Understanding the Relation Between Family Engagement in Education and Preschoolers’ Socioemotional and Behavioral Functioning in a Primarily Latinx Sample

Abstract

Limited literature assessed the relation between family engagement in education and young children’s socioemotional and behavioral functioning. This study investigated these associations longitudinally among urban and low-income, predominantly Latinx preschoolers (n = 69) and their mothers. Initial home-school conferencing predicted lower levels of child socioemotional and behavioral difficulties about 8 months later (β = −.20, p < .05). Additionally, initial child socioemotional and behavioral difficulties predicted higher levels of later home-based involvement (β = .23, p < .05). Results highlighted bidirectional associations between these constructs and suggested potential avenues to enhance family engagement in education and reduce child socioemotional and behavioral problems.

Keywords

preschool family educational involvement engagement socioemotional functioning

Family engagement in education is lauded by parents and caregivers, school personnel, and policy makers as an important component of children’s educational success because of its documented associations with later academic achievement (Castro et al., 2015; Ma et al., 2016). Moreover, family engagement in education may have a powerful effect on young children’s socioemotional and behavioral functioning, as it entails positive parenting behaviors that promote social and emotional development and promote collaboration between caregivers and teachers to address behavior problems (El Nokali et al., 2010). Notably, emotional and behavioral problems in preschoolers have important long-term consequences, including significant functional impairment, poor academic outcomes, and family stress (Repetti et al., 2002; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). However, only a handful of studies have documented the influence of family engagement in education on socioemotional and behavioral outcomes during early childhood (Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Serpell & Mashburn, 2012).

Additionally, contemporary theoretical models of home-school partnerships suggest a transactional relation between family engagement in education and child socioemotional health (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2011). Children are active participants in home-school partnerships (Epstein, 1987), delivering communications from teachers to caregivers (and vice versa), sharing their likes and dislikes about their classroom experience, and enlisting caregiver help in completing school assignments (Grant, 2009). Therefore, their behavior likely shapes parent and caregiver engagement in education. For example, children’s sad or worried moods, disobedience, or aggression may prompt caregivers to help by providing assistance navigating school issues, directly teaching socioemotional skills, or increasing communication with teachers. To our knowledge, only one study has evaluated this possibility and found children’s externalizing behaviors predicted later caregiver engagement (Hoglund et al., 2015), but this study was conducted with older children.

Moreover, the association between family engagement in education and early child socioemotional and behavioral functioning remains poorly understood among Latinx families, a group that has traditionally faced unique cultural and linguistic barriers in maintaining home-school collaborations (Hill & Torres, 2010). To increase our understanding of these issues, we evaluated the relation between family engagement in education and child socioemotional and behavioral functioning among a sample of ethnic minority, primarily Latinx Head Start enrolled preschoolers. We used a short-term longitudinal design to test (1) whether initial family engagement in education predicted later child socioemotional and behavior problems, and (2) whether initial levels of child socioemotional and behavioral problems influenced later caregiver engagement in education. Our study is the first one, to our knowledge, to evaluate bidirectional associations with preschool aged children among Latinx families, contributing to our understanding of specific aspects of family engagement that are particularly relevant to the socioemotional wellbeing of Latinx young children and the role of child-level characteristics as potential facilitators of caregiver educational engagement. Our findings can inform policies to support the efforts of both caregivers and school personnel to promote healthy partnerships and enhance young children’s socioemotional and behavioral development.

In the following paragraphs we review (1) the construct of family engagement in education, (2) theoretical models explaining its relation to children’s socioemotional and behavioral functioning, and (3) unique aspects of family engagement and child education within Latinx families.

Engagement in Education

Caregiver or parent engagement in education has been defined as “parents’ behaviors in home and school settings meant to support their children’s educational progress” (El Nokali et al., 2010, p. 989). This construct has been frequently termed parent educational involvement as well; however, engagement implies a collaborative relationship or “doing with” families, while involvement is sometimes understood to denote actions dictated by the school (Ferlazzo, 2011). Specific studies have operationalized the behaviors central to educational engagement and involvement differently, but empirical evidence from large studies with White, African American, and Latinx caregivers of young children suggested these behaviors can be classified in three distinct domains: home-based involvement (e.g., reading to children, educational outings, discussing school, etc.), school-based involvement (e.g., volunteering in children’s classrooms, attending caregiver workshops, or training offered at the school) and home-school conferencing (e.g., talking to children’s teachers about classroom rules, talking to the teacher about how children are adjusting to the school environment) (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2016; Fantuzzo et al., 2004, 2013).

Significant differences in engagement activities between White caregivers and those of ethnic minority or low socioeconomic backgrounds have been documented as well (Lee & Bowen, 2006). Research suggested ethnic minority and low-income parents have less involvement in and contact with schools, but a high interest and involvement in home-based activities (Altschul, 2012; Chavkin & Williams, 1993). That is, despite similar high regard for education across groups, there may be differences in how caregivers choose to engage in their children’s education based on cultural and financial backgrounds. It is important to note that accounts emphasizing “deficits” in ethnic minority families’ participation, when compared to White, middle class families, have characterized research conducted in urban environments with large concentrations of families of color and of lower socioeconomic status (Boutte, 2012). However, the differences reported may also be explained by the failure to employ culturally sensitive conceptualizations and measurement of family engagement rather than a true lack of engagement by ethnic minority parents.

Different theoretical perspectives have been proposed to explain the relation between family engagement in education and children’s outcomes. Epstein’s (1987) framework emphasized learning takes place in social interactions and posited the extent of overlap in philosophy and goals, as well as the extent of cooperation between home and school, impacts children’s success in school. Teachers/school personnel, caregivers, and the children shape the learning process, and are all impacted by their own values and history, stage of development, and the evolving relationships between the stakeholders. Different types of engagement include: (1) parenting practices, (2) communicating, (3) school volunteering activities, (4) home-based learning, (5) participation in decision making at school, and (6) collaborating with the community (Epstein et al., 2018).

This framework also highlights the importance of individual level relationships between: (1) parent–child, (2) parent–teacher, and (3) student–teacher. According to Epstein, the “child has the central place in all of the patterns of interaction and influence in this model. We assume that the child’s welfare and interests are the parents’ and teachers’ reasons for interacting. For the child, the school and family policies, parent and teacher interactions, and the child’s understanding and reactions to these connections, influence academic learning and social development (Epstein, 1987, p. 130).” However, there was little elaboration in this model of the processes via which children influence their caregivers’ engagement in education.

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995) model also addressed educational engagement. Their model is less comprehensive and more specifically focused on the determinants of family engagement, specific caregiver behaviors that impact children’s learning, and specific child-level processes that mediate the effects of caregiver educational engagement. They hypothesized three important elements shape parent and other caregiver educational engagement: (1) role construction, (2) efficacy, and (3) specific opportunities or demands for involvement from the child or the school, highlighting the role of children as active participants in this process.

This model expanded upon Epstein’s framework in describing a possible mechanism for a child’s influence on the home-school collaboration. Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) proposed child invitations were key predictors of caregiver educational engagement. These invitations may be implicit (e.g., difficulties with school or homework requiring a caregiver’s help) or explicit requests (e.g., asking a caregiver to attend field trips) that influence how caregivers participate in their children’s education. In fact, Green et al. (2007) compared the influence of different determinants of family educational engagement, and found child invitations had a strong impact on caregivers’ home-based and school-based educational involvement, even after accounting for socioeconomic status and maternal education. This model has been used successfully to understand the determinants of engagement in education among Latinx caregivers (Walker et al., 2011).

Integrating these two theoretical perspectives, we examined whether family engagement in education reduced the risk for later child socioemotional and behavior problems, and whether child socioemotional and behavior problems contributed to increases in family engagement in education (See Figure 1). Following Epstein’s (1987) model, we proposed that family engagement in education would positively impact child socioemotional and behavioral functioning: many behaviors characteristic of engagement in education are associated with more support and monitoring of the child, two parenting domains associated with enhanced socioemotional functioning and decreased behavior problems (Foster et al., 2008; McCarthy et al., 2005). Second, following Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995) model, we proposed child socioemotional and behavioral difficulties would serve as invitations to caregivers to amend educational engagement strategies by more actively assisting children with school issues, communicating with teachers to better understand the source(s) of problems, or engaging in direct teaching to improve social skills or behavior. For example, a child’s frequent anxiety might serve as an invitation for a caregiver to have more frequent contact with teachers or play games with her child that support socioemotional development and learning. Given the importance Latinx caregivers place on respect, morality, and being well behaved (Auerbach, 2007), a child’s misbehavior likely motivates caregivers to action, increasing their involvement with the child. Caregiver and child behavior likely transact over time, with caregivers’ increased engagement and support fostering child development and reductions in child socioemotional and behavioral problems, and increasing the likelihood of future caregiver engagement.

Figure 1.

Associations between parent education engagement and child socioemotional and behavioral functioning (based on Epstein, 1987; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995).

Does Family Educational Engagement Influence Children’s Socioemotional and Behavioral Outcomes?

There is growing evidence that family engagement in education predicts better child socioemotional functioning and fewer behavior problems (Downer & Mendez, 2005; El Nokali et al., 2010; Farver et al., 2006; Powell et al., 2010). Specific to the early childhood period, only a handful of studies have evaluated the effect of engagement in education on child socioemotional and behavioral outcomes. Yet, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have found associations between the different dimensions of family educational involvement (home-based, school-based, and home school conferencing) and child socioemotional and behavioral problems (Baker, 2013; Domina, 2005; Fantuzzo et al., 2004).

Within the limited existing research, significant effects of home-based and school-based education engagement in early childhood are generally reported. One study showed home-based engagement in education was associated with better socioemotional and behavioral functioning concurrently and prospectively among a Head Start sample of low-income, urban African American preschoolers. In this study, home-based engagement predicted lower levels of child hyperactivity and higher levels of social skills concurrently as well as reductions in teacher-reported child conduct problems, hyperactivity, and inattention 6 months later (Fantuzzo et al., 2004). Similarly, two independent studies showed positive effects for school-based engagement. Fantuzzo et al., (2004) found school-based involvement was associated with decreases in hyperactivity and increases in social skills concurrently, but school-based involvement did not impact child behavior problems longitudinally. In contrast, Goldberg and Smith (2017) found caregiver-reported school-based involvement predicted fewer internalizing difficulties 2 years later, after controlling for baseline difficulties, in a mostly White, affluent, private preschool sample.

Prior examinations of home-school conferencing have yielded inconsistent associations with child social and behavior difficulties. Broadly, conferencing is defined as communication between school and home about a student’s educational experience (Fantuzzo et al., 2000), but there is great variability in how researchers operationalized this communication. In their longitudinal study with Head Start-enrolled African American preschoolers, Fantuzzo et al. (2004) found that caregiver-reported home-school conferencing, measured broadly as the frequency of caregivers’ communication with teachers about the classroom and their child’s learning, was associated with fewer teacher-reported child conduct problems 6 months later. However, two other studies reported opposite associations that were specific to unique forms of communication. Serpell and Mashburn (2012) assessed conferencing in a Head Start-enrolled ethnically diverse sample (60% ethnic minority) and found frequency of phone calls (initiated by a caregiver or teacher) was associated with a larger number of teacher-rated problem behaviors and lower ratings of social competence both concurrently and 1 year later, but attendance at parent-teacher conferences was not associated with child outcomes. However, because the frequency of phone calls captured both successful and unsuccessful attempts at communication (missed calls), higher frequency of calls may have actually indicated many failed contacts instead of frequent communication. Further, Goldberg and Smith (2017) found effects were specific to the person who initiated contact and the content of the communication: teacher-initiated contact about student problems predicted more caregiver-reported externalizing problems (i.e., misbehavior, aggression) 6 months later, but teacher-initiated contact about positive or neutral issues, and caregiver-initiated contact (for child problems, positive or neutral issues) did not. Although more research is needed, these studies suggest home-school conferencing may sometimes be beneficial in reducing behavioral problems, but this positive effect may be specific to some types of communication.

Does Child Socioemotional and Behavioral Functioning Predict Family Educational Engagement?

Few studies have evaluated whether child socioemotional and behavioral functioning influences family engagement in education. In a cross-sectional study with Head Start families, Downer and Mendez (2005) reported preschoolers’ negative emotional intensity was associated with greater father engagement in home-based educational activities among low-income, African Americans. Similarly, in the only longitudinal study to date, Hoglund et al. (2015) found child aggressive behaviors and child social difficulties predicted greater caregiver homework assistance, home-school communication, and school-based involvement about 6 months later in an ethnically diverse sample of elementary school children. In contrast, Grolnick et al. (1997) reported mothers participated in more home-based educational activities with children whom they perceived as less difficult (e.g., more obedient and less controlling), but perceptions of child behavior did not influence interactions with school. Because this study was cross-sectional it is hard to tease apart the directionality of effects. More research is needed to clarify the effects of children’s socioemotional and behavioral functioning on different aspects of caregiver educational engagement in families with different cultural identities.

Family Engagement in Education among Latinx Families

Limited information is available about the associations between family educational engagement and socioemotional and behavioral outcomes among Latinx families, a growing minority population in the United States (Passel & D’Vera Cohn, 2008). Research has reported Latinx caregivers conceptualize engagement in their children’s education in ways incongruent with those of school personnel (McWayne et al., 2013; Peña, 2000). For example, one study found that Latinx caregivers often conceptualized their education engagement as “life participation” (e.g., awareness of the child’s life, general encouragement, teaching good morals, and respect for others) in addition to traditional academic engagement (Zarate, 2007). This conceptualization emphasized informal elements, such as feeding children before school and instilling cultural values as important components of engagement in education. Another study found this informal engagement had a significant effect on children’s school success among Latinx students (LeFevre & Shaw, 2012). A holistic perspective may also extend to caregivers’ views of school success: studies documented Latinx caregivers valued their children’s ability to be successful socially (e.g., follow directions, get along with peers) as much as their academic success (Okagaki & Sterngerg, 1993; Ryan et al., 2010), and their definition of education generally encompassed values like respect, morality, and being well behaved (Auerbach, 2007).

The school-based domain of engagement may be particularly inconsistent with the conceptualizations and practices of Latinx caregivers (McWayne et al., 2013; Peña, 2000), particularly for Spanish-speaking caregivers (McWayne et al., 2016). First, several studies have found school-based participation was lower among Latinx caregivers than in White and African American families, but levels of home-based and informal involvement in education were similar across groups (McWayne & Melzi, 2014; Ramirez, 2003; Wong & Hughes, 2006), suggesting lack of participation at the school grounds was not generally indicative of the level of educational engagement of Latinx caregivers. Second, school-based participation may be viewed negatively by Latinx caregivers: research found caregivers felt they did not receive adequate information during school contacts (Carreón et al., 2005), and considered some forms of engagement (e.g., visiting the classroom) disrespectful to teachers or did not want to “interfere with the teacher’s domain” (Hill & Torres, 2010, p. 100). Last, the domain of school-based engagement in education is particularly susceptible to language barriers, whereas home-based activities such as engaging in school-related conversations and educational activities are more accessible for Spanish-speaking caregivers (Durand, 2018).

Despite these cultural considerations, family engagement in education is generally highly regarded by Latinx families and impactful on children’s outcomes: one meta-analysis estimated family engagement in education was associated with a medium-sized positive effect on children’s (K-5 grade) school success (Jeynes, 2017), an effect similar to that reported in a meta-analysis with Black children (Jeynes, 2016). The existing studies suggest family engagement in education is important to Latinx children’s socioemotional outcomes, but the body of research has significant limitations. Specifically, two studies reported caregiver home-based educational involvement was associated with fewer behavior problems and better social skills for low-income Latinx preschoolers (Farver et al., 2006) and first graders (Valdez et al., 2013), but neither of these studies evaluated longitudinal associations. In addition, no studies have evaluated associations with home-school conferencing, even though home-school communication was identified as a significant predictor of achievement in the aforementioned meta-analysis with Latinx families (Jeynes, 2017), and this domain has been proposed to be universally relevant (McWayne et al., 2018).

On the other hand, research has yet to examine whether child socioemotional and behavioral functioning influence later family engagement in education among Latinx families. However, Walker et al. (2011) testing their model of caregiver engagement among Latinx immigrant caregivers of elementary school children, found student invitations for caregiver help with homework predicted home-based educational involvement. In fact, child invitations were more predictive of home-based involvement than were caregiver demographic characteristics (e.g., single parent status, employment, SES), which are often considered important determinants of educational engagement. These findings highlight the important and understudied influence children may exert over their caregivers’ engagement in education.

Current Study

As reviewed above, two well-validated theoretical perspectives suggest family educational engagement and child socioemotional and behavioral functioning are intrinsically connected (See Figure 1; Epstein, 1987; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995), but only one study with elementary school children (Hoglund et al., 2015) tested the impact of family engagement in education on children’s socioemotional and behavioral functioning and the impact of child functioning on family educational engagement simultaneously.

In summary, research with preschoolers has documented family engagement in education predicts fewer socioemotional and behavioral problems in some samples (Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Goldberg & Smith, 2017). Although no longitudinal studies have focused on young Latinx children, extant research suggests that home-based engagement is culturally relevant for Latinx families and is associated with preschoolers’ socioemotional and behavioral health (Farver et al., 2006). On the other hand, despite proposals that the value of home-school conferencing activities are universally relevant (McWayne et al., 2018), prior research has not explored this domain as a predictor of Latinx children’s socioemotional and behavior functioning, and findings with White and African American samples have yielded conflicting results.

In addition, few studies have evaluated the effects of child socioemotional and behavioral functioning on family educational engagement, although influential conceptualizations of home-school relationships posit children are active participants that shape these relationships (Epstein, 1987; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). Specifically for Latinx caregivers, who highly value their children’s morals and appropriate behavior as part of their conceptualization of a good education (Auerbach, 2007), it appears plausible that children’s behavioral or socioemotional difficulties may be a potent determinant of increased home-based educational engagement and communication with teachers.

To address significant gaps in this literature, the first aim of the study was to investigate whether caregiver-reported home-based involvement in education and home-school conferencing predicted later preschooler socioemotional and behavioral functioning among a Head Start-enrolled, low-income, primarily Latinx sample. The second aim of our study was to explore whether child socioemotional and behavioral functioning during preschool influenced later home-based involvement and home-school conferencing in this sample.

Method

For this quantitative short-term longitudinal study, the research team partnered with a non-for-profit organization in the Metropolitan Area of Chicago that seeks to empower families through educational and community engagement programs. More specifically, this organization focuses on empowering families located in urban intensive environments where it is traditionally difficult to access needed resources and where these challenges in the social context impact the school environment (Milner, 2012). Key personnel from the organization, with high ethnic minority and Latinx representation, participated in discussions about the constructs that were selected for measurement, the advertising and recruiting procedures, and the data collection protocol. The research team represented a diversity of ethnic backgrounds (65% Latinx), and the principal investigators were trained in clinical psychology. We recruited families from the three Head Start preschools administered by the organization, which serve about 600 primarily low-income ethnic minority families. Each center was located in an under-resourced urban neighborhood and was staffed by a significant proportion of bilingual (English and Spanish) professionals. The centers, as part of the Head Start program, employed multiple initiatives to promote caregiver engagement within the school, including monthly meetings, workshops, and social events for caregivers and children. The research team was sensitive to their position of privilege and made efforts to involve the school leadership in various aspects of the research project so the research was mutually beneficial. Results were shared back with the centers so they could utilize them for informing their programming.

Participants

Flyers were sent home with children in all classrooms in English and Spanish, and research staff speaking both languages attended caregiver meetings at the centers to present information about the study and were available on-site to answer questions and enroll participants. Although these centers primarily serve Latinx families, all children who attended preschool at the centers, regardless of their ethnicity, were eligible to participate, with the following exceptions: (1) children who had an Autism Spectrum Disorder or Cognitive Impairment diagnosis were excluded, and (2) only one child per family could participate. Ninety-one children and their caregivers enrolled in the original study.

Sixty-nine children, 3-to-5-years of age, and their mothers were included in the data analysis for this study. The present sample included children with complete data on the target variables (education engagement and child socioemotional problems) on both the baseline and follow-up (8 months later) data collection waves. Twenty families enrolled in the study but only completed the first wave of data collection, so they were not included in the present study. Attrition occurred due to several reasons such as scheduling difficulties, a lack of interest from caregivers whose child no longer attended the center, and, in some cases, caregivers could not be reached. There were some differences between families who did and did not participate in the follow up data collection. For example, families who dropped out were less likely to be Latinx than those who completed the study (X² [4, N = 89] = 13.31, p < .05; 65% vs. 92.8% Latinx), and the caregivers who dropped out were less likely to be mothers (X² [4, N = 91] = 11.02, p < .05; 65% vs. 91.5%) and reported higher incomes (52.6% earned above $30,000 annually vs. 27%; F [1,83] = 4.451, p < .05). In addition, a larger proportion of caregivers participating in the follow up reported their country of origin was Mexico, as compared to non-participating caregivers (X² [5, N = 91] = 12.45, p < .05). There were no significant differences across these two groups on child age or gender, parental marital status, maternal level of education completed, or maternal employment status.

Participant demographics for the 69 children and mothers in this study are presented in Table 1. Because we invited all students enrolled at these Head Start centers, regardless of their ethnicity, 64 Latinx children and five non-Latinx Black children comprise the final sample. The mean age of children was 3.89 years (SD = .73), and half the children were male (52.2%). Most primary caregivers were biological mothers (only one was an adoptive mother) and Latina (91.3%; one mother of a Latinx child did not identify as Latinx herself). Additionally, many mothers were immigrants (63.8%), and the majority of the Latina mothers identified their cultural heritage as Mexican (94.9%). Half of the women had no more than a high school education (50.7%). Most families made less than $30,000 per year (71.9%) and spoke another language in the home besides English (61%).

Table 1.

Demographic Data for Sample (N = 69).

Demographic characteristics	Percentage of sample
Child
Gender
Male	52.20
Female	47.80
Age
3 years old	36.20
4 years old	43.50
5 years old	20.30
Ethnicity
Hispanic	92.5
Other	7.5
Primary caregiver
Gender
Female	100
Age
Under 30 years old	42.6
Over 30 years old	57.4
Ethnicity
Latinx	91.3 (94.9% Mexican)
Other	8.7
Country of birth
USA	36.2
Other	63.8
Education
High school or less	50.7
More than high school	49.3
Marital status
Married/living with partner	81.1
Single/separated/divorced	18.8
Employment status
Full-time employment	19.1
Part-time employment	22.1
Unemployed	58.8
Income
<$10,000	15.6
$10,000–$19,000	31.3
$20,000–$29,000	25.0
$30,000–$39,000	17.4
Over $40,000	9.3
Language spoken in home
English only	39.1
Additional language	60.9

Measures

Demographics

A questionnaire created for the study was used at Time 1 to gather information about each child’s age, gender, and ethnicity as well as information on each caregiver’s age, education, ethnicity, immigration history (i.e., country of birth, age moved to the United States, if applicable), income and employment (i.e., full-time, part-time, or unemployed), and languages spoken in the home.

Child Behavior Checklist Parent-Report Form

The Child Behavior Checklist Parent-Report Form (CBCL-PRF, Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) is a 100-item questionnaire assessing parental reports of behavioral and emotional problems. It provides a total score, as well as scores for broadband internalizing and externalizing scales, and eight subscales. Caregivers rated the behaviors of one of their children on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = Never true, 1 = Sometimes True, 2 = Often True) at Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2). Scores on the CBCL-PRF had excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Weiss et al., 1999). Validity has been demonstrated through moderate to large correlations with scores on the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) scales (r = .38–88). For this study, the total problems score was used based on high correlations between the two broadband internalizing and externalizing scales (r = .70 at T1 and T2) and because the total problems scale demonstrated the highest internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and long-term stability in multicultural samples (Achenbach et al., 2008). For this study, the raw total scores were used, and internal consistency was acceptable: T1 α = .76 and T2 α = .81.

Family Involvement Questionnaire-Short Form

The Family Involvement Questionnaire Short Form (FIQ-SF, Fantuzzo et al., 2013) is a 21-item questionnaire based on the Family Involvement Questionnaire (Fantuzzo et al., 2000) that was completed at Time 1 and Time 2. It assessed three domains of parent involvement in education: Home-based involvement (seven items; e.g., I spend time with my child working on reading/writing skills, I talk with my child about how much I love learning new things), school-based involvement (seven items; e.g., I volunteer in my child’s classroom, I attend parent workshops or training offered by my child’s school), and home-school conferencing (seven items; e.g., I talk to my child’s teacher about classroom rules, I talk to the teacher about how my child gets along with his/her classmates in school). Items were rated using a 4-point frequency scale (1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Always). This questionnaire was designed specifically for early childhood education (pre-k, kindergarten, 1st grade) and was normed with urban, low-income, minority populations (Fantuzzo et al., 2000). Although not specifically designed through work with Latinx caregivers, the measure has been used in multiple studies with Latinx caregivers. Its three-factor structure has been replicated in Latinx populations (McWayne et al., 2015) and reported to be invariant between African American and Latinx (Spanish and English speaking) caregivers of children enrolled in Head Start (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2016). Scores on the measure are internally consistent (α > .80, Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2016; Fantuzzo et al., 2013). Also, FIQ-SF scores demonstrated concurrent validity through correlations with indices of parental satisfaction of their child’s preschool program (Fantuzzo et al., 2013). Subscale scores were calculated by summing the scores on the relevant seven items of each subscale, and the home-based involvement and parent-teacher conferencing subscales were used in statistical analyses. FIQ-SF scores demonstrated strong internal consistency in our sample: home-based involvement T1 α = .85, home-school conferencing T1 α = .92, home-based involvement T2 α = .87, and home-school conferencing T2 α = .91.

Procedures

During the first wave of data collection (T1), recruitment flyers, consent forms, and paper-and pencil survey packets were sent home to all families at the three centers in the winter of 2015 and fall of 2016. Survey packets included questions about demographic characteristics, the CBCL-PRF, and the FIQ-SF. Caregivers were offered the option to complete the questionnaire on their own (at home or their preferred location) or with an interviewer (via phone or in-person); only one caregiver decided to complete the questionnaire with assistance. Caregivers returned completed packets to secure bins located at the centers or mailed them to the co-principal investigator’s research office.

Participating families were invited to a follow up assessment (T2) approximately 8 months later. Caregivers were contacted via telephone and email, and letters were sent home with their children or directly mailed to their homes. Children who were no longer enrolled at the preschools were also invited to complete the assessment. Mothers and their children attended an in-person interview where they completed interactive activities with their children (data not used for this manuscript) and completed again a demographic survey, the CBCL-PRF, and the FIQ-SF. All materials of the study were available in English and Spanish, and all study procedures could be administered in English or Spanish.

Data Analysis Plan

We tested four effects of interest using hierarchical regression to assess the effects of: home-based involvement on later child total problems, home-school conferencing on later child total problems, child total problems on later home-based involvement, and child total problems on later home-school conferencing. First, we evaluated whether the data met key assumptions for regression analyses, including a linear relationship, normality, independence, and homoscedasticity, using scatterplots of the variables’ relationships and their variances, as well as the Durbin-Watson statistic and histograms. Parental education-level, employment, income, and marital status (i.e., single) were examined as possible covariates to include in the regression models via bivariate correlations with caregiver home-based involvement, home-school conferencing, and child total problems. The only significant correlation that emerged was between marital status (0 = Single/separated, 1 = Living together/married) and home-based involvement, and this variable was used as a covariate for analyses predicting caregiver home-based involvement.

To assess the relation between baseline (T1) caregiver educational engagement (home-based involvement and home-school conferencing) and later (T2) socioemotional and behavioral functioning, child age and gender were entered in the first block, as is standard practice when using raw CBCL scores (instead of normed T-scores). Baseline child functioning (total problem score) entered in Block 2. Block 3 included baseline caregiver educational involvement (home-based involvement and home-school conferencing).

To assess whether baseline (T1) socioemotional and behavioral functioning predicted later (T2) caregiver educational engagement variables, two independent regressions were estimated. For home-based involvement, caregiver marital status was entered as a covariate in Block 1, baseline (T1) home-based involvement was entered in Block 2, and baseline child functioning (total problem score) was entered in Block 3. For home-school conferencing, baseline (T1) home-school conferencing was entered in Block 1; baseline total problem score was entered in Block 2.

Results

Data were consistent with the assumptions of regression analyses. Outliers (>3 SD from the mean) were Winsorized to reduce the potential influence of extremely high values (Reifman & Keyton, 2010). Less than 2% of the data were missing. Mean substitution at the person-level was used for those item scores.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all included variables are presented in Table 2. Most caregivers reported high levels of engagement, which were close to the maximum score of 28. The average scores for home-based involvement (T1 M = 22.72, T2 M = 22.46) and home-school conferencing scales (T1 M = 22.74, T2 M = 21.67) reflect items typically rated as happening “often,” based on the frequency scale used. Average child total problems were well within the normative range (T1 M = 16.62; T2 M = 15.25) at both time points. As for bivariate correlations with demographic characteristics, male child gender was associated with more socioemotional and behavior problems (r = −.24), whereas single marital status was associated with less home-based involvement (r = −.32). There was high continuity in child socioemotional and behavioral functioning from T1 to T2 (r = .70), and moderate stability for home-school conferencing (r = .52) and home-based involvement (r = .54) over time. Per expectations, home-based involvement and home-school conferencing were moderately to highly correlated but distinct (r = .44 at T1 and r = .52 at T2). Contrary to expectations, caregiver educational and child socioemotional and behavior functioning were not significantly correlated at Time 1 or Time 2, all ps > .05.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables and Possible Covariates.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.
1. Child age T1^a	1
2. Child gender T1^b	−.10	1
3. Highest level of education T1^b	−.22	.04	1
4. Marital status T1^b	−.10	.17	−.12	1
5. Employed/not employed^b	.01	−.01	−.26*	−.35**	1
6. Home-school conferencing T1^a	.06	.04	−.20	−.10	−.13	1
7. Home-based involvement T1^a	−.03	−.07	−.06	−.26*	−.11	.44**	1
8. Total problems T1^a	.18	−.24*	.04	.03	−.02	.07	−.06	1
9. Home-school conferencing T2^a	−.08	.03	−.13	−.15	.01	.52**	.37**	−.09	1
10. Home-based involvement T2^a	−.08	−.21	.05	−.32**	.10	.36**	.54**	.16	.53**	1
11. Total problems T2^a	.12	−.06	−.05	−.04	−.16	−.15	−.01	.70**	−.06	.05	1
Mean (SD)^c	3.89 (.73)	52.2%	50.7%	18.8%	40.6%	22.74 (5.18)	22.72 (4.00)	16.62 (12.70)	21.67 (5.41)	22.46 (4.17)	15.25 (12.78)

Note. ^aPoint-biserial correlations were used for associations between a dichotomous and continuous variable.

Phi was used for associations between two dichotomous variables.

% (male, high school or less, single, employed) for dichotomous variables.

p < .05.

p < .01.

Family Educational Engagement as a Predictor of Later Socioemotional and Behavioral Functioning

Home-based involvement and home-school conferencing were investigated as predictors of later child total problems when controlling for child age and gender, as well as initial levels of total problems. The regression model predicted 53% of the variance in T2 socioemotional and behavior problems. The predictors in the first and second steps of the model explained 50% of the variance. Adding home-based involvement and home-school conferencing in the third step significantly improved model fit (model ΔR² = .03, p < .001; F [5, 62] = 14.19, p < .001) yielding a 3% increase in the proportion of variance in CBCL ratings explained. Home-school conferencing was the only significant individual predictor of later functioning in the third step (b = −.20, p < .05; Table 3), indicating that higher levels of conferencing activities predicted fewer caregiver-reported child difficulties 8 months later, above and beyond the effects of initial child socioemotional and behavior problems. On the other hand, home-based involvement was not a unique predictor of T2 child total problems (b = .18, p > .05).

Table 3.

Standardized Coefficients from Regression Analyses for Total Problems at Time 2 (T2).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
	Covariates	+T1 problems	+T1 parent education involvement
Covariates
Child age	.12	.00	.02
Child gender	−.05	.12	.13
Baseline problems (T1)		.72**	.73**
Parent education engagement
Home-based involvement			.18
Home-school conferencing			−.20*
R ²	.02	.50	.53

Note. ^*p < .05.

p < .01.

Socioemotional and Behavioral Functioning as a Predictor of Later Family Educational Engagement

Socioemotional and behavioral functioning was investigated as a predictor of later caregiver educational engagement when controlling for significant covariates (i.e., marital status for home-based involvement) and initial levels of engagement. For home-based involvement, the regression explained 38% of the variance. Adding T1 child total problems significantly improved model fit (model ΔR² = .05, p < .05; F [3, 65] = 13.11, p < .001) and contributed a 5% increase in variance explained, suggesting a small effect. Baseline total problems were a predictor of later home-based involvement (b = .23, p < .05; Table 4), with more child difficulties predicting more frequent caregiver home-based involvement 8 months later, above and beyond previous educational involvement levels. For home-school conferencing, the regression explained 27% of the variance, but baseline child difficulties were not a significant predictor of later home-school conferencing (b = −.05, p > .05; Table 4).

Table 4.

Standardized Coefficients from Regression Analyses for Parent Education Engagement at Time 2.

	Home-Based Involvement (HBI) at T2			Home-School Conferencing (HSC) at T2
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
	Covariates	+ T1 HBI	+T1 problems	Covariates	+T1 HSC	+T1 problems
Covariates
Parental marital status	−.32**	−.20	−.19	−	−	−
Baseline engagement (T1)		.49**	.52**		.52**	.51**
Total problems (T1)			.23*			−.05
R ²	.10	.33	.38	−	.27	.27

Note. – not included in analysis due to nonsignificant correlation.

p < .05.

p < .01.

Discussion

This study investigated the prospective relations between family educational engagement and child socioemotional and behavior functioning among a sample of Head Start-enrolled low-income primarily Latinx preschoolers. Findings suggested complex and bidirectional relationships between indices of these two constructs. Specifically, reports of more frequent home-school conferencing activities predicted fewer socioemotional and behavior problems about 8 months later, even after controlling for initial levels of child problems. In addition, higher levels of child socioemotional and behavioral difficulties predicted increases in home-based engagement 8 months later, after controlling for initial levels of home-based engagement. On the other hand, home-based engagement did not predict later child socioemotional and behavioral functioning, and baseline child socioemotional and behavior problems did not predict later home-school conferencing. Although our conclusions are limited by the use of maternal reports to assess both educational engagement and child outcomes, findings are generally consistent with both Epstein’s (1987) theoretical model, which posited home-school communication promotes children’s positive adaptation, and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s model (1995), which highlighted the active role of children’s behavior as motivating caregiver engagement in education. This study also extended previous literature through our focus on a sample of primarily Latinx young children. Current findings suggest the need for additional research with Latinx families to better understand the potentially protective effects of caregiver-teacher communication, as well as the importance of child-level characteristics when investigating barriers to and facilitators of caregiver educational engagement.

This study contributes to clarifying the inconsistencies in previous findings in the home-school conferencing literature. We found that more frequent home-school conferencing activities, such as communicating with teachers about the classroom activities and the child’s difficulties and strengths, predicted decreases in mother reported child socioemotional and behavioral problems. This relation is consistent with the significance placed on home-school communication as one of the six domains of engagement proposed by Epstein et al. (2018). These results also replicate previous cross-sectional findings with elementary school aged African American children (Brody & Flor, 1998), as well as longitudinal findings with Head Start-enrolled African American preschoolers (Fantuzzo et al., 2004) and provide support for the conclusion that this relation generalizes to a predominantly Latinx sample of preschoolers. Although findings appeared inconsistent with the results of two prior longitudinal studies, those two studies assessed only a subset of family-school communications (Goldberg & Smith, 2017; Serpell & Mashburn, 2012), and the measure of home-school conferencing used in our study assessed a broader range of behaviors and topics relevant to a child’s functioning (i.e., discussing the child’s accomplishments, school rules, and daily routine with the teacher). Thus, along with previous research (Fantuzzo et al., 2004), our findings suggest that home-school conferencing is a robust predictor of decreased child socioemotional and behavior functioning when conferencing is assessed comprehensively.

More frequent communication about various aspects of the child’s learning experience may lead to better teacher and caregiver awareness of potential issues they would otherwise have difficulty identifying. Often, teachers have a difficult time identifying and reporting student difficulties that do not result in disruptions to classroom rules and routines (Abikoff et al., 1993). Communicating with caregivers, who are good reporters of internalizing difficulties (e.g., sadness or worry) for young children (De Los Reyes et al., 2015; Youngstrom et al., 2000), can help teachers better understand and address these issues in the classroom or through appropriate school supports. In addition, communication about families’ cultural practices can promote improved teaching and enhance student outcomes by incorporating students’ cultures into daily practices (Boutte, 2012).

At the same time, frequent communication with teachers and school personnel may increase caregivers’ awareness of children’s difficulties in the school environment that they may not observe at home and may provide more information to address the source of a child’s difficulties. Future research that clarifies the specific factors or characteristics of home-school communication, and the processes via which it contributes to children’s socioemotional and behavioral functioning, can inform school programming and help schools and caregivers maximize limited resources.

Surprisingly, home-based engagement, which has documented links to socioemotional and behavior functioning, was not a significant predictor of child outcomes in our study. There are several possible reasons for this discrepancy in findings. First, some previous studies found this association using teacher ratings of child emotional and behavioral difficulties rather than caregiver ratings (Fantuzzo et al., 2004; Powell et al., 2010). In fact, two prior studies that used caregiver reports of child behavior did not find cross-sectional relationships (McWayne et al., 2004) or longitudinal associations between earlier home-based involvement and later child social skills or behavior problems (El Nokali et al., 2010). Caregivers and teachers may report child behaviors differently based on the context of their observations and their expectations (Stanger & Lewis, 1993). For example, teachers regularly have more opportunities to observe peer interactions and off-task and defiant behaviors during the structured school day. Also, their expectations are shaped by their exposure to a classroom of students, which influences their ratings of socioemotional and behavioral problems for a particular student. On the other hand, caregivers are typically only exposed to a few children on a regular basis, which may affect their conclusions about child behavior.

It is also possible the operationalization of home-based engagement in our study did not capture some activities important to supporting children’s education among Latinx families, such as activities that foster the social and moral development of children (McWayne et al., 2013). Latinx caregivers often identify “informal” elements of life participation and teaching morals and respect as important complements to formal education (LeFevre & Shaw, 2012). Future studies should assess this specific aspect of home educational engagement (e.g., McWayne & Melzi, 2014) and challenge conventional deficit oriented views (Boutte & Johnson, 2014). Such research can advance our understanding about whether and how the different categories of engagement identified by Epstein et al. (2018) are relevant for different cultural groups. For example, our results suggest home-learning activities may be less impactful than other parenting practices for Latinx student success (LeFevre & Shaw, 2012), but schools often focus on the former as a marker of successful family engagement initiatives. Discrepancies in conceptualizations between Latinx caregivers and school personnel can be addressed through culturally-responsive efforts such as hiring bilingual staff and capitalizing on community strengths and assets (Alameda-Lawson & Lawson, 2019; Gándara & Mordechay, 2017).

A second contribution of this study was related to the impact of child socioemotional and behavioral functioning on later caregiver educational engagement. Child functioning predicted more caregiver educational engagement in the home 8 months later, controlling for initial levels of child educational engagement. This finding was consistent with the longitudinal finding of Hoglund et al. (2015) that aggressive behaviors predicted greater parental assistance with homework, an aspect of home-based involvement, among a diverse group (95% ethnic minority) of third and fourth graders. Findings were also consistent with another cross-sectional study with an African American Head Start sample (Downer & Mendez, 2005). The prospective relation between child socioemotional and behavioral functioning and caregiver home-based engagement in education was consistent with Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s (1995) concept of child invitations. Caregivers may have increased the frequency of education-related activities with their children out of concerns about child socioemotional or behavioral functioning.

However, in contrast with Hoglund et al. (2015) findings, child difficulties did not predict changes in home-school conferencing activities. This null finding may reflect the low levels of child socioemotional and behavioral difficulties reported by caregivers in our sample. Low levels of caregiver-reported problems were consistent with previous research with Latinx preschoolers (Gross et al., 2006; Winsler, 2014). Eiraldi et al. (2006), which suggested caregivers seek treatment and support when their child’s behavior is impaired, and the threshold for needing support may be higher for ethnic minority families (Roberts et al., 2005). The low-level of difficulties displayed by most children in our sample may not have signaled the need for shifts in caregiver behavior in the school setting, especially among a cultural group that may be hesitant to engage school personnel due to perceived barriers and the stigma attached to socioemotional difficulties (Nadeem et al., 2007). Additional studies are needed to assess the robustness of the effects of child socioemotional and behavioral functioning on caregiver engagement in education among children with more severe behavior problems and to address the mechanisms that mediate these effects among Latinx families.

Implications

Our findings suggested home-school conferencing may be useful in curbing future socioemotional and behavioral difficulties for low-income, Latinx preschoolers. Fortunately, this is a relatively flexible dimension of family educational engagement, and communication does not necessarily need to be conducted in school or in person, which may be important for families with little time or with transportation difficulties. A variety of different approaches to promote home-school conferencing can be employed by schools, including social media pages, newsletters, automated text messages, and other forms of communication that address traditional barriers to participation in schools (Barnes et al., 2016). Although traditional recommendations for home-school communication have focused heavily on providing information to caregivers, contemporary models of engagement emphasize bidirectional communication and recognize familial expertise (Barajas-López & Ishimaru, 2020), highlighting how caregivers’ knowledge and skills can enhance initiatives to promote home-school connections and contribute to joint efforts towards student success (Epstein et al., 2018). For example, Jasis & Ordoñez-Jasis’ (2012) qualitative study reported that teachers, administrators, and caregivers saw caregiver-led activism as responsible for improvements in school climate and levels of caregiver participation. Somewhat similarly, previous quantitative research highlighted additional culturally sensitive strategies to foster communication with Latinx and immigrant caregivers that are consistent with this approach, including showing schools’ appreciation for caregivers’ cultural values and having school staff that share caregivers’ cultural identities (Calzada et al., 2015).

Additionally, current findings suggested caregivers may adjust their behavior at home in response to socioemotional and behavior difficulties in the short term, without necessarily increasing their direct communications with school personnel. School personnel may not be aware of the changes caregivers are making to address difficulties, and inviting caregivers to share their perspective could promote positive communication between the two systems while validating caregivers’ efforts. A culturally responsive family engagement approach that respects cultural differences and acknowledges strengths can be a powerful tool to build true partnerships that benefit students (Sheldon, 2016).

Limitations

Current findings may have limited generalizability because of the specificity of the demographics of this sample. Many of the families who chose to participate reported high levels of engagement and low levels of socioemotional and behavioral concerns; therefore, the relations observed may not be representative of children and families with significant difficulties and with greater barriers to engagement. Also, we used a relatively short-term longitudinal design, such that only 8 months elapsed between assessments, and we did not gather information at school entry, a time when the relationship between home and school is developing. Additionally, although regression analyses had enough power to detect small effect sizes, the small sample size limited our ability to use more advanced statistical techniques akin to Hoglund et al. (2015) or to test for possible culturally specific moderators affecting the relations, including nativity and English language proficiency. In terms of the cultural relevance of our measurement strategy, the FIQ-SF captured many of the aspects that are relevant to Latinx caregivers’ engagement in education, but it did not incorporate information about non-academic, broader educational values (e.g., respect, responsibility, good morals) that characterized the conceptualization of engagement of Latinx caregivers (Auerbach, 2007). Finally, we relied on mother-reported data, and, although maternal reports were critical for assessing mother’s perceptions of their own engagement with school, caregiver ratings were vulnerable to social desirability biases. Future studies would benefit from longitudinal designs, a multi-method measurement strategy that incorporates teachers, evaluating the contributions of different caregivers, and including key cultural characteristics of teacher and caregivers (e.g., Spanish spoken in the classroom) to model the potential transactional relations between family engagement in education and child socioemotional development. Despite these limitations, this study’s unique sample and longitudinal methodology significantly advance our understanding of family educational engagement and socioemotional functioning among young low-income Latinx children.

Conclusion

Family educational engagement is praised by many groups, caregivers included, as an important factor in child functioning and success in an academic environment. This study provided evidence suggesting aspects of family engagement influence child socioemotional and behavioral functioning and vice versa. It expanded the literature on these understudied relations by using a short-term longitudinal design and investigating the relation in a sample of predominately young Latinx children, an understudied population in the field of family engagement. Additional research in this area is needed to better understand the different dimensions of Latinx caregivers’ engagement in education, its impact on children’s socioemotional and behavior functioning across development, and the role of child behavior as invitations for increased educational engagement. As the field of urban education continues to evolve and challenge researchers and practitioners to better understand the engagement in education of ethnic minority and low income populations, it is important to capitalize on the strengths of these families and their communities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

All authors would like to acknowledge the support and partnership of El Valor to produce this scholarship.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: DePaul—Rosalind Franklin University Pilot Grant Program

ORCID iD

Cecilia Martinez-Torteya

Author Biographies

Samantha Reaves received her PhD in Clinical Psychology from DePaul University. She is currently completing her postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Marlynad Baltimore with the National Center for School Mental Health. Her research is at the intersection of mental health and education. She seeks to improve school mental health systems and improve outcomes for underserved students.

Cecilia Martinez-Torteya received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Michigan State University. She is an Assistant Professor at Universidad de Monterrey, Mexico. Her research addresses the mental health impacts of interpersonal violence and other adversity on women and their children, as well as regulatory, family, and environmental factors that amplify risk or promote resilience.

David S. Kosson, PhD, is professor of Psychology at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science. His research focuses on cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, developmental, and neural mechanisms underlying psychopathy. He is a past president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy and currently serves as president of the Aftermath: Surviving Psychopathy Foundation.

References

Abikoff

Courtney

Pelham

W. E.

Koplewicz

H. S.

(1993). Teachers’ ratings of disruptive behaviors: The influence of halo effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21(5), 519–533. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1300105553/fulltext/23F8705B6B074029PQ/1?accountid=28672&imgSeq=1

Achenbach

T. M.

Rescorla

(2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles: An integrated system of multi-informant assessment. Aseba.

Achenbach

T. M.

Becker

Döpfner

Heiervang

Roessner

Steinhausen

H. C.

Rothenberger

(2008). Multicultural assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: Research findings, applications, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(3), 251–275. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01867.x

Alameda-Lawson

Lawson

M. A.

(2019). Ecologies of collective parent engagement in urban education. Urban Education, 54(8), 1085–1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916636654

Altschul

(2012). Linking socioeconomic status to the academic achievement of Mexican American youth through parent involvement in education. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 3(1), 13–30. http://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2012.2

Auerbach

(2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates: Reconceptualizing parent roles in education through the experience of working-class families of color. Urban Education, 42(3), 250–283. http://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907300433

Baker

C. E.

(2013). Fathers’ and mothers’ home literacy involvement and children’s cognitive and social emotional development: Implications for family literacy programs. Applied Developmental Science, 17(4), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2013.836034

Barajas-López

Ishimaru

A. M.

(2020). “Darles el lugar”: A place for nondominant family knowing in educational equity. Urban Education, 55(1), 38–65. https://doi-org.ezproxy.depaul.edu/10.1177/0042085916652179

Barnes

J. K.

Guin

Allen

Jolly

(2016). Engaging parents in early childhood education: Perspectives of childcare providers. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 44(4), 360–374. http://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12164

10.

Boutte

G. S.

(2012). Urban schools: Challenges and possibilities for early childhood and elementary education. Urban Education, 47(2), 515–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911429583

11.

Boutte

G. S.

Johnson

G. L.

(2014). Community and family involvement in urban schools. In Milner IV

H. R.

Lomotey

(Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 167–187). Routledge.

12.

Brauner

C. B.

Stephens

C. B.

(2006). Estimating the prevalence of early childhood serious emotional/behavioral disorders: Challenges and recommendations. Public Health Reports, 121(3), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490612100314

13.

Brody

G. H.

Flor

D. L.

(1998). Maternal resources, parenting practices, and child competence in rural, single-parent African American families. Child Development, 69(3), 803–816. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06244.x

14.

Bulotsky-Shearer

R. J.

Bouza

Bichay

Fernandez

V. A.

Gaona Hernandez

(2016). Extending the validity of the family involvement questionnaire-short form for culturally and linguistically diverse families from low-income backgrounds. Psychology in the Schools, 53(9), 911–925. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21953

15.

Calzada

E. J.

Huang

K. Y.

Hernandez

Soriano

Acra

C. F.

Dawson-McClure

Kamboukos

Brotman

(2015). Family and teacher characteristics as predictors of parent involvement in education during early childhood among Afro-Caribbean and Latino immigrant families. Urban Education, 50(7), 870–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914534862

16.

Carreón

G. P.

Drake

Barton

A. C.

(2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042003465

17.

Castro

Expósito-Casas

López-Martín

Lizasoain

Navarro-Asencio

Gaviria

J. L.

(2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002

18.

Chang

Crawford

Early

Bryant

Howes

Burchinal

Barbarin

Clifford

Pianta

(2007). Spanish-speaking children’s social and language development in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Education and Development, 18(2), 243–269.

19.

Chavkin

N. F.

Williams

D. L.

(1993). Minority parents and the elementary school: Attitudes and practices. Families and Schools in A Pluralistic Society, 4(2), 73–83.

20.

De Los Reyes

Augenstein

T. M.

Wang

Thomas

S. A.

Drabick

D. A.

Burgers

D. E.

Rabinowitz

(2015). The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 858–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038498

21.

Domina

(2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78(3), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070507800303

22.

Downer

J. T.

Mendez

J. L.

(2005). African American father involvement and preschool children’s school readiness. Early Education and Development, 16(3), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1603_2

23.

Durand

T. M.

(2018). Intersectionality as a framework for understanding school involvement and advocacy beliefs of Latina/o families of young children. In Sonnenschein

Sawyer

(Eds.), Academic Socialization of Young Black and Latino Children (pp. 141–164). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04486-2_7

24.

Eiraldi

R. B

Mazzuca

L. B.

Clarke

A. T.

Power

T. J.

(2006). Service utilization among ethnic minority children with ADHD: A model of help-seeking behavior. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33(5), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-006-0063-1

25.

El Nokali

N. E.

Bachman

H. J.

Votruba-Drzal

(2010). Parent involvement and children’s academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81(3), 988–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01447.x

26.

Epstein

(1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In Hurrelman

Kaufmann

(Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints. Walter de Gruyer.

27.

Epstein

Sanders

M. G.

Sheldon

S. B.

Simon

B. S.

Salinas

K. C.

Rodriguez Jansorn

Van Voorhis

F. L.

Martin

C. S.

Thomas

B. G.

Greenfeld

M. D.

Hutchins

D. J.

Williams

K. J.

(2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (4th edition). Corwin Press.

28.

Fantuzzo

Gadsden

Sproul

McDermott

Hightower

Minney

(2013). Multiple dimensions of family engagement in early childhood education: Evidence for a short form of the Family Involvement Questionnaire. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 734–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.07.001

29.

Fantuzzo

McWayne

Perry

M. A.

Childs

(2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086262

30.

Fantuzzo

Tighe

Childs

(2000). Family Involvement Questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367–376.

31.

Farver

J. A. M.

Eppe

Lonigan

C. J.

(2006). Home environments and young Latino children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 196–212.

32.

Ferlazzo

(2011). Involvement or Engagement? Educational leadership, 68(8), 10–14. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may11/vol68/num08/Involvement-or-Engagement¢.aspx

33.

Foster

C. J. E.

Garber

Durlak

J. A.

(2008). Current and past maternal depression, maternal interaction behaviors, and children’s externalizing and internalizing symptoms. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 36(4), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9197-1

34.

Gándara

Mordechay

(2017). Demographic change and the new (and not so new) challenges for Latino education. The Educational Forum, 81(2), 148–159. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/00131725.2017.1280755

35.

Goldberg

A. E.

Smith

J. Z.

(2017). Parent-school relationships and young adopted children’s psychological adjustment in lesbian-, gay-, and heterosexual-parent families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 40(3), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.04.001

36.

Grant

(2009). Children’s role in home-school relationships and the role of digital technologies: A literature review. https://clalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/files/HomeSchool.pdf

37.

Green

C. L.

Walker

J. M.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532

38.

Grolnick

W. S.

Benjet

Kurowski

C. O.

Apostoleris

N. H.

(1997). Predictors of parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 538–548. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wendy_Grolnick/publication/232447985_Predictors_of_Parent_Involvement_in_Children’s_Schooling/links/00b4951866bbb6b432000000.pdf

39.

Gross

Fogg

Young

Ridge

Cowell

J. M.

Richardson

Sivan

(2006). The equivalence of the Child Behavior Checklist/1 1/2-5 across parent race/ethnicity, income level, and language. Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.3.313

40.

Hill

N. E.

Torres

(2010). Negotiating the American dream: The paradox of aspirations and achievement among Latino students and engagement between their families and schools. Journal of Social Issues, 66(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01635.x

41.

Hoglund

W. L.

Jones

S. M.

Brown

J. L.

Aber

J. L.

(2015). The evocative influence of child academic and social-emotional adjustment on parent involvement in inner-city schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037266

42.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331.

43.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Walker

J. M.

Sandler

H. M.

Whetsel

Green

C. L.

Wilkins

A. S.

Closson

(2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The elementary school journal, 106(2), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1086/499194

44.

Jasis

P. M.

Ordoñez-Jasis

(2012). Latino parent involvement: Examining commitment and empowerment in schools. Urban Education, 47(1), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911416013

45.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2016). A meta-analysis: The relationship between parental involvement and African American school outcomes. Journal of Black Studies, 47(3), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934715623522

46.

Jeynes

W. H.

(2017). A meta-analysis: The relationship between parental involvement and Latino student outcomes. Education and Urban Society, 49(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516630596

47.

Lee

Bowen

N. K.

(2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 193–218. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002193

48.

LeFevre

A. L.

Shaw

T. V.

(2012). Latino parent involvement and school success: Longitudinal effects of formal and informal support. Education and Urban Society, 44(6), 707–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511406719

49.

Shen

Krenn

H. Y.

Yuan

(2016). A meta-analysis of the relationship between learning outcomes and parental involvement during early childhood education and early elementary education. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 771–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9351-1

50.

McCarthy

C. A.

Zimmerman

F. J.

Digiuseppe

D. L.

Christakis

D. A.

(2005). Parental emotional support and subsequent internalizing and externalizing problems among children. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 26(4), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004703-200508000-00002

51.

McWayne

C. M.

Melzi

(2014). Validation of a culture-contextualized measure of family engagement in the early learning of low-income Latino children. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(2), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036167

52.

McWayne

C. M.

Manz

P. H.

Ginsburg-Block

M. D.

(2015). Examination of the Family Involvement Questionnaire-Early Childhood (FIQ-EC) with low-income, Latino families of young children. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 3(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2014.950439

53.

McWayne

C. M.

Melzi

Limlingan

M. C.

Schick

(2016). Ecocultural patterns of family engagement among low-income Latino families of preschool children. Developmental psychology, 52(7), 1088-1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040343

54.

McWayne

C. M.

Melzi

Schick

A. R.

Kennedy

J. L.

Mundt

(2013). Defining family engagement among Latino Head Start parents: A mixed-methods measurement development study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(3), 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.03.008

55.

McWayne

Foster

Melzi

(2018). Culturally embedded measurement of Latino caregivers’ engagement in Head Start: A tale of two forms of engagement. Early Education and Development, 29(4), 540–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1442094

56.

McWayne

Hampton

Fantuzzo

Cohen

H. L.

Sekino

(2004). A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10163

57.

Milner

H. R. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912447516

58.

Nadeem

Lange

J. M.

Edge

Fongwa

Belin

Miranda

(2007). Does stigma keep poor young immigrant and US-born black and Latina women from seeking mental health care? Psychiatric Services, 58(12), 1547–1554. https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ps.2007.58.12.1547

59.

Okagaki

Sternberg

R. J.

(1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance. Child Development, 64(1), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02894.x

60.

Passel

J. S.

D’Vera Cohn

(2008). US population projections, 2005-2050 (p. 20). Pew Research Center. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/11543/11543.pdf

61.

Peña

D. C.

(2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598741

62.

Powell

D. R.

Son

S. H.

File

San Juan

R. R.

(2010). Parent–school relationships and children’s academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 48(4), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.03.002

63.

Ramirez

A. F.

(2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latino immigrant parents. The Urban Review, 35(2), 93–110.

64.

Reardon

S. F.

Galindo

(2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 853–891. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333184

65.

Reifman

Keyton

(2010). Winsorize. In Salkind

N. J.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1636–1638). Sage.

66.

Repetti

R. L.

Taylor

S. E.

Seeman

T. E.

(2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128(2), 330–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.330

67.

Roberts

R. E.

Alegría

Roberts

C. R.

Chen

I. G.

(2005). Mental health problems of adolescents as reported by their caregivers. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 32(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287324

68.

Ryan

C. S.

Casas

J. F.

Kelly-Vance

Ryalls

B. O.

Nero

(2010). Parent involvement and views of school success: The role of parents’ Latino and White American cultural orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 47(4), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20477

69.

Sabol

T. J.

Pianta

R. C.

(2012). Patterns of school readiness forecast achievement and socioemotional development at the end of elementary school. Child Development, 83(1), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01678.x

70.

Serpell

Z. N.

Mashburn

A. J.

(2012). Family–school connectedness and children’s early social development. Social Development, 21(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00623.x

71.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2016). Moving beyond monitoring: A district leadership approach to school, family, and community partnerships. In Family-school Partnerships in Context (pp. 45-63). Springer, Cham.

72.

Stanger

Lewis

(1993). Agreement among parents, teachers, and children on internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(1), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2201_11

73.

Valdez

C. R.

Shewakramani

Goldberg

Padilla

(2013). Parenting influences on Latino children’s social competence in the first grade: Parental depression and parent involvement at home and school. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 44(5), 646–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-013-0358-x

74.

Walker

J. M.

Ice

C. L.

Hoover-Dempsey

K. V.

Sandler

H. M.

(2011). Latino parents’ motivations for involvement in their children’s schooling: An exploratory study. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1086/657653

75.

Weiss

S. J.

Goebel

Page

Wilson

Warda

(1999). The impact of cultural and familial context on behavioral and emotional problems of preschool Latino children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 29(4), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021397032359

76.

Winsler

Kim

Y. K.

Richard

E. R.

(2014). Socio-emotional skills, behavior problems, and Spanish competence predict the acquisition of English among English language learners in poverty. Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2242–2254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037161

77.

Wong

S. W.

Hughes

J. N.

(2006). Ethnicity and language contributions to dimensions of parent involvement. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 645–662. http://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2006.12087968

78.

Youngstrom

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

(2000). Patterns and correlates of agreement between parent, teacher, and male adolescent ratings of externalizing and internalizing problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 1038–1050. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.68.6.1038

79.

Zarate

M. E.

(2007). Understanding latino parental involvement in education: Perceptions, expectations, and recommendations. Tomas Rivera Policy Institute. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502065.pdf