Parental Involvement in Low-Income Communities: Family Activities at Head Start
Bailey A. Huchthausen
Longwood University
Abstract
Previous research has shown that children from minority and/or low-income backgrounds are less likely to have their parents involved in their education (Park & Holloway, 2013). The lack of involvement in low-income communities is likely due to transportation issues, heavy work schedules, and lack of child care (Bowen & Griffin, 2011). The purpose of this study was to examine if pre-planned, sent home activities would increase parental involvement in families in low-income communities. The participants involved were willing and able family members of children who attend Head Start (a program focused on early intervention for families in low-income areas and their young children) in three, rural Virginia counties (Lamb-Parker et al., 2000). This was a mixed methods study that included quantitative data consisting of close-ended question responses and qualitative data consisting of open-ended question responses from a take-home survey sent home to the families. In the quantitative analysis it was found that 78.6% of respondents worked twenty-one or more hours a week, 57.6% of respondents spent six to ten hours with their child/children daily, and there was no correlation between hours worked and hours spend with the child/children. The three themes found in the qualitative data were: family engagement in the take home activities, familial involvement in learning, and familial barriers. One of the practical implications of this study was to find specific activities that increased parental involvement at home. If schools can send home pre-planned activities that have been proven to increase involvement, then families would be spending more time together.
There is a lack of parental involvement in children’s education primarily in low-income communities. Previous research has shown that families that have children who attend Head Start have an increased rate of parental involvement (Henrich & Gadaire, 2008). Lamb-Parker et al. (2000) found that Head Start strives to eliminate possible barriers that could affect parental involvement. Socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity are two major factors that can affect parental involvement in families. In low-income communities, lack of transportation, long work days, and lack of child care are prominent barriers that affect parental involvement (Bower & Griffin, 2011). The research of Park and Holloway (2013) showed that families of low SES were more involved in their children’s lives when compared to families of high SES. Davis-Kean and Sexton (2009) stated that the behaviors/beliefs of parents and how involved they are with their children is heavily influenced by race/ethnicity. Park and Holloway (2013) found that the race of families impacted the way that they viewed parental involvement. Bower and Griffin (2011) found that schools may not be considering the impact of SES or race/ethnicity on families in their community.
There were conflicting research studies about the impact of SES on parental involvement. As stated above, the findings of Bower and Griffin (2011) and the findings of Park and Holloway (2013) contradict each other. One states that SES is a factor impacting parental involvement while the other states there is no impact. Park and Holloway (2013) also found that previous research found it difficult to determine which factor (SES or race/ethnicity) attributed to the lack of parental involvement. Due to the lack of research on the impact of SES and/or race/ethnicity on parental involvement, it is important to conduct a study that looks for ways to increase parental involvement in these specific communities. The purpose of this study was to find activities that would increase the amount of parent involvement in these targeted low-income communities.
Finding activities that can increase parental involvement is important because parental involvement is necessary to help with child development. Children do learn at school, but the primary place they learn is in their home. If a parent is not able to spend time with their child while at home due to barriers, then there is a lack of parental involvement. By creating pre-planned activities, parents are able to set aside a time to spend with their children. Since the activities are planned and packaged before arriving at Head Start, parents do not have to worry about spending money on materials, time spent buying these materials, and even a lack of transportation. The sent home activities negate some of the common barriers parents deal with when trying to be involved in their child’s education.
Literature Review
Parental involvement is known to positively impact the success of children. A range of successful outcomes, including lower dropout rates, academic achievement, and focus on schoolwork, come from the standard policies about parental involvement that are currently in place in schools (Park & Holloway, 2013). Even though there are policies involving parental involvement, not all parents are willing or able to become actively involved in their children’s education. Park and Holloway (2013) found that previous research has proven that children from minority families and low-income families are less likely to have their parents involved in their education. There is a gap in the literature involving whether having a low-income and/or a racial background would affect parental involvement (Lamb-Parker et al., 2000). Based on this lack of research, I was interested in whether sent home activities would encourage parental involvement with young children in low-income communities.
Parental Involvement and Head Start
There are institutions around the country that are designed to specifically target parental involvement in low-income communities. Head Start is one of the major programs focused on early intervention for families in low-income areas and their young children (Lamb-Parker et al., 2000). The commitment of Head Start is to have parents come together to make a change in the community, as well as having parents become involved in their children’s education (Henrich & Gadaire, 2008). A vital aspect of this program is the expectation of the parents to become involved with their children in relation to furthering their education. Parents are expected to participate in decisions regarding program implementations of the organization (Lamb-Parker et al., 2000).
Henrich and Gadaire (2008) found research stating that parents with children at Head Start have a relatively higher rate of parental involvement. Parents were more inclined to help in numerous different ways. Some of the aspects of the Head Start parents’ involvement included, volunteering in classrooms, attending parent teacher conferences, field trips, helping decide on institution policies, and attending parent workshops (Henrich & Gadaire, 2008). Head Start also considers and strives to diminish any barriers that prevent parental involvement (Lamb-Parker et al., 2000). In a study designed by Lamb-Parker et al. (2000), they looked for possible barriers that arose in households of families who were a part of two Head Start institutions. They conducted this study through personal interviews with the mothers of these families. Lamb-Parker et al. (2008) found that the mothers experienced a variety of situations, but few were considered actual barriers to their involvement with their children’s education.
Parental Involvement and SES
One of the major issues in parental involvement with their children is the socioeconomic status of the families. Bower and Griffin (2011) found previous research stating that parents in low-income communities struggle with lack of transportation, work schedules, and lack of child care. These factors can greatly impact the amount and occurrence of activities geared towards parental involvement. New practices that rely on relationship building and advocacy should be implemented to consider the socioeconomic status of the parents in these institutions (Bower & Griffin, 2011). Park and Holloway (2013) found conflicting research regarding the importance of the family’s socioeconomic status on their involvement with their children. Some studies state that SES is the most important factor in determining the amount of parental involvement, while other studies report the complete opposite (Park & Holloway, 2013). Park and Holloway (2013) found that parents of low SES were more involved with their children than those of high socioeconomic status. Research conducted by Park and Holloway (2013) looked at the impact of SES and race/ethnic background on parental involvement. They conducted phone interviews with the parents or guardians of children in kindergarten through twelfth grade.
Parental Involvement and Race/Ethnicity
Similarly to socioeconomic status, racial/ethnic background can also be considered as a barrier to parental involvement. Davis-Kean and Sexton (2009) stated that the beliefs and behaviors of children’s parents are influences by their race/ethnicity. This in turn can affect how parents predict and promote achievement (Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009). There is an issue with determining which factor, race or SES, impacts parental involvement. Park and Holloway (2013) found previous research stating that the race of the parents impacted their educational standards and how they perceived parental involvement. In a case study conducted by Bower and Griffin (2011), the researchers looked at a particular elementary school that had been using the Epstein Model to increase parental involvement. The Epstein Model for Parental Involvement focuses on parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and collaborating with the community to increase parents’ involvement with their children at home (Bower & Griffin, 2011). In this elementary school, parental involvement was used in many ways by these families, but there was still low academic achievement. The researchers observed the parental involvement at school and the classroom environments. Bower and Griffin (2011) found that the elementary school was not taking into consideration the impact of low SES and race/ethnicity. The school still had a set standard and definition of parental involvement that expected too much from parents in low-income communities.
In conclusion, parental involvement is one of the primary ways of benefiting a child’s future academic achievements and cognitive maturity (Park & Holloway, 2013). Even though parental involvement is said to be regulated by school policies, these policies do not take in to account the impacts of a family’s socioeconomic status and their race/ethnicity. These factors can greatly affect how families perceive their involvement in their children’s education. School policies need to consider SES and race when implementing programs revolving around parental involvement.
Data and Methods
Study Design and Sample
Our study worked with eighty-six families of children who attend Head Start in three rural counties in southern Virginia. We composed a survey using a mixed method approach that included qualitative and quantitative responses. Close-ended questions were used to collect quantitative while open-ended questions were used to collect qualitative data. The compliance rate of the eighty-six families involved in our study was 51%.
Procedure
The participants in the survey were willing and able to complete the survey to the best of their ability. The participants were also told that the survey was voluntary, and they could stop filling it out at any time. Our research was reviewed and approved by Longwood University’s Institutional Review Board. Through Head Start, we were able to administer surveys to the families. The children would take home the pen and paper administered surveys on Friday after they took home an activity each day of the week (Monday-Friday). Attached to the survey was a five-dollar gift card to Walmart. This gift card was used as an incentive to complete the survey. The parents were given the weekend to complete the survey and send it back with their child on the following Monday.
Survey Measures
Quantitative
To collect quantitative data, we used multiple choice and scale questions asking about parental involvement in the families’ households. We also used close-ended, demographic questions to look out how much interaction parents have with their child. These questions consisted of: How would you rate your current relationship with your child/children? (0= Mostly negative, 10= Mostly positive), During a typical day, how many hours do you spend interacting with your child/children?, During a typical week, how many hours do you work?
Qualitative
To collect qualitative data, we used open-ended questions in our survey. These questions were put in the beginning of the survey to encourage the participants to answer these questions first. The open-ended questions consisted of: Do you think that being provided with pre-planned activities increased the amount of fun time you got to spend with your family after school? Please explain, Please explain what your family gained from these activities. How will you use what you gained in the future? These questions provided insight on what types of activities got parental involvement to increase the most. They also provided data on what these families gained from interacting with their children.
Analysis
Quantitative Analysis
Our quantitative data came from the close-ended questions in the survey. We used SPSS issue number twenty-five to analyze the quantitative data. Question thirty-five, “During a typical week, how many hours do you work?” was recoded to include respondents that answered zero to twenty hours into group one and respondents that answered twenty-one or more hours into group two. Question thirty-six, “During a typical day, how many hours do you get to spend interacting with your child/children? (Please circle)” was also recoded to include respondents that answered zero to five hours into group one and respondents that answered six to ten hours into group two. These questions were recoded to make the results of the analyses easier to read and look for patterns.
Qualitative Analysis
Our qualitative data came from the open-ended questions in the survey. The descriptive statistics will be recorded using a word document where themes relating to parental involvement will be coded.
Quantitative Findings
The dependent variable analyzed using SPSS was parental involvement. Based on our take home survey the question used in the analysis was the close-ended question, “During a typical day, how many hours do you get to spend interacting with your child/children? (Please circle).” Respondents were able to choose from a range of 0 hours to 10 or more hours. The analysis showed that the mean response of hours spent interacting with their child/children was 5.99/10 or more hours. When looking at a grouping of respondents that chose 0-5 hours compared to those that chose 6-10 or more hours, there were more respondents in the 6-10 or more hours group. Based on this analysis, respondents typically spend more than 5 hours a day interacting with their child/children; see Table 1.
Table 1
Hours Spent with Child (Per Day)
Hours (Per Day) Count %
0-5 14 42.4%
6-10 19 57.6%
Total 33 100%
Note. Respondents answered a close-ended question, ranging from 0-10 or more, regarding the number of hours they were able to spend with their child/children during a typical day.
The independent variable analyzed was boundaries based on socioeconomic status (SES) and race. The question used in the analysis was an open-ended question in the survey asking, “During a typical week, how many hours do you work?” Respondents were able to write in the appropriate number of hours based on their typical work week. Based on this analysis, the mean number of hours worked during a typical work week was 31.29/40 or more hours. When breaking down the analysis further, only 6 respondents wrote that they worked between 0-20 hours a week whereas 22 respondents wrote they worked 21 or more hours a week. This analysis showed that more respondents work over 20 hours during a typical work week; see Table 2.
Table 2
Hours of Work (Per Week)
Hours (Per Week) Count %
0-20 6 21.4%
21 or more 22 78.6%
Total 28 100%
Note. Respondents answered an open-ended question, regarding the number of hours they work during a typical work week.
A bivariate analysis was run to compare the number of hours spent interacting with the child/children per day to the number of hours worked per week. Based on the analysis, there was no correlation between the number of hours spent working during a typical week and the number of hours spent interacting with the child/children during a typical day; see Table 3. Fifty percent of respondents answered that they work 0-20 hours a week and spend 0-5 hours a day with their child/children, while the other fifty percent answered that they work 0-20 hours a week and spend 6-10 or more hours a day with their child/children. These results were the same with the respondents who answered that they work 21 or more hours a week. Fifty percent responded that they spend 0-5 hours with their child/children and the other fifty percent spent 6-10 or more hours with their child children.
Table 3
Hours Spent with Child (Per Day) and Hours of Work (Per Week)
Hours (Per Day) 0-20 Work Hours 21 and More Work Hours %
0-5 3 10 50%
6-10 3 10 50%
Total 6 20 100%
Note. The amount of hours spent working per week had no correlation with the number of hours spent with the child/children per day.
Overall, the univariate analysis looking at the dependent variable of parental involvement showed that more parental figures spent over 5 hours interacting with their child/children during a typical day. The univariate analysis looking at the independent variable of barriers based off of socioeconomic status (SES) and race showed that more parental figures work over 21 hours during a typical work week. This can be a major barrier because spending more time at work can decrease the amount of time spent with the children in the household. The bivariate analysis based on these two variables, showed that there was no correlation between how many hours were spent at work during a typical week and the number of hours spent interacting with the child/children at home. In conclusion, the analyses showed that the barrier of amount of work hours had no impact on the amount of hours parental figures are able to spend with their child/children.
Qualitative Findings
There are three reoccurring themes found in the open-ended questions in our survey. These themes include: family engagement in the take home activities, familial involvement in learning, and common barriers. Although these three themes were the most prominent found in the open-ended questions, there were other themes such as, changes in family activities and overall favorite take home activities.
One of the main themes found in our survey was family engagement in the take home activities. The two main questions that focused on this theme were: “Please explain what your family gained from these activities. How will you use what you gained in the future?” and “Do you think that being provided with pre-planned activities increased the amount of fun time you got to spend with your family after school? Please explain.” Most of the responses included sentences involving teamwork and spending time with the family. Along with the topic of teamwork, Respondent 16 answered the first question with, “We gained that we can work together and have fun.” Respondent 17 also mentioned teamwork in their answer of, “Spending time is very important. Communicating, family members voicing opinions.” Respondent 10 answered the first question mentioned above with, “The animal dice game it got the family physically active. Great way to promote healthy family activities.” Respondent 13 also mentioned family time in their answer of, “We were together doing these activities; my brother, me and my son. We don’t usually do these kinds of things together.” Some families in rural, low income communities are not able to find the time to work on activities with their children after school. Since the take home activities were already pre-planned, it helped families find the time to sit down and work together on fun crafts.
The second reoccurring theme found in our open-ended questions was familial involvement in learning. The question that addressed this theme was: “What was your favorite activity and why?” Respondents were able to describe as to why the specific activity meant so much to them. Respondent 6 addressed this question with the answer of, “The sugar tray was my favorite because it helped [my child] with writing [their] name.” Respondent 7 discussed the animal dice and stress ball balloon activity and how the latter helped expand their child’s emotions, “He love throwing the dice to see which animal pop up and he shows me how he feel with the balloons.” Respondent 12 also mentioned the animal dice activity in their answer to the previously mentioned question, “We loved the animal dice activity most because not only was it hands on, it was very informative and super interactive.” Family involvement is important to childhood development because children not only learn at school but in their home. When parents or family members are not able to assist with homework help or children’s questions, the child is not getting the same opportunities as others. These activities gave families opportunities to work on learning topics such as, emotions, thankfulness, and animals.
The final reoccurring theme found in the open-ended questions in our take home survey was common barriers. The main question pertaining to this theme was: “Do you think that being provided with pre-planned activities increased the amount of fun time you got to spend with your family after school? Please explain.” Respondent 10 answered this question with, “Yes, because being a busy mom of two it’s hard to come home and try to think of something to do.” On the same topic of barriers Respondent 13 answered with, “I didn’t have to look for things to do or go to the store to buy supplies. I don’t have transportation.” Respondent 19 discussed internal barriers with the response of, “I think it increased the amount of fun time because usually only the older kids get help with homework and get to do activities.” A majority of the responses addressed the barrier of not having enough time in the day to come up with and partake in fun activities. Through the use of these take home activities, families were able to discard the worry of creating a family activity because one was provided to them.
Overall, common themes found in the open-ended questions in our survey were: family engagement in the take home activities, familial involvement in learning, and common barriers. The take home activities provided quality family time, opportunities to learn as a family, and activities that were pre-planned to take away time for planning. These activities allowed families to set aside time in their day to focus on spending time with their children, which is not always possible in low income, rural communities.
Conclusion
This study was examining the impact of boundaries based on SES and race/ethnicity on parental involvement. Parents from low-income communities that are minorities or have a low SES tend to deal with more boundaries that prevent them from being more involved with their children (Bower & Griffin, 2011). Some of these boundaries include a lack of transportation or none at all, limited availability to child care, and limited time due to long work days (Bower & Griffin, 2011). The race/ethnicity of the parents in a family tends to relate to their educational background which can impact their views on parental involvement (Park & Holloway, 2013). In turn, race/ethnicity can also reflect the beliefs and behaviors of parents which can affect how they promote achievement in their household (Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009). Based on the previous research, it was important to address these two factors (SES and race/ethnicity) and the impact they have on parental involvement specifically in low-income communities.
The quantitative analyses looked at the dependent variable (parental involvement), the independent variable (boundaries based on SES and race/ethnicity), and the correlation between the two variables. The first analysis looking at the dependent variable found that parents from these communities were able to spend between six to ten hours a day with their children. Even though these families come from backgrounds where it makes it more difficult to spend time with their children, these results showed an increased amount of time spent with them daily. The second analysis examining the independent variable found that parents from these specific low-income communities typically worked more than twenty-one hours a week. Working more hours during the week can prove to be a major boundary in parental involvement because it is taking away time that parents could be spending with their children and families. The final analysis looking at the correlation between the two variables showed that the barrier of work hours had no impact on the amount of time parents spent with their children. This was interesting because a heavy work week should greatly impact the amount of time spent with the family, but these families still found a way to be involved with their children.
The qualitative analysis focused on three main themes found within the open-ended questions in the beginning of the take home survey. The first of these themes was family engagement in the take home activities. Most of the respondents commented on how the activities sent home to them helped promote family time in their households. The family time did not include only parent and child, but also sometimes included multiple other family members. The second theme found was familial involvement in learning. Respondents stated that the educational aspects behind the activities sent home helped to promote learning in their households. These children were able to learn about animals, thankfulness, and emotions in the setting of their own homes. The final theme found was common barriers. A majority of the respondents stated that they typically do not have enough time to plan activities that they can do with their children. Since these activities were pre-planned and sent home with the children, the parents were able to sit down and enjoy family time without the worry of what they should do.
These results were different than the previous literature found on this topic. Most research showed that one of the most common barriers for parents in low-income communities is an increased number of work hours per week (Bower & Griffin, 2011). The bivariate analysis examining the correlation between number of work hours and the amount of time parents spent with their children daily showed that there was no correlation. In this study, the number of hours spent working during a typical week had no impact on how many hours parents spent with their children during a typical day. Based on the literature, the bivariate analysis should have shown that as the number of hours worked during the week increases, the number of hours parents spent with their children daily should have decreased. Yet, at the same time, previous research did show that race/ethnicity did have an impact on parents’ beliefs especially when it came to views on parental involvement (Park & Holloway, 2013). In the case of this study, the beliefs of the parents in these low-income communities could have impacted how many hours they spent with their children. These parents could have believed that no matter how many hours they worked a week, they would still find time to spent with their children.
There were a few limitations in this study that could have affected the results. First, not all of the eighty-six surveys sent home were returned back to Head Start. The data was only based off of fourty-four of these families. This could have impacted the results because the families who did not respond could have responded differently than the rest. Second, the questions used in the take home survey were created, not chosen from a standardized survey regarding the topic in question. Since the questions were made up, they did not come from a set of questions that has been used multiple times before. This affects the internal validity of the study when looking at the accuracy of the measurement used. Finally, from the respondents who returned the surveys, not all of them answered every single question. This impacts the data because the numbers of respondents who answered the open-ended questions versus the close-ended questions was not the same. The numbers across the quantitative and qualitative analyses were not consistent.
References
Bower, H. A., & Griffin, D. (2011). Can the Epstein Model of Parental Involvement Work in a High-Minority, High-Poverty Elementary School. Professional School Counseling, 15, 77-87.
Davis-Kean, P. E., & Sexton, H. R. (2009). Race Differences in Parental Influences on Child Achievement: Multiple Pathways to Success. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 55, 285-318.
Henrich, C., & Gadaire, D. (2008). Head Start and Parent Involvement. Infants and Young Children, 21, 56-69. doi: 10.1097/01.IYC.0000306373.48038.e6
Lamb-Parker, F., Piotrowski, C. S., Baker, A. J. L., Kessler-Sklar, S., Clark, B., & Peay, L., (2000). Understanding barriers to parent involvement in Head Start: a research community partnership. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 35–51.
Park, S., & Holloway, S. D. (2013). No Parent Left Behind: Predicting Parental Involvement in Adolescents’ Education Within a Sociodemographically Diverse Population. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 105-119.