almost done with it

 

Quantitative Tools

Make sure the quantitative article that you selected in Unit 1 will allow you to thoroughly address all of the points required for this discussion. Using the information from this week’s readings, complete the following:

• Identify the instrument or instruments used to quantify the data, the level of measurement for each instrument, and the statistics used to analyze the data.
• Identify and describe the constructs, variables, and operational definitions included in the research. Do not just list terms. Include a description of how the researcher defined these.
• Describe the cognitive tool used to interpret the data. Possibilities include deductive logic, inductive reasoning, scientific method, or critical thinking.
• Discuss the usefulness of the operational definitions for the constructs in this study. How could they have been defined differently? Were the operational definitions sufficient to allow the researcher to answer the research question? Make sure to justify your answer.
• Explain the importance of operational definitions to scientific merit.
• List the persistent link for the article in your response. Refer to the Persistent Links and DOIs guide, linked in Resources, to learn how to locate this information in the library databases.
• Cite all sources in APA style and provide an APA-formatted reference list at the end of your post. This is the persistent link for the article below.
•  https://capella-summon-serialssolutions-com.library.capella.edu/#!/search?bookMark=ePnHCXMwdV09T8MwELWqDkDLT0A6iRVLsZ3UyYhQEWJiaGcr8YfapYnqlJm_wd_jl3BnJxULs-8yOJb9Tu_uvTt231Jv9mlMM1yOTUxiGlcT-KBw8hNAWIFne0FaplpxRBn1kgqjWnAivm6uFgSFlres-6C5KMSiQKr3NlPUEbDShpikKuE8N44djgMuREh93mQY1Z8jjD38kUf6-fqG3BD16aG_jPhjfVyz5QlLvhXbv253L298MiLgnmyveXAbrRBXh1DZytWNF44mlqTbNF1hS125QniiM6yVTRekL1vZOm0RneD137VqxR7zd-fr3kwnJZoEyLDIKci5_SFHEVVjhqw2YbbvxNZWkoRKVV6fKdtrTNpYg2-5Ms_5wBnaYTO4gFlP_2RhfDmlCm1ESlG_IGaF1w

Soc Psychol Educ (2014) 17:1–17
DOI 10.1007/s11218-013-9237-3

Parental expectations and school relationships
as contributors to adolescents’ positive outcomes

John Mark Froiland · Mark L. Davison

Received: 22 April 2013 / Accepted: 24 September 2013 / Published online: 26 October 2013
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Researchers examined associations of parental expectations and parental
school relationships with school outcomes among U.S. middle and high school stu-
dents. Nationally representative data involving families from the National House-
hold Education Surveys were analyzed with structural equation modeling. Measures
included interview responses about parent expectations for their children’s long term
educational attainment (ranging from dropping out of high school to obtaining a
JD/PhD/MD) and how much parents feel welcomed at school, trust and have pos-
itive interactions with educators. The latter three variables formed a latent vari-
able called parent school relationship. Analyses controlled for SES (parents’ edu-
cational attainment and household income), family structure, gender, and ethnicity.
The school outcomes variable was derived from parental report of students’ grades,
retention in any grade and behavior problems at school. Parental expectations were
positively related (standardized path coefficient = .44, p < .01) to positive school outcomes and had a stronger effect than SES (standardized path coefficient = .24). Parent school relationships were also positively related to school outcomes. These findings suggest that psychologists and educators should be aware of the potential

The authors would like to thank Emily Oros and Sierra Wickham who assisted with formatting tables.
The first author received support from a University of Northern Colorado Faculty Reassignment Award
for Research, Scholarship and Creative Works. The second author received support from Grant No.
R305C050059 from the Institute of Education Sciences in the US Department of Education.

J. M. Froiland (B)
Department of School Psychology, University of Northern Colorado,
McKee 298, Box 131, Greeley, CO 80639, USA
e-mail: John.Froiland@unco.edu

M. L. Davison
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN, USA

123

2 J. M. Froiland, M. L. Davison

for parents to play a significant role (e.g., via expectations and developing support-
ive relationships with educators) in children’s education, even in middle and high
school.

Keywords Parent expectations · Parent school relationship · Academic achievement ·
Adolescence · School retention · Classroom behavior · Expectations · Families · Trust

Based on the bioecological model of human development, the family system and the
relationship between the family and the school provide important developmental con-
texts for youth (Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006). In accordance, numerous studies
have indicated that certain types of parent involvement promote children’s academic
success and positive behavior (e.g., Froiland et al. 2013a,b,c; Powell et al. 2012,
2010). Parent involvement develops over time, such that certain parental behaviors are
more crucial at different periods of time. For instance, when children are young, the
home literacy environment and cognitive stimulation (e.g., parent-child shared read-
ing, counting objects, playing with puzzles and a rich supply of books at home) predict
the development of early academic skills (e.g., Froiland et al. 2013a,b,c; Powell et al.
2012). However, as children approach middle and high school, certain common forms
of home-based involvement are likely to have a neutral effect or even backfire (Froi-
land 2013; Hill and Tyson 2009). For example, parents checking on grades, helping
with homework and checking on homework are negatively related to broad achieve-
ment in 8th grade (Froiland et al. 2013a), which is likely because adolescents striving
for autonomy find this form of involvement controlling (Froiland 2011). Controlling
parenting stifles intrinsic motivation to learn, which is important for the development
of adolescents’ achievement (Froiland and Oros 2013). This counterintuitive phenom-
enon (i.e., parent involvement often backfires with adolescents), along with the fact
that parents generally decrease their collaboration with school staff as their children
approach adolescence, even though parent involvement can promote healthy outcomes
in adolescence (Eccles and Harold 1993), makes it important for educators and psy-
chologists to develop a keen understanding of aspects of parent involvement that can
promote positive outcomes among middle and high school students.

Although certain forms of parent involvement are more effective at different ages
(e.g., Powell et al. 2012) and parent school-based involvement generally declines
as students get older (Stevenson and Basker 1987), there is evidence that parent
expectations and positive parent-school relationships are beneficial throughout the
schooling years (Jeynes 2010). For instance, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
have found parent expectations for children’s long term educational attainment to be
related to achievement in early childhood, elementary school, middle school and high
school (Englund et al. 2004; Fan 2001; Froiland et al. 2013a; Jeynes 2012; Xu et al.
2010). Although parent expectations are sometimes studied within a composite parent
involvement variable (e.g., Keith et al. 1993) meta-analyses have revealed that parent
expectations have a stronger relationship with achievement than various other parent
involvement variables, such as parental supervision and involvement at school (Fan
and Chen 2001; Jeynes 2007). Jeynes (2007) found that the average effect size of
parent expectations on achievement is .88 among urban students in grades six through

123

Parental expectations and school relationships 3

twelve; however, he pointed out that all of the studies on expectations lacked sophis-
ticated controls (e.g., SES, gender and race/ethnicity), which usually lower the effect
sizes. It is also important to point out that family SES is related to various aspects of
parent involvement. In fact, Fan (2001) found that the effects of parent involvement
on achievement are overestimated without family SES as a control. A meta-analysis
indicated that race/ethnicity influences on parent involvement and achievement are
significant, but much smaller than the effect of the type of parent involvement (Fan
and Chen 2001). Asian American and European American adolescents generally have
higher levels of achievement and more involved parents (including higher expec-
tations) than adolescents from other minority backgrounds (Froiland et al. 2013a;
Peng and Wright 1994), but Keith et al. (1993) found that Asian American and Euro-
pean American families had lower levels of parent involvement. Thus, the effects of
ethnicity on parent involvement and achievement among adolescents needs further
research.

An often overlooked variable that affects both parent involvement and achievement
is family structure (Jeynes 2005a, 2010). Children that live in single parent families
(whether due to divorce, parent never marrying, or widowing) have lower achievement
than children from two parent homes (Chiu and Xihua 2008). Although children who
have parents that stay together have the best achievement outcomes (Jeynes 2005a),
children from two parent households have better math and science achievement than
children from single parent households, even if the two parent family is blended
(Chiu 2007; Chiu and Xihua 2008). This is in part due to parent involvement being
constrained by less time available among single parents (Chiu 2007). In accordance,
Sui-Chu and Willims (1996) found that two parent families were more likely to vol-
unteer at school. However, they also found that two parents units were less likely to
communicate with teachers, but it appears that this variable is confounded by includ-
ing teacher requests to talk about grades and behavior, which could be an indicator of
children’s difficulties. Related to single parents having less time available, the number
of siblings is negatively associated with achievement and parents’ time available for
each child (Chiu and Xihua 2008).

1 Positive parental expectations and adolescent’s positive school outcomes

Parent expectations for children’s long-term educational attainment have a signifi-
cant positive effect on the development of academic achievement among adolescents,
even when controlling for other variables related to achievement and parent expecta-
tions, such as family SES (Räty and Kasanen 2010), race/ethnicity, early home-based
involvement, earlier parent expectations and prior achievement (Froiland et al. 2013a;
Zhang et al. 2011). According to both social cognitive theory (Bandura et al. 2001)
and the expectancy-value theory (Eccles and Wigfield 2002), positive parent expec-
tations are conveyed from parents to their child, which may lead to greater effort
and academic achievement. However, parents that have high positive expectations for
their child also directly promote academic achievement by providing higher levels of
home-based involvement when their children are younger (Froiland et al. 2013a). In
accordance, Bandura et al. (2001) found that parent expectations for their middle

123

4 J. M. Froiland, M. L. Davison

school students’ long term educational attainment directly predicted grades (path
coefficient = .5).

2 Positive parent-school relationships and positive school outcomes

In Hoover-Dempsey’s model of the parent involvement process, parent expecta-
tions and parent-school communication are both considered key involvement forms
(Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2010). Likewise, Jeynes (2010) posits that parent expecta-
tions and a welcoming environment characterized by educators conveying respect and
appreciation for parents are crucial and subtle aspects of parent involvement programs
that schools usually overlook. A family-school partnership promotes children’s learn-
ing and positive behaviors, and the relationship between parents and teachers is a key
aspect of the mesosystem between home and school (Christenson 2003). The quality of
the parent-teacher relationship better predicts children’s outcomes than the frequency
of parent and teacher contact (Kohl et al. 2000). Powell et al. (2010) found that per-
ceived teacher responsiveness (e.g., parents perceive that the teacher is interested in
the child, is supportive of the parents, and makes the parents feel welcomed) predicted
children’s reading skills and fewer problem behaviors. Adams and Christenson (2000)
found that trust is integral to the family-school relationship and that middle and high
school parents trust teachers less than elementary school parents. Parent trust was sig-
nificantly related to parent reports of satisfying parent-teacher interactions and to high
school GPA (Adams and Christenson 2000). A year-long qualitative study on parent
involvement concluded that the most powerful key to promoting parent involvement
is to “‘Make the parents feel more welcome”’ Pena (2000, p.52) and Henderson and
Mapp (2002) also suggest that making parents feel welcomed at school is crucial.
Furthermore, in a nationally representative study in the U.S., Turney and Kao (2009)
found that family SES predicted parents feeling welcomed at school. However, more
quantitative studies with this variable are needed.

Refraining from problem behaviors and good grades are intertwined (Hinshaw
1992); for instance, Greek adolescent students self-reported grades are negatively
related with self-reported violent behavior on school property, such that youth with
lower grades are more likely to act violently at school (Whaley and Noel 2013).
Likewise, self-reported low grades are moderately related to self-reported adolescent
aggression in 6th through 8th grade in the U.S. (Kim et al. 2011). Retention (having to
repeat a grade level) is another important school outcome. Students with low grades
and classroom behavior problems are more likely to be retained and continue to have
more behavior and achievement problems than socially promoted students years later
(Jimerson et al. 2006). In addition, parent involvement with the school is a strong pre-
dictor of non-retention (Jimerson et al. 1997). Therefore, the current study examined
behavior, retention and grades as school outcomes in relation to important aspects of
parent involvement during adolescence.

2.1 Hypotheses

The following hypotheses each involve family SES, family structure, gender and eth-
nicity as control variables in a structural equation model (e.g., the covariance between

123

Parental expectations and school relationships 5

SES and parent expectations is factored into the model): (1) Parent expectations will
be positively associated with school outcomes; (2) Parent school relationships will
be positively associated with school outcomes. In both of these hypotheses, school
outcomes is a latent variable composed of grades, advancing grade levels without
repeating and acceptable behavior. Numerous studies have found a positive associ-
ation between parent expectations and positive school outcomes (e.g., achievement
and high school completion), but this study is one of the first to examine the likeli-
hood of a positive association between parent expectations for long-term educational
attainment and acceptable behavior at school among middle and high school students.
Parent school relationships (a latent variable comprised of parents trusting teachers,
feeling welcomed at school and having satisfying interactions with staff) are expected
to also have a positive association with school outcomes, because these variables have
shown promise in previous studies.

3 Method

3.1 Data source and participants

The data used in this study were extracted from the dataset collected for the National
Household Education Surveys (NHES) Program of 2007: Parent and Family Involve-
ment in Education Survey (PFI: NHES: 2007; Hagedorn et al. 2008). The NHES PFI
survey involved 10, 681 families of kindergarten through 12th grade children that
completed interviews by phone and had a response rate of 39 %. The current study
involved 5,828 families with 6th through 12th grade students from across the U.S.
As will be described further in the Data Analysis section, analyses treated the data
as if there were 2,591 cases due to accounting for the design effect. 51.8 % of the
children in the sample were male and 48.2 % were female. 58.7 % of children in the
study were European-American, 16.2 % were Black/African-American, non-Hispanic,
17.4 % were Latino, 3.6 % Asian American, 3.2 % Native American/Alaskan Native,
and .8 % Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The mean age of youth in the study was
14 years and 6 months, with a standard deviation of 2.07 years. Household incomes
ranged from $5,000 or less per year to over $100,000, with the average in the range of
$40,000 to $50,000. The average parent in the study attended some college or voca-
tional/technical school after high school: 6.8 % had less than a high school diploma;
21.4 % were high school graduates; 31.2 % had vocational/technical training or some
college; 20.4 % were college graduates; 20.1 % had a graduate or professional degree.
The average age of parent respondents was 44 (SD = 7.75; range = 18–83) and 78.5 %
of the respondents were female. Family structure was distributed as follows: 69.5 % of
families had a mother and father in the home; 22.4 % had solely a mother; 3.6 % had
a father only; and 4.5 % of children lived with guardians. The analysis employed the
nationally representative population weight (FPWTnorm) so that the data represent
parents of middle and high school youth in the U.S. because it accounts for the fact that
the data was collected via probability sampling of families with school age children
across the U.S.

123

6 J. M. Froiland, M. L. Davison

Table 1 Descriptive statistics
for variables involving parental
support of positive outcomes

Sat interact satisfying
interactions, Good beh good
behavior, Welcome feels
welcome in school, HH income
household income, advance
advanced all grade levels
without repeating

Factors Range Mean SD

Expectation 1.00–6.00 4.74 1.23

Trusts staff 1.00–4.00 3.25 .70

Sat interact 1.00–4.00 3.27 .85

Grades 1.00–4.00 3.16 .86

Welcome 1.00–4.00 3.32 .67

HH income 1.00–14.00 9.77 4.15

Education 1.00–5.00 3.26 1.20

Good beh 0.00–1.00 .78 .41

Advance 0.00–1.00 .87 .33

3.2 Measures

3.2.1 Parental expectations

NHES interviewers asked parents what level of education they expected their children
to obtain, with the following options: 1 = less than a high school diploma; 2 = graduate
from high school; 3 = attend vocational/technical school after completing high school;
4 = complete two or more years of college; 5 = finish a college degree; 6 = to complete
a graduate (e.g., M.S. or PhD) or professional degree (e.g., J.D.). A comparable single
item measure of parent expectations for long-term educational attainment has been
used in various studies with youth (e.g., Englund et al. 2004; Froiland et al. 2013a;
Xu et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2011). In fact, a very similar item showed strong stability
reliability (i.e., parent expectations in kindergarten predicted parent expectations in 8th
grade) and predictive validity (predicting achievement in science, reading and math
8 years later) in a longitudinal study (Froiland et al. 2013a). Furthermore, Zhang et al.
(2011) found that a one-item measure of parent expectations in 8th grade predicted
student expectations, parent expectations and student achievement in 12th grade. See
Table 1 for the means and standard deviations of Parental Expectations and the other
variables in this study.

3.2.2 Parent school relationship

Parent School Relationship is a latent variable derived from parent responses on three
items. One item asked parents the degree to which they trust the staff at the school to act
with their child’s best interest in mind (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree;
4 = strongly agree) and the second item asked the degree to which they are satisfied
with interactions they have with school staff (1 = very dissatisfied; 2 = dissatisfied;
3 = satisfied; 4 = very satisfied). Parents’ ratings of trust have been positively related to
parents’ reports of satisfying parent-teacher interactions and high school GPA (Adams
and Christenson 2000). A third item asked parents the degree to which their child’s
school is welcoming to their family (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree;
4 = strongly agree).

123

Parental expectations and school relationships 7

3.2.3 Family SES

Family SES is a latent variable composed of parents’ highest education level at the
time of the interview and household income range. SES has been positively associated
with children’s achievement (Powell et al. 2012), positive behavior (Hinshaw 1992),
parents feeling welcomed at school (Turney and Kao 2009), and parent expectations
(Froiland et al. 2013a).

3.2.4 Family structure

Two-parent families received a 1 and all other families (mother only, father only, and
non-parent guardian) received a 0. A similar dummy variable predicted various forms
of achievement above and beyond parent involvement variables in Jeynes (2005a),
although Jeynes’ variable also included marital status (e.g., divorced single vs. divorced
remarried).

3.2.5 Number of siblings

The number of siblings of children in the study ranged from zero to six (Mean = 1.43,
SD = .77). This variable has been used in many studies of achievement and parent
involvement (e.g., Chiu and Xihua 2008).

3.2.6 Ethnicity

A dichotomous variable was used in the first model in which European American and
Asian American = 1 and other minority = 0 (i.e., Latino, Black or African American and
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander). This variable and very similar variables have been found
to be significantly related to parent involvement in previous studies (Keith et al. 1993;
Froiland et al. 2013a). In a second model, we addressed race/ethnicity more specifically
with separate variables for African American (Black or African American = 1; Other
= 0); Asian American (Asian American = 1; Other = 0); and Latino American (Latino
American =1; Other = 0). European American served as the reference group.

3.2.7 Child’s gender

Female = 1 and Male = 0. This variable has been found to predict academic and behav-
ioral outcomes in numerous studies, with adolescent girls developing reading achieve-
ment at a higher rate across the U.S. (e.g., Froiland and Oros 2013) and reporting less
aggressive behavior than boys in countries across the world (e.g., Craig et al. 2009).
Although the effects of parent expectations on achievement are nearly identical for
boys and girls (Jeynes 2005b), parents talk with their daughters more about college
in high school (Muller 1998), which could indicate higher parent expectations for
educational attainment.

123

8 J. M. Froiland, M. L. Davison

3.2.8 Children’s age

Children’s age was utilized to run bivariate correlations with key variables in the study,
in order to determine whether or not age would be included in the structural equation
model. Previous research indicates that parent involvement at school generally declines
with age (Stevenson and Basker 1987).

3.2.9 School outcomes

School outcomes is a latent variable composed of parents’ estimates of their children’s
grades, their report of the number of times during the school year that any of their
child’s teachers or school administrators indicated that their child exhibited problem
behaviors at school, and parent’s reports of whether their child had to repeat a grade
level or not. 77.9 % of the sample reported zero contacts from the school about prob-
lem behavior; therefore, the variable was transformed into a dichotomous variable,
with one representing no behavior problems reported and zero representing one or
more behavior problems reported, such that a higher score represented acceptable
behavior. 86.8 % of parents reported that their child advanced a grade level every year,
whereas 13.2 % of parents reported that their child repeated a grade level. This vari-
able was labeled Advanced Grade Levels without Repeating (1 = advanced every year;
0 = repeated a grade). Parents were also asked whether their child received mostly A’s,
B’s, C’s, or D’s/lower. This variable was re-coded such that mostly A’s = 4, mostly
B’s = 3, mostly C’s = 2, and mostly D’s/lower = 1.

3.3 Data analysis plan

Structural equation modeling (SEM) in AMOS 19 was implemented to test the final
model (see Fig. 1), which enabled a simultaneous examination of the multivariate rela-
tions between parent expectations, parent school relationships and school outcomes,
while controlling for family SES. Model fit was determined by a comparative fit index
(CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) of .95 or higher, as well as a root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) less than .06 (Hu and Bentler 1999; as cited in Froi-
land et al. 2013a,c). Because a large n makes it very unlikely to have a non-significant
chi-square (Kenny 2011), the Hoelter Index was utilized, which indicates how small
the sample size would need to be in order for the chi-square to become insignificant
(Kenny 2011; as cited in Froiland et al. 2013a,c). Because of the very large sample size
in the current study, the CFI, TLI, and RMSEA were emphasized as indices of model
fit. Use of the normalized population weight (FPWTnorm) makes the data representa-
tive of middle school and high school families across the U.S. because it accounts for
the fact that the data was collected via probability sampling of families with school
age children across the U.S. The normalized weight was divided by the design effect
(2.25) appropriate for the middle and high school sample. This yields more accurate
standard errors, and significance tests for parameters. Analyses were conducted with
2,591 cases (i.e., 5,828 actual cases that were treated by SPSS and AMOS as 2,591 due

123

Parental expectations and school relationships 9

Fig. 1 Structural Equation Model (model 1) examining associations between parent expectations, positive
parent school relationships and school outcomes. All path coefficients refer to standardized variables with
mean 0 and variance 1.0. All coefficients are significant at p < .01, with the exceptions of gender to family structure, gender to ethnicity, gender to SES, and gender to parent school relationship. These non-significant paths were included in the model for testing purposes, but are not included in this figure, for the sake of visual clarity. R2 values, for the latent and specific school outcome variables, are provided above those variables

to dividing by the design effect, which is 2.25) including 90 cases that were missing
data for one variable (i.e., grades), which was handled through regression imputation.

In order to see if more fine-tuned covariates for race/ethnicity would lead to further
insight without damaging the model fit, we tested a second model (see Fig. 2). This
model included African American, Asian American and Latino American as separate
ethnicity variables, with European American as the reference group.

4 Results

Table 2 shows bivariate correlations between each of the continuous variables used in
the study. Parent expectations were more highly correlated with grades than any other

123

10 J. M. Froiland, M. L. Davison

Fig. 2 Structural Equation Model (SEM) examining associations between parent expectations, positive
parent school relationships and school outcomes. This model is the same as Fig. 1, except with more
specific race/ethnicity variables. Although exhaustive covariances between all exogenous variables were
included in the test of the SEM model, they are not depicted here for the sake of visual clarity. All coefficients
depicted are significant at p < .01, with the exceptions of Asian American to school outcomes, family structure to school outcomes, and Latino to school outcomes

variable in the study, including household income or parents’ education. All three par-
ent school relationship variables were positively related to grades. Children’s age was
negatively correlated with parent’s feeling welcomed at school and satisfying interac-
tions with school staff, but these correlations were weak. On the other hand, there was
no significant correlation between age and parents trusting teachers. Children’s age
was also negatively correlated with parent expectations and positively correlated with
grades, but these correlations were also weak. Therefore, age was not included in the
structural equation model. Number of siblings had non-significant correlations with
the parent-school relationship variables, with parent expectations, and with grades
(see Table 2); therefore, the number of siblings was not included in further analyses.
The three aspects of parent school relationships were moderately positively correlated

123

Parental expectations and school relationships 11

Table 2 Summary of Pearson correlations for variables relevant to perceived school outcomes

Factors Welcome Expectations Trusts staff Sat interact Grades Age HH income Education

Welcome –

Expectations .13∗ –
Trusts staff .62∗ .13∗ –
Sat interact .55∗ .09∗ .54∗ –
Grades .20∗ .43∗ .21∗ .18∗ –
Age −.04 −.11∗ −.03 −.06∗ −.06∗ –
HH income .13∗ .31∗ .08∗ .06∗ .29∗ −.02 –
Education .16∗ .37∗ .11∗ .09∗ .30∗ −.01 .56∗ –
Siblings −.03 −.03 .01 .00 .00 −.07∗ −.08∗ −.05∗
Welcome parent feels welcomed at school, Expectations parent expectations, Sat interact, satisfying inter-
actions, HH income household income, Education parent education, Siblings number of child’s siblings,
* p < .01

with each other. Expectations were moderately positively related to both aspects of
SES, whereas both aspects of SES were more mildly positively related to the facets
of parent school relationships.

The structural equation model (see Fig. 1) provided a good fit with the data, accord-
ing to the following fit statistics: CFI = .97; TLI = .95; RMSEA = .04. A significant chi-
square (χ2(37) = 213.08, p < .01) suggests that the data are significantly different than the model. However, the Hoelter Index indicated that 728 cases or less would lead to a non-significant chi-square, which is far fewer cases than in the study. Overall, the model demonstrated a good fit with the data.

As predicted in hypothesis 1, parent expectations had a positive relationship with
school outcomes (unstandardized path coefficient = .06; p < .01; see Fig. 1 for the SEM diagram with standardized coefficients). Hypothesis 2 was also confirmed in that parent school relationships had a positive association with school outcomes (unstan- dardized path coefficient = .06; p < .01). Parent expectations had a stronger associ- ation with school outcomes than SES, ethnicity and family structure (see Fig. 1). In addition, the association between parent expectations and school outcomes was twice as strong as the association between parent school relationships and school outcomes (see Fig. 1). Family structure had a significant positive association with parent expec- tations, parent-school relationships and school outcomes. Also, gender had a positive association with parent expectations and school outcomes. Overall, the predictors in this model yielded an R2 of .61 for school outcomes. Specifically, the R2 for grades was the highest at .48, followed by good behavior at school (.18) and advancing grades without repeating (.18). This suggests that grades are the best explained by the family variables in the model.

The second model, involving more specific ethnicity variables, did not fit the data
as well as model 1 as indicated by the TLI decreasing to .93 and the chi-square increas-
ing (i.e., (χ2(47) = 296.66, p < .01). However, the CFI (.96) and the RMSEA (.05) continued to indicate a good fit. In examining Fig. 2, it is clear that the associations found in model 1 held; for example, the standardized regression coefficient from parent

123

12 J. M. Froiland, M. L. Davison

expectations to positive school outcomes was identical (.44 in each model). Likewise,
the association between parent school relationships and school outcomes was identical
to model 1. However, the more fine-tuned ethnicity variables in model 2 yielded some
important findings. For instance, Asian American families had significantly higher
long-term educational expectations than other families (correlation = .09), whereas
African American and Latino families did not differ significantly from European
American families on expectations. Also, the negative association between African
American status and family structure (i.e., correlation = −.32) was the only significant
association between ethnicity and family structure, indicating that African American
children in the U.S. are the most likely to be from single parent families. Asian Ameri-
can status was not significantly related to parent school relationships, whereas African
American and Latino American parents experienced less positive relationships (i.e.,
−.09 and −.05). In the second model the R2 for school outcomes was .65.

5 Discussion

The results of this study are in accordance with numerous other studies that have
found a moderate positive association between parent expectations for their chil-
dren’s long-term educational attainment and positive outcomes in the schools (e.g.,
Bandura et al. 2001; Englund et al. 2004; Fan and Chen 2001; Froiland et al. 2013a;
Zhang et al. 2011). In this study, parent expectations had twice the path coefficient that
parent school relationships had with parent reported school outcomes (grades, advanc-
ing grade levels each year, and acceptable behavior) for middle school and high school
students. In addition, the path coefficient between parent expectations and school out-
comes was larger than the coefficients of family SES, children’s ethnicity, and family
structure. Family structure proved to be an important control variable because two
parent families (vs. single parent families) had higher parent expectations, stronger
parent-school relationships and better school outcomes. Moreover, Asian American
parents reported higher expectations than other parents across the U.S., which confirms
previous findings with smaller samples in the U.S. (e.g., Okagaki and Frensch 1998).
We also found that parents have higher expectations for girls across the U.S., which is
in accordance with Muller’s (1998) finding that parents of girls discuss college more
with them when they are in 10th grade than parents of boys.

The relationship between parents expectations for educational attainment and
behavior at school should be examined further in future studies, because the vast
majority of studies on this variable have examined achievement as the outcome. Other
positive outcomes that have been found to be related to parents’ expectation for their
children’s educational attainment include children’s expectations for long-term edu-
cational attainment (Bandura et al. 2001; Froiland et al. 2013a; Zhang et al. 2011),
timely accrual of high school credits in core subjects (Catsambis 2001) and their high
school graduation rates (Carbonaro 1998). However, this is the first study we could
find that linked positive parent expectations for educational attainment to student’s
behavior at school. Based on the expectancy-value theory and social-cognitive theory,
the parent’s expectations are conveyed to the children, who then may more diligently
focus their behavior upon meeting their academic expectations (Bandura et al. 2001;

123

Parental expectations and school relationships 13

Eccles and Harold 1993; Froiland et al. 2013a), which is likely to enhance academic
performance, increase positive classroom behavior and decrease the chances that a
student will fail a grade level.

This study found that parent school relationships (a latent variable composed of par-
ents trusting staff, having satisfying interactions with staff and feeling welcomed at
school) were positively associated with parent’s perceptions of their children’s grades,
promotion and good behavior at school, above and beyond the effect of family SES
and race/ethnicity. Adams and Christenson (2000) found that parents of high school
students trust teachers significantly less than parents of elementary school students,
but that trust was important at both periods of development. In the present nationally
representative study, parental trust of teachers did not significantly decrease with the
child’s age (see Table 2), suggesting that the bulk of the decrease may happen prior to
6th grade. This is good news, especially because trust contributed to positive school
relationships, which are related to school outcomes. Like Adams and Christenson
(2000), we found that parental trust of teachers, satisfaction with teacher interactions,
and student’s grades are all positively related. Parents self-reports of positive coop-
eration with their children’s schools may be impacted by their positive or negative
memories of their own schooling; thus, empathically addressing parents’ memories
of school and elevating hope for fruitful interactions may be an important avenue for
developing positive parent school relationships for those parents that have negative
memories of school (Räty 2011).

A qualitative study with low SES families indicated that feeling welcomed at school
is crucial for Latino American parents (Pena 2000) and a quantitative study indicated
that family SES is a robust predictor of parents feeling welcomed at school (Turney
and Kao 2009). In the current study, family SES was positively related to feeling
welcomed at school and to the latent variable positive school relationships, though the
relationship between parent expectations and SES was twice as strong. In the current
study, feeling welcomed at school contributed, along with parental trust of staff and
satisfying interactions with staff, to the positive association between parent school
relationships and school outcomes. Parents feeling welcomed at school (as a part of
a parent teacher relationship composite) has been linked to positive academic and
behavioral outcomes among younger children (Powell et al. 2010), but this is the first
study we know of that examines such a link among middle and high school students.
If further research indicates a causal relationship, interventions should be developed
that help educators to elevate parental expectations and build positive parent school
relationships. Because Latino and African American families were likely to report less
developed parent school relationships in the current nationally representative study,
they may especially benefit from school environments that become more welcoming
and supportive of trusting relationships between school and home.

This study suggests that parent expectations and parent-school relationships are
both promising aspects of parent involvement, even when controlling for family
structure, family SES, race/ethnicity and child gender. These findings are in accor-
dance with Jeynes’ (2010) suggestion that school involvement programs and school
involvement intervention researchers may be wise to emphasize parent expectations,
even though they are less visible than many parent involvement behaviors such as
assisting with homework. Likewise, schools with parent involvement programs that

123

14 J. M. Froiland, M. L. Davison

focus exclusively on effectively teaching parents to engage in specific behaviors
may be missing the important subtleties of creating a welcoming environment and
developing trusting educator-parent relationships that involve positive interactions
(Jeynes 2010).

6 Limitations

The measures in the study relied on parental report; this shared variance could lead
to inflated correlations. In the future, GPA and promotion data from administrative
records, as well as counts of problem behaviors from classroom observations would
add credence to related studies. Likewise, future studies could examine whether par-
ents convey expectations to their children in autonomy supportive vs. controlling ways,
because autonomy support promotes students’ intrinsic motivation to learn and emo-
tional health (Froiland 2011, 2013). In addition, this study only involved one wave
of data, which makes it impossible to examine causal relations. Future studies should
examine the extent to which parent expectations and parent school relationships pre-
dict the long-term development of all three positive school outcomes. Future studies
should also control for prior achievement, which is predictive of later achievement
(Davison et al. 2004) and prior parent expectations, even though parent expectations
during adolescence exert an effect above and beyond prior achievement and prior
expectations (Froiland et al. 2013a; Zhang et al. 2011). Because parent-child conflict
is a predictor of adolescents aggressive behavior at school (Georgiou and Stavrinides
2013), future studies should also examine parent-child conflict to see if parent expecta-
tions and parent school relationships affect behavior at school above and beyond this
better established predictor. Nevertheless, this study utilized sophisticated controls,
such as SES, gender, ethnicity (Jeynes 2007), and family structure (Jeynes 2005a) and
pointed to two potentially important forms of positive parent involvement in middle
and high school for youth across the U.S.

7 Conclusion

This study provided further confirmation that parent expectations are related to ado-
lescents’ performance and behavior at school. Other studies have linked parent expec-
tations to academic achievement (e.g., Bandura et al. 2001; Froiland et al. 2013a) and
high school completion (Carbonaro 1998). If future research confirms a causal link
from parent expectations to school outcomes, then social psychology and education
researchers will have more impetus to develop and study interventions that promote
positive parental expectations along with other aspects of healthy parent involvement,
such as a parent school relationship characterized by trust, satisfying interactions
and feeling welcomed in middle and high schools. As of yet, parent involvement pro-
grams designed to improve achievement, although moderately successful, have largely
ignored potentially puissant social psychological aspects of parent involvement, such
as parent expectations (Jeynes 2012).

123

Parental expectations and school relationships 15

References

Adams, K. S., & Christenson, S. L. (2000). Trust and the family-school relationship examination of parent-
teacher differences in elementary and secondary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 477–497.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of
children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187–206. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.
00273.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner
& W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development
(6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Carbonaro, W. J. (1998). A little help from my friend’s parents: Intergenerational closure and educational
outcomes. Sociology of Education, 71, 295–313.

Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children’s secondary education:
Connections with high school seniors’ academic success. Social Psychology of Education, 5(2), 149–177.

Chiu, M. M. (2007). Families, economies, cultures, and science achievement in 41 countries: Country-,
school-, and student-level analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 510.

Chiu, M. M., & Xihua, Z. (2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement: Analyses of
students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 321–336.

Christenson, S. L. (2003). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning compe-
tence of all students. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(4), 454–482. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.4.454.26995.

Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., & Simons-Morton, B. (2009). A
cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International
Journal of Public Health, 54(2), 216–224.

Davison, M. L., Seo, Y. S., Davenport, E. C., Butterbaugh, D., & Davison, L. J. (2004). When do children
fall behind? What can be done? Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 752–761.

Eccles, J., & Harold, R. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent years. The Teachers
College Record, 94(3), 568–587.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.

Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egelund, B. (2004). Children’s achievement in early
elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 723–730. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.723.

Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A growth modeling analysis.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(1), 27–61.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology, 13, 1–22. doi:10.1023/A:1009048817385.

Froiland, J. M. (2011). Parental autonomy support and student learning goals: A preliminary examina-
tion of an intrinsic motivation intervention. Child and Youth Care Forum, 40, 135–149. doi:10.1007/
s10566-010-9126-2.

Froiland, J. M. (2013). Parents’ weekly descriptions of autonomy supportive communication: Promoting
children’s motivation to learn and positive emotions. Journal of Child and Family Studies. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9819-x.

Froiland, J. M., & Oros, E. (2013). Intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and classroom engagement
as longitudinal predictors of adolescent reading achievement. Educational Psychology. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.822964.

Froiland, J. M., Peterson, A., & Davison, M. L. (2013). The long-term effects of early parent involve-
ment and parent expectation in the USA. School Psychology International, 34, 33–50. doi:10.1177/
0143034312454361.

Froiland, J. M., Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2013). Relations among neighborhood social networks,
home literacy environments, and children’s expressive vocabulary in suburban at-risk families. School
Psychology International. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0143034313500415.

Froiland, J. M., Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., & Son, S.-H. (2013). Neighborhood socioeconomic well-
being, home literacy, and early literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Psychology in the Schools, 50,
755–769. doi:10.1002/pits.21711.

Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2013). Parenting at home and bullying at school. Social Psychology of
Education, 1–15, doi:10.1007/s11218-012-9209-z.

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00273

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00273

http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.4.454.26995

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.723

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009048817385

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9126-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9126-2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9819-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.822964

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034312454361

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034312454361

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034313500415

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.21711

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9209-z

16 J. M. Froiland, M. L. Davison

Hagedorn, M., Roth, S.B., O’Donnell, K. Smith, S., and Mulligan, G. (2008). National Household Education
Surveys Program of 2007: Data File User’s Manual, Volume I. (NCES 2009–024). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and com-
munity connections on student achievement: Annual synthesis 2002. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the
strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740–763. doi:10.1037/a0015362.

Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and
adolescence: causal relationships and underlying mechanisms. Psychological bulletin, 111(1), 127.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Whitaker, M. C., & Ice, C. L. (2010). Motivation and commitment to family-school
partnerships. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships (pp.
30–60). London: Routledge.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005a). Effects of parental involvement and family structure on the academic achievement
of adolescents. Marriage & Family Review, 37(3), 99–116.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005b). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school
student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269.

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student
academic achievement. A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110.

Jeynes, W. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging that involve-
ment: Implications for school-based programs. The Teachers College Record, 112(3), 747–774.

Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for
urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742.

Jimerson, S., Carlson, E., Rotert, M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). A prospective, longitudinal study
of the correlates and consequences of early grade retention. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 3–25.

Jimerson, S. R., Pletcher, S. M., Graydon, K., Schnurr, B. L., Nickerson, A. B., & Kundert, D. K. (2006).
Beyond grade retention and social promotion: Promoting the social and academic competence of students.
Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 85–97.

Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P. S., & Singh, K. (1993). Does parental
involvement affect eighth-grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School Psy-
chology Review, 22, 474–496.

Kenny, D. (2011). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm on 12–12-
12.

Kim, S., Orpinas, P., Kamphaus, R., & Kelder, S. H. (2011). A multiple risk factors model of the development
of aggression among early adolescents from urban disadvantaged neighborhoods. School Psychology
Quarterly, 26(3), 215.

Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school: Conceptualizing
dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology,
38, 501–523.

Muller, C. (1998). Gender differences in parental involvement and adolescents’ mathematics achievement.
Sociology of Education, 71(4), 336–356.

Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Parenting and children’s school achievement: A multiethnic perspec-
tive. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 123–144.

Pena, D. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications. The Journal of Educational
Research, 94(1), 42–54.

Peng, S. S., & Wright, D. (1994). Explanation of academic achievement of Asian American students. The
Journal of Educational Research, 87(6), 346–352.

Powell, D. R., Son, S. H., & File, N. (2010). Parent-school relationships and children’s academic and social
outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 48(4), 269–292.

Powell, D. R., Son, S.-H., File, N., & Froiland, J. M. (2012). Changes in parent involvement across the
transition from public school prekindergarten to first grade and children’s academic outcomes. The
Elementary School Journal, 113(2), 276–300. doi:10.1086/667726.

Räty, H., & Kasanen, K. (2010). A seven-year follow-up study on parents’ expectations of their children’s
further education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2711–2735. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.
00677.x.

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015362

http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667726

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00677.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00677.x

Parental expectations and school relationships 17

Räty, H. (2011). Past in the present: The way parents remember their own school years relates to the way
they participate in their child’s schooling and remember his/her school years. Social Psychology of
Education, 14(3), 347–360.

Stevenson, D. L., & Basker , D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and the child’s school performance.
Child development, 58, 1348–1357.

Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement.
Sociology of education, 69, 126–141.

Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged?
Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 257–271. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.4.257-271.

Whaley, A. L., & Noel, L. (2013). Academic achievement and behavioral health among Asian American and
African American adolescents: Testing the model minority and inferior minority assumptions. Social
Psychology of Education, 16, 23–43. doi:10.1007/s11218-012-9206-2.

Xu, M., Benson, S. N. K., Mudrey-Camino, R., & Steiner, R. P. (2010). The relationship between parental
involvement, self-regulated learning, and reading achievement of fifth graders: A path analysis using the
ECLS-K database. Social Psychology of Education, 13(2), 237–269.

Zhang, Y., Haddad, E., Torres, B., & Chen, C. (2011). The reciprocal relationships among parents’ expec-
tations, adolescents’ expectations, and adolescents’ achievement: A two-wave longitudinal analysis of
the NELS data. Journal of youth and adolescence, 40(4), 479–489.

Author Biographies

John Mark Froiland is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology at the University of Northern Col-
orado. His research interests include interventions to develop parental autonomy support and increase
children’s autonomous motivation to learn and positive emotions toward school. He also studies how
parent expectations and various other facets of parent involvement contribute to children’s success from
preschool to high school.

Mark L. Davison is the Pearson/American Guidance Service, Inc. and John P. Yackel Professor of Edu-
cational Measurement and Assessment, Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Min-
nesota. His research focuses on multivariate models for tests and test items, methods for the analysis of
score patterns in test battery profiles, and the improvement of subscores.

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.4.257-271

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9206-2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

• c.11218_2013_Article_9237

Parental expectations and school relationships as contributors to adolescents’ positive outcomes
Abstract
1 Positive parental expectations and adolescent’s positive school outcomes
2 Positive parent-school relationships and positive school outcomes
2.1 Hypotheses
3 Method
3.1 Data source and participants
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 Parental expectations
3.2.2 Parent school relationship
3.2.3 Family SES
3.2.4 Family structure
3.2.5 Number of siblings
3.2.6 Ethnicity
3.2.7 Child’s gender
3.2.8 Children’s age
3.2.9 School outcomes
3.3 Data analysis plan
4 Results
5 Discussion
6 Limitations
7 Conclusion
References