Introduction 

Decades of research have provided evidence that parent involvement in 

education is linked to children’s learning and school performance (e.g., 

Baker and Stevenson 1986; Coleman et al. 1966; Epstein 1983; Epstein 

and McPartland 1979; Izzo et al. 1999; Marjoribanks 1979; McDill and 

Rigsby 1973). Although not every measure of parent involvement in 

every study has been linked to children’s cognitive outcomes (e.g., 

Domina 2005), a recent research synthesis of over 50 studies concluded 

that there is a “positive and convincing relationship between family 

involvement and benefits for students, including improved academic 

achievement.”(Henderson and Mapp 2002, p. 24). Studies suggest that 

parent involvement is related to factors such as children’s grades in 

school (Desimone 1999; Simon 2004), test scores (Jimerson, Egeland, 

and Teo 1999), and grade retention (Miedel and Reynolds 1999). Given 

the importance of parent involvement, researchers, policymakers, and 

practitioners have sought ways to promote it. 

The role of schools in involving parents has been emphasized in several 

authors’ theories and frameworks. In the model of school reform 

proposed by Comer and Haynes (1991), school outreach to parents, 

including involvement in decision making, is essential to connect 

families and communities and to affect children’s positive development. 

In Eccles and Harold’s (1993) model of parent involvement, they discuss 

the major role of teacher beliefs and practices for children and the 

enhancement of this role if teachers work with families. Epstein’s model 

of school-family-community partnerships emphasizes the roles of 

schools, families, and communities in working together to influence 

children’s development (Epstein 2001). Lareau and Horvat (1999) have 

noted the vital role of the school in accepting or rejecting parents in their 

attempts to use their resources to be involved with their children. Also, 

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) have hypothesized that school 

practices may even serve to increase parent involvement among parents 

who feel it is their role to be involved, but do not feel they can 

effectively help their child. 

Research has shown that school practices to involve parents are related to 

parent involvement (Epstein 1996, 2001). For example, several 

STATISTICS IN BRIEF December 2005

Parents’ Reports of School Practices to 

Provide Information to Families: 1996 

and 2003 

 

U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2006-041

Author: 

Nancy Vaden-Kiernan 

Westat 

Contact: 

Chris Chapman 

NCES 

202-502-7414 
2 

studies have shown that ongoing communication 

between parents and teachers is related to 

increased levels of parent involvement 

(Gettinger and Guetschow 1998; Watkins 1997). 

In regard to specific subject areas, such as 

reading, for example, the degree of parent 

involvement and student achievement in reading 

is positively related to teacher requests that 

parents read and focus on home learning 

activities with their child (Epstein 1991). 

Practices to involve parents have been shown to 

be related to parent involvement beyond the 

relationships of other family background 

variables, such as family structure and 

socioeconomic status, and child characteristics 

such as grade level, gender, and race or ethnicity 

(Patrikakou and Weissberg 2000; Simon 2004). 

The importance of school practices for involving 

parents has been reflected in legislation, most 

recently in the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001(NCLB), P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 

(2002). Title I of NCLB (Section 1118) outlines 

requirements for schools, districts, and states to 

create partnerships between parents and schools. 

Under NCLB, schools are required to provide 

opportunities for parent involvement, including 

having parent-teacher meetings, reporting to 

parents on their children’s progress, helping 

parents work with their children to improve 

achievement, offering parents opportunities to 

volunteer, and involving parents in the planning 

and design of school programs. 

Because of the role of school practices in 

encouraging parent involvement, it is necessary 

to understand whether school efforts to involve 

families are similar for all types of families and 

students, and for families in different schools 

and communities. Previous research suggests 

that practices initiated by schools vary by 

school, student, and family characteristics. For 

example, in a study of middle school principals, 

Epstein and Lee (1995) found that sending 

information to parents about how to help 

children learn at home was more frequent in 

private schools than it was in public schools. 

Other studies of teachers and parents have 

shown differences in school practices by student 

grade level. For example, research has shown 

that parent-teacher contact and school efforts to 

involve parents decline as children move from 

lower to higher grade levels (Becker and Epstein 

1982; Epstein and Dauber 1991; Izzo et al. 

1999). Past research has also shown a 

relationship between school practices and both 

race and parents’ education level. Epstein 

(1990) found that teachers asked for more 

involvement from married parents with less 

education than from married parents with more 

education, and from Black parents compared to 

White parents. 

Many previous studies of school practices were 

based on small community samples. In the past 

several years, a few national studies have been 

conducted that include items related to this 

issue, such as the Early Childhood Longitudinal 

Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999 

(ECLS-K), the National Education Longitudinal 

Study of 1988 (NELS:88), and the Head Start 

Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES, 

1996–2003).1

 These studies provide a national 

picture of school practices to involve families 

and support findings from smaller studies. For 

example, findings based on teacher reports from 

ECLS-K have shown a relationship between 

teachers’ or schools’ communication with 

parents about activities related to children’s 

transition to kindergarten and parent 

involvement at the school (U.S. Department of 

Education 2001). At the high school level, 

Simon (2004) used data from the NELS:88–

2000 longitudinal study to show a relationship 

between specific school practices to involve 

parents of high school seniors (e.g., talking to 

parents about their children’s plans for after high 

school, asking parents to volunteer) and parent 

involvement (e.g., going to workshops about 

plans for college or work after high school, 

volunteering at school). While these studies 

make valuable contributions to the 

understanding of school practices to involve 

parents, they focus on children in limited age or 

grade ranges (e.g., preschool through 1st grade; 

kindergarten through 5th grade, 8th grade and 

 

1

 The website for ECLS-K, http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/, 

includes information about the study. The website 

for NELS:1988 is http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nels88/. 

The website for FACES is 

http://acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/index.html. 
3

higher), and thus do not cover the full grade 

range of children’s schooling from kindergarten 

through 12th grade. 

In 1996, the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) collected nationally 

representative data on parents’ involvement in 

their children’s education through the Parent and 

Family Involvement in Education and Civic 

Involvement Survey of the National Household 

Education Surveys Program (NHES). VadenKiernan (1996) used NHES data to link parentreported school information practices to involve 

parents and family involvement in schools, 

school type, school size, parents’ education 

level, student grade level, and student 

race/ethnicity for children in 1st through 12th 

grades. The inclusion of similar measures in the 

2003 NHES Parent and Family Involvement in 

Education Survey permits examination of 

parent-reported school information practices and 

their relationship to parent involvement between 

the two years. 

For both NHES:1996 and NHES:2003 a random 

sample of telephone numbers was selected in the 

first stage, and within each household with 

eligible children, at least one eligible child was 

selected in the second stage. The data were 

collected using computer-assisted telephone 

interviewing (CATI) technology. Data editing 

was performed to correct any errors found both 

during and after administration of the interviews. 

In the 1996 survey, Screeners were completed 

with 55,838 households, with a weighted 

Screener unit response rate of 70 percent. The 

number of sampled phone numbers drawn was 

161,446. The parent interview was completed 

by the parents of 20,792 of the 23,835 sampled 

children age 3 through the 12th grade, a 

weighted unit response rate of 89 percent. The 

overall unit response rate was 62 percent. In the 

2003 survey, Screeners were completed with 

32,049 households, with a weighted Screener 

unit response rate of 65 percent. The number of 

sampled phone numbers drawn was 109,800. 

The parent interview was completed by the 

parents of 12,426 of the 14,942 sampled children 

in kindergarten through the 12th grade, a 

weighted unit response rate of 83 percent. The 

overall unit response rate was 54 percent. 

Information on survey methodology is provided 

in the Survey Methodology and Data Reliability 

section at the end of this document. Further 

details about the 1996 methodology are in 

Montaquilla and Brick (1997) and details about 

the 2003 survey are in Hagedorn et al. (2004).

Current Report 

The purpose of the current report is to replicate 

analyses from the previous NCES report 

(Vaden-Kiernan 1996) with data from the 2003 

survey. As with the previous report, parentreported school information practices are 

discussed first and then examined in relation to 

the frequency of parent involvement at the 

school. Next, parent-reported school 

information practices to involve parents are 

examined in relation to school, family, and 

student characteristics that have been found to 

be related to variation in school practices or 

parent involvement in Vaden-Kiernan (1996) 

and other studies (Epstein 1990; Epstein and 

Dauber 1991; Epstein and Lee 1995; Kohl, 

Lengua, and McMahon 2000; Shumow and 

Miller 2001). Following these findings, the 

results are summarized and suggestions are 

made for future research. Finally, survey 

methodology, data reliability, and statistical tests 

used in the report are discussed. 

The current report focuses on parent reports of 

the frequency of their involvement at school 

meetings or activities. It should be noted that 

other measures of parent reported involvement 

both at school and at home are included in the 

survey but, for brevity, are not included in the 

current report. 

In 1996, most of the questions about school 

information practices were administered to 

parents of 1st- through 12th-graders. The 

previous 1996 report presented data from 

interviews with the parents of 16,151 children in 

1st through 12th grades and excluded data 

collected from the parents of 244 children who 

were schooled at home. The 2003 survey 

included parents of 12,426 children in 

kindergarten through the 12th grade. In order to 

replicate the 1996 report, the analyses for the 
4

2003 survey in the current report are limited to 

data from parents of 11,265 children enrolled in 

1st through 12th grades. The current report also 

excludes data collected about the 262 children 

who were schooled at home in 2003. 

Information about homeschooled children can be 

found in other NCES publications (Princiotta, 

Bielick, and Chapman 2004; Bielick, Chandler, 

and Broughman, 2001). 

Parents of children in the 1st through 12th 

grades were asked how well their child‘s school 

carried out seven different practices to involve 

them in their children‘s education. The parentreported school information practices included 

in the current report are based on types of parent 

involvement identified by Epstein (1992). Each 

type of involvement includes practices that are 

initiated by both schools and parents. For 

example, the first type of involvement is called 

“Basic obligations of families” and includes 

schools’ efforts to improve parents’ 

understanding of parenting and child 

development. Type 1 practices initiated by 

families would include using appropriate 

parenting skills to support their children’s 

healthy development (Epstein 2001). For this 

report, practices initiated by the schools to 

communicate information to parents are the 

focus. The five types of involvement addressed 

in the current report, and their correspondence to 

specific items in the Parent and Family 

Involvement in Education Survey, are shown in 

exhibit 1. 

Questions in NHES:2003 addressing various 

types of involvement were based on items from 

a questionnaire developed by Epstein and 

Salinas (1993). Descriptions of these items, 

which were identical in 1996 and 2003, are 

shown in the right column of exhibit 1. 

Answer categories in the 1996 survey were: 

“does it very well,” “just o.k.,” or “doesn’t do it 

at all.” In the 2003 survey, an additional 

category was added that indicated the school did 

the practice but did it “not very well.” In this 

report, the focus is on school information 

practices reported to be done “very well.” This 

was done in order to have a succinct measure of 

parent reported school practices and to examine 

the best that schools were offering according to 

parent reports. School information practices that 

were reported by parents to be done “just o.k.,” 

“not very well” or “not done at all” are not 

discussed here, but estimates and standard errors 

for these categories are shown in tables 1 and 2 

for the 1996 and 2003 surveys, respectively. 

The estimates in this report are based on 

weighting observations to partially account for 

nonresponse and coverage bias. The total 

number of weighted observations was 45,551 in 

1996 and 47,753 in 2003. This is discussed 

further in the Sampling Error section of this 

report. To test the differences between 

estimates, Student’s t statistics were calculated. 

All differences reported were significant at the 

.05 level of significance. Only differences of 5 

percentage points or more are discussed in order 

to identify some of the larger differences in the 

report. In the current report, Cohen’s d effect 

sizes were also used to determine the magnitude 

of statistically significant differences between 

means. Kendall’s tau b was also used to test an 

association between parent involvement and 

school information practices. More information 

about the statistical tests used is in the Statistical 

Tests section of this report. 

Unless otherwise indicated, no differences were 

detected in estimates between 1996 and 2003. 

Thus, primarily differences within each year of 

the study are reported. 
5

Exhibit 1. Correspondence between Epstein’s types of school practices to promote parent 

involvement and school information practices items from the Parent and Family 

Involvement in Education Survey of the 2003 National Household Education 

Surveys Program 

Corresponding parent-reported school information practices items from the 

Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey of the 2003 National 

Household Education Surveys Program Epstein’s six types of school 

practices to promote parent 

involvement Parents were asked how well their child’s school did the following things during 

the school year: 

Type 1: Improving parents’ 

 understanding of parenting 

 and child development. Helped parent understand what children at the child’s age are like 

Type 2: Communicating with 

 parents and keeping them 

 informed about their child’s 

 progress and school programs. 

Let parent know between report cards how the child was doing in school 

Provided information about why the child was placed in particular groups or classes 

Type 3: Encouraging parent 

 volunteering at the school 

 and participation in school 

 activities. Made parent aware of chances to volunteer at the school 

Type 4: Helping families help 

 children learn at home. 

Provided workshops, materials, or advice about how to help the child learn at home 

Provided information about how to help the child with his/her homework 

Type 5: School practices to 

 involve parents in decision- 

 making No corresponding practice 

Type 6. Supporting families by 

 collaborating with the 

 community to bring families 

 needed resources and to 

 increase family participation 

 in the community. Provided information on community services to help the child or family 

SOURCE: Epstein (1992); and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement 

in Education and Civic Involvement Survey of the 1996 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) and Parent and 

Family Involvement in Education Survey of the 2003 NHES. 

Parents’ Reports of School Practices 

The seven school practices were examined to 

assess whether some school information 

practices were reported to be done “very well” 

by greater percentages of parents than other 

school information practices. As seen in tables 1 

and 2, in both 1996 and 2003 the two highest 

percentages were for children whose parents 

reported that their child’s school did “very well” 

at letting them know between report cards how 

their child was doing in school (59 and 61 

percent, respectively) and making them aware of 

chances to volunteer at the school (57 and 58
6

Table 1. Number and percentage of students in grades 1 through 12 whose parents 

reported how well various school information practices were done, by 

school practice in 1996 

Percentage of students whose parents reported 

various school information practices were done... 

“very well” “just ok” “not at all” 

School practice 

Number 1 Percent s.e. Number 1 Percent s.e. Number 1 Percent s.e. 

 

Let parent know 

 between report 

 cards how the child 

 was doing in 

 school ......................... 26,719 59 0.5 13,152 29 0.4 5,679 12 0.4 

 

Made parent aware of 

 chances to 

 volunteer at the 

 school ......................... 26,001 57 0.5 12,244 27 0.4 7,307 16 0.4 

 

Provided information 

 information 

 about why the 

 child was placed 

 in particular 

 groups or classes ....... 18,608 41 0.5 11,796 26 0.4 15,147 33 0.5 

 

Provided information 

 about how to help 

 the child with 

 his/her homework ..... 17,443 38 0.4 13,871 30 0.4 14,237 31 0.4 

 

Provided workshops 

 materials, or advice 

 about how to help 

 the child learn at 

 home .......................... 16,725 37 0.5 13,519 30 0.4 15,308 34 0.4 

 

Helped parent 

 understand what 

 children at the 

 child’s age are like .... 15,931 35 0.4 14,485 32 0.4 15,136 33 0.5 

 

Provided information 

 on community 

 services to help 

 the child or family ..... 15,239 33 0.4 15,241 33 0.5 15,071 33 0.5 1 Number of students for each answer category of school practice (in thousands) 

NOTE: The abbreviation s.e. is standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement Survey of the 

1996 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), and Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey of the 2003 NHES. 

percent). The percentage of parents who 

reported that the school did “very well” at 

providing information about why the child was 

placed in particular classes was 41 percent in 

1996 and 43 percent in 2003. This was higher in 

both years than the percentage of parents who 

reported that the school did “very well” at 

providing information on community services to 

help the child or family (33 percent in both 

years). In 2003, in comparison to all other 

school practices, the lowest percentage of 

parents reported that the school was doing “very 

well” at providing information about community 

services. 

Parents’ Reports of School Practices and the 

Frequency of Their Involvement at the School 

One of the objectives of this report is to examine 

the relationship between parent-reported school 

practices done “very well” and the frequency of 

family involvement at school. In order to 
7

Table 2. Number and percentage of students in grades 1 through 12 whose parents 

 reported how well various school information practices were done, by school 

 practice in 2003 

Percentage of students whose parents reported 

various school information practices were done... 

“very well” “just ok” “not very well” “not at all” 

School practice 

Number 1 Percent s.e. Number 1 Percent s.e. Number 1 Percent s.e. Number 1 Percent s.e. 

 

Let parent know 

 between report 

 cards how the child 

 was doing in 

 school ......................... 29,041 61 0.6 12,529 26 0.5 2,828 6 0.3 3,355 7 0.3 

 

Made parent aware of 

 chances to 

 volunteer at the 

 school ......................... 27,645 58 0.6 11,824 25 0.5 4,049 8 0.4 4,235 9 0.4 

 

Provided information 

 information 

 about why the 

 child was placed 

 in particular 

 groups or classes ....... 20,504 43 0.6 12,362 26 0.5 4,913 10 0.4 9,975 21 0.4 

 

Provided information 

 about how to help 

 the child with 

 his/her homework ...... 19,237 40 0.5 14,414 30 0.5 5,800 12 0.4 8,302 17 0.4 

 

Provided workshops 

 materials, or advice 

 about how to help 

 the child learn at 

 home ........................... 18,088 38 0.6 14,470 30 0.5 6,444 13 0.4 8,751 18 0.4 

 

Helped parent 

 understand what 

 children at the 

 child’s age are like .... 18,393 39 0.5 14,526 30 0.5 5,471 11 0.4 9,363 20 0.4 

 

Provided information 

 on community 

 services to help 

 the child or family ..... 15,754 33 0.6 15,192 32 0.6 6,436 13 0.4 10,371 22 0.5 1 Number of students for each answer category of school practice (in thousands) 

NOTE.: The abbreviation s.e. is standard error. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement Survey of the 

1996 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), and Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey of the 2003 NHES. 

provide an overall measure of school practices, 

the number of practices reported to have been 

done “very well” were summed together. In both 

1996 and 2003, the average number done “very 

well” was approximately three out of seven 

practices (table 3). 

Family involvement at school was measured by 

the following question: “During this school year, 

how many times have you or other adult family 

members/adults in the household gone to 

meetings or participated in activities at the 

child’s school?” The question was open-ended 

and respondents reported the number of times 

they went to a meeting or activity. For this 

report, answers were coded according to whether 

families were involved at the school “zero,” 

“one to two,” “three to five,” “six to nine,” or 

“ten or more” times. 

The percentage distribution of parents’ reported 

level of involvement and the means and standard 
8

Table 3. Number and percentage of students in grades 1 through 12 whose parents 

reported various levels of participation at school and average number of parentreported school information practices done “very well,” by frequency of family 

involvement at school: 1996 and 2003 

1996 2003 

Percentage

of students whose 

parents reported 

various levels of 

participation

at school

Average 

number of 

parent-reported 

school 

information 

practices done 

“very well”1

Percentage of 

students whose 

parents reported 

various levels of 

participation 

at school 

Average 

number of 

parent-reported 

school 

information 

practices done 

“very well”1

Frequency of family 

involvement at school 

Number of 

students (in 

thousands) Percent s.e. Mean s.e.

Number of 

students (in 

thousands) Percent s.e. Mean s.e.

 

 Total ...................................... 45,551 100 † 3.0 0.02 47,753 100 † 3.1 0.03

 

0 times ......................................... 3,635 8 0.3 1.9 0.08 1,947 4 0.2 2.0 0.14

1–2 times ..................................... 11,191 25 0.4 2.7 0.05 11,085 23 0.6 2.6 0.06

3–5 times ..................................... 15,690 34 0.5 3.1 0.04 18,485 39 0.6 3.3 0.05

6–9 times ..................................... 5,212 11 0.3 3.5 0.07 5,327 11 0.4 3.6 0.09

10 or more times .......................... 9,823 22 0.5 3.2 0.05 10,910 23 0.5 3.3 0.07

† Not applicable. Standard error not derived because it is based on an estimate of 100 percent. 1

 The range of responses was from 0 to 7. 

NOTE: Parents were asked how many times they or another adult in their household went to meetings or participated in activities at 

their child’s school during this school year. In both 1996 and 2003, parents of children in the 1st through 12th grades were asked how 

well their child’s school did the following seven things: let them know how their child was doing in school, helped them understand 

what children at their child’s age are like, made them aware of chances to volunteer at school, helped them help their child learn at 

home, provided information about community services, provided information about how to help with homework, and provided 

information about why their child was placed in particular groups or classes. In 1996, answer categories were: does “very well,” 

“just o.k.,” or “doesn’t do it at all.” In 2003, answer categories were: does “very well,” “just o.k.,” “doesn’t do it at all,” and “not 

very well.” The abbreviation s.e. is standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education and 

Civic Involvement Survey of the 1996 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) and Parent and Family Involvement in 

Education Survey of the 2003 NHES. 

errors for the number of school information 

practices done “very well” at each level of 

involvement are reported in table 3. In 1996 and 

2003, the smallest percentage of children had 

family members who reported not attending any 

meetings or activities at the school (8 and 4 

percent, respectively), while the largest 

percentage of children had family members who 

were involved at the school 3–5 times during the 

school year (34 and 39 percent, respectively). In 

2003, a larger percentage of children had parents 

who reported being involved at the school 3–5 

times (39 percent), compared with the 

percentage of children whose parents reported 

involvement 3–5 times in 1996 (34 percent). 

As seen in table 3 and figure 1, in 1996 the 

average number of school information practices 

reported by parents as done “very well” was 

lower for children whose parents reported being 

involved 0 times at the school than for those 

whose parents reported being involved at the 

school 1–2 times or more. The average number 

of school information practices reported by 

parents was also lower for children whose 

parents reported being involved at the school 1–

2 times than for children whose parents reported 

being involved 6–9 times. 

In 2003, the average number of school 

information practices reported to be done “very 

well” by parents was lower for children whose 

parents reported being involved 0 times at the 

school than for those involved at the school 3–5 

times or more. The average number of school 

information practices reported to be done “very
9

Figure 1. Average number of parent-reported school information practices done “very

 well,” by frequency of family involvement at school: 1996 and 2003 

3.3

3.6

3.3

2.6

2.0

3.2

3.5

3.1

2.7

1.9

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 

10 or more 

times 

6 to 9 times 

3 to 5 times 

1 to 2 times 

0 times 

Frequency of family 

involvement at school1

Average number of practices 

1996 

2003 

1

Parents were asked how many times they or another adult in the household went to meetings or participated in activities at their 

child’s school during the current school year. 

NOTE: In both 1996 and 2003, parents of children in the 1st through 12th grades were asked how well their child’s school did 

the following seven things: let them know how their child was doing in school, helped them understand what children at their 

child’s age are like, made them aware of chances to volunteer at school, helped them help their child learn at home, provided 

information about community services, provided information about how to help with homework, and provided information about 

why their child was placed in particular groups or classes. In 1996, answer categories were does “very well,” “just o.k.,” or 

“doesn’t do it at all.” In 2003, answer categories were does “very well,” “just o.k.,” “doesn’t do it at all,” and “not very well.” 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education and 

Civic Involvement Survey of the 1996 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) and Parent and Family Involvement in 

Education Survey of the 2003 NHES. 

well” by parents was also lower for children 

whose parents reported being involved at the 

school 1–2 times compared to those involved at 

the school 3–5 times or more.

The association between school practices done 

“very well” and the categorical measure of 

parents’ frequency of involvement was tested in 

both years using Kendall’s tau b. In both 1996 

and 2003, a relationship was found between the 

two variables. 

These findings could indicate that schools that 

conduct more information practices “very well” 

lead parents to become more involved. It is also 

possible that higher parent involvement 

encourages schools to communicate better with 

parents. 

Of course, parent involvement could be driven 

by other factors that are not examined in this 

study, such as employment, family composition,

or parents’ own experiences with school when 

they were children. 
10 

Parent-Reported School Information 

Practices by School, Family, and Student 

Characteristics 

Variations in school information practices by 

school, family, and student characteristics were 

also examined (table 4). Variables included in 

this analysis were those that have been shown to 

be linked either to school information practices 

or to levels of family involvement. These 

variables do not represent an exhaustive list of 

characteristics thought to be related to school 

information practices. Rather, they were chosen 

to provide at least one key indicator from each 

of the domains of school, family, and student 

characteristics. 

The purpose of the current report is descriptive 

and the average number of school information 

practices done “very well” are examined 

separately for each characteristic. However, 

because these school, family, and student 

characteristics may be interrelated, future 

research should use multivariate analyses to 

determine which variables are related to school 

information practices done “very well” when 

controlling for the relationships of the other 

variables. 

Table 4. Average number of parent-reported school information practices done “very well,” 

by selected characteristics: 1996 and 2003 

1996 2003 

Average number of 

parent-reported 

school information 

practices done 

“very well”

Average number of 

parent-reported 

school information 

practices done 

“very well”

Characteristic Number of 

students in 

grades 1 

through 12 (in 

thousands) Mean s.e.

Number of 

students in 

grades 1 

through 12 (in 

thousands) Mean s.e.

 Total ........................................................................ 45,551 3.0 0.02 47,753 3.1 0.03

School type1

Public, assigned ......................................................... 34,614 2.8 0.03 35,312 3.0 0.03

Public, chosen2 ........................................................... 6,228 3.2 0.07 7,334 3.4 0.10

Private, church-related ............................................... 3,654 4.0 0.06 3,976 3.7 0.08

Private, not church-related ......................................... 1,054 3.8 0.16 1,131 4.0 0.16

School size3

Under 300 .................................................................. 7,503 3.4 0.06 8,265 3.4 0.08

300–599 ..................................................................... 17,345 3.2 0.04 17,143 3.4 0.05

600–999 ..................................................................... 10,294 2.8 0.05 10,894 3.0 0.07

1,000 or more ............................................................. 10,409 2.6 0.05 11,451 2.6 0.06

Parents’ highest level of education4

Less than high school ................................................ 4,492 3.7 0.10 3,395 3.4 0.13

High school graduate or equivalent ........................... 13,890 3.1 0.04 12,049 3.3 0.06

Vocational/technical education 

 after high school or some college ........................ 13,592 2.8 0.05 15,099 3.0 0.05

College graduate ........................................................ 7,000 2.9 0.06 9,082 2.9 0.07

Graduate or professional school ................................ 6,577 2.9 0.06 8,128 3.1 0.06

Student grade level 

1st grade ..................................................................... 4,349 4.0 0.08 4,187 4.1 0.09

2nd–3rd grade ............................................................ 7,710 3.7 0.06 7,696 3.9 0.07

4th–5th grade ............................................................. 7,811 3.4 0.06 8,368 3.6 0.06

6th grade ..................................................................... 3,927 3.1 0.07 4,182 3.1 0.08

7th–8th grade ............................................................. 7,567 2.6 0.06 7,988 2.8 0.07

9th grade ..................................................................... 3,734 2.3 0.08 4,034 2.6 0.09

10th–11th grade ......................................................... 7,049 2.2 0.06 7,477 2.3 0.06

12th grade ................................................................... 3,377 2.3 0.08 3,815 2.4 0.08

Ungraded .................................................................... 19 ‡ ‡ 5 ‡ ‡

See notes at end of table. 
11 

Table 4. Average number of parent-reported school information practices done “very 

well,” by selected characteristics: 1996 and 2003—Continued 

1996 2003 

Average number of 

parent-reported 

school information 

practices done 

“very well”

Average number of 

parent-reported 

school information 

practices done 

“very well”

Characteristic Number of 

students in 

grades 1 

through 12 (in 

thousands) Mean s.e.

Number of 

students in 

grades 1 

through 12 (in 

thousands) Mean s.e.

 Total ..................................................................... 45,551 3.0 0.02 47,753 3.1 0.03

Student race/ethnicity 

White, non-Hispanic ............................................... 30,684 2.8 0.03 29,744 2.9 0.03

Black, non-Hispanic ................................................ 7,166 3.3 0.07 7,626 3.4 0.08

Hispanic ................................................................... 5,777 3.6 0.08 7,557 3.5 0.08

Other ........................................................................ 1,924 2.9 0.10 2,826 3.1 0.13

‡Reporting standards not met. There were less than 30 unweighted cases in the ungraded category; thus, it was not included in the 

analyses. 

1

School type was reported by parents. 

2

Parents were asked whether their child’s school was his or her regularly assigned school or a school that the parent chose. If parents 

answered that the assigned school was also their school of choice, the school was categorized as a chosen school. 3

School size was reported by parents. 

4

Parents’ highest education level refers to the highest level of education completed by the child’s parent or parents. 

NOTE: In both 1996 and 2003, parents of children in the 1st through 12th grades were asked how well their child’s school did the 

following seven things: let them know how their child was doing in school, helped them understand what children at their child’s age 

are like, made them aware of chances to volunteer at school, helped them help their child learn at home, provided information about 

community services, provided information about how to help with homework, and provided information about why their child was 

placed in particular groups or classes. In 1996, answer categories were does “very well,” “just o.k.,” or “doesn’t do it at all.” In 

2003, answer categories were does “very well,” “just o.k.,” “doesn’t do it at all,” and “not very well.” The abbreviation s.e. is 

standard error. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and Family Involvement in Education and 

Civic Involvement Survey of the 1996 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) and Parent and Family Involvement in 

Education Survey of the 2003 NHES. 

Differences by School Type 

Based on past research using NELS:1988 which 

showed differences in school information 

practices between public and private schools 

(Epstein and Lee 1995) and differences in levels 

of parent satisfaction in private schools, public 

schools that were chosen by families, and public 

schools that were assigned (Bielick and 

Chapman 2003), school information practices 

were examined with respect to school type. 

Public schools were identified by parents as 

either “regularly assigned” or “chosen” by the 

parents. Parents were asked the question, “Is it 

(his/her) regularly assigned school or a school 

that you chose?” If parents volunteered that the 

school their child was assigned was also their 

school of choice, the school was categorized as a 

“public, chosen” school.2

 Private schools were 

identified by parents as either “church-related” 

or “not church-related.” 

Parent reports of school information practices 

varied by school type (table 4). In both 1996 

and 2003, the average number of school 

 

2

 Because respondents may have moved to a 

neighborhood to choose a school or decided to stay in 

a neighborhood because of the assigned school, 

NHES has included these types of school choice in 

the “chosen” school category. This definition of 

school choice has also been used in previous NHES 

surveys. The category corresponds to respondents’ 

perceptions of chosen schools; however, some 

researchers may want to redefine the variable for 

their own research and place all assigned schools in 

the assigned school category, regardless of whether 

these schools were also considered “chosen” by the 

respondent. 
12 

information practices reported by parents to 

have been done “very well” was higher for 

children in church-related or other types of 

private schools than for children in public 

schools that were assigned. In 1996, parents of 

children in private schools reported 4.0 and 3.8 

practices done “very well” (for church-related 

and non-church related, respectively) compared 

to 2.8 in public schools that were assigned. In 

addition, parents of children in private schools 

that were church-related also reported a higher 

number of school information practices done 

“very well” (4.0) than parents of children in 

chosen public schools (3.2). In 2003, parents of 

children in private schools reported 3.7 and 4.0 

practices done “very well” (for church-related 

and non-church related, respectively) compared 

to 3.0 in public schools that were assigned. 

Differences by School Size 

Results from the current analysis also show that 

parent reports of school information practices 

were related to parent reports of school size. 

Parents of children in smaller schools gave more 

favorable reports about school information 

practices, on average, than did parents of 

children in larger schools. In 1996, parents of 

children in schools with under 300 students 

reported an average of 3.4 school information 

practices done “very well,” compared to 2.6 

practices reported by parents of children in 

schools with 1,000 or more students. In 2003, 

parents of children in schools with under 300 

students and those with children in schools with 

300–599 students both reported an average of 

3.4 school information practices done “very 

well” compared to 2.6 practices reported by 

parents of children in schools with 1,000 or 

more students. 

Differences by Parents’ Highest Level of 

Education 

Another important family characteristic included 

in the current study was parents’ education level. 

Past research suggests that parents with higher 

levels of educational attainment have higher 

levels of involvement in their children’s 

education (Lareau 1989; Nord, Brimhall, and 

West 1997). A variable was created to define the 

highest level of schooling completed by either 

parent or guardian in the household or the only 

parent or guardian in the household. In 1996, 

parents who had not completed a high school 

program reported, on average, more school 

information practices done “very well” (3.7 

practices) than did parents with a high school 

education (3.1 practices), or those with higher 

education levels (2.8 to 2.9 practices, reported 

by those who had completed vocational or 

technical education or some college; college; or 

graduate or professional school). In 2003, no 

differences in the average number of school 

information practices were detected by parents’ 

highest level of education.3

Differences by Student Grade Level

As noted earlier, past research has shown that 

school efforts to involve parents decrease as 

children enter higher grades and progress to 

different levels of school (e.g., middle school, 

high school) (Epstein and Dauber 1991). In 

general, parents of students in lower grades 

reported more practices were done “very well,” 

compared to parents of children in later grades. 

In 1996 and 2003, the average number of school 

information practices reported by parents to 

have been done “very well” was highest in the 

1st grade, at 4.0 and 4.1 practices, respectively, 

compared to practices reported by parents with 

children in grades 6 through 12 in 1996 and 

grades 4 through 12 in 2003. The average 

number of school information practices reported 

to be done “very well” by parents of 2ndthrough 3rd-graders and 4th- through 5thgraders were not detected to be different from 

each other, but were greater than the average 

number of practices reported by parents with 

children in grades 7 through 12 in 1996 and 

2003. Examination of differences between 

reported school practices in earlier and later 

grades showed that the average number of 

 

3 The range in the mean number of practices reported 

by parents’ educational attainment is slightly smaller 

in 2003 than in 1996, therefore differences between 

means in 2003 are not detectable using the statistical 

criteria applied throughout this report.
13 

school information practices reported done “very 

well” decreased by nearly one school practice 

between the 1st grade and the 6th grade in both 

1996 and 2003. The average number of school 

information practices reported done “very well” 

decreased by another school practice in 1996 

between the 6th grade and the 9th grade.

Differences by Student Race/Ethnicity 

Differences in school information practices were 

also examined with respect to race/ethnicity. In 

this report, only differences in school 

information practices reported by parents of 

White, non-Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; and 

Hispanic children are discussed. 4

 Results show 

that parent reports of school information 

practices varied by the racial and/or ethnic 

background of the child. In 1996, parents of 

Hispanic children reported more school 

information practices done “very well” (3.6) 

than parents of White children (2.8). In 2003, 

parents of Hispanic children also reported more 

school information practices done “very well” 

(3.4 and 3.5, respectively) than parents of White 

children (2.9). 

Summary and Suggestions for Future 

Research 

In this report, data from the Parent and Family 

Involvement in Education Survey of the 2003 

National Household Education Surveys Program 

were used to replicate previous analyses using 

the Parent and Family Involvement in Education 

and Civic Involvement Survey of the 1996 

National Household Education Surveys Program. 

Parent reports of school information practices to 

involve them in their children’s education were 

examined in relation to family involvement at 

school, and school, family, and student 

characteristics. Results show that in both 1996 

and 2003 the average number of parent-reported 

school information practices done “very well” 

was positively related to the frequency of the 

family’s involvement at school, although 

 

4

 White, non-Hispanic and Black, non-Hispanic will 

be referred to as White and Black, respectively, for 

the remainder of the report. 

causality or its direction cannot be addressed in 

a cross-sectional study. Without longitudinal 

research or an experimental design it cannot be 

determined whether schools that do very well at 

giving parents information create conditions that 

lead to greater parent involvement, or whether 

parents that are more involved at school receive 

more information about the school and thus are 

more aware of school practices done well. 

Findings for parent reports of school information 

practices in 1996 and 2003 are similar to each 

other. The average number of school 

information practices reported by parents as 

being done “very well” in both survey years was 

three out of seven practices. In addition, some 

types of school information practices were less 

frequently reported by parents to be done “very 

well” by schools. For example, 38 percent of 

parents in 2003 and 37 percent in 2003 reported 

that their child’s school provided information 

about how to help their child learn at home. 

Research has shown that providing children with 

learning opportunities at home, such as reading 

or helping with homework, is related to school 

performance (Epstein 1991; Simon 2004; U.S. 

Department of Education 1994). 

Other results in both survey years show that the 

average number of parent-reported school 

information practices done “very well” differed 

by school, family, and student characteristics. 

More practices were reported to be done “very 

well” by parents of children in private versus 

public schools that were assigned; children in 

smaller versus larger schools; children whose 

parents had less education compared to children 

whose parents had more education (in 1996 but 

not 2003); children in lower grade levels versus 

those in higher grade levels; and Hispanic 

children, compared to White children. Because 

these school, family, and student characteristics 

are themselves interrelated, future research is 

needed to address which characteristics have the 

strongest relationship to reports of practices 

done “very well.” 

The current report was limited to practices 

reported by parents to have been done “very 

well.” Future research could also address the 

relationships between school, family, and 
14 

student characteristics and school information 

practices that were reported by parents to have 

been done “just ok”, “not very well” or “not at 

all.” 

Also, in this report, the number of school 

information practices done “very well” were 

added together to create a summary variable. 

Although this was a useful method for 

examining the cumulative effect of multiple 

practices, there is a limitation in combining 

practices that may have different functions in 

relation to parent involvement. In addition, the 

information about school practices comes from 

reports from the parent respondent and not from 

the school. Parents’ reports are based on their 

knowledge and perception of school practices 

and may differ from actual school practices. 

In addition, the type of parent involvement 

included in the current report was limited to 

parent reports of the number of times they went 

to meetings or participated in activities at the 

child’s school. Teacher reports of parents’ 

activities may be different from those of parents. 

Also, examining parent or teacher reports of 

involvement outside of school may produce 

different results. Further research with the 

NHES:2003 data could use parent reports to 

explore whether specific school information 

practices are related to particular types of parent 

involvement outside of school that were 

included in the survey. For example, the school 

practice of informing parents about how to help 

their children learn at home could be examined 

in relation to reading and learning activities in 

the home. The school practice of providing 

information about homework could be examined 

in relation to data about involvement in 

homework by persons inside and outside the 

household. 

Specific school information practices at the 

middle and high school levels could also be 

examined in relation to school information 

practices and parent activities with older 

children that were not part of the current study. 

Simon (2004) found that when high schools 

initiated school outreach activities such as 

contacting parents about their children’s plans 

for after high school, parents were more likely to 

go to workshops about this issue and to talk to 

their senior high school student about their 

plans. This issue could also be addressed with 

the 2003 survey data by examining the two 

school information practices of “providing 

information about how to help plan for college 

or vocational school” and “how to help plan for 

work after the child completes his or her 

education” in relation to the frequency that the 

parent reports talking with the child about his or 

her plans for further education after high school 

and plans for work after the child finishes his or 

her education. In interpreting such an analysis, 

it should be noted that both school practices and 

reports of talking to the child about specific 

subjects were reported by parents. 

Survey Methodology and Data Reliability 

The National Household Education Surveys 

Program (NHES) is a program of telephone 

surveys sponsored by the U.S. Department of 

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES). NHES was first conducted in 1991 and 

has covered a wide range of education-related 

topics. NHES surveys focused on parent and 

family involvement in education in 1996 and 

2003. This report presents data from the Parent 

and Family Involvement in Education Survey of 

NHES in both years (1996 and 2003). 

NHES:1996 and NHES:2003 data collections 

were conducted by Westat and took place from 

January through April of 1996 and 2003, 

respectively. This section provides a brief 

description of the survey methodology; further 

details about the 2003 study methodology 

appear in Hagedorn et al. (2004). Details about 

the 1996 study methodology are in Montaquilla 

and Brick (1997).

The NHES:1996 and NHES:2003 were listassisted, RDD samples. For NHES:1996, the 

sampling frame was Marketing Systems Group’s 

(MSG’s) Genesys database as of December 

1995. For NHES:2003, the sampling frame was 

MSG‘s Genesys 3rd quarter 2002 database. The 

data were collected using computer-assisted 

telephone interviewing (CATI) technology. A 

random sample of telephone numbers was 

selected in the first stage, and within each 

household with eligible children, at least one 
15 

eligible child was selected in the second stage. 

The samples for the 1996 and 2003 surveys are 

nationally representative of all children in 

kindergarten through 12th grade, enrolled in 

regular school or homeschooled in the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia. The person 

chosen as the respondent for the 1996 and 2003 

interviews was the parent or guardian in the 

household who knew the most about the child’s 

education. In about 80 percent of interviews in 

both years, the respondent was the child’s 

mother or a female guardian or respondent. 

Interviews were conducted in both English and 

Spanish. Data for this report come from 16,151 

completed parent interviews for children in 

grades 1 through 12 in 1996 and 11,265 

completed parent interviews for children in the 

same grade range in 2003. 

Data Reliability 

Estimates produced using data from the 1996 

and 2003 surveys are subject to two types of 

error, sampling and nonsampling errors. 

Nonsampling errors are errors made in the 

collection and processing of data. Sampling 

errors occur because the data are collected from 

samples of respondents rather than the whole 

population. 

Nonsampling Error 

Nonsampling error is the term used to describe 

variations in the estimates that may be caused by 

population coverage limitations and data 

collection, processing, and reporting procedures. 

The sources of nonsampling errors are typically 

problems like unit5

 and item nonresponse, the 

differences in respondents’ interpretations of the 

meaning of the questions, response differences 

related to the particular time the survey was 

conducted, and mistakes in data preparation. In 

the 1996 and 2003 surveys, efforts were made to 

minimize nonsampling error through cognitive 

testing in the survey design stage, a two-stage 

field test of the survey, on-line data edits and 

 

5

 In the 1996 and 2003 surveys, the unit nonresponse 

rate is defined as the percentage of eligible sampled 

children whose parents did not complete the survey. 

post-interview edits, and a comparison of the 

survey estimates with similar estimates from 

previous surveys. Estimation procedures were 

used to help reduce the bias in the estimates 

associated with excluding the 4 percent of 

children in the population who do not live in 

households with telephones. 

Sampling Error 

The samples of telephone households selected 

for the 2003 and 1996 surveys are just two of 

many possible samples that could have been 

selected. Therefore, estimates produced from 

this sample may differ from estimates that would 

have been produced from other samples. This 

type of variability is called sampling error 

because it arises from using a sample of 

households with telephones, rather than having 

surveyed all households with telephones. 

The standard error is a measure of the variability 

due to sampling when estimating a statistic; 

standard errors for estimates presented in this 

report were computed using a jackknife 

replication method. Standard errors for all of the 

estimates are presented in the tables and can be 

used to produce confidence intervals. For 

example, an estimated 61 percent of parents 

reported in 2003 that the school did very well at 

letting them know between report cards how 

their child was doing in school. This figure has 

an estimated standard error of 0.6. Therefore, 

the estimated 95 percent confidence interval for 

this statistic is approximately 60 to 62 percent 

(61 ± 1.96 (0.6)). That is, if the processes of 

selecting a sample, collecting the data, and 

constructing the confidence interval were 

repeated, it would be expected that in 95 out of 

100 samples from the same population, the 

confidence interval would contain the true 

participation rate. 

All of the estimates in this report are based on 

weighting the observations using the 

probabilities of selection of the respondents and 

other adjustments to partially account for 

nonresponse and coverage bias. Weights were 

developed to produce unbiased and consistent 

estimates of the national totals. The weight 

variable used to estimate the characteristics of 
16 

children and youth in both 1996 and 2003 was 

FPWT. In addition to properly weighting the 

responses, special procedures for estimating the 

statistical significance of the estimates were 

employed because the data were collected using 

a complex sample design. Complex sample 

designs result in data that violate some of the 

assumptions that are normally used to assess the 

statistical significance of results from a simple 

random sample. For example, frequently the 

standard errors of the estimates from these 

surveys are larger than would be expected if the 

sample were a simple random sample and the 

observations were independent and identically 

distributed random variables. Eighty replicate 

weights (FPWTR1 to FPWTR80 in 1996, and 

FPWT1 to FPWT80 in 2003) were used to 

produce estimates of the sampling errors of the 

estimates. 

Response Rates 

In both the 1996 and 2003 surveys, there were 

samples of both households and children. In the 

1996 survey, Screeners were completed with 

55,838 households, with a weighted Screener 

unit response rate of 70 percent. The parent 

interview was completed by the parents of 

20,792 of the 23,835 sampled children age 3 

through the 12th grade, a weighted unit response 

rate of 89 percent. Thus, the overall unit 

response rate for the Parent and Family 

Involvement in Education Survey in 1996 was 

62 percent (the product of the Screener unit 

response rate and the parent interview unit 

response rate). 

In the 2003 survey, Screeners were completed 

with 32,049 households, with a weighted 

Screener unit response rate of 65 percent. The 

parent interview was completed by the parents 

of 12,426 of the 14,942 sampled children in 

kindergarten through the 12th grade, a weighted 

unit response rate of 83 percent. Thus, the 

overall unit response rate for the Parent and 

Family Involvement in Education Survey in 

2003 was 54 percent. 

A unit nonresponse bias analysis was undertaken 

for NHES:2003. This study involved an 

examination of unit response rates as a whole 

and for various subgroups, an analysis to 

determine characteristics that are associated with 

Screener unit nonresponse, and a comparison of 

estimates based on adjusted and unadjusted 

weights. The analysis of unit nonresponse bias 

showed no evidence of bias in estimates from 

the PFI-NHES:2003 survey. The statistical 

adjustments used in weighting may have 

corrected at least partially for biases that might 

have existed due to differential unit 

nonresponse. Unit nonresponse bias may still be 

present in other variables that were not studied. 

Response rates were also calculated at the item 

level. The item response rate is based on 

unweighted responses and is the number of 

persons responding to an item divided by the 

number of persons eligible for an item, 

multiplied by 100. Item nonresponse (i.e., the 

failure to complete some items in an otherwise 

completed interview) was very low for most 

items in the 1996 and 2003 surveys. In 1996, 

the item nonresponse rate for most variables 

included in this report were generally less than 2 

percent, except for school size which had an 

item nonresponse rate of 6 percent. In 2003, the 

item nonresponse rates for most variables 

included in this report are 3 percent or lower. 

Again, the exception is the item for school size 

(with an item nonresponse rate of 6 percent). 

Items with missing data were imputed using a 

hot-deck procedure (Rao and Shao 1992) in 

which cells are formed that contain cases with 

similar characteristics and a donor value is used 

to impute the missing value. The estimates 

included in this report are based on the imputed 

data. 

Statistical Tests 

The tests of significance used in this analysis are 

based on Student’s t statistics for the comparison 

of individual estimates and for bivariate 

relationships. Only differences of 5 percentage 

points or more are discussed in the report. Due 

to the large sample size, many of the group 

differences that were examined were statistically 

significant at the .05 alpha level used for these 

analyses, including many very small differences. 

Because of that, an arbitrary 5 percentage point 

difference criterion was established for 
17 

determining which group differences would be 

discussed in the text of this report. 

The report also used Cohen’s d, a measure of 

effect size (Cohen 1988; Rosenthal, Rosnow, 

and Rubin 2000), to determine the magnitude of 

statistically significant differences between 

means. With relatively large sample sizes, 

population differences of little or no practical 

importance may be statistically significant. 

Effect size measures are a tool for assessing 

practical significance. Cohen’s d is calculated 

by dividing the estimated difference between 

two population parameters by the estimated 

population standard deviation. Cohen’s (1988) 

convention for interpreting effect sizes was used, 

and only effect sizes of .20 and larger are 

discussed in the text of the report. This effect 

size is an arbitrary criterion established for 

determining which group differences would be 

discussed given the large sample size and the 

significant differences found for many 

comparisons. Finally, Kendall’s tau b was used 

to provide a measures of association between 

school practices done “very well” and parents’ 

frequency of involvement. Kendall’s tau b is a 

measure of association between two ordinal 

variables. An association is present when tau b 

is significantly greater than 0. 

Acknowledgments 

The author would like to thank Chris Chapman, 

Jerry West, Shelley Burns, Val Plisko, Kathryn 

Chandler, Patrick Rooney, and Lisa Bridges 

from the National Center for Education 

Statistics; and Lauren Gilbertson, Fraser Ireland, 

Gerard Rainville, and Aparna Sundaram from 

the Education Statistics Services Institute for 

their helpful suggestions and reviews of the 

report. At Westat, I would also like to thank 

Mary Hagedorn, the director of the NHES 

Program at Westat, John McManus, and Ying 

Long. Finally, I would like to thank the parents 

who provided the data upon which the report is 

based. 

References 

Baker, D.P., and Stevenson, D.L. (1986). 

Mothers’ Strategies for Children’s 

School Achievement: Managing the 

Transition to High School. Sociology of 

Education, 59: 156-166. 

Becker, H.J. and Epstein, J.L. (1982). Parent 

Involvement: A Survey of Teacher 

Practices. Elementary School Journal, 

83: 85-102. 

Bielick, S., and Chapman, C. (2003). Trends in 

the Use of School Choice: 1993 to 1999

(NCES 2003–031). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

Bielick, S., Chandler, K., and Broughman, S. 

(2001). Homeschooling in the United 

States: 1999 (NCES 2001–033). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for 

the Behavioral Sciences. New York: 

Academic Press. 

Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., 

McPartland, J.M., Mood, A., Weinfeld, 

F.D., and York, R.L. (1966). Equality of 

Educational Opportunity. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Comer, J.; and Haynes, N. (1991). Parent 

Involvement in Schools: An Ecological 

Approach. Elementary School Journal, 

91(3): 271-277.

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking Parent 

Involvement With Student 

Achievement: Do Race and Income 

Matter? Journal of Educational 

Research, 93(1): 11-30. 

Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the Home 

Advantage: Assessing the Effectiveness 

of Parental Involvement in Elementary 

School. Sociology of Education, 

78(July), 233-249. 

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent 

school involvement during the early 
18 

adolescent years. Teachers College 

Record, 94(3), 568-587. 

Epstein, J.L. (1983). Longitudinal Effects of 

Family-School-Person Interactions on 

Student Outcomes. In A. Kerckhoff 

(Ed.), Research in Sociology of 

Education and Socialization, Volume 4

(pp. 19-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 

Epstein, J.L. (1990). Single Parents and the 

Schools: Effects of Marital Status on 

Parent and Teacher Interactions. In 

M.T. Hallinan, D.M. Klein, and J. Glass 

(Eds.), Change in Societal Institutions

(pp. 91-121). New York: Plenum. 

Epstein, J.L. (1991). Effects on Student 

Achievement of Teachers’ Practices of 

Parent Involvement. In S. Silvern (Ed.), 

Advances in Reading/Language 

Research, Vol. 5: Literacy Through 

Family, Community and School 

Interaction (pp. 261-276). Greenwich, 

CT: JAI Press. 

Epstein, J.L. (1992). School and Family 

Partnerships. In M. Alkin (Ed.), 

Encyclopedia of Educational Research

(6th ed.) (pp. 1139-1151). New York: 

MacMillan. 

Epstein, J.L. (1996). Perspectives and Previews 

on Research and Policy for School, 

Family, and Community Partnerships. 

In A. Booth and J.F. Dunn (Eds.), 

Family-School Links: How Do They 

Affect Educational Outcomes? (pp. 209-

246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Epstein, J.L. (2001). School, Family, and 

Community Partnerships: Preparing 

Educators and Improving Schools. 

Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Epstein, J.L., and Dauber, S.L. (1991). School 

Programs and Teacher Practices of 

Parent Involvement in Inner-City 

Elementary and Middle Schools. The 

Elementary School Journal, 91(3): 289-

305. 

Epstein, J.L., and Lee, S. (1995). National 

Patterns of School and Family 

Connections in the Middle Grades. In 

B. Ryan, G. Adams, T. Gullotta, R. 

Weissberg, and R. Hampton(Eds.), The 

Family-School Connection: Theory, 

Research, and Practice (pp. 108-154). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Epstein, J.L., and McPartland, J.M. (1979). 

Authority Structures. In H. Walberg 

(Ed.), Educational Environment and 

Effects (pp. 293-310). Berkeley: 

McCutchan. 

Epstein, J.L., and Salinas, K.C. (1993). School 

and Family Partnerships: 

Questionnaires for Teachers and 

Parents in Elementary and Middle 

Grades. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins 

University Center on Families, 

Communities, Schools and Children’s 

Learning. 

Gettinger, M., and Guetschow, K.W. (1998). 

Parental Involvement in Schools: Parent 

and Teacher Perceptions of Roles, 

Efficacy, and Opportunities. Journal of 

Research and Development in Education, 

32(1): 38-52. 

Hagedorn, M., Montaquila, J., Vaden-Kiernan, 

N., Kim, K., and Chapman, C. (2004). 

National Household Education Surveys 

of 2003: Data File User’s Manual, 

Volume 1. (NCES 2004–101). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Henderson, A. T. and Mapp, K.L. (2002). A 

New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of 

School, Family, and Community 

Connections on Student Achievement.

Southwest Educational Development 

Laboratory. 

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. 

(1997). Why do parents become 

involved in their children's education? 

Review of Educational Research, 67(1): 

3-42. 

Izzo, C.V., Weissberg, R.P., Kasprow, W.J., and 

Fendrich, M. (1999). A Longitudinal 

Assessment of Teacher Perceptions of 

Parent Involvement in Children’s 
19 

Education and School Performance. 

American Journal of Community 

Psychology, 27(6): 817-839. 

Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., and Teo, A. (1999). 

A Longitudinal Study of Achievement 

Trajectories: Factors Associated With 

Change. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 91(1): 116-126. 

Kohl, G.O., Lengua, L.J., and 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., and Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments 

of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, 

class, and cultural capital in familyschool relationships. Sociology of 

Education, 72: 37-53. 

Majoribanks, K. (1979). Families and Their 

Learning Environments: An Empirical 

Analysis. London: Routledge/Kegan 

Paul. 

McDill, E.L., and Rigsby, L. (1973). Structure 

and Process in Secondary Schools: The 

Academic Impact of Emotional 

Climates. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 

University Press. 

Miedel, W.T., and Reynolds, A.J. (1999). Parent 

Involvement in Early Intervention for 

Disadvantaged Children: Does it 

Matter? Journal of School Psychology, 

37(4): 379-402. 

Montaquilla, J., and Brick, M. (1997). Unit and 

Item Response Rates, Weighting, and 

Imputation Procedures in the 1996 

National Household Education Survey

(NCES No. 97–40). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics Working 

Paper. 

Patrikakou, E.N. and Weissberg, R.P (2000). 

Parents’ Perceptions of Teacher 

Outreach and Parent Involvement in 

Children’s Education. Journal of 

Prevention & Intervention in the 

Community, 20(1-2): 103-119. 

Princiotta, D., Bielick, S., and Chapman, C. 

(2004). 1.1 Million Homeschooled 

Students in the United States in 2003 

(NCES 2004–115). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

Rao, J.N.K., and Shao, J. (1992). Jackknife 

Variance Estimation With Survey Data 

Under Hot Deck Imputation. 

Biometrika, 79: 811–822. 

Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R.L., and Rubin, D.B. 

(2000). Contrasts and Effect Sizes in 

Behavioral Research. Cambridge 

University Press.Cambridge, UK. 

Shumow, L., and Miller, J.D. (2001). Parents’ 

At-Home and At-School Involvement 

With Young Adolescents. Journal of 

Early Adolescence, 21(1): 68-91. 

Simon, B.S. (2004). High School Outreach and 

Family Involvement. Social Psychology 

of Education, 7: 185-209. 

U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong 

Families, Strong Schools: Building 

Community Partnerships for Learning. 

(ED371909). Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. (2001). Papers 

From the Early Childhood Longitudinal 

Studies Program Presented at the 2001 

AERA and SRCD Meetings (NCES 

2001–06). Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics Working 

Paper. 

Vaden-Kiernan, N. (1996). Parents’ Reports of 

School Practices to Involve Families: 

1996 (NCES 97–327). U.S. Department 

of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Watkins, T.J. (1997). Teacher Communications, 

Child Achievement, and Parent Traits in 

Parent Involvement Models. Journal of 

Educational Research, 91(1): 3-14.