Printer Friendly



Parental involvement has been defined as "any interaction between a parent and child that may contribute to the child's development or direct parent participation with a child's school in the interest of the child" (Reynolds, 1992). The most basic reason to involve parents in education is student success.

Parental involvement is necessary from Kindergarten through grade 12. We need to have the best schools and the best parental involvement so we can help all children. Parental involvement has been shown to play a part in fostering children's cognitive growth and academic success. Direct involvement in children's learning and availability of learning resources at home all appear to influence academic success and cognitive growth. Research says that when parents are a part of their child's education, the student is more likely to stay in school and is likely to achieve.

Parents should come to know and realize that they are important not only as parents for their children, but as a part of reform efforts in their children's and other children's schools (Cooper & Jackson, 1989). Also, increased parental involvement was associated with lower incidence of grade retention and less frequent school mobility. Involvement of parents also lowered the rates of special education placements.

Until parents appreciate their own personal influence on the education of their children, just listing instructional practices will do very little to expand parental involvement. Parents want to help, and parents want their children to succeed. If they fail to help their children develop good reading habits, it indicates that they are not convinced that their personal efforts make a difference with their children. Parental involvement helps children learn more effectively.

The Commission on Reading found that parents, not the schools, laid the foundation for a child's learning to read. This report also placed on the parents an obligation to support their children's continued growth as readers. The parents and educators were asked to cooperatively participate in creating a literate society (Anderson, 1985).

Parents have great potential; they stimulate their child's adult intelligence and lay the foundation for formal reading instruction. Extensive research demonstrates that programs of parental involvement in education significantly increase the development and achievement of children (Becher, 1982).

The reason I chose this topic for my report is during my 22 years of teaching, 14 years have been spent in the remedial department and 8 years have been spent in the regular classroom from kindergarten through ninth grade. I have taught three remedial classes: remedial reading, remedial Language Arts and remedial math. In one remedial reading class I taught a sixteen-year-old student who did not know simple Dolch words like "me," "she," "it," and "her." I have often asked myself, "What are the parents doing? Are they aware of their children's abilities? Are they helping at home at all?" This report will provide long-awaited answers to my questions.

Presently, 60% of the City of St. Louis regular classrooms K-5 are in dire need of remedial reading or special educational classes. The average classroom enrollment of the 100% black schools are 20 students to 1 teacher. I currently have four remedial reading classes of 10 students each. Each teacher could send more students, but 10 students is the maximum amount that Chapter I receives.

In my last regular classroom, a parent brought a new child in April right before the Spring SAT testing event. I asked the parent why she was moving her son so late and so close to testing time. She stated, "He was playing too much with his relatives." I gave this student an informal reading test before the standardized test to find out if he had had success or not. This second grader's results frightened me. He did not know his alphabet or the letter sounds, and he could not match the letters with appropriate pictures. After the spring test, his percentile on the national norm was .05. What was a teacher to do? I helped him in the class and sent notes home. I found out the parent was not getting my notes. I was left with two alternatives when I had only taught him one month before the end of the school year. Special education or retention was the issue. I chose retention. This devastated me because it was the first time I had to use the option. The child could have been frustrated in third grade because third grade starts interpretive reading. This means a child needs to understand what he is reading to be successful in third grade.

The parent, principal, and I conferred. The parent did not want to accept her child's retention, but the test score validated with the child's portfolio to retain him. He is in third grade now and struggling. I wonder what interventions are being implemented. Is the parent part of the solution? With parental involvement, any child can make it if it is a priority of the parent. Also, the teacher has to try every means to assist that child.

In this report, I will find out if parents and teachers working together on this effort to improve reading will make a difference.

Benefits of Parents Reading to Children

Parents reading to children is the best known, most recommended parental practice that is related to positive attitudes and reading achievement (Becher, 1983). Reading to a child increases the child's listening vocabulary, letter and symbol recognition abilities, length of spoken sentences, and many more comprehension abilities. Parents must read on a regular basis of four times a week for 8-10 minutes at a time (Henry, 1974). This will create positive attitudes and higher reading levels than for children whose parents do not read to them. Parents who have gifted children read on the average of 21 minutes a day. Children whose parents talked more during the story and whose parents initiated talks with them about books scored higher on reading achievement than did children whose parents did not do these activities (Snow, 1983).

More benefits of reading to a child are number and concepts, interest in books and reading, and the view of reading activity. Also, being read to introduces the child to a variety of language patterns and provides a basis from which the child can begin to understand and construct rules that are used in the reading process (McKay, 1981).

Parents as Role Models

If a young child sees a parent reading regularly, then reading becomes important to the child because the most important person in their world reads (Miller, 1986). Parents need to take time throughout the day to read things to themselves such as a newspaper, magazine, or a book while their child is awake. This is modeling, and it provides stimulus for the child. Attitudes should improve in an environment in which reading is positively modeled by an adult and where interesting books are read aloud (Saracho & Dayton, 1991). Children whose home experiences promote the literacy scene as a source of entertainment are likely to be motivated to read (Baker, Serpell, & Sonnenschein, 1995).

Parents' Expectations

Parents' expectations have a powerful influence on children's school performance (Alexander & Entwisle, 1996). This is not always found in single parenting studies. Children do better in school when parents have high expectations. There is a positive relationship between socioeconomic status and the expectation level of the parent. The expectation level of low socioeconomic status parents still has considerable influence (Alexander & Entwisle, 1996). Parents who expect their child to do well in school are more likely than others to provide books and academic games, to read to their child, and to take their child to the library. Families that expect their children to succeed in school usually are not disappointed.

Factors Associated with Home Environment

The home environment has a greater impact on achievement than do school-related factors. According to Neboro (1986), home environments that have negative forces working against achievement in spite of high literate surroundings were: (a) homes where there was parental conflict; (b) inconsistencies in other aspects of the child's life; and (c) ambiguous decisions. There is a correlational study done by Neuman (cited by France and Meeks, 1986) that has positive predictors of success:

1. Work habits at home given priority over other activities

2. Parental help with school work

3. Diverse leisure activities outside the home

4. High parental expectations of child's general performance and standards set for school achievement

5. Child helped to develop independence and responsibility in social situations and in tasks.

6. Parental encouragement (parents helped child relate reading to everyday events, had reading materials in the home, modeled reading behavior, and read to child)

7. The educational level of the father and mother

8. Frequency of parents reading to child before school entry

9. Frequency of visits to the public library

10. Ownership of personal library

11. Variety of print materials in home

12. Close family relationship

13. School involvement

14. Parental authority (clear and regular standards with rules for child's behavior)

Younger children in Grades 2-4 are more likely to make greater achievement gains in math and reading than children in upper grades (Grades 5-8). Children of parents who are more directive and authoritative in their teaching are more likely to have youngsters entering school who have better-developed memory skills (Price, Hess, & Dickerson, 1981).

Single Parents

Children from single-parent homes repeat grades more often, drop out of school earlier, and generally do not perform as well in school as children from two-parent families (McLanahan & Sandefor, 1994). Grade retention in 1988 was between 40% and 75% higher for children of single mothers than for children living with both birth parents (Dawson, 1991).

One-half of the single-parent problems in school are due to economic deprivation. Fathers are important as a role model for boys. In 1990, 50% of children in the United States lived with one parent. Children from single-parent homes get lower marks across the board than do children from two-parent homes (Shinn, 1978).

Emergent Literacy

Emergent literacy refers to young children's reading and writing development. As early as preschool, gender differences have been observed in reading interest. There is considerable correlational evidence that participation in early intervention is associated with early cognitive achievement (White, 1985). Direct parent involvement in preschool intervention is expected to enhance parent-child interactions as well as attachment to school. This also promotes school readiness (Comer, 1988). Preschool participation affects later school competence outcomes.

Parental involvement has a profound effect on the education of children, and it has been extensively documented over the past sixty years. Even as early as 1936 (Becker, 1936), it was found that the love of reading was instilled by recitation of nursery rhymes at the cradle. Many additional studies (Duff, 1944; Larrick, 1958) have supported the early findings that parents play an important role in their child's success. They play a critical role because they are their child's first teachers.

Educators recognize that there is significant improvement in a child's reading readiness upon entering school and successful reading experiences in school are more prevalent when parents regularly read to their child when the child is very young. The 1985 Commission on Reading Report, Becoming a Nation of Readers (Anderson, 1985) found that the single most important home activity for building knowledge required for success in reading is reading aloud to children.

A primary goal of early childhood education is the development of strong reading skills. Even before a child begins school, the types of reading experiences children encounter enhances their reading skill development during the elementary school years. It has been proven that 20 minutes a day of uninterrupted reading time builds a positive attitude toward books and reading.

Intimacy While Reading

Reading aloud to children establishes closeness. Children experience much enjoyment when parents show that a book is a wonderful thing by reading one to them. Even if the child cannot understand the story, the child experiences the intimacy of sharing a book with a loved parent. When parents and their child read, the child receives undivided attention and affection from their mom or dad for a few minutes a day. Besides getting the much needed reading practice, the children have a model of a fluent reader (the parent), and they experience reading in a warm, encouraging environment. Research has shown that children reading 5 to 15 minutes a day made significant gains in fluency and comprehension. Also, high reading scores come from homes where there is a wide range of reading material available (Teal, 1978).

Parents' Income

After a two year intensive investigation, the National Commission of Children stated that the United States has experienced a decline in academics. This report indicated that 40% of our nation's children are at risk for academic failure (Committee for Economic Development, 1987). Poverty is one of the variables associated with academic failure. Children from working class families generally performed at below average levels in reading tests than did children from families with a higher socioeconomic status. They are more frequently targeted for assistance in reading (Tizard, Schofield, & Hewison, 1982). Socioeconomic status has consistently been related to school success.

Some research suggests that resources such as trips to the library, learning-based television programs, learning packets provided to families by schools, and a quiet place to study are linked to high school achievement. Regarding socioeconomic status (SES), researchers caution that income level and attitude links are due to differences in environment rather than to income level. Higher SES adults do tend to have more positive attitudes towards literacy than those from lower SES backgrounds. In adults, females tend to report more positive attitudes towards literacy than do males (Smith, 1990). Studies show that what a parent does in the home is a more sure predictor of interest than income.

The National Center for Educational Statistics (1993) reports that children whose parents lacked a high school diploma were twice as likely to live in poverty than were children whose parents were high school graduates. They were seven and a half times more likely to live in poverty than children of parents whose parents received more than a high school education. Thus, children of low-income homes are more likely to do poorly in school and are less likely to graduate.

The underperformance of low-income children in early grades increases the probability that they, like their parents, will drop out of school. In 1991, the dropout rate among children of low-income families was twice that of middle income families and 10 times that of high income families.

Two Kinds of Parental Involvement in Reading

There are two kinds of parental involvement in reading. The first kind is surface involvement, which consists of parents coming to school to run off dittos, cataloging books, or monitoring children in the cafeteria. The second kind of involvement is meaningful involvement. This consists of parents working directly with children (under a teacher's supervision) in reinforcing important reading skills. Parents are a resource that must be tapped to the fullest. They do not replace teachers, but they help fill in the gaps created by staff cutbacks. Parents can be used in a variety of meaningful ways in reading programs (Criscuolo, 1984).

Barriers to Parental Involvement


Some parents and educators experience difficulty working together. Parents are viewed as outsiders. They are also perceived as lacking basic skills. Educators have the training but are reluctant in sharing their positions with parents. In recent years, parents have become passive with teachers about their children's behavior and assignments. Fewer parents are seen in schools as volunteers. Thus, there are fewer amounts of parent and child interaction in the home (Motsinger, 1990).

Racial Tension

Race is another bias that governs some classes. Epstein (1985) studied 94 elementary schools and the effects of desegregation. She reported that: (a) positive attitudes displayed toward integration influences teachers' selection of grouping practices that promote student interaction, and (b) less resegregative classroom structures are more advantageous for black students' achievement (Epstein, 1985).


The research also revealed the traditional African-American extended-family involvement in child rearing is prevalent in today's culture. Several schools were left with a large number of poor students because many middle class families move to the suburbs (Motsinger, 1990). Researchers agree that economic isolation and poverty will accelerate in years to come (Edwards & Young, 1992; Banks, 1993). When the black middle class moves out of the urban environment, a group of "under-class" becomes the primary dwellers. This group contributes to the crime, violence, drug addiction, poor housing, homelessness, and welfare dependency. Feelings of resentment may be expressed to friends, family, and researchers (Ascher, 1988). These feelings could account for a reluctance to seek help from educational institutions (Ascher, 1988). "Many families, particularly poor ones, find it difficult to `join' an organization that is dominated by middle-class norms" (Cooper & Jackson, 1989, p. 266). Institutions are experiencing difficulties when they try to contact the child's caretaker (Ascher, 1988).

Poorer parents often recall many negative experiences in their school-related activities (Edwards & Young, 1992). Young mothers may not have had extensive stimulating experiences in school if they were recent dropouts (Lewis, 1992). Low-income students and students of color seem to represent the numbers who receive a poor education (Bank, 1993).


Since English is not the native language of some subgroups, communication is difficult between parents and school personnel (Tran, 1982). A compounded problem exists when the dominant language in the home conflicts with assignments in English. Frustration also exists because the school work is not accompanied by directions or explanatory material (Finders & Lewis, 1994). Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) special needs for parents and children is a group or team of school personnel that helps bilingual families understand school practices and opportunities for their youngsters.

Teachers' Input to Parents That Promotes Reading Achievement

Teachers who were very specific in their requests of students, such as asking questions following each story read, promoted reading achievement. Teachers can provide information to parents such as a resource list or guide and can state the purposes of homework to parents. Teachers who are successful at involving parents in their children's classwork are successful because they work at it.

School Involvement

Parents who attend school meetings or conferences and interact with school personnel are likely to have children who demonstrate higher levels of achievement at school than children of parents who fail to participate in their child's school system. Parents of Title I children often experience a more negative overall school experience. Parents of these children are less likely to involve themselves in parent activities (Greenwood & Miller, 1995). Parents of remedial students have often personally experienced learning problems in school. These parents have already developed a personal negative association with the school experience and are less likely to become involved.

Schools should focus on educating children and their families through parent involvement programs and training parents to teach. When parents become more knowledgeable about their child's learning, the child benefits. Parents who receive direct instruction in teaching reading skills to their children can help their children learn at home even if the parents themselves have poor reading backgrounds (Brzeinski, 1964). More recent studies (Leach & Siddall, 1990; Wilks & Clarke, 1988) have shown that increases in rates of reading progress can be expected if parents are taught more precise instructional methods that go beyond practice, interest and reinforcements. In order for parents to contribute optimally, they should be consistently included on the list of factors characterizing effective schools (Motsinger, 1990).

Parents should learn some techniques for reading with their children. Wilks and Clarke (1988) did a study on parents' role of helping their child read better. Forty-two mothers of low ability readers were placed in one of three groups: a trained group, an encouraged group, and a control group. The trained group received one hour each week for four weeks of training in reading skills on how to select the appropriate correction procedures. The encouraged group learned reading skills and how to select the right book. The control group received no training. All were tested. The trained group made more significant gains than the other two groups. This proves again that parents with specific training helped their children make significant gains in reading skills. Parents are more helpful tutors if they have specific guidelines to follow when reading to their children.

Research Study

My study was done in Spring 1999 in a St. Louis City public school. The population of the school is 650 students. The grades taught are Kindergarten to fifth grade. The school is 100% black. Ninety-five percent of the students receive federally funded free breakfasts and lunches. Only 20 students in the entire school pay for or receive reduced-cost meals. The mean income of the families is $10,000-$15,000 per year. Sixty percent of the students are in Chapter I remedial reading or math classes. Fifteen percent of the student body receive special education assistance.

The study includes 30 second graders who are in a Chapter I remedial reading program. They are in four different classrooms in groups of 7-9 students per class. They receive 45 minutes a day of reading assistance. The study is done in six weeks. This study is to test whether parent intervention makes a difference in reading achievement. The students were first tested (pre-test) in vocabulary and comprehension.

Test Data

During the first week of the study, the Gates-MacGinitie reading test was given to establish a basal score for the students to find out if parent involvement actually does help. This test has vocabulary and reading comprehension items. Form K-Level 2 was given.

The test was given in two days. The vocabulary test was given first, the comprehension test given the following day. The results are as follows:
Pre-Test Scores for the Vocabulary Subtest
 Average Raw Score: 16.9 out of 45
 Average NCE: 5
 Average Percentile: 2
 Average Grade Equivalent: 1.2

Pre-Test Scores for the Comprehension Subtest
 Average Raw Score: 25 out of 46
 Average NCE: 15
 Average Percentile: 06
 Average Grade Equivalent: 1.5

Appendix A displays the second graders' results. The results indicate the students' comprehension mean was 1.5 or Grade Equivalent of a first grader in the month of February. This is the group's relative strength even though it is one year and one month below the expected grade level of 2.6 (second grade in the sixth month of the school year). Vocabulary is their apparent area of weakness with a mean of 1.2.

The results indicate the instructors are working much harder on comprehension skills and that the students are making improvements in comprehension. However, vocabulary will need additional practice along with phonics and spelling to enhance vocabulary. Both subjects will be worked on during this study for the next six weeks.

During the first week of preliminaries, a letter was written to parents explaining a request for their assistance for one evening per week of reading for six weeks (see Appendix B). Next, a parent questionnaire was given over the phone. Its purpose was to query each parent's attitude and their child's attitude towards reading (see Appendix C). The students were also given an Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (see Appendix D). The results are presented in Appendix E.

Parents' Questionnaire

A questionnaire was created to find out the parents' ideas about the importance of reading and their child's reading in the home. The questions were asked over the telephone (see Appendix C). The questions were answered in six to seven hours over the span of four days. It was done for three hours for two days and for one hour for one day. The parents were pretty impressive about their feelings concerning reading and about their child's ability to read. Out of the 24 parents interviewed, 22 were mothers, 1 was a father, and 1 was a stepfather. Originally, 30 students were in the study, but only 24 parents were actually queried. The six who were not queried did not have telephones or gave wrong numbers.

The results of the questionnaire are as follows:

1. How important is reading to you? 1 -- Very Low 2 -- Average 3 -- Very High

95% of the parents felt reading is very highly important.

2. How often does your child read books, magazines or any printed material when they're alone? --

33% of the children were actually seen reading books, magazines, or any printed form of material every day.

3. How often in a week do you read to your child? --

16% of the parents were actually reading to their child every day.

4. What kinds of books does your child read? Fairy tales, fiction, science fiction, or nonfiction

67% of the children favored fairy tales books to read.

5. What is the most important reason you read? Employment, learning, necessity, information, or recreation

71% of the parents read for recreation.

6. How often do you read in front of your child?

58% of those parents read every day (good role models).

7. What does your child do that shows their interest in reading? Or non interest?

33% of the parents said children asked parent questions about words in books.

30% of the parents said children read road signs or billboards.

17% of the parents said children read to other siblings.

16% of the parents said children read the newspaper.

8. What type of books do you read?

42% of the parents read romance novels.

33% of the parents read magazines.

16% of the parents read inspirational books.

8% of the parents read fiction books.

9. Does your child like to be read to? If so, how often?

83.3% of the children love to be read to.

16.7% of the children did not want to be read to.

10. When you read to your child, do you ask questions?

75% of the parents asked questions when reading to their children.

25% of the parents do not ask questions when reading to their children.


The majority of parents felt reading was important. They read for enjoyment, and over 50% were good role models by reading in front of their children. However, only 16% of parents actually read to their child on a daily basis. Not enough of the subjects were being exposed to written materials every day at home. There was not enough parent involvement at home. All parents (100%) were cognizant of their child's book choice. Yet, only 33% saw their child read every day alone.

Parents reported all children are interacting with written material such as street signs, billboards, TV, newspapers, etc. with their parents daily, but this was due to the prompting of the children asking their parents questions. Thirty-three percent of the children asked questions about words that were unknown. Yet only 16% of parents voluntarily read to their child every day.

Elementary Reading Attitude Survey

An Elementary Reading Attitude Survey was given (see Appendix D). This survey is a normed interpretation of an elementary student's attitude towards reading. All 30 students of the study were surveyed. The results of the scores are shown in Appendix E.

Results were 30% of the students' internal consistency measured above grade level which meant their reliability was not stable. Therefore, there could have been some untrue answers that could have been inflated. Two out of three or 67% of the students were below the mean of 30 on the recreational subtest with the average raw score being 28.0. The average raw score for the academics subtest was 29.5. The average total raw score was 57.5. This means the class was slightly below average which indicates that they do not read for recreation. This is due to the subjects used being in a Chapter I remedial reading class. They were experiencing decoding difficulties and familiarity with reading. This second grade class felt positive about reading despite their difficulties with word attack skills.

Daily Practice in Reading Class

Student classwork was geared toward their areas of concern: vocabulary and silent reading comprehension. In class, the students had direct teaching every day before, during, and after the study. In class (remedial reading), the students had 15 minutes of phonics or word attack, 15 minutes of oral reading with discussion, and 15 minutes of silent reading with discussion.

Students were praised and rewarded with stickers and candy for excellent oral or silent reading. Excellent meant missing no more than two words or answers. Once a week each class received reading twice a day. Each student was taught on their individual level in phonics. All students were assessed on recognition of alphabets and their sounds. The progress on was from initial sounds to final consonant sounds, then to vowels (short and long sounds), then to consonant blends and consonant digraphs, then finally to vowel digraphs. Students passed only at 80% to 90% accuracy with an informal test. Phonics was given to assist spelling and pronunciation of words. Oral reading was given to assess fluency. Silent reading was given to assess comprehension.


The students did poorly on the vocabulary subtest due to their inability to recognize pictures. They did poorly on initial sounds initially not because they did not recognize the alphabet sounds, but because they did not know pictures such as a goat, sheep, stool, pipe, sled, spear, smock, and most general objects we take for granted. This was a clear example of lack of exposure to information in books or a lack of parent involvement or assistance from a parent reading, explaining, and discussing items in books.

Once a week, a spelling quiz was given. Eighty to ninety percent of the students in the study passed with 90 to 100% correct. Vocabulary words were pronounced, and games were played to guess their meanings. Once a week, a silent reading comprehension sheet was given. The results were as follows:

Inferences (Comprehension excercises)
Sheet//5 Week 1 Class average 48%
Sheet//4 Week 2 Class average 56%
Sheet #2 Week 3 Class average 64%
Sheet #1 Week 4 Class average 64%
Sheet #7 Week 5 Class average 67%
Five week average = 59%

During week 6, post testing of the Gates-MacGinitie test was administered (see Appendix F). Results are as follows:
Post-Test Scores for the Vocabulary Subtest

Average Raw Score: 20 out of 45
Average NCE: 09
Average Percentile: 03
Average Grade Equivalent: 1.3

Post-Test Scores for the Comprehension Subtest

Average Raw Score: 28.7 out of 46
Average NCE: 19
Average Percentile: 09
Average Grade Equivalent: 1.6

The students increased on vocabulary and reading comprehension. Eighty-five percent improved in vocabulary, and 90% improved in reading comprehension. It was due to the students' hard work, praise, encouragement, and the improvement of the students. The students gained 4 points on NCE, 1 point on the percentile, and 1 month on their grade equivalent for vocabulary. The gained 4 points on NCE, 3 points on the percentile and 1 month on their grade equivalent for reading comprehension.

Seventy-five percent of the parents did not participate. The students improved despite the fact that they did not get assistance from their parents. The students improved on oral reading. They read from their 2nd grade basals with an 80% accuracy. Every day 15 to 20 minutes of oral or silent reading was done. The students performed excellently. Parental involvement is still important even though achievement happened.

Parent Involvement Research Results

The following are the results of the six weeks of parent involvement. They started out with good intentions. For Week 1, 100% of students read to their parents. The reason was because the books were supplied by the school. For Week 2, parents were to take their child to the library. Five out of 30 students went. Therefore, 1/6 of the children actually received library cards and actually got a book from the library. Two of the second graders brought books from home to try to fool the teacher. (The books did not have library stamps on them.)

For Week 3, only one child read a recipe with his parent. He brought a whole recipe of cookies to share with the class. For Week 4, students were to read a list of words every night until they were proficient. No one knew all the words.

Due to the above number of activities which were not attempted, the researcher did not attempt to do Week 5 and Week 6 activities. Week 5 would have been parent and child were to read a book together, and Week 6 would have been a tape of the student reading a book.


Parent involvement is a necessary part of the education process before and during the 18 years of school and the years prior to enrollment of school. Education is a middle income concept. It is going to take money and time to invest to this worthy cause if the desire is there and if barriers do not impede the necessary steps along the way. If problems arise in the family, survival becomes more important than improvement of the mind. Until there are solutions to family crises such as poverty and welfare, reading difficulties will be ever before us.

So, whether rich or poor, two-parent or one-parent, families can provide a rich learning environment for children. By having this rich, stable environment, school success begins at home. There is a direct relationship between parent behaviors at home regardless of socioeconomic status of the family and student reading achievement (Wentzel, 1994; Williams, 1994).



Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. (1996). Family type and children's growth in reading and math over the primary grades. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 341-355.

Anglum, B., & Bell, M. L. (1990). Prediction of elementary student reading achievement from specific home environment variables. Reading Improvement, 27, 173-184.

Baker, L. (1097). Home and family influences motivation for reading. The Elementary Journal, 99, 69-80.

Baker, L., & Scher, D. (1994). Attitude toward reading and children's home literacy environments. (Report No. PS 024 570). University of Maryland, Baltimore County (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 767).

Caperelli, B. J., Kee, C., & Neuman, S. B. (1998). Literacy learning: A family matter. The Reading Teacher, 52, 224-251.

Cole, M. C. (1990). Parental involvement programs: The perception of teachers and parents toward reading success. (Report No. TM 015 845). New Orleans, LA: Mid-South Educational Research Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 551).

Come, B., & Fredericks, A. D. (1995). Family literacy in urban schools: Meeting the needs of at-risk children. The Reading Teacher, 48, 566-570.

Criscuolo, N. (1984). Parent involvement in reading: Surface or meaningful. Childhood Education, 3, 181-184.

Edwards, S. L. (1995). The effect of parent involvement in elementary urban schools. (Report No. UD 031 143). Saint Mary's University of Minnesota: Administrative Licensure Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398 331).

Fox, B., & Wright, M. (1997). Connecting school through cross-age reading. The Reading Teacher, 50, 396-403.

Fredricks, A. (1990). Working with parents -- involving parents in the assessment process. The Reading Teacher, 44, 346-347.

Fredricks, A. D., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). The Akron paired reading project. The Reading Teacher, 7, 514-515.

Fritton, L., & Gredler, G. (1996). Parental involvement in reading remediation with young children. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 325-332.

Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environment to parent involvement in elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 53-65.

King, R. E., & Spillman, R. E. (1996). Consequences of family literacy for adults and children: Some preliminary findings. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 558-565.

Lautenschlager, J. (1984). Inexpensive, worthwhile, educational: Parents reading to children. The Reading Teacher, 38, 18-20.

Mehran, M. & White, K. (1988). Parents tutoring as a supplement to compensatory education for 1st grade children. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 35-41.

Moore, S. A., & Moore, D. W. (1990). Emergent literacy: Children, parents and teachers together. The Reading Teacher, 38, 18-20.

Reynolds, A. J. (1996). Cognitive and family-support mediators of pre school effectiveness: A confirmatory analysis. Child Development, 67, 1119-1140.

Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. F. (1998). Effect of Title I parent involvement on student reading and mathematics and achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education 37, 90-97.

Shuttleworth, D. (1986). Parents as partners. Education Canada, 26, 41-43.

Silvern, S. (1985). Parent involvement: A review of research and implications for practice. Childhood Education, 62, 44-50.

Smith, C. B. (1990). Involving parents in reading development. Reading Teacher, 43, 332.

Solo, L. (1997). School success begins at home. Education Psychologist, 32, 29-30.

Voza, J. (1984). A comparison of reading scores of children from one-parent and two-parent families (Report No. CS 007 615). Kean College of New Jersey (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 243 097).

Appendix A
Gates MacGinitie Pre-Test Scores, February 12, 1999


Name Raw NCE Percentile Grade Eq
Bailey, T. 12 01 01 1.0
Battle, T. 15 01 01 1.2
Bronner, A. 17 01 01 1.3
Bradford, T. 12 01 01 1.0
Burns, A. 18 04 02 1.3
Burns, J. 19 07 02 1.3
Campbell, D. 14 01 01 1.1
Coleman, C. 17 01 01 1.3
Crutcher, D. 24 14 04 1.5
Cutts, T. 15 01 01 1.2
Evans, W. 13 01 01 1.0
Glenn, D. 14 01 01 1.1
Gordon, J. 20 09 03 1.4
Granberry, T. 19 07 02 1.3
Gray, M. 15 01 01 1.2
Harris, C. 24 14 04 1.5
Hendrix, T. 19 07 02 1.3
Holiday, A. 19 07 02 1.3
Kitchen, C. 18 04 02 1.3
McCurry, R. 19 07 02 1.3
Murphy, R. 19 07 02 1.3
Oden, C. 14 01 01 1.1
Reed, T. 17 01 01 1.3
Simmons, D. 18 04 02 1.3
Washington, T. 10 01 01 K
Williams, C. 16 01 01 1.2
Williams, K. 22 12 03 1.4
Williams, R. 18 04 02 1.3
Williford, J. 14 01 01 1.1
Williford, T. 17 01 01 1.3


Name Raw NCE Percentile Grade Eq
Bailey, T. 16 01 01 1.2
Battle, T. 32 27 14 1.7
Bronner, A. 17 01 01 1.2
Bradford, T. 12 01 01 K
Burns, A. 31 23 10 1.7
Burns, J. 29 20 08 1.6
Campbell, D. 30 21 09 1.6
Coleman, C. 25 15 05 1.5
Crutcher, D. 36 28 15 1.8
Cutts, T. 28 19 07 1.6
Evans, W. 13 01 01 1.0
Glenn, D. 24 13 04 1.5
Gordon, J. 27 17 06 1.6
Granberry, T. 25 15 05 1.5
Gray, M. 15 01 01 1.1
Harris, C. 26 16 05 1.6
Hendrix, T. 29 20 08 1.6
Holiday, A. 21 09 03 1.4
Kitchen, C. 21 09 03 1.4
McCurry, R. 31 23 10 1.7
Murphy, R. 25 15 05 1.5
Oden, C. 25 15 05 1.5
Reed, T. 32 24 11 1.7
Simmons, D. 26 16 05 1.6
Washington, T. 16 01 01 1.2
Williams, C. 19 07 02 1.3
Williams, K. 31 23 10 1.7
Williams, R. 33 25 12 1.7
Williford, J. 28 19 07 1.6
Williford, T. 28 19 07 1.6

Vocabulary Average Raw Score - 16.9
Vocabulary Average NCE - 05
Vocabulary Average Percentile - 02
Vocabulary Average Grade Equivalent - 1.2

Reading Comprehension Average Raw Score - 25
Reading Comprehension Average NCE - 15
Reading Comprehension Average Percentile - 06
Reading Comprehension Average Grade Equivalent - 1.5

Appendix B

Letter to Parents

March 1, 1999

Dear Parent,

You and your child -- have been chosen to be in a study to prove that with Parent Involvement children can improve in reading.

For the next 6 weeks I will give you and your child (1) reading assignment to do together. If your Child completes all (6) reading assignments with reading improvement he/or she will win a prize.

This is the assignment

(During the six week study a word list will be reviewed every night)

1. The 1st week = The student will read a book to his/her parent. (parent please write down all words your child misses and send them back to school the next day)

2. The 2nd week = Go visit a library and get a library card and check out a book or books.

3. The 3rd week = Make your favorite cookies by reading a recipe together. (make sure it has words)

4. The 4th week = Review word list.

5. The 5th week = Read a book together -- Parent reads the first page then the child reads the next page and so on.

6. The 6th week = Tape record your child reading his favorite book.

Appendix C

Parent Questionnaire

Date --

Parent's name --

Child's name --

1. How much importance is reading to you? 1 - Very Low 2 - Average 3 - Very High

2. How often does your child read books, magazines or any printed material when they're alone? --

3. How often in a week do you read to your child? --

4. What kinds of books does your child read? Fairy tales, fiction, science fiction, or nonfiction

5. What is the most important reason you read? Employment, learning, necessity, information, or recreation

6. How often do you read in front of your child?

7. What does your child do that shows their interest in reading? Or non interest?

8. What type of books do you read?

9. Does your child like to be read to? If so, how often?

10. When you read to your child, do you ask questions?

11. Is there anything you do that I can do in my class to help your child?

Appendix D

School -- Grade -- Name --

1. How do you feel when you read a book on a rainy Saturday?


2. How do you feel when you read a book in school during free time?


3. How do you feel about reading for fun at home?


4. How do you feel about getting a book for a present?


5. How do you feel about spending free time reading?


6. How do you feel about starting a new book?


7. How do you feel about reading during summer vacation?


8. How do you feel about reading instead of playing?


9. How do you feel about going to a bookstore?


10. How do you feel about reading different kinds of books?


11. How do you feel when the teacher asks you questions about what you read?


12. How do you feel about doing reading workbook pages and worksheets?


13. How do you feel about reading in school?


14. How do you feel about reading your school books?


15. How do you feel about learning from a book?


16. How do you feel when it's time for reading class?


17. How do you feel about the stories you read in reading class?


18. How do you feel when you read out loud in class?


19. How do you feel about using a dictionary?


20. How do you feel about taking a reading test?


Appendix E
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey

Name Rec. Academic Full Rec. Academic Full
Bailey, T. 28 30 58 37 46 47
Battle, T. 21 28 49 06 46 20
Bronner, A. 38 37 75 92 89 92
Bradford, T. 26 24 50 25 27 23
Burns, A. 25 23 48 20 23 18
Burns, J. 24 28 52 18 46 29
Campbell, D. 28 25 53 37 32 32
Coleman, C. 29 36 65 44 85 69
Crutcher, D. 23 29 52 11 57 29
Cutts, T. 25 28 53 20 44 32
Evans, W. 30 32 62 50 67 60
Glenn, D. 26 23 49 25 23 20
Gordon, J. 34 37 71 74 89 84
Granberry, T. 30 30 60 50 57 54
Gray, M. 28 29 57 37 51 45
Harris, C. 29 37 66 44 89 71
Hendrix, T. 25 26 51 20 37 26
Holiday, A. 32 29 61 62 51 57
Kitchen, C. 31 31 62 54 62 60
McCurry, R. 22 23 45 11 23 11
Murphy, R. 37 39 76 88 99 93
Oden, C. 33 34 67 68 78 71
Reed, T. 22 32 54 9 67 35
Simmons, D. 27 27 54 31 41 35
Washington, T. 26 23 49 25 23 20
Williams, C. 27 25 52 31 32 29
Williams, K. 28 36 64 37 85 66
Williams, R. 23 29 52 11 51 29
Williford, J. 31 24 55 54 27 38
Williford, T 31 31 62 54 62 60

Recreation Average Raw Score - 28.0
Academic Average Raw Score - 29.5
Full Scale Average Raw Score - 57.5

Appendix F

Gates MacGinitie Post-Test Scores, April 1, 1999

Name Raw NCE Percentile Grade Eq
Bailey, T. 15 01 01 1.2
Battle, T. 18 04 02 1.3
Bronner, A. 19 07 02 1.3
Bradford, T. 16 01 01 1.2
Burns, A. 15 01 01 1.2
Burns, J. 20 09 03 1.4
Campbell, D. 18 04 02 1.3
Coleman, C. 18 04 02 1.3
Crutcher, D. 22 12 03 1.4
Cutts, T. 27 19 07 1.6
Evans, W. 17 01 01 1.3
Glenn, D. 18 04 02 1.3
Gordon, J. 26 17 06 1.5
Granberry, T. 22 12 03 1.4
Gray, M. 16 01 01 1.2
Harris, C. 20 09 03 1.4
Hendrix, T. 21 10 03 1.4
Holiday, A. 24 14 04 1.5
Kitchen, C. 7 01 01 K
McCurry, R. 24 14 04 1.5
Murphy, R. 17 01 01 1.3
Oden, C. 15 01 01 1.2
Reed, T. 23 12 04 1.5
Simmons, D. 27 19 07 1.6
Washington, T. 13 01 01 1.1
Williams, C. 25 15 05 1.5
Williams, K. 28 20 08 1.6
Williams, R. 34 30 17 1.9
Williford, J. 22 12 03 1.4
Williford, T. 22 12 03 1.4


Name Raw NCE Percentile Grade Eq
Bailey, T. 22 12 03 1.4
Battle, T. 31 23 10 1.7
Bronner, A. 23 12 04 1.5
Bradford, T. 20 05 02 1.4
Burns, A. 31 23 10 1.7
Burns, J. 33 25 12 1.7
Campbell, D. 33 25 12 1.7
Coleman, C. 32 24 11 1.7
Crutcher, D. 39 35 24 2.1
Cutts, T. 30 21 09 1.6
Evans, W. 14 01 01 1.1
Glenn, D. 25 15 05 1.5
Gordon, J. 31 23 10 1.7
Granberry, T. 28 19 07 1.6
Gray, M. 18 01 01 1.3
Harris, C. 32 24 11 1.7
Hendrix, T. 34 26 13 1.7
Holiday, A. 33 25 12 1.7
Kitchen, C. 24 13 04 1.5
McCurry, R. 33 25 12 1.7
Murphy, R. 27 17 06 1.6
Oden, C. 28 19 07 1.6
Reed, T. 36 29 16 1.9
Simmons, D. 34 24 13 1.7
Washington, T. 18 01 01 1.3
Williams, C. 21 09 03 1.4
Williams, K. 31 23 10 1.7
Williams, R. 38 33 21 2.0
Williford, J. 32 24 11 1.7
Williford, T. 29 20 08 1.6

Vocabulary Average Raw Score - 20
Vocabulary Average NCE - 09
Vocabulary Average Percentile - 03
Vocabulary Average Grade Equivalent - 1.3

Reading Comprehension Average Raw Score - 28.7
Reading Comprehension Average NCE - 19
Reading Comprehension Average Percentile - 09
Reading Comprehension Average Grade Equivalent - 1.6
COPYRIGHT 2000 Project Innovation (Alabama)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2000 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Reading Improvement
Article Type:Statistical Data Included
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2000

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters