1

INTRODUCTION

K to 12 has provoked intense discussions concerning the legality, applicability

and timing. Aquino (2011) asserted that K to 12 is in response to the requirements of a

competitive global economy and the need for greater accountability to parents.

Multiple strategies have been suggested to involve parents in the education of students

but there is a need for additional research on this aspect. Parents, teachers and school

administrator’s innovative involvement activities towards the implementation of SHS

work immersion programs in Diocesan schools are very evident. Some schools already

started and on-going immersion on TVL track such as the SMAW, ICT, and Agriculture

Strand. This involvement promotes student achievement and effectively connect

schools, families, and communities. .However, the issue remains as to what extent of

internal stakeholders’ involvement in SHS work immersion program. As the students are

still minors, DepEd (2017) said that work immersion requires parental consent.

The present study is anchored on Pierre Bourdieu’s Social and Cultural Capital

Theories to explain why parental involvement has an impact on children’s achievement

and adjustment to school. These theories also explain a number of sociological

phenomena such as political participation, neighborhood effects, income and social

inequalities, and more recently parent involvement. In some to foster parent

involvement academic interventions use the building and cultivating of social capital.

Bourdieu (1985) defined social capital as the aggregate of the actual or potential

resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less

 2

institutionalized relationship of mutual acquaintance or recognition. According to theory

of social capital, parental school involvement increases parent’s access to social

networks and information (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). Social capital is represented by

parental contact and involvement in the organizational and social aspects of life of the

school. As parents established relationships with teachers, they learn important

information about the school’s policies and practices and will eventually provide them

insights and information about school expectations. Social capital also described extent

of conversation that parents through parental monitoring of their children’s school

engagement. Therefore, discussion with the child about school will be able to transmit

interest about the importance of education.

This study will analyze on the internal stakeholders’ involvement in

senior high school work immersion program. This study will determine

the profile of parents in terms of gender, number of children enrolled in

school, highest educational attainment and family income; the profile of

teachers in terms of educational qualification and subject taught; the

school administrator’s profile in terms of educational qualification and

years in service. Specifically, it answers the following questions:

1. What is the extent of internal stakeholders’ involvement in the

Senior High School Work Immersion Program?

2. Is there a significant relationship between the extent of internal

stakeholders’ involvement in the following types of parental

involvement: parenting, communicating, collaborating with the

 3

community, volunteering, learning at home and school and decision

making and the extent of involvement in the work immersion

program?

3. What are the challenges in the implementation of work immersion

program?

4. What school improvement plan can be developed in the

implementation of work immersion?

METHODOLOGY

This study applied the descriptive research design employing mixed methods of

research—a philosophically-underpinned model of inquiry combining qualitative and

quantitative models of research so that evidence may be mixed and knowledge is

increased in a more meaningful manner than either model could achieve alone (Office

of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, 2011). The descriptive model involved

collection of data in order to test hypotheses or to answer questions concerning the

present status of the subject of the study. It shall include survey approach and focus

group discussion (FGD). The survey questionnaire was field tested to measure validity.

This study was conducted in the province of Lanao del Norte and City of Iligan to the twelve

Diocesan schools.

The study applied purposive sampling in order to have a wide range of research

designs that the researcher can draw. It was more effective when one needs to study a

certain cultural domain with knowledgeable experts within based on characteristics of a

 4

population and the objective of the study. Purposive sampling was used to the teacher

respondents, who were teaching SHS students (Grade 11 and Grade 12), and to the 12

school administrators.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Profile of Internal Stakeholders

A. PARENTS

There are 45 or 21% of the male respondents and 169 or 79% were

female. Majority were high school graduates, having 1 child enrolled

in the school and received an average monthly income of Php

5,000.00 to Php 10,000.00. This depicts that most of the respondents

are female.

Highest Educational Attainment of the Parents

Parents usually convey the importance of education to their children during out-

of-school hours and the information are reflected in the child's classroom behavior and

in the teacher's relationship with the student and the parents. Students whose parents

are more involved in their education have higher levels of academic performance than

students whose parents are involved to a lesser degree. Researchers have reported that
 5

parent-student interactions, specifically stimulating and responsive parenting practices,

are important influences on a student's academic initiatives (Topor, Keane, Shelton, and

Calkins, 2010).

Parents Monthly Income

Educational outcomes is one of the key areas influences by family income.

Persistent socioeconomic disadvantage has a negative impact on the life outcomes of

many families. Parents of children living in the lowest level of social class often struggle

to provide them with enough quality food and appropriate attention to school activities.

Similarly, Sean (2013, cited by Farzan, (2013) represents in his study how students from

families with high income are having best performance than low-income families’

students.

B. TEACHERS

Highest Educational Attainment of Teachers

The most important factor of having quality education depends on the quality of

teacher education. This implies that educational level of teachers is a big factor in

achieving child’s academic success as well as having more influence on decision making
 6

and practice shared leadership with parents on school improvement factors as

examined by Gordon and Louis (2009).

Subject Taught by Teachers

Table 6 shows that most of the subject taught by teachers are Math, Science and

English. This implies that education in the Philippine setting has long been giving

emphasis on these core subjects as old tradition in the educational system. But with K to

12’s early stage of implementation, it is notable that specialized fields offered in SHS

show limited number of teachers.

 7

Educational Attainment and Years of Service

Table 7 implies that most of the school administrators are in Bachelor’s degree.

However most of them have been in service for almost ten years and above. It means

that the more years in service, the more confident school administrators the more

involvement from parents and to the community as well.

Extent of Internal Stakeholders’ Participation in the Parental Involvement

A. PARENTS

Table 8 further shows that the parents were moderately involved in learning at home

and school with a weighted mean of 2.88. They were highly involved in encouraging

their students to set targets and goals (𝑋̅=3.34) and moderately involved in the

acknowledgement of report card and process (𝑋̅=3.22) and supporting of the school’s

parental involvement policies (𝑋̅=2.93).

 8

Parent involvement is broadly defined as the behaviors, values, attitudes and

activities of parents that promote their child’s academic development, ability to learn

and educational outcomes (Department of Education and Training [Australian

Government], 2015). School-based parental involvement means that parents must come

in contact with schools (Pomerantz & Ruble, 1998). This type of contact includes a

continuum of interaction that runs the gamut from attending parent teacher

conferences, school events, and contact with teachers or other personnel (Sheldon,

2002).

Table 9 shows that the teachers were moderately involved in communicating

with a weighted mean of 3.23. Teachers were highly involved in ensuring that parents

would have an interview with them after receiving their children’s report card (𝑋̅=3.31)

so that parents of slow learners would be aware of the situation and could come up

with an intervention to help their children do better in class (𝑋̅=3.30). They were highly

involved in providing translation when there is a need to in an important

communication (𝑋̅=3.28).

Teachers play a vital role in the education of children. Their attitudes, beliefs,

and actions toward parental involvement are critical factors of parental involvement

programs (Addi-Raccha & Arviv-Elyashiv, 2008). Teachers' perceptions of parents and

their involvement are developed by history, culture, and school practices (Lazar &
 9

Slostad, 1999). The perceptions that teachers hold about parents and how parents

should be involved can help or hinder parental involvement.

Most new teachers believe they cannot be effective unless they can work with

parents (Jacobson, 2005), and open communication between school and home is the

desire of many teachers (Baker, 2001). However, according to Comer (2001), many

teachers become trapped in old parent involvement paradigms placing the teacher at

the center of the debate rather than working towards a partnership that places the child

at the center of the debate. In the learning process, to get away from the old practices is

to involve parents in the learning process.

A. Administrators

Table 10 presents the administrators’ extent of participation in types of parental

involvement. It could be gleaned in the table that school heads were highly involved in

the learning at school and home with a weighted mean of 3.75. It was shown that they

were highly involved in making good judgment on how the school run (𝑋̅=3.92) and

encouraged their constituents to focus more on the improvement of their students’

academic performance (𝑋̅=3.83). Also, the school council were highly involved in asking

parents to participate in planning programs that would better the school policies

(𝑋̅=3.75) and actively listen to their concerns (𝑋̅=3.83).

 10

As gleaned from Table 10, the school administrators were highly involved in

volunteering and communicating with a weighted mean of 3.65. They were highly

involved in conducting conferences with the stakeholders of the school and provide

translations when the need arises (𝑋̅=3.83). School heads were highly involved in

making sure that parents would have an interview with the respective teachers of their

children after the first releasing of cards and be certain that parents of slow learners are

aware of the condition (𝑋̅=3.58). Moreover, they were highly involved in making sure

that they were able to reach the parents (𝑋̅=3.42).

Administrators and policy makers alike intuitively accept the importance of

Parental Participation in schools; however, knowing how to meaningfully engage

parents for the benefit of all children is less understood (Vahedi, 2010)

School Principals appear to play a central role in shaping school climate and

facilitating parent involvement in child learning through their leadership style,

communication, attitudes and expectations (Barr & Saltmarsh, 2014; Drysdale, Goode, &

Gurr, 2009; Giles, 2006; Gordon & Louis, 2009; Mleczko & Kington, 2013). Mleckzo and

Kington (2013) similarly argue that levels of parent involvement in schools increase

when Principals actively embed a whole school vision that values the role of parents in

their child’s learning.

Summary of the Extent of Internal Stakeholders’ Participation in Parental Involvement

As evident in Table 11, the teachers manifest high involvement in providing ideas

and information on how to help students with homework and other curriculum related
 11

activities (𝑋̅=3.36). However, the teachers showed moderate involvement in the

parental involvement that support learning (𝑋̅=2.76); opportunities for school-to-home

communications about school programs and student progress (𝑋̅=3.23); inviting parents

to volunteer in the school activities (X ̅=2.53); in the participation of parents in the

Table 11 The Summary of the Frequency and Mean Distribution of the Extent of
Internal Stakeholders Participation in the Parental Involvement
Not involved Sometimes Moderately Highly
at all involved involved involved Mean Description
Moderately
Parenting 50 85 178 87 2.76 involved
Moderately
Communicating 14 57 153 176 3.23 involved
Teachers Collaborating with Moderately
community 35 86 153 126 2.53 involved
Volunteering 10 46 135 209 3.36 Highly involved
Learning at Home and Moderately
School 18 50 169 163 3.19 involved
Moderately
Decision-making 27 45 226 102 3.01 involved
Moderately
Mean average 3.01 involved
Not involved Sometimes Moderately Highly
at all involved involved involved Mean Description
Moderately
Parenting 74 286 352 357 2.93 involved
Moderately
Communicating 254 339 332 359 2.62 involved
Collaborating with Sometimes
Parents
community 246 222 204 184 2.38 involved
Moderately
Volunteering 169 240 234 213 2.57 involved
Learning at Home and Moderately
School 215 312 407 564 2.88 involved
Moderately
Decision-making 170 222 286 392 2.78 involved
Moderately
Mean Average 2.69 involved
Not involved Sometimes Moderately Highly
at all involved involved involved Mean Description
Parenting 1 4 30 25 3.32 Highly involved
Communicating 0 1 13 46 3.65 Highly involved
Collaborating with Moderately
Administrators
community 3 26 21 10 2.63 involved
Volunteering 0 1 19 40 3.65 Highly involved
Learning at Home and
School 0 1 13 46 3.75 Highly involved
Decision-making 0 4 23 33 3.48 Highly involved
 12

Mean Average 3.41 Highly involved

Mean Range: 3.26-4.00 = Highly involved; 2.51-3.25 = Moderately involved
1.76-2.50 = Sometimes involved; 1.00-1.75 = Not involved at all

school’s decision making process (𝑋̅=3.19); and in identifying the resources in the

community that can help the school (𝑋̅=3.01). This is an evidence that the teachers were

not highly involve parental involvement except in providing ideas and information on

how to help students with homework and other curriculum related activities

The parents conversely manifest moderate involvement parenting (𝑋̅=2.93);

communicating (𝑋̅=2.62); volunteering (𝑋̅=2.57); learning at home and school (𝑋̅=2.88);

and decision-making (𝑋̅=2.78). However, the parents showed little involvement in

collaborating with community (𝑋̅=2.38). This implies that the parents were not highly

involve in parental involvement, when in fact they should be considering that they

played potent role in parental involvement

On the other hand, the administrators showed high involvement in Parenting

(𝑋̅=3.32); Communicating (𝑋̅=3.65); Collaborating with community (𝑋̅=2.63);

Volunteering; Learning at Home and School (𝑋̅=3.65); and in Decision-making (𝑋̅=3.75).

This implies active parental involvement of the administrators in all aspects.

 13

Extent of Internal Stakeholders’ Involvement in the SHS Work Immersion Program

A. Parents Involvement

Extent of Parents Involvement in SHS Work Immersion Program

Table 12 shows that the parents were moderately involved after the immersion

with a weighted mean of 3.10. Parents were highly involved in guiding their children as

to their reflection about their immersion experience (𝑋̅=3.31). On the other hand,

parents were moderately involved in guiding their children in updating resume (𝑋̅=3.18)

and, as well as, in the presentation and discussion of their portfolios (𝑋̅=3.10).

Research on the effectiveness of parental involvement is vast and has produced

a wide range of results. It has been shown that positive effects on children’s academic

outcomes is the result of parental involvement. It is associated with higher academic

performance (Hayakawa, Englund, Warner Richter & Reynolds, 2013), lower rates of

grade retention and placement into special education (Miedel, 2000), and lower rates of

high school dropout and increased on time high school completion (Barnard, 2004).

B. Teachers Involvement

Table 13 shows the extent of teachers’ participation of the internal stakeholders

on the implementation of SHS work immersion program. It was shown that the
 14

teachers were highly involved in immersion proper with a weighted mean of 3.26.

Teachers supervise their students (𝑋̅=3.28), making sure that they had monitored

the progress of their students (𝑋̅=3.29) so that they could give intervention

programs, if there was a need, to help their students (X =̅ 3.25).

Extent of Teachers Involvement in SHS Work Immersion Program

It was further shown in the table that the teachers were moderately involved in post

immersion with a weighted mean of 3.22. The table above tells that the teachers were

moderately involved in consolidating photos or pictures of their immersion experience

(𝑋̅=3.21) that would guide and help them during their reflection about their experiences

as they were immersed in their respective fields (𝑋̅=3.24). Moreover, the educators

were highly involved in guiding them in the presentation of their portfolios (𝑋̅=3.26).

Lastly, it was shown in the table that they were moderately involved in the pre-

immersion with a weighted mean of 3.16. The teachers were highly involved in guiding

and helping their students in securing and accomplishing the forms needed to be

submitted (𝑋̅=3.33) and were moderately involved in validating the submitted forms

(𝑋̅=3.19). Data further shows that immersion teachers were moderately involved in

providing a checklist of things and documents needed to submit before pre-immersion,

during immersion and after immersion.

C. Administrators Involvement

Data on the Table 14 presents that the administrators were highly involved in

the pre-immersion program with a weighted mean of 3.85. They were highly involved in
 15

conducting orientation regarding the immersion program and validating the forms

needed to be submitted (𝑋̅=3.92) and providing checklist for the requirements before,

during and after immersion (𝑋̅=3.83). Also, they were highly involved in securing that all

forms were accomplished (𝑋̅=3.75).

Furthermore, the table shows that the school heads were highly involved after

the immersion program with a weighted mean of 3.80. They were highly involved in

guiding the students in reflecting about their experience and supervised them on how to

present their portfolios (𝑋̅=3.83). It was further revealed that the school heads were

highly involved in evaluating the organization or establishment for immersion (𝑋̅=3.75)

and guides the students in updating their resumes (𝑋̅=3.83). Under the SHS Manual of

Operations, the school administrators are responsible to lead and manage the school by

preparing school personnel , stakeholders and partners in the community to support the

implementation of work immersion program (DepEd Order 30, 2017)

Summary of the Extent of Internal Stakeholders’ Involvement in the SHS Work

Immersion Program

Table 15: The Frequency and Mean Distribution of the Summary of the Extent of
Internal Stakeholders’ Involvement in the SHS Work Immersion program

Not
involved Sometimes Moderately Highly
at all involved involved involved Mean
(f) (f) (f) (f) (x) Description
Teachers
Pre-Immersion 21 44 119 136 3.16 Moderately involved
Immersion Proper 25 37 109 160 3.26 Highly involved
Post Immersion 32 0 143 188 3.22 Moderately involved
Weighted
mean 3.21 Moderately involved
Not
involved Sometimes Moderately Highly
Parents
at all involved involved involved Mean
(f) (f) (f) (f) (x) Description
 16

Pre-Immersion 67 114 227 448 3.29 Highly involved

Immersion Proper 47 114 242 453 3.27 Highly involved
Post Immersion 102 161 285 522 3.1 Moderately involved
Weighted
mesn 3.22 Moderately involved
Not
involved Sometimes Moderately Highly
at all involved involved involved Mean
(f) (f) (f) (f) (x) Description
Admin Pre-Immersion 0 0 7 41 3.85 Highly involved
Immersion Proper 0 0 3 45 3.94 Highly involved
Post Immersion 0.00 0.00 12.00 48.00 3.80 Highly involved
Weighted
mean 3.86 Highly involved

The parents displayed high involvement in the pre-immersion with a mean 3.29

and in the immersion stage with a mean of 3.27, but showed Moderate involvement in

the post-immersion stage with a mean of 3.1. This is justifiable since the parents has less

role to play after the immersion.

The school administrators manifest high involvement during the pre-immersion

(𝑋̅=3.85), immersion (𝑋̅=3.94) and post immersion (𝑋̅=3.80) stage. This is an excellent

manifestations of involvement and suggest that the school administration was highly

involve from the start of the work immersion program up to the end.

Significant Relationship Between the Extent of Internal Stakeholders’ Participation in

the Types of Parental Involvement and the Extent Involvement of the Work Immersion

Program
 17

As gleaned from Table 16, the p-value is 0.259 which is higher than .05 level of

significance. This suggests that there is no significant relationship between the internal

stakeholders’ participation and types of parental involvement. There is no significant

association between the sets of ranks by calculating Spearman’s rank correlation

coefficient (rs) is indicated by p = 0.259. The value of rs indicate that there is evidence to

suggest a weak, negative agreement (rs = -0.311) between the internal stakeholders’

participation and types of parental involvement (p = 0.259).

Spearman’s Rho Correlation was utilized to measure strength of association of

two variables; the Extent of Internal Stakeholders’ Participation in the Parental

Involvement and the Extent Participation of the Work Immersion Program.

To carry the immersion program, DepEd and various industry partners linked a

Memorandum of Understanding for the SHS program requirements (DepEd, 2016). On

the other hand, the Department of Labor and Employment has laid down guidelines

regarding the work immersion program. Lastly, DOLE said that the actual immersion

shall be held under the supervision of the School Head and the designated personnel of

the partner firm (DOLE, 2016).

Table 16: The Spearman’s Rho Correlation on the Extent of Internal Stakeholders’
Participation in the Parental Involvement and the Extent Participation of the Work
Immersion Program

Spearman’s Rho rs p-value Significance Decision

 18

Internal stakeholders’ -0.311 0.259 Not Significant Accept

involvement in SHS work
immersion program and types of
parental involvement

Table 16 illustrates the significant relationship between the extent of internal

stakeholders’ participation in the following types of parental involvement and the

extent participation of the work immersion program. This means that being highly

involved in work immersion program does not depend whether someone is a teacher,

parent or an administrator. Anyone could be highly involved in helping and guiding the

students in their work immersion.

Experiences of the Stakeholders in the Implementation of Work Immersion Program

The focus groups were organized to gather data about respondents’ attitudes,

beliefs, opinions, ideas, thoughts, feelings, perspective, experiences and information

about issues and concerns regarding the implementation of work immersion program.

Based on the content analysis, four (4) themes had been formulated; Best

Practices; Parental Involvement; Parent-Teacher Partnerships, and Work Immersion

Program.

Best Practices
 19

Faithful to parental responsibilities. This somehow leads the participants to

understand more on the role of parents and the partnership of the home and the school

being represented by the teachers and parents. The school will not just limit only to

teaching the child but education is given also to parents as our partner in child’s

education. Although the school is considered to be an extension of the home and

teachers have a special parental authority over the pupils, parents ought not to be

complacent and leave everything to the teachers.

Parental Involvement

Learning starts from Home. Parents, teachers and school administrators believe

that parents can do much in providing their children the right education they deserve.

The participants firmly believed that the parents are the chief educators of children

since children's acquisition of knowledge lies on how well his parents make every

opportunity to learn available for them.

Quality time. The big responsibility of parents begins in the home. They not only

teach the kids do household chores, preparing nutritious baon for kids and sending

them to school, parents can do more to support their children's schooling.

 20

Parents participation in school. Majority of the participants believe that talking

and discussing parental involvement, refers to any child/ student activities where the

parents are included.

Parent-teacher Partnership

Strong FPTA. Parents join the Federated Parents Teachers Association (FPTA)

and other organizations that will lead them to actively participate on the decision-

making of the educational services for their children. Parents also participated in school-

based activities, such as parent-teacher conferences or small-group meetings.

Communications. Constant communication to the parents through and parents

meeting. Almost all teacher participants commented that talking with children's parents

either in person, by phone, or on open school nights, and sending notices to their home.

Parent participants firmly believe that communication is the best parental

involvement. Because through this there will be two-way process, a good dialogue with

the parent and school. Through open communication parents will be aware of their role

in school and from that collaboration and decision-making will be properly manifested

with regards to the performance of the child.

Work Immersion Program

 21

Work immersion program is a course offered early to students of SHS for them to

acquaint to a workplace and acquire necessary knowledge on how to work and what to

do at work.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The researcher asserts the following conclusions:

1. The school administrators, teachers and parents were favorably involved in

the work immersion program. The school administrators work conscientiously in

providing the much needed support during the pre-immersion, immersion, and

post-immersion stage. The teachers, though mandated, manifest moderate

involvement. The parents had been moderately involved into the work

immersion of their kids.

2. The additional two years of SHS was aimed to provide time for students to

consolidate acquired academic skills and competencies and will equip learners

with skills that will better prepare them for the future, whether it be for

employment, entrepreneurship, skills development (further Tech-Voc training),

and higher education or college. Simply taken, K to 12 curriculum was designed

in a way that graduates would have the competencies to be ready for work or

business, or to proceed to college.

3. The inclusion of the immersion program was highly celebrated by the

designers as safety net to graduates who will not pursue higher education. Being

the elation there might be some adverse effects of the early immersion program
 22

to industry or any workplace. As Tucay (2015) argue “ultimately, the K-to-12

program is designed to push students to leave formal education early and not

pursue college. In effect, the government is bringing down the age of the

employable pool. With more high school students choosing to join the workforce

directly after Grade 12, more workers will soon be competing for scarce jobs,

bloating the ranks of the unemployed.”

To address the findings, the following recommendations are offered:

The School Administrators should:

a. Always remind the students that importance of work immersion and how

immersion programs help prepare students for Life and how immersion

brings academic reality into work life.

b. Find a workplace that support and help students values like honesty and

integrity in work documents; a company that promotes genuine help and

care through excellent customer service; or an organization that trains its

workers to become people with vision, plans, and leadership.

c. Consider a workplace for the students that would increases level of

consciousness about a certain work community.

For the parents to be involved in school activities, the school may:

 23

a. Create a two-way communication between the school and home about school

programs and student progress.

For future researches.

a. It is recommended to have a long term study looking into five years’ worth of

implementation of the work immersion program and policies to have a larger

sample and bigger scope of what works and what doesn’t and look into how it is

an impact to students, parents, teachers, school administrators, the school as a

whole and the community, specially the workplace. Future researches should

look into how the immersion program may benefit the workforce of the

industries in terms of work attitudes, values and most of all productivity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Books

Berger, E.H. (2008). Parents as partners in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
 24

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson, (Ed.), Handbook of theory

and research for the sociology of education, (pp. 241-258). New York:
Greenwood.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators

and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, J., Sanders, M., Sheldon, S., Simon, B., Salinas, K., Jansorn, N. (2009). School,
family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.

Lightfoot, S.L. (1978). Worlds apart: Relationships between families and schools. New
York: Basic.

Marteleto, L.J. and De Sousa, Laeticia R. (2012). The Changing Impact of Family Size on
Adolescents’ Schooling: Assessing the Exogenous Variation in Fertility Using
Twins in Brazil. US National Library of Medicine.

Nedler, S. and McAfee, O. (1979). Working with parents: Guidelines for early childhood
and elementary teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (2011) Qualitative Methods in Health
Research: Opportunities and Considerations in Application and Review.
Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.

Pomerantz, E. M. and Ruble, D. N. (1998). The multidimensional nature of control:

Implications for the development of sex differences in self-evaluation. In J.
Heckhausen and C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life
span (pp. 159-184). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Putham, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Topor, D.R., Keane, S.P., Shelton, T.L. and Calkins, S.D. (2010). Parent involvement and
student academic performance: A multiple mediational analysis. US National
Library of Medicine.

DepEd Issuance

DepEd Order No. 30, s. 2017. Guidelines on Work Immersion

 25

B. Journals/Periodicals

Addi-Raccah, A. and Arviv-Elyashiv, R. (2008). Parent empowerment and teacher

professionalism: Teachers' perspective. Urban Education, 43(3), 394-15.

Ascher, C. (1988). Improving the home-school connection for low-income urban parents.
Urban Review, 20, 109-123. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293
973.

Baker, M. (2001). Not in front of the parents: How ‘education speaks’ prevents teachers
from being heard. Education, 43(1), 19.

Barge, K. and Loges, W. (2003). Parent, student, and teacher perceptions of parental
involvement. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31(2), 140-163.

Barnard, W. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational

attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 26 (1), 39-62.

Barnyak, N. C. and McNelly, T. A. (2009). An urban school district's parent involvement:

A study of teachers' and administrators' beliefs and practices. The School
Community Journal, 19(1).

Becher, R. (1984). Parent Involvement: A review of research and principles of successful

practices. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

Bell, J. (2004). Self Assessment of School/Program parent Involvement Practices.

Hatchuel Tabernik and Associates.

Brandt, R. (1989). On parents and schools: A conversation with Joyce Epstein.

Educational Leadership, 47(2), 24-27.

Brotman, L.M., Calzada, E., Huang, K.Y., Kingston, S.,DawsonMcClure, S., Kamboukos, D.,
and Petkova, E. (2011). Promoting effective parenting practices and preventing
child behavior problems in school among ethnically diverse families from
underserved. Urban Development. 82 (1), 258-276.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology 94, 95-121.

Comer, J.P. (2001). Schools that develop children. The American Prospect, 12(7), 3-12.

Cross, R. and Cummings, J. N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual

performance in knowledge intensive work. Academy of Management Journal,
47(6), 928-937.
 26

Cruz, I. (2015). Faculty Immersion in industry. Mini Critique. The Philippine Star. Manila.

DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D. and Cho, G. (2005). Do parents value education? Teachers'

perceptions of minority parents. Multicultural Education, 13, 44-46.

Department of Education (2016) Senior High School: MANUAL OF OPERATIONS, Volume

1: Preparing for the Opening of SHS Classes. DepEd Complex, Meralco Ave., Pasig
City, Metro Manila.

DepEd. (2013) K to 12 General Information. DepEd Complex, Meralco Ave., Pasig City,
Metro Manila.

Department of Labor and Employment (Dole) (2016). Dole sets guidelines for K-12 work
immersion program. Sunstar. Philippines.

Deplanty, J., Coulter-Kern, R. and Duchane, K. (2007). Perceptions of parent involvement

in academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(61), 361-
368.

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and
income matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-30.

Eagle, E. (1989). Socioeconomic status, family structure, and parental involvement: The
correlates of achievement. Paper presented at the American Education Research
Association, San Francisco, and CA. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. E
307 332.

Epstein, J. L. (2009). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we

share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712.

Epstein, J. L. and Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent
involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School
Journal, 91, 289-305.

Feuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on

participation in children’s schools. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 29-39.

Finders, M. and Lewis., C. (1994). Why some parents don’t come to school. Educational
Leadership, 51(8), 50-54.

Flaxman, E. and Inger, M. (1991). Parents and schooling in the 1990s. ERIC Review, 1(3),
2-6.
 27

Flynn, G. (2007). Increasing parental involvement in our schools: The need to overcome
obstacles, promotes critical behaviors, and provide teacher training. Journal of
College Teaching & Learning, 4(2), 23-30.

Formoso, C.B. (2016) Primer: What you should know about the K to 12 senior high
school. Inquirer Learning. Inquirer. Manila.

Jensen, E. (2013). How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership,

70(8), 24-30.

Gordon, I. R. (1977). Parent education and parent involvement: Retrospect and

prospect. Childhood Education, 54, 71-79.

Gordon, M. F. and Louis, K. S. (2009). Linking parent and community involvement with
student achievement: Comparing principal and teacher perceptions of
stakeholder influence. American Journal of Education, 116(1), 1-32.

Green, C.L., Walker, J.M., Hoover-Dempsey, K.V. and Sandler, H. (2007). Parents’
motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a
theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 532-544.

Greenwood, G.E. and Hickman, C.W. (1991). Research and practice in parent
involvement: Implications for teacher education. The Elementary School Journal,
91, 279-288.

Grolnick, W.S. and Slowiaczek, M. (1994). Parents' involvement in children's schooling: A

multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development,
64, 237-252.

Hayakawa, M., Englund, M.M., Warner Richter, M.N., and Reynolds, A.J. (2013). The
longitudinal process of early parent involvement on student achievement: A Path
Analysis. Dialog, 16 (1), 103-126.

Henderson, A. and Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical
to student achievement. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education.

Henderson, A. and Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual synthesis.
Austin, TX: National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools,
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

Henderson, A., Mapp, K., Johnson, V. and Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale. New
York: The New Press.
 28

Henderson, A., Marburger, C. and Ooms, T. (1986). Beyond the bake sale: An educator’s
guide to working with parents. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens
in Education

Hester, H. (1989). Start at home to improve home-school relations. NASSP Bulletin,

73(513), 23-27.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C, and Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent-

school relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 287-294.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C.

L.,Wilkins, A. S. and Closson, K. E. (2005). Why do parents become involved?
Research findings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.

Horvat, E., Weininger, E. and Lareau, A. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class
differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319-351.

Hughes, J. N., Gleason, K. A. and Zhang, D. (2005). Relationship influences on teachers'

perceptions of academic competence in academically at-risk minority and
majority first grade students. Journal of School Psychology, 43(4), 303-320.

Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J. and Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal

assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children's education
and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817-
839.

Jacobson, L. (2005). Survey finds teachers’ biggest challenge is parents. Education Week,
24(41), 5.

Kao, G. and Rutherford, L. T. (2007). Does social capital still matter? Immigrant minority
disadvantage in school-specific social capital its effects on academic
achievement. Sociological Perspectives, 50, 27-52.

Langdon, C. and Vesper, N. (2000). The sixth Phi Delta Kappa poll of teachers’ attitudes
toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 607-611.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social Class differences in family-school relationship: The importance

of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.

Lareau, A. and Horvat, E.M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race,
class and cultural capital in family-school relationship. Sociology of Education, 72,
37-53.
 29

Lawson, M. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of

parent involvement. Urban Education, 38, 77-133.

Lazar, A. and Slostad, F. (1999). How to overcome obstacles to parent-teacher

partnerships. Clearing House, 72(4), 206-210.

Lee, J. S. and Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the
achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational
Research Journal, 43(2), 193-218.

Lin, N. (1999). Building s network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.

Lindle, J. (1989). What do parents want from principals and teachers? Educational
Leadership, 47(2), 12-14.

Mapp, K. (2002). Having their say: Parents describe how and why they are involved in
their children’s education. In Henderson, A & Mapp, K. A new wave of evidence:
The impact of school, family, and community connections on student
achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family & Community Connections
with Schools Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory.

McKay, M. M., Atkins, M. S., Hawkins, T., Brown, C, and Lynn, C. (2005). Inner-city
African American parental involvement in children's schooling: Racial
socialization and social support from the parent community. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 32(1/2), 107-114.

Miedel, W.T. (2000). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged

children: Does it Matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37 (4), 379-402.

Reynolds, A. and Clemens, M. (2005). Parental involvement and children’s school

success. In E.N. Patrikakou, R.P. Weissberg, S. Redding and H.J. Walberg (Eds.)
School Family Partnership: Promoting the social, emotional, and academic
growth of children (pp. 109-127). New York: Teachers College Press.

Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents' social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent

involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 301-348.

Smith, J. and Wohlstetter, P. (2009) Parent involvement in urban charter schools: A new
paradigm or the status quo? Paper presented at the National Center on School
Choice, Nashville, TN.
 30

Souto-Manning, M. and Swick, K. J. (2006) Teachers' beliefs about parent and family
involvement: Rethinking our family involvement paradigm. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 34(2), 187-193.

Wherry, J. (2009). Shattering barriers to parent involvement. Principal, 88(5), 7.

Whitaker, T., and Fiore, D. (2001). Dealing with difficult parents. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.

Williams, D. and Chavkin, N. (1989). Essential elements of strong parent involvement

programs. Educational Leadership, 47(2), 18-20.

C. Internet Sources

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E. and Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs
supporting educational change http://cnx.org/content/ro 14845/latest/
(Retrieved July 6, 2010 )

Farzan, A. (2013) Effects of Families Income on Students Academic Achievement.

Retrieved February 20,2018 from https://farzanasite.wordpress.com/.../effects-
of-families-income-on-students-academic.
31