CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

The family lays the psychosocial, moral and spiritual foundations in the overall

development of the child. While the" mother's significant role in this cannot be over-emphasized.

Studies on father-child relationship suggest that the presence of a father in the home influences

significantly the development of a child (Agulanna, 1999). Thus, parenthood is a responsibility

requiring the full cooperation of both parents who must ensure the total development of their

offspring(s).

Clark, (1983) defines a family as any group of people that are related by blood or

marriage especially a group of two grown-up people and their children. Usually, there are two

major types or family: Nuclear family and extended family. Nuclear family consists of only the

husband and his wife together with their children while Extended family consists of the husband,

the wife, the children and other relations living together in a large family compound.

Families fulfill an important function in every society. Most of the children in

developed countries grow up in a family, although the form of that family might change during

the life course. Generally, a family provides a child with opportunities to develop into a stable

and independent person, for instance, through enabling the child to attend school. The future

success of children thus greatly depends on the household they grow up in. Nevertheless, a child

is not in the position to choose its own family and has to accept if its family is not capable of

1
offering him or her the best opportunities (Marloes de Lange, Jaap Dronkers, Maarten H.J.

Wolbers, 2014).

Though, family structures have changed enormous during the second half of the 20 th

century (Martin and Kats, 2003). The socialization of children is very important for the

continuity of any culture basically, parenting is one of the challenging social roles in Nigeria

today. The family is said to be the most important agent of socialization especially for children.

Children is most communities are raised in a highly structured and disciplined manner, parent

helped to instill and inculcate strong basic moral, spiritual, social, physical and ligature

principles in their children (San Strock2002).

There is no reason to think that these family forms are specie-specific to the developed

world, and have not yet evaded in the developing world or imported wholesale through

globalization that corrodes cultural value. There are different types of family structures. The

structures are based on whether both parents are involved in children's training or whether only

one of the parents is involved in the training of the children.

African system of raising children in the extended family patterns has change greatly

with the advent of industrialization and globalization in the world. Family lives have been

disrupted with the rapid social change that came with the globalization. In Nigeria, high rates of

divorce, separation, birth to unmarried couple, deaths of spouses, war, abandonment, poverty,

economic instability and social movement are contributing factors of single parenthood, step-

parent Families.

Education of a child comes in so many ways through parents, family, neighbours, friends

and relatives which are primary groups so that the child will be responsible in adulthood. It can

also through clubs, association, church and peer groups which are the secondary group.
2
Education of the child also comes through tertiary influence such as towns, films, television,

literature, nation, public opinion, radio, state and the press. These are various agents that

contribute in different ways and at different level to how a child learns. The child can equally

learn from his or her society about the right attitude, values and norms of the people. Parents can

teach the child through literature be encouraging him or her to take in reading and discussing

picture in the literature. It is the duty of parent to teach the child the roles and regulations of the

society parent are without doubt, key performers in the development of children. Hoover-

Dempsey, Walker, Sandler, Whetsel, Green, Wilkens and Closson (2005); Redding, (2006): and

Nyarka, (2010) implied their report that the first surrounding for all learners home-based which

in turn greatly influences their educational success. A situation where this task is one-sided with

the mother or father alone (single parent) brings many problems in the life of the child.

Ambert and Saucier (1984) and Mclamahan (1995) explained the effects of broken homes

and divorce to modify family income and spending on the children which further affects amount

of time spent with the children. These barriers affect educational achievement of a learner.

Onzima (2001) , explained that single parent or step-parent children have tendency of not

finishing up their studies at the high school and college levels, have less parental care, parent

monitoring of school work and have less social supervision. Ferreira (1994) and Zangqa (1994)

added that such parents are not always available and children may grow up in a home where one

or both parent are absent and may even end up living with their grand- parent.

Joshua and Victor (1996) found that children of single parent prevent homes show

varying degrees of lower achievement dependent upon their individual back grounds. Parents,

whether intact family or single parent or step-parent family are expected to be role model to their

3
children there by setting good examples by making their teens know what they stand for. This

will help them not be too much difficult when being corrected. If children see that their parents

smoke cigarettes, marijuana or do other evils it will be difficult for such parent to correct them.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

(Children's Defence Fund, 1994) families are faced with the challenges of diminished

financial resources. The effect or impact of family structures on children education is more than

just talking about the types of structures aspect (single parent, intact family or step-parent) alone,

rather we would also look at the side effect of some other factors within the structures such as

size of the family, On several occasions we have come across children from family structures

that have large numbers of children in which they perform lesser to family that have small

number of children. The main point here is that family with large numbers of children tends to

have low financial strength in taking care of the children. Also the parental educational

attainment, this means that in a family where the parent educational background is poor, which

in turns translate that the children from that kind family would find it difficult in the future while

competing with other children whose parental background are okay. In this scenario the child has

to face this burden alone because when he/she tries to make point conflict of interest would

occur. More so, the socio-economic status of the parent affects children education. Assumptions

of new roles and responsibilities, establishment of new patterns in intra-familial interaction and

reorganization of routines and schedules (Agulanna, 1999). These conditions are not conducive

for effective parenting. This is because when the single parent is overburdened by

responsibilities and by their own emotional reaction to their situation, they often become

irritable, impatient and insensitive to their children's needs (Nzewunwah, 1995).

4
1.3 Research Question

1. Are both parent better in supporting children education than single parent and step-

parent?

2. To what extent can variables such as environmental influence affect children

education?

3. Do all children exhibit the same level of academic performance irrespective of their

parental background?

4. Does the size of a family determine or affect the education of the children?

1.4 Research Objective

The aim of this project is to pilot or provide some statistical and empirical findings of

possible impact (if any) of family structures on children education. Some other objectives of this

study include;

1. To unveil if all type of family structures supports quality’s children education.

2. To know if environmental factors influences children education.

3. To know if children from poor parental educational background has the same

level of academics performances with their counterpart.

4. To know if family size affect the education of children.

5
1.5 Scope of the Study

This study attempted to cover issue that could possibly determine strong, weak or no

impact of family structures on children education. The study account for only family structures

in which children are parented from, be it extended or nuclear settings.

1.6 Justification of the Study

This study is motivated by the continuous increase of the impact of family structures on

children education, where by it is not only the kind of family structures that generally affects the

performance of children education. The study is also broadly expected to have both theoretical

and practical influence on all stakeholders of education that shall have access to the final product

of the study. Furthermore, the Department of Women Affairs and Teachers shall benefits from

the study findings and recommendations in planning and executing daily educational activities

for the teenagers who are the future drivers of tomorrow’s economy of the country.

1.7 Definition of Terms

Single parent families: In which either of the father or mother is engaged in the training of the

children. This situation could arise as a result of death of either of the parents, divorce or as a

result of pregnancy arising from irresponsible sex or sex before marriages.

Both-parent families: Here, the fathers and the mothers are involved, in the training of the

children. However the type of relationships that exist between the fathers and the mothers go a

long way in determining the performance of the children in school. Amato (1987) is of the view

6
that both parents may be living together but not intact in their engagements or commitments

towards child general training of children.

Step-parent families: This situation could arise from instances where either of the parents dies

and the remaining partner remarried so that the children are being taken care of by the new

partner. This is common where the mother dies and the father remarries. The new wife now acts

as the mother to the children of the first wife.it is the same when a father dies and the wife

remarries. The new husband now acts as the father to the children of the first husband.

7
 CHAPETR TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Scholars overtime have written or conducted studies on single parenthood and child

education. This shows how children education is significant to the society at large. The growth in

the number of single parent families implies that many children are confronted with the negative

effects of single parenthood every year, such as economic deprivation, a decrease in the quality

and quantity of parental contact and a decline in parental support and effective control (Amato,

2000).

Amato and Keith (1991) not only divorce itself and the period following it have negative

consequences for children, but also already prior to the divorce such family are often

characterized by a smaller amount of financial resources and more conflicts (Fischer, 2001)

obviously, this has a detrimental effect on children’s wellbeing and development and,

accordingly on their performances at school previous researchers has already shown that children

educational achievement is negatively affect by parental divorce (Dronkers, 1994, 1999;

Mclanhan and Sandefur, 1994). This comes down to the fact that loss of one parent from the

family, which can be interpreted as a decrease in the number of family’s financial, cultural and

social resources leads to a deforiation of children’s educational achievement.

8
 2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

nin g
Social Lear
Theory s
Experience
- Personal
rocess
- Mindful p

Socialization Style
Family Structure Parenting
- Family
Theory
- Peer group
- School
And - Authorita
rian
tive
- Authorita
- Religion Children Education - Permissiv
e
- Mass media g le ctu al/ disengaged
-N e

tT heory
Attachmen
- Safety
n
- Protectio

9
 Source: Researcher’s construct 2016

2.2.1 Concept of Family

The concept family has been defined as a group of people (related or unrelated) who are

dependent on one another, support each other, and love each other unconditionally. A Family is

also a group of people who share a bond and are connected through a web of experiences, values,

emotions, and a fostered culture. This unit does not necessarily have to be tied together

biologically, but instead through their common socializations.

A family is far more than a collection of individuals sharing a specific physical

and psychological space, (McLanahan and Sanderful, 1994). A family may be considered a

natural social system, with properties all on its own, one that has evolved a set of rules, is replete

with assigned and ascribed roles for its members, has an organized power structure, has

developed intricate overt and covert forms of communication and has elaborated ways of

negotiating and problem solving that permit various tasks to be performed effectively

(Goldenberg and Goldenberg, 2000). In the process of growing up, family members develop

individual identities but nevertheless remain attached to the family group. These family members

do not live in isolation, but rather are interdependent on one another – not merely for money,

food and shelter but also for love, affection, companionship, socialization and other non-tangible

needs. A well-functioning family encourages the realization of the individual potential of its

members, allowing them freedom for exploration and self – discovery along with protection and

the instillation of a sense of security. This may not be the case in a family that experiences

conflicts.

10
 Selfe (1993) asserts that a family is a social unit made up of people related to each other

by blood, birth or marriage. It is a social group characterized by common residence, economic

co-operation and reproduction. According to him, functions of a family include reproduction of

population, care of the youth, stabilization of relationships between adults and transmission of

the social culture from one generation to the next. According to Grugni (2004), parents who have

too many children and who are engrossed in the material problems of a large family are likely to

neglect them; this will definitely affect their growth negatively. The birth of a child means that

the parent’s attention, especially the mother’s, will be shifted towards the new life. Children are

supposed to bring parents together because they provide them with a common object for their

love and concern.

However, in some cases, they become a barrier between the parents. Grugni also goes

ahead to point out that the husband may feel neglected by the wife who is too busy caring for the

child and the wife may think that she is left alone in the new responsibility. Parents need to

assume responsibility for their children’s eternal destiny, educate them, prepare them for life and

guide them towards the right way. This cannot happen if there is no harmony in the family.

Parents also need to recognize fully their duties towards God, their family and society. Parents

are equally responsible for the task of forming the child. Parent’s presence in children’s lives is

of vital importance. Children need the influence of both parents to shape their personality in a

balanced way. Bringing up children is primarily the role of parents. Parents also have a financial

responsibility towards their children. They need to be comfortable and their needs met.

Discipline must be installed in the home. The goal of discipline is to help the child to become a

responsible member of society. The child needs to learn about self-discipline, which comes about

with self-awareness and self-acceptance.

11
 Edleson (1997) asserts that problems among children who have witnessed assaults of one

parent by another in the home include psychological and emotional ones such as aggression,

hostility, anxiety, social withdrawal and depression. There are also cognitive functioning

problems such as lower verbal and quantitative skills and the development of attitudes

supporting the use of violence. Other long term development problems according to Edleson

include depression, trauma related systems and low self-esteem among women and trauma

related symptoms alone among men. These problems appear to be magnified or decreased by a

number of moderating factors including whether or not the child has been a victim of physical

abuse, a child’s age and gender, the amount of time that has passed since witnessing violence,

where the child is living, how a child perceives his/her relationship to adults in the home and the

degree of perceived family support for the child. He also says that problems associated with

children’s witnessing of domestic violence can be divided into three main categories:

(I) Behavioral and Emotional Problems: They exhibit more aggressive and antisocial as well

as fearful and inhibited behavior and show lower social competence than other children. They

were also found to show more anxiety, low self-esteem, depression, anger, and temperament

problems than children who did not witness violence at home. Children from homes where their

mothers were being abused have shown less skill in understanding how others feel and

examining situations from other’s perspectives when compared to children from non-violent

households. Peer relationships, autonomy, self-control and overall competence were also

reported significantly lower among boys who had experienced serious physical violence and

been exposed to the use of weapons between adults living in their homes. Another aspect of the

effects on children is their own use of violence. Social learning theory would suggest that

children who witness violence may also learn to use it.

12
(II) Cognitive Functioning and Attitudes: According to Edleson (1997), academic abilities

were not found to differ between witnesses and other children. He also asserts that increased

violence exposure associated with lower cognitive functioning. One of the most direct

consequences of witnessing violence may be the attitude a child develops concerning the use of

violence and conflict resolution. Jaffe, Wilson and Wolfe (1986) suggest that children’s exposure

to adult domestic violence may generate attitudes justifying their own use of violence.

Spaccarelli, Coatsworth and Bowden’s (1995) findings support this association by showing that

adolescent boys incarcerated for violent crimes that had been exposed to family violence

believed more than others that acting aggressively enhances one’s reputation or self-image. Boys

and girls appear to differ in what they learn from these experiences.

(III) Longer Term Problems: A number of studies have mentioned much longer term problems

reported retrospectively by adults or indicated in archival records. For example, witnessing

violence as a child was associated with adult reports of depression, trauma related symptoms and

low self-esteem among women. There was also trauma related symptoms among men.

Witnessing violence appeared to be independent of the various cases accounted for by the

existence of parental alcohol abuse and divorce.

Santrock (1997) observed that Children are prone to victimization because unlike adults,

children are obliged to live with other people, to travel collectively and to work in high density,

heterogeneous environments, which is what schools are. In short, children have difficulty gaining

access to the structures and mechanisms in society that help segregate people from dangerous

associates and environments. The dependency of children created a spectrum of vulnerability for

victimizations. John and Frank (1990) found out that the sensitive psychological vulnerability of

children in their dependent relationship to their caretakers renders bad parental behaviour which

13
is a major threat to normal child development. Research has found out that since children live in

families, more of their victimization that are more dependency related should involve more

perpetrators who are parents and family members. This pattern occurs because the

responsibilities created by children’s dependency status fall primarily on parents and family

members. They are the main individuals in a position to violate those responsibilities in a way

that would create victimization.

For maltreated children, dealing with fears about abuse and searching for security in

relationships with adults can take precedence over performing competently at academic tasks.

Being physically abused has been linked with children’s anxiety, personality problems,

depression, conduct disorder and delinquency. At school, maltreated children have serious

discipline problems. Their non-compliance, poor motivation and cognitive immaturity interfere

with academic achievement – an outcome that further undermines their chance for life success,

(Eckenrode, Laird and Doris, 1993). Children’s friendships are important in that they serve six

functions: companionship, stimulation, physical support, ego support, social comparison and

intimacy/affection (Gottman and Parker, 1987).

In companionship, friendship provides children with a familiar partner and playmate,

someone who is willing to spend time with them and join in collaborative activities. Concerning

stimulation, friendship provides children with interesting information, excitement and

amusement. In physical support, friendship provides time, resources and assistance while in ego

support; it provides the expectation of support, encouragement and feedback that helps children

maintain an impression of themselves as competent, attractive and worthwhile individuals. As far

as social comparison is concerned, friendship provides information about where the child stands

vis-à-vis others and whether the child is doing okay. In intimacy and affection, friendship

14
provides children with a warm, close, trusting relationship with another individual in which self-

disclosure takes place.

2.2.2 Family Size

Family size in this context refers to the total number of children in the child’s family in

addition to the child himself. The type of family that a child comes from either monogamous or

polygamous family usually has impact on the child academic performance. Moreover, either of

the family type (monogamous or polygamous) family dictates the size of the family. Polygamous

family is peculiar to Africa in general and in Kenya in particular. According to Gottfried et al.

(2004), polygamous family is a common among well-educated families as well as among poorly-

educated families. He added that it is equally common among professional and managerial

fathers of the top of the occupational hierarchy although to unskilled workers polygamous is

prominent.

Children from larger families are found to do worse than children from smaller families

as revealed by Lacovou (2001). He found out those children lower down the birth order do worse

than those higher up the birth order. According to Adler (2009), first born or the oldest child is

usually advantaged by a good deal of attention and warmth during the early stage on age of life,

which he entertains all alone. Observations and studies have shown that more attention and time

are usually accorded to the first born (Seigal, 2007). Lacovou (2001) reported that parental

attention by parents declines as the number of sibling’s increases and later born children perform

less well than earlier born siblings. Studies carried out in the past on the relationship between

15
academic achievement and birth order have shown that there were positive relationships. For

example, Scott & Black (2009) discovered that on relationship of birth order and creativity, first

born and configurations of oldest and only children are significantly more creative on verbal test

of creativity than later born. Smith et al. (2007) observed that there was more significantly

outstanding academic performance amongst first birth children. Seigal (2007) observed that there

was a significant difference in intelligence capacity between the first born children and later born

children. A study conducted by Rushton and McLanahan (2012) found out that children’s

attainment depends on inputs of time and money from their parents; the more children there are

in the family the less of both inputs. These inputs are not money alone, but other essential things

like time, attention, resource dilution and so on. However, Seigal (2007) confirmed that children

from larger families have lower levels of education.

2.2.3 Single Parent Family

A single parent is one who has the day to day duty in the raising of his or her children

alone without the wife or husband. Single parenthood did not start today; rather it is a long time

issue that was caused by slavery or having given birth outside wedlock, separation, divorced, or

death of spouse. Single parents have been reported to have the highest level of family challenges,

work and conflicts compared to partner and/or couple-parent individuals. Bellavia and Frone,

(2005), indicated that single parents struggle with most family demands. Single parents are not

more likely to report spending insufficient time with their children, but they do suffer from the

highest rates of time-strain based conflicts (Milkie, Mattingly, Nomaguchi, Bianchi, 2004). A

previous research comparing single parents and couple parents found that single parents tend to

report higher degrees of work and family conflicts (Bellavia and Frone, 2005). The single-parent

16
family is a social phenomenon which has become more common over the past few decades

(Gucciardi, Celasun and Stewart, 2004).

According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2007, released by

the U.S. Census Bureau in November, 2009, there are about 13.7 million single parents in the

United States today, who are responsible for bringing up their 21.8 million children

(approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today). Stereotypical thinking about

single-parent families considers them as mothers solely involved in child training (Kalman,

2003), but there are also single fathers. In other words, single parent fathers could be of lesser

number compared to the single parent mothers particularly in the recent times. Klaush and Own

(2009) showed from their study that reports of depression and low sensitivity towards children

were more common among stably cohabiting mothers than were married mothers. Dickerson,

(1995) studied and interviewed six African American professional women for a documentary on

single parenting. Among them, two were divorced, two made the decision to become single

parents, one decided to adopt a child and one was a widow. Dickerson found the six women

shared some same commonalities and problems as most other single professional mothers as two

parent households. The common issues and problems according to the study include finances,

commitment, personal sacrifices, child care, lifestyle, stress, challenges of parental involvement

and so on.

2.2.4 Type of Parenting and Influence on Adolescence

There are four types or styles of parenting (Cherry, 2012) have been identified and discussed

below. They are

1. Authoritarian Parenting,

2. Authoritative Parenting,

17
 3. Permissive Parenting

4. The un-involved parenting.

Authoritarian Parenting Style: This type of parenting style is also called strict parenting or

`Totalitarian Neglectful` parenting, where parents place elevated hope of traditional values and

observance to parental instructions over their children. It usually allows a few chances for

discussion among parents with their children. They tell the children what must be done without

advancing any reasons for the rules or boundaries. Such parents spank on their children rather

than discussing the problem and hence they show less responsiveness to children’s needs. The

children are conditioned to obey whatever decision suggested to them. If a child refuses to obey

his or her parents, the child will be severely punished. Children from such parental background

show the tendency of less achievement in school compared to those from authoritative

households. Ribeiro (2009) reported that authoritarian parenting styles to produce obedient and

proficient children, with lower ranks in terms of cheerfulness, social fitness and confidence than

authoritative and other forms of parenting.

According to Gurian (2012), Zervides and Knowles (2007) an authoritarian parenting

style points to some firm control of the child but with lower levels of responsiveness. Teachers

rate Children from authoritarian environment to be low about their expected work at school in

terms of persistence, motivation and satisfaction (Ginsburg and Bronstein, 1993). They also

explained that children of democratic parents perform better in school, with higher level of

independence and social responsiveness than those from both permissive and authoritarian

households. Naiker (2011) reported that under-achiever-parents tend to be over restrictive and

demanding. According to them, such domination by over protection may have the effect of

retarding the children’s ego involvement, aspirations and educational achievement. They

18
therefore recommended that parents should be democratic in dealing with their children to give

them some level of independence in the area of their social and emotional life. This will allow

children to selectively associate with their peers at school. Dewar (2011) and Wise (2003)

observed that authoritarian parents emphasise good characters and morality before their children

and not achievement and school performance. Authoritarian parents attach so much importance

to dependence on parental wishes and ideas by children and this is an indirect way of

discouraging independence. Grobman (2006) found that children of authoritarian parents show

higher disposition to drugs and alcohol abuse and also the intent of joining gays. This is

probably because they have no democratic parenting relationship hence many of them go

wayward to do whatever they like as they come of age. Two classes of authoritarian parenthood

have been identified: non authoritarian- directives with directive character but not oppressive and

the authoritarian directives that enjoy disturbing, with their disciplinary style as supportive not

corrective measures. They set direction the child must adhere to otherwise the child will be

rejected. Several reports show that children raised in this type of families will always be unable

to perform well academically.

Authoritative Parenting style: Authoritative parenting is variously described as `assertive

democratic` or `balanced` or `propagative` parenting. It provides the opportunity of being able to

be in command, dealing with every form of misbehaviour, in order to bring about with the

intention of encouraging distinctiveness and communications among the children (Ginsburg and

Bronstein, 1993 and Monyela, 1999). It involves a child-centred approach with high expectations

of maturity from the child. Authoritative parents tend understand their children`s feelings with

the extra function of directing the children how to deal with such feelings. While Matsumoto

and Juang (2008) stated that justice, with adequate encouragement by parents over their children

19
are strong attributes associated with authoritative parenthood, they opined that the most common

form of parenting is authoritative. Authoritative Parenting use positive and negative sanctions to

show the child right from wrong. Authoritative parents explain to the child why they took

whatever action they may have taken. Henshaw (2009) in discussing what parenting style is best

using three styles, considered authoritative parenting style to stand out among others. Grobman

(2006) explained that self-regulating, higher social skills, self-assurance, ability to manage

feelings and anxiety remain important characteristics of off-springs of authoritative parenthood

than other forms of parenting. The children tend to practice better ways of studying than their

peers from authoritarian parents.

Furthermore, literature has proved that children whose parents are authoritative appear to

achieve more than those from other types of parenting styles. Parents are expected to take their

stand when raising children because the success of the children shows how much of their efforts

that are being applied in the lives of their children. Pellerin (2005) suggested that “children

from authoritative homes may succeed at school better than others because the authoritative

climate at home prepares them to function well in authoritative contexts” usually found in

schools. Parents in this context are resolved and warm in dealing with their children. These

parents uphold order and independence as key to character moulding and capacity building.

Hence, Milevksy, Schlechter, Netter and Keehn (2007), concluded that such parents are

positively defensive. Using authoritative ruling on the children at times pays so much in raising

them especially in their adolescent years that are usually characterised by high risk of improper

behaviours. Baumrind (1989), summarised the attributes of authoritative parents as being

authoritative parents are both tough, receptive, assertive about standards and norms, supportive

20
and not just punitive towards their children to ensure proper self-confidence, social responsibility

and cooperative in overall character disposition.

Madeline (2012) explained that children from authoritative parents produce better scores,

yet show an over-all better optimism and disposition towards academic life. Baumrind’s

classification (Authoritative, Authoritarian and Permissive Parenting Styles) of parenting styles

shows that authoritative parenting demonstrates a significant level of understanding and resolve.

Children in authoritative family have good relationship with their parents tend to be more open

to their parents. They are very free to discuss with parents at home. They are independent in

thinking, and are able to do well academically. They are supported and guided by their parents.

Permissive Parenting: This is referred as indulgent or Free-ranger parenting or non-directive

parenting style (Baumrind, 1989). Parents in this category have the feeling that showing and

giving their children love is their ultimate goal in parenting and they are generally very lenient.

The parents are responsive and require some level of responsibility and conduct from the

children. They allow the children with much freedom with the intention of not wanting to offend

the children. Permissive parents believe that their children should be free to make their choices

of life and most of the children selfish become selfish in the process (Leow and Chan, 2011).

Some parents are seen to be over-committed and over-protective about their children giving rise

to the children losing the opportunity of self-confidence, independence, peer-interactions and

initiative development (Richmond. and Stocker, 2008) in order to prepare for the future.

The children from permissive parents have good self-esteem and better social skills than

their peers from other parenting styles, but lack academic motivation. No child is supposed to be

over protected if a child is to be socially and academically well trained and directed. Permissive

parents generally are soft and liberal, with less demand on the children. It is a common

21
observation that such parents would not usually deal with naughtiness. Children from permissive

parenting style always find it difficult to be independent and responsible and may feel insecure

due to lack of boundaries and guidance Cherry, (2011). The researcher noticed from several

literatures that permissive parents produce children that cannot learn from their mistakes and

their troubles.

The uninvolved parenting: The Uninvolved parent is also known as neglectful, detached,

dismissive or hands-off form of parenting (Darling, 2010). In uninvolved parenting, parents are

somehow loose in the training of their children. When parents hand-off from their own children

the children may be wayward. Uninvolved parents have less control in child training. They are

less responsive, undemanding and do not set limits to their children’s training. Such parents are

emotionally unsupportive of their children; they just provide the basic needs of their children

such as feeding for them in some cases.

Parents in this type of parenting neglect the needs of their children. The children

therefore struggle to provide for themselves and eventually develop poorly and experience

problems in several aspects of their lives (Darling, 2010). As parents only base their training of

the children on only food, clothes and a little comment on the other things, the children are likely

to achieve less academically and many other aspects of their lives. Parents are supposed to be up

and doing to meet up with their responsibilities so that the children will be able to achieve their

academic demands.

The type of parenting styles that is common in ago-iwoye is the un-involved and

authoritarian type due to their low educational and lack of attention to their children.

2.2.5 Parental Education Level

22
 The influence of the level of education of parents on the academic performance of their

children is evident in all countries. Pamela and Kean (2010) states those that students whose

parents have a tertiary level of education perform, on average, significantly better in tests of

science, reading and mathematical ability than do those whose parents have only basic schooling.

Thus, across these three disciplines, the average grades achieved by students with well-educated

parents ranged from 7% higher than those achieved by students with poorly educated parents in

developing countries to 45% higher in most developed countries.

Even though the majority of the literature on parents’ education pertains to the direct,

positive influence on achievement (Ryan and Deci, 2000), the literature also suggests that it

influences the beliefs and behaviors of the parent, leading to positive outcomes for children and

youth (Heiss, 2006). For example, Alston and Williams (2002) found that parents of moderate to

high income and educational background held beliefs and expectations that were closer than

those of low-income families to the actual performance of their children, Low-income families

instead had high expectations and performance beliefs that did not correlate well with their

children’s actual school performance.

Research on parenting also has shown that parent education is related to a warm, social

climate in the home. Gottfried et al. (2004) found that both mothers’ education and family

income were important predictors of the physical environment and learning experiences in the

home but that mothers’ education alone was predictive of parental warmth. Likewise, Smith et

al. (2007) found that the association of family income and parents’ education with children’s

academic achievement was mediated by the home environment. The mediation effect was

stronger for maternal education than for family income. Thus, these authors posited that

education might be linked to specific achievement behaviors in the home.

23
 Murray and Fairchild (2009) also found that maternal education had the most consistent

direct influence on children’s cognitive and behavioral outcomes with some indirect influence

through a cognitively stimulating home environment. However, they examined only two, quite

broad aspects of family mediators: learning stimulation and parental responsively. Mediation

might have emerged if other parent behaviors and attitudes were examined. On the same line,

Iverson & Walberg (2002) had revised 18 studies of 5,831 school aged students on a systematic

research of educational, psychological, and sociological literature. Accordingly, they had

concluded that students’ ability and achievement are more closely linked to the socio-

psychological environment and intellectual stimulation in the home than they are to parental

socio-economic status indicators such as occupation and amount of education. The parental level

of education in Ago-iwoye is an average type due to the reluctance of parent to further or have a

complete education, this have a significant role or effect on the kind of education the children are

going to get.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

This study would be based on four (4) selected theories to form the theoretical

framework. They are;

1. Socialization theory.

2. Social learning theory.

3. Attachment theory

4. Parenting styles.

24
2.3.1 SOCIALIZATION THEORY: Socialization is the process by which human infants

begin to acquire the skills necessary to perform as a functioning member of their society, and is

the most influential learning process one can experience. Although cultural variability manifests

in the actions, customs, and behaviours of whole social groups the most fundamental expression

of culture is found at the individual level. This expression can only occur after an individual has

been socialized by his or her parents, family, extended family, and extended social networks.

This reflexive process of both learning and teaching is how cultural and social characteristics

attain continuity (Chao, 2000). The above theory believes that a child begins to learn with the

help of the agent of socialization in which family comes first. Since the family structure as

impact on the children education so, socialization theory believes that the family as the first

family of children socialization and this are the first set of people in which the child(ren) as

contact in life. Any failure or setback in this aspect will definitely affect or have a negative

impact on the child. More so, on the educational aspect when a child is not properly integrated

into the society due to the lapses of his/her family.

2.3.2 SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY: This is one of the most influential models of parent–

child relationships, and closely associated with the ideas and findings of Bandura (e.g. Bandura,

1977). The conceptual basis for social learning approaches as applied to parenting is most

closely associated with the work of Gerald Patterson (1969), founder of the Oregon Social

Learning Centre. Also influential was Constance Hanf (1969), who developed play therapy based

on rewarding child behaviour through attention. Latter-day interventions, notably the

programmes of Carolyn Webster-Stratton (1981), Rex Forehand and Robert McMahon (1981),

Sheila Eyberg (1988) and Marian Forgatch (Forgatch and DeGarmo, 1999), directly incorporate

social learning principles. Several leading practitioners have expanded the social learning model
25
to incorporate consideration of the parents’ social setting that may contribute to poor parenting,

including Robert Wahler (1965) whose programme recognised the particular needs of isolated

mothers. He was instrumental in showing that ‘insular’ mothers were harsher to their children on

days when the few adults with whom they had contact – such as local officials or their own

mothers – had been rejective of them Broadly put, social learning theory argues that children’s

real-life experiences and exposures directly or indirectly shape behaviour. For Patterson (1969,

1996) and many others there is a focus on traditional behavioural principles of reinforcement and

conditioning.

The fundamental tenet is that moment-to-moment exchanges are crucial; if a child

receives an immediate reward for his/her behaviour, such as getting parental attention or

approval, then he/she is likely to do the behaviour again, whereas if she/he is ignored (or

punished) then she/he is less likely to do it again. Other advocates have expanded this focus to

consider the cognitive or ‘mindful’ processes that underlie the parent’s behaviour (e.g. Bugenthal

et al., 1989; Dix, 1992) and its effects on children (e.g. Dodge et al., 1995). Whether the

assessment and conceptual focus is on behaviour or cognitions, the model suggests that children

learn strategies about managing their emotions, resolving disputes and engaging with others not

only from their experiences, but also from the way their own reactions were responded to. For

younger children especially, the primary source of these experiences is in the context of the

parent–child relationship and the family environment. Given its historical emphasis on altering

negative, aggressive behaviour in children, models of parenting based on social learning theory

have tended to emphasise parental conflict, coercion and consistent discipline. But more theorists

have incorporated positive dimensions of parenting as a way of promoting child positive

26
behaviour and affect, improving the pleasurable nature of parents’ and children’s interactions

with one another (e.g. Gardner, 1989).

Relating this, it means that the learning process of a child depends on the parent and

societal values that is made available to the child. This is also laying more emphasis on the

emotional aspects of the parent-child relationship, where by the outcome of child(ren) behaviour

depends solely on the personal “real life” experience in which shapes and this experience mostly

depends on the kind of family structures in which that child(ren) is been brought up from. For

instance, a child from a single parent family has tendency to have much emotional problem

because when the parent have emotional worries and does see any one to share that worries.

Especially when it is negatively, he/she would now manifest that on the child or even when it is

about a particular thought.

2.3.3 ATTACHMENT THEORY: Attachment theorists have developed a model of parent–

child relationships from a broad theoretical base that includes ethology, cognitive psychology

and control systems (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980, 1988; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Cassidy and

Shaver, 1999). John Bowlby was particularly interested in identifying the nature, significance

and function of a child’s tie to his/her parent. Although the theory had its roots in clinical

observations of children who experienced severely compromised, disrupted or deprived care

giving arrangements, it has been applied as a model for normal and abnormal development.

Attachment theory is concerned with fundamental issues of safety and protection; in

psychological terms, it focuses on the extent to which the relationship provides the child with

protection against harm and with a sense of emotional security The theory proposes that the

quality of care provided to the child, particularly sensitivity and responsiveness, leads to a

‘secure’ (optimal) or ‘insecure’ (non-optimal) attachment. Attachment theorists use the term
27
‘pathway’ to make explicit that early attachment experiences do not shape subsequent

development in a deterministic manner (Bowlby, 1988).

Insecure attachment it is not synonymous with disturbance and a secure attachment does

not guarantee against disturbance. We know, however, that a particular form of insecure

attachment in infants and young children termed ‘insecure-disorganised’ is strongly related to

risk for psychopathology and is a marker of particular risk in the care giving environment (e.g.

Lyons-Ruth, 1996; Greenberg, 1999). Attachment relationships are internalised and carried

forward to influence expectations for other important relationships. A history of consistent and

sensitive care with the parent is therefore expected to lead to the child developing a model of self

and others as loveable and loving/helpful. Effective attachment-based interventions have been

developed and validated for a range of clinical problems (Cicchetti et al., 2000; Bakermans-

Kranenburg et al., 2003).

Attachment theory aims at looking at the aspects of care, safety, love etc. that a child

receives from their parents. Attachment theory is significant to the above research in the sense

that, the theory itself lays emphasis on security (care, safety, love) and insecurity in the family.

Security in the family is very important but the level of security in this situation would vary from

one family structure to another. For instance, in an extended family security (care, safety, and

love) may be low and also in single parent family where by the external factors affect the family.

2.3.4 PARENTING STYLES: The dominant model in research on parent–child relationships

is most loosely associated with the early work of Diana Baumrind in the 1960s (e.g. Baumrind,

1991) and has been elaborated on by several subsequent teams of investigators (Maccoby and

Martin, 1983; Steinberg et al., 1994b; Hetherington et al., 1999). Baumrind, in her naturalistic

28
study of interactions between parents and young children, described important dimensions of

parenting. These were warmth (as opposed to conflict or neglect) and control strategies.

Parenting typologies were, thus, constructed from a cross of warmth, conflict and control:

‘authoritative’ (high warmth, positive/assertive control and in adolescence high expectations),

‘authoritarian’ (low warmth, high conflict and coercive, punitive control attempts), ‘permissive’

(high warmth coupled with low control attempts) and ‘neglectful/disengaged’ (low warmth and

low control). These four typologies have been repeatedly associated with child outcomes. Also

parenting styles as been able to show the parenting style which fit into some family structures.

For instance, “authoritarian” low warmth, high conflict, coercive and punitive control attempts

are mostly associated with the single parent family where by the parent would want to establish

some form of authority in the family. “Neglectful/disengaged” low warmth and low control can

be traced to the extended family due to the size of the family and socio-economic status of the

parent. The parenting style parent’s use in taking care of their offspring’s also or may determine

the way the child would perform at the larger level in the society.

2.4 EMPRICAL FINDINGS

Nyarko (2011) and Chowa et al. (2012) showed that in Ghana, parents worry about the

affairs of their children’s school environment. For this reason, Nyarko (2011) further argues that

Ghanaian parents often help mostly on a limited basis towards ensuring completion of their

children’s homework. Similarly, Chowa et al. (2012) showed that parental involvement in the

school environment appears high because most (87%) reported attending Parent Teacher

Activities meetings, discuss expectations with their children, discuss school work and make sure

that their children’s do their homework. The results further showed that married parents are more

likely to involve in their children’s education than single parents. Using a scale of 1 (never
29
involved) to 5 (very often involved), married parents reported checking whether their children

have done their homework more often (M=3.51) than single parents (M=3.37; p<.001). Among

the 1,270 single parents, 38.7% assist their children with homework, but 44.8% of the 3,291

married parents give more direct help with homework. As parents engage in the academic

activities of their children, it is most likely to have a positive influence on their academic

performances. For instance, Nyarko (2007), Nyarko and Vorgelegt (2007) and Topor, Keane,

Shelton, and Calkins (2010) found that parental involvement is positively associated with

students’ academic performance in school. This does not necessarily suggest that once parents

engage in a child’s academic activities the child would be academically successful as the child’s

own abilities and the school environment also play critical roles in that respect. In a related way,

Donkor (2010) indicates that parents noted that the poor performance of their children emanates

from their lack of proper supervision of their wards’ homework.

Fadeiye (1985) and Uwaifo (2008) found that differences in academic performance of

children exist in terms of those from single parent and those from two parent families. Fadeiye

(1985) in particular found that in two parent homes, both parents have roles lo play in child

education. The father is to give the necessary tools for the educational advancement, while the

mother is to supplement the father's efforts in this regard. Where the father is absent and the

mother is not privileged enough to cater for all the basic needs as well as supervised the

academic performance of the child, the child will have poor academic performance. Uwaifo’s

(2008) study examined the effects of family structure and parenthood on the academic

performance of Nigerian university students. The sample for the study consisted of 240 students

drawn from the six randomly selected faculties in Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Edo State.

The analysis involved using t-test statistical method. The level of significance for the null
30
hypothesis is 0.05. The results showed that significant differences existed between the academic

performance of students from single parent family and those from two-parent family structures

which supports the findings of Center for Marriage and Families (2005). The results also

indicated significant differences in academic performance of male and female students compared

on two types of family structures. Contrary to the above findings, Ushie, Emeka, Ononga and

Owolabi (2012) shows that there is no significant difference in the academic performance of

students from single parent families and those from two parent families. This might have been so

because differences exist despite the single parent’s inability to give the child all the necessary

care.

Also, with time the child is able to adjust in the environment as such the performance if it

was poor might now improve. Pong, Dronkers and Hampden-Thompson (2003) investigates the

gap in Math and Science achievement of third and fourth-graders who live with a single parent

versus those who live with two parents in 11 countries. They found that the United States and

New Zealand ranked the least among the countries they compared in terms of equality of

achievement between children from single-parent families and those from two-parent homes.

The multilevel analysis showed that single parenthood was less harmful when family policies

equalize resources between single and two-parent families. In addition, the single- and two-

parent achievement gap is greater in countries where single-parent families are more prevalent.

These findings suggest that belonging to a single parent family does not mean the person is

academically condemned since certain policy implemented could turn fortunes. This discovery

supports that of Uwaifo (2008).

31
 In Hetherington, Camara and Featherman (1983) study, they concluded that the

intellectual and social development of males is more adversely affected by living in one-parent

homes than that of females from similar family circumstances. Similar results have also been

reported by other research that point that females from single parent families performed

academically better than those males from the same family type (Fry and Scher, 1984; Krein and

Beller,1988; Farooq et al., 2011). For instance, Fry and Scher (1984) found that the achievement

scores of boys declined significantly over a five-year period of living in a single parent home

while the scores of girls in similar home environments remained stable. With respect to Krein

and Beller (1988), they discovered that Caucasian males spending 18 years in a single parent

home complete 1.7 fewer years of school as compared to Caucasian males spending 18 years in a

two parent home. These evidences suggest that females are less affected academically as

compared males when they live in single parent homes. In terms of Farooq et al. (2011), they

found that academic performance of secondary school students in Pakistan, females performed

better than males. In sub-Saharan Africa, the situation is not much different from similar patterns

reported in developed countries. Salami and Alawode (2000) research on influence of gender on

the adolescent's academic achievement reveals that there is a significant difference between the

academic achievement of the male and female adolescents from single parenting homes with

girls scoring higher than boys. It is also clear from the result of the null hypothesis on male and

female from intact homes that, there was no significant difference in the academic achievements

of male and female students from two parent homes. Eweniyi (2005) examines the impact of

family structure on the academic performance of university students and the show significant

differences in academic performance of male and female students compared on two types of

family structures (single versus two parent homes).

32
2.5 Research Hypothesis

The study proposed the following hypothesis;

H1: Is there any relationship between family form and educational success.

H2: Is there negative relationship between educational performances of children from single

parent family and that of two parents’ families.

H3: There is no impact of single parenthood on educational success and the influence of

environment and peer group activities.

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

This chapter presented the general method, procedure and strategies for collecting data

for the research. The methodology was discussed under the following headings: research design,

the study area, the study population, sample size, sampling procedures and technique, data

collection, validity and reliability of the research instrument, method of data analysis, ethical

consideration.

3.1 Research Design

The research design of this study is single research design i.e. survey research design.

Survey research method is a form of descriptive research used when dealing with a very

systematic collection of data or information from population or sample of the population through

the use of personal interview opinion scale, questionnaire and observation. Many researchers

also viewed survey research as a study which involves an investigation on entire population of

33
people or items by collecting data from sample drawn from population and assuming that these

samples are representative of the entire population.

3.2 The Study Area

The area of study is Ago-Iwoye in Ijebu-North Local Government, Ogun-state, Nigeria. It

is one of the most populous town in the state. It is made of seven strategic districts which include

Idode, Imere, Isamuro, Ibipe, Igan, Imososi and Imosu, Ago-iwoye is located in the south

western part of Nigeria, with Yoruba as it prominent language spoken, though they also have

their own dialect which is called IJEBU. The state owned university is located here.

3.3 The Study Population

The population for this research was composed of single parents and couples in Ago-

Iwoye, township of Ijebu-North Local Government. The total population of Ago-iwoye township

as at 2006 census was 145,917 and the total population of married couple who were registered by

the local government through registry was as follows in 2014=128, 2015=183 respectively with

the total of 311. Though there was some constraint in getting information for 5 years that is why

we will be using 2 years data.

Source: Ijebu-North Local Government, Registry,

2016.

3.4 Sample Size

34
 The sample of the research will be drawn from the population of married couples within

2 years which is 311. The population of the research would not be more than hundred (100)

participants. The decision to use this sample was due to the cost, time and so on.

3.5 Sampling Procedure and Technique

The sample techniques would involve non-probability sampling technique (accidental).

Accidental sampling means that the entire sampling population shall be involve but they shall be

selected randomly. This is due to the fact that getting the couple’s randomly would be difficult.

Since the couples are not randomly selected this would give room for easy access and

recruitment.

3.6 Data Collection

In this research we would be using questionnaires to gather data from the field. The

questionnaires would be designed by me and would be administered only to the parent. Also the

questionnaire was chosen due to the fact that it is less time consuming and can go on to

accommodate large numbers of responses without even delaying the respondent. More so, it

entails the questions of both their marital life and that of their children(s).

3.7 Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument

The validity and reliability of the research instrument that would be in use by researcher

is content validity, the validity and construct validity because of the nature of the instrument

35
mentioned above. Instrument for this study is questionnaires and which would be administered to

the couples only.

3.8 Method of Data Analysis

The analysis of data would be statistical analysis since it going to be quantitative in

nature because of the questionnaires that will be used. Computer analysis like SPSS would be

used to analyze the data collected from the field.

3.9 Ethical Consideration

According to De vos et al. (2005), ethics can be defined as a set of moral principles that

proposed by an individual or group andscecs that is subsequently widely accepted and offer rules

and behavioral expectations about the most correct conduct towards experimental subjects and

respondents. I the researcher would seek permission from the couples and most especially from

husband since he is the head of the family. The participants in this study were advised to exercise

the freedom to pull out of the study at will; their identities will not be disposed all through and

after the study and their inputs will be put under strict confidentiality.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the presentation and analysis of data collected for the research

work in the interview with the concerned personalities, direct answers was given to the research

questions and a total of 100 questionnaires were distributed among parents in Ijebu North local

government of Ogun state.

4.1 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENT’S

37
Table 4.1.1 frequency and percentage of respondent’s gender

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

MALE 50 50.0 50.0 50.0

Valid FEMALE 50 50.0 50.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From the table above, it shows that 50% of the respondents are male, while the

female also as 50%. It can be noted that the questionnaire was distributed randomly which leads

to the equal chance of male and female.

Table 4.1.2 frequency and percentage of respondent’s age

Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid 18-22 12 12.0 12.0 12.0

23-28 21 21.0 21.0 33.0

29-33 20 20.0 20.0 53.0

34-39 22 22.0 22.0 75.0

38
 40-45 12 12.0 12.0 87.0

46 AND
13 13.0 13.0 100.0
ABOVE

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table 2 above it indicated that the questionnaire was filled by 12% of age

18-22, 21% of age 23-28, 20% of age 29-33, 22% of age 34-39, 12% of age 40-45, and 13% of

age 46 and above. The study shows that majority of the respondent are between the age range of

34-39 with 22%.

Table 4.1.3 frequency and percentage of respondent’s religion

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

CHRISTIAN 55 55.0 55.0 55.0

MUSLIM 43 43.0 43.0 98.0

Valid
TRADITIONAL 2 2.0 2.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From the above, it can noted that the questionnaire used for this work was filled

by 55% of Christians, 43% of Muslims, and 2% of Traditional religion to tell that all the three

main types of religion are present in the area investigated. The study shows that majority of the

respondent were Christians with 55%.

Table 4.1.4 frequency and percentage of respondent’s ethnicity

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

39
 YORUBA 72 72.0 72.0 72.0

IGBO 13 13.0 13.0 85.0

Valid HAUSA 10 10.0 10.0 95.0

OTHERS(SPECIFY) 5 5.0 5.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From the above, it can be noted that the questionnaire was filled by 72% of

Yoruba, 13% of Igbo, 10% of Hausa and 5% of other Ethnic language. The study shows that

majority of the respondent were yoruba’s with 72%.

Table 4.1.5 frequency and percentage of respondent’s Educational qualification

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

M.Sc 17 17.0 17.0 17.0

B.Sc 26 26.0 26.0 43.0

SSCE 45 45.0 45.0 88.0

Valid
OTHERS
12 12.0 12.0 100.0
(SPECIFY)

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: The questionnaire of this work was filled by 17% of M.Sc holder, 26% of B.Sc

holder, 45% of SSCE holder and 12% of Primary school certificate holder which term as others.

As indicated in the table above, the study shows that majority of the respondent are SSCE holder

with 45%.

Table 4.1.6 frequency and percentage of respondent’s occupation

40
 Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

TRADER 38 38.0 38.0 38.0

ARTISAN 27 27.0 27.0 65.0

FARMER 18 18.0 18.0 83.0

teachers 12 12.0 12.0 95.0

Valid
security 3 3.0 3.0 98.0

driver 1 1.0 1.0 99.0

nurse 1 1.0 1.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From the above, the questionnaire used was filled by 38% of traders, 27% of

Artisan, 18% of Farmers, 12% of teachers, 3% of security, 1% of Driver and 1% of nurse. The

study shows that majority of the respondent occupation is trader with 38%.

Table 4.1.7 frequency and percentage of respondent’s income

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Valid 10000-19000 29 29.0 29.0 29.0

20000-29000 38 38.0 38.0 67.0

30000- ABOVE 33 33.0 33.0 100.0

41
 Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From the above table, it can be noted that the questionnaire was filled by 29% of

10000-19000 income earners, 38% of 20000-29000 income earners, and 33% of 30000- above

income earners. The study shows that majority of the respondent income 20000-29000 with

38%.

Table 4.1.8 frequency and percentage of respondent’s type of residence

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

A ROOM APARTMENT 29 29.0 29.0 29.0

A ROOM AND PARLOR 55 55.0 55.0 84.0

Valid
OTHERS (SPECIFY) 16 16.0 16.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table above it can be noted that the questionnaire was filled by 29% of a

room apartment residence, 55% of a room and parlor residence and 16% of other residences.

Base on this, it can be noted that the area of investigation was dominated by mostly a room and

parlor residence with 55%.

Table 4.1.9 frequency and percentage of respondent’s ownership status

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid RENTED 53 53.0 53.0 53.0

42
 OWNED 47 47.0 47.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From the table above, it can be noted that the questionnaire was filled by 53% of

rented ownership status and 47% of owned ownership status. The study shows that majority of

the respondent has rented ownership status with 53%.

Table 4.1.10 frequency and percentage of respondent’s family type

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

NUCLEAR 62 62.0 62.0 62.0

Valid EXTENDED 38 38.0 38.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From the above table, it can also be noted that 62% of the questionnaire was

filled nuclear family while 38% of the questionnaire was filled by extended family. The study

shows that majority of the respondent family type nuclear family with 62%.

Table 4.1.11 frequency and percentage of respondent’s family size

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Valid 1-3 54 54.0 54.0 54.0

4-6 43 43.0 43.0 97.0

7- ABOVE 3 3.0 3.0 100.0

43
 Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From the above table above, it indicated that 54% of the questionnaire was filled

by family with 1-3 children, 43% of the questionnaire was filled by family with 4-6 children, and

also 3% of the questionnaire was filled by family of 7 children and above. The study shows that

majority of the respondent family size is between 1-3 children with 54%.

Table 4.1.12 frequency and percentage of respondent’s hours spent with

child(ren)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

1-2HOURS 44 44.0 44.0 44.0

Valid 3-ABOVE 56 56.0 56.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From the table above it was indicated that 44% of the respondent claim that they

usually have 1- 2 hours contact with their children per day while 56% of the respondent also

claim that they usually have 3 and above hours contact with their children per day. The study

shows that majority of the respondent hours spent with child(ren) is 3-above with 56%.

Table 4.1.13 frequency and percentage of respondent’s parent type

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

TWO-PARENT HOME 67 67.0 67.0 67.0

Valid SINGLE-PARENT HOME 33 33.0 33.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

44
Interpretation: From table above it indicated that 67% of the respondent have two parent home

while 33% of the respondent have single parent home. The study shows that majority of the

respondent parent type two-parent type with 67%.

4.1.1 PRESENTATION ACCORDING TO KEY RESEARCH QUESTIONS;

The following data were collected and analyzed in respect of each question as contained in the

questionnaires in which the most suitable question will be interpreted in this chapter.

QUESTION ONE:

IS FAMILY STRUCTURE A REFLECTION OF YOUR

CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

YES 53 53.0 53.0 53.0

Valid NO 47 47.0 47.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table above it indicated that 53% of the respondent admit that family

structure is a reflection of children educational achievement while 47% of the respondent does

not agree to the motion that family structure is a reflection of children educational achievement.

The study shows that majority of the respondent admit that family structure is a reflection of

their children educational performance with 53%.

QUESTION TWO:

45
 DO YOUR OCCUPATION AFFECT YOUR CHILD(REN)

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

YES 38 38.0 38.0 38.0

Valid NO 62 62.0 62.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table above, it indicated that 38% of the respondent agree that their

occupation affect their respective children academic performance while 62% does not agree that

their occupation affect their children academic performance. The study shows that majority of

the respondent did not agree that their occupation affects their children academic performance

with 62%.

QUESTION THREE:

DO ALL CHILDREN EXHIBIT THE SAME LEVEL OF

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR

PARENTAL BACKGROUND?

46
 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

YES 43 43.0 43.0 43.0

Valid NO 57 57.0 57.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table above, 43% of the respondent agree that all children exhibit the same

level of academic performance while 57% of the respondent disagree that all children exhibit the

same level of academic performance irrespective of their parental background. The study shows

that majority of the respondent disagree that all children exhibit the same level of academic

performance irrespective of their parental background with 57%.

QUESTION FOUR:

DO YOU HAVE TIME TO CHECK HIS OR HER / THEIR

CHILDREN PERFORMANCE AT SCHOOL?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

YES 69 69.0 69.0 69.0

Valid NO 31 31.0 31.0 100.0

Total 99 99.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0

Interpretation: From table above, it indicated that 69% of the respondent admit that they have

time to check their children academic performance at school, while 31% of the respondent have

47
no time to check their children academic performance at school. The study shows that majority

of the respondent admit that they have time to check their children academic at school with 69%.

QUESTION FIVE:

DO YOU KNOW YOUR CHILD/CHILDREN FRIENDS AT

HOME?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

YES 69 69.0 69.0 69.0

Valid NO 31 31.0 31.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table above, it indicated that 69% of the respondent knows their children

friends at home while 31% of the respondent does not know their children friends at home. The

study shows that majority of the respondent knows their children friends at home with 69%.

QUESTION SIX:

DO YOU USUALLY GIVE SUPPORT TO

YOURCHILD/CHILDRENABOUT HIS/HER/THEIR SCHOOL

ACTIVITIES

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

YES 80 80.0 80.0 80.0

Valid NO 20 20.0 20.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

48
Interpretation: From table above, it indicated that 80% of the respondent usually give support

to their children about their school activities, while 20% of the respondent does not usually give

support to their children about their school activities. The study shows that majority of the

respondent usually give support to their children about their school activities with 80%.

QUESTION SEVEN:

ARE YOU ABLE TO ADEQUATELY PROVIDE FOR YOUR

CHILD OR CHILDREN WITH YOUR PRESENT LEVEL OF

INCOME

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

YES 74 74.0 74.0 74.0

Valid NO 26 26.0 26.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table above, it can be noted that 74% of the respondent are adequately able

to provide for their children with their present level of income, while 26% of the respondent are

not adequately able to provide for their children with their present level of income. The study

shows that majority of the respondent can adequately provide for their children with their present

level of income with 74%.

QUESTION EIGHT:

49
 DOES YOUR PEER INFLUENCES HIS OR HER OR THEIR

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCES

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

YES 73 73.0 73.0 73.0

Valid NO 27 27.0 27.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table above, it can be confirm that 73% of the respondent admit that peers

influences their academic performances, while 27% of the respondent does not admit that peers

influences their academic performance. The study shows that majority of the respondent admit

that peers influences their academic performances with 73%.

QUESTION NINE:

ARE TWO-PARENT FAMILIES BETTER THAN SINGLE

PARENT / STEP PARENT FAMILIES?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

YES 67 67.0 67.0 67.0

Valid NO 33 33.0 33.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table above, it is indicated that 67% of the respondent admit that two

parent families are better than single parents/ step parent families, while 33% of the respondent

does not admit that two parent families are better than single parent families. The study shows

50
that majority of the respondent admit that two parent families are better than single parents/ step

parent families with 67%.

QUESTION TEN:

DO THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY AFFECT THE EDUCATION OF

THE CHILD / CHILDREN

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

YES 58 58.0 58.0 58.0

Valid NO 42 42.0 42.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Interpretation: From table above, it also indicated that 58% of the respondent agree that the size

of the family affect the education of the children, while 42% of the respondent does not agree

that the size of the family affect the education of the children. The study shows that majority of

the respondent admit that two parent families are better than single parents/ step parent families

with 58%.

4.2 ANALYSIS BASED ON RESEARCH HPOTHESIS

HYPOTHESIS I

H0: There is no relationship between family form and educational success of people in Ijebu-

North local government of Ogun State.

H1: There is relationship between family form and educational success of people in Ijebu-North

local government of Ogun State.

51
In other to test these hypothesis, we made use of data in table containing question two (2) which

shows the response of respondents (fe) in questions directed towards the hypothesis testing.

The decision rule under that, if the value of is greater than the calculated valued

then we accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

4.2.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILY FORM AND EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS

Correlations

TYPE OF DO YOUR OCCUPATION

FAMILY AFFECT YOUR CHILD(REN)

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE?

Pearson
1 -.125
Correlation

TYPE OF FAMILY Sig. (2-

.214
tailed)

N 100 100

Pearson
-.125 1
DO YOUR OCCUPATION Correlation

AFFECT YOUR CHILD(REN) Sig. (2-

.214
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE? tailed)

N 100 100

52
 Chi-Square Testsd

Value df Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- Point

(2-sided) sided) sided) Probability

Pearson Chi-Square .653a 1 .419 .499 .279

Continuity
.339 1 .560
Correction b

Likelihood Ratio .647 1 .421 .499 .279

Fisher's Exact Test .499 .279

Linear-by-Linear
.647e 1 .421 .499 .279 .128
Association

McNemar Test .349c .174c .069c

N of Valid Cases 99

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.21.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

c. Binomial distribution used.

d. For 2x2 cross tabulation, exact results are provided instead of Monte Carlo results.

e. The standardized statistic is .804.

Base on the correlation analysis and the chi-square result it indicated that there is negative

relationship between family form and education success, which indicate that family form does

not relate with education success of the children.

Based on the above test and rule, the null id therefore accepted. This means that there is no

relationship between family form and educational success of people in Ijebu-North local

government of Ogun State.

53
HYPOTHESIS II

H0: There is Relationship between educational performance of children from single parent

family and that of two parent’s family in Ijebu North local government of Ogun state.

H1: There is Relationship between educational performance of children from single parent

family and that of two parent’s family in Ijebu North local government of Ogun state.

54
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF CHILDREN

FROM SINGLE PARENT FAMILY AND THAT OF TWO PARENTS FAMILY

Correlations

DO YOUR OCCUPATION PARENT

AFFECT YOUR TYPE

CHILD(REN) ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE?

Correlation
1.000 -.108
DO YOUR OCCUPATION Coefficient

AFFECT YOUR
Sig. (2-
CHILD(REN) ACADEMIC . .286
tailed)
PERFORMANCE?

Spearman's N 100 100

rho Correlation
-.108 1.000
Coefficient

PARENT TYPE Sig. (2-

.286 .
tailed)

N 100 100

55
4.2.2 Chi-Square Testsd

Value dfAsymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1- Point

sided) sided) sided) Probability

Pearson Chi-Square .215a 1 .643 .817 .405

Continuity Correctionb .054 1 .817

Likelihood Ratio .213 1 .644 .817 .405

Fisher's Exact Test .650 .405

Linear-by-Linear
.213e 1 .644 .817 .405 .163
Association

McNemar Test .755c .378c .111c

N of Valid Cases 99

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.00.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

c. Binomial distribution used.

d. For 2x2 cross tabulation, exact results are provided instead of Monte Carlo results.

e. The standardized statistic is .462.

56
Base on the result of correlation analysis and chi-square result it indicated that parenthood have

negative relationship on education success of the children. This can also implies that parenthood

does not determine the success of children, but not in all cases base on the weakly relationship

result above

The decision rule under chi square ( ) is that, if the value of is greater than the

calculated value then we accept the null hypothesis.

Based on the above test and rule alternative hypothesis is accepted and There is Relationship

between educational performance of children from single parent family and that of two parents

family in Ijebu North local government of Ogun state.

4.3 Discussion of findings

The focus of this study is to examine the problem and prospects of Family structures,

Single parenthood and Children education in Ago-iwoye. Ogun-state.

Gender distribution of the respondents indicated the existence of equal proportion of

both female and male with 50 percent each. Findings from the study revealed that majority of the

respondent are between the age range of 34-39 with 22 percent and also the study shows that

majority of the respondent were Christians with 55 percent in terms of their religion. More so,

the study shows that majority of the respondent were Yoruba’s with 72 percent in terms of ethnic

group. It was observed that the majority of respondent’s educational qualification are SSCE

holder with 45 percentage in terms of their educational qualification. Also the study shows that

majority of the respondent occupation is trading with 38 percent and data also show that majority

of the respondent have the income 20000-29000 with 38 percentage.

57
 Meanwhile, the study shows that majority of the respondent has rented ownership status

with 53 percentage. And the study shows that majority of the respondent family type nuclear

family with 62 percentage. The study also shows that majority of the respondent hours spent with

children is 3-above with 56 percentage. The study shows that majority of the respondent parent

type two-parent type with 67percentage. More so, the study shows that majority of the

respondent admit that family structure is a reflection of their children educational performance

with 53 percentage.

From the research, it was observed that the study shows that majority of the respondent

did not agree that their occupation affects their children academic performance with 62

percentage. The study also shows that majority of the respondent disagree that all children

exhibit the same level of academic performance irrespective of their parental background with 57

percentage. Data collected from the field shows that majority of the respondent admit that they

have time to check their children academic at school with 69 percentage. The study shows that

majority of the respondent knows their children friends at home with 69 percentage.

The findings of this study also revealed that the study shows that majority of the

respondent usually give support to their children about their school activities with 80 percentage.

Study shows that majority of the respondent can adequately provide for their children with their

present level of income with 74 percentage. The study shows that majority of the respondent

admit that peers influences their academic performances with 73 percentage. The study shows

that majority of the respondent admit that two parent families are better than single parents/step

parent families with 58 percentage.

58
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 SUMMARY

The existing literature of single parenthood and its consequences for children’s well-

being has not systematically examined the potential impact of the extended family system for

moderating the negative consequences of growing up with a single parent. The ignorance may be

partially attributable to the relatively small size of single-parent families with grandparent

present in Nigeria and some African societies.

However, not all type of family structure support s quality children education.

Considering that substantial numbers of children in single-parent households live with

grandparents in Nigeria, the question of how the extended family system, especially co-residence

with grandparents, mediates the effects of single parenthood on children’s education can be of

interest. The hypothesis of particular interest is that having at least a grandparent present in

households should be associated with better educational outcomes of children and the effect of

grandparents should be strong especially for single-parent families.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS

This examines the problem and prospects of Family structures, Single parenthood and

Children education. From the hypothesis of this study it was reviewed that there is no

relationship between family form and educational success of people in Ijebu-North local

government of Ogun State. The study also unveil that there is Relationship between educational

59
performance of children from single parent family and that of two parents family in Ijebu North

local government of Ogun state.

It is clear from the study that most of the children from single parent homes experience

low parental involvement in their educational activities compare with children from two parent

families rather have a high level of parental participation in their academic work. Evidence also

suggests that single parenting has a negative effect on children education. Finally, the study

results reveal that there is a difference between the children education from single parent homes

and children from other family type. The study also unveil that all children don’t exhibit the

same level of academic performance, it was reviewed that some of the children education are

affected due to that environment factors such as; type of residence, environment not been

conducive for studying, etc.

5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE

The study has significantly contributed to knowledge in different ways:

An individual who has not become a victim of single parent would likely guard

his/herself against becoming one if he/she comes across this study. Families could benefit in this

research work in the sense that single parents can get actively involved in their children

education, as to compete with their counter part from another family structure.

It is also believed that the outcome of this study would help to impart positively on the

society by opening the eyes of every member of the Nigerian society especially the lowly placed

members like the illiterates e.g. the market women, among whom the incidence or case of child

neglect is rampant when it comes to the issue of single parenting.

60
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations have been made:

 Parents, especially those who are single parents should apportion their time in such a way

that they would be able to aid their children in doing their homework, give them tidbits

on becoming academically successful, visit their children’s school to finding out their

performance in class as well as give them all the materials they required for their studies.

This is important as it shall complement the efforts of the teachers.

 Teachers should give remedial lessons to pupils from a single parent home when they are

lagging behind in class helping them cope with their studies. Males in single parent

homes in particular should receive much attention to enable them improve on their

performance.

 School counselors should offer the necessary help and psychological support for students

from single parent homes to overcome their academic and emotional problems. When the

right help is given, they would focus on learning.

5.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

Future research can focus towards examining the influence of family structure on

students’ performance in school, they could also concentrate towards examining the effect of

family structure on children’s behavior. This research could provide family with knowledge and

better understanding of their role towards their children performance in school and their

behavior.

61
 APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY/PSYCHOLOGY
OLABISI ONABANJO UNIVERSITY, AGO IWOYE, OGUN STATE.

Dear respondent,
I am a final year student of Sociology, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Ogun
state, Nigeria. I am conducting a research on the topic; FAMILY STRUCTURE, SINGLE
PARENTHOOD AND CHILDREN EDUCATION PROBLEM AND PROSPECTS in Ago-
Iwoye
However, the purpose of this questionnaire is to enable me elicit information on the
above subject matter. Given this, I urge you to kindly provide the appropriate answers to the
questions below, as information entrusted shall remain confidential. Your name and address is
not required, you are only required to tick inside the box, or provide required information where
necessary, thanks for your cooperation.
Yours Faithfully,
Tijani Barakallah A.
SECTION A: SOCIO DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS.
Instruction: Tick the box as appropriate using the symbol (/)
S/N CHARACTERISTICS CODING CATEGORIES CODING
SPACE
1. Gender Male A
Female B
2. Age 18-22 A
23-28 B
29-33 C
34-39 D
40-45 E
46 and above F
3. Religion Christian A
Muslim B
Traditional C
Others(specify) D
4. Ethnicity Yoruba A
Igbo B
Hausa C
Others(specify) D

62
SECTION B: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENT.
Instruction: Tick the box as appropriate using the symbol (/)
S/N CHARACTERISTICS CODING CATEGORIES CODING
SPACE
1. Educational Qualification M.sc A
B.sc B
SSCE C
others(specify) D
2. Occupation Trader A
Artisan B
Farmer C
Others(specify) D
3 Income 10,000-19,000 A
20,000-29,000 B
30,000-Above C
4. Type of Residence A Room Apartment A
A Room and Parlor B
Others(specify) C
5. Ownership status Rented A
Owned B
6. Type of Family Nuclear A
Extended B
7. Number of Children (family 1-3 A
size). 4-6 B
6-Above C
8. How long /number of hours 1-2hours A
of contact with child (ren). 3-above B

9. Parent type Two-Parent home A

Single- Parent home B

63
SECTION C: RESPONDENT VIEW ON FAMILY STRUCTURE, SINGLE
PARENTHOOD AND CHILDREN EDUCATION PROBLEM AND PROSPECTS.
Instruction: Tick the box as appropriate using the symbol (/)
S/N QUESTIONS YES NO
1. Is family structure a reflection of your children educational
achievement?
2. Do your occupation affect your child (ren) academic performance?
3. Do all children exhibit the same level of academic performance
irrespective of their parental background?

4. Do you have time to check his or her/their performance at school?

5. Do you know your child/children friends at home?
6. Do you usually support your child/children about his/her/their school
activities
7. Are you able to adequately provide for your child/children with your
present level of income?
8. Does peer influences his or her/their academic performances?
9. Are two-parent families better than single-parent/step-parent families?
10. Do the size of the family affects the education of the child/children

64
 REFERENCES

Agulanna, G. G. (1999) Family structure and prevalence of behavioural problems among

Nigerian adolescents. The Counsellor, 17(1), 154-1549.

Amato, P. R. (1987) Family processes in one-parent, stepparent and intact families

the child's point of view. Journal of marriage and the family. 49 (3) 27-37.

Amato, P. R. (1993). Children's adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses,

and empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55: 23-38.

Amato, P. R., &Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children:

A meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26-46.

Amato, P.R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 62, 1269 – 1287.

Bandura, A. (1997). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Baumrind, D. (1989). ‘Rearing competent Children’. In Damon, W. (Ed.) Child development

today and tomorrow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 349–378.

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children in Damon. W.Ced) child development today

and tomorrow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp349-378.

Bellavia, G. M., and Frone, M. R. (2005). Work-family conflict. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway,

and M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 113 – 147). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.Biblarz, T. J. and A. E. Raftery. 1999. ‘‘Family Structure, Educational Attainment, and

Socioeconomic Success: Rethinking the ‘Pathology of Matriarchy’.’’ American Journal

of Sociology. 105:321–65.

65
Bradley, R. H., and Corwyn, R. F. (2002).Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual

Review of Psychology,53, 371–399.

66
Brooks–Gunn J. and Chase-Lansdale P. L. 2001. Adolescent Parenting:

Chao, R.K (2001) .Extending research on the consequesnces of parenting style fior Chinese

Americans and European American.Child Development, 72 (6). 1832-1842

Cherry, K. (2012) The Four Styles of Parenting About.com Guide

http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/parenting-

style.htmAccessed 12 December, 2012.

Cherry, K. (2011): Parenting Styles. About.com.

Psychology.http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/parenting- style.htm

Accessed 12 September, 2011.

Children's Defence Fund.: The state of America's children: Year book, Washington D. C. (1994).

Clark, R. M. (1983) Family life and school achievement why poor black children succeed in

school, unicago Press pp. 151-164.

Darling, N. (2010) Parenting style and its correlates. Retrieved April 25, 2010, from

Davis, E. C., and Friel, L. V. 2001.Adolescent sexuality: Disentangling the effects of

family structure and family context. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 669 – 681

De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouche, C.B., and Delport, C.S.L.(2012). Research at Grass Roots.

3rd ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Dewar, G. (2011) Authoritarian parenting: How does it affect the

kids?http://www.parentingscience.com/authoritarian-parenting.html Accessed 17

December 2012.

67
De Lange, M., Dronkers, J., & Wolbers, M. (2009) Family forms and Children’s educational

performance in a cross-comparative perspective: Effects of School’s resources and

family policies of modern societies. Paper presented at the Dutch-Fleming Meeting of

Sociology 2009, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 11 June 2009

Dickson B.J. (1995) African American single mothers London Sage Publication

Inc 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, Calfornia 91320..

Donahoo, S. (2003) Single Parenting and Children's Academic Achievement. Elizabeth G.,

Clements, M. A., Arthur J. R, and Niles, M. D. (2004) “More than Teacher Directed or

Child Initiated: Preschool Curriculum Type, Parent

Dopkpes, Augustine Okhobo, 2013, “The challenges and coping strategies of women of emigrant

spouses in Benin city of Nigeria”, Africa Journal of Social Sciences, vol3, No3, pp172-

183.

Dronkers, J. (1994). The changing effects of lone parent families on the educational attainment

of their children in a european welfare state. Sociology, 28(1), 171-191.

doi:10.1177/0038038594028001011.

Dronkers, J., (1999). The effect of parental conflicts and divorce on the well-being of pupils in

Dutch secondary education. European Sociological Review, 15, 195-212.

Edleson, J. L. (1997). Problems Associated with Children’s Witnessing of Domestic

Violence. (Online),http//www.vawnet.org/domesticviolence/research/VAWnetdocs/

AR witness.php.

Eweniyi, G.D. (2005) The impact of family structure on University Learners’ Academic

Performance. Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye. Online.

68
Ferreira, W.A. (1994): The parent adolescent relationship in the realization of educational

authority. An empirical perspective, educare 23(1): 59-68.

Fadeiye, J. D. (1985) A Text of Social Studies; Socialization and Political Culture International

Organization for NCE- and Undergraduates. Ibadan: Etori.

Fischer, T., (2007). Parental Divorce and Children's Socio-Economic Success: Conditional

Effects of Parental Resources Prior to Divorce, and Gender of the Child. Sociology, 41,

475-495.

Ginsburg, G. and Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children's intrinsic/extrinsic

motivational orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64, 1461-1471.

Goldenberg, I., & Goldenberg (2004). Family therapy: An overview (6th Ed.). Pacific Grove,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

Gottman, J.M and Parker, J.G. (Eds). (1987). Conversations of Friends. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Grobman, K. H. (2006, August). Diana Baumrind's (1966) Prototypical Descriptions of 3

Parenting Styles. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from Developmental Psychology:

http://www.devpsy.org/teaching/parent/baumrind_style s.html.

Grugni, A. (2004). Preparing for Marriage: A Comprehensive and Practical Guide for a

Happy Married Life. Mumbai: Better Yourself Books.

Gurian, A. (2012): Parenting Styles/Children's Temperaments: The Match

http://www.aboutourkids.org/articles/parenting_styleschildren039s_temperaments_matc

h Accessed 12 November, 2012.

69
Henshaw, J. (2009). What parenting style is best?

Hoover-Dempsey KV, Walker MT, Sandler HM, Whetsel D, Green CL, Wilkens AS, Closson K

(2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Element.

Sch. J. 106(2), 105-130.ss

Jaffe, P, Wilson, S and Wolfe, D. (1986). Promoting Changes in Attitudes and

Understanding Conflict among Child Witnesses of Family Violence. Canadian

Journal of Behavioural Science, 18 356 – 380.

Jelani M. (2006) The Impact of Family Functioning on African American Males’ Academic

Achievement: A Review and Clarification of the Empirical Literature,” Teachers

College Record 108, No. 2: 106-223.

Jeynes, W. (2002) Does Parental Involvement Eiminate the Effects of Parental Divorce on the

Academic Achievement of Adolescents? Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 37(1/2).

101-115.

Jodl, M., Malanchuk, E., and Sameroff, (2001).Parents’ roles in shaping early adolescents

occupational aspirations.Child Development, 72(1247-1265).Journal of Social

Psychology, 68(2), 160 – 167.Journal of family Psychology 23 (1),103-106.

John, H.G. and Frank. F. (1990). Marital Conflict and Children’s Adjustment: A Cognitive

Contextual Framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108 267 – 290.

Klaush J. F., and Owen, M.T. (2009). Stable Maternal Cohabitation, Couple relationship quality

and characteristics of the home environment in the child’s first two years. Journal of

Family Psychology, 23, 103-106.

Kalman, M. B. (2003). Adolescent girls, single-parent fathers, and menarche

[Electronic version). Holistic Nursing Practice, 17, 36-41.

70
Leow M.Q.H, and Chan, W.S. (2011). Factors affecting caregiver burden of terminally ill adults

in the home setting – A systematic review.JBI Libr.Syst. Rev. 9: 1883–1916.

Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M., Netter, S. and Keehn, D. (2007). Maternal and paternal parenting

styles in adolescents: associations with self-esteem, depression and life-satisfaction.

Journal of Child and Families Studies, 16(1), 39-47.

Maccoby, E. E., and Martin, J. A. (1983) Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child

interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) and E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 4.Socialization, personality, and social development (4th d., pp. 1-101).

New York: Wile.

Madeline, L. (2012) Raising Successful Children

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/raising-successful children.html?

page wanted=alland r=0

Marloes de Lange, Jaap Dronkers and Maarten H.J. Wolbers, 2014, “Single parent family forms

and children’s educational performances in a comparative perspective: effects of schools

share of single parent families”, An International Journal of Research, Policy and

Practice. Vol25, No3, pp329-350.

Marsh, Herbert W. (1990). Two-parent, stepparent, and single-parent families: Changes in

achievement, attitudes, and behaviors during the last two years of high school. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82(2), 327-340. (ERIC Journal No. EJ442326).

Matsumoto D.,and Juang L. (2008). Culture and Psychology (4th Edition ed.). Belmont:

Thomson Wadsworth. 63-65.

71
Milkie, M., Mattingly M. J., Nomaguchi, K. M., Bianchi, S. M. (2004). “The Time Squeeze:

Parental Statuses and Feelings about Time with Children.” Journal of Marriage and

Family, Vol 66, No 3, Pp. 739-761.

Mclanahan, S.S. (1995) Poverty: D.Levinson, Encylopedia of marriage and the family Vol. 2,

(pp. 549 to 556. New York: Macmilan.

McLanahan, S.S. and Sandefur G. (1994). Growing Up in a Single-Parent Family: what hurts,

what helps, Cambridge, M.A. Harvard University Press.

Monyela, E.D. (1999): Home Factors Related to Poor Academic Performance in North West

Primary Schools. Unpublished M.Ed. Dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Nidhi Kotwal and Bharti Prabhakar, 2009, “Problems faced by single mothers”, Journal of Social

Sciences, vol21, no3, pp197-204.

Nzewunwah, P. N. (1995) The effects of single parenthood on the academic performance of

students. Unpublished M.Ed. Project. University of Lagos.

Nyarko, K. (2010). Parental home involvement: The missing link in adolescents’ academic

achievement. Educational Research, 1(9), 340-344.

O’Connor, T. G., J. Dunn, J. M. Jenkins, and J. Rasbash.(2006). ‘‘Predictors of Between-family

and Within-family

Olaleye, Yemisi Lydia, Oladeji David, 2010, “Single parenthood impact on street children in

Ibadan metropolis, An International Multi-Disciplinary Journal, Ethiopia, vol4, no2,

pp183-196.

Onzima, R. (2011): Parents’ Socio-Economic Status And Pupils Educational Attainment: Case

Study Of St. Jude Primary School In Malaba town Council-Uganda.

72
Pong, S., Dronkers, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2003). Family policies and children's school

achievement in single- versus two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family,

65(3), 681-699. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00681.x

Redding, S. (2006). The mega system: deciding, learning, and connecting. Lincoln, Il: Academic

Development Institute.

Ribeiro, L.L. (2009) Construction and Validation of a Four Parenting Styles Scale. M.A. thesis,

Humboldt State University. Retrieved from

http://humboldt-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/2148/522/Livia_Ribeiro.pdf?

sequence

Richmond, M. K. and Stocker, C. M. (2008). ‘‘Longitudinal Associations between Parents’

Hostility and Siblings’secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis.

Urban Education, 42(1), 82. 105

Pellerin, L. A. (2005). Applying Baumrind's parenting typology to high schools: Toward a

middle-range theory of authoritative socialization. Social Science Research, 34, 283-303.

Selfe, P. (1993). Sociology: A level. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Schultz, G. (2006). Broken family structure leads to Educational Difficulties for children. Journal

of Educational Psychology 27, 70-80.

Salami, S. O. and Alawode, E. A. (2000) Influence of Single-Parenting on the Academic

Achievement of Adolescents in Secondary Schools: Implications for Counselling.

Department of Guidance and Counselling University of Ibadan, Ibadan

Santrock, J.W. (2002) A Tropical Approach to Life- Span Development.International Edition,

ISBN, McGraw-Hill Companies 50-65

73
Santrock, J.W. (1997). Children. (5th Ed). USA: Brown and Benchmark.

Wise, S. (2003) Family structure, child outcomes and environmental mediators: an overview of

the Development in Diverse Families Study. Australian Institute of Family Studies,

January 2003, 42p, http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP30.html Accessed 17

December, 2012 Yeung WJ, Linver MR,

74