1. Understanding Variations of Family Involvement with Low-Income, Culturally Diverse Families: Practice and Policy Implications of Recent Findings Christine McWayne, Ph.D., New York University Presentation at the National Association for the Education of Young Children Annual Conference November 19, 2009

2. Problems with the operationalization of FI in the majority of studies  Unidimensional definitions of FI  fragmented measures, unrepresentative of multiple FI behaviors  Disconnected from developmental issues and, thus, poor for informing developmentally appropriate family involvement  Unidirectional; no account of transactional nature of family-school collaboration  Unrepresentative: existing measures tend to be created with mainstream populations, highlighting need more culturally relevant measures of FI

3. The Family Involvement Questionnaire (FIQ; Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Childs, 2000)  Based on Epstein’s 6 types  Careful co-construction in partnership  Research Committee of various stakeholders  Focus groups of larger group of stakeholders  Field tested with multiple groups of parents  Data collected from more than 600 parents  Subjected to rigorous multivariate analysis  Result = a 42-item questionnaire

4. Three Reliable Dimensions of FIQ Mapping onto Epstein’s Model HBI: Parenting & Learning at Home SBI: Volunteering & Decision-Making HSC: Communicating  Home-Based Involvement ( α =.85)  School-Based Involvement ( α =.85)  Home-School Conferencing ( α =.81)

5. FIQ (Fantuzzo et al., 2000) Home-Based Involvement  Spending time at home on reading, numbers, and creative activities.  Bringing home learning materials (e.g., videos).  Limiting my child’s TV and video watching.  Keeping a regular morning and bedtime schedule for my child.  Talking about parents’ own experiences in school.  Taking child to places in the community (e.g., zoo, museum, public library).

6. School-Based Involvement  Volunteering in the classroom.  Going on class trips.  Participating in fundraising activities at my child’s center  Meeting with other parents to plan events.  Attending workshops for parents. FIQ (Fantuzzo et al., 2000)

7. Home-School Conferencing  Talking with child’s teacher about child’s learning difficulties and accomplishments.  The teacher and I write notes to each other about my child or center activities  Scheduling meetings with administrators to talk about problems or to gain information  Discussing with child’s teacher ways to promote learning at home.  “I feel that teachers and administrators welcome and encourage parents to be involved at school.” FIQ (Fantuzzo et al., 2000)

8. Findings Across Different Groups FIQ & Child Outcomes

9. Findings with low-income, African American families (Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry, & Childs, 2004) **when controlling for the effects of the other two dimensions, only home-based involvement related to child competencies and low levels of behavior problems

10. Findings with low-income, Latino families (McWayne, Manz, & Ginsburg-Block, 2007) STUDY #1:

11. N = 100 Latino families. * p <.05 ** p <.01 ¡¡¡School-related FI activities appear to be more influential for Latino families, in contrast with home- based activities for African American families!!! STUDY #2: Findings with low-income, Latino families (McWayne, Manz, & Ginsburg-Block, 2007)

12. McWayne, Owsianik, & Campos (2008) What about when we focus on immigrant families and take both parents into account? Demographic variables & satisfaction

13. Comparing results for mothers & fathers  HBI was not predicted by demographic or satisfaction variables  Satisfaction was a strong, positive predictor of SBI  Education (-) and satisfaction (+) were moderate predictors of HSC  R 2 =.25-.31  HBI was not predicted by demographic or satisfaction variables  Language (-) and satisfaction (+) were strong predictors of SBI  Child sex (males), language (-), and satisfaction (+) were strong predictors of HSC  R 2 =.42-.60 MOTHERS (N = 108)FATHERS (N = 63)

14. What predicts FI for these families? Home-Based School-Based Home-School Fixed Effects Involvement Involvement Conferencing Level 1 Predictors Parent sex (fathers) -.33*** -.40*** -.70*** Education < high school -.14 -.04 -.24 > high school -.05 -.19 -.02 Level 2 Predictors Child sex (boys).26 †.04.27* Employment -.11 -.21 -.14 Marital status (married).42*.33 †.34 † Primary language Spanish (primary) -.26 -.13 -.35 Polish (primary) -.40 † -.02 -.53** Bilingual -.12 -.13 -.17 Satisfaction with contact.22.79***.71*** N = 110 individuals; 55 dyads. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

15. How does looking at the family unit change what we know about FI?  Parent sex emerged as a moderate to strong predictor of involvement  Satisfaction still emerged as a strong predictor of the school-related activities  Marital status became important for home-based activities (consistent with other literature)  Language no longer important for SBI, but remained important for HSC for Polish-speaking families (more recent immigrants)  Maternal education no longer a significant predictor

16. IMPLICATIONS  Satisfaction appears to be very important – consider ways to build trust (i.e., through mutual respect and cooperative problem-solving)  Consider ways to more meaningfully engage fathers at school (Hauser- Cram’s assertions re: problem-focused coping)  Consider how to support involvement at home by understanding already existing (largely, invisible) practices  adapt culture-specific methods to the classroom  higher congruence btw home and school (Moll’s Funds of Knowledge approach & Weisner’s eco- cultural understanding of daily routines)  PDs to develop cultural awareness and sensitivity among teachers and staff (go out into the community!)  Co-construct family involvement programming with members of the parent community  Hire knowledgeable, bilingual and male involvement staff  By understanding distinct family roles, i.e., how individuals within a family affect one another’s FI, programs can develop specific intervention components to address all family members’ participation in their children's education FOR PRACTICEFOR POLICY & PROGRAMMING

17. PRIMARY GOAL OF SUCCESSFUL FI EFFORTS Child Theory of the Whole Child Quality Information Beneficial Connections Increasing congruence between home and school