Involvement Counts: Family and Community Partnerships and Mathematics Achievement

Involvement Counts: Family and Community Partnerships and Mathematics Achievement STEVEN B. SHELDON JOYCE L. EPSTEIN Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships Salk, & Glaessner, 1991). Efforts to improve students’ mathematics learning have focused on improved teacher education, modified curriculum, and schoolwide and districtwide programs (Ball, 1993; Cuevas & Driscoll, 1993; Knapp, 1997; Smith & Hausafus, 1998). Professional groups have developed new standards for mathematics education that have influenced changes in mathematics instruction in many U.S. classrooms (Connected Math Project, 1995; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1991). In comparison with efforts to improve mathematics instruction in schools, researchers and practitioners have given relatively little attention to developing connections between schools, families, and communities as components of mathematics reform. Historically, parents have played important roles in some aspects of education reform (Bloch & Tabachnick, 1994). However, efforts to change mathematics education have positioned parents on the sidelines, leaving educators and other professionals to decide how mathematics learning should take place (Peressini, 1998). In some cases, parents have been characterized more as enemies to reform than as allies. For example, in his presidential address to the NCTM, Price (1996) suggested that parents are among the greatest threats to the implementation of the organization’s new mathematics education standards. Although parent support for mathematics reform is desired, parent involvement in developing these reforms is not. At the school level, teachers are likely to support the concept of parent involvement; some educators encourage and guide parents to participate in their children’s mathematics education and learning. Those efforts are supported by research that reports positive relationships between parent involvement and diverse student outcomes including, but not limited to, mathematics (Cai, Moyer, & Wang, 1997; Epstein, 1991; Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Ho & Willms, 1996; Keith et al., 1993; Lee, 1994; Van Voorhis, 2001). ABSTRACT National and international studies have made student performance in mathematics a high priority in schools. Using longitudinal data from elementary and secondary schools, the authors examined the connections between specific family and community involvement activities and student achievement in mathematics at the school level. After the authors controlled for prior levels of mathematics achievement, analyses indicated that effective implementation of practices that encouraged families to support their children’s mathematics learning at home was associated with higher percentages of students who scored at or above proficiency on standardized mathematics achievement tests. Findings suggest that subject-specific practices of school, family, and community partnerships may help educators improve students’ mathematics skills and achievement. Key words: community involvement, mathematics, parent involvement, partnerships, student achievement I n every school across the country, students are taught and expected to learn mathematics, beginning with number recognition in kindergarten. Yet, international studies suggest that by the middle grades, U.S. students understand and know less mathematics than do their peers in many Asian and European countries (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1999). Studies have shown that in the United States, female and minority students have lower achievement in mathematics and take fewer mathematics courses than do male and White students and that the gender and racial gaps are not narrowing (Hall, Davis, Bolen, & Chia, 1999; Mitchell, Hawkins, Jakwerth, Stancavage, & Dossey, 1999). Problems associated with students’ mathematics proficiency are particularly serious in poor urban schools and in school systems (NCES). Concerns about the status, quality, and equity of mathematics education in this country have fueled many mathematics reform initiatives at the national, state, and local levels. Explanations of why students in the United States struggle in mathematics concern (a) curriculum and instruction in classrooms, (b) student attitudes about mathematics, (c) student readiness and background characteristics, and (d) level of support for mathematics in home environments (Secada, 1992; Stevenson, Lee, & Stigler, 1986; Stodolsky, Address correspondence to Steven B. Sheldon or Joyce L. Epstein, 3003 N. Charles Street, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21218. (E-mail: ssheldon@csos.jhu.edu or jepstein@csos.jhu.edu) 196 March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)] Types of Parent Involvement Among researchers and educators, parent involvement refers to a wide range of activities and connections among schools, families, and communities. According to Epstein (1995), there are six types of involvement in a comprehensive program of school, family, and community partnerships. Involvement includes the following types: Type 1. Parenting: Helping all families establish supportive home environments for children Type 2. Communicating: Establishing two-way exchanges about school programs and children’s progress Type 3. Volunteering: Recruiting and organizing parent help at school, home, or other locations Type 4. Learning at home: Providing information and ideas to families about how to help students with homework and other curriculum-related materials Type 5. Decision making: Having parents from all backgrounds serve as representatives and leaders on school committees Type 6. Collaborating with the community: Identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs. That typology provides schools with a structure to help organize specific activities to involve parents in their children’s education. Because there are many possible activities for each type of involvement, schools must choose which partnership practices are likely to produce specific goals and how to implement the selected activities effectively. For each type of involvement and practice, there also are challenges that schools must meet to reach all families, not just those who are easiest to involve (Epstein et al., 2002; Sanders, 1999). For example, schools may be faced with the challenge of making sure that parents who cannot read or understand English have access to the information in languages or forms they can understand. Also, schools may be faced with the challenge of providing ways for all parents to contact and communicate with teachers and administrators so that information about students flows in two directions—from school to home and from home to school. The success of a school’s partnership program to affect student achievement may depend on the degree to which the activities that are implemented meet serious challenges to involve families who are the most difficult to reach. In designing programs of home–school–community partnerships, schools cannot assume that one type of involvement or a single activity will affect student achievement positively in all subjects. Studies indicate that each type of involvement activity leads to some different results (Epstein, 1995), such as mathematics and reading achievement and grade point average (Catsambis, 2002; Catsambis & Beveridge, 2001; Desimone, 1999; Lee, 1994; Simon, 2000). If researchers produce better information about the results of specific involvement activities, more educators should be 197 able to select and implement the activities most likely to produce the goals that they have set for their students. Focus on Mathematics Attitudes and Achievement It is well accepted that children’s home environments affect their attitudes toward mathematics (Balli, 1998; Parsons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982). Researchers have shown that parents’ beliefs and expectations for their children in mathematics predict student achievement in elementary and middle school mathematics (Entwisle & Alexander, 1996; Gill & Reynolds, 1999; Halle, Kurtz-Costes, & Mahoney, 1997; Holloway, 1986). Similarly, even after researchers controlled for students’ prior achievement, learning activities and parent–teen discussions conducted at home predicted higher student mathematics achievement in middle and high schools (Cai et al., 1997; Ho & Willms, 1996; Keith et al., 1993; Pong, 1997). For all students to attain higher achievement, educators must support and facilitate parent involvement in mathematics. Sanchez and Baquedano (1993) showed that students whose parents met with a mathematics teacher and a counselor to discuss ways to help at home gained more in mathematics than did students whose families did not receive training in such meetings. Similarly, students whose parents attended training and information workshops and obtained materials to help their preschool children at home (Starkey & Klein, 2000) and elementary students at home (Shaver & Walls, 1998; Westat and Policy Studies Associates, 2001) made greater gains in mathematics achievement than did students whose parents did not attend the workshops. Those studies suggest the importance of providing families with support to help their children succeed in mathematics. Schools also can use homework assignments to guide and strengthen home–school partnerships. For example, homework can be designed to encourage parent–child activities in specific subjects and to enable families to communicate more easily with teachers about homework assignments (Epstein, 2001; Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001). Studies on the effects of interactive homework have reported increased homework completion and improved achievement in language arts and science in inner-city and suburban middle schools (Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997; Van Voorhis, 2001). Interactive homework also has been associated with increased family involvement in students’ mathematics learning at home (Balli, Demo, & Wedman, 1998). Overall, studies suggest that use of homework that requires parent–child interactions can (a) create a line of communication between parents and teachers, (b) increase family involvement, and (c) help improve student achievement. Challenges to Parent Involvement in Mathematics Compared with other school subjects, home–school partnerships in mathematics may be more difficult to organize 198 and implement. Gal and Stoudt (1995) suggested at least three reasons why parents might not be involved in their children’s mathematics education. First, as mathematics becomes increasingly more complex across the school years, parents may not have the content knowledge or teaching skills needed to help their children. Second, changes in the way that mathematics is taught in schools may result in parents’ confusion or resistance to some of the new or nontraditional aspects of their children’s mathematics schoolwork. Third, teachers are not trained to teach adults how to work on mathematics with their children. The three factors present significant obstacles for some schools and may affect whether most or all parents are able to help their children learn mathematics at home. Teachers can help parents overcome the obstacles. For example, one elementary school teacher working in an urban setting realized that to help their children in mathematics, many parents first needed to become more fluent English speakers (Carey, 1998). The teacher began by helping parents improve their general English skills and vocabulary and then become familiar with vocabulary related to mathematics. She later asked parents to help their children with mathematics problems and made it clear on which skills the students would be tested. The example is noteworthy because it highlights the importance of teachers having thoughtful communication strategies that overcome challenges often present in large urban schools and which may otherwise hinder parent mathematics involvement. We explored levels of mathematics achievement in schools, efforts of schools to involve families and communities in students’ mathematics education, and the impact of these targeted involvement activities on student mathematics achievement. We addressed the following three research questions. 1. What is the level of mathematics achievement in a sample of schools in which the school community (staff, parents, and community members) work to involve families and community members in students’ mathematics education? 2. How do the schools perceive the effectiveness of specific school, family, and community partnership activities to improve student achievement in mathematics? 3. What is the relationship between the implementation of specific family and community mathematics involvement activities and changes over time in school reports of student performance on mathematics achievement tests? Understanding which family and community involvement practices are most likely to improve students’ mathematics achievement may help guide schools’ efforts to provide the best possible mathematics education for all students. Method “Focus on Results in Math” is part of an ongoing project in which researchers and educators are studying the mea- The Journal of Educational Research surable effects of school, family, and community partnerships on students in elementary, middle, and high schools across the country. The schools are members of the National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at Johns Hopkins University and are working to improve the quality of family and community involvement and the effects on specific student outcomes, such as attendance, behavior, and reading and mathematics achievement. We asked a key contact and members of an Action Team for Partnerships in each school to complete two surveys. We sent baseline surveys to the schools at the start of the 1997–1998 school year for information on school characteristics, attributes of the student body, planned school–family–community practices that focused on improved mathematics skills, mathematics achievement test results from 1997 for a selected grade level, and report card grades in mathematics for the fall term. We sent follow-up surveys after the 1997–1998 school year for information on the effectiveness of partnership practices and end-of-year mathematics outcomes. To encourage participation, NNPS offered schools an incentive of partnershiprelated publications and items that would help them advance their work on school, family, and community partnerships. Participants Eighteen schools—from states including Ohio, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Kansas, and California— returned baseline and follow-up surveys. About half of the schools in the study were elementary schools (n = 10), and the rest were middle or high schools (n = 8). The schools were located in inner-city (n = 7), urban (n = 4), suburban (n = 3), and rural (n = 4) areas and ranged in size from 124 to 1,280 students. About 75% of the schools reported that they received either schoolwide or targeted Title I funding, indicating that the schools served large numbers of economically disadvantaged students. On average, across schools, about 50.4% of students (ranging from 4.8% to 88%) received free or reduced-price lunches. Schools in the sample served an average 7.8% of students from families for whom English was a second language (ESL; ranging from 0% to 44%). Although the sample was relatively small, the schools were highly diverse. They included slightly more urban schools, Title I schools, and schools with more students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches than the national average (Manise, Blank, & Dardine, 2001). We asked school action team members to select and report the aggregated academic performance of students at a specific grade level on the same standardized mathematics tests for 2 consecutive years and on report card grades from fall to spring of the school year. The following number of schools provided performance data for students: (a) two for Grade 3, (b) six for Grade 4, (c) two for Grade 5, (d) one for Grade 6, (e) three for Grade 7, (f) three for March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)] Grade 8, and (g) one for Grade 9. Secondary schools were represented almost entirely by middle schools. Each school served as its own control in longitudinal analyses of changes in mathematics proficiency scores over time. Variables School characteristics. Respondents reported basic characteristics of their schools and students including (a) school level (elementary or secondary); (b) location (inner city, urban, suburban, rural); (c) number of students enrolled at the school; (d) percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches; and (e) percentage of students from families in which English was not spoken at home. School practices. Respondents reported whether their schools implemented 14 partnership practices focused on mathematics. We asked school action team members to rate how helpful each involvement practice was or, if they did not implement the activity, how helpful they thought the practice could be for improving students’ achievement in mathematics. Schools rated the effectiveness (if they implemented the practice) or potential effectiveness (if they did not implement the practice) of each practice on a 4-point, Likert-type scale that ranged from (1) cannot do at this school to (2) very helpful. Schools reported on the following practices. 1. Conduct workshops during daytime or school hours for parents on mathematics skills and expectations for children in mathematics. 2. Conduct similar workshops for parents in the evening. 3. Give families information on how to contact the mathematics teacher at school. 4. Issue certificates for students to take home that recognize mastery of new mathematics skills. 5. Schedule individual conferences with parents of students who are failing mathematics or are at risk of failing. 6. Inform parents of students’ progress and problems in mathematics on report cards. 7. Offer videotapes on mathematics skills that families can view at school or at home. 8. Invite parents and the community to assemblies for student awards for excellence in mathematics. 9. Invite parents and the community to assemblies for student awards for improvement in mathematics. 10. Request parent or community volunteers to tutor students in mathematics. 11. Assign students mathematics homework that requires them to show and discuss mathematics skills with a family member. 12. Offer parents or students mathematics game packets or lending-library activities to use at home. 13. Offer students and families mathematics activities on Saturdays. 14. Organize presentations for students on how mathematics is used by business, government, and industry. 199 School Measures of Mathematics Achievement Proficiency on mathematics achievement tests. We collected data on achievement test results for the same grade level for 2 consecutive school years—1997 and 1998. Respondents reported and labeled the percentage of students at different performance levels on the mathematics achievement test. From that information, we calculated the percentages of students who met or exceeded satisfactory or proficient mathematics standards of achievement. For example, several schools reported the percentages of students who scored in the following categories: (a) below proficient, (b) proficient, or (c) above proficient. Other schools reported categories such as (a) below satisfactory, (b) satisfactory, and (c) excellent. We recoded the categories in a standard form to identify the percentage of students who were at least proficient or satisfactory in mathematics and the percentage of students who were less than proficient or satisfactory in mathematics. Student report card grades. Respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of students in the selected grade level who received mostly As, mostly Bs, or mostly Cs and mostly Ds and Fs on their report cards in mathematics. We obtained estimates for the fall and spring semesters of the 1997–1998 school year. Results Patterns of Student Achievement in Mathematics In the first research question, we asked for a portrait of the mathematics achievement for the sample of schools. Descriptive analyses explored the association of school characteristics with selected student outcomes in mathematics, including the percentages of students at the selected grade levels that met or exceeded satisfactory or proficiency levels on standardized mathematics tests and that received high or low report card grades. Table 1 shows that, overall, an average of 51% of the students met or exceeded satisfactory levels of proficiency on standardized mathematics achievement tests. Also, from 1997 to 1998, participating schools reported an average increase of 6% more students at the selected grade levels who met or exceeded satisfactory proficiency levels in mathematics. The average changes in achievement-test performance varied across schools, ranging from an 18% decline to a 27% improvement in students’ mathematics test performance; standard deviation was 11%. The bottom section of Table 1 reports that in mathematics, almost 40% of students received mostly As or Bs at the end of the 1997–1998 school year, and a sizable percentage of students (23%) received mostly Ds and Fs. Grades in mathematics declined slightly over the school year on average, although there was considerable variation across schools. The average percentage of students who received mostly As and Bs decreased by 2.5%, with a corresponding increase (2.3%) in the percentage of students who earned mostly Cs. 200 The Journal of Educational Research TABLE 1. Spring 1998 Reports and Changes in Mathematics Outcomes, by School Levels School Elementary M SD All Students (%) Proficient on standardized mathematics achievement tests Spring 1998 Change (1997 to 1998) N Received mostly As and Bs Spring 1998 Change (fall to spring 1998) Received mostly Cs Spring 1998 Change Received mostly Ds and Fs Spring 1998 Change M SD 51.00 6.20 26.98 11.53 68.09 7.74 15 20.77 14.43 M Secondary SD 31.46 4.43 8 18.99 7.77 7 39.47 –2.54 17.96 16.46 46.44 7.29 18.37 9.18 29.00 –14.00 12.00 16.01 37.60 2.31 16.54 12.18 36.89 –1.14 17.87 9.84 38.67 6.33 15.90 14.28 22.93 0.31 16.10 14.02 16.67 –6.14 13.43 11.77 32.33 7.83 16.15 13.39 Note. Spring grades: all schools, n = 15; elementary, n = 9; secondary, n = 6. Change in grades: all schools, n = 13; elementary, n = 7; secondary, n = 6. School Level and Mathematics Achievement Table 1 also shows that elementary and secondary schools reported distinct patterns of students’ mathematics outcomes. In elementary schools, about 68% of the students in the selected grade levels met or exceeded satisfactory proficiency levels in mathematics on standardized tests, compared with 31% of students in secondary schools. Also, more students in elementary schools received As or Bs on their report cards in mathematics, and fewer received Ds or Fs than did students in secondary schools. Table 1 indicates that elementary and secondary schools reported increases in the percentages of students who met proficiency standards in mathematics from 1997 to 1998; elementary schools reported a larger increase (7.7%) than did secondary schools (4.4%). The differences between elementary and secondary school students’ report card grades in mathematics from 1997–1998 were dramatic. Elementary schools reported an average increase in the proportion of students who received As and Bs (7.3%) and related decreases in percentages of students who earned Cs (–1.1%) and Ds and Fs (–6.1%) on mathematics report cards from the fall to spring semester. In contrast, secondary schools reported an average decrease in the percentages of students who earned As and Bs (–14%) and related increases in percentages of students who earned mostly Cs (6.3%) and Ds and Fs (7.8%). School Demographics and Mathematics Achievement Table 2 shows that mathematics outcomes were related to selected school characteristics. Because the sample was small and the analyses were exploratory, correlations that were statistically significant at p < .10 and that had consistent patterns are shown as potentially important. The top portion of Table 2 shows that larger schools reported lower percentages of students at or above satisfactory proficiency levels on standardized mathematics achievement tests (r = –.701, p < .008). Also, schools with larger percentages of students who received free or reduced-price lunches reported smaller percentages of students who were proficient in mathematics (r = –.547, p < .035). Finally, from 1997 to 1998, in schools with large percentages of students from ESL families, the percentages of students who met satisfactory levels of proficiency in mathematics (r = –.821, p < .000) decreased. School characteristics also were related to students’ mathematics report card grades. The bottom portion of Table 2 indicates that in large schools, greater percentages of students earned Ds and Fs on their report cards in mathematics (r = .559, p < .059), and higher percentages of students earned poor or failing mathematics grades over time (r = .629, p < .052). In schools that served more poor students, smaller percentages of students earned mostly As or Bs in mathematics (r = –.581, p < .023), and greater percentages of students earned mostly Cs (r = .498, p < .059) than did students in other schools. The descriptive statistics indicate that the schools in our sample, which served over 10,000 students, had considerable room to grow to increase the number of students who reached satisfactory levels of mathematics achievement and who earned good grades in mathematics. Large schools and those that served poor students had more students with unsatisfactory achievement and poor grades. Elementary March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)] 201 TABLE 2. Correlations of School Characteristics With Mathematics Outcomes in Spring 1998, and Change in Outcomes Students (%) School size Spring 1998 Change Free or reduced-price lunch (%) Spring 1998 Change ESL families (%) Spring 1998 Change Proficient on standardized mathematics achievement tests –0.701** –0.247 –0.547* –0.347 –0.103 –0.821*** Received mostly As and Bs Received mostly Cs Received mostly Ds and Fs –0.304 –0.129 0.559+ –0.289a –0.287a 0.629+a –0.581* 0.498+ 0.137 –0.166 0.340 –0.097 0.032 –0.196 0.165 0.163 –0.508+ 0.247 Note. N = 13–15. ESL = English as a second language. a n = 10. + p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. schools tended to have more students who attained satisfactory scores and good grades than did secondary schools. Also, on average, elementary school students’ scores and skills tended to improve over time, whereas secondary school students tended to stagnate or struggle to maintain mathematics grades over the school year. The schools varied regarding whether their students improved or declined over time; students in some schools made dramatic progress, and students in other schools failed. Tables 1 and 2 indicate that the schools in this exploratory study of family involvement and mathematics outcomes were similar in demography, levels of achievement, and need for improvement to many other elementary and secondary schools that are working to improve students’ mathematics scores and grades. Effectiveness of Partnership Practices The second research question focused on whether the use and effectiveness of specific school practices for involving families in mathematics were related to student outcomes at the school level. Respondents reported on the implementation and their perceptions of the effectiveness of 14 partnership activities that connected families and the community to students’ mathematics work and progress. Table 3 reports the perceived effectiveness of each mathematics partnership practice, organized by type of involvement for the sample as a whole, and compares schools that did or did not implement the activity. Three activities reportedly were used by all schools: (a) giving parents information on how to contact mathematics teachers, (b) scheduling conferences with parents of students who were struggling in mathematics, and (c) providing information about student progress and problems in mathematics on report cards. Those three common practices were rated among the most effective for helping students improve their mathematics achievement. No school in this sample reported involving families in mathematics activities with their children on Saturdays. In almost all instances, schools rated the activities as more effective if they implemented the activities. A few of those contrasts were striking. Offering families videotapes, for example, was rated as more helpful by schools that used the practice than by schools that did not (M = 2.33 vs. M = 1.83). More dramatic differences were found between schools that did and did not conduct workshops during school hours (M = 2.37 vs. M = 1.50) and that did and did not assign mathematics homework that required students to show and discuss skills with their families (M = 2.75 vs. M = 1.75). Schools may have responded cautiously about the effectiveness of activities that they did not implement. They also might have believed that the activities were difficult to implement or that they would not work with families and students in their schools. Schools differed regarding which activities they implemented for the various types of involvement, and the activities for each type varied in effectiveness. For example, evening workshops for parents (Type 1) were rated more effective than daytime workshops, perhaps because many parents worked and could not easily go to the schools during the day. Teacher-designed interactive homework and mathematics materials for families and students to use at home (Type 4) were rated more positively for boosting students’ skills than were videotapes. All of the Type 2 communication strategies were viewed as likely effective by the schools that implemented them. The innovative activity of issuing certificates to students to recognize mastery of specific mathematics skills was implemented by fewer schools than the more traditional communications, but it was rated highly by the schools that used that strategy. Schools selected different involvement activities to implement and were likely to consider their choices as more successful than activities that they did not use. That pattern of perceived effectiveness required attention and analyses for determining which activities were effective for improving students’ mathematics proficiency. 202 The Journal of Educational Research TABLE 3. Ratings of Actual and Estimated Effectiveness of Mathematics Partnership Practices Mathematics partnership practices Type 1–Parenting workshops Conduct workshops for parents on mathematics skills and expectations during the evening. Conduct workshops for parents on mathematics skills and expectations during the daytime or school hours. Type 2–Communicating Schedule individual conferences with parents of students who are failing mathematics or at risk of failing. Give families information on how to contact the mathematics teacher at school. Inform parents and students of progress and problems in mathematics on report cards. Issue certificates for students to take home that recognize mastery of new mathematics skills. Type 3–Volunteering and audience support Request parent or community volunteers to tutor students in mathematics. Invite parents and the community to assemblies for student awards for improvement in mathematics. Invite parents and the community to assemblies for student awards for excellence in mathematics. Type 4–Learning activities at home Offer parents or students mathematics game packets or lendinglibrary activities to use at home. Assign students mathematics homework that requires them to show and discuss mathematics skills with a family member. Offer videotapes on mathematics skills that families can view at school or at home. Offer students and families mathematics activities on Saturdays. Type 6–Collaborating with communitya Organize presentations for students on how mathematics is used by businesses, government, and industry. Overall M SD M Practice used by school Yes No SD n M SD n 2.50 0.52 2.63 0.52 8 2.25 0.50 4 2.08 0.79 2.37 0.52 8 1.50 1.00 4 2.65 0.49 2.65 0.49 17 0 2.62 0.50 2.62 0.50 16 0 2.59 0.80 2.75 0.45 16 0 2.36 0.67 2.75 0.50 4 2.14 0.69 7 2.59 0.71 2.57 0.76 14 2.67 0.58 3 2.50 0.53 2.67 0.58 3 2.40 0.55 5 2.36 0.50 2.43 0.53 7 2.25 0.50 4 2.64 0.50 2.75 0.46 8 2.33 0.58 3 2.50 0.73 2.75 0.45 12 1.75 0.96 4 2.00 2.00 0.70 1.07 2.33 0.58 3 0 1.83 2.00 0.75 1.07 6 8 2.00 0.67 2.67 0.52 6 2.17 0.75 6 a No mathematics involvement activities were identified that represent Type 5–decision making. Involvement Activities and Changes in Mathematics Achievement In the third research question, we asked whether mathematics-related family and community involvement activities affected measures of student mathematics achievement. We had to use longitudinal data to account for schools’ prior levels of students’ proficiency on mathematics tests, along with analyses to determine whether school level was the determining factor in explaining achievement. Bivariate correlation analyses showed strong associations between the percentage of students who scored at or above proficiency levels in mathematics in 1997 and 1998 (r = .904, p < .000). The percentage of students who were proficient in 1997, however, was not significantly associated with the change in students’ mathematics achievement test performance over the 2 school years (r = –.023, ns). The analyses confirmed that schools that scored high in 1997 tended to score high in 1998, but students’ scores indicate that all schools had room for improvement. Also, some initially low-scoring schools improved student mathematics scores over time. Given those patterns of relationships, we had to consider whether specific activities of family and community involvement affected changes in students’ performance on standardized mathematics examinations. We used analyses to explore the connections of eight specific family and community involvement activities and changes at the school level for students’ mathematics proficiency over time. The analyses included only schools that reported 2 years of achievement data and practices that were implemented by elementary and secondary schools in the 1997–1998 school year and varied in ratings of effectiveness. We conducted partial correlation analyses to examine the relationships between the implementation of the practices and changes in the percentages of students who scored at or above proficiency levels on achievement March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)] 203 TABLE 4. Partial Correlations of Mathematics Partnership Activities and Percentage of Students Scoring Satisfactorily on Mathematics Achievement Tests in 1998 Partial correlations controlling for Prior (1997) achievement School level Mathematics partnership practices Type 1–Parenting Conduct workshops for parents on mathematics skills and expectations during the evening. Conduct workshops for parents on mathematics skills and expectations during daytime or school hours. Type 2–Communicating Provide family members with information about how to contact students’ mathematics teacher. Conduct parent–teacher conferences to discuss students’ progress in mathematics. Provide families with information about students’ progress in mathematics between report cards. Type 3–Volunteering and audience support Request parent or community volunteers to tutor students in mathematics. Type 4–Learning at home Assign students mathematics homework that requires them to show and discuss mathematics skills with a family member. Offer parents or students mathematics game packets or lending-library activities to use at home. .37 .23 .17 .41 .24 .25 .26 .40 .23 .30 .35 .34 .60 .60 .59 .55 Note. Only schools that implemented partnership practice were included in these analyses (N = 7–17). Partial correlations (pr) of .5 or higher are presented in bold and considered meaningful. tests. Schools did not report using any Type 5 decisionmaking involvement activities to improve students’ mathematics skills, and too few schools using Type 6 practices, collaborating with the community activities, provided 2 years of achievement test scores. As a result, we investigated only the relationships between the implementation of four types of involvement practices and changes in students’ performance on standardized mathematics tests. Partial correlations statistically accounted for the influence of one variable (e.g., 1997 school mathematics achievement levels) to isolate the association of family involvement with improvements in 1998 school mathematics achievement. That procedure was more appropriate than ordinary least squares regression, given the small sample of schools in the study. Two sets of partial correlation analyses are shown in Table 4. The first column reports relationships between the effectiveness of family involvement practices and the percentage of students with at least satisfactory mathematics achievement scores in 1998, controlling for 1997 levels of achievement. The second column examines the same relationships, controlling for school level (elementary vs. secondary schools). The analyses indicate that only one type of involvement (Type 4—learning-at-home-activities) consistently related to improvements in students’ performance on mathematics achievement tests. After statistically accounting for schools’ prior levels of mathematics achievement, the percentage of students who attained satisfactory mathematics scores was higher in schools that more effectively assigned homework that required parent–child interactions (pr = .60) or that offered mathematics materials for families to take home (pr = .59). After statistically accounting for school level, the percentages of students with satisfactory mathematics proficiency in 1998 were associated positively with the same home-learning activities of mathematics homework that required parent–child interactions (pr = .60) and the use of mathematics materials at home (pr = .55). The reported use of those activities (a yes or no variable) was unrelated to higher percentages of students who were proficient in mathematics, whereas ratings of how well the activities were implemented were associated strongly with changes in mathematics achievement levels, even after controlling for prior levels of proficiency and school level. Discussion A diverse sample of schools provided longitudinal data on students’ mathematics achievement test scores and estimates of the effectiveness of mathematics-focused family and community involvement practices. Although many questions remain for researchers to address with larger samples of 204 schools, the exploratory analyses revealed basic facts about (a) levels of mathematics achievement in elementary and secondary schools; (b) educators’ perceptions of the efficacy of using school, family, and community partnerships to increase student achievement in mathematics; and (c) new associations of mathematics-focused family and community involvement activities and changes in students’ performance on mathematics achievement tests. Selected school characteristics were associated with levels of student mathematics achievement and patterns of change in the percentage of students who were proficient in mathematics from 1 year to the next. Large schools and high-poverty schools, most in urban areas, reported lower student mathematics achievement and poorer mathematics report card grades than did small and more affluent schools. Elementary schools reported that more students were proficient in mathematics and showed more positive changes in achievement levels over time. Although limited in size, our sample was similar to that of schools across the nation regarding mathematics achievement levels and other mathematics indicators (Braswell et al., 2001). Those patterns reinforce the need for educators to exert extra efforts to revise the mathematics curriculum, instructional approaches, quality of teaching, and family and community partnerships to improve students’ skills and test scores. Research on student transitions to middle schools has shown that declines in students’ achievement motivation beliefs (e.g., self-competence and the value of school) accompany declines in achievement (Eccles et al., 1993; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield, Eccles, Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991). Moreover, those changes have been associated with school characteristics and practices (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000). The positive effects of involving families in students’ education may suggest that fostering these types of interactions can help lessen the extent to which adolescents’ transitions into middle school coincide with their declines in motivation and achievement. Overall, school leaders for partnerships expressed high levels of confidence that family and community involvement activities can help improve student learning and achievement in mathematics. We tested the perceptions of those leaders to determine which activities were associated measurably with higher percentages of students with satisfactory levels of mathematics achievement. After accounting for prior levels of mathematics proficiency in the schools, we found that mathematics-focused, learning-athome activities consistently and positively related to improvements in the percentages of students who were proficient on mathematics achievement tests. By identifying two particular activities for Type 4 (learning at home) involvement, our results expand on prior studies that point, in general, to the importance of homelearning activities. Schools that effectively implemented activities that encouraged parents to participate with their children in home learning activities reported improved The Journal of Educational Research percentages of students who were proficient in mathematics from 1 year to the next. Activities that supported mathematics learning included (a) homework assignments that required students and parents to interact and talk about mathematics and (b) mathematics materials and resources provided for families to use at home. The relationships between implementation of these activities and mathematics achievement were strong and positive, even after we accounted for the influential variables of schools’ prior achievement or level of schooling. Respondents provided descriptions of a range of homework activities that encouraged parent–child interactions in mathematics at home. In one school, students and parents were asked to compile a list of 10 ways in which they used mathematics skills in their everyday lives. Another school systematized interactive mathematics homework by sending home weekly folders that contained mathematics activities for children and parents to complete in only 15–20 min a night. Others reported using the Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) interactive homework process (Epstein, Salinas, & Van Voorhis, 2001); Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001) in which students demonstrated mastery of new mathematics skills for their parents and then discussed the use of mathematics in everyday life. Other schools provided mathematics games and materials that families could borrow to conduct parent–child interactions at home. Our results reinforce the fact that schools must advance beyond a belief that any parent involvement activity will produce important results. We found that rather than use of an activity, the reported quality of implementation was strongly and consistently associated with changes in levels of student mathematics achievement. That finding supports and extends previous research that shows that schools need to move beyond basic steps when they develop programs of partnership in order to affect student achievement test scores (Sheldon, 2003). The results of this study support the expectation that subject-specific, family-involvement activities will likely affect student outcomes in the targeted curricular subject (Epstein, 2001; Sheldon & Epstein, 2003; Simon, 2000; Van Voorhis, 2001). If schools hope to increase student test performance in mathematics, for example, they need to strategically plan family-involvement activities that encourage and enable interactions between students and family members relevant to the mathematics curriculum. Activities that engage many families and children in discussing and conducting mathematics at home are more likely than are other involvement activities to contribute to students increasing and maintaining their mathematics skills. Prior research on family involvement in mathematics has shown that interactive mathematics homework increased family involvement (Balli et al., 1998). However, that study, which was conducted in one school with one teacher, could not link family involvement with increased mathematics achievement. The present study that we conducted with a number of elementary and secondary schools provides initial March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)] evidence that effectively implemented activities may mobilize family involvement and contribute to students’ attention to mathematics at home and to success in school. The initial results support practical guidelines that direct educators to create goal-oriented, subject-specific involvement activities to help students attain goals that are set for specific subjects (Epstein et al., 2002). Suggestions for Future Studies The implementation ratings of all of the mathematicsfocused family and community involvement activities in this study were associated positively with improved percentages of students who scored at or above proficiency in mathematics. Because of the small sample size, the relationships did not approach predetermined levels of statistical significance. Researchers need to conduct studies with larger samples of schools to test the robustness of our results with more powerful statistical analyses and to determine whether other mathematics-related family-involvement activities (such as volunteer tutors, workshops for parents on students’ mathematics skills, and communications with families about students’ progress) have measurable effects on students’ mathematics skills and scores on achievement tests. As comparisons of the mathematics skills of U.S. students with students from around the world continue to make headlines, educators in schools and in school districts will continue to examine all available resources that may improve student achievement. The data from elementary and secondary schools in this study suggest that particular mathematics-focused family and community involvement practices that engage families with learning activities at home may help more students score at satisfactory levels of mathematics achievement. Educators may attain the best results by effectively implementing activities that facilitate parent–child interactions involving mathematics and that encourage the development of mathematics skills. NOTE This research was supported by grants from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, to the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies or positions of the funding sources. REFERENCES Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373–397. Balli, S. J. (1998). When mom and dad help: Student reflections on parent involvement with homework. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31(3) 142–146. Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family involvement with children’s homework: An intervention in the middle grades. Family Relations, 47, 149–157. Bloch, M. N., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1994). Improving parent involvement as school reform: Rhetoric or reality? In K. M. Borman & N. P. Greenman (Eds.), Changing American education: Recapturing the past or inventing the future? Albany: SUNY Press. 205 Braswell, J. S., Lutkus, A. D., Griggs, W. S., Santapau, S. L., Tay-Lim, B. S.-H., & Johnson, M. S. (2001). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 2001-517). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., & Wang, N. (1997, March). Parental roles in students’ learning of mathematics: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Carey, L. (1998). Parents as math partners: A successful urban story. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 314–319. Catsambis, S. (2002). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary education: Connections with high school seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 149–177. Catsambis, S., & Beveridge, A. A. (2001). Does neighborhood matter? Family, neighborhood, and school influences on eighth grade mathematics achievement. Sociological Focus, 34, 435–457. Connected Math Project. (1995). Getting to know CMP: An introduction to the Connected Mathematics Project. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Cuevas, G., & Driscoll, M. (1993). Reaching all students with mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 11–30. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1996). Family type and children’s growth in reading and math over the primary grades. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 341–355. Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teacher practices of parent involvement. In S. Silvern (Ed.), Literacy through family, community, and school interaction (pp. 261–276). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712. Epstein J. L. (2001). School and family partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview. Epstein, J. L., Salinas, K. C., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) manuals and prototype activities for the elementary and middle grades. Baltimore, MD: Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Epstein, J. L., Simon, B. S., & Salinas, K. C. (1997, September). Involving parents in homework in the middle grades (Research Bulletin No. 18). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa /CEDR. Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 181–193. Gal, I., & Stoudt, A. (1995, September). Family achievement in mathematics. NCAL Connections. Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy, University of Pennsylvania. Gill, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational expectations and school achievement of urban African American children. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 403–424. Hall, C. W., Davis, N. B., Bolen, L. M., & Chia, R. (1999). Gender and racial differences in mathematical performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 677–689. Halle, T. G., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Mahoney, J. L. (1997). Family influences on school achievement in low-income, African-American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 527–537. Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (Eds.). (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education. Ho, E. S., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141. Holloway, S. (1986). The relationship of mothers’ beliefs to children’s mathematics achievement: Some effects of sex differences. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 32, 231–250. Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527. 206 Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P. S., & Singh, K. (1993). Does parental involvement affect eighth-grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School Psychology Review, 22, 474–496 Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 227–266. Lee, S. (1994). Family-school connections and students’ education: Continuity and change of family involvement from middle grades to high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Manise, J., Blank, R. K., & Dardine, C. (2001). State education indicators with a focus on Title I. Washington DC: Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. Mitchell, J. H., Hawkins, E. F., Jakwerth, P. M., Stancavage, F. B., & Dossey, J. A. (1999). Student work and teacher practices in mathematics (NCES 1999-453). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education/National Center for Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Highlights from TIMSS: Overview and key findings across grade levels. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Parsons, J. E., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321. Peressini, D. (1998). The portrayal of parents in the school mathematics reform literature: Locating the context for parent involvement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 555–582. Pong, S. (1997, March). Other people’s parents: The contextual impact of single-parenthood and social capital on tenth-grade achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Price, J. (1996). President’s report: Building bridges of mathematical understanding for all children. The Journal of Research in Mathematical Education, 27, 603–608. Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 443–471. Sanchez, R. P., & Baquedano, M. M. (1993, April). Curriculum of the home and mathematics achievement. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual International Roundtable on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning. Atlanta. The Journal of Educational Research Sanders, M. G. (1999). School membership in the National Network of Partnership Schools: Progress, challenges and next steps. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 220–230. Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 623–660). New York: Macmillan. Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. T. (1998). Effect of Title 1 parent involvement on student reading and mathematics achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31, 90–97. Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. The Urban Review, 35, 149–165. Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2003, April). School programs of family and community involvement in children’s reading and literacy development. Paper presented at the Developing Literacy for Students in Urban Schools: Research and Policy, International Reading Association and Urban Partnership Mini-conference, San Diego State University, CA. Simon, B. S. (2000). Predictors of high school and family partnerships and the influence of partnerships on student success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Smith, F. M., & Hausafus, C. O. (1998). Relationship of family support and ethnic minority students’ achievement in science and mathematics. Science Education, 82, 111–125. Starkey, P., & Klein, A., (2000). Fostering parental support for children’s mathematical development: An intervention with Head Start families. Early Education and Development, 11, 659–680. Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science, 231, 693–699. Stodolsky, S. S., Salk, S., & Glaessner, B. (1991). Student views about learning math and social studies. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 89–116. Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). Interactive science homework: An experiment in home and school connections. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 20–32. Westat and Policy Studies Associates. (2001) The longitudinal evaluation of school change and performance in Title I Schools, Volume 1 (Executive summary). Washington, DC: Author. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552–565.