, S. D., & Suzuki, S. (2006). Maternal involvement in preschool children's
education in Japan: Relation to parenting beliefs and socioeconomic status. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 21(3), 332-346.
Waanders, C., Mendez, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2007).Parent characteristics, economic stress andneighborhood

context

aspredictorsof parent

involvementinpreschool

children's

education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(6), 619-636.
Whitaker, M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (2013). School influences on parents' role beliefs. The
Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 73-99.

19

Appendix
Figure 1
A model of influences of informative school outreach on parental involvement

Informative
SchoolOutreach

Parental Role
Construction

20

Parental
Involvement

Table 1
Weighted Descriptive Statistics(Eighth grade:N= 4,143 students and 133 schools, Forth grade: N= 3,939 students and 140 schools)
Variable
Dependent variables(1= Never or almost never, 2= once or twice a month, 3= once or twice a week,
4= every day or almost every day.)(Ask)Parents ask a student what you learned in school(Talk)A student talks about schoolwork with parents(Time)Parents make sure that a student set aside time for homework(Check)Parents check if a student does homework(Pi0)Parents who engage in at least one type of home-based involvement(1= More than once or twice a month, 0= Never or almost never)Control variables
Student level
Female (Female= 1, Male= 0)
Number of books at home(1= 0-10 books, 2= 11-25 books, 3= 26-100 books, 4= 101-200 books, 5= more than200)
Possessions at home ( a computer, a desk etc.)
Possessions at home11
Highest level of education completed by mother
Lower-secondary school, Elementary school or did not complete a school
Upper-secondary school
Junior college
University, college, or Graduate school
Unknown
Highest level of education completed by father
Lower-secondary school, Elementary school or did not complete a school
Upper-secondary school
Junior college
University, college, or Graduate school
Unknown
School level
Total enrollment of students (in hundreds)
Percentage of students from economically disadvantaged home(1= 0 to 10%, 2= 11 to 25%, 3= 26 to 50%, 4= more than 50% )Location (1= small town, 2= medium size city, 3= suburban, 4= urban)
Income level of school's immediate area (1= low, 2= middle, 3= high)Class size
Private or national school (1= Yes, 0=No)
Independent variables(1= never, 2= once a year, 3= 2-3 times a year, 4= more than 3 times a year)
Inform parents about their child's learning progress
Inform parents about the behavior and well-being of their child at school
Inform parents about the overall academic achievement of the school
Inform parents about school accomplishments
Inform parents about the educational goals and pedagogic principles of the school
Inform parents about the rules of the school

21

Eighth Grade
Mean or % Std. Dev. Min Max

2.31
2.49
1.97
2.13
0.90

0.98
0.97
1.10
1.15

0.50

Fourth Grade
Mean or % Std. Dev. Min Max

1
1
1
1
0

4
4
4
4
1

2.59
2.80
2.23
2.99
0.96

0

1

0.50

1.03
1.03
1.25
1.18

1
1
1
1
0

4
4
4
4
1

0

1

2.94

1.26

1

5

2.76

1.07

1

5

7.78
0.04

1.66

0
0

11
1

7.95
0.06

1.81

1
0

11
1

0.03
0.33
0.22
0.16
0.26

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1

0.04
0.26
0.08
0.28
0.33

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1

3.28

2.25

0.45 11.1

3.53

2.39

0.17 11.1

1.84

0.87

1

4

1.62

0.72

1

4

2.20
1.81
28.93
0.07

0.95
0.56
5.75

1
1
16
0

4
3
46
1

2.24
1.88
24.42

1.08
0.45
8.52

1
1
4

5
3
39

3.21
3.36
2.87
3.55
2.88
2.88

0.69
0.55
0.89
0.67
0.82
0.79

1
2
1
1
1
2

4
4
4
4
4
4

3.56
3.56
2.37
3.37
3.05
2.73

0.57
0.55
0.68
0.74
0.70
0.71

1
1
1
1
2
2

4
4
4
4
4
4

Table 2
Factor Analysis Results for Informative School Outreach

Forth grade
Inform parents about their child's learning progress
Inform parents about the behavior and well-being of their child at school
Inform parents about the overall academic achievement of the school
Inform parents about school accomplishments
Inform parents about the educational goals and pedagogic principles of the school
Inform parents about the rules of the school
Eigjth grade
Inform parents about the overall academic achievement of the school
Inform parents about school accomplishments
Inform parents about the educational goals and pedagogic principles of the school
Inform parents about the rules of the school

22

Factor 1: informing
about school

Factor 2: informing
about students-0.063
0.080
0.437
0.444
0.739
0.570

0.810
0.849
0.071
0.254
0.058
-0.186

0.494
0.438
0.754
0.806

Table 3
Weighted Multilevel Analysis Results for Fourth Grade
VARIABLES
FemaleNumber of books at home
Possessions at home
Possessions at home11(School level)
Total enrollment of students(100)% of economically dsadvantaged students
Location of school
Income level of school area
Class size
School informative outreachInforming about student
Informing about school

1
Ask

2
Talk

3
Time

4
Check

0.329***(0.0625)
0.131***(0.0329)0.200***(0.0195)
0.0951(0.138)0.481***(0.0605)
0.119***(0.0359)0.150***(0.0204)
0.273*(0.140)0.0643(0.0619)0.119***(0.0321)0.138***(0.0195)
0.123(0.158)-0.0247(0.0636)
0.131***(0.0314)0.0854***(0.0192)
0.0466(0.155)0.247***(0.0503)
0.0942***(0.0270)0.122***(0.0144)0.0705(0.102)0.00163(0.0202)-0.0775(0.0556)
0.104**(0.0425)-0.203**(0.0806)-0.00506(0.00677)

0.0403**(0.0200)
0.0338(0.0630)
0.0250(0.0431)-0.0929(0.0956)-0.0243***(0.00857)

0.0110(0.0204)-0.0514(0.0752)0.00171(0.0627)-0.0821(0.113)-0.0147(0.0102)0.0173(0.0244)-0.0549(0.0693)0.0789(0.0572)-0.249**(0.110)-0.0132*(0.00777)-0.0214(0.0385)0.103*(0.0534)-0.0620(0.0571)
0.0972*(0.0567)-0.0898(0.0848)0.160**(0.0704)-0.0741(0.0560)
0.133**(0.0654)0.231(0.347)1.364***(0.345)
3.139***(0.346)0.136***(0.0230)-0.686*(0.358)0.598*(0.357)2.098***(0.357)0.116***(0.0201)

0.606(0.370)1.215***(0.369)2.006***(0.367)0.168***(0.0320)-1.151***(0.365)-0.458(0.367)0.370(0.367)0.171***(0.0295)

Constant
cut1
cut2
cut3
Level-2 variance (schools)
Log of level-2 variance (schools)

56Communicating Monitoring

7
Pi4

8
Pi0

0.00270(0.0439)0.0788***(0.0223)0.0676***(0.0130)
0.126(0.109)0.131***(0.0322)0.0712***(0.0184)0.0845***(0.00981)
0.0718(0.0632)

0.547***(0.169)0.162(0.124)0.226***(0.0556)-0.222(0.465)0.0176(0.0139)-0.0106(0.0414)0.0432(0.0295)-0.108*(0.0624)-0.0113*(0.00595)

0.0122(0.0134)-0.0414(0.0454)0.0322(0.0395)-0.112(0.0699)-0.0126**(0.00593)

0.0121(0.00961)-0.0173(0.0285)
0.0316(0.0213)-0.0870*(0.0460)-0.00930**(0.00421)

0.116*(0.0680)-0.318*(0.177)0.175(0.128)-0.482*(0.277)-0.0904***(0.0248)-0.0426(0.0340)0.0848**(0.0388)-1.006***(0.254)-0.0746*(0.0449)
0.118***(0.0433)-0.258(0.254)-0.0430(0.0283)
0.0782***(0.0288)-0.615***(0.176)-0.295*(0.174)
0.336*(0.187)4.390***(0.994)1.090***(0.305)-1.759***(0.161)0.172***(0.0107)

Log of level-1 variance (students)
Robust standard errors in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

23-1.654***(0.164)0.160***(0.0139)-2.019***(0.148)-0.205***(0.0140)

Table 4
Weighted Multilevel Analysis Results for Eighth Grade
VARIABLES
FemaleNumber of books at home
Possessions at home
Possessions at home11
Ref: Lower than lower-secondary
Mother:Upper-secondary school
Mother: Junior college
Mother: Higher then University
Mother: Unknown
Father: Upper-secondary school
Father: Junior college
Father: Higher then University
Father: Unknown(School level)
Total enrollment of students(100)% of economically dsadvantaged students
Location of school
Private or national school
Income level of school area
Class size
School informative outreachInforming about learning progress
Informing about behavior and well-being
Informing sbout school

1
Ask

2
Talk

3
Time

4
Check

7
Pi4

8
Pi0

0.150**(0.0623)0.118***(0.0271)0.171***(0.0236)-0.0473(0.175)0.561***(0.0634)
0.111***(0.0255)
0.165***(0.0218)-0.103(0.171)

0.0567(0.0708)0.0399(0.0279)
0.157***(0.0224)-0.0103(0.173)-0.0249(0.0611)0.0653**(0.0254)0.0647***(0.0238)
0.309*(0.188)0.312***(0.0418)0.0740***(0.0189)0.130***(0.0184)0.0168(0.144)0.0274(0.0641)0.0365(0.0222)0.0778***(0.0150)0.211(0.189)0.0662(0.0439)0.0334**(0.0135)
0.0729***(0.0102)0.120(0.134)0.495***(0.118)0.122**(0.0539)0.123***(0.0417)-0.130(0.389)0.243(0.208)0.398*(0.212)0.508**(0.226)-0.0108(0.218)0.405**(0.161)0.496***(0.192)0.509***(0.175)0.268(0.165)0.0491(0.165)0.122(0.182)0.225(0.195)-0.357*(0.183)0.493***(0.166)
0.521**(0.217)0.601***(0.179)0.281(0.173)0.331(0.246)
0.422*(0.247)0.507**(0.245)0.464*(0.243)0.640***(0.185)0.593***(0.207)0.592***(0.188)0.260(0.178)0.126(0.229)0.319(0.241)0.388(0.249)0.367(0.237)0.551***(0.157)0.630***(0.192)0.474***(0.167)0.251(0.153)0.0675(0.167)0.128(0.178)0.248(0.188)-0.219(0.190)0.375***(0.127)0.316(0.214)0.484***(0.162)0.306**(0.151)

0.139(0.141)0.251*(0.152)0.306**(0.155)0.273*(0.152)0.382***(0.0990)0.328**(0.142)0.278**(0.117)0.123(0.0910)0.103(0.0967)0.181*(0.103)0.233**(0.110)0.129(0.0973)
0.297***(0.0653)0.241**(0.107)0.246***(0.0880)
0.124*(0.0640)-0.200(0.324)0.196(0.335)0.255(0.367)-0.439(0.349)0.555**(0.275)0.525(0.341)0.812**(0.324)0.316(0.298)0.0406*(0.0216)-0.120*(0.0634)-0.129**(0.0559)
0.0325(0.155)-0.137(0.126)0.00309(0.00993)

0.0523**(0.0215)-0.214***(0.0576)-0.0715(0.0484)
0.131(0.148)-0.182(0.111)-0.0274***(0.00806)

0.0405*(0.0233)-0.199***(0.0630)-0.0200(0.0569)-0.223(0.198)-0.130(0.0993)0.00271(0.0128)0.0161(0.0237)-0.226***(0.0702)0.0188(0.0693)-0.170(0.144)-0.174(0.139)-0.0132(0.00905)

0.0343**(0.0144)-0.129***(0.0393)-0.0691*(0.0355)
0.0327(0.106)-0.154*(0.0855)-0.00987*(0.00573)

0.0179(0.0164)-0.156***(0.0421)0.0130(0.0441)-0.131(0.125)-0.126(0.0846)-0.00563(0.00706)

0.0174(0.0115)-0.114***(0.0284)-0.00551(0.0305)-0.0749(0.0895)-0.0996*(0.0603)-0.00446(0.00469)

0.0602(0.0391)-0.322***(0.103)-0.189**(0.0750)-0.00529(0.322)-0.154(0.211)-0.00999(0.0168)

0.126*(0.0731)-0.182**(0.0846)-0.0668(0.0427)

0.163***(0.0611)-0.197***(0.0755)
0.00231(0.0495)

0.215***(0.0715)-0.109(0.0820)0.00184(0.0550)

0.166**(0.0765)-0.105(0.0843)0.0127(0.0520)0.109***(0.0423)-0.145***(0.0533)-0.0210(0.0288)-0.809**(0.320)0.143***(0.0490)-0.0773(0.0564)0.00980(0.0370)-0.821**(0.408)0.107***(0.0345)-0.0704*(0.0399)0.00127(0.0254)-0.699***(0.266)0.179*(0.0916)-0.0742(0.122)-0.0417(0.0817)1.556*(0.862)0.541(0.578)1.883***(0.575)3.865***(0.582)0.125***(0.0239)-0.951*(0.518)0.605(0.518)2.485***(0.533)0.141***(0.0202)2.133***(0.646)3.012***(0.640)4.161***(0.639)0.175***(0.0245)

0.222(0.596)1.032*(0.597)2.134***(0.607)0.165***(0.0258)

Constant
cut1
cut2
cut3
Level-2 variance (schools)
Log of level-2 variance (schools)

56Communicating Monitoring

0.359***(0.0766)-1.912***(0.221)0.180***(0.0104)

Log of level-1 variance (students)
Robust standard errors in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

24-1.576***(0.145)0.221***(0.0132)-1.942***(0.146)-0.148***(0.0129)