The Involvement of Parents of High School Students in a Positively-Oriented Seminar Directed at Increasing Academic Achievement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1992 The Involvement of Parents of High School Students in a Positively-Oriented Seminar Directed at Increasing Academic Achievement Mary E. O'Reilly Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation O'Reilly, Mary E., "The Involvement of Parents of High School Students in a Positively-Oriented Seminar Directed at Increasing Academic Achievement" (1992). Dissertations. 3230. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/3230 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1992 Mary E. O'Reilly THE INVOLVEMENT OF PARENTS OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN A POSITIVELY - ORIENTED SEMINAR DIRECTED AT INCREASING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT by Mary E. O'Reilly A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Education of Loyola University of Chicago in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education May 1992 Mary E. O'Reilly Loyola University of Chicago THE INVOLVEMENT OF PARENTS OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN A POSITIVELY - ORIENTED SEMINAR DIRECTED AT INCREASING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Literature concerning parental involvement, while very limited at the high school level and very weak in terms of design quality, points to the importance of such involvement, especially in reference to student achievement. This study examines parent involvement with high school guidance services, particularly the relationship between academic achievement and parent participation in a structured school based seminar, entitled: Grade Booster Night. The hypotheses tested include: 1) There will be no difference between Grade Booster (GB) and non-Grade Booster (non-GB) parents in terms of their perception of their frustration and aloneness in facing the problem of high school underachievement. 2) There will be no difference between GB and non-GB parents on their awareness of and their perceived success of the academic improvement strategies. 3) There will be no difference between GB and non-GB parents with regard to their perception of school staff concern. 4) There will be no difference between students whose parents attend Grade Booster Night and students whose parents do not attend Grade Booster Night when examining their grades, attendance and disciplinary steps. 5) There will be no difference across grade levels and sex when examining GB or non-GB status, grades, attendance and disciplinary steps. 6) There will be no difference between students in Project success or Reading relative to their grades, sex, grade level, and status of their parents as GB or non-GB parents. central to this study are the results of the Very Important Parent (VIP) Survey matched with student profile data. The results largely show Grade Booster Night attendance not significantly related to the myriad of factors tested. Several trends, however, favor GB parents and their children. F grades improved for 72% of the children of GB parents. The range of days absent is much smaller for children of GB parents. Most students in this study had no disciplinary steps, but for students who had steps, they clustered at a lower level for children of GB Parents than for children of non-GB parents. Feelings of frustration/confidence for 48% of the GB parents showed positive change, while the percentage for non-GB parents was 26.42%. On the feeling alone/not alone scale 28% of GB parents and only 7.55% of non-GB parents showed a positive change in attitude. Both parent types felt that school staff showed a moderate level of concern about their underachieving students. The difference between GB and non GB parents' knowledge of academic improvement strategies was expected. However, there was no difference between the perceived success of strategies used by GB or non-GB parents. No strategy seemed clearly effective for GB or non-GB parents. In fact almost none of the GB parents found any of the strategies very successful. Measuring the additional effects of Project Success or Reading on children of GB and non-GB parents was not possible due to very small numbers in this study. The present study, exploratory and descriptive, with stringent restraints on the analyses, is limited in its ability to substantiate previous research. However, future research following the recommendations provided may more adequately validate the trends seen in this study. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With sincere gratitude the author wishes to acknowledge several people who have contributed to the completion of this dissertation: To Dr. Manuel Silverman for his patience and expertise as director of this project. To Dr. Gloria Lewis and Dr. John Wozniak for their time and effort serving on this dissertation committee. To the helpful staff of Loyola's Computing Center, especially Sharon Marquez. To the 131 parents who shared their concern, pain and frustration in dealing with academic underachievement on the VIP Survey. To the 131 underachieving students in this study with the hope that the research herein may have in some way benefited them and other students to follow. To the administration of Lake Park High School, District 108, who provided the necessary facilities, materials and, most importantly, the time and encouragement to finish this project. To the colleagues and supervisor who listened to the trials and frustrations of the writer and who filled in when necessary during the final year of completion. ii To her parents whose values and attitudes about education have sustained the writer throughout the program. To many friends and family members who have anxiously awaited the author's completion of this project. And finally, a special thanks to principal typist, Valerie Collier, with assistance from Cynthia Skalican, for their superb efforts in preparing the final manuscript. To all these people the author is indebted. Their assistance and support have turned a long struggle into a finished product. iii VITA The author, Mary E. O'Reilly, is the daughter of the late Patrick and the late Beatrice (Cummins) O'Reilly. She was born in Chicago, Illinois on September 30, 1946. Ms. O'Reilly attended parochial schools in Chicago, completing her secondary education at Alvernia High School in June of 1964, a Bachelor of Arts Degree in psychology at Mundelein College in June of 1968 and a Master of Education in Counseling/Guidance at Loyola University in June of 1971. Of her 23 years in the field of education she has worked 20 years as a high school counselor. She is currently employed by Lake Park High School in Roselle, Illinois as a freshman counselor. She is a National Certified Counselor, a National Certified School Counselor, a past president of the DuPage County School Counselors Association and a member of Phi Delta Kappa. She has given 14 convention/conference presentations for such organizations as: Illinois Association for Counseling and Development, Illinois Pupil Personnel Services Conference, American Association for Counseling and Development and Illinois Association of College Admissions Counselors. Among these presentations four were related to the Grade Booster Seminar, including one at the 14th International iv Roundtable for the Advancement of Counseling in Dublin, Ireland. She has organized and participated in a cable TV series of 63 programs on college information. She has also had an article published in College Prep, a publication of the College Board. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. ii VITA iv LIST OF TABLES. viii CONTENTS OF APPENDICES. xvi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . 1 Underachievement and its Ramifications. 2 Barriers to Parent Involvement. • • . 6 Support for Parent Involvement. • • . 10 Background of the Grade Booster Seminar. 17 The Purpose of this Study. • • . • . 19 Definition of Terms. • . • . • • . 22 Assumptions of this Study. • • . • • 26 Limitations of this Study. • • . • • • 26 Organization of this Study . • . 28 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 29 Underachievement .....•...••.•. 30 Studies Evaluating Parent Attitudes/ Behaviors. .... 33 Parent Involvement Studies ......•.. 41 Parent Education studies ..•.. 43 Parent Counseling Studies .....••.. 54 Parent/Student Combination Studies 57 Comparative Parent Program studies .. 78 Summary. 88 Hypotheses .•.... 89 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY .•.. 91 The Setting. .. 91 The Program ...... 92 The Sample ...... 97 The Procedure ..... 99 The Instrument ... 100 Statistical Procedure. 101 vi IV. RESULTS. 103 Part I: Analysis of Frequencies. • • • 103 Student Profile Sheet. • • . • • • 103 VIP Survey • • • • • • • . • • • • • • 112 Part II: Analysis of Crosstabulations ••• 163 Summary of Crosstabulation Results •••• 264 summary. • • • • • • • • . • • 266 v. SUMMARY. • . 269 Conclusions and Implications. .•.. 278 Recommendations for Future Research. • . 284 REFERENCES • . 290 APPENDICES . 297 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. student Grade Level and Sex .. 104 2. Number of F's at the First Six Week Progress Report and at the Semester . • . 105 3. Number of F's at the First Six Week Progress Report and at the Semester Listed by Sex. 105 4. Number of F's at the First Six Week Progress Report and at the Semester Listed by Grade Level 106 5. Change in the Number of F's from the First Six Weeks to the Semester. ..... 107 6. Change in the Number of F's from the First Six Weeks to the Semester by Grade Level and Sex .. 107 7. Number of Students with Physical Education as Their Only F the First Six Weeks, Listed by Grade Level and Sex. • ........... 108 8. Student Absences for the First Semester of the 1985-86 School Year. .. 109 9. Absence by Grade Level and Sex. 110 10. Course Load by Grade Level and Sex. 110 11. Highest Disciplinary Step After Completion of First Semester ...•....•........ 111 12. Highest Disciplinary Step After Completion of First Semester Listed by Grade Level and Sex 112 13.