See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238047588

Involvement Counts: Family and Community Partnerships and Mathematics

Achievement

Article  in  The Journal of Educational Research · March 2005

DOI: 10.3200/JOER.98.4.196-207

CITATIONS READS
344 5,597

2 authors, including:

Steven B. Sheldon
Johns Hopkins University
62 PUBLICATIONS   3,212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Handbook Chapter on School Family Partnerships with Sheldon & Taylor Vorbeck View project

Flamboyan Foundation Family Engagement Partnership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steven B. Sheldon on 02 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Involvement Counts: Family and
Community Partnerships and
Mathematics Achievement
STEVEN B. SHELDON
JOYCE L. EPSTEIN
Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships
ABSTRACT National and international studies have made
student performance in mathematics a high priority in
schools. Using longitudinal data from elementary and sec-
ondary schools, the authors examined the connections
between specific family and community involvement activi-
ties and student achievement in mathematics at the school
level. After the authors controlled for prior levels of mathe-
matics achievement, analyses indicated that effective imple-
mentation of practices that encouraged families to support
their children’s mathematics learning at home was associated
with higher percentages of students who scored at or above
proficiency on standardized mathematics achievement tests.
Findings suggest that subject-specific practices of school, fam-
ily, and community partnerships may help educators improve
students’ mathematics skills and achievement.
Key words: community involvement, mathematics, parent
involvement, partnerships, student achievement
I n every school across the country, students are taught
and expected to learn mathematics, beginning with
number recognition in kindergarten. Yet, international
studies suggest that by the middle grades, U.S. students
understand and know less mathematics than do their peers
in many Asian and European countries (National Center for
Education Statistics [NCES], 1999). Studies have shown
that in the United States, female and minority students have
lower achievement in mathematics and take fewer mathe-
matics courses than do male and White students and that
the gender and racial gaps are not narrowing (Hall, Davis,
Bolen, & Chia, 1999; Mitchell, Hawkins, Jakwerth, Stan-
cavage, & Dossey, 1999). Problems associated with students’
mathematics proficiency are particularly serious in poor
urban schools and in school systems (NCES). Concerns
about the status, quality, and equity of mathematics educa-
tion in this country have fueled many mathematics reform
initiatives at the national, state, and local levels.
Explanations of why students in the United States strug-
gle in mathematics concern (a) curriculum and instruction
in classrooms, (b) student attitudes about mathematics, (c)
student readiness and background characteristics, and (d)
level of support for mathematics in home environments
(Secada, 1992; Stevenson, Lee, & Stigler, 1986; Stodolsky,
196
Salk, & Glaessner, 1991). Efforts to improve students’
mathematics learning have focused on improved teacher
education, modified curriculum, and schoolwide and dis-
trictwide programs (Ball, 1993; Cuevas & Driscoll, 1993;
Knapp, 1997; Smith & Hausafus, 1998). Professional
groups have developed new standards for mathematics edu-
cation that have influenced changes in mathematics
instruction in many U.S. classrooms (Connected Math
Project, 1995; National Council of Teachers of Mathemat-
ics [NCTM], 1991).
In comparison with efforts to improve mathematics
instruction in schools, researchers and practitioners have
given relatively little attention to developing connections
between schools, families, and communities as components
of mathematics reform. Historically, parents have played
important roles in some aspects of education reform (Bloch
& Tabachnick, 1994). However, efforts to change mathe-
matics education have positioned parents on the sidelines,
leaving educators and other professionals to decide how
mathematics learning should take place (Peressini, 1998).
In some cases, parents have been characterized more as ene-
mies to reform than as allies. For example, in his presiden-
tial address to the NCTM, Price (1996) suggested that par-
ents are among the greatest threats to the implementation
of the organization’s new mathematics education standards.
Although parent support for mathematics reform is desired,
parent involvement in developing these reforms is not.
At the school level, teachers are likely to support the
concept of parent involvement; some educators encourage
and guide parents to participate in their children’s mathe-
matics education and learning. Those efforts are supported
by research that reports positive relationships between par-
ent involvement and diverse student outcomes including,
but not limited to, mathematics (Cai, Moyer, & Wang,
1997; Epstein, 1991; Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997;
Henderson & Berla, 1994; Ho & Willms, 1996; Keith et
al., 1993; Lee, 1994; Van Voorhis, 2001).
Address correspondence to Steven B. Sheldon or Joyce L. Epstein,
3003 N. Charles Street, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21218. (E-mail:
ssheldon@csos.jhu.edu or jepstein@csos.jhu.edu)
March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)]
Types of Parent Involvement
Among researchers and educators, parent involvement
refers to a wide range of activities and connections among
schools, families, and communities. According to Epstein
(1995), there are six types of involvement in a comprehen-
sive program of school, family, and community partner-
ships. Involvement includes the following types:
Type 1. Parenting: Helping all families establish support-
ive home environments for children
Type 2. Communicating: Establishing two-way exchanges
about school programs and children’s progress
Type 3. Volunteering: Recruiting and organizing parent
help at school, home, or other locations
Type 4. Learning at home: Providing information and
ideas to families about how to help students with home-
work and other curriculum-related materials
Type 5. Decision making: Having parents from all back-
grounds serve as representatives and leaders on school
committees
Type 6. Collaborating with the community: Identifying
and integrating resources and services from the community
to strengthen school programs.
That typology provides schools with a structure to help
organize specific activities to involve parents in their chil-
dren’s education. Because there are many possible activities
for each type of involvement, schools must choose which
partnership practices are likely to produce specific goals
and how to implement the selected activities effectively.
For each type of involvement and practice, there also
are challenges that schools must meet to reach all families,
not just those who are easiest to involve (Epstein et al.,
2002; Sanders, 1999). For example, schools may be faced
with the challenge of making sure that parents who can-
not read or understand English have access to the infor-
mation in languages or forms they can understand. Also,
schools may be faced with the challenge of providing ways
for all parents to contact and communicate with teachers
and administrators so that information about students
flows in two directions—from school to home and from
home to school. The success of a school’s partnership pro-
gram to affect student achievement may depend on the
degree to which the activities that are implemented meet
serious challenges to involve families who are the most dif-
ficult to reach.
In designing programs of home–school–community part-
nerships, schools cannot assume that one type of involve-
ment or a single activity will affect student achievement pos-
itively in all subjects. Studies indicate that each type of
involvement activity leads to some different results (Epstein,
1995), such as mathematics and reading achievement and
grade point average (Catsambis, 2002; Catsambis & Bev-
eridge, 2001; Desimone, 1999; Lee, 1994; Simon, 2000). If
researchers produce better information about the results of
specific involvement activities, more educators should be
197
able to select and implement the activities most likely to
produce the goals that they have set for their students.
Focus on Mathematics Attitudes and Achievement
It is well accepted that children’s home environments
affect their attitudes toward mathematics (Balli, 1998; Par-
sons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982). Researchers have shown
that parents’ beliefs and expectations for their children in
mathematics predict student achievement in elementary
and middle school mathematics (Entwisle & Alexander,
1996; Gill & Reynolds, 1999; Halle, Kurtz-Costes, &
Mahoney, 1997; Holloway, 1986). Similarly, even after
researchers controlled for students’ prior achievement,
learning activities and parent–teen discussions conducted
at home predicted higher student mathematics achieve-
ment in middle and high schools (Cai et al., 1997; Ho &
Willms, 1996; Keith et al., 1993; Pong, 1997).
For all students to attain higher achievement, educators
must support and facilitate parent involvement in mathe-
matics. Sanchez and Baquedano (1993) showed that stu-
dents whose parents met with a mathematics teacher and a
counselor to discuss ways to help at home gained more in
mathematics than did students whose families did not
receive training in such meetings. Similarly, students whose
parents attended training and information workshops and
obtained materials to help their preschool children at
home (Starkey & Klein, 2000) and elementary students at
home (Shaver & Walls, 1998; Westat and Policy Studies
Associates, 2001) made greater gains in mathematics
achievement than did students whose parents did not
attend the workshops. Those studies suggest the impor-
tance of providing families with support to help their chil-
dren succeed in mathematics.
Schools also can use homework assignments to guide and
strengthen home–school partnerships. For example, home-
work can be designed to encourage parent–child activities
in specific subjects and to enable families to communicate
more easily with teachers about homework assignments
(Epstein, 2001; Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001). Studies on
the effects of interactive homework have reported increased
homework completion and improved achievement in lan-
guage arts and science in inner-city and suburban middle
schools (Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997; Van Voorhis,
2001). Interactive homework also has been associated with
increased family involvement in students’ mathematics
learning at home (Balli, Demo, & Wedman, 1998). Overall,
studies suggest that use of homework that requires par-
ent–child interactions can (a) create a line of communica-
tion between parents and teachers, (b) increase family
involvement, and (c) help improve student achievement.
Challenges to Parent Involvement in Mathematics
Compared with other school subjects, home–school part-
nerships in mathematics may be more difficult to organize
198
and implement. Gal and Stoudt (1995) suggested at least
three reasons why parents might not be involved in their
children’s mathematics education. First, as mathematics
becomes increasingly more complex across the school years,
parents may not have the content knowledge or teaching
skills needed to help their children. Second, changes in the
way that mathematics is taught in schools may result in par-
ents’ confusion or resistance to some of the new or nontradi-
tional aspects of their children’s mathematics schoolwork.
Third, teachers are not trained to teach adults how to work
on mathematics with their children. The three factors pre-
sent significant obstacles for some schools and may affect
whether most or all parents are able to help their children
learn mathematics at home.
Teachers can help parents overcome the obstacles. For
example, one elementary school teacher working in an urban
setting realized that to help their children in mathematics,
many parents first needed to become more fluent English
speakers (Carey, 1998). The teacher began by helping par-
ents improve their general English skills and vocabulary and
then become familiar with vocabulary related to mathemat-
ics. She later asked parents to help their children with math-
ematics problems and made it clear on which skills the stu-
dents would be tested. The example is noteworthy because it
highlights the importance of teachers having thoughtful
communication strategies that overcome challenges often
present in large urban schools and which may otherwise hin-
der parent mathematics involvement.
We explored levels of mathematics achievement in
schools, efforts of schools to involve families and communi-
ties in students’ mathematics education, and the impact of
these targeted involvement activities on student mathemat-
ics achievement. We addressed the following three research
questions.
1. What is the level of mathematics achievement in a
sample of schools in which the school community (staff, par-
ents, and community members) work to involve families and
community members in students’ mathematics education?
2. How do the schools perceive the effectiveness of spe-
cific school, family, and community partnership activities
to improve student achievement in mathematics?
3. What is the relationship between the implementation
of specific family and community mathematics involve-
ment activities and changes over time in school reports of
student performance on mathematics achievement tests?
Understanding which family and community involvement
practices are most likely to improve students’ mathematics
achievement may help guide schools’ efforts to provide the
best possible mathematics education for all students.
Method
“Focus on Results in Math” is part of an ongoing project
in which researchers and educators are studying the mea-
The Journal of Educational Research
surable effects of school, family, and community partner-
ships on students in elementary, middle, and high schools
across the country. The schools are members of the
National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) at
Johns Hopkins University and are working to improve the
quality of family and community involvement and the
effects on specific student outcomes, such as attendance,
behavior, and reading and mathematics achievement.
We asked a key contact and members of an Action
Team for Partnerships in each school to complete two sur-
veys. We sent baseline surveys to the schools at the start of
the 1997–1998 school year for information on school
characteristics, attributes of the student body, planned
school–family–community practices that focused on
improved mathematics skills, mathematics achievement
test results from 1997 for a selected grade level, and report
card grades in mathematics for the fall term. We sent fol-
low-up surveys after the 1997–1998 school year for infor-
mation on the effectiveness of partnership practices and
end-of-year mathematics outcomes. To encourage partici-
pation, NNPS offered schools an incentive of partnership-
related publications and items that would help them
advance their work on school, family, and community
partnerships.
Participants
Eighteen schools—from states including Ohio, Maryland,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Kansas, and California—
returned baseline and follow-up surveys. About half of the
schools in the study were elementary schools (n = 10), and
the rest were middle or high schools (n = 8). The schools
were located in inner-city (n = 7), urban (n = 4), suburban
(n = 3), and rural (n = 4) areas and ranged in size from 124
to 1,280 students. About 75% of the schools reported that
they received either schoolwide or targeted Title I funding,
indicating that the schools served large numbers of eco-
nomically disadvantaged students. On average, across
schools, about 50.4% of students (ranging from 4.8% to
88%) received free or reduced-price lunches. Schools in the
sample served an average 7.8% of students from families for
whom English was a second language (ESL; ranging from
0% to 44%).
Although the sample was relatively small, the schools
were highly diverse. They included slightly more urban
schools, Title I schools, and schools with more students eli-
gible for free or reduced-price lunches than the national
average (Manise, Blank, & Dardine, 2001).
We asked school action team members to select and
report the aggregated academic performance of students at
a specific grade level on the same standardized mathemat-
ics tests for 2 consecutive years and on report card grades
from fall to spring of the school year. The following num-
ber of schools provided performance data for students: (a)
two for Grade 3, (b) six for Grade 4, (c) two for Grade 5,
(d) one for Grade 6, (e) three for Grade 7, (f) three for
March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)]
Grade 8, and (g) one for Grade 9. Secondary schools were
represented almost entirely by middle schools. Each school
served as its own control in longitudinal analyses of
changes in mathematics proficiency scores over time.
Variables
School characteristics. Respondents reported basic charac-
teristics of their schools and students including (a) school
level (elementary or secondary); (b) location (inner city,
urban, suburban, rural); (c) number of students enrolled at
the school; (d) percentage of students receiving free or
reduced-price lunches; and (e) percentage of students from
families in which English was not spoken at home.
School practices. Respondents reported whether their
schools implemented 14 partnership practices focused on
mathematics. We asked school action team members to
rate how helpful each involvement practice was or, if they
did not implement the activity, how helpful they thought
the practice could be for improving students’ achievement
in mathematics. Schools rated the effectiveness (if they
implemented the practice) or potential effectiveness (if
they did not implement the practice) of each practice on a
4-point, Likert-type scale that ranged from (1) cannot do at
this school to (2) very helpful.
Schools reported on the following practices.
1. Conduct workshops during daytime or school hours
for parents on mathematics skills and expectations for chil-
dren in mathematics.
2. Conduct similar workshops for parents in the evening.
3. Give families information on how to contact the
mathematics teacher at school.
4. Issue certificates for students to take home that rec-
ognize mastery of new mathematics skills.
5. Schedule individual conferences with parents of stu-
dents who are failing mathematics or are at risk of failing.
6. Inform parents of students’ progress and problems in
mathematics on report cards.
7. Offer videotapes on mathematics skills that families
can view at school or at home.
8. Invite parents and the community to assemblies for
student awards for excellence in mathematics.
9. Invite parents and the community to assemblies for
student awards for improvement in mathematics.
10. Request parent or community volunteers to tutor
students in mathematics.
11. Assign students mathematics homework that
requires them to show and discuss mathematics skills with
a family member.
12. Offer parents or students mathematics game packets
or lending-library activities to use at home.
13. Offer students and families mathematics activities on
Saturdays.
14. Organize presentations for students on how mathe-
matics is used by business, government, and industry.
199
School Measures of Mathematics Achievement
Proficiency on mathematics achievement tests. We collected
data on achievement test results for the same grade level for
2 consecutive school years—1997 and 1998. Respondents
reported and labeled the percentage of students at different
performance levels on the mathematics achievement test.
From that information, we calculated the percentages of
students who met or exceeded satisfactory or proficient
mathematics standards of achievement. For example, sev-
eral schools reported the percentages of students who
scored in the following categories: (a) below proficient, (b)
proficient, or (c) above proficient. Other schools reported
categories such as (a) below satisfactory, (b) satisfactory,
and (c) excellent. We recoded the categories in a standard
form to identify the percentage of students who were at
least proficient or satisfactory in mathematics and the per-
centage of students who were less than proficient or satis-
factory in mathematics.
Student report card grades. Respondents were asked to
estimate the percentage of students in the selected grade
level who received mostly As, mostly Bs, or mostly Cs and
mostly Ds and Fs on their report cards in mathematics. We
obtained estimates for the fall and spring semesters of the
1997–1998 school year.
Results
Patterns of Student Achievement in Mathematics
In the first research question, we asked for a portrait of
the mathematics achievement for the sample of schools.
Descriptive analyses explored the association of school
characteristics with selected student outcomes in mathe-
matics, including the percentages of students at the selected
grade levels that met or exceeded satisfactory or proficiency
levels on standardized mathematics tests and that received
high or low report card grades. Table 1 shows that, overall,
an average of 51% of the students met or exceeded satisfac-
tory levels of proficiency on standardized mathematics
achievement tests. Also, from 1997 to 1998, participating
schools reported an average increase of 6% more students at
the selected grade levels who met or exceeded satisfactory
proficiency levels in mathematics. The average changes in
achievement-test performance varied across schools, rang-
ing from an 18% decline to a 27% improvement in students’
mathematics test performance; standard deviation was 11%.
The bottom section of Table 1 reports that in mathe-
matics, almost 40% of students received mostly As or Bs at
the end of the 1997–1998 school year, and a sizable per-
centage of students (23%) received mostly Ds and Fs.
Grades in mathematics declined slightly over the school
year on average, although there was considerable variation
across schools. The average percentage of students who
received mostly As and Bs decreased by 2.5%, with a cor-
responding increase (2.3%) in the percentage of students
who earned mostly Cs.
200 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 1. Spring 1998 Reports and Changes in Mathematics Outcomes, by School Levels

School
All Elementary Secondary
Students (%) M SD M SD M SD

Proficient on standardized
mathematics achievement tests
Spring 1998 51.00 26.98 68.09 20.77 31.46 18.99
Change (1997 to 1998) 6.20 11.53 7.74 14.43 4.43 7.77
N 15 8 7

Received mostly As and Bs

Spring 1998 39.47 17.96 46.44 18.37 29.00 12.00
Change (fall to spring 1998) –2.54 16.46 7.29 9.18 –14.00 16.01
Received mostly Cs
Spring 1998 37.60 16.54 36.89 17.87 38.67 15.90
Change 2.31 12.18 –1.14 9.84 6.33 14.28
Received mostly Ds and Fs
Spring 1998 22.93 16.10 16.67 13.43 32.33 16.15
Change 0.31 14.02 –6.14 11.77 7.83 13.39

Note. Spring grades: all schools, n = 15; elementary, n = 9; secondary, n = 6. Change in grades: all schools,
n = 13; elementary, n = 7; secondary, n = 6.

School Level and Mathematics Achievement
Table 1 also shows that elementary and secondary
schools reported distinct patterns of students’ mathematics
outcomes. In elementary schools, about 68% of the stu-
dents in the selected grade levels met or exceeded satisfac-
tory proficiency levels in mathematics on standardized
tests, compared with 31% of students in secondary schools.
Also, more students in elementary schools received As or
Bs on their report cards in mathematics, and fewer received
Ds or Fs than did students in secondary schools.
Table 1 indicates that elementary and secondary schools
reported increases in the percentages of students who met
proficiency standards in mathematics from 1997 to 1998;
elementary schools reported a larger increase (7.7%) than
did secondary schools (4.4%). The differences between ele-
mentary and secondary school students’ report card grades
in mathematics from 1997–1998 were dramatic. Elemen-
tary schools reported an average increase in the proportion
of students who received As and Bs (7.3%) and related
decreases in percentages of students who earned Cs (–1.1%)
and Ds and Fs (–6.1%) on mathematics report cards from
the fall to spring semester. In contrast, secondary schools
reported an average decrease in the percentages of students
who earned As and Bs (–14%) and related increases in per-
centages of students who earned mostly Cs (6.3%) and Ds
and Fs (7.8%).
School Demographics and Mathematics Achievement
Table 2 shows that mathematics outcomes were related
to selected school characteristics. Because the sample was
small and the analyses were exploratory, correlations that
were statistically significant at p < .10 and that had con-
sistent patterns are shown as potentially important. The
top portion of Table 2 shows that larger schools reported
lower percentages of students at or above satisfactory pro-
ficiency levels on standardized mathematics achievement
tests (r = –.701, p < .008). Also, schools with larger per-
centages of students who received free or reduced-price
lunches reported smaller percentages of students who were
proficient in mathematics (r = –.547, p < .035). Finally,
from 1997 to 1998, in schools with large percentages of
students from ESL families, the percentages of students
who met satisfactory levels of proficiency in mathematics
(r = –.821, p < .000) decreased.
School characteristics also were related to students’
mathematics report card grades. The bottom portion of
Table 2 indicates that in large schools, greater percentages
of students earned Ds and Fs on their report cards in math-
ematics (r = .559, p < .059), and higher percentages of stu-
dents earned poor or failing mathematics grades over time
(r = .629, p < .052). In schools that served more poor stu-
dents, smaller percentages of students earned mostly As or
Bs in mathematics (r = –.581, p < .023), and greater per-
centages of students earned mostly Cs (r = .498, p < .059)
than did students in other schools.
The descriptive statistics indicate that the schools in our
sample, which served over 10,000 students, had considerable
room to grow to increase the number of students who
reached satisfactory levels of mathematics achievement and
who earned good grades in mathematics. Large schools and
those that served poor students had more students with
unsatisfactory achievement and poor grades. Elementary
March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)]
TABLE 2. Correlations of School Characteristics With Mathematics Outcomes in Spring 1998, and Change in Outcomes
School size
Students (%) Spring 1998 Change
Proficient on standardized
mathematics achievement tests –0.701** –0.247
Received mostly As and Bs –0.304 –0.289a
Received mostly Cs –0.129 –0.287a
Received mostly Ds and Fs 0.559+ 0.629+a
Note. N = 13–15. ESL = English as a second language.
a
n = 10.
+
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
schools tended to have more students who attained satisfac-
tory scores and good grades than did secondary schools. Also,
on average, elementary school students’ scores and skills
tended to improve over time, whereas secondary school stu-
dents tended to stagnate or struggle to maintain mathemat-
ics grades over the school year. The schools varied regarding
whether their students improved or declined over time; stu-
dents in some schools made dramatic progress, and students
in other schools failed. Tables 1 and 2 indicate that the
schools in this exploratory study of family involvement and
mathematics outcomes were similar in demography, levels of
achievement, and need for improvement to many other ele-
mentary and secondary schools that are working to improve
students’ mathematics scores and grades.
Effectiveness of Partnership Practices
The second research question focused on whether the
use and effectiveness of specific school practices for involv-
ing families in mathematics were related to student out-
comes at the school level. Respondents reported on the
implementation and their perceptions of the effectiveness
of 14 partnership activities that connected families and the
community to students’ mathematics work and progress.
Table 3 reports the perceived effectiveness of each math-
ematics partnership practice, organized by type of involve-
ment for the sample as a whole, and compares schools that
did or did not implement the activity. Three activities
reportedly were used by all schools: (a) giving parents infor-
mation on how to contact mathematics teachers, (b)
scheduling conferences with parents of students who were
struggling in mathematics, and (c) providing information
about student progress and problems in mathematics on
report cards. Those three common practices were rated
among the most effective for helping students improve
their mathematics achievement. No school in this sample
reported involving families in mathematics activities with
their children on Saturdays.
201
Free or reduced-price
lunch (%) ESL families (%)
Spring 1998 Change Spring 1998 Change
–0.547* –0.347 –0.103 –0.821***
–0.581* –0.166 0.032 0.163
0.498+ 0.340 –0.196 –0.508+
0.137 –0.097 0.165 0.247
In almost all instances, schools rated the activities as more
effective if they implemented the activities. A few of those
contrasts were striking. Offering families videotapes, for
example, was rated as more helpful by schools that used the
practice than by schools that did not (M = 2.33 vs. M =
1.83). More dramatic differences were found between
schools that did and did not conduct workshops during
school hours (M = 2.37 vs. M = 1.50) and that did and did
not assign mathematics homework that required students to
show and discuss skills with their families (M = 2.75 vs. M =
1.75). Schools may have responded cautiously about the
effectiveness of activities that they did not implement. They
also might have believed that the activities were difficult to
implement or that they would not work with families and
students in their schools.
Schools differed regarding which activities they imple-
mented for the various types of involvement, and the
activities for each type varied in effectiveness. For exam-
ple, evening workshops for parents (Type 1) were rated
more effective than daytime workshops, perhaps because
many parents worked and could not easily go to the
schools during the day. Teacher-designed interactive
homework and mathematics materials for families and
students to use at home (Type 4) were rated more posi-
tively for boosting students’ skills than were videotapes.
All of the Type 2 communication strategies were viewed
as likely effective by the schools that implemented them.
The innovative activity of issuing certificates to students
to recognize mastery of specific mathematics skills was
implemented by fewer schools than the more traditional
communications, but it was rated highly by the schools
that used that strategy.
Schools selected different involvement activities to
implement and were likely to consider their choices as
more successful than activities that they did not use. That
pattern of perceived effectiveness required attention and
analyses for determining which activities were effective for
improving students’ mathematics proficiency.
202 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 3. Ratings of Actual and Estimated Effectiveness of Mathematics Partnership Practices

Practice used by school

Overall Yes No
Mathematics partnership practices M SD M SD n M SD n

Type 1–Parenting workshops

Conduct workshops for parents on mathematics skills and
expectations during the evening. 2.50 0.52 2.63 0.52 8 2.25 0.50 4
Conduct workshops for parents on mathematics skills and
expectations during the daytime or school hours. 2.08 0.79 2.37 0.52 8 1.50 1.00 4
Type 2–Communicating
Schedule individual conferences with parents of students who
are failing mathematics or at risk of failing. 2.65 0.49 2.65 0.49 17 0
Give families information on how to contact the mathematics
teacher at school. 2.62 0.50 2.62 0.50 16 0
Inform parents and students of progress and problems in
mathematics on report cards. 2.59 0.80 2.75 0.45 16 0
Issue certificates for students to take home that recognize mastery
of new mathematics skills. 2.36 0.67 2.75 0.50 4 2.14 0.69 7
Type 3–Volunteering and audience support
Request parent or community volunteers to tutor students in
mathematics. 2.59 0.71 2.57 0.76 14 2.67 0.58 3
Invite parents and the community to assemblies for student
awards for improvement in mathematics. 2.50 0.53 2.67 0.58 3 2.40 0.55 5
Invite parents and the community to assemblies for student
awards for excellence in mathematics. 2.36 0.50 2.43 0.53 7 2.25 0.50 4
Type 4–Learning activities at home
Offer parents or students mathematics game packets or lending-
library activities to use at home. 2.64 0.50 2.75 0.46 8 2.33 0.58 3
Assign students mathematics homework that requires them to
show and discuss mathematics skills with a family member. 2.50 0.73 2.75 0.45 12 1.75 0.96 4
Offer videotapes on mathematics skills that families can view at
school or at home. 2.00 0.70 2.33 0.58 3 1.83 0.75 6
Offer students and families mathematics activities on Saturdays. 2.00 1.07 0 2.00 1.07 8
Type 6–Collaborating with communitya
Organize presentations for students on how mathematics is used
by businesses, government, and industry. 2.00 0.67 2.67 0.52 6 2.17 0.75 6

a
No mathematics involvement activities were identified that represent Type 5–decision making.

Involvement Activities and Changes in Mathematics
Achievement
In the third research question, we asked whether mathe-
matics-related family and community involvement activi-
ties affected measures of student mathematics achievement.
We had to use longitudinal data to account for schools’ prior
levels of students’ proficiency on mathematics tests, along
with analyses to determine whether school level was the
determining factor in explaining achievement.
Bivariate correlation analyses showed strong associations
between the percentage of students who scored at or above
proficiency levels in mathematics in 1997 and 1998 (r =
.904, p < .000). The percentage of students who were pro-
ficient in 1997, however, was not significantly associated
with the change in students’ mathematics achievement test
performance over the 2 school years (r = –.023, ns). The
analyses confirmed that schools that scored high in 1997
tended to score high in 1998, but students’ scores indicate
that all schools had room for improvement. Also, some ini-
tially low-scoring schools improved student mathematics
scores over time. Given those patterns of relationships, we
had to consider whether specific activities of family and
community involvement affected changes in students’ per-
formance on standardized mathematics examinations.
We used analyses to explore the connections of eight
specific family and community involvement activities and
changes at the school level for students’ mathematics pro-
ficiency over time. The analyses included only schools
that reported 2 years of achievement data and practices
that were implemented by elementary and secondary
schools in the 1997–1998 school year and varied in ratings
of effectiveness. We conducted partial correlation analyses
to examine the relationships between the implementation
of the practices and changes in the percentages of students
who scored at or above proficiency levels on achievement
March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)] 203

TABLE 4. Partial Correlations of Mathematics Partnership Activities and Percentage of

Students Scoring Satisfactorily on Mathematics Achievement Tests in 1998

Partial correlations controlling for

Prior (1997)
Mathematics partnership practices achievement School level

Type 1–Parenting
Conduct workshops for parents on mathematics skills
and expectations during the evening. .37 .23
Conduct workshops for parents on mathematics skills
and expectations during daytime or school hours. .17 .41
Type 2–Communicating
Provide family members with information about how to
contact students’ mathematics teacher. .24 .25
Conduct parent–teacher conferences to discuss
students’ progress in mathematics. .26 .40
Provide families with information about students’ progress
in mathematics between report cards. .23 .30
Type 3–Volunteering and audience support
Request parent or community volunteers to tutor
students in mathematics. .35 .34
Type 4–Learning at home
Assign students mathematics homework that requires
them to show and discuss mathematics skills with
a family member. .60 .60
Offer parents or students mathematics game packets
or lending-library activities to use at home. .59 .55

Note. Only schools that implemented partnership practice were included in these analyses (N = 7–17). Partial
correlations (pr) of .5 or higher are presented in bold and considered meaningful.

tests. Schools did not report using any Type 5 decision-
making involvement activities to improve students’ math-
ematics skills, and too few schools using Type 6 practices,
collaborating with the community activities, provided 2
years of achievement test scores. As a result, we investi-
gated only the relationships between the implementation
of four types of involvement practices and changes in stu-
dents’ performance on standardized mathematics tests.
Partial correlations statistically accounted for the influ-
ence of one variable (e.g., 1997 school mathematics
achievement levels) to isolate the association of family
involvement with improvements in 1998 school mathe-
matics achievement. That procedure was more appropriate
than ordinary least squares regression, given the small sam-
ple of schools in the study. Two sets of partial correlation
analyses are shown in Table 4. The first column reports
relationships between the effectiveness of family involve-
ment practices and the percentage of students with at least
satisfactory mathematics achievement scores in 1998, con-
trolling for 1997 levels of achievement. The second col-
umn examines the same relationships, controlling for
school level (elementary vs. secondary schools).
The analyses indicate that only one type of involvement
(Type 4—learning-at-home-activities) consistently related
to improvements in students’ performance on mathematics
achievement tests. After statistically accounting for
schools’ prior levels of mathematics achievement, the per-
centage of students who attained satisfactory mathematics
scores was higher in schools that more effectively assigned
homework that required parent–child interactions (pr =
.60) or that offered mathematics materials for families to
take home (pr = .59).
After statistically accounting for school level, the per-
centages of students with satisfactory mathematics profi-
ciency in 1998 were associated positively with the same
home-learning activities of mathematics homework that
required parent–child interactions (pr = .60) and the use of
mathematics materials at home (pr = .55). The reported use
of those activities (a yes or no variable) was unrelated to
higher percentages of students who were proficient in
mathematics, whereas ratings of how well the activities
were implemented were associated strongly with changes in
mathematics achievement levels, even after controlling for
prior levels of proficiency and school level.
Discussion
A diverse sample of schools provided longitudinal data on
students’ mathematics achievement test scores and estimates
of the effectiveness of mathematics-focused family and com-
munity involvement practices. Although many questions
remain for researchers to address with larger samples of
204
schools, the exploratory analyses revealed basic facts about
(a) levels of mathematics achievement in elementary and
secondary schools; (b) educators’ perceptions of the efficacy
of using school, family, and community partnerships to
increase student achievement in mathematics; and (c) new
associations of mathematics-focused family and community
involvement activities and changes in students’ performance
on mathematics achievement tests.
Selected school characteristics were associated with lev-
els of student mathematics achievement and patterns of
change in the percentage of students who were proficient in
mathematics from 1 year to the next. Large schools and
high-poverty schools, most in urban areas, reported lower
student mathematics achievement and poorer mathematics
report card grades than did small and more affluent schools.
Elementary schools reported that more students were profi-
cient in mathematics and showed more positive changes in
achievement levels over time. Although limited in size, our
sample was similar to that of schools across the nation
regarding mathematics achievement levels and other math-
ematics indicators (Braswell et al., 2001). Those patterns
reinforce the need for educators to exert extra efforts to
revise the mathematics curriculum, instructional approach-
es, quality of teaching, and family and community partner-
ships to improve students’ skills and test scores.
Research on student transitions to middle schools has
shown that declines in students’ achievement motivation
beliefs (e.g., self-competence and the value of school)
accompany declines in achievement (Eccles et al., 1993;
Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield,
Eccles, Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991). Moreover,
those changes have been associated with school character-
istics and practices (Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000). The
positive effects of involving families in students’ education
may suggest that fostering these types of interactions can
help lessen the extent to which adolescents’ transitions
into middle school coincide with their declines in motiva-
tion and achievement.
Overall, school leaders for partnerships expressed high
levels of confidence that family and community involve-
ment activities can help improve student learning and
achievement in mathematics. We tested the perceptions of
those leaders to determine which activities were associated
measurably with higher percentages of students with satis-
factory levels of mathematics achievement. After account-
ing for prior levels of mathematics proficiency in the
schools, we found that mathematics-focused, learning-at-
home activities consistently and positively related to
improvements in the percentages of students who were pro-
ficient on mathematics achievement tests.
By identifying two particular activities for Type 4 (learn-
ing at home) involvement, our results expand on prior
studies that point, in general, to the importance of home-
learning activities. Schools that effectively implemented
activities that encouraged parents to participate with their
children in home learning activities reported improved
The Journal of Educational Research
percentages of students who were proficient in mathemat-
ics from 1 year to the next. Activities that supported math-
ematics learning included (a) homework assignments that
required students and parents to interact and talk about
mathematics and (b) mathematics materials and resources
provided for families to use at home. The relationships
between implementation of these activities and mathemat-
ics achievement were strong and positive, even after we
accounted for the influential variables of schools’ prior
achievement or level of schooling.
Respondents provided descriptions of a range of home-
work activities that encouraged parent–child interactions in
mathematics at home. In one school, students and parents
were asked to compile a list of 10 ways in which they used
mathematics skills in their everyday lives. Another school
systematized interactive mathematics homework by sending
home weekly folders that contained mathematics activities
for children and parents to complete in only 15–20 min a
night. Others reported using the Teachers Involve Parents
in Schoolwork (TIPS) interactive homework process
(Epstein, Salinas, & Van Voorhis, 2001); Epstein & Van
Voorhis, 2001) in which students demonstrated mastery of
new mathematics skills for their parents and then discussed
the use of mathematics in everyday life. Other schools pro-
vided mathematics games and materials that families could
borrow to conduct parent–child interactions at home.
Our results reinforce the fact that schools must advance
beyond a belief that any parent involvement activity will
produce important results. We found that rather than use of
an activity, the reported quality of implementation was
strongly and consistently associated with changes in levels
of student mathematics achievement. That finding sup-
ports and extends previous research that shows that schools
need to move beyond basic steps when they develop pro-
grams of partnership in order to affect student achievement
test scores (Sheldon, 2003).
The results of this study support the expectation that sub-
ject-specific, family-involvement activities will likely affect
student outcomes in the targeted curricular subject (Epstein,
2001; Sheldon & Epstein, 2003; Simon, 2000; Van Voorhis,
2001). If schools hope to increase student test performance
in mathematics, for example, they need to strategically plan
family-involvement activities that encourage and enable
interactions between students and family members relevant
to the mathematics curriculum. Activities that engage many
families and children in discussing and conducting mathe-
matics at home are more likely than are other involvement
activities to contribute to students increasing and maintain-
ing their mathematics skills.
Prior research on family involvement in mathematics has
shown that interactive mathematics homework increased
family involvement (Balli et al., 1998). However, that study,
which was conducted in one school with one teacher, could
not link family involvement with increased mathematics
achievement. The present study that we conducted with a
number of elementary and secondary schools provides initial
March/April 2005 [Vol. 98(No. 4)]
evidence that effectively implemented activities may mobi-
lize family involvement and contribute to students’ attention
to mathematics at home and to success in school. The initial
results support practical guidelines that direct educators to
create goal-oriented, subject-specific involvement activities
to help students attain goals that are set for specific subjects
(Epstein et al., 2002).
Suggestions for Future Studies
The implementation ratings of all of the mathematics-
focused family and community involvement activities in this
study were associated positively with improved percentages
of students who scored at or above proficiency in mathemat-
ics. Because of the small sample size, the relationships did
not approach predetermined levels of statistical significance.
Researchers need to conduct studies with larger samples of
schools to test the robustness of our results with more pow-
erful statistical analyses and to determine whether other
mathematics-related family-involvement activities (such as
volunteer tutors, workshops for parents on students’ mathe-
matics skills, and communications with families about stu-
dents’ progress) have measurable effects on students’ mathe-
matics skills and scores on achievement tests.
As comparisons of the mathematics skills of U.S. stu-
dents with students from around the world continue to
make headlines, educators in schools and in school districts
will continue to examine all available resources that may
improve student achievement. The data from elementary
and secondary schools in this study suggest that particular
mathematics-focused family and community involvement
practices that engage families with learning activities at
home may help more students score at satisfactory levels of
mathematics achievement. Educators may attain the best
results by effectively implementing activities that facilitate
parent–child interactions involving mathematics and that
encourage the development of mathematics skills.
NOTE
This research was supported by grants from the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, to the Cen-
ter for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. The opin-
ions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
the policies or positions of the funding sources.
REFERENCES
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas
of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal,
93, 373–397.
Balli, S. J. (1998). When mom and dad help: Student reflections on par-
ent involvement with homework. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 31(3) 142–146.
Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family involvement
with children’s homework: An intervention in the middle grades. Fam-
ily Relations, 47, 149–157.
Bloch, M. N., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1994). Improving parent involve-
ment as school reform: Rhetoric or reality? In K. M. Borman & N. P.
Greenman (Eds.), Changing American education: Recapturing the past or
inventing the future? Albany: SUNY Press.
205
Braswell, J. S., Lutkus, A. D., Griggs, W. S., Santapau, S. L., Tay-Lim, B.
S.-H., & Johnson, M. S. (2001). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics
2000 (NCES 2001-517). Washington, DC: National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., & Wang, N. (1997, March). Parental roles in students’
learning of mathematics: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago.
Carey, L. (1998). Parents as math partners: A successful urban story.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 314–319.
Catsambis, S. (2002). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in
children’s secondary education: Connections with high school seniors’
academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 149–177.
Catsambis, S., & Beveridge, A. A. (2001). Does neighborhood matter?
Family, neighborhood, and school influences on eighth grade mathe-
matics achievement. Sociological Focus, 34, 435–457.
Connected Math Project. (1995). Getting to know CMP: An introduction to
the Connected Mathematics Project. East Lansing: Michigan State Uni-
versity.
Cuevas, G., & Driscoll, M. (1993). Reaching all students with mathematics.
Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achieve-
ment: Do race and income matter? The Journal of Educational Research,
93, 11–30.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D.,
Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The
impact of stage environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in
schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1996). Family type and children’s
growth in reading and math over the primary grades. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 58, 341–355.
Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects on student achievement of teacher practices
of parent involvement. In S. Silvern (Ed.), Literacy through family, com-
munity, and school interaction (pp. 261–276). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for
the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.
Epstein J. L. (2001). School and family partnerships: Preparing educators and
improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Epstein, J. L., Salinas, K. C., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). Teachers Involve
Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) manuals and prototype activities for the ele-
mentary and middle grades. Baltimore, MD: Center on School, Family,
and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R.,
& Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships:
Your handbook for action (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Epstein, J. L., Simon, B. S., & Salinas, K. C. (1997, September). Involving
parents in homework in the middle grades (Research Bulletin No. 18).
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa /CEDR.
Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’
roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 181–193.
Gal, I., & Stoudt, A. (1995, September). Family achievement in mathe-
matics. NCAL Connections. Philadelphia: National Center on Adult
Literacy, University of Pennsylvania.
Gill, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational expectations and school
achievement of urban African American children. Journal of School Psy-
chology, 37, 403–424.
Hall, C. W., Davis, N. B., Bolen, L. M., & Chia, R. (1999). Gender and
racial differences in mathematical performance. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 139, 677–689.
Halle, T. G., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Mahoney, J. L. (1997). Family influences
on school achievement in low-income, African-American children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 527–537.
Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (Eds.). (1994). A new generation of evidence:
The family is critical to student achievement. Columbia, MD: National
Committee for Citizens in Education.
Ho, E. S., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on
eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141.
Holloway, S. (1986). The relationship of mothers’ beliefs to children’s
mathematics achievement: Some effects of sex differences. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 32, 231–250.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002).
Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain
differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73,
509–527.
206
Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P. S.,
& Singh, K. (1993). Does parental involvement affect eighth-grade stu-
dent achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School Psycholo-
gy Review, 22, 474–496
Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and
science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and
professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 227–266.
Lee, S. (1994). Family-school connections and students’ education: Continuity
and change of family involvement from middle grades to high school. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Manise, J., Blank, R. K., & Dardine, C. (2001). State education indicators
with a focus on Title I. Washington DC: Planning and Evaluation Ser-
vice, U.S. Department of Education.
Mitchell, J. H., Hawkins, E. F., Jakwerth, P. M., Stancavage, F. B., &
Dossey, J. A. (1999). Student work and teacher practices in mathematics
(NCES 1999-453). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-
tion/National Center for Education Statistics.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Highlights from TIMSS:
Overview and key findings across grade levels. Washington, DC: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional stan-
dards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Parsons, J. E., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of
achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Develop-
ment, 53, 310–321.
Peressini, D. (1998). The portrayal of parents in the school mathematics
reform literature: Locating the context for parent involvement. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 555–582.
Pong, S. (1997, March). Other people’s parents: The contextual impact of sin-
gle-parenthood and social capital on tenth-grade achievement. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
Price, J. (1996). President’s report: Building bridges of mathematical
understanding for all children. The Journal of Research in Mathematical
Education, 27, 603–608.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of
early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A sum-
mary of research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 443–471.
Sanchez, R. P., & Baquedano, M. M. (1993, April). Curriculum of the home
and mathematics achievement. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Inter-
national Roundtable on Families, Communities, Schools, and Chil-
dren’s Learning. Atlanta.
The Journal of Educational Research
Sanders, M. G. (1999). School membership in the National Network of
Partnership Schools: Progress, challenges and next steps. The Journal of
Educational Research, 92, 220–230.
Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achieve-
ment in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 623–660). New York: Macmillan.
Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. T. (1998). Effect of Title 1 parent involvement
on student reading and mathematics achievement. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 31, 90–97.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school-family-community partnerships in
urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests. The
Urban Review, 35, 149–165.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2003, April). School programs of family and
community involvement in children’s reading and literacy development. Paper
presented at the Developing Literacy for Students in Urban Schools:
Research and Policy, International Reading Association and Urban
Partnership Mini-conference, San Diego State University, CA.
Simon, B. S. (2000). Predictors of high school and family partnerships and the
influence of partnerships on student success. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation. Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Smith, F. M., & Hausafus, C. O. (1998). Relationship of family support
and ethnic minority students’ achievement in science and mathemat-
ics. Science Education, 82, 111–125.
Starkey, P., & Klein, A., (2000). Fostering parental support for children’s
mathematical development: An intervention with Head Start families.
Early Education and Development, 11, 659–680.
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achieve-
ment of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science, 231,
693–699.
Stodolsky, S. S., Salk, S., & Glaessner, B. (1991). Student views about
learning math and social studies. American Educational Research Journal,
28, 89–116.
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). Interactive science homework: An experiment
in home and school connections. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 20–32.
Westat and Policy Studies Associates. (2001) The longitudinal evaluation of
school change and performance in Title I Schools, Volume 1 (Executive
summary). Washington, DC: Author.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., & Midgley, C.
(1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children’s
domain specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the
transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27,
552–565.
View publication stats