 |
What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action
Chapter 13. Home Environment
For decades, educational researchers, educational practitioners, and the public at large have assumed that socioeconomic status (SES) is one of the best predictors of academic achievement. The Coleman report supported that theory. As explained by Karl White (1982), the Coleman report confirmed for educators what they thought they already knew: "that a strong relationship exists between all kinds of achievement variables and what has come to be known as socioeconomic status (SES)" (p. 46). White also notes that the belief in the strong relationship between SES and student achievement is so pervasive that it has rarely been questioned. To illustrate, consider the following quotes:
The family characteristic that is the most powerful predictor of school performance is socioeconomic status (SES): the higher the SES of the student's family, the higher his academic achievement. This relationship has been documented in countless studies and seems to hold no matter what measure of status is used (occupation of principal bread-winner, family income, parents' education, or some combination of these). (Boocock, 1972, p. 32)
To categorize youth according to the social class position of their parents is to order them on the extent of their participation and degree of success in the American Educational System.This has been so consistently confirmed by research that it can now be regarded as an empirical law....SES predicts grades, achievement and intelligence test scores, retentions at grade level, course failures, truancy, suspensions from school, high school dropouts, plans for college attendance, and total amount of formal schooling. (Charters, 1963, pp. 739–740)
The positive association between school completion, family socioeconomic status, and measured ability is well known. (Welch, 1974, p. 32)
In spite of previous testimonials to the strength of relationship between SES and student achievement, the actual research findings vary widely. Specifically, White notes correlations between SES and student achievement that are as high as 0.80 and as low as 0.10.
White conducted a meta-analysis of 101 reports that yielded 636 correlations. He found that, depending on how SES was defined, the correlation between SES and student achievement could vary widely, as depicted in Figure 13.1.
SES Indicator |
Correlation |
Effect Size |
Percentile Gain |
Percentage of Variance Explained |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Income |
.32 |
.67 |
25 |
9.92 |
Education |
.19 |
.38 |
24 |
3.24 |
Occupation |
.20 |
.42 |
26 |
4.04 |
Home atmosphere only |
.58 |
1.42 |
42 |
33.29 |
Note: For a discussion of correlation, effect size, percentile gain, and percentage of variance explained and their relationships, see Technical Notes 1 & 4 (pp. 187–188, 190–191). |
||||
Source: White, K. R. (1982). The relationship between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461–481. |
||||
The figure reports the strength of relationship between four elements commonly associated with SES and student achievement: The income of the adults (e.g., parents) in the home, the education of the adults in the home, the occupation of the adults in the home, and the atmosphere in the home. Figure 13.1 shows that home atmosphere has the strongest relationship with student achievement. This is an important finding. As White explains:
More striking, however, is the fact that measures of home atmosphere correlated much higher with academic achievement than did any single or combined group of the traditional indicators of SES. Recalling the comments by Jencks et al. (1972) cited earlier, there are many differences among families that can potentially affect the academic achievement of the children in addition to differences in education, occupational level, and income of the parents. It is not at all implausible that some low-SES parents (defined in terms of income, education, and/or occupational level) are very good at creating a home atmosphere that fosters learning (e.g., read to their children, help them with their homework, encourage them to go to college, and take them to the library and to cultural events), whereas other low-SES parents are not. (p. 471)
As White illustrates, the effects of SES have historically been thought of as extremely large and impervious to change. However, White provides for great hope given that the most important aspect of SES is the effect of home environment, as opposed to factors such as parental income and education. Where a school cannot change the income, education, or occupation of adults in the home, it can have a potential impact on the atmosphere in the home. Thus, a home environment structured in specific ways can positively affect achievement. What characteristics, then, of a home environment can have a positive impact on student achievement?
Xitao Fan and Michael Chen (2001) conducted a meta-analysis that involved more than 90 correlations. They found that the average correlation between home environment and student achievement was 0.33, indicating that, on the average, the home environment accounts for 10.89 percent of the variance in student achievement. However, home environment is not a unidimensional construct. Rather, it is composed of three basic elements: (1) communication about school, (2) supervision, and (3) parental expectations and parenting styles.
Communication About School
Communication about school refers to parents' interest in and communication about the schoolwork of their children. This element of home environment has been described as "the structure of the environment and how the environment can be manipulated to encourage and support children's academic learning" (Christenson, Rounds, & Gorney, 1992, pp.183–184). In their analysis of 10 studies involving 26,493 families, Fan and Chen found the average correlation between this element and academic achievement to be 0.17. Many other researchers have reported the importance of this factor to student learning (Bradshaw & Amundson, 1985; Chavkin & Williams, 1985; Cooper, 1989; Gonzalez & Blanco, 1991; Leler, 1983; Peng & Wright, 1994; Radencich & Schumm, 1988; Yap & Enoki, 1995). Although many aspects of communication interact in complex ways, those commonly mentioned include
parents having frequent and systematic discussions with their children regarding schoolwork,
parents encouraging their children regarding schoolwork, and
parents providing resources to help their children do schoolwork.
Supervision
Supervision generally refers to the extent to which parents monitor and control their children's behavior to optimize academic achievement. In their review of 12 studies involving 69,137 families, Chen and Fan found the average correlation between this aspect of home environment and academic achievement to be 0.13. This is the lowest correlation among the three home environment factors. However, Chen and Fan caution against concluding that parental supervision is not important. The seemingly low correlation might simply mean that tight supervision is done more in families where students are not performing well. As Chen and Fan (2001) note
The findings above, however, should not be interpreted simplistically as indicating that home supervision has little to offer in enhancing children's education. One potential reason for the weak relationship between home supervision and students' academic achievement as observed here is that closer parental supervision is implemented at home because students are not doing well academically in school in the first place. If this is the case, close parental supervision in many homes may be the result of poor academic performance of the students. Consequently, parental supervision may have a weak or even negative [statistical] relationship with students' academic achievement. (pp. 13–14)
Specific behaviors commonly associated with effective home supervision include monitoring the time spent doing homework (Fehrmann, Keith, & Reimers, 1987; Peng & Wright, 1994), monitoring when students return home from school and what they do after school (Ho Sui-Chu & Willms, 1993), and monitoring the extent to which students watch television (Park, 1995).
Several researchers have sought to determine the relationship between television viewing and academic achievement (Neuman, 1980; Williams, Haertel, Haertel, & Walberg, 1982). In general, these studies indicate that television viewing negatively impacts achievement. However, Sandra Christensen, Theresa Rounds, and Deborah Gorney (1992) explain that the relationship is not a straightforward one and must be interpreted with caution, particularly for members of different SES categories:
In middle- and lower-class families, a moderate amount of television viewing (2–4 hours per day) correlates with a relative increase in achievement. . . In general, students who view a great deal of television (more than 6 hours of television per day) have significantly lower achievement scores in reading, writing, and mathematics than children who watch less than 6 hours per day . . . and small amounts of viewing (2–3 hours per day) may increase achievement for disadvantaged children. (p. 186)
We might then conclude that television viewing should be limited to a moderate amount of time and closely monitored by parents. Eliminating television viewing altogether does not seem warranted.
Parental Expectations and Parenting Style
Parental expectations and parenting styles is the third and most important element of home environment. In their analysis of 10 studies involving 24,826 families, Fan and Chen (2001) found the average correlation to be 0.39—the largest correlation among the three elements. Fan and Chen focus on the manner and extent to which parents communicate their academic aspirations to their children. The relationship between this dynamic and student achievement is fairly straightforward—high expectations communicated to students are associated with enhanced achievement (Boersma & Chapman, 1982; Cohen, 1987; Marjoribanks, 1988; Scott-Jones, 1984). Student perceptions of parental expectations are also correlated with achievement (Gigliotti & Brookover, 1975; Johnson, Brookover, & Farnell, 1989). In fact, student perceptions of parental expectations may be more important than the actual expectations themselves. As Christenson et al. (1992) note: ". . . it is not clear whether it is the children's own beliefs and expectations or actual parent expectations that influence achievement" (p. 182).
The parenting style used to communicate expectations appears critical. Indeed, many of the studies Fan and Chen include in their discussion of parental expectations focus on parenting styles (Hess, Holloway, Dickson, & Price, 1984; Peng & Wright, 1994; Voekl, 1993).
In general, parenting styles can be organized into three categories: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. These categories were originally referred to as disciplinary styles (Baumrind, 1978) but then later were referred to as parenting styles (Baumrind, 1991) when researchers realized the embedded role of communication. The first two of these styles have little relationship with achievement, whereas the third is purported to have a relatively strong positive relationship (Christenson et al., 1992).
An authoritarian style is one in which the parents establish and implement all household rules with little or no discussion with children. Rules are absolute and their transgression is punctuated by swift punishment often accompanied by negative emotions from parents. Parents make the majority of decisions for their children across a wide spectrum of activities such as the sports children pursue, the friends they are allowed to have, and the types of entertainment they are allowed to engage in. The authoritarian parenting style is not so much defined by the restrictions placed on these activities as the fact that these restrictions are imposed with little discussion or input from the children.
The permissive style is the antithesis of the authoritarian style. Parents establish few if any household rules and rarely punish inappropriate behavior. Children are left to develop their own rules for conduct and, for the most part, are left to their own devices when it comes to day-to-day decisions. There are few, if any, restrictions regarding sports, friends, or entertainment. Although it might seem that this approach fosters independence and autonomy, which in turn enhance academic achievement, there is no evidence of this. In fact, the evidence suggests that the permissive parenting style can be harmful to academic achievement. As Christenson and colleagues (1992) note: "it is better to err on the side of too much parent control since granting autonomy too early appears to correlate negatively with school accomplishments" (p. 189).
The preferred style is the authoritative style. Jennifer Rosenau (1998) explains that authoritative parenting is characterized by "parental warmth, inductive discipline, non-punitive punishment practices, and consistency in child rearing . . ." (p. 12). Although the household has rules, they are commonly established with input from the children. And, transgressions are met with consequences, but are not punitive in nature and executed with little or no negative emotion. Finally, parents with an authoritative style communicate interest in the day-to-day lives of their children.
Action Steps
The three elements of home environment do not lend themselves to direct intervention by the school. The school cannot (and should not) go into homes and recommend specific techniques for communicating about school, for supervising students, or for parental expectations and parenting style. The school can provide information and training on establishing a home environment conducive to academic success. Indeed, the second standard of the National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs (Parent Teacher Association, 1997) urges that parenting skills be promoted and supported by the school. Given that schools are somewhat limited in their ability to establish a supportive home environment, I recommend only one action step for this factor.
Action Step 1. Provide training and support to parents to enhance their communication with their children about school, their supervision of their children, and their ability to communicate expectations to their children within the context of an effective parenting style.
This usually manifests as a training program or programs provided by the school. When approached systematically and thoughtfully, such programs can effect a change in the home environment (Onikama, Hammond, & Koki, 1998; Tangri & Moles, 1987) that translates into improved academic performance. A meta-analysis of 29 controlled studies over a 10-year period indicated that the academic achievement of students in 91 percent of the groups where parents were involved in training programs was superior to that of students in the control groups (Graue, Weinstein, & Walberg, 1983).
Some schools and districts build training into their reform efforts. Beth Antunez (2000) notes that the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) has established a policy that each school site—preschool through high school—must develop a long-range parent involvement plan. Among other features, the SFUSD model recommends that schools establish development opportunities to parents through school-sponsored training.
Some parent training programs are embedded in large-scale school improvement efforts that involve multiple schools and multiple districts. The Teacher-Parent Partnership for the Enhancement of School Success (Swick, 1991) is a training-based program that seeks to develop parents' self-confidence in establishing a home environment conducive to learning. Implemented in rural South Carolina, the project was a collaborative effort between the University of South Carolina and 18 rural school districts. It not only includes training sessions for parents but also sessions for teachers to facilitate parent involvement in the school. Another program, Even Start, has the expressed purpose "to improve the educational opportunities for children and their parents" (Center for Community Education, 1989). The project emphasizes that effective parenting requires training and support in parents' roles as communicators, leaders, advisors, and advocates.
Although there is no established format for parent training programs, features associated with effective programs include the following (Filipczak, Lordeman, & Friedman, 1977; Goodson & Hess, 1975; Graue, Weinstein, & Walberg,1983; Tangri & Moles, 1987):
sessions are offered from one to two hours at night,
parents attend sessions free of charge,
sessions are offered on a weekly basis although one-time sessions may also be employed,
sessions focus on specific behaviors parents might use, and
sessions are used as a vehicle to involve parents in other aspects of school.
Schools wishing to address all aspects of home environment might establish a series of mini-courses for parents. One mini-course would address parental interest in schoolwork and how to communicate to enhance academic achievement. A second mini-course might address activities that should be supervised and supervision techniques. A third mini-course could address parenting styles and techniques for communicating expectations. The strong message to parents would be that the home environment has a profound impact on the academic achievement of their children and that they have the power to alter the environment of their household.
Summary
Home environment is distinguished from socioeconomic status as a specific, alterable set of behaviors that have a much stronger relationship with student achievement than do household income, occupation, and education. Three aspects of home environment were discussed: communication about school, supervision, and parental expectations and parenting style. I recommended one action step—a series of courses or trainings offered to parents, free of charge.
Copyright © 2003 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from ASCD.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
1703 N. Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311 USA •
1-800-933-2723 •
1-703-578-9600
Copyright © ASCD, All Rights Reserved •
Privacy Statement