Family Discussion Post

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20

The Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0022-0671 (Print) 1940-0675 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Parental involvement in education during middle school: Perspectives of ethnically diverse parents, teachers, and students

Nancy E. Hill, Dawn P. Witherspoon & Deborah Bartz

To cite this article: Nancy E. Hill, Dawn P. Witherspoon & Deborah Bartz (2018) Parental involvement in education during middle school: Perspectives of ethnically diverse parents, teachers, and students, The Journal of Educational Research, 111:1, 12-27, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2016.1190910

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1190910

Published online: 23 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4634

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Parental involvement in education during middle school: Perspectives of ethnically diverse parents, teachers, and students

Nancy E. Hilla, Dawn P. Witherspoonb, and Deborah Bartza

aGraduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; bDepartment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 2 December 2014 Revised 12 February 2016 Accepted 8 April 2016

ABSTRACT Maintaining productive partnerships between families and schools is more complex when youth enter middle school. A systematic and inclusive understanding of the strategies parents use, youth want and need, and teachers’ desire is needed to broaden our conceptualization and deepen our understanding of parental involvement in education. The authors captured the voices of 3 primary stakeholders in education (i.e., parents, teachers, and students) to identify the goals for parental involvement in education, identify consistencies across stakeholders in the conceptualizations of parental involvement in education, and deepen our understanding of the types of involvement that matter for adolescents. The study used grounded-theory analysis of 20 focus groups, with ethnically diverse parents, youth, and teachers (N D 150), along with quantitative indicators of involvement and interactions with schools. From these analyses scaffolding independence, linking education to future success, and communication emerged as the most consistent strategies for promoting achievement. Conceptualizations of home-based involvement were broadened. Ethnic variations in the general experiences of families at school were highlighted.

KEYWORDS Ethnicity; family–school relationships; middle school achievement; parent participation

Parents and other primary caregivers are expected to play an increasing role in their children’s education and teachers are implored to develop partnerships with families and to increase families’ involvement in education (Christenson & Reschly, 2009; Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). Maintaining productive partner- ships is made more complex when youth enter middle school and adolescence—a time when youth are pulling away from parents and developing their own identities (Laursen & Collins, 2009), schools become more complex bureaucratically (Eccles & Harold, 1996; Hill & Chao, 2009), and trust between schools and families declines (Adams & Christenson, 2000; Stone, 2003). Although the research on family–school engagement and parental involvement in education has increased exponen- tially over the last two to three decades and many types of parental involvement are shown to be associated with improved school behavior, mental health, and achievement (X. Fan & Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2003, 2007; Jeynes, 2012; Wang, Hill, & Hofkens, 2014), there remains a need for research to expand our conceptualizations especially as they apply to middle school (Hill, 2009; Hill & Chao, 2009; Jeynes, 2011; Yan & Lin, 2005). In order for families to remain productively involved in their youths’ education beyond elementary school and for schools to develop effective partnerships with families from diverse back- grounds, current frameworks need to be broadened develop- mentally and ethnically (Toren, 2013). The current study captures the voices of three primary stakeholders in education (i.e., parents, teachers, and students) using qualitative methods, supported by quantitative indicators, to identify the goals and

contexts for parental involvement in education, identify consis- tencies across stakeholders in the conceptualizations of parental involvement in education, and deepen our understanding of the types of involvement that matter for adolescents.

Many definitions have been proffered for parental involve- ment in education and family–school relationships. More gen- erally, it has been defined as parents’ work with schools and with their children to benefit educational outcomes and future success (Hill, et al., 2004) and a commitment of family resour- ces to support academic development (Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007). It often reflects activities at home and at school to support children’s achievement (Epstein, 1987; Epstein & Sanders, 2002; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Kuperminc, Dar- nell, & Alvarez-Jimenez, 2008). Home-based involvement often includes motivational activities such as supporting children and setting standards or expectations, socializing children in school behaviors, and cognitive activities such as specifically training children to read and solve mathematics problems (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Toren, 2013). School-based involvement often includes volunteering at school, involvement in school governance, helping with afterschool and extracurric- ular activities, and communication (e.g., parent-teacher confer- ences & newsletters; Epstein & Sanders, 2002; Pomerantz et al., 2007; Toren, 2013). Whereas school-based involvement often encompasses communication, given the central importance of information sharing, it is possible that communication should be considered and conceptualized separately (Hill, 2015). Whereas some home-based and school-based involvement may

CONTACT Nancy E. Hill [email protected] Harvard University, Graduate School of Education, 14 Appian Way, Larsen Hall, Room 703, Cambridge, MA 02155. © 2018 Taylor & Francis

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 2018, VOL. 111, NO. 1, 12–27 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1190910

be centralized in one locale or the other, communication and information inherently bridges the two domains.

Beyond school-and home-based involvement, parental involvement also takes place in the context of the parent–child relationship and includes discussions between parents and chil- dren about school (Gordon & Cui, 2012), which is especially important for adolescents (Hill, 2015). Similarly, Jeynes (2010) found that subtle ways that parents become involved including parenting style, parent–child communication, and expectations are more important than overt strategies such as school involvement, homework help, and establishing rules. Grounded in the parent–adolescent relationships, involvement defined as academic socialization, including communicating expectations and understanding the value and utility of education for the future, were more strongly related to achievement than other types of involvement (Hill & Tyson, 2009). This type of involvement has been deemed more important than other types of involvement by teachers as well (DePlanty, Coulter-Kern, & Duchane, 2007).

Apart from these prevailing strategies, ethnic minority fami- lies often engage in other strategies to support their children’s achievement, communicate the importance of education, and advocate for better educational experiences that are not captured by current frameworks and are sometimes missed by school per- sonnel (Ceballo, Maurizi, Suarez, & Aretakis, 2014; Hill, 2011; Lopez, 2001; Wallace, 2013). At an elemental level, the context in which parental involvement in education takes place varies across demographic background. African American and Latino students are more likely to attend under-resourced schools, with higher teacher turnover, lower levels of teacher quality, and con- centrated poverty (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2005). Further, it is well established that teachers’ hold lower expectations for Afri- can American and Latino youth and engage them less in the classroom than they do Euro-American and Asian American youth (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). African Americans are less satisfied with their schools and found them less welcoming than Euro-American or Latino families (Park & Holloway, 2013). Therefore, ethnic minority parents may become involved for dif- ferent motivations and use different strategies. However, a com- prehensive framework is one that integrates strategies from parents from diverse demographic backgrounds.

Parents become and remain involved in their children’s edu- cation because they view involvement part of their role as a par- ent (i.e. role construction), they believe they can be effective and make a difference (efficacy), and schools reach out and are welcoming (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Programs, and policies that are responsive parents’ needs are associated with parents’ increased confidence in their involvement and are potentially effective in changing prevailing messages about the importance of involvement (Mapp, Johnson, Strictland, & Meza, 2008). Given differences in school context across demo- graphic backgrounds, there may be additional motivations for involvement that are based in demographic background. For example, African American parents’ dissatisfaction with school was associated with higher levels of parental involvement at home (Park & Holloway, 2013). One possible interpretation is that African American parents increase their involvement when they find that the school is not meeting their expectations and back away when they believe the school is doing a good

job. Consistent with this, Wallace (2013) described African American parents who challenged the school’s policies or prac- tices because of their dissatisfaction. These collective efforts that African American parents engaged in at school to advocate for their youth helped the students feel cared for, but was met with animosity from many teachers. Wallace and others con- cluded that schools privilege parental involvement that reflects assimilation, deference and supportiveness, but find other types of involvement, especially those engaged in by ethnic minorities as threatening (Wallace, 2013). However, all of these strategies are done with the goal of supporting students’ achievement.

As a second example, ethnic minority and immigrant parents use stories about their own sacrifice help their youth understand the importance of education, along with exposing youth to manual labor, to demonstrate the utility and value of education (Ceballo et al., 2014; Hill & Torres, 2010; Lopez, 2001). These strategies are often not recognized by school per- sonnel. Ceballo et al. found that youths’ understanding of sacri- fice, both as a gift and as guilt-inducing, was positively associated with achievement. Youth who understand the sacri- fice their families have made want to give back to parents through their academic success. These potential demographic variations in motivations and interpretations are examined in this study.

Embedded in the success of these methods is the premise that family–school relationships are relational. Teachers’ ability to be encouraging and supportive to parents may be more important than any method or strategy (Jeynes, 2011). For example, Mapp et al. (2008) found that the most highly rated school-based family centers are those that provide knowledge- able staff who help parents and students navigate the bureau- cracy of secondary schools—people who are willing to listen, support, and encourage. However, greater specification is needed for these relational aspects of parental involvement and family–school relationships, especially for families with adoles- cents (Ceballo et al., 2014; Jeynes, 2011; Park & Holloway, 2013).

Focusing on adolescence is especially significant because parents’ involvement in education declines significantly between elementary school and middle school (Eccles & Harold, 1996; Stevenson & Baker, 1987). These declines are steeper among low income and ethnic minority families (Bridgeland, DiIulio, Streeter, Mason, & Civic, 2008) and for those who are struggling academically (Crosnoe, 2001). How- ever, parental involvement is more strongly related to achieve- ment in secondary school, compared to elementary school, and has longer term implications of school success (Kim & Hill, 2015). Parents, especially those in lower performing schools, believe they could do more to support their youth and they desire more information about how to be effectively involved (Bridgeland et al., 2008; Trusty, 1998) and youth need their involvement.

Because of adolescents’ increased ability to think abstractly, reason, learn from experiences, and consider multiple perspec- tives (Keating, 2004), adolescents are better able to become active participants in and to take responsibility for their educa- tion and goals (Jodl, Michael, Malanchuk, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2001; Seiffge-Krenke, Kiuru, & Nurmi, 2002). These develop- mental advances make it possible to include adolescents in their

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13

academic decisions and in family–school interactions in ways they could not during elementary school. This emerging sense of responsibility develops in the context of changing parent– adolescent relationships (Collins & Laursen, 2004; Steinberg & Silk, 2002). Effective parenting during adolescence includes increased levels of autonomy granting and monitoring and lower levels of direct behavioral control. Such parenting practi- ces provide a context for adolescents to exercise and develop their decision-making skills and sense of responsibility. It is likely that parental involvement in education during adoles- cence must reflect this type of scaffolding of autonomy.

Parents and families of middle school students need an access point and more effective ways to support their youth’s academic development (Bridgeland et al., 2008). A systematic and inclusive understanding of the strategies parents use, youth want and need, and teachers’ desire is needed to broaden our conceptualization and deepen our understanding of parental involvement in education. To this end, we utilized qualitative methods to explore the perspectives of middle school parents, students, and teachers regarding their goals for parental involvement in education and what works in supporting achievement during middle school. We used qualitative meth- ods, focus groups in particular, because they are an effective means to learn about a population’s values, styles of thinking, and the language used to discuss constructs (Vogt, King, & King, 2004). In addition to the focus groups, participants also completed a short quantitative survey on parental involvement in education, satisfaction with school, and other characteristics. The quantitative assessments allowed us to characterize the sample based on levels of involvement and general relation- ships with the school. In addition, these quantitative data pro- vided a context for understanding the qualitative findings. Many studies have focused on the perspectives of parents or school personnel. Even when students have been included, they are often asked to report of an established set of activities or strategies that their parents utilize. The current study integrates the voices of students, parents, and teachers to broaden and deepen our understanding of how families, students, and schools function together to support achievement during adolescence.

Method

Participants

Participants included parents of seventh-grade students, their seventh-grade children, and teachers of core courses and guid- ance counselors who work in two economically and ethnically diverse schools. Grade 7 was selected because many curricular decisions made at this time have long-term implications. Also, even in middle schools that include Grade 6, adolescent func- tioning declines at Grade 7, as the number of teachers and clas- ses increase (Barber & Olsen, 2004). A total of 20 focus groups were conducted: Nine were with parents, nine with seventh- grade students, and two that included middle school guidance counselors and teachers of core subjects. For the parent and youth groups, three each were conducted with African Ameri- can, Latino, and Euro-American participants, as the largest eth- nic groups in the United States. For family–school interactions,

ethnicity is a powerful, defining characteristic (Hill, 2011; Hill & Torres, 2010; Lareau, 1996; Lynch & Stein, 1987; Park & Hol- loway, 2013). Therefore, the parent and youth focus groups were ethnically homogeneous, which is consistent with estab- lished focus group methodology that emphasizes the impor- tance of perceived shared experiences on which to build discussions (DeVellis, 2003; Krueger & Casey, 2009). These focus groups included 64 seventh-grade students (32% White; 40% Black, and 28% Latino) and 65 parents of the seventh- grade students (34% White, 35% Black, and 29%, Latino). Youth ranged in age from 11.45 to 14.36 years old (M age D 12.80 years, SD D 0.54 years). Parents ranged in age from 27.98 to 57.54 years old (M age D 41.56, SD D 7.52 years). The size of the focus groups ranged from six to 15 for youth and six to 13 for parents. Mean parental education level was 1–3 years of college or no degree and mean family income was in the range of $50,000–70,000. There were differences across ethnicity in parents’ education level, F(2, 60) D 31.71, p< .0001, and family income, F(2, 58) D 26.88, p < .0001, with no differences between African Americans and Euro-Americans but Latino families were lower on both. From the same two middle schools, there were 21 teachers of core courses and guidance counselors. Teachers and counselors had 0–35 years of experi- ence (M D 6.85 years, SD D 9.84 years). Both schools were eth- nicity diverse and the distribution of the ethnic groups across schools was equivalent, x2(2, N D 64) D 2.80, p D ns.

Procedures

The Director of the Office of Research and Accountability in a southeastern regional mid-sized school district selected two of the seven middle schools in the district that were ethnically diverse and served students from diverse economic back- grounds. Eligible families were those whose students were per- forming at grade level or above, based on Grade 6 end-of-grade standardized tests. These students were targeted because the goal of the study was to capture normative strategies, rather than strategies focused on turning around poor achievement or behavioral problems. Further, achievement levels and ethnicity are often confounded in the United States, with ethnic minori- ties performing less well, on average, than majority students. By targeting an ethnically diverse sample that is achieving at grade level or above, we reduce the confound between ethnicity and achievement by design and can be more confident that var- iations across ethnicity are due to ethnic differences in how parents and school interact, rather than by differences in achievement levels. Further, a sampling frame that yielded many families whose students were experiencing significant problems at school might distort our findings, as many might use the focus group as an opportunity to lodge complaints or seek individual level advice and not represent the fuller range of strategies that families use. Whereas this sampling frame will not result in a representative or random sample of families, focus group methodology is designed to yield description, understanding, and the range of normative experiences and to gain insight on a topic and does not require random or repre- sentative sampling (DeVellis, 2003). Letters describing the study and inviting participation were sent to all eligible families. Parents returned the form indicating their interest in

14 N. E. HILL ET AL.

participating to their school, mailed it to our research office, or called our research office. Families who were available on one of the nights that focus groups were to be held were invited to participate.

The focus groups were conducted over nine evenings (three evenings for each ethnic group). The parent and youth focus groups were conducted on the same evening for each ethnic group. Dinner and snacks were provided and parents and youth were compensated (i.e., $40 for parents and $15 for youth). One focus group was conducted at each school for teachers of core seventh grade subjects and guidance counselors during their grade-level faculty meeting time. Teachers and counselors were provided with breakfast/snacks and were paid $40.

After providing informed consent or assent, participants completed the brief quantitative survey. All focus groups received the same ground rules, including that there were no right or wrong answers, that it was fine not to agree with each other (although they should respectfully disagree), that partici- pants should try to speak one at a time (for recording pur- poses), and that confidentiality was essential, meaning that participants should not talk about the discussions with those not present. In defining the role of the moderator, participants were reminded that they were the experts on the topic and the moderators were interested in their perspectives. The modera- tor’s role was to direct the conversation to make sure all the topics were covered. The moderator would bring up a topic and the participants should have a conversation about it. For all groups, parental involvement was defined as “making sure that [your child/students/you] are prepared for the future and are successful as adults. This includes things that [you/parents/ your parents] do at or with the middle school, things [you/ they/your parents] do in the community and things done at home that help students/you succeed.” Beyond this broad defi- nition, parents, youth, teachers, and counselors defined paren- tal involvement within their focus group discussions. After the focus groups, the moderator and the assistant wrote field notes about the focus group experience that included the emotional tone or climate of the group and any specific themes or issues that arose.

Closed-ended, quantitative assessments To establish a baseline of Parental Involvement in Education levels, parents completed 17 items from the Parental Involve- ment in School scale (Kohl, Lengua, McMahon, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2000). These items comprised four subscales: parent-initiated contact (3 items; a D .85), involvement at school (5 items; a D .74), endorse- ment of school (4 items; a D .91), and parent–teacher relation- ship quality (5 items; a D .81). In addition, parents rated themselves on parental self-efficacy, using a 10-item assessment (Johnston & Mash, 1989; a D .61). Parent satisfaction with school was assessed using an eight-item questionnaire (a D .84). For teachers’ ratings of satisfaction with school, a similar eight-item assessment including quality, safety, disci- pline, moral values, and class size (a D .70). To assess students’ cognitive competence, which is the extent to which students believed they were good at school, students completed the per- ceived school cognitive competence scale (7 items, a D .51; Harter, 1982).

Focus group script Consistent with focus group methodology (e.g. Krueger, 1994; Krueger & Casey, 2009), broad topics (i.e., effective strategies for supporting their youths’ education in elementary school and in middle school, barriers to involvement, and resources they draw on for supporting their youth) were identified that would elicit the discussion of effective involvement strategies. These formed the basis of the focus group script. Follow-up probes were used to make sure participants discussed strategies at home, at school, and other aspects of involvement and to ensure that we obtained the most complete information. In addition to the questions based on the four board topics, the focus group discussions began with warm up questions (e.g., for parents: we inquired about their goals for their youth, goals for maintaining involvement, their beliefs about their youths’ goals, and why they believed their youth needed them to reach goals). As warm up questions for the youth, they were asked about what they liked about middle school, what kinds of things their parents say they are good at, and their goals for the future. Finally, teachers were asked first about why they enjoy teaching, what they find most challenging and rewarding about teaching middle school students, and what their goals were for parental involvement in education/family–school relationships.

Trained focus group facilitators led each group, along with an assistant who took notes. Facilitators and assistants of the parent and youth focus groups were matched ethnically to parents and youth. Facilitators and assistants for the Latino focus groups were bilingual (English/Spanish). The Latino par- ent focus groups were conducted in Spanish. All focus groups were audio recorded and recordings were transcribed. The Latino parent focus groups were transcribed and translated into English and reviewed by bilingual research staff to assure that nuances in meaning or experiences were not lost in the translation.

Data analysis plan

Analysis of quantitative survey data The quantitative survey data were used to characterize the experiences of families, youth, and teachers and to provide a context for understanding the strategies of involvement that were identified. Further, these data were used to determine whether the two schools were sufficiently similar on parental involvement to justify combining them for further analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated (e.g., means and standard deviations), along with one-way analyses of variance to com- pare and describe participants across ethnicity and school. After examining the quantitative data, the transcripts of the focus groups were coded and analyses to provide a description of the general themes and emotional climate of the focus groups, which provided additional context for understanding the strategies that emerged. The coding and analysis plan is described next.

Analysis of the focus groups, the coding process, and the coders Focus group transcripts were analyzed based on grounded-the- ory methods (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). In this way, we first

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 15

analyzed the focus groups to identify levels of intensity, emo- tionality, and depth of feelings that arose as holistically during the focus group discussions (Krueger, 1994; Krueger & Casey, 2009). We refer to this as identifying the general climate and holistic themes in our results section. Krueger (1994) describes the importance of understanding the level of intensity and feel- ing as expressed by tone, speed, emphasis on certain words, and the context in which a phenomenon is experienced. Two coders listened to the audio recordings, reviewed field notes written directly after the focus group, and carefully read the transcripts for each focus group to assess the general climate and holistic themes. Coders independently described the gen- eral climate and holistic themes that arose in each focus group. These themes were discussed among the entire research team. Once the themes from each group were described, coders examined the general climate and holistic themes and identified similarities and differences across ethnicity and reporters. These similarities and differences were discussed until a con- sensus was reached about how to describe these themes as they relate to family–school relationships across ethnicity.

Second, as part of grounded-theory analysis, we engaged in process coding as described by Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014), meaning that we identified the actual activities that comprise the concept of parental involvement in education during adolescence. That is, we identified the activities that parents engaged in, that students wanted parents to engage in or activities students found helpful, and that teachers wanted parents to engage in or activities teachers found helpful. Central to grounded theory, we focused on extracting actions and activ- ities related to parental involvement during adolescents. To this end, two coders carefully and independently reviewed each transcript to identify all parental involvement strategies that were mentioned. Then, the independent coders reported to the larger research team about each strategy they identified, while other team members followed along in the transcript. Any additional strategies identified by the other team members dur- ing this process were also added to the list. To ensure breadth and comprehensiveness, all strategies were maintained, whether identified by one or both coders, or during the research team’s discussion of the transcript. Disagreements about whether a statement was indeed a strategy were resolved through discus- sion and consensus first between the two initial coders and then, if necessary, among the entire research team. The general rule was to be more inclusive of potential strategies, as redun- dancy is advantageous in the early stages of characterizing a phenomenon (DeVellis, 2003).

Third, after all strategies were identified, coders engaged in a multistaged process to aggregate and reduce the strategies into essential types of involvement. Miles and Huberman (1994) referred to this as “subsuming particulars into the general,” “clustering,” or “pattern coding” (pp. 86, 279–280). It involves clustering or clumping coded passages that go together. Classi- cal grounded theory methods refer to this as the constant com- parative method and refer to categorizing coded statements into more abstractly defined classes (Miles et al., 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Strauss and Corbin defined three stages of the constant comparative method: (a) similar coded segments are clumped together and a descriptor is assigned, (b) the codes are clustered into categories (i.e., axial coding), and (c) the

researchers identify one more themes for each group. At times, the categories may come from existing theory. In our case, these clumps and clusters and their labels emerged as a result of the coding.

To identify common themes or types of involvement, we conducted two stages of clustering similar strategies. This enabled us to distill the individual strategies into broader descriptive clusters—or grounded themes. In the first round, four coders independently reviewed the quotes of strategies generated for each reporter (i.e., parent, teacher, youth) and each ethnicity (i.e., for parents and youth only) and clustered similar strategies together and generated a label for the cluster of similar strategies. At this stage, we did not aggregate across ethnicity or reporter, because we wanted to make sure ethnicity and reporters were purposefully and adequately represented in the final list of clustered strategies. The clusters were reviewed and discussed by the entire research team. In reviewing the first set of clusters, some were deemed similar to one another. Therefore, we conducted the second round of clustering. At this second stage, coders reviewed clustered strategies, along with their labels and associated quotes or strategies, and aggre- gated similar clusters.

Fourth, based on Glaser and Strauss (1967), and Strauss and Corbin (1998), we engaged in a comparative analysis across family’s ethnicity and reporters (i.e., parent, student, and teacher), whereby the coding team examined, compared, and contrasted the clusters and conceptual categories across each ethnic group (i.e., African Americans, Euro-Americans, and Latinos among students and parents) and reporter (i.e., across teacher, student, parents). We sought to identify common themes that emerge as significant types of parental involvement in education. A primary goal for this study was to identify clus- ters of strategies that were common for middle school but may be overlooked and ensure that all the perspectives of students, parents, and teachers from diverse ethnic backgrounds were represented. Therefore, it was important to capture strategies that are viewed as important by parents, teachers, and youth (i.e., identifying consensus), along with including strategies that were uniquely significant and important within ethnic groups (i.e., cultural inclusiveness). This was accomplished by examin- ing clusters that emerged for all ethnic and reporter groups. To increase validity, we started only with those clusters that were identified by all four coders. Further, clusters and types of strat- egies were reviewed and compared with existing frameworks and theories on parental involvement in education and parent- ing adolescents. Clusters that emerged consistently across eth- nicity and reporter were retained for further analysis. Clusters that did not achieve consensus across ethnicity and reporter were examined independently by each coder. Coders nomi- nated additional clusters that they deemed important to include based on their significance and justified by prior theory and research or the discussions in the transcript. These nominations were discussed until consensus was reached for inclusion or exclusion.

Coders and coder training. Coders for the focus group tran- scripts were Latino, African American, and Euro-American graduate students in developmental or clinical psychology and education, a postdoctoral program in applied developmental

16 N. E. HILL ET AL.

psychology, and the principal investigator. Coders were trained in the process of identifying specific and holistic themes in qualitative data, identifying specific practices described in the focus groups, and distinguishing specific practices from beliefs and expectations. For example, coders were trained to place greater attention on parental involvement strategies that were emerged from first person quotes than on hypothetical or third person quotes, although all strategies were that were describe were included (Krueger & Casey, 2009). After reading several books and chapters on qualitative methods analysis, along with several published qualitative studies as exemplars, coders attended two training sessions. During the training session, the background, goals, and methods of qualitative analysis were discussed and coders’ knowledge of qualitative principles and methods was assessed. Coders were able to ask questions about the methodologies used and sample transcripts were provided so that coders could practice coding under the guidance of the PI and project manager. Because two coders read and coded all transcripts and these transcripts in their entirety and their coded segments were reviewed by the entire research team, coder reliability and training were carefully monitored and tracked. Two coders read and coded each transcript.

Integration of quantitative and qualitative data. Apart from using the quantitative data to gauge initial levels of parental involvement in education and satisfaction across the two schools, the quantitative data was used to help understand potential ethnic differences in the salience of parental involve- ment strategies that emerged from the qualitative data and eth- nic differences in the experiences families have when engaging with their youths’ school.

Results

We begin with quantitative analyses that describe and compare participants across ethnicity and school on levels of parental involvement, parental self-efficacy, parental and teacher or counselor assessment of satisfaction and endorsement of school, and students’ sense of cognitive competence. This is followed by the results of the analyses of the general climate and holistic themes from the focus group discussions. Finally, the analyses and the resulting types of parental involvement strategies that emerged from the grounded qualitative analyses are presented.

Characterizations of the participants from quantitative assessment

Data from the quantitative survey were used to describe the participants across ethnicity and schools. Across the two schools, there were no differences in teachers’ ratings of their satisfaction with their schools, F(1, 18) D 2.68, p D ns; in parents’ endorsement of their school, F(1, 56) D 0.12, p D ns; or for parents’ ratings of the quality of the relationships with teachers, F(1, 60) D 0.30, p D ns. One significant difference emerged, parents at one school reported higher satisfaction lev- els than did parents at the other school, F(1, 56) D 4.05, p < .05 (School 1: M D 2.25, SD D 0.44; School 2: M D 2.02, SD D 0.39). However, both means were in the range of 2, where

2 meant satisfied and 3 meant very satisfied. There were no dif- ferences across schools in parents’ reports of their involvement in education: for parent-initiated involvement, F(1, 48) D 0.61, p D ns; for parents’ school-based involvement, F(1, 56) D 0.14, p D ns. Because the schools were roughly similar in levels of involvement, endorsement of the school, and ethnic representa- tion, we collapsed across schools for the remaining analyses.

There were no differences across ethnicity in youths’ or parents’ age, their endorsement of or satisfaction with their youths’ school, the frequency that parents-initiated contact or involvement at home. However, there were ethnic differences in parental self-efficacy, F(2, 55) D 3.60, p < .05; school-based involvement, F(2, 55) D 7.35, p < .001; and parents’ reports of the quality of their relationships with teachers, F(2, 59) D 3.64, p < .05. African American parents (M D 5.08, SD D 0.54) reported higher levels of parental efficacy than did Euro-Amer- icans (M D 4.87, SD D 0.47) or Latinos (M D 4.48, SD D 0.92); who were not different from each other. African Americans (M D 0.95, SD D 0.52) and Euro-Americans (M D 0.96, SD D 0.47) reported being more frequently involved at school than did Latinos (M D 0.33, SD D 0.44). African Americans (M D 3.05, SD D 0.69) reported higher quality relationships with their youths’ teachers than did Latinos (M D 2.72, SD D 0.69). Euro-Americans were not different from Latinos or African Americans in their ratings of the quality of their relationships with their youths’ teachers (M D 2.82, SD D 0.79). Finally, there were no ethnic differences in stu- dents’ reports of cognitive competence, F(2, 61) D 1.87, p D ns.

General climate and holistic themes

Holistically, the focus group discussions took on particular gen- eral emotional climates and that were evident from each tran- script taken as a whole and from the recordings. Further, holistic themes emerged across and with groups. All coders identified distinct emotional climates and themes that were tan- gentially related to their parental involvement strategies. Varia- tions in mood and climate were evident across ethnicity, especially for parents. In addition, the teachers’ or guidance counselors’ focus groups also had a distinct emotional climate.

General climate and holistic themes from the teachers’ and guidance counselors’ focus groups Many teachers shared that they joined the teaching profession because they cared about youth, wanted to make a difference in the lives of youth, and believed that they could have a positive influence on youth. They expressed that having a positive impact on youth was especially important and needed during early adolescence, a period some teachers deemed a vulnerable age. They found middle school students to be still “young enough to enjoy games, while still old enough to have real conversations.”

Teacher: …I just like to see them [youth] blossom, especially when a child is having difficulty. And then, all of the sudden, he or she can get it. You see that light come on.

Teacher: I felt like I could make a difference and have an impact with kids, particularly at a very vulnerable age. And I just agree they don’t have a lot of positive influences now.

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 17

A consistent theme from the teachers’ focus groups per- tained to their implicit belief that some parents and students don’t care about education and are not interested in working together.

Teacher: I think when you’ve got unmotivated students…and the lack of respect that the school has[gets]—and I’m sure they are [learning] from home that school is not important, and just the lack of respect for the teachers and for the school….

Teacher: Parents come in and they continue the adversarial rela- tionship instead of working with us. When we are here doing good stuff every day to educate these people [the students]. That’s the bad thing.

Although middle school teachers reported having the goal of building relationships and talking with each of their students’ parents, they acknowledged that it was not possible. They reported figuring out how to “talk with as many as I can.” For students who were doing less well, teachers blamed the lack of value placed on education within the home and a lack of respect for school and for teachers that they believe was pro- moted in the home. These assertions were made despite admit- ting that they really did not know the parents’ perspectives.

Teacher: [S]ome parents really don’t want to be bothered. They don’t want to hear all the time that their child is acting up in class, or their child is misbehaving. And that’s what I’ve found. There is a certain amount of percentage of students’ parents who don’t really want to know.

As we listened to audio recordings and read transcripts, it seemed that teachers held different standards for involvement based on how well students were doing. Little was expected of parents of students doing well. But, for parents of students who were not doing well, teachers indicated that these parents do not show up or elicit an adversarial relationship, rather than working with teachers. Whereas blame was placed on parents whose students were doing poorly, credit was not given to parents of students who were doing well.

General climate and holistic themes from the parents’ focus group Parents reported being motivated to help their youth succeed and indicated that they wanted their children to do their best, stay focused, earn good grades, and attend college

Parent: Well, I expect both of my children to go to college and to be a professional, period. I mean that’s the way it is. How they get there is up to them. But, that is what the expectation is…. I would like them to be happy too but [scoffs] they really need to support themselves.

Parent: [The] general goal [for their child] is to be a productive citi- zen in society. I think that is the common goal that most parents agree to. So, in the course of that, we teach our child to be self-suffi- cient, to be independent, to be smart and to get as much education and [to be] undergirded by a good moral base.

In the context of these common themes, there were themes that emerged that were common within ethnic groups, but did not emerge across ethnicity. For the ethnic minority parents, there was clear intentionality and tenacity in their engagement with schools to support their youth and differences in their experiences at school. Their tone of voice and speed suggested

a since of urgency about their involvement. Latino and African American parents wanted to make sure their youth were pre- pared for school and to succeed in life. As in previous research (e.g., Ceballo et al., 2014; Lopez, 2001), many Latino families described the sacrifices made for their youth to attend school in the United States. They wanted their children to learn as much as they could, not squander their opportunities, and to aspire to professions (not just jobs).

Latino parent: I tell them that in my family’s country there is a lot of poverty. There are many children that don’t have bread, or two or three pairs of shoes like kids here. I instill that culture in my daugh- ters: ‘if you want to have more… because one of my girls says she wants a house and a car…and I tell her, ‘if you want to achieve that, you need to study. And you can’t waste any food, because there are those who don’t have any. And, if you want a better life, then school is the key.

Latino parent: My goals are that my children study as much as they can. Here [in the US] one has the opportunity of studying that we do not have in our country, because it costs too much. They need to study so that they do not end up like me. I did not study and here I am working all the time, washing dishes.

Latino parents’ goal for maintaining involvement in their youths’ education was to ensure that their child has the greatest opportunity to learn. However, they talked about not having the information they needed to be truly helpful to their youth. They did not understand the implicit assumptions about how they should advocate for their youth. They felt marginalized from the school. This notion is also supported by the findings from the survey data, which showed ethnic differences in parents’ reports of their involvement at school and their paren- tal self-efficacy. Latinos reported lower levels of parental self- efficacy and lower quality relationships with teachers than did African Americans.

Likewise, underlying African American parents’ involve- ment was an intensity and focus on keeping their children on the right track, with an assumption that any mistake or failure will derail their future. They expressed strongly that they wanted to keep their youth focused on specific career goals so as to not leave things to chance. They wanted their youth to beat the odds and be successful.

African American parent: …with my daughter, with my girls, you know I tell them to look at me. You see my struggle, you see how I struggle, if you don’t want to struggle like how I have in life, and you know I just talk to them about life experiences. So basically, I tell them about experiences in life through me and they know my experiences and I don’t want them to go down the same path. Another African American Parent agreed:Yeah, I feel…you tell them, ‘just look at me, you’ll see. Don’t go down this path.’ You got so much better in life, you can do it.

African American parent: I know me personally, I don’t want my children to be statistics like I was, I was young, I got pregnant, hell, I’m Black, I grew up in a single parent home. I’m already a statistic. So, you know, the system expected me to fail. And I think that we as parents, if we approach life with a little more realism, then our children will see ‘OK, I’m in this type [discriminatory] of situation, I only have [two options]

These options were to fight and succeed or to fail. When dis- cussing their reasons and goals for maintaining involvement in their youths’ education, African American parents were specific

18 N. E. HILL ET AL.

and determined. They emphasized with single-mindedness that their youth will be successful and their belief that involvement was the only way to ensure it. Finally, African American parents said that they stayed involved to monitor teachers and other school personnel to make sure they were treating their youth fairly.

Grappling with racial hierarchies and discrimination were themes raised by both African American and Latino parents. One Latina Mom said, “I try to tell my child that everyone’s blood is the same color. I tell them that Black and Hispanics are equal. I don’t say that about Whites, because there is a bar- rier there. I feel it. I feel it in their look and when they don’t understand us.” Both African American and Latino parents expressed feelings of marginalization and a lack of trust of the school. However, African Americans described being proactive and expectant of change in their involvement with school. These statements describing proactivity and expectancy for change were more prominent in the African American groups. This perceived difference was supported by the quantitative data, in which African American parents reported being more involved at school, having higher levels of parental self-efficacy, and having higher quality relationships with the teachers than did Latinos. However, despite discussions about racial discrimi- nation at school, based on the quantitative data, there were no ethnic differences in parents’ endorsement of the school.

African American parent: A parents’ presence makes a big differ- ence, not only in school, for the teachers, but it boosts the confi- dence in your child. It encourages children, it strengthens them, it ensures that [they] are in the right place, ‘my mom’s happy about where I am, what I’m doing.’ I feel that’s when they [students] fail, when we’re not involved.

In contrast to the African American and Latino parents, Euro-American parents’ disposition toward involvement lacked the intensity and concern of the ethnic minority parents and seemed carefree. Concerns about students’ failing or not reach- ing their potential were less evident. They wanted their youth to be happy and fulfilled, to be challenged—especially crea- tively, and to have options and opportunities. Euro-American parents expressed nostalgia for the elementary school years when they knew how to be involved and were welcomed at the school. This comparison with elementary school was not men- tioned by the ethnic minority parents. The Euro-Americans parents longed to be asked to help and they wanted teachers to call them. Euro-American parents expressed more relational goals for their involvement such as volunteering at school to know what their adolescent was experiencing at school to facili- tate conversations with their youth.

Euro-American parent: I want my child to have a happy and ful- filled life meaning that she finds things that she enjoys and that she can be involved in and successful… which I hope would include college…

Euro-American parent: It seems so much now [that it is] on her to make sure everything gets done, which I think it is appropriate. We would only hear about it if something is wrong. But, I do kind of miss just being in touch and hearing ideas that the teacher might have about ways to keep her challenged or what we could do at home to back up what they’re doing here or anything like that.

Euro-American parent: I actually have really stepped back, um really stepped back. …I have to say that I don’t think the teachers would recognize me. My son has just really clammed up as far as talking to me…. I drive carpools and I get information from listen- ing to the other kids [laughter] you know [other parent:I love car- pools]. I mean I find out a lot more from, you know, from other kids!

Euro-American parents also talked about working behind the scenes at school, to set their adolescents up for success, by gathering information on the teachers, courses, and extracur- ricular activities for their adolescents. Whereas the African American and Latino parents expressed a primary emphasis on homework and some thought not enough was assigned, Euro- American parents expressed a desire for greater balance between homework assignments and other extracurricular activities in which their youth were involved.

Euro-American parent: I have a really hard time when one of them shows up with a bad test grade and wants to go out and play sports and you know, you’re kinda torn because it’s not all studying you know and you gotta have some kind of life outside. And, of course, between sports and studying, there’s not a whole lot of time.

General climate and holistic themes from the youths’ focus groups A common theme for all the youth focus groups was an emphasis on career goals and going to college. All youth from all three eth- nic groups expressed desires to go to college, do well in school, and some mentioned specific career goals (e.g., cartoonist, nurse, pediatrician, physician). The African American and Latino stu- dents also expressed staying out of trouble and away from peers who might get them in trouble as high among their goals. Euro- American youth did not mention peers and friends in this way.

African American youth: My mom always tells me that I’m judged by the company I keep; so she tells me to choose who I hang out with, don’t mix with the wrong crowd and she expects me to go to college.

Latino youth: …I think whether or not you do good in middle school really depends on who you hang out with.

Although Latino and African American youth were con- cerned about getting into trouble and not reaching their goals, the quantitative survey data showed no ethnic differences in students’ reports of cognitive competence. Similar to their parents, Euro-Americans youth were carefree about their goals—wanting to “be whatever I want to be.”

Euro-American youth: Um, my parents basically want me to go to the best college that I think would suit me. Uh and I think that would be [Ivy League University Name] Law.

All three ethnic groups expressed their desire for indepen- dence and not wanting parental interference. However, the expression of this independence differed. When discussing independence, Latino adolescents focused mostly on wanting their parents to see them as responsible (and therefore indepen- dent). In contrast, African American and Euro-American youth focused mostly on their desire for their parents not to meddle in areas they deemed were their domain (i.e., school life).

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 19

Despite desires for independence and autonomy, youth expressed their desire for their parents’ support for their educa- tion and they wanted their parents to be involved. More impor- tant, they wanted their parents to ask questions about their interests.

Youth: It’s become a habit that my mom always asks me “how was school?” And do you have any homework?’ It’s the first two words that come out of her mouth. And then she asks “So how are you doing?” And I think that’s a little more important than how much homework you have.

Although these youth wanted their parents’ involvement, they were also very clear and in agreement about the ways they did not want their parents involved. All youth focus groups mentioned that they did not want their parents to dou- ble check their homework, lecture them about their futures, and go through their book bag. And, most importantly, they did not want their parents to come on field trips. The ubiqui- tous phrase used to describe these types of involvement was, “It’s embarrassing!”

Identifying strategies for parental involvement

Emanating from these general climates and holistic themes were specific strategies for parents to support their youths’ suc- cess in school. Foretelling the final results, three broad types emerged: scaffolding independence around schoolwork, linking education to future success, and communication.

Results of the process coding and clustering: initial pool of strategies and aggregation The initial process coding generated nearly 1,000 strategies; roughly 470 strategies among the parent groups, 360 strategies among the adolescent groups, and 150 strategies across teacher groups. Examples of strategies mentioned by each reporter are as follows:

Parent: I give [my child] a window to prove [he/she] can do the work and if they don’t do it within the time period, then I will help them come up with a plan.

Parent: For me, I think it’s very important to be up to date on what’s going on with your children. Because that way they show more interest in their schoolwork.

Parent: But, as far as…with her being in middle school she’s becoming more responsible. And so I’ll let her, her grades tell me a lot. When I see the grades slipping than I start like, “I don’t have to make that phone call do I?” So you know I try to stay involved with what she’s doing and as far as what she’s bringing home.

Youth: Yeah, whenever I get a low grade, my mom decides that it was my fault. But she doesn’t get angry at me, she finds out what I wasn’t doing and makes me do it.

Youth: My dad really concentrates on my grades and stuff…like if I did bad on my report card or if I got a bad grade like he will lecture me about it and then ask me what I’m doing wrong and stuff and then he’ll buy me these books to practice.

Teacher: You know, they [parents] can make sure that homework is being done, don’t take their kid’s word for it.

With these more than 1,000 strategies, coders engaged in two rounds of clustering similar strategies (i.e., pattern coding, clustering, and clumping), within ethnic groups and reporters, enabling us to distill the strategies into broader descriptive clus- ters. Between each stage, the clusters were reviewed and dis- cussed by the entire research team. After two rounds of clustering conceptually similar strategies, an average of 27.75 clusters emerged for Euro-American youth (i.e., the four coders generated 25, 30, 19, and 37 categories), 27.75 clusters for Afri- can American youth (i.e., the four coders generated 25, 21, 21, and 44 categories), and 24.75 clusters for Latino youth (i.e., the four coders generated 22, 19, 23, and 35 clusters). Similarly, for parents, an average of 29.25 clusters emerged for Latinos (i.e., the four coders generated 23, 19, 30, and 45 clusters); 34.25 clusters for African Americans (i.e., the four coders generated 29, 19, 41, and 48 clusters); and 38.75 clusters for Euro-Ameri- cans (i.e., the four coders generated 28, 19, 50, and 58 clusters). Finally, for teachers, the initial 150 strategies were reduced into an average of 24.25 clusters (the four coders generated nine, 23, 26, and 39 clusters). The clustering of strategies was conducted independently for each ethnic group and reporter. Therefore, it was possible that clusters were identified within one reporter or ethnicity that were not identified in another reporter or ethnicity.

Comparative analysis: identifying consensus in types across ethnicity and reporters Consistent with grounded-theory analyses, we compared the clusters that emerged across ethnicity and reporter. The major clusters of strategies that were identified are presented in Figure 1. Clusters that were common across ethnicity, reporter and coders include linking education to future success, com- munication, scaffolding independence, and school-based involvement. Although parents and youth across ethnicity, along with teachers discussed school-based involvement, such involvement was often doubled-coded. School-based involve- ment discussed as a means to an end (i.e., for information gathering, monitoring youth or teachers), rather than an important strategy in its own right. Because of this and because it is well-defined in extant theories and frameworks, we did not develop it as a distinct type of involvement. We assigned these strategies to codes that reflect their appropriate clusters (e.g., communication for information gathering; homework help when involvement was designed to learn more about homework).

Linking education to future success included parents’ statements such as, “I tell my child, if you want to have a house and a car, you have to study. If you want a better life, school is the key,” and “And, I try to share the practi- cal side of education, you must get an education to support yourself.” Examples of quotes from adolescents’ perspectives include, “My mom takes me to work so she can show me the different jobs people are doing, compared to their edu- cation level”; “my parents tell me all the time why it’s important to be in advance classes”; and “My parents bug me about college, there is no doubt I am going.” Teachers also expressed the need for youth to understand the value of education for reaching goals. However, they discussed what they did as teachers and as a school, more than what

20 N. E. HILL ET AL.

they hoped parents would do. For example, one teacher said, “I talk with students about particular careers to help them think about and plan for their 4 years of high school”

and “I tell my students, they can go to college no matter if their parents have money.” These statements and others coded as linking education to future success focused on

Figure 1. Common themes across reporters and ethnicity.

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 21

helping youth see the value of what their learning in ways that match, shape, and sharpen their long term goals.

Scaffolding independence emerged for the three ethnic groups for parents and for teachers, but for only two of the ado- lescent ethnic groups. It was nominated by coders and deemed conceptually important by consensus based on prior research on adolescent parenting. Therefore, it was included among the top three consistent types of parental involvement in education. In examining the quotes and strategies coded as scaffolding independence, it became clear that these strategies for scaffold- ing independence focused solely on schoolwork or education. In our coding discussion and memos for scaffolding indepen- dence, we referenced existing theory on parenting adolescents. Because there are many theories and conceptualization of scaf- folding independence and autonomy granting more generally for adolescents in the broader parenting literature (cf., Laursen & Collins, 2009), we focused specifically on the context of schoolwork and family–school engagement. To that end, this cluster or type was renamed scaffolding independence around schoolwork. Examples of strategies include (a) “I listen well; and instead of advising them I ask them ‘So what are you going to do? How are you going to handle it?’” and (b) “Sometimes I let him choose even if it may not be the right decision but from the choice, he will know the consequences and then will be bet- ter able to handle it next time.”

For communication, parents, teachers, and youth spent a significant amount of time discussing communication and information gathering or sharing. Parents discussed at length the various ways they attempted to contact teachers and find out information. How they escalated their messages to the prin- cipal when communications with a teacher was not satisfactory. Teachers described their failed attempts to reach all parents with a positive message first, before having to call with a prob- lem. Youth discussed knowing that their parents did not have enough information to help them make decisions. Communi- cation between all possible dyads was discussed (e.g., parent– teacher, parent–child, child-teacher).

Among the communication strategies, three types emerged and were identified by all four coders: (a) problem communi- cation: parent–teacher communication when the youth is hav- ing academic or behavioral problems. As one youth said, “When I got a bad report card, my mom wrote my teachers to find out how I could do better. My teachers wrote back”; (b) proactive communication: communication between parents and teachers that serves to help a child improve, who is already doing well (e.g., information about programs, extra assignments) or attempting to prevent problems that may be on the horizon. As an example, one teacher said, “I tried to build a rapport with parents early in the year, before I have to call with a problem.” One parent said, “The school only schedules meetings when there is a problem. But I tried sched- ule meetings just to check in with the teacher and see how [my child] is doing”; and (c) quality of communication: the extent to which parents and teachers feel heard and under- stood and get along with one another. As an example, one teacher said, “I try to make comments that are not always negative to parents. But, it becomes harder to do that as the year progresses.” Similarly, one parent said, “I try to building a good relationship with the teachers; then teachers are more

comfortable when they have to send a note or give a phone call because child is off-track.” Each of these three types of communication was deemed important for understanding the tenacity and effort extended by parents and teachers to build bridges on behalf of students.

In addition to these types of involvement that were com- mon across reporter and ethnicity, there were others that were raised by at least two reporters. Parental homework help was identified by youth and teachers, but not among the strategies that emerged for parents across ethnicity. Most parents expressed that they only engaged in home- work when students were not performing well, which is consistent with the conclusions of prior research (Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008). Given this is a priority for teachers and also mentioned by youth from all three ethnic backgrounds, but is often negatively associated with achievement in prior research (Hill & Tyson, 2009), it was important to identify the ways teachers and youth described parental homework help. Youth indicated that parents helped them with homework by providing clerical support (e.g., typing essays and proof reading essays, calling home- work hotline), homework strategies (e.g., tips for memoriz- ing), assistance within their area of expertise (e.g., my mom is a nurse so she helps a lot with science), and information about the ideas behind the homework assignments. Teach- ers, on the other hand, want parents to ensure that students complete their homework on time. Several teachers sug- gested that parents simply hold youth accountable by asking about homework: What is the assignment? When is it due? How did it go? Did you get the assignment back yet? What is your grade? By asking questions like these, teachers sug- gest, parents can help youth stay on top of their homework without micromanaging it.

Parents and youth discussed providing structure at home as a means through which parents helped youth succeed. This was not identified by teachers as an essential strategy. Youth discussed strategies like providing special school sup- plies; insisting that homework is completed before enjoying TV or media; and creating a quiet home environment. Parents talked about creating a daily routine or schedule that included scheduled time for homework, maintaining a visible family calendar to help youth stay organized about school work and out of school activities, and limiting TV or media use during the week.

Finally, parents and youth across ethnicity described ways in which parents motivated achievement by using stories and expe- rience from their own lives as cautionary tales, by pointing to successful family members as models to emulate, and by engag- ing older siblings, cousins, and extended family to assist with schoolwork and educational decisions. Not surprisingly, teachers did not mention these types of strategies or their value. This is likely because they occur in the context of the family and the parent–youth relationship, rather than at or with schools. These strategies reflect broader ways in which families communicate the value of education and its importance for future success that should be recognized by teachers. Across reporters and ethnicity, linking education to future success, scaffolding independence around schoolwork, and communication are broadly used and described as essential for supporting youths’ achievement.

22 N. E. HILL ET AL.

Discussion

By integrating the perspectives of diverse youth, their parents, and teachers this study converged on strategies that match youths’ needs, parents’ goals for involvement, and teachers’ expectations for involvement. Two of the three broad types of strategies reflect parental involvement that is embedded within the parent–adolescent relationship—scaffolding independence around schoolwork and linking education to future success, which make it more difficult for schools to promote and man- age. They represent the subtle aspects of involvement that Jeynes (2011) and Crozier (2001) described and broaden our conceptualizations of parental involvement to match adoles- cents’ developmental needs (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Toren, 2013).

Both scaffolding independence around schoolwork and link- ing education to future success specifically capitalizes on youths’ increased cognitive capacity and identify ways families and schools can work together engage youth in their education. To make good decisions about school work (and in other areas), youth need to practice their emerging abstract reasoning skills, opportunities to practice good decision-making, and to learn from their mistakes (Byrnes, Miller, & Reynolds, 1999; W. Fan, Williams, & Wolters, 2012; Halpern-Felsher & Cauff- man, 2001; Steinberg, 2005). By moving away from high stakes tests and decisions and allowing students to attempt to solve problems on their own first, youth can become more active par- ticipants in their education—not just doing schoolwork, but planning their education.

Scaffolding independence around school work will likely increase cognitive engagement in school (i.e., planfulness around schoolwork, Wang, Willett, & Eccles, 2011), which is essential to independent thinking and accountability. Scaffold- ing independence around schoolwork creates a context for youth to build and practice independent decision-making. This can be difficult to achieve for families and schools because it requires that students be able to make mistakes and try again. Without significant high quality communication between teachers and parents, it is can be difficult to know when parents should press in and make sure things get done and when youth should be permitted to experience the natural consequences of their actions. However, for African Americans and Latinos, allowing youth to try and not succeed can have significant and real setbacks academically and behaviorally. Due to pernicious bias and discrimination in American schools and society, Afri- can American and Latino youth are least likely to receive sec- ond chances in the context of ambiguous attributions for behavioral or academic infractions (McIntosh, Girvan, Horner, & Smolkowski, 2014). Based on the general climates and holis- tic themes from the Latino and African American focus groups, parents and youth are well aware of the differential treatment. They are aware of this, while there were equally likely as Euro- Americans to endorse the school. Therefore, whereas scaffold- ing autonomy around schoolwork fits developmentally for youth, it may be more easily implemented with Euro-American middle-class families for whom the method has greater reso- nance with their democratic parenting ideologies (Garcia Coll, Meyer, & Brillon, 1995). Unless careful attention is given to building trust with African American and Latino families so that they feel it is safe for their youth try, fail, and try again,

implementing this strategy may result in increasing opportu- nity gaps, as outlined by Ceci and Papierno (2005).

Essential to linking education to future success is the need to help youth develop goals, make plans to achieve them, and mark progress against them. These goals are often closely con- nected to the ongoing identity development that is central to adolescence (Oyserman, Bybee, & Kathy, 2006; Oyserman, Bybee, Terry, & Hart-Johnson, 2004) and capitalizes on the abstract thinking skills that allow for planning and counterfac- tual understanding (Keating, 2004). For youth to remain engaged in school they must be motivated by their own goals (Bandura, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Hill & Wang, 2014). By engaging youth in understanding the ways in which their edu- cation is part of a pathway to their future goals and how their interests can direct their curricular and extracurricular activi- ties, parents can help youth internalize the value and purpose of their education and integrate it into their emerging identity. In this way, parents’ admonitions to use education to achieve more and have better lives and encouragement to learn from others’ experiences about the utility of education are consistent with evidence that “possible selves” (i.e., imaginations people have about themselves in future), including ideal selves and feared selves, serve as motivators for academic performance (Oyserman et al., 2006). Extending the work of others (Ceballo et al., 2014; Hill & Torres, 2010; Lopez, 2001; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 1995) on the use of cautionary tales, these sto- ries help youth to imagine, identify and avoid feared selves and models of ideal selves. Although typically identified among eth- nic minority families, this emerged across ethnicity. Often, school curriculum and course schedules are set without helping youth see how the courses inform and forward their own inter- ests and goals. Through strategies related to linking education to future success, schooling can become a context for active self-exploration, rather than simply learning content. However, it requires that parents and teachers work together to help youth think through their goals and interests and map them to their interests and help them see the relevance of their course content to the real world.

The concepts of scaffolding independence around school- work and linking education to future success sit squarely where parents’ expectations for success and encouragement to success intersect with schools essential role in preparing youth for their future. During middle school, curricular tracks and selections begin to specifically point to career trajectories and future opportunities. Students’ diminished school engagement during middle school and perceptions that school is irrelevant or bor- ing (Li & Lerner, 2011; Woolley & Bowen, 2007) increases the importance of linking education to students’ future goals. Fur- ther, focusing on linking education to future success points to specific ways that schools and equip parents to support their youth. By helping parents understand the general goals and utility of specific classes and course topics, something that can be done easily via course websites and other broad communica- tion tools, they can affirm the value of course material for youth and help youth connect personally to the material.

Among the common domain between home and school, none is more contentious than homework. It is a context in which scaffolded independence can be exercised. Despite its ubiquity, parents did not mention helping homework among

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 23

the strategies they engage in to help their youth. However, it was raised by youth across ethnicity and teachers. Homework help has shown conflicting relations with achievement in prior research (Cooper, 2007). Given the significance of homework for school grades, well-meaning parents who want their chil- dren to do well in school may jump in and help with homework in ways that undermine students’ opportunities to learn from mistakes in their homework and learn from the consequences of not doing their homework. Teachers, who want the home- work done because it necessary for their pedagogical goals, often want parents to oversee and ensure homework is done. Our findings suggest that it may be the initiator of homework help may make distinguish between helpful and undermining homework help. The fact that parents did not mention home- work help among their planful strategies suggest that home- work help is not a central way in which parents conceptualize involvement. This means that parent-initiated homework help may occur as a reaction to students’ progress and potentially undermine students’ autonomy. However, both teachers and students across ethnicity seem to know how and when parental homework help can be effective, including asking questions to support accountability and understanding, providing help that capitalized on parents’ expertise, and instrumental support. Given teachers’ and students’ clear ideas about how and when homework help works, parents should take cues and advice from teachers and parents about whether and how to be engaged. Teachers should guide students in requesting appro- priate help from parents.

Elemental to parental involvement in education is commu- nication. Communication and the need for information are not new or novel to family–school relationships. Parents consis- tently indicate that they desire more information about how to support their youth (Bridgeland et al., 2008; Trusty & Harris, 1999), whether it is to help solve an academic problem or ideas to be proactive or prevent problems. Most often, family–school communication is conceptualized as parent–teacher conferen- ces, parent–teacher association meetings, and class e-bulletin boards. However, most principals attest that only a small frac- tion of parents attend these conferences and meetings and teachers rarely use class websites and e-bulletin boards to their fullest potential (Bouffard, 2009). Because communication in middle school is often precipitated by problems, there is a sense of urgency to figure out the complex middle school context and find someone to talk with who will listen and has solutions. This urgency is exacerbated by the fact that their youth have stopped sharing and teachers teach far too many students to have frequent communication with all. It was heartening that parents and teachers alike wanted positive first communication experiences and share some concerns that the conversations go well.

Communication science identifies knowledge as either explicit (objective and codifiable) or tacit (i.e., unspoken rules and knowledge that are implicit and embedded within the cul- ture, Dhanaraj, Lyles, Steensma, & Tihanyi, 2004; Reychav & Weisberg, 2010). Applied to school contexts, explicit knowledge about how the school functions and policies for course enroll- ment and extracurricular activities can be (and usually are) eas- ily communicated through handbooks, websites, course contracts, etc.. In contrast, communicating tacit information is

more challenging, although it is the information that families crave and need most. Such tacit knowledge is the assumed understanding of parents’ roles and responsibilities, informa- tion about programs to support students that are either at the school or in the community, or methods and ways to work around explicit rules to provide access to programs, services, more experienced teachers, and other advantages. These rules or information are not written down or readily shared. Indeed, some parents hold such information as a commodity (Hill, 2009).

Further, increased hierarchy and bureaucratic structure impedes tacit knowledge sharing (Tsai, 2002), as do formal sys- tems and relationships (Yang & Maxwell, 2011). Indeed, tacit information is more likely to be shared when there is a shared identity, shared goals, social cohesion and trust. However, mid- dle schools are characterized by increased hierarchy and bureaucracy and are contexts where is it more difficult to develop relationships (Eccles et al., 1993) and there are lower levels of trust (Stone, 2003). For those who may feel marginal- ized (e.g., low-income, ethnic minority, or immigrant families), the lack of trust and shared experience are especially significant barriers for relationship building and knowledge sharing (Wid�en-Wulff et al., 2008). Notably, the Latino parents in this study reported lower levels of parental self-efficacy regarding involvement in school. They likely have less implicit or tacit knowledge about how to be involved. Considering that commu- nication and information sharing was a common theme that emerged across ethnicity and among parents, youth, and teach- ers or counselors, policies and practices could benefit from a more integral understanding of how to anticipate and commu- nicate tacit and explicit knowledge.

Whereas there were many similarities across ethnicity in the goals and strategies related to parental involvement in educa- tion, Latino and African American families’ discussions of racial hierarchies, differential expectations, and stereotypes that may undermine children’s opportunities were similar to prior research (e.g., Crozer, 2001; Tennenbaum & Ruck, 2007; Wallace, 2013). Such experiences have the potential to impact involvement. For example, Park and Holloway (2013) found that when African American parents faced problems with schools they increased their involvement at home. In contrast, our findings showing that African American parents, with stronger efficacy beliefs and higher levels of involvement com- pared to Euro-Americans and Latino, do not shy away from involvement at school even when they find the school to be racially stratified. It may be easy to interpret lack of involve- ment as a lack of care for education or interpret African Ameri- can parents’ seemingly adversarial interaction style as evidence of an unwillingness to work together. However, the parents in this study demonstrate that it is reflective of an intense care, concern, and caution they have about the discrimination and bias against their youth that is inherent in American schools (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007).

Parents and youth alike believe parents should be involved in education during middle school. Most parents want to know how to support their youth more effectively (Bridgeland et al., 2008; Trusty & Harris, 1999). Although this study provided a rich description of the goals, strategies, and experiences related to parental involvement in education from the perspectives of

24 N. E. HILL ET AL.

ethnically diverse youth, their parents, and teachers, there are some limitations. First, we focused on youth who were perform- ing relatively well (at grade level or above). Although this design reduces the confound between ethnicity and achievement levels that may impact our understanding of ethnic differences in parental involvement in education, we may have missed impor- tant strategies that families engage in that help turn around poor achievement. Second, although the parents and youth were from the same families, we were not able to connect the comments made by individual students with their parents and the teachers’ comments were not necessarily focused upon these particular stu- dents and families. The parents and youth’s focus groups were separate focus group discussions that were transcribed and coded without identifying information. It is a different kind of study that might have interviews with parents and youth that are linked in a way that we can determine how the types of strategies parents use are fitted to individual student needs and assets, which are then matched with the teachers’ perspectives. Despite these limi- tations, consistent strategies emerged from these focus groups that suggest that the most significant strategies for parental involvement during middle school include equipping, coaching, scaffolding and meaning making to a greater degree than might be required in elementary school. Effective parent–school rela- tionshipsmeans that schools need to equip parents to equip youth to so theymay reach their potential and achieve their dreams.

Acknowledgments

We thank Lorraine Tuck, Ed.D. and Heidi Coleman of the Durham Public Schools and the principals, teachers, and families of two of their middle schools; Karen Mapp, Ed.D. at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. We also thank the research team: Diana Tyson, Ph.D.; Lea Bromell, Ph.D.; Roxanne Flint, MA; Jerusha Saldana Yanez, Ed.M; Adan Rodriquez, Ed.M.; MayaWeillundemo, Ed.M.; Yasmin Pereya, Ed.M.; AndreaMalone; Claudia Ruiz; Megan Golonka; Miatta Echetebu; Tameka; Yeney Hernandez; Nas- tassja Marshall; Stephany Cuevas; Kimberly Stevens; and Harry Schnur.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

References

Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family–school relationship: Examination of parent-teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 477–497.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.

Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (2004). Assessing the transitions to middle and high school. Journal of Adolescent Research 19, 3–30.

Bouffard, S. M. (2009). Tapping into technology: Using the Internet to pro- mote family–school communication. In N. E. Hill & R. K. Chao (Eds.), Families, schools, and the adolescent: Connecting research, policy, and practice (pp. 147–161). New York, NY: Teachers College.

Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., Streeter, R. T., Mason, J. R., & Civic, E. (2008). One dream, two realities: Perspectives of parents on America’s high schools. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.

Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Reynolds, M. (1999). Learning to make good deci- sions: A self-regulation perspective.Child Development, 70, 1121–1140.

Ceballo, R., Maurizi, L. K., Suarez, G. A., & Aretakis, M. T. (2014). Gift and sacrifice: Parental involvement in Latino adolescents’ education. Cul- tural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 116–127.

Ceci, S., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the “have-nots” gain but “haves” gain even more. American Psy- chologist, 60, 149–160.

Christenson, S. L., & Reschly, A. L. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook on school- family partnerships for promoting student competence. New York, NY: Routledge.

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24, 377–392.

Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parent-adolescent relationships and influences. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adoles- cent psychology (2nd Ed.) (pp. 331–361). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Cooper, H. (2007). The battle over homework: Common ground for admin- istrators, teachers, and parents (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Crosnoe, R. (2001). Academic orientation and parental involvement in education during high school. Sociology of Education, 74, 210–230.

Crozier, G. (2001). Excluded parents: The deracialization of parental involvement. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 4(4), 329–341.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determina- tion in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

DePlanty, J., Coulter-Kern, R., & Duchane, K. A. (2007). Perceptions of parent involvement in academic achievement. The Journal of Educa- tional Research, 100, 361–368. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.100.6.361- 368

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed., vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, R. A., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, L. (2004). Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of Interna- tional Business Studies, 35, 428–442.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., & Fla- nagan, C. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family–school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K. Hurrelman, F. X. Kaufman, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and con- straints (pp. 121–136). Berlin, Germany: Water de Gruyer.

Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2002). Family, school, and community partnerships. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, vol. 5: Practical issues in parenting (pp. 407–437). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fan, W., Williams, C. M., & Wolters, C. A. (2012). Parental involve- ment in predicting school motivations: Similar and differential effects across ethnic groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 21–35.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1– 22.

Garcia Coll, C. T., Meyer, E., & Brillon, L. (1995). Ethnic and minority par- enting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, vol. 2: Biology and ecology of parenting (pp. 189–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldrine.

Gordon, M. S., & Cui, M. (2012). The effect of school-specific parenting processes on academic achievement in adolescence and young adult- hood. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 61, 728–741.

Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in child- ren’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivation model. Child Development, 65, 237–252.

Halpern-Felsher, B. L., & Cauffman, E. (2001). Costs and benefits of a deci- sion: Decision-making competence in adolescents and adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 257–276.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87–97.

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 25

Hill, N. E. (2009). Culturally-based world views, family processes, and fam- ily school interactions. In S. L. Christenson & A. Reschly (Eds.), The handbook on school-family partnerships for promoting student compe- tence. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hill, N. E. (2011). Undermining partnerships between African-American families and schools: Legacies of discrimination and inequalities. In N. E. Hill, T. L. Mann, & H. E. Fitzgerald (Eds.), African American child- ren’s mental health, vol. 1: Development and context (pp. 199–230). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Hill, N. E. (2015). Family–school relationships during adolescence: Clarify- ing goals, broadening conceptualizations, and deepening impact. In S. M. Sheridan & E. M. Kim (Eds.), Family–school partnerships. Medford, MA: Springer.

Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge K. A., Bates, J. E. & Petit, G S. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development 75(5), 1491–1509.

Hill, N. E., & Chao, R. K. (2009). Introduction: Background in theory, pol- icy, and practice. In N. E. Hill & R. K. Chao (Eds.), Families, schools, and the adolescent: Connecting research, policy, and practice (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hill, N. E., & Torres, K. (2010). Negotiating the American dream: The paradox of Latino students’ goals and achievement and engagement between families and schools. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 95–112.

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740–763.

Hill, N. E., & Wang, M.-T. (2014). From middle school to college: Promot- ing engagement, developing aspirations and the mediated pathways from parenting to post high school college enrollment. Developmental Psychology, 51, 224–235.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42.

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority children’s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 202–218.

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relation between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analy- sis. Urban Education, 42, 82–110.

Jeynes, W. H. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involve- ment and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Record, 112, 747–774.

Jeynes, W. H. (2011). Parental involvement research: Moving to the next level. The School Community Journal, 21, 9–18.

Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47, 706–742.

Jodl, K. M., Michael, A., Malanchuk, O., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2001). Parents’ roles in shaping early adolescents’ occupational aspirations. Child Development, 72, 1247–1265.

Johnston, C., & Mash, E. J. (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 167–175.

Keating, D. P. (2004). Cognitive and brain development. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 45–84). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kim, S. W., & Hill, N. E. (2015). Including fathers in the picture: A meta- analysis of parental involvement and students’ academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 919–934.

Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., McMahon, R. J., & Conduct Problems Preven- tion Research Group. (2000). Parent involvement in school: Conceptu- alizing multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 501–523.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuperminc, G. P., Darnell, A. J., & Alvarez-Jimenez, A. (2008). Parent involvement in the academic adjustment of Latino middle and high

school youth: Teacher expectations and school belonging as mediators. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 469–483.

Lareau, A. (1996). Assessing parent involvement in schooling: A critical analysis. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 57–64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (2009). Parent-adolescent relationships and influences. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adoles- cent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed., vol. 2:, pp. 3–42). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and sub- stance use. Developmental Psychology, 47, 233–247. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0021307

Lopez, G. R. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons on parent involve- ment from an (im)migrant household. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 416–437.

Lynch, E. W., & Stein, R. C. (1987). Parent participation by ethnicity: A comparison of Hispanic, Black, and Anglo families. Exceptional Chil- dren, 54, 105–111.

Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., Strictland, C. S., & Meza, C. (2008). High school family centers: Transformative spaces linking schools and fami- lies in support of learning.Marriage & Family Review, 43, 338–368.

Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in Education: A dual capac- ity-building framework for family–school partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/framework/FE-Cap-Building.pdf

McIntosh, K., Girvan, E. J., Horner, R. H., & Smolkowski, K. (2014). Edu- cation not incarceration: A conceptual model for reducing racial and ethnic disproportionality in school discipline. Journal of Applied Research on Children, 5, 1–22.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. MS., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 91, 188–204.

Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., Terry, K., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2004). Possible selves as roadmaps. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 130–149.

Park, S., & Holloway, S. D. (2013). No parent left behind: Predicting paren- tal involvement in adolescents’ education within a sociodemographi- cally diverse population. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 105–119.

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1039–1101. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325185

Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373–410.

Reychav, I., & Weisberg, J. (2010). Bridging intention and behavior of knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 285–300.

Seiffge-Krenke, I., Kiuru, N., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2002). Adolescents as “pro- ducers of their own development”: Correlates and consequences of the importance and attainment of developmental tasks. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 479–510.

Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 69–74.

Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook on parenting (vol. 1, pp. 103–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stevenson, H. W., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family–school relations and the child’s school performance. Child Development, 58, 1348–1357.

Stone, S. (2003). The transition to high school: Teacher and parent per- spectives in a large, urban, predominantly minority school system. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 12, 47–67.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Migra- tion, Family Life, and Achievement Motivation among Latino Adoles- cents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

26 N. E. HILL ET AL.

Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations differ- ent for racial minority than for European American students? A meta- analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253–273.

Toren, N. K. (2013). Multiple dimensions of parental involvement and its links to young adolescent self-evaluation and academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 634–649.

Trusty, J. (1998). Family influences on educational expectations of late adolescents. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, 260–270.

Trusty, J., & Harris, M. B. C. (1999). Lost talent: Predictors of the stability of educational expectations across adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 359–382.

Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of ‘cooperation’ within a multiunit organi- zation: Coordination competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13, 179–190.

Vogt, D. S., King, D. W., & King, L. A. (2004). Focus groups in psychologi- cal assessment: Enhancing content validity by consulting members of target population. Psychological Assessment, 16, 231–243.

Wallace, M. (2013). High school teachers and African American parents: A (not so) collaborative effort to increase student success. The High School Journal, 96, 195–208.

Wang, M.-T., Hill, N. E., & Hofkens, T. (2014). Parental involvement and adolescent academic, behavioral, and emotional development in sec- ondary school. Child Development, 85, 2151–2168. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cdev.12284

Wang, M.-T., Willett, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance across gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 465–480.

Wid�en-Wulff, G., Ek, S., Ginman, M., Perttil€a, R., S€oderga � rd, P., &

T€otterman, A.-K. (2008). Information behaviour meets social capital: a conceptual model. Journal of Information Science, 34, 346–355.

Woolley, M. E., & Bowen, G. L. (2007). In the context of risk: Supportive adults and the school engagement of middle school students. Family Relations, 56, 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00442.x

Yan, W., & Lin, Q. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achieve- ment: Contrast across racial and ethnic groups. The Journal of Educa- tional Research, 99, 116.

Yang, T.-M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.008

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 27