Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Barriers and Facilitators to School-Based Parent Involvement for Parents of Urban Public Middle School Students:

Barriers and Facilitators to School-Based Parent Involvement for Parents of Urban Public Middle... Using semistructured interviews, we explored barriers and facilitators to school-based parent involvement (SBPI) in a sample of predominately African American parents (N = 44) whose children attended urban public middle schools. Barriers to SBPI (e.g., perceptions of hostile parent–teacher interactions and aggressive, disrespectful students in the school) were more commonly reported than facilitators (e.g., child invitations for involvement). Findings suggest that parents’ motivations for engaging in SBPI may be undermined by a variety of barriers, resulting in low participation. Implications and tailored strategies for enhancing SBPI in this population are presented. Keywords parent participation, middle schools, urban, violence An extensive body of research has shown that parent involve- The impact of school and developmental transitions on par- ment during middle school is associated with a range of posi- ent involvement is compounded by a multitude of school and tive academic outcomes including higher class grades and parent factors that serve as barriers to middle school parent test scores and other school achievement outcomes (e.g., involvement (e.g., Eccles & Harold, 1993; Gonzalez-DeHass Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Gutman & Eccles, 1999; Hill & Willems, 2003; Kim, 2009). African American parents with et al., 2004; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Simons-Morton & Crump, low incomes and low educational attainment face consider- 2003). In light of the benefits of parent involvement, policies able parent involvement barriers (Halle, Kurtz-Costes, & to close the achievement gap have required school systems to Mahoney, 1997; Koonce & Harper, 2005; Trotman, 2001; develop comprehensive parent involvement and family– Williams & Sanchez, 2013), and may experience these barri- school partnership strategies (e.g., “No Child Left Behind ers to a greater extent than more advantaged parents or White Act,” 2002). Educators face unique challenges in their efforts parents do (Frew, Zhou, Duran, Kwok, & Benz, 2012; Griffith, to increase parent involvement as children transition from 1998). In the current study, we identify barriers to middle elementary to middle school. Compared with elementary school parent involvement among a sample of predominately schools, middle schools are both larger with respect to their African American parents with low incomes and low levels of physical size and their student body, and parents must inter- educational attainment whose children attend urban public act with an increased number of teachers to stay abreast of middle schools. We also identify facilitators to parent involve- their adolescents’ academic progress. These more imper- ment in middle school, factors that have been examined in sonal school environments may present difficulties to par- ents as they attempt to develop new relationships and to Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, USA understand how to be involved (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Seidman, University of Maryland Baltimore, School of Social Work, Baltimore, MD, Lambert, Allen, & Aber, 2003). Furthermore, young adoles- USA Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA cents may discourage particular parent involvement activi- Trinity Washington University, Washington, DC, USA ties when they perceive the activity as diminishing their Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human autonomy (Stevenson & Baker, 1987). In addition, this is the Development, Baltimore, MD, USA age at which there are changes in both adolescents’ and par- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA ents’ beliefs about the boundaries of parental authority, Corresponding Author: which then leads adolescents to engage their parents less and Kantahyanee W. Murray, Annie E. Casey Foundation, 701 St. Paul St., parents to decrease their engagement with their children Baltimore, MD 21202, USA. (Daddis, 2011). Email: kmurray@aecf.org This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Creative Commons CC BY: (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm). 2 SAGE Open only a handful of studies on African American parent involve- Identifying Barriers and Facilitators to ment (e.g., Archer-Banks & Behar-Horenstein, 2008). Parent Involvement Central to the identification of barriers and facilitators is a What Is Parent Involvement? focus on factors that influence parents’ decisions to engage in parent involvement. The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler Parent involvement represents parents’ commitment of model of the parent involvement process (Hoover-Dempsey, resources and time to the academic sphere of their children’s Bassler, & Brissie, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; lives. Epstein (1995) identified six forms of parent involve- Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, & Hoover-Dempsey, ment: (a) establishing home environments that support learn- 2005) describes the specific processes that influence parents’ ing, (b) facilitating effective communication between school decisions to engage in parent involvement. This model of and home, (c) helping the school and supporting students, (d) parent involvement process also explicates how they contrib- learning at home, (e) participating in school decision-making ute to the forms of parent involvement implemented and to processes, and (f) working with other stakeholders (i.e., stu- child outcomes. The current study focuses on the first two dents, school staff, community) to strengthen the school. levels of this model, which describe the processes that influ- Scholars usually group these parent involvement activities ence parents’ decisions to engage in parent involvement and into two broad categories: home-based parent involvement how parents become involved (i.e., the forms of parent and school-based parent involvement (SBPI; Deplanty, involvement). Hoover-Dempsey and colleagues posit that Coulter-Kern, & Duchane, 2007; Deslandes & Bertrand, parents’ decisions to engage in parent involvement are influ- 2005; Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007). Home-based enced by three motivational factors: (a) motivational beliefs, parent involvement includes practices related to children’s (b) parents’ perceptions of invitations to become involved, education that take place outside of the school, usually within and (c) parents’ personal life context. We organize the review the home. These practices may be directly related to school- of the literature on barriers and facilitators to parent involve- work, including assisting with homework, responding to ment by these three motivational factors. children’s academic choices, and talking about academic Evidence suggests that African American parents, espe- issues (Eccles & Harold, 1993). SBPI occurs when parents cially those of lower socioeconomic status (SES), may expe- actually make contact with the school and includes partici- rience greater barriers to parent involvement than more pating in general school meetings, communicating with advantaged parents or White parents do (e.g., Griffith, 1998). teachers and administrators, attending school events, and This highlights the salience of race as a potential factor shap- volunteering at the school (Herrold & O’Donnell, 2008). ing parent involvement. Thus, the literature review addition- Researchers have also proposed that parents’ positive atti- ally identifies studies regarding how parents’ perceptions of tudes about education and their communication of expecta- racism may influence motivational factors for parent involve- tions concerning academic achievement to their children ment. This inclusion of studies related to parents’ experi- represent additional components of parent involvement ences with and perceptions of racism in the schools is in line (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Hill & Tyson, 2009). Hill with Critical Race Theory (CRT; Delgado & Stefancic, and Tyson (2009) identified academic socialization as a form 2001), which has as a central tenet the notion that racism is of parent involvement examined in the literature. Academic endemic to American society. CRT has been used to analyze socialization includes parenting practices such as communi- aspects of education such as instruction and curriculum cation of expectations about educational attainment, cultivat- through a lens that recognizes the pervasiveness of racism in ing academic and career aspirations, connecting schoolwork schools and seeks to understand how racism shapes school and current events, and discussing learning techniques with policies and practices (Ladson-Billings, 1998). children (Hill & Tyson, 2009). In their meta-analysis on the extant research on middle school parent involvement, Hill and Tyson (2009) found that, although academic socializa- Motivational Beliefs tion was the strongest predictor of academic success, SBPI has also been associated with academic achievement and Motivational beliefs are first determined by parental role other measures of doing well in school. However, the bene- construction or parents’ attitudes and beliefs about their role fits of these forms of parent involvement may not be widely as a parent in fostering their child’s educational success realized in the middle school years. As mentioned previ- (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1997; Walker et al., 2005). Parental ously, parent involvement declines in middle school (Herrold role construction represents parents’ beliefs about what they & O’Donnell, 2008) compared with elementary school, per- should do regarding parent involvement (Hoover-Dempsey haps due to diminished opportunities (Dauber & Epstein, et al., 2005, Walker et al., 2005), and there is evidence that 1993; Gonzalez-DeHass & Willems, 2003). The identifica- parental role construction is an important motivational factor tion of barriers and facilitators to parent involvement pres- for parents of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds (see ents an opportunity to inform the development of strategies Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005, for a review). Other motiva- to increase middle school parental engagement, particularly tional factors are thought to translate into the parent’s taking among populations at greatest risk for low involvement. action to become involved. This is particularly true of the Murray et al. 3 second motivational belief: parents’ self-efficacy. This refers American parents, Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein to parents’ belief that they are capable of helping their child (2008) found that, although parents viewed parent involve- achieve in school (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005, Walker et ment as important, the school environment (particularly al., 2005). Parents’ self-efficacy for involvement may be a school personnel’s expectations, practices, and policies) barrier to parents of low SES. For example, parents of lim- influenced their level of involvement. In addition, research ited educational backgrounds may lack the confidence to suggests a responsive middle school environment could interact with teachers and navigate the school (Kim, 2009; eliminate barriers existing between middle schools and Koonce & Harper, 2005). For low-income African American African American parents (e.g., teacher’s low expectations parents, perceptions of racism as well as their own negative for children’s academic potential and parental involvement; school experiences may shape their self-efficacy and serve to Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein, 2008; Overstreet, distance them from schools (Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007). Devine, Bevans, & Efreom, 2005). School violence is one dimension of school climate that has particular relevance to parents whose children attend Perceptions of Invitations to Become public schools in urban communities. Urban schools have Involved been shown to have higher levels of violent incidents in schools compared with suburban and rural schools (Neiman, Parents’ perceptions of invitations to become involved 2011; Weishew & Peng, 1993). Although the links between include specific invitations from the child. Child invitations school violence and parent involvement have not been for involvement may be both explicit (e.g., child asking par- widely examined, existing evidence suggests that school ent to help with a fund-raiser) or implicit (e.g., parent safety is associated with greater levels of parent involvement observes that her child is struggling with a class and talks (Griffith, 1998; Kandakai, Price, Telljohann, & Wilson, with the teacher; Walker et al., 2005). Invitations may also 1999). School violence as a factor influencing parent involve- originate from the school through specific teacher invitations ment has broad implications because school violence is a (e.g., teacher invites the parent to volunteer in a classroom) national problem (Schonfeld, 2006). According to the most and general invitations for involvement from the school recent published findings of the national School Survey on (Walker et al., 2005). There is evidence that some teachers Crime and Safety, approximately 73% of schools reported at may not invite parent involvement because of their frustra- least one violent incident at the school during the 2009-2010 tion with low-achieving, low SES students (Eccles & Harold, school year (Neiman, 2011). Moreover, both the percentage 1993; Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007) or because they view the of schools reporting student bullying daily or at least once a family as the source of their students’ achievement problems week and the rate of violent incidents was higher for middle (Griffith, 1998; Trotman, 2001). Common misunderstand- schools than for elementary and high schools (Neiman, ings include teachers’ negative perceptions about the effi- 2011). Examining the extent to which school violence, con- cacy and capacity of low-income parents and teachers’ ceptualized as a specific component of the school climate, beliefs in the effectiveness of parental involvement with this hinders or fosters parent involvement will add to the knowl- population (Kim, 2009). Parents are more likely to partici- edge base regarding the role of school invitations in motivat- pate in school activities when they feel empowered by their ing parent involvement. interactions with the school staff (Baker, 1997). However, power differentials related to educational achievement and professional expertise may lead to unequal relationships Personal Life Context between parents and school staff, thereby marginalizing low- Personal life context refers to parents’ skills and knowledge income parents instead of empowering them (Barton, Drake, and the perceived time and energy parents can expend to Perez, St. Louis, & George, 2004; Khan, 1996). Sometimes become involved (Walker et al., 2005). Research suggests African American parents’ lack of confidence in their skills that the personal life context of low SES parents may present and capacity to interact with teachers (Lareau & Shumar, a plethora of barriers to parent involvement. For example, 1996) and perceptions of racism may further distance them parents with low educational attainment may lack the requi- from the schools even when invitations to the school are site sets of skills and knowledge to assist their children with given (Koonce & Harper, 2005). assignments especially beyond the elementary school grades General invitations for involvement from the school relate (Trotman, 2001). Work often serves as a barrier for low- to the general atmosphere or climate of the school (Walker income parents to devote time to attend school meetings, et al., 2005). Establishing a welcoming school climate and volunteer at the school, or participate in other parent involve- effectively publicizing school events to parents are examples ment activities (Mannan & Blackwell, 1992; Van Velsor & of ways schools invite parental involvement (Green, Walker, Orozco, 2007). Although work affects the ability of parents Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007; Hoover-Dempsey & to participate in SBPI activities regardless of income group, Sandler, 1997). For African American parents, a positive work barriers differentially affect low-income parents. Low- school climate is an important component of general school income parents are more likely to have inflexible work invitations for involvement. In a qualitative study of African 4 SAGE Open schedules, multiple jobs, and/or positions without paid leave of child health and safety including substantial numbers of benefits (Mannan & Blackwell, 1992; Van Velsor & Orozco, juvenile arrests (Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators 2007). Alliance, 2014). All three schools served significant numbers Limited resources, such as lack of transportation, have of low-income students; between 75% and 89% of students also been shown to hinder SBPI (Reglin, King, Losike- qualified for free or reduced-cost school lunch during the Sedimo, & Ketterer, 2003; Williams & Sanchez, 2013). 2005-2006 school year (Maryland State Department of Limited resources, moreover, hinder low-income parents’ Education, 2006). Although data regarding the race/ethnicity ability to address the basic needs of children and other rela- of personnel at each school are unavailable, system-level tives with special needs (e.g., old parents) contributing to data indicate that 59.7% of Baltimore City Public School further time constraints that negatively affect low-income teachers were African American, 35.6% were White, and parents’ involvement (Baker, 1997). In addition to financial 4.7% were categorized as other during the 2005-2006 school and time constraint barriers, low-income parents may also year (Maryland State Department of Education, 2007a). experience psychological barriers. For example, low-income The original child eligibility criteria included (a) first- parents who struggle to provide for their families’ basic time sixth grader and (b) not in self-contained special educa- needs may experience negative mental health effects includ- tion classes. The children of participants in the qualitative ing depression, which may limit parents’ capacity to engage study were either in the seventh grade (enrolled in the prior in school activities (Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007). year) or sixth grade (enrolled in the current year) and were still participating in the Steppin’ Up study’s follow-up assess- ments. Of the 857 parents eligible, 513 parents (60% partici- The Present Study pation rate) consented to participate in the larger Steppin’ Up The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilita- study at the time of the qualitative study. The Institutional tors to SBPI in a sample of predominately African American Review Boards of the Johns Hopkins University and the parents living in low-income urban communities whose chil- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development dren attend public middle schools. One of the goals of this (NICHD) and the city school district review board approved qualitative study was to understand parental school engage- this study. ment in an effort to inform parent–school collaboration Recruitment for the qualitative study was targeted to par- efforts. We used the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of ents of seventh graders at one school (first cohort) and par- parent involvement processes as an organizing framework to ents of sixth graders at all three schools (second cohort; N = understand how barriers inhibit and facilitators foster par- 381). Using a randomized contact list, staff contacted parents ents’ motivation for involvement. In previous studies, through a combination of telephone calls and letters. Blocks researchers have largely relied on teachers and administra- of 10 parents at a time were contacted until the recruitment tors to identify barriers and solutions to improving educa- goal was met. When staff documented 10 consecutive unan- tional outcomes through enhanced parent involvement swered phone calls, a visit was made to the parent’s home. If (Barton et al., 2004; Koonce & Harper, 2005) and only a no one answered the door, a postcard was left with instruc- handful of studies have examined the viewpoint of parents tions on how to contact staff. Parents had to be English (e.g., Williams & Sanchez, 2013). This study contributes to speaking to participate. Fifty-one parents were reached and the literature by examining the perspectives of parents and asked to participate. A total of 44 parents agreed to partici- other caregivers who are predominately African American pate (30 mothers, 5 fathers, and 9 other caregivers, including and reside in urban, low-income communities. grandmothers and aunts). Although the contact list was ran- domized, the 44 participants represent individuals who self- selected to participate. A little more than one half were Method parents of sixth graders (n = 23), and the remaining Participants were parents of seventh graders (n = 21). On average, parents were 41 years of age. The sample was predominately African Between October 2005 and July 2006, we conducted semis- American (n = 39), followed by White (n = 2), Latino (n = 1), tructured interviews with parents who previously consented Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian (n = 1), and Other (n = 1). to participate in the Steppin’ Up study (2004-2007), an inves- Most participants (63%) had a high school diploma/GED or tigation testing the impact of a violence prevention curricu- less, and 50% reported incomes of less than US$15,000 per lum on early adolescent aggressive behaviors at three public year. middle schools in Baltimore City. In the academic school year prior to this study, two of the three participating schools were on probation for the federal designation of “persistently Data Collection dangerous,” a label based on the numbers of student expul- sions and suspensions for violent offenses (Maryland State Three interviewers were researchers with prior experience Department of Education, 2007b). These two schools are conducting semistructured interviews, and the fourth inter- also located in communities characterized by poor indicators viewer was a postbaccalaureate research intern with some Murray et al. 5 prior research experience. Prior to fielding, the two most then meeting to compare every instance of coded text. The experienced interviewers led a 2-hr training on the protocol two coders achieved consensus on all instances of coding and interview techniques. Researchers alternated roles as discrepancies by discussing the merits of the codes selected. interviewer and notetaker, with the two most experienced When coders could not agree on the appropriate code for a researchers conducting the initial interviews to facilitate particular text, these instances of text were noted and dis- training. Continued supervision and weekly meetings cussed in coding progress meetings led by the experienced between interviewers and senior staff ensured interview pro- primary coder (D.H.) who resolved all coding disagreements. tocol adherence. Codes relevant to parent involvement in the child’s educa- Researchers developed a semistructured interview guide tion were examined in the current study. The overarching to examine aims associated with the larger adolescent aggres- themes represented by these codes are shown in Table 1. The sion study and, to a lesser extent, secondary aims associated Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of parent involvement with the current parent involvement study. Using this inter- processes was applied to the themes as an organizing view guide, researchers asked parents to discuss their views framework. about violence, what they communicate to their children about violence and fighting, and what parents, schools, and Results communities can do to keep their children safe. Parents were also asked a series of questions about their current involve- Themes related to the three motivational factors for parent ment in their child’s education and school. The interview involvement proposed in the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler guides were pilot tested with three parents recruited to the model of parent involvement processes are described in the Steppin’ Up study. All interviews were digitally recorded and following sections. The three motivational factors are the notetaker wrote down participant responses, capturing (a) parents’ motivational beliefs, (b) parents’ perceptions of impressions from body language as well as providing a invitations for involvement from others, and (c) parents’ per- backup data collection measure. The interviewer and ceived life context. First, we provide a description of the notetaker met following the interview to debrief and com- themes related to parents’ motivational beliefs. Next, we plete a field interview observation form. Although the major- organize the remaining themes that describe parents’ percep- ity of interviews were held in parents’ homes, a small number tions of invitations for involvement from others and parents’ of parents requested their interview take place at a commu- perceived life context under two sections: facilitators and nity location (i.e., a private room at the child’s school). The barriers. Some themes included both facilitators and barriers. interviews lasted about 1 hr and parents were provided finan- We organized these themes in the barriers section because cial remuneration for their time. the findings were predominately those that described imped- iments to engagement in SBPI. Data Analysis Parents’ Motivational Beliefs We compared the transcribed and recorded interviews for accuracy and completeness. Parent interview transcript files Parental role construction. Nearly all parents indicated that were uploaded into hyperRESEARCH 2.7 being involved in their child’s school was an important role (HyperRESEARCH, 2009). We used a grounded theory that parents should play in their child’s education. The fol- approach for data coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). These lowing parent’s statement exemplifies this attitude: data were coded by looking for themes that emerged from participants’ statements. A team of three researchers identi- [Parents] certainly play the most important role [in their fied themes using the first 12 transcribed parent interviews. children’s education], I think. And, we should always be active First, an experienced primary coder (D.H.) with expertise in in everything that’s going on with them more than just checking qualitative research methodology open coded and consulted homework and just making sure that the homework is done. with two experienced qualitative coders Vanya Jones (V.J.) (Mother, age 48) and Nikeea Copeland-Linder (N.C.). A coding manual was developed based on the initial 12 interviews and modified as Volunteering (e.g., aiding teachers in the classroom and subsequent interviews were coded. Each new idea generated chaperoning field trips) and attending PTA and similar school a code; similar codes were grouped by themes. The experi- meetings were frequently mentioned as SBPI activities that enced primary coder Denise L. Haynie (D.H.) trained three parents should be a part of at their child’s school. However, postbaccalaureate research interns and a doctoral student the majority of parents reported low levels of actual engage- [Kimberly Chambers (K.C.), Amanda McEnery (A.M.), ment in volunteering and attending school meetings. One Elizabeth Noelcke (E.N.), Kantahyanee Murray (K.M.)], and mother explained, “Every so often I’ve been to a PTA meet- all five individuals coded the transcripts. We utilized a dou- ing or two. And I’ve spoken to my child’s teacher once or ble coding approach for each transcript to improve reliabil- twice. But not as often as I think it should be, as often as I ity. Two coders were responsible for coding a transcript and would like to be” (Mother, age 48). 6 SAGE Open Table 1. Overarching Themes Relevant to School-Based Parent Involvement Examined in the Current Study. Themes Refers to statements about parent’s . . . Parent role in school Beliefs and practices around supervising child’s education and homework, providing academic assistance, participating in PTA, volunteering at the school, and other activities to support children’s education. Parent involvement in school Practices and activities the parent does at the school, including going to the school to talk to teachers, making unannounced visits. Distinctions were made between teacher/staff-initiated contact and parent-initiated contact. Parent contact with other parents Interactions with other parents (i.e., limited to problem, little/none and would like more, little/none preferred). Impression of school Overall impressions of the school (i.e., positive to neutral, negative staff focused, negative student focused, negative parent focused, negative school facility focused, perception that school discipline is unfair/inconsistent). Barriers/challenges to school involvement Descriptions of factors that inhibit involvement in the child’s school, including schedule, work issues, transportation barriers. Student behavior and lack of opportunity at the school were also mentioned. Challenges raising an early adolescent Descriptions of the difficulties they face raising their sixth or seventh grader, including developmental issues, school issues, increased misbehavior or opportunities for misbehavior, and youth lack of disclosure about friends, school, peers, or problems. Nearly three quarters of parents discussed the importance Five parents indicated implicit child invitations for of supervising their child’s academic progress and social involvement that involved initiating communication with behavior. For some parents, this belief translated into SBPI teachers to address problems related to their child’s academic practices. For example, one third of parents reported going to progress or behavioral problems. One grandmother described the school to check up on their child. This involved observ- talking with teachers about her child’s conflict with another ing their child in the classroom or other locations in the student at the school: school (e.g., lunchroom or cafeteria). I went down to [the school], but they weren’t for pleasant reasons. I went down there because I tried to avoid—you know, I’ll go up to the school to check his progress. I will peek in on I could see an incident blowing up, blowing up with [my him, even if I don’t let him see me. I will always talk to the daughter] and the girls down there. I went down there to talk to teachers, but I just peek my head in to make sure he’s sitting the teacher about it. (Grandmother, age 66) down at his desk. (Mother, age 30) Teacher-specific invitations for involvement and general In addition to motivational beliefs, parental involvement school invitations for involvement are the other ways parents practices are also influenced by child invitations for involve- perceive they are invited to become involved. In this sample, ment, teacher invitations for involvement, general school the themes that emerged for these two components of the invitations for involvement, and parents’ perceived life con- parent involvement process model represented barriers to text. In the next two sections, we describe the facilitators and parent involvement. barriers related to these components of the parent involve- ment process model. Barriers Facilitators Teacher-specific invitations for involvement. Teacher invita- Child invitations for involvement. Child invitations for involve- tions for involvement were infrequently mentioned. When ment are one way that parents perceive they are invited to teacher invitations for involvement were extended, they become involved. In this sample, explicit and implicit child were generally to address the child’s disruptive behavior invitations for involvement contributed to parent engage- problems. One parent described her perception that teacher ment in SBPI. For example, three parents mentioned visiting invitations for involvement were both rare and behavior- the school to follow-up on their child’s claim that a teacher problem focused: was treating them inappropriately (e.g., unfair punishment or You’ve got to talk to these teachers. Just be involved. Because a harsh reprimands). lot of the times, teachers don’t even—if your child does not have a behavior problem, but they could still be in the class not doing If he saying he’s having trouble with a teacher, I want to see for what they’re supposed to do, you won’t get a phone call. The myself, how does that teacher come across to me when I’m only time they give you phone calls is if it’s a behavior problem talking to him or her. So that would be one reason I would go up that’s affecting them. (Mother, age 26) [to the school]. (Grandmother, age 61) Murray et al. 7 This quote illustrates some parents’ perceptions that levels of aggressive and disrespectful student behavior in the teachers do not invite parents to become involved when their schools. One father stated, child has difficulties not related to problem behavior in the The teachers and administration had no control at all. It was classroom. This absence of teacher invitations to become almost like a three-ring circus, kids cussing, threatening, involved impedes SBPI; that is, teachers’ failure to make par- fighting, running, throwing stuff; you name it, knocking people ents aware of particular problems with their children limits out of the way. No respect. (Father, age 53) parents’ opportunities for SBPI. Ten parents reported teacher invitations to come to the Parents’ displeasure with aggressive and disrespectful school because their child was involved in a conflict (typi- students was reported as an obstacle to engaging in SBPI. cally a fight) with another child or exhibited behavior prob- One parent said, “I don’t want to go [to the school] because lems in class. In these cases, parents were visiting the school sometimes you can’t deal with other people’s children . . . to participate in parent–teacher conferences that were often They [are] disrespectful and they get smart with you in a mandatory. minute” (Mother, age 32). Furthermore, other parents in the Approximately one half of parents indicated having nega- child’s school were described in a negative light. One mother tive impressions of teachers in the school and generally dis- described how she perceived other parents as antagonistic cussed unfriendly and hostile interactions with teachers. and difficult to engage when resolving child behavior-related Some of these parents reported instances when teachers were problems: disrespectful to or inappropriately communicated with their children. When you do have little problems with children at the school and you try to go to this parent, you don’t want to go—they get General school invitations for involvement. Most parents indi- mad when you approach their child when [they are] not around. cated that their children’s school offered opportunities for But then [these parents are] nowhere to be found when I need to SBPI. However, parents indicated that opportunities for talk . . . about my child’s problem. (Mother, age 26) involvement were not communicated in a timely, organized fashion. For example, some parents reported not learning Ten parents reported wanting little or no contact with about opportunities including school assemblies and meet- other parents, an attitude that impedes engagement in ings until it was too late for them to rearrange their schedule SBPI. Parents’ desire to avoid potentially negative interac- or until after they had occurred. One mother said, tions was the most common reason parent-to-parent con- tact was not wanted. Although parents generally reported Communication is lackadaisical and next to none. When she’s in not knowing other parents, one half were interested in trouble, they’re quick to pick up the phone, but I don’t hear meeting other parents. Parents’ reasons for wanting to get nothing about PTA meetings . . . [T]hey’re going on a field trip to know the parents of their children’s friends included and they sent the permission slip home like two, maybe three having a way to keep track of their child’s whereabouts days before the trip. I’ve seen a few pieces of paper from time to and activities when unsupervised and building relation- time, but again, anything regular or anything that I can like put ships to facilitate communication about issues relevant to my hands on and make a calendar from, it doesn’t happen. their child’s schooling. (Mother, age 33) Although two parents indicated that their child failed to Parents’ Perceived Life Context give them flyers and other materials publicizing activities, the majority of parents attributed poor communication to Time and energy. Work and scheduling issues were the most inadequate organization and communication channels at frequently reported barriers to SBPI. One common response their child’s school. Other less commonly discussed SBPI by parents was that they had no time to participate in SBPI issues included parents’ perception that the school offered no consistently or at all because of their demanding work sched- SBPI opportunities, offered them at inconvenient times, such ules and the absence of paid leave benefits. Therefore, they as during the workday, and an impression that the PTA was were unable to or could not afford to take time off to partici- ineffective. pate in school activities. Often the combination of work Nearly all parents mentioned having a negative impres- issues and family responsibilities synergistically created sion of one or more aspects of the school climate at their more obstacles to SBPI. One parent explained, child’s school. More than one third of parents mentioned having an overall negative impression of the school, includ- I mean, basically [parents] just don’t have time, unless they go ing their perceptions of the school’s discipline and safety [to the school] like early in the morning or whatever . . . I really problems and criticisms of the administration’s inability to don’t have time because when I get off work or go to my other effectively address school challenges. Furthermore, 16 par- job, or have to come home, clean up. Like right now, I’m ents expressed negative impressions of students in their washing, and I have to cook dinner. I really don’t have time. But I would like to, I really would, but I’m not rich. (Mother, age 45) child’s school. These parents generally discussed the high 8 SAGE Open Despite such multifaceted work and scheduling chal- home and at school. In the current study, parents’ perceptions lenges, a small number of parents described strategies or sac- of their self-efficacy, the second component of motivational rifices made to overcome these SBPI barriers. One mother beliefs, were not reported. Some research suggests that par- said, ents’ self-efficacy may be low among parents with limited educational attainment (Kim, 2009; Koonce & Harper, So yes, I do have to forgo some sleep sometimes. You know, 2005). However, in a sample of parents of diverse ethnic and when I was working during the day, there were days when I SES backgrounds, Green et al. (2007) found a negative asso- would let my boss know the day before. “Look, I’m going to be ciation between self-efficacy and SBPI. This finding sug- late coming in because I have to go and visit my child’s school.” gests that parents who are less confident about their capacity (Mother, age not disclosed) to help their child in school may interact with the school more often to obtain support (Green et al., 2007). Additional Skills and knowledge. There were no study findings directly research in this area may help to elucidate the relationship related to parents’ skills and knowledge (or attitudes regard- between self-efficacy and SBPI specifically among popula- ing their skills and knowledge) as it pertains to engagement tions more similar to the sample in the current study. in SBPI. Rather, the findings related to parents’ skills and knowledge were directly relevant to home-based parent Parents’ Invitations for Involvement involvement (e.g., attitudes that endorsed providing aca- demic assistance, linking their children to trusted family Parents reported invitations for SBPI from their children and members and trusted adults in the community who could their teachers. Invitations from children were facilitators to provide academic help). SBPI in that they involved parental initiation of contact with teachers and other school staff, often to address problems including their child’s difficulties with schoolwork or behav- Discussion ior. Most parents indicated that their initiation of contact Guided by the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of par- with teachers was less common than teacher’s invitations for ent involvement processes (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1997; SBPI involvement. Yet, parents indicated that teacher’s invi- Walker et al., 2005), we identified barriers and facilitators to tations for SBPI involvement were often mandatory parent– SBPI among parents who lived in low-income urban com- teacher conferences. Regardless of the source of invitation munities and whose children attended three public middle for involvement, parents generally reported negative and schools. Our findings support previous research demonstrat- sometimes hostile interactions with teachers and other school ing links between motivational factors (i.e., motivational staff that can present barriers to future parent involvement beliefs, invitations for involvement, and personal life con- that is up to their discretion. This finding is similar to previ- text) and the frequency and types of parent involvement ous research indicating that unfriendly and hostile relation- implemented (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005; Green et al., ships frequently characterize parent and school personnel 2007; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). In the current study, interactions in predominately low-income, minority samples motivational beliefs for parent involvement were expressed (Barton et al., 2004; Koonce & Harper, 2005). in the form of parents’ positive role construction regarding Moreover, some parents in this sample noted instances their function to support their child’s educational endeavors. when teachers were inappropriate or disrespectful to their However, the quality of invitations for involvement by teach- children. Despite these negative experiences, parents ers and the school as well as parents’ personal life context expressed little reticence about interacting with teachers and presented a number of barriers. One important contribution staff. This finding contrasts that of previous studies that iden- of this study is the finding that students’ aggressive behavior tify barriers such as parents’ lack of confidence when inter- in the school not only contributed to some parents’ negative acting with teachers and staff and perceived racism as perceptions of the school climate but in fact it also hindered hindrances to parent involvement (Kim, 2009; Koonce & their engagement in SBPI. Overall, the barriers identified Harper, 2005; Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007). Because per- help to explain why parents in the current study indicated ceived racism based on SES or race was not explicitly infrequent involvement in SBPI activities. explored in the current study, the absence of barriers related to these factors is uncertain. The exploration of African American parents’ experiences with racism in their interac- Motivational Beliefs tions with school personnel merits additional research. Parents overwhelmingly reported positive attitudes and Qualitative research that allows African American parents to beliefs regarding their role in fostering their child’s educa- tell their stories about racism they have experienced in their tional success. Consistent with previous research examining children’s school reflects another central tenet of CRT (i.e., parental role construction (Baker, 1997; Drummond & counterstorytelling; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001) and prom- Stipek, 2004; Sheldon, 2002), the parents in the current study ises to yield rich data for critical analysis through a CRT lens. expressed that they have a role in their child’s education and Present study findings indicate that many parents held were interested in being involved in their child’s education at negative impressions of the school. Parents reported that Murray et al. 9 general school invitations for SBPI about school events and presented a challenge to school involvement including work, meetings were poorly coordinated. Information about SBPI raising children, and family responsibilities (e.g., preparing opportunities were communicated inconsistently or too late dinner, picking up more than one child from school). These for parents to plan appropriately. This poor communication barriers are consistent with previous research on SBPI indi- of SBPI opportunities may worsen parents’ perceptions of cating that inflexible work schedules, multiple jobs, and the the school climate. Aggressive and disrespectful students absence of leave benefits are tremendous obstacles to paren- dissuaded some parents from visiting the school, and interac- tal involvement for parents in single-headed households or tions with other parents were viewed unfavorably. One find- of lower SES (Archer-Banks & Behar-Horenstein, 2008; ing of the study suggests that the school climates of the three Lareau & Shumar, 1996; Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007). middle schools in this study were not welcoming. Given that Parents also conveyed how demanding work schedules and a welcoming school climate is an indicator of general school multifaceted family responsibilities diminish their physical invitations for parent involvement (Green et al., 2007; energy, thus, inhibiting their ability to engage in SBPI. Some Griffith, 1998; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005), an unfriendly parents reported having the flexibility to rearrange work school climate may have diminished parents’ perceptions of schedules for school events; however, they reported that their general invitations for parent involvement from the schools. child’s school’s untimely communication of events pre- Study findings suggest the centrality of student behavior in vented them from having enough time to rearrange their parents’ perceptions of the qualities of the school environ- work schedules. Unlike previous research (Lareau & Shumar, ment. In particular, the perceived school safety risks that 1996; Reglin et al., 2003), limited resources (e.g., lack of stemmed from aggressive and disrespectful students seemed transportation) were mentioned infrequently as barriers to to repel some parents in the current study from visiting the SBPI. The availability of resources such as transportation school rather than encourage more frequent visits. This inter- and child care was not probed in this qualitative study. pretation is in line with prior research indicating a positive Therefore, it is unclear why limited resources failed to association between school safety and parent involvement emerge as a frequent barrier among parents in the current (Griffith, 1998). study. It is also noteworthy that the current study described par- Another element reported was that parents’ perceptions of ents’ lack of contact with other parents at the school. This their skills and knowledge in the context of SBPI were not finding is consistent with research indicating that the social reported. In a study of parents from diverse ethnic and SES networks of low-income parents do not prominently include backgrounds, skills, and knowledge were unrelated to SBPI other parents at their children’s schools (Lareau & Shumar, (Green et al., 2007). However, other findings from the same 1996). This lack of social connection limits parents’ ability to study suggest that parents with low self-efficacy regarding learn information about the school or their children’s educa- their capacity to help their child in school may engage in tional process and may play a role in parents’ decisions to SBPI more often to obtain support (Green et al., 2007). As engage in SBPI (Lareau & Shumar, 1996; Sheldon, 2002). mentioned above, parents’ self-efficacy for involvement may On the whole, the parent invitations for involvement find- be a barrier to parents of low SES (Hoover-Dempsey et al., ings demonstrate that the parents in this study generally had 2005, Walker et al., 2005). Parents’ confidence in engaging negative experiences with the schools. It is interesting to with the school may be influenced by their educational note that parents’ negative experiences with the school both attainment (Kim, 2009; Koonce & Harper, 2005) and other fueled and thwarted SBPI. For example, the prospect of hav- indicators of knowledge and skills. Additional research on ing hostile interactions with teachers reduced the appeal of the role of self-efficacy in predicting SBPI should also incor- SBPI for many parents; however, a child experiencing porate measures of knowledge and skills as well as analyses teacher disrespect and antagonism was a catalyst for SBPI. that explore both direct and indirect relationships among Similarly, the negative school climate repelled parents, yet at these factors. the same time, the deleterious school climate contributed to the ubiquitous nature of classroom conduct problems and Policy Implications peer conflicts. Thus, engaging in SBPI to address such prob- lems was a common experience for a number of parents in For schools, building strong parent–school partnerships the study. Such parent invitations for involvement findings requires practical steps that aim to enhance general school exemplify the transactional nature of the interactions between invitations and teacher invitations for involvement. Schools parents, their children, teachers, administrators, as well as can also tailor SBPI activities to address the barriers experi- other students and their parents. enced as a result of parents’ personal life context. For example, schools can help increase SBPI by implementing more reliable and timely methods of communication (e.g., utilization of Personal Life Context social media or texting), scheduling school meetings and Work and scheduling issues were the most commonly identi- events at varied or multiple times, and soliciting parents’ ideas fied barriers. Parents indicated various scheduling issues that on other ways to overcome work- and scheduling-related 10 SAGE Open barriers. In addition, school counselors, social workers, and Conclusion other human service professionals can play a pivotal role in More barriers than facilitators emerged in this exploration of fostering positive parent–teacher relationships. On one factors that inhibit or foster parents’ motivation for SBPI in a hand, these professionals can educate teachers and other sample of predominately African American parents who school staff about the positive role construction and other have low incomes and whose children attend urban, public assets (i.e., problem-solving skills and access to resources in middle schools. The negative quality of parents’ interactions parents’ social networks) parents can bring to collaborative with teachers, the schools, other children and parents, as well processes. On the other hand, these professionals can as work and scheduling challenges were factors that hindered encourage parent visits by greeting and orienting them to SBPI. In spite of this, the positive motivational beliefs par- SBPI opportunities, thus, boosting the positive aspects of ents expressed, parents’ responses to child invitations for the school climate. Given parents’ concern about aggressive involvement, and the interest of some parents to get to know students in the schools, offering opportunities to inform other parents are foundations to build on for the development school safety promotion programs and policies may be a of stronger, parent–school partnerships characterized by col- good approach to engaging parents in school improvement laboration and shared power (Powell & Batsche, 1997). efforts. Finally, the parent concerns expressed about nega- Future research directions should include further examina- tive interactions with other parents and students highlights tions of the role of school climate (including factors related the need for activities that promote community building, to students and other parents in the schools) in motivating shared goals, and positive interactions with the schools. parent involvement among African American parents of chil- dren attending middle schools with school safety risks. In Limitations predominately African American samples, an emphasis on understanding the role of racism in shaping policies that con- It is important to note that major school system policy tribute to unsafe school climates may particularly help to changes since the study period have resulted in the imple- inform initiatives to improve the school environment. mentation of new parent engagement initiatives at the local and state levels. Thus, compared with parents in the present Author’s Note study, current parents of students attending these middle schools may have a different impression of parent involve- The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not ment barriers and facilitators. Study findings should be con- necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency. sidered in light of several other limitations. First, only the perspectives of parents and other caregivers were examined. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The perspectives of teachers and other school personnel in The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect addition to parents may provide a more comprehensive to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. understanding of issues and solutions. Second, the absence of specific interview questions regarding race as a potential Funding barrier to parent involvement may mean that important race- The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support based dynamics were not identified and explored. It is also for the research and/or authorship of this article: This publication unlikely that the attitudes and practices reported by the cur- was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of rent study participants fully represent those of the parents Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Contract No. who participated in the larger intervention study as well as N01-HD-2-3344 and NICHD Grant No. 1K24HD052559-01 the larger pool of parents whose children attended the three (Cheng), the NICHD Intramural Research Program (Haynie) and middle schools. Because our recruitment strategy primarily Centers for Disease Control and Prevention U49CE000728, and the involved contacting parents by telephone, parents with dis- DC-Baltimore Center on Child Health Disparities P20 MD000198 connected or inconsistent telephone service were underrep- from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health resented in the study. This may have biased the sample Disparities (Cheng). The content is solely the responsibility of the toward including parents with relatively higher incomes and authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. more resources. Although attempts were made to contact parents during both day and evening hours, parents who worked more than one job or with higher family manage- References ment demands may have been more difficult to reach. Archer-Banks, D. A. M., & Behar-Horenstein, L. S. (2008). African Parents whom staff were unable to reach or who refused to American parental involvement in their children’s middle participate may have been those experiencing more exten- school experiences. Journal of Negro Education, 77, 143-156. sive barriers to SBPI. Findings should be interpreted with Baker, A. (1997). Improving parent involvement programs and caution given the limited generalizability of the study practice: A qualitative study of parent perceptions. School findings. Community Journal, 7, 9-35. Murray et al. 11 Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. (2014). Baltimore 2008-050). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Neighborhood Indicators Alliance Community Profiles. Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Retrieved from http://bniajfi.org/vital_signs/cprofiles/ Education. Barton, A. C., Drake, C., Perez, J. G., St. Louis, K., & George, M. Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, (2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Parent academic Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3-12. involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, Daddis, C. (2011). Desire for increased autonomy and adolescents’ aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child perceptions of peer autonomy: Everyone else can; Why can’t I? Development, 75, 1491-1509. Child Development, 82, 1310-1326. Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and prac- middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies tices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, schools. In N. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a plu- 740-763. ralistic society (pp. 53-72). Albany: State University of New Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1997). York Press. Explorations in parent-school relations. Journal of Educational Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An intro- Research, 85, 287-294. duction. New York: New York University Press. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental Deplanty, J., Coulter-Kern, R., & Duchane, K. (2007). Perceptions involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a dif- of parent involvement in academic achievement. The Journal ference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310-331. of Educational Research, 100, 361-368. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do par- Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involve- ents become involved in their children’s education? Review of ment in secondary-level schooling. The Journal of Educational Educational Research, 67, 3-42. Research, 98, 164-174. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, Drummond, K. V., & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-income parents’ D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do beliefs about their role in children’s academic learning. The parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 104, 197-213. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 105-130. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement HyperRESEARCH (Version 2.7) [Computer Software]. (2009). during the early adolescent years. Teachers College Record, Randolph, MA: Researchware. 94, 568-587. Kandakai, T. L., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Wilson, C. A. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: (1999). Mother’s perceptions of factors influencing violence in Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, schools. Journal of School Health, 69, 189-195. 701-712. Khan, M. B. (1996). Parental involvement in education: Possibilities Frew, L. A., Zhou, Q., Duran, J., Kwok, O., & Benz, M. R. (2012). and limitations. School Community Journal, 6, 57-68. Effect of school-initiated parent outreach activities on parent Kim, Y. (2009). Minority parental involvement and school bar- involvement in school events. Journal of Disability Policy riers: Moving the focus away from deficiencies of parents. Studies, 24, 27-35. Educational Research Review, 4, 80-102. Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P. (2003). Examining the Koonce, D. A., & Harper, J. W. (2005). Engaging African American underutilization of parent involvement in the schools. School parents in the schools: A community-based consultation model. Community Journal, 13, 85-99. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16, Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, 55-74. H. M. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in chil- Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is Critical Race Theory dren’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? Qualitative parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, Studies in Education, 11, 7-24. 532-544. Lareau, A., & Shumar, W. (1996). The problem of individualism Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social envi- in family-school policies. Sociology of Education, 69, 24-39. ronment to parent involvement in elementary schools. The Mannan, G., & Blackwell, J. (1992). Parent involvement: Barriers Elementary School Journal, 99, 53-80. and opportunities. Urban Review, 24, 219-226. Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement Maryland State Department of Education. (2006). Maryland Report in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization Card, Baltimore City. Retrieved from http://msp2006.msde. and motivational model. Child Development, 64, 237-252. state.md.us/downloadindex.aspx?K=30AAAA Gutman, L. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1999). Financial strain, parenting Maryland State Department of Education. (2007a). The fact book: behaviors, and adolescents’ achievement: Testing model equiv- 2005-2006. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublic- alence between African American and European American schools.org/NR/rdonlyres/0C24833A-9CBE-4C09-9010- single- and two-parent families. Child Development, 70, B7BD8-8F4B1E0/12105/FACTBOOK2007.pdf 1464-1476. Maryland State Department of Education. (2007b). Report from Halle, T. G., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Mahoney, J. L. (1997). Family the task force on school safety: Findings and recommenda- influences on school achievement in low-income, African tions. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/ American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, nr/rdonly res/0700b064-c2b3-41fc-a6cf-d3dae4969707/15418/ 527-537. finalreport.pdf Herrold, K., & O’Donnell, K. (2008). Parent and family involve- Neiman, S. (2011). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S. ment in education, 2006-07 school year, from the National public schools: Findings from the school survey on crime and safety: 2009-10 (National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Household Education Surveys Program of 2007 (NCES 12 SAGE Open Department of Education, NCES 2011-320). Washington, DC: Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & U.S. Government Printing Office. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 114, Stat. revision through scale development. The Elementary School 1425 (2002). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/ Journal, 106, 85-104. leg/esea02/107-110.pdf. Weishew, N. L., & Peng, S. S. (1993). Variables predicting stu- Overstreet, S., Devine, J., Bevans, K., & Efreom, Y. (2005). dents’ problem behaviors. Journal of Educational Research, Predicting parental involvement in children’s schooling within 87, 5-17. an economically disadvantaged African American Sample. Williams, T. T., & Sanchez, B. (2013). Identifying and decreasing Psychology in the Schools, 42, 101-111. barriers to parent involvement for inner-city parents. Youth & Pomerantz, E., Moorman, E., & Litwack, S. (2007). The how, Society, 45, 54-74.c whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s aca- demic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373-410. Author Biographies Powell, D. S., & Batsche, C. J. (1997). A strength-based approach Kantahyanee W. Murray, PhD is a Senior Research Associate in in support of multi-risk families: Principles and issues. Topics the Research, Evaluation and Learning Unit of the Annie E. Casey in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 1-26. Foundation. Her research interests include parent training, child Reglin, G. L., King, S., Losike-Sedimo, N., & Ketterer, A. (2003). maltreatment, intervention development and evaluation. Barriers to school involvement and strategies to enhance involvement from parents at low-performing urban schools. Nadine Finigan-Carr, PhD is a Research Assistant Professor at the Journal of At-Risk Issues, 9(2), 1-7. University of Maryland School of Social Work. Her research Schonfeld, I. S. (2006). School violence. In E. K. Kelloway, J. focuses on the prevention of adolescent risk behaviors and health Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace vio- disparities. lence (pp. 169-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Seidman, E., Lambert, L. E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. L. (2003). Urban Vanya Jones, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Department of adolescents’ transition to junior high school and protective Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg family transactions. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, School of Public Health. Her research explores psychosocial and 166-193. environmental factors for both unintentional and intentional injury Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as pre- outcomes for vulnerable populations including children, adoles- dictors of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, cents and older adults. 102, 301-316. Simons-Morton, B., & Crump, A. (2003). Association of par- Nikeea Copeland-Linder, PhD is an Assistant Professor of ent involvement and social competence with school adjust- Psychology at Trinity Washington University. Her research examines ment and engagement among sixth graders. Journal of School the impact of chronic stressors on the mental health of youth. Health, 73, 121-126. Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school rela- Denise L. Haynie, PhD, MPH is Staff Scientist in the Health tion and the child’s school performance. Child Development, Behavior Branch of the Division of Intramural Population Health 58, 1348-1357. Research at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Health and Human Development. Her primary research interests Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. are adolescent health behavior. She has done work on intervention Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. prevention program development and evaluation. Trotman, M. F. (2001). Involving the African American parent: Recommendations to increase the level of parent involve- Tina L. Cheng, MD, MPH is Professor of Pediatrics at Johns ment within African American families. Journal of Negro Hopkins University School of Medicine with a joint appointment in Education, 70, 275-285. the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Van Velsor, P., & Orozco, G. L. (2007). Involving low-income par- Bloomberg School of Public Health. Her research focuses on child ents in the schools: Community centric strategies for school health disparities, violence prevention and primary care models to counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11, 17-24. promote positive youth development and family health. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Barriers and Facilitators to School-Based Parent Involvement for Parents of Urban Public Middle School Students:

Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/barriers-and-facilitators-to-school-based-parent-involvement-for-0EJxVyxJjJ

References (59)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244014558030
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Using semistructured interviews, we explored barriers and facilitators to school-based parent involvement (SBPI) in a sample of predominately African American parents (N = 44) whose children attended urban public middle schools. Barriers to SBPI (e.g., perceptions of hostile parent–teacher interactions and aggressive, disrespectful students in the school) were more commonly reported than facilitators (e.g., child invitations for involvement). Findings suggest that parents’ motivations for engaging in SBPI may be undermined by a variety of barriers, resulting in low participation. Implications and tailored strategies for enhancing SBPI in this population are presented. Keywords parent participation, middle schools, urban, violence An extensive body of research has shown that parent involve- The impact of school and developmental transitions on par- ment during middle school is associated with a range of posi- ent involvement is compounded by a multitude of school and tive academic outcomes including higher class grades and parent factors that serve as barriers to middle school parent test scores and other school achievement outcomes (e.g., involvement (e.g., Eccles & Harold, 1993; Gonzalez-DeHass Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Gutman & Eccles, 1999; Hill & Willems, 2003; Kim, 2009). African American parents with et al., 2004; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Simons-Morton & Crump, low incomes and low educational attainment face consider- 2003). In light of the benefits of parent involvement, policies able parent involvement barriers (Halle, Kurtz-Costes, & to close the achievement gap have required school systems to Mahoney, 1997; Koonce & Harper, 2005; Trotman, 2001; develop comprehensive parent involvement and family– Williams & Sanchez, 2013), and may experience these barri- school partnership strategies (e.g., “No Child Left Behind ers to a greater extent than more advantaged parents or White Act,” 2002). Educators face unique challenges in their efforts parents do (Frew, Zhou, Duran, Kwok, & Benz, 2012; Griffith, to increase parent involvement as children transition from 1998). In the current study, we identify barriers to middle elementary to middle school. Compared with elementary school parent involvement among a sample of predominately schools, middle schools are both larger with respect to their African American parents with low incomes and low levels of physical size and their student body, and parents must inter- educational attainment whose children attend urban public act with an increased number of teachers to stay abreast of middle schools. We also identify facilitators to parent involve- their adolescents’ academic progress. These more imper- ment in middle school, factors that have been examined in sonal school environments may present difficulties to par- ents as they attempt to develop new relationships and to Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, USA understand how to be involved (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Seidman, University of Maryland Baltimore, School of Social Work, Baltimore, MD, Lambert, Allen, & Aber, 2003). Furthermore, young adoles- USA Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA cents may discourage particular parent involvement activi- Trinity Washington University, Washington, DC, USA ties when they perceive the activity as diminishing their Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human autonomy (Stevenson & Baker, 1987). In addition, this is the Development, Baltimore, MD, USA age at which there are changes in both adolescents’ and par- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA ents’ beliefs about the boundaries of parental authority, Corresponding Author: which then leads adolescents to engage their parents less and Kantahyanee W. Murray, Annie E. Casey Foundation, 701 St. Paul St., parents to decrease their engagement with their children Baltimore, MD 21202, USA. (Daddis, 2011). Email: kmurray@aecf.org This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Creative Commons CC BY: (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm). 2 SAGE Open only a handful of studies on African American parent involve- Identifying Barriers and Facilitators to ment (e.g., Archer-Banks & Behar-Horenstein, 2008). Parent Involvement Central to the identification of barriers and facilitators is a What Is Parent Involvement? focus on factors that influence parents’ decisions to engage in parent involvement. The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler Parent involvement represents parents’ commitment of model of the parent involvement process (Hoover-Dempsey, resources and time to the academic sphere of their children’s Bassler, & Brissie, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995; lives. Epstein (1995) identified six forms of parent involve- Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, & Hoover-Dempsey, ment: (a) establishing home environments that support learn- 2005) describes the specific processes that influence parents’ ing, (b) facilitating effective communication between school decisions to engage in parent involvement. This model of and home, (c) helping the school and supporting students, (d) parent involvement process also explicates how they contrib- learning at home, (e) participating in school decision-making ute to the forms of parent involvement implemented and to processes, and (f) working with other stakeholders (i.e., stu- child outcomes. The current study focuses on the first two dents, school staff, community) to strengthen the school. levels of this model, which describe the processes that influ- Scholars usually group these parent involvement activities ence parents’ decisions to engage in parent involvement and into two broad categories: home-based parent involvement how parents become involved (i.e., the forms of parent and school-based parent involvement (SBPI; Deplanty, involvement). Hoover-Dempsey and colleagues posit that Coulter-Kern, & Duchane, 2007; Deslandes & Bertrand, parents’ decisions to engage in parent involvement are influ- 2005; Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007). Home-based enced by three motivational factors: (a) motivational beliefs, parent involvement includes practices related to children’s (b) parents’ perceptions of invitations to become involved, education that take place outside of the school, usually within and (c) parents’ personal life context. We organize the review the home. These practices may be directly related to school- of the literature on barriers and facilitators to parent involve- work, including assisting with homework, responding to ment by these three motivational factors. children’s academic choices, and talking about academic Evidence suggests that African American parents, espe- issues (Eccles & Harold, 1993). SBPI occurs when parents cially those of lower socioeconomic status (SES), may expe- actually make contact with the school and includes partici- rience greater barriers to parent involvement than more pating in general school meetings, communicating with advantaged parents or White parents do (e.g., Griffith, 1998). teachers and administrators, attending school events, and This highlights the salience of race as a potential factor shap- volunteering at the school (Herrold & O’Donnell, 2008). ing parent involvement. Thus, the literature review addition- Researchers have also proposed that parents’ positive atti- ally identifies studies regarding how parents’ perceptions of tudes about education and their communication of expecta- racism may influence motivational factors for parent involve- tions concerning academic achievement to their children ment. This inclusion of studies related to parents’ experi- represent additional components of parent involvement ences with and perceptions of racism in the schools is in line (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Hill & Tyson, 2009). Hill with Critical Race Theory (CRT; Delgado & Stefancic, and Tyson (2009) identified academic socialization as a form 2001), which has as a central tenet the notion that racism is of parent involvement examined in the literature. Academic endemic to American society. CRT has been used to analyze socialization includes parenting practices such as communi- aspects of education such as instruction and curriculum cation of expectations about educational attainment, cultivat- through a lens that recognizes the pervasiveness of racism in ing academic and career aspirations, connecting schoolwork schools and seeks to understand how racism shapes school and current events, and discussing learning techniques with policies and practices (Ladson-Billings, 1998). children (Hill & Tyson, 2009). In their meta-analysis on the extant research on middle school parent involvement, Hill and Tyson (2009) found that, although academic socializa- Motivational Beliefs tion was the strongest predictor of academic success, SBPI has also been associated with academic achievement and Motivational beliefs are first determined by parental role other measures of doing well in school. However, the bene- construction or parents’ attitudes and beliefs about their role fits of these forms of parent involvement may not be widely as a parent in fostering their child’s educational success realized in the middle school years. As mentioned previ- (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1997; Walker et al., 2005). Parental ously, parent involvement declines in middle school (Herrold role construction represents parents’ beliefs about what they & O’Donnell, 2008) compared with elementary school, per- should do regarding parent involvement (Hoover-Dempsey haps due to diminished opportunities (Dauber & Epstein, et al., 2005, Walker et al., 2005), and there is evidence that 1993; Gonzalez-DeHass & Willems, 2003). The identifica- parental role construction is an important motivational factor tion of barriers and facilitators to parent involvement pres- for parents of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds (see ents an opportunity to inform the development of strategies Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005, for a review). Other motiva- to increase middle school parental engagement, particularly tional factors are thought to translate into the parent’s taking among populations at greatest risk for low involvement. action to become involved. This is particularly true of the Murray et al. 3 second motivational belief: parents’ self-efficacy. This refers American parents, Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein to parents’ belief that they are capable of helping their child (2008) found that, although parents viewed parent involve- achieve in school (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005, Walker et ment as important, the school environment (particularly al., 2005). Parents’ self-efficacy for involvement may be a school personnel’s expectations, practices, and policies) barrier to parents of low SES. For example, parents of lim- influenced their level of involvement. In addition, research ited educational backgrounds may lack the confidence to suggests a responsive middle school environment could interact with teachers and navigate the school (Kim, 2009; eliminate barriers existing between middle schools and Koonce & Harper, 2005). For low-income African American African American parents (e.g., teacher’s low expectations parents, perceptions of racism as well as their own negative for children’s academic potential and parental involvement; school experiences may shape their self-efficacy and serve to Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein, 2008; Overstreet, distance them from schools (Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007). Devine, Bevans, & Efreom, 2005). School violence is one dimension of school climate that has particular relevance to parents whose children attend Perceptions of Invitations to Become public schools in urban communities. Urban schools have Involved been shown to have higher levels of violent incidents in schools compared with suburban and rural schools (Neiman, Parents’ perceptions of invitations to become involved 2011; Weishew & Peng, 1993). Although the links between include specific invitations from the child. Child invitations school violence and parent involvement have not been for involvement may be both explicit (e.g., child asking par- widely examined, existing evidence suggests that school ent to help with a fund-raiser) or implicit (e.g., parent safety is associated with greater levels of parent involvement observes that her child is struggling with a class and talks (Griffith, 1998; Kandakai, Price, Telljohann, & Wilson, with the teacher; Walker et al., 2005). Invitations may also 1999). School violence as a factor influencing parent involve- originate from the school through specific teacher invitations ment has broad implications because school violence is a (e.g., teacher invites the parent to volunteer in a classroom) national problem (Schonfeld, 2006). According to the most and general invitations for involvement from the school recent published findings of the national School Survey on (Walker et al., 2005). There is evidence that some teachers Crime and Safety, approximately 73% of schools reported at may not invite parent involvement because of their frustra- least one violent incident at the school during the 2009-2010 tion with low-achieving, low SES students (Eccles & Harold, school year (Neiman, 2011). Moreover, both the percentage 1993; Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007) or because they view the of schools reporting student bullying daily or at least once a family as the source of their students’ achievement problems week and the rate of violent incidents was higher for middle (Griffith, 1998; Trotman, 2001). Common misunderstand- schools than for elementary and high schools (Neiman, ings include teachers’ negative perceptions about the effi- 2011). Examining the extent to which school violence, con- cacy and capacity of low-income parents and teachers’ ceptualized as a specific component of the school climate, beliefs in the effectiveness of parental involvement with this hinders or fosters parent involvement will add to the knowl- population (Kim, 2009). Parents are more likely to partici- edge base regarding the role of school invitations in motivat- pate in school activities when they feel empowered by their ing parent involvement. interactions with the school staff (Baker, 1997). However, power differentials related to educational achievement and professional expertise may lead to unequal relationships Personal Life Context between parents and school staff, thereby marginalizing low- Personal life context refers to parents’ skills and knowledge income parents instead of empowering them (Barton, Drake, and the perceived time and energy parents can expend to Perez, St. Louis, & George, 2004; Khan, 1996). Sometimes become involved (Walker et al., 2005). Research suggests African American parents’ lack of confidence in their skills that the personal life context of low SES parents may present and capacity to interact with teachers (Lareau & Shumar, a plethora of barriers to parent involvement. For example, 1996) and perceptions of racism may further distance them parents with low educational attainment may lack the requi- from the schools even when invitations to the school are site sets of skills and knowledge to assist their children with given (Koonce & Harper, 2005). assignments especially beyond the elementary school grades General invitations for involvement from the school relate (Trotman, 2001). Work often serves as a barrier for low- to the general atmosphere or climate of the school (Walker income parents to devote time to attend school meetings, et al., 2005). Establishing a welcoming school climate and volunteer at the school, or participate in other parent involve- effectively publicizing school events to parents are examples ment activities (Mannan & Blackwell, 1992; Van Velsor & of ways schools invite parental involvement (Green, Walker, Orozco, 2007). Although work affects the ability of parents Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007; Hoover-Dempsey & to participate in SBPI activities regardless of income group, Sandler, 1997). For African American parents, a positive work barriers differentially affect low-income parents. Low- school climate is an important component of general school income parents are more likely to have inflexible work invitations for involvement. In a qualitative study of African 4 SAGE Open schedules, multiple jobs, and/or positions without paid leave of child health and safety including substantial numbers of benefits (Mannan & Blackwell, 1992; Van Velsor & Orozco, juvenile arrests (Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators 2007). Alliance, 2014). All three schools served significant numbers Limited resources, such as lack of transportation, have of low-income students; between 75% and 89% of students also been shown to hinder SBPI (Reglin, King, Losike- qualified for free or reduced-cost school lunch during the Sedimo, & Ketterer, 2003; Williams & Sanchez, 2013). 2005-2006 school year (Maryland State Department of Limited resources, moreover, hinder low-income parents’ Education, 2006). Although data regarding the race/ethnicity ability to address the basic needs of children and other rela- of personnel at each school are unavailable, system-level tives with special needs (e.g., old parents) contributing to data indicate that 59.7% of Baltimore City Public School further time constraints that negatively affect low-income teachers were African American, 35.6% were White, and parents’ involvement (Baker, 1997). In addition to financial 4.7% were categorized as other during the 2005-2006 school and time constraint barriers, low-income parents may also year (Maryland State Department of Education, 2007a). experience psychological barriers. For example, low-income The original child eligibility criteria included (a) first- parents who struggle to provide for their families’ basic time sixth grader and (b) not in self-contained special educa- needs may experience negative mental health effects includ- tion classes. The children of participants in the qualitative ing depression, which may limit parents’ capacity to engage study were either in the seventh grade (enrolled in the prior in school activities (Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007). year) or sixth grade (enrolled in the current year) and were still participating in the Steppin’ Up study’s follow-up assess- ments. Of the 857 parents eligible, 513 parents (60% partici- The Present Study pation rate) consented to participate in the larger Steppin’ Up The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilita- study at the time of the qualitative study. The Institutional tors to SBPI in a sample of predominately African American Review Boards of the Johns Hopkins University and the parents living in low-income urban communities whose chil- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development dren attend public middle schools. One of the goals of this (NICHD) and the city school district review board approved qualitative study was to understand parental school engage- this study. ment in an effort to inform parent–school collaboration Recruitment for the qualitative study was targeted to par- efforts. We used the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of ents of seventh graders at one school (first cohort) and par- parent involvement processes as an organizing framework to ents of sixth graders at all three schools (second cohort; N = understand how barriers inhibit and facilitators foster par- 381). Using a randomized contact list, staff contacted parents ents’ motivation for involvement. In previous studies, through a combination of telephone calls and letters. Blocks researchers have largely relied on teachers and administra- of 10 parents at a time were contacted until the recruitment tors to identify barriers and solutions to improving educa- goal was met. When staff documented 10 consecutive unan- tional outcomes through enhanced parent involvement swered phone calls, a visit was made to the parent’s home. If (Barton et al., 2004; Koonce & Harper, 2005) and only a no one answered the door, a postcard was left with instruc- handful of studies have examined the viewpoint of parents tions on how to contact staff. Parents had to be English (e.g., Williams & Sanchez, 2013). This study contributes to speaking to participate. Fifty-one parents were reached and the literature by examining the perspectives of parents and asked to participate. A total of 44 parents agreed to partici- other caregivers who are predominately African American pate (30 mothers, 5 fathers, and 9 other caregivers, including and reside in urban, low-income communities. grandmothers and aunts). Although the contact list was ran- domized, the 44 participants represent individuals who self- selected to participate. A little more than one half were Method parents of sixth graders (n = 23), and the remaining Participants were parents of seventh graders (n = 21). On average, parents were 41 years of age. The sample was predominately African Between October 2005 and July 2006, we conducted semis- American (n = 39), followed by White (n = 2), Latino (n = 1), tructured interviews with parents who previously consented Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian (n = 1), and Other (n = 1). to participate in the Steppin’ Up study (2004-2007), an inves- Most participants (63%) had a high school diploma/GED or tigation testing the impact of a violence prevention curricu- less, and 50% reported incomes of less than US$15,000 per lum on early adolescent aggressive behaviors at three public year. middle schools in Baltimore City. In the academic school year prior to this study, two of the three participating schools were on probation for the federal designation of “persistently Data Collection dangerous,” a label based on the numbers of student expul- sions and suspensions for violent offenses (Maryland State Three interviewers were researchers with prior experience Department of Education, 2007b). These two schools are conducting semistructured interviews, and the fourth inter- also located in communities characterized by poor indicators viewer was a postbaccalaureate research intern with some Murray et al. 5 prior research experience. Prior to fielding, the two most then meeting to compare every instance of coded text. The experienced interviewers led a 2-hr training on the protocol two coders achieved consensus on all instances of coding and interview techniques. Researchers alternated roles as discrepancies by discussing the merits of the codes selected. interviewer and notetaker, with the two most experienced When coders could not agree on the appropriate code for a researchers conducting the initial interviews to facilitate particular text, these instances of text were noted and dis- training. Continued supervision and weekly meetings cussed in coding progress meetings led by the experienced between interviewers and senior staff ensured interview pro- primary coder (D.H.) who resolved all coding disagreements. tocol adherence. Codes relevant to parent involvement in the child’s educa- Researchers developed a semistructured interview guide tion were examined in the current study. The overarching to examine aims associated with the larger adolescent aggres- themes represented by these codes are shown in Table 1. The sion study and, to a lesser extent, secondary aims associated Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of parent involvement with the current parent involvement study. Using this inter- processes was applied to the themes as an organizing view guide, researchers asked parents to discuss their views framework. about violence, what they communicate to their children about violence and fighting, and what parents, schools, and Results communities can do to keep their children safe. Parents were also asked a series of questions about their current involve- Themes related to the three motivational factors for parent ment in their child’s education and school. The interview involvement proposed in the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler guides were pilot tested with three parents recruited to the model of parent involvement processes are described in the Steppin’ Up study. All interviews were digitally recorded and following sections. The three motivational factors are the notetaker wrote down participant responses, capturing (a) parents’ motivational beliefs, (b) parents’ perceptions of impressions from body language as well as providing a invitations for involvement from others, and (c) parents’ per- backup data collection measure. The interviewer and ceived life context. First, we provide a description of the notetaker met following the interview to debrief and com- themes related to parents’ motivational beliefs. Next, we plete a field interview observation form. Although the major- organize the remaining themes that describe parents’ percep- ity of interviews were held in parents’ homes, a small number tions of invitations for involvement from others and parents’ of parents requested their interview take place at a commu- perceived life context under two sections: facilitators and nity location (i.e., a private room at the child’s school). The barriers. Some themes included both facilitators and barriers. interviews lasted about 1 hr and parents were provided finan- We organized these themes in the barriers section because cial remuneration for their time. the findings were predominately those that described imped- iments to engagement in SBPI. Data Analysis Parents’ Motivational Beliefs We compared the transcribed and recorded interviews for accuracy and completeness. Parent interview transcript files Parental role construction. Nearly all parents indicated that were uploaded into hyperRESEARCH 2.7 being involved in their child’s school was an important role (HyperRESEARCH, 2009). We used a grounded theory that parents should play in their child’s education. The fol- approach for data coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). These lowing parent’s statement exemplifies this attitude: data were coded by looking for themes that emerged from participants’ statements. A team of three researchers identi- [Parents] certainly play the most important role [in their fied themes using the first 12 transcribed parent interviews. children’s education], I think. And, we should always be active First, an experienced primary coder (D.H.) with expertise in in everything that’s going on with them more than just checking qualitative research methodology open coded and consulted homework and just making sure that the homework is done. with two experienced qualitative coders Vanya Jones (V.J.) (Mother, age 48) and Nikeea Copeland-Linder (N.C.). A coding manual was developed based on the initial 12 interviews and modified as Volunteering (e.g., aiding teachers in the classroom and subsequent interviews were coded. Each new idea generated chaperoning field trips) and attending PTA and similar school a code; similar codes were grouped by themes. The experi- meetings were frequently mentioned as SBPI activities that enced primary coder Denise L. Haynie (D.H.) trained three parents should be a part of at their child’s school. However, postbaccalaureate research interns and a doctoral student the majority of parents reported low levels of actual engage- [Kimberly Chambers (K.C.), Amanda McEnery (A.M.), ment in volunteering and attending school meetings. One Elizabeth Noelcke (E.N.), Kantahyanee Murray (K.M.)], and mother explained, “Every so often I’ve been to a PTA meet- all five individuals coded the transcripts. We utilized a dou- ing or two. And I’ve spoken to my child’s teacher once or ble coding approach for each transcript to improve reliabil- twice. But not as often as I think it should be, as often as I ity. Two coders were responsible for coding a transcript and would like to be” (Mother, age 48). 6 SAGE Open Table 1. Overarching Themes Relevant to School-Based Parent Involvement Examined in the Current Study. Themes Refers to statements about parent’s . . . Parent role in school Beliefs and practices around supervising child’s education and homework, providing academic assistance, participating in PTA, volunteering at the school, and other activities to support children’s education. Parent involvement in school Practices and activities the parent does at the school, including going to the school to talk to teachers, making unannounced visits. Distinctions were made between teacher/staff-initiated contact and parent-initiated contact. Parent contact with other parents Interactions with other parents (i.e., limited to problem, little/none and would like more, little/none preferred). Impression of school Overall impressions of the school (i.e., positive to neutral, negative staff focused, negative student focused, negative parent focused, negative school facility focused, perception that school discipline is unfair/inconsistent). Barriers/challenges to school involvement Descriptions of factors that inhibit involvement in the child’s school, including schedule, work issues, transportation barriers. Student behavior and lack of opportunity at the school were also mentioned. Challenges raising an early adolescent Descriptions of the difficulties they face raising their sixth or seventh grader, including developmental issues, school issues, increased misbehavior or opportunities for misbehavior, and youth lack of disclosure about friends, school, peers, or problems. Nearly three quarters of parents discussed the importance Five parents indicated implicit child invitations for of supervising their child’s academic progress and social involvement that involved initiating communication with behavior. For some parents, this belief translated into SBPI teachers to address problems related to their child’s academic practices. For example, one third of parents reported going to progress or behavioral problems. One grandmother described the school to check up on their child. This involved observ- talking with teachers about her child’s conflict with another ing their child in the classroom or other locations in the student at the school: school (e.g., lunchroom or cafeteria). I went down to [the school], but they weren’t for pleasant reasons. I went down there because I tried to avoid—you know, I’ll go up to the school to check his progress. I will peek in on I could see an incident blowing up, blowing up with [my him, even if I don’t let him see me. I will always talk to the daughter] and the girls down there. I went down there to talk to teachers, but I just peek my head in to make sure he’s sitting the teacher about it. (Grandmother, age 66) down at his desk. (Mother, age 30) Teacher-specific invitations for involvement and general In addition to motivational beliefs, parental involvement school invitations for involvement are the other ways parents practices are also influenced by child invitations for involve- perceive they are invited to become involved. In this sample, ment, teacher invitations for involvement, general school the themes that emerged for these two components of the invitations for involvement, and parents’ perceived life con- parent involvement process model represented barriers to text. In the next two sections, we describe the facilitators and parent involvement. barriers related to these components of the parent involve- ment process model. Barriers Facilitators Teacher-specific invitations for involvement. Teacher invita- Child invitations for involvement. Child invitations for involve- tions for involvement were infrequently mentioned. When ment are one way that parents perceive they are invited to teacher invitations for involvement were extended, they become involved. In this sample, explicit and implicit child were generally to address the child’s disruptive behavior invitations for involvement contributed to parent engage- problems. One parent described her perception that teacher ment in SBPI. For example, three parents mentioned visiting invitations for involvement were both rare and behavior- the school to follow-up on their child’s claim that a teacher problem focused: was treating them inappropriately (e.g., unfair punishment or You’ve got to talk to these teachers. Just be involved. Because a harsh reprimands). lot of the times, teachers don’t even—if your child does not have a behavior problem, but they could still be in the class not doing If he saying he’s having trouble with a teacher, I want to see for what they’re supposed to do, you won’t get a phone call. The myself, how does that teacher come across to me when I’m only time they give you phone calls is if it’s a behavior problem talking to him or her. So that would be one reason I would go up that’s affecting them. (Mother, age 26) [to the school]. (Grandmother, age 61) Murray et al. 7 This quote illustrates some parents’ perceptions that levels of aggressive and disrespectful student behavior in the teachers do not invite parents to become involved when their schools. One father stated, child has difficulties not related to problem behavior in the The teachers and administration had no control at all. It was classroom. This absence of teacher invitations to become almost like a three-ring circus, kids cussing, threatening, involved impedes SBPI; that is, teachers’ failure to make par- fighting, running, throwing stuff; you name it, knocking people ents aware of particular problems with their children limits out of the way. No respect. (Father, age 53) parents’ opportunities for SBPI. Ten parents reported teacher invitations to come to the Parents’ displeasure with aggressive and disrespectful school because their child was involved in a conflict (typi- students was reported as an obstacle to engaging in SBPI. cally a fight) with another child or exhibited behavior prob- One parent said, “I don’t want to go [to the school] because lems in class. In these cases, parents were visiting the school sometimes you can’t deal with other people’s children . . . to participate in parent–teacher conferences that were often They [are] disrespectful and they get smart with you in a mandatory. minute” (Mother, age 32). Furthermore, other parents in the Approximately one half of parents indicated having nega- child’s school were described in a negative light. One mother tive impressions of teachers in the school and generally dis- described how she perceived other parents as antagonistic cussed unfriendly and hostile interactions with teachers. and difficult to engage when resolving child behavior-related Some of these parents reported instances when teachers were problems: disrespectful to or inappropriately communicated with their children. When you do have little problems with children at the school and you try to go to this parent, you don’t want to go—they get General school invitations for involvement. Most parents indi- mad when you approach their child when [they are] not around. cated that their children’s school offered opportunities for But then [these parents are] nowhere to be found when I need to SBPI. However, parents indicated that opportunities for talk . . . about my child’s problem. (Mother, age 26) involvement were not communicated in a timely, organized fashion. For example, some parents reported not learning Ten parents reported wanting little or no contact with about opportunities including school assemblies and meet- other parents, an attitude that impedes engagement in ings until it was too late for them to rearrange their schedule SBPI. Parents’ desire to avoid potentially negative interac- or until after they had occurred. One mother said, tions was the most common reason parent-to-parent con- tact was not wanted. Although parents generally reported Communication is lackadaisical and next to none. When she’s in not knowing other parents, one half were interested in trouble, they’re quick to pick up the phone, but I don’t hear meeting other parents. Parents’ reasons for wanting to get nothing about PTA meetings . . . [T]hey’re going on a field trip to know the parents of their children’s friends included and they sent the permission slip home like two, maybe three having a way to keep track of their child’s whereabouts days before the trip. I’ve seen a few pieces of paper from time to and activities when unsupervised and building relation- time, but again, anything regular or anything that I can like put ships to facilitate communication about issues relevant to my hands on and make a calendar from, it doesn’t happen. their child’s schooling. (Mother, age 33) Although two parents indicated that their child failed to Parents’ Perceived Life Context give them flyers and other materials publicizing activities, the majority of parents attributed poor communication to Time and energy. Work and scheduling issues were the most inadequate organization and communication channels at frequently reported barriers to SBPI. One common response their child’s school. Other less commonly discussed SBPI by parents was that they had no time to participate in SBPI issues included parents’ perception that the school offered no consistently or at all because of their demanding work sched- SBPI opportunities, offered them at inconvenient times, such ules and the absence of paid leave benefits. Therefore, they as during the workday, and an impression that the PTA was were unable to or could not afford to take time off to partici- ineffective. pate in school activities. Often the combination of work Nearly all parents mentioned having a negative impres- issues and family responsibilities synergistically created sion of one or more aspects of the school climate at their more obstacles to SBPI. One parent explained, child’s school. More than one third of parents mentioned having an overall negative impression of the school, includ- I mean, basically [parents] just don’t have time, unless they go ing their perceptions of the school’s discipline and safety [to the school] like early in the morning or whatever . . . I really problems and criticisms of the administration’s inability to don’t have time because when I get off work or go to my other effectively address school challenges. Furthermore, 16 par- job, or have to come home, clean up. Like right now, I’m ents expressed negative impressions of students in their washing, and I have to cook dinner. I really don’t have time. But I would like to, I really would, but I’m not rich. (Mother, age 45) child’s school. These parents generally discussed the high 8 SAGE Open Despite such multifaceted work and scheduling chal- home and at school. In the current study, parents’ perceptions lenges, a small number of parents described strategies or sac- of their self-efficacy, the second component of motivational rifices made to overcome these SBPI barriers. One mother beliefs, were not reported. Some research suggests that par- said, ents’ self-efficacy may be low among parents with limited educational attainment (Kim, 2009; Koonce & Harper, So yes, I do have to forgo some sleep sometimes. You know, 2005). However, in a sample of parents of diverse ethnic and when I was working during the day, there were days when I SES backgrounds, Green et al. (2007) found a negative asso- would let my boss know the day before. “Look, I’m going to be ciation between self-efficacy and SBPI. This finding sug- late coming in because I have to go and visit my child’s school.” gests that parents who are less confident about their capacity (Mother, age not disclosed) to help their child in school may interact with the school more often to obtain support (Green et al., 2007). Additional Skills and knowledge. There were no study findings directly research in this area may help to elucidate the relationship related to parents’ skills and knowledge (or attitudes regard- between self-efficacy and SBPI specifically among popula- ing their skills and knowledge) as it pertains to engagement tions more similar to the sample in the current study. in SBPI. Rather, the findings related to parents’ skills and knowledge were directly relevant to home-based parent Parents’ Invitations for Involvement involvement (e.g., attitudes that endorsed providing aca- demic assistance, linking their children to trusted family Parents reported invitations for SBPI from their children and members and trusted adults in the community who could their teachers. Invitations from children were facilitators to provide academic help). SBPI in that they involved parental initiation of contact with teachers and other school staff, often to address problems including their child’s difficulties with schoolwork or behav- Discussion ior. Most parents indicated that their initiation of contact Guided by the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of par- with teachers was less common than teacher’s invitations for ent involvement processes (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1997; SBPI involvement. Yet, parents indicated that teacher’s invi- Walker et al., 2005), we identified barriers and facilitators to tations for SBPI involvement were often mandatory parent– SBPI among parents who lived in low-income urban com- teacher conferences. Regardless of the source of invitation munities and whose children attended three public middle for involvement, parents generally reported negative and schools. Our findings support previous research demonstrat- sometimes hostile interactions with teachers and other school ing links between motivational factors (i.e., motivational staff that can present barriers to future parent involvement beliefs, invitations for involvement, and personal life con- that is up to their discretion. This finding is similar to previ- text) and the frequency and types of parent involvement ous research indicating that unfriendly and hostile relation- implemented (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2005; Green et al., ships frequently characterize parent and school personnel 2007; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). In the current study, interactions in predominately low-income, minority samples motivational beliefs for parent involvement were expressed (Barton et al., 2004; Koonce & Harper, 2005). in the form of parents’ positive role construction regarding Moreover, some parents in this sample noted instances their function to support their child’s educational endeavors. when teachers were inappropriate or disrespectful to their However, the quality of invitations for involvement by teach- children. Despite these negative experiences, parents ers and the school as well as parents’ personal life context expressed little reticence about interacting with teachers and presented a number of barriers. One important contribution staff. This finding contrasts that of previous studies that iden- of this study is the finding that students’ aggressive behavior tify barriers such as parents’ lack of confidence when inter- in the school not only contributed to some parents’ negative acting with teachers and staff and perceived racism as perceptions of the school climate but in fact it also hindered hindrances to parent involvement (Kim, 2009; Koonce & their engagement in SBPI. Overall, the barriers identified Harper, 2005; Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007). Because per- help to explain why parents in the current study indicated ceived racism based on SES or race was not explicitly infrequent involvement in SBPI activities. explored in the current study, the absence of barriers related to these factors is uncertain. The exploration of African American parents’ experiences with racism in their interac- Motivational Beliefs tions with school personnel merits additional research. Parents overwhelmingly reported positive attitudes and Qualitative research that allows African American parents to beliefs regarding their role in fostering their child’s educa- tell their stories about racism they have experienced in their tional success. Consistent with previous research examining children’s school reflects another central tenet of CRT (i.e., parental role construction (Baker, 1997; Drummond & counterstorytelling; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001) and prom- Stipek, 2004; Sheldon, 2002), the parents in the current study ises to yield rich data for critical analysis through a CRT lens. expressed that they have a role in their child’s education and Present study findings indicate that many parents held were interested in being involved in their child’s education at negative impressions of the school. Parents reported that Murray et al. 9 general school invitations for SBPI about school events and presented a challenge to school involvement including work, meetings were poorly coordinated. Information about SBPI raising children, and family responsibilities (e.g., preparing opportunities were communicated inconsistently or too late dinner, picking up more than one child from school). These for parents to plan appropriately. This poor communication barriers are consistent with previous research on SBPI indi- of SBPI opportunities may worsen parents’ perceptions of cating that inflexible work schedules, multiple jobs, and the the school climate. Aggressive and disrespectful students absence of leave benefits are tremendous obstacles to paren- dissuaded some parents from visiting the school, and interac- tal involvement for parents in single-headed households or tions with other parents were viewed unfavorably. One find- of lower SES (Archer-Banks & Behar-Horenstein, 2008; ing of the study suggests that the school climates of the three Lareau & Shumar, 1996; Van Velsor & Orozco, 2007). middle schools in this study were not welcoming. Given that Parents also conveyed how demanding work schedules and a welcoming school climate is an indicator of general school multifaceted family responsibilities diminish their physical invitations for parent involvement (Green et al., 2007; energy, thus, inhibiting their ability to engage in SBPI. Some Griffith, 1998; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005), an unfriendly parents reported having the flexibility to rearrange work school climate may have diminished parents’ perceptions of schedules for school events; however, they reported that their general invitations for parent involvement from the schools. child’s school’s untimely communication of events pre- Study findings suggest the centrality of student behavior in vented them from having enough time to rearrange their parents’ perceptions of the qualities of the school environ- work schedules. Unlike previous research (Lareau & Shumar, ment. In particular, the perceived school safety risks that 1996; Reglin et al., 2003), limited resources (e.g., lack of stemmed from aggressive and disrespectful students seemed transportation) were mentioned infrequently as barriers to to repel some parents in the current study from visiting the SBPI. The availability of resources such as transportation school rather than encourage more frequent visits. This inter- and child care was not probed in this qualitative study. pretation is in line with prior research indicating a positive Therefore, it is unclear why limited resources failed to association between school safety and parent involvement emerge as a frequent barrier among parents in the current (Griffith, 1998). study. It is also noteworthy that the current study described par- Another element reported was that parents’ perceptions of ents’ lack of contact with other parents at the school. This their skills and knowledge in the context of SBPI were not finding is consistent with research indicating that the social reported. In a study of parents from diverse ethnic and SES networks of low-income parents do not prominently include backgrounds, skills, and knowledge were unrelated to SBPI other parents at their children’s schools (Lareau & Shumar, (Green et al., 2007). However, other findings from the same 1996). This lack of social connection limits parents’ ability to study suggest that parents with low self-efficacy regarding learn information about the school or their children’s educa- their capacity to help their child in school may engage in tional process and may play a role in parents’ decisions to SBPI more often to obtain support (Green et al., 2007). As engage in SBPI (Lareau & Shumar, 1996; Sheldon, 2002). mentioned above, parents’ self-efficacy for involvement may On the whole, the parent invitations for involvement find- be a barrier to parents of low SES (Hoover-Dempsey et al., ings demonstrate that the parents in this study generally had 2005, Walker et al., 2005). Parents’ confidence in engaging negative experiences with the schools. It is interesting to with the school may be influenced by their educational note that parents’ negative experiences with the school both attainment (Kim, 2009; Koonce & Harper, 2005) and other fueled and thwarted SBPI. For example, the prospect of hav- indicators of knowledge and skills. Additional research on ing hostile interactions with teachers reduced the appeal of the role of self-efficacy in predicting SBPI should also incor- SBPI for many parents; however, a child experiencing porate measures of knowledge and skills as well as analyses teacher disrespect and antagonism was a catalyst for SBPI. that explore both direct and indirect relationships among Similarly, the negative school climate repelled parents, yet at these factors. the same time, the deleterious school climate contributed to the ubiquitous nature of classroom conduct problems and Policy Implications peer conflicts. Thus, engaging in SBPI to address such prob- lems was a common experience for a number of parents in For schools, building strong parent–school partnerships the study. Such parent invitations for involvement findings requires practical steps that aim to enhance general school exemplify the transactional nature of the interactions between invitations and teacher invitations for involvement. Schools parents, their children, teachers, administrators, as well as can also tailor SBPI activities to address the barriers experi- other students and their parents. enced as a result of parents’ personal life context. For example, schools can help increase SBPI by implementing more reliable and timely methods of communication (e.g., utilization of Personal Life Context social media or texting), scheduling school meetings and Work and scheduling issues were the most commonly identi- events at varied or multiple times, and soliciting parents’ ideas fied barriers. Parents indicated various scheduling issues that on other ways to overcome work- and scheduling-related 10 SAGE Open barriers. In addition, school counselors, social workers, and Conclusion other human service professionals can play a pivotal role in More barriers than facilitators emerged in this exploration of fostering positive parent–teacher relationships. On one factors that inhibit or foster parents’ motivation for SBPI in a hand, these professionals can educate teachers and other sample of predominately African American parents who school staff about the positive role construction and other have low incomes and whose children attend urban, public assets (i.e., problem-solving skills and access to resources in middle schools. The negative quality of parents’ interactions parents’ social networks) parents can bring to collaborative with teachers, the schools, other children and parents, as well processes. On the other hand, these professionals can as work and scheduling challenges were factors that hindered encourage parent visits by greeting and orienting them to SBPI. In spite of this, the positive motivational beliefs par- SBPI opportunities, thus, boosting the positive aspects of ents expressed, parents’ responses to child invitations for the school climate. Given parents’ concern about aggressive involvement, and the interest of some parents to get to know students in the schools, offering opportunities to inform other parents are foundations to build on for the development school safety promotion programs and policies may be a of stronger, parent–school partnerships characterized by col- good approach to engaging parents in school improvement laboration and shared power (Powell & Batsche, 1997). efforts. Finally, the parent concerns expressed about nega- Future research directions should include further examina- tive interactions with other parents and students highlights tions of the role of school climate (including factors related the need for activities that promote community building, to students and other parents in the schools) in motivating shared goals, and positive interactions with the schools. parent involvement among African American parents of chil- dren attending middle schools with school safety risks. In Limitations predominately African American samples, an emphasis on understanding the role of racism in shaping policies that con- It is important to note that major school system policy tribute to unsafe school climates may particularly help to changes since the study period have resulted in the imple- inform initiatives to improve the school environment. mentation of new parent engagement initiatives at the local and state levels. Thus, compared with parents in the present Author’s Note study, current parents of students attending these middle schools may have a different impression of parent involve- The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not ment barriers and facilitators. Study findings should be con- necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency. sidered in light of several other limitations. First, only the perspectives of parents and other caregivers were examined. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The perspectives of teachers and other school personnel in The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect addition to parents may provide a more comprehensive to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. understanding of issues and solutions. Second, the absence of specific interview questions regarding race as a potential Funding barrier to parent involvement may mean that important race- The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support based dynamics were not identified and explored. It is also for the research and/or authorship of this article: This publication unlikely that the attitudes and practices reported by the cur- was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of rent study participants fully represent those of the parents Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Contract No. who participated in the larger intervention study as well as N01-HD-2-3344 and NICHD Grant No. 1K24HD052559-01 the larger pool of parents whose children attended the three (Cheng), the NICHD Intramural Research Program (Haynie) and middle schools. Because our recruitment strategy primarily Centers for Disease Control and Prevention U49CE000728, and the involved contacting parents by telephone, parents with dis- DC-Baltimore Center on Child Health Disparities P20 MD000198 connected or inconsistent telephone service were underrep- from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health resented in the study. This may have biased the sample Disparities (Cheng). The content is solely the responsibility of the toward including parents with relatively higher incomes and authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. more resources. Although attempts were made to contact parents during both day and evening hours, parents who worked more than one job or with higher family manage- References ment demands may have been more difficult to reach. Archer-Banks, D. A. M., & Behar-Horenstein, L. S. (2008). African Parents whom staff were unable to reach or who refused to American parental involvement in their children’s middle participate may have been those experiencing more exten- school experiences. Journal of Negro Education, 77, 143-156. sive barriers to SBPI. Findings should be interpreted with Baker, A. (1997). Improving parent involvement programs and caution given the limited generalizability of the study practice: A qualitative study of parent perceptions. School findings. Community Journal, 7, 9-35. Murray et al. 11 Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. (2014). Baltimore 2008-050). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Neighborhood Indicators Alliance Community Profiles. Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Retrieved from http://bniajfi.org/vital_signs/cprofiles/ Education. Barton, A. C., Drake, C., Perez, J. G., St. Louis, K., & George, M. Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, (2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Parent academic Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3-12. involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, Daddis, C. (2011). Desire for increased autonomy and adolescents’ aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child perceptions of peer autonomy: Everyone else can; Why can’t I? Development, 75, 1491-1509. Child Development, 82, 1310-1326. Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and prac- middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies tices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, schools. In N. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a plu- 740-763. ralistic society (pp. 53-72). Albany: State University of New Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1997). York Press. Explorations in parent-school relations. Journal of Educational Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An intro- Research, 85, 287-294. duction. New York: New York University Press. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental Deplanty, J., Coulter-Kern, R., & Duchane, K. (2007). Perceptions involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a dif- of parent involvement in academic achievement. The Journal ference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310-331. of Educational Research, 100, 361-368. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do par- Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2005). Motivation of parent involve- ents become involved in their children’s education? Review of ment in secondary-level schooling. The Journal of Educational Educational Research, 67, 3-42. Research, 98, 164-174. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, Drummond, K. V., & Stipek, D. (2004). Low-income parents’ D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do beliefs about their role in children’s academic learning. The parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 104, 197-213. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 105-130. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1993). Parent-school involvement HyperRESEARCH (Version 2.7) [Computer Software]. (2009). during the early adolescent years. Teachers College Record, Randolph, MA: Researchware. 94, 568-587. Kandakai, T. L., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Wilson, C. A. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: (1999). Mother’s perceptions of factors influencing violence in Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, schools. Journal of School Health, 69, 189-195. 701-712. Khan, M. B. (1996). Parental involvement in education: Possibilities Frew, L. A., Zhou, Q., Duran, J., Kwok, O., & Benz, M. R. (2012). and limitations. School Community Journal, 6, 57-68. Effect of school-initiated parent outreach activities on parent Kim, Y. (2009). Minority parental involvement and school bar- involvement in school events. Journal of Disability Policy riers: Moving the focus away from deficiencies of parents. Studies, 24, 27-35. Educational Research Review, 4, 80-102. Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P. (2003). Examining the Koonce, D. A., & Harper, J. W. (2005). Engaging African American underutilization of parent involvement in the schools. School parents in the schools: A community-based consultation model. Community Journal, 13, 85-99. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16, Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, 55-74. H. M. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in chil- Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is Critical Race Theory dren’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? Qualitative parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, Studies in Education, 11, 7-24. 532-544. Lareau, A., & Shumar, W. (1996). The problem of individualism Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social envi- in family-school policies. Sociology of Education, 69, 24-39. ronment to parent involvement in elementary schools. The Mannan, G., & Blackwell, J. (1992). Parent involvement: Barriers Elementary School Journal, 99, 53-80. and opportunities. Urban Review, 24, 219-226. Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement Maryland State Department of Education. (2006). Maryland Report in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization Card, Baltimore City. Retrieved from http://msp2006.msde. and motivational model. Child Development, 64, 237-252. state.md.us/downloadindex.aspx?K=30AAAA Gutman, L. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1999). Financial strain, parenting Maryland State Department of Education. (2007a). The fact book: behaviors, and adolescents’ achievement: Testing model equiv- 2005-2006. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublic- alence between African American and European American schools.org/NR/rdonlyres/0C24833A-9CBE-4C09-9010- single- and two-parent families. Child Development, 70, B7BD8-8F4B1E0/12105/FACTBOOK2007.pdf 1464-1476. Maryland State Department of Education. (2007b). Report from Halle, T. G., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Mahoney, J. L. (1997). Family the task force on school safety: Findings and recommenda- influences on school achievement in low-income, African tions. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/ American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, nr/rdonly res/0700b064-c2b3-41fc-a6cf-d3dae4969707/15418/ 527-537. finalreport.pdf Herrold, K., & O’Donnell, K. (2008). Parent and family involve- Neiman, S. (2011). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S. ment in education, 2006-07 school year, from the National public schools: Findings from the school survey on crime and safety: 2009-10 (National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Household Education Surveys Program of 2007 (NCES 12 SAGE Open Department of Education, NCES 2011-320). Washington, DC: Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & U.S. Government Printing Office. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 114, Stat. revision through scale development. The Elementary School 1425 (2002). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/ Journal, 106, 85-104. leg/esea02/107-110.pdf. Weishew, N. L., & Peng, S. S. (1993). Variables predicting stu- Overstreet, S., Devine, J., Bevans, K., & Efreom, Y. (2005). dents’ problem behaviors. Journal of Educational Research, Predicting parental involvement in children’s schooling within 87, 5-17. an economically disadvantaged African American Sample. Williams, T. T., & Sanchez, B. (2013). Identifying and decreasing Psychology in the Schools, 42, 101-111. barriers to parent involvement for inner-city parents. Youth & Pomerantz, E., Moorman, E., & Litwack, S. (2007). The how, Society, 45, 54-74.c whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s aca- demic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373-410. Author Biographies Powell, D. S., & Batsche, C. J. (1997). A strength-based approach Kantahyanee W. Murray, PhD is a Senior Research Associate in in support of multi-risk families: Principles and issues. Topics the Research, Evaluation and Learning Unit of the Annie E. Casey in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 1-26. Foundation. Her research interests include parent training, child Reglin, G. L., King, S., Losike-Sedimo, N., & Ketterer, A. (2003). maltreatment, intervention development and evaluation. Barriers to school involvement and strategies to enhance involvement from parents at low-performing urban schools. Nadine Finigan-Carr, PhD is a Research Assistant Professor at the Journal of At-Risk Issues, 9(2), 1-7. University of Maryland School of Social Work. Her research Schonfeld, I. S. (2006). School violence. In E. K. Kelloway, J. focuses on the prevention of adolescent risk behaviors and health Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace vio- disparities. lence (pp. 169-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Seidman, E., Lambert, L. E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. L. (2003). Urban Vanya Jones, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Department of adolescents’ transition to junior high school and protective Health, Behavior and Society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg family transactions. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, School of Public Health. Her research explores psychosocial and 166-193. environmental factors for both unintentional and intentional injury Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as pre- outcomes for vulnerable populations including children, adoles- dictors of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, cents and older adults. 102, 301-316. Simons-Morton, B., & Crump, A. (2003). Association of par- Nikeea Copeland-Linder, PhD is an Assistant Professor of ent involvement and social competence with school adjust- Psychology at Trinity Washington University. Her research examines ment and engagement among sixth graders. Journal of School the impact of chronic stressors on the mental health of youth. Health, 73, 121-126. Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school rela- Denise L. Haynie, PhD, MPH is Staff Scientist in the Health tion and the child’s school performance. Child Development, Behavior Branch of the Division of Intramural Population Health 58, 1348-1357. Research at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Health and Human Development. Her primary research interests Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. are adolescent health behavior. She has done work on intervention Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. prevention program development and evaluation. Trotman, M. F. (2001). Involving the African American parent: Recommendations to increase the level of parent involve- Tina L. Cheng, MD, MPH is Professor of Pediatrics at Johns ment within African American families. Journal of Negro Hopkins University School of Medicine with a joint appointment in Education, 70, 275-285. the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Van Velsor, P., & Orozco, G. L. (2007). Involving low-income par- Bloomberg School of Public Health. Her research focuses on child ents in the schools: Community centric strategies for school health disparities, violence prevention and primary care models to counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11, 17-24. promote positive youth development and family health.

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Nov 18, 2014

Keywords: parent participation; middle schools; urban; violence

There are no references for this article.