Chapter 2: Literature Review

Researchers studying parent involvement have found a positive association between parents’ engagement in their children’s education and academic achievement outcomes (Bracke & Corts, 2012; McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, & McClowry, 2013). Parental involvement is an especially important resource for immigrant and refugee families, where children face elevated risks for later academic and social difficulty in school (Hindman, Miller, Froyen, & Skibbe, 2012). Hindman, Miller, Froyen, and Skibbe (2012) stressed that the primary aim of Head Start programs is to enhance family involvement; however, researchers did not widely consider on “how often parents are involved in various social contexts, as well as what features of families’ lives and experiences are linked to their environment” (p. 654). Even less so, it was required for researchers to explore these issues within immigrant and refugee families, who might have unique assets (e.g., support from programs such as Early Head Start and Head Start) and special constraints (e.g., limited resources) that resulted in distinct patterns and predictors of involvement (Hindman et al., 2012). Furthermore, the theoretical models of parent involvement in learning activities for infants and toddlers were not well-developed (Manz, Gernhart, Bracaliello, Pressimone, & Eisenberg, 2014). To provide a framework that would illuminate these issues more clearly, Ajzen’s (1991) theory, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) could structure the inquiry of parental involvement in children’s education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). This theory was used as the framework for identifying the immediate antecedents of parent behavior with practical advantages regarding prediction and potential intervention (Kiriakidis, 2015). Additionally, the theory outlined key variables for detailed and in-depth analysis, specially attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control that influenced intentions and behavior (Kiriakidis, 2015; McGregor & Knoll, 2015). The following literature review served to inform and support the study and is organized around themes revealed through an examination of empirical research. The themes related to the study topic are (a) the theory of planned behavior, (b) parent involvement and family engagement, (c) immigrant and refugee family characteristics, (d) the importance of parental involvement, (e) barriers to parent involvement, and (f) facilitators of parental involvement.

Several literature search engines were used to identify and access empirical literature for possible inclusion in the literature review. They included Google Scholar, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, and ERIC. Peer-reviewed journal articles and books spanning from 2005 to the present were surveyed. Keywords included parent involvement, family engagement, Head Start and Early Head Start, immigrant and refugee, attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls. The literature identified was reviewed, analyzed, and organized into themes for presentation in this chapter.

Theoretical Framework: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) might provide an insight into issues related to parental involvement in schools. This theory emphasizes that behavioral change can occur if the determinants of behavior are identified and used to design interventions for behavioral change (Demircan & Erden, 2015). The three most important tenets of TPB that affected behavior aligned well with current research on parent involvement in general given they focused on the key roles of attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and control beliefs and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). As applied to parent involvement, control beliefs might refer to those perceptions that parents might have concerning barriers, which hinder their participation. Perceived behavioral control refers to the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior, in this case, involvement in schooling (Ajzen, 2991). However, how TPB applied to the study of parental involvement received little attention (McGregor & Knoll, 2015), especially with regards to specific educational contexts or subsets of the population; it remains unclear how it might be used in a context such as parent participation in Head Start and Early Head Start programs with immigrant and refugee populations (Hindman et al., 2012) to provide an insight into the specific issues of this parent population and how and if it could assist in identifying determinants of behavior that could then be used to design interventions to increase parent involvement. Variables related to immigrants and refugees, such as whether a family was first or second-generation, their age, and length of time they have lived within their receiving nation have significant implications on family outcomes (Salas-Wright, Kagotho, & Vaughn, 2014), so this population might encounter sole determinants of parent involvement that needed exploration and identification.

The TPB evolved from the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), which originated in 1975 (Ajzen, 1991). Tipton (2014) expressed that according to the TRA, the more favorable the attitudes and subjective norms an individual hold, the stronger should be an individual’s intention to perform a behavior. In this theory, the behavioral intention is directly determined by attitudes and subjective norms. Attitudes towards a particular behavior could be either positive or negative. More favorable attitudes toward a behavior should increase the intention to performing the behavior. Subjective norms refers to the social pressure to perform or not perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). However, TRA was not clear to be a predictor of future behaviors in which volitional control was reduced (Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2015). Thus, the TPB was developed by Ajzen to include the construct of perceived behavioral control (PBC; Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2015). This addition was based on the premise that an individual’s degree of confidence in one’s own ability to engage in behavior is a strong determinant of the behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991). By adding the construct of perceived control over the behavior, TPB took into account situations where one might not have complete volitional control over a behavior; therefore, the theory allowed a better understanding of the relationships between attitudes, intentions, and behavior (Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2015).

The TPB could guide research towards understanding the factors influencing educational success (Bracke & Corts, 2012). This theory incorporates attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control of human behavior into a framework to analyze behavioral choices (Ajzen 1991). Within TPB, an attitude was defined as whether an individual behaved positively or negatively based on prior judgments they might have made; for example, a positive attitude toward parental involvement and engagement might increase a parent’s willingness to help a child with their activities at home and school (McGregor & Knoll, 2015). According to Perry and Langley (2013), this theory was developed as a modification of the theory of reasoned action (TRA); the rationale for the original theory was to understand the relationship between attitudes and behaviors. Indirect measures could assess a person’s attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of norms toward performing a behavior. The measures could be used to determine behavioral intentions defined as the subsequent likelihood of engaging in the target behaviors (Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2015). In addition to these constructs, the TPB contained perceived behavioral control (Perry & Langley, 2013), which allowed for the prediction of the likelihood someone would engage in the behavior.

According to Ajzen (1991), the predicted behavior was determined by both motivation (intention) and ability to perform the behavior, that is, perceived behavioral control. Ajzen asserted that an individual child would exert more effort to perform a behavior when his or her perceived behavioral control was high (Ajzen, 1991). There is an interplay between intentions and perceived behavioral control. In this process, the perception of the ability to control the behavioral performance along with behavioral intentions was expected to lead to observable behaviors (Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2015). When there was perceived control over a situation, there was a more accurate assessment of the potential for control over the situation and the ability to carry out intended behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (1991) stressed that the model was intended to provide an explanation and prediction of behavioral problems and appropriate behaviors.

The TPB could be applied to any human behavior under volitional control; and when combined with perceived behavioral control, it could guide predictions of behavior with greater accuracy than previous models (Ajzen, 1991). The theory has been successfully applied in several fields, such as parental involvement in children’s education (Bracke & Corts, 2012; McGregor & Knoll, 2015; Perry & Langley, 2013; Tipton, 2014), binge drinking (Case, Sparks, & Pavey, 2016), physical exercise (Esposito, van Bavel, Baranowski, & Duch-Brown, 2016), fertility intentions (Ajzen & Klobas, 2013), health psychology (Montaño & Kasprzyk, 2015), and marketing (Girardelli & Patel, 2016; Rosa & Tudge, 2013). The TPB predicted parents’ intentions and behaviors related to involvement in their child’s education that “offer support for a long term, collaborative relationship between education and the local community” (Bracke & Corts, 2012, p. 198). Parental attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and expectations generated a formula for successful family-school partnerships and interventions (Bracke & Corts, 2012).

Parents might believe education was the teacher’s responsibility alone, or they might believe that parents could make a positive difference in their child’s education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). Researchers have found parental involvement in their child’s education relates to the parents’ belief that they should or should not be involved in their children’s education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). This belief was often shaped by the parent’s personal experiences with schooling and personal perceptions about schooling when parents were invited to participate in children’s school activities (Bracke & Corts, 2012). If parents believe that good parenting means they should be taking an active role in their children’s education, then there is a greater likelihood that parents will take an active role in their children’s education (Bracke & Corts, 2012). In the context of a parent’s subjective norms about their roles, they might not be involved because they lack the examples of parental involvement or they come from a culture in which parents are never expected to be involved (Bracke & Corts, 2012). Researchers found these norms might be a product of whether an individual believes that other meaningful people approve or disapprove of their behaviors and motivations to comply with expectations (Perry & Langley, 2013). Perceived behavioral control over parents’ level of involvement was determined by their control beliefs concerning perceived barriers to their behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). For example, parents of low socioeconomic status might have restrictive jobs that are obstacles to their involvement (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012).

The perceived attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls can be used to determine the intentions a person has behaved in a certain manner, for example, whether a parent will engage in involvement in their child’s education (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen’s (1991) theory can be expressed in three conceptually independent antecedents, attitude toward the behavior (A), subjective norms (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC). These antecedents lead to a behavioral intention (BI) represented as BI = A_{wi +} SN_{wi +} PBC_wi. Attitude toward the behavior (A) was defined as a person’s overall favorableness or unfavorableness toward performing the behavior (Ajzen & Klobas 2013). Ajzen and Klobas (2013) stressed that parents might have positive or negative feelings about their behavior of interest. If the parents feel efficacious in helping their children learn, they have positive perceptions of invitations for involvement from the teachers and have life contexts that allow or encourage involvement to promote a positive climate in their children’s school, then they will have positive involvement (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Ajzen (1991) pointed out that the subjective norm was determined by all readily accessible normative beliefs about a person’s perception of the social environment surrounding the behavior; it reflects the social pressure that parents feel to participate or not participate in their child’s education and school activities (Ajzen & Klobas, 2013). If they see most parents at their child’s school are unable or unwilling to be actively involved in the school, they might perceive involvement as having negative outcomes (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005).

The perceived behavioral control (PBC) construct was based on beliefs about the presence of factors that might facilitate or impede the performance of the behavior (Steinmetz, Knappstein, Ajzen, Schmidt, & Kabst, 2016). If there is room for change in two or more predictors, it is possible to consider their relative weights in the prediction of intentions and behavior to target the intervention (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (1991) noted that these weights are usually interpreted as corresponding to the relative importance of the predictors; however, regression or path coefficients might not always reflect the relative importance of different predictors (Ajzen, 1991) because they are influenced by the degree of variance in the items used to measure the predictors. For example, a large proportion of parents or caregivers in the immigrant and refugee population would show a low predictive value for perceived control over home-school involvement only if variability was very low in responses. Ajzen (2006) noted that such a “factor would not correlate well with intentions or behavior and would thus receive a low regression or path coefficient” (p. 3). Nevertheless, an intervention that succeeded in raising the level of perceived behavioral control among an appreciable proportion of parents could produce a considerable increase in the rate of parental involvement (Ajzen, 2006). Also, following the intervention, there might be much more variability in perceived behavioral control, and one might see a strong coefficient for this factor in the prediction of parental intention and behavior (Ajzen, 2006). Researchers assumed overall positive or negative attitude toward the behaviors were based on the strength of the behavioral beliefs, which were a person’s beliefs about the likely consequences of performing the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The stronger parent’s beliefs were that their involvement would lead to positive outcomes and prevent negative outcomes, the more favorable parent’s attitude would be toward involvement (Ajzen, 2006).

Drawing on Ajzen’s TPB, the gaps in understanding of parental involvement in schools by immigrant and refugee families could be examined and addressed, giving insight into a family mechanism that affects parental involvement in children’s development (Paat, 2013). An understanding of parents’ intentions concerning engagement and involvement could be a means to increase involvement and decrease achievement gaps across the different groups of immigrant and refugee children (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Researchers have found correlations among behavioral intentions, actions, and parental involvement outcomes, and these outcomes have been the subject of considerable research (Bracke & Corts, 2013).

According to Lin (2012), some important mediating variables interfering with parental involvement were parents’ beliefs and attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control regarding the role of parent involvement in their children’s education. These variables also moderated the effects of parents’ intentions for involvement in their child’s program (Lin, 2012). To strengthen these findings, researchers might direct attention on parents’ intentions and how often they would participate or not participate in various social contexts (Bracke & Corts, 2012). Exploration of these issues for immigrant and refugee families, who might have unique beliefs or attitudes and face special constraints, might result in findings concerning distinct behavioral patterns and predictors of parental involvement (Hindman et al., 2012). Researchers had not tested TPB in the specific context of immigrant and refugee children enrolled in Early Head Start and Head Start (Esposito et al., 2016). Examination of how well the constructions of TPB mapped onto and predicted the intention of immigrant and refugee parents for involvement in their child’s education should extend the application of the theory to this unique and growing population.

 

Parent Involvement and Family Engagement

Parent involvement, family engagement, and family involvement were the terms defined similarly in the early care and preschool education literature (Forry et al., 2012). Researchers found these were related and overlapping concepts that include the notion of a common goal to enhance children’s learning through strong partnerships between schools, programs, and families (Forry et al., 2012). Researchers have shown that parent involvement, as a shared responsibility of families and schools contributes to a child’s education success (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Hilado, Kallemeyn, and Phillips (2013) stressed that parent involvement was the key, for stakeholders, and could be strengthened with positive results for young children and their school readiness. School and community-based organizations were committed to reaching out to engage families in meaningful ways, and families were committed to actively supporting and managing their children’s learning and development.

At the federal level, a policy regarding parent involvement in early childhood education emphasizes parents’ role in supporting children’s development of literacy skills (Hilado et al., 2013). Models of parent and family involvement in Early Head Start and Head Start’s programs contain a range of outcomes for children, including cognitive, physical, and social-emotional approaches to learning outcomes (Miller, Farkas, Vandell, & Duncan, 2014). The literature related to parental involvement in schools tended to convey a positive connection among parent involvement, education achievement, school attendance, graduation rates, educational aspirations, positive classroom behavior, enrollment in more challenging curricula, and favorable attitudes (Bracke & Corts, 2012; Koury & Votruba-Drzal, 2014). Researchers stressed the importance of parental involvement programs and how frequently the programs were successful when schools were easy to reach and communicate with and the needs of the total family were met (Garbacz et al., 2016; Manz et al., 2014). Dove, Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, and Wallinga (2015) stated that parental involvement reached beyond home practices into children’s classrooms. Involvement in school gives parents additional knowledge that helps complement their children’s learning in class.

Epstein (1995) proposed six different types of parental involvement: parenting, communication, volunteering, learning at home, decision-making, and community collaboration. They were widely cited in the K-12 educational literature. Epstein’s model focused on the parents’ role in children’s education and learning and the school’s role in working with families to promote children’s academic success (Epstein, 1995). This model emphasized how parents might become involved in schools and how schools could facilitate this involvement (Castro et al., 2015). Even though this model focused on an elementary school, researchers also suggested that families in the preschool context could adopt the six domains of Epstein’s (1995) model for parental involvement. The following are a brief overview of each type of involvement:

·       Parenting is parental support in the home for a child’s success at school (Kikas, Tulviste, & Peets, 2014). This support includes activities such as ensuring a child to get enough sleep, eat breakfast, and get to school every day on time (Kikas et al., 2014; Neuhauser, 2014).

·       Communication consists of parents’ communications about school programs, their children’s academic progress, and achievement between home-school and school-home to convey information about the school and children’s educational needs (Garbacz et al., 2016). In school-home, the communications include the following: newsletters mailed from school, telephone conversations between parent and teacher, parent-teacher conferences, and home visits. In home-school, parents or caregivers can do various things to help their children succeed in schools, such as daily conversations about their hobbies, stories, school events, and attention to school matters, and affectionate concern for children’s progress by visiting their classroom (Garbacz et al., 2016).

·       Volunteering consists of multiple opportunities for parents to help the school and become actively engaged (Bulotsky-Shearer, Wen, Faria, Hahs-Vaughn, & Korfmacher, 2012). Parents can help and support in a classroom, at the school library, in the lunchroom, and accompany the class for field trips.

·       Learning at home can be conjoined to the teacher in a program to provide families with information and ideas on how to help children with homework and other curriculum-related activities at home (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012).

·       Decision-making consists of invitations for parents to receive skills from training or workshops on how to be involved in parental leadership, such as school site council and the English learner advisory committee (Kikas et al., 2014).

·       Community collaboration is coordination with community partners to provide resources, services, and information to strengthen a school program, family practice, and children’s learning such as when schools host health fairs or college career fairs (Willems & Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012).

Researchers agree that whenever parents’ engagement occurred at home or in out-of-class education activities, such as parents helping their children do homework, get enough sleep, and get to school on time, children tended to have positive attitudes towards school activities (Castro et al., 2015). Encouraging parents in their roles as a teacher for their children and promoting their awareness of their children as learners, helped parents be more equipped to support and encourage children’s learning at home (Willems & Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). Furthermore, whenever parents and teachers communicated effectively between school and home about children’s progress and school programs, they provided a support system that buttressed a child’s academic learning and reinforced the value of schooling (Hindman et al., 2012; Willems & Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). There is widespread consensus among researchers that parents’ involvement in their children’s education at home and school is an important factor contributing to children’s adaptive development (Hilado et al., 2013; Hindman et al., 2012).

Mothers are more involved in their children’s education than fathers; although the role of fathers’ involvement has been highlighted in recent years, fathers are still less engaged in the parental involvement process (Kikas et al., 2014). Kikas, Tulviste, and Peets (2014) also noted that an emphasis on social values at home is related to paternal, and marginally related to maternal, home-based academic involvement. Researchers noted parents’ values concerning socialization might become a factor that influences children’s education (Kikas et al., 2014). Socialization is a quality parents should consider as importance to instill in children. When parents give priority to social values, such as politeness, obedience, trustworthiness, and respect for others, they socialize their children toward interdependence (Kikas et al., 2014). In contrast, when they value self-directed activities, such as creativity, self-confidence, and autonomy, they socialized them toward independence (Kikas et al., 2014). Researchers found that parents who emphasize social values might consider that teachers were the main educators of children and might be less engaged in children’s education. Therefore, it is important to identify characteristics of the immigrant and refugee families that enhance or inhibit parental involvement in education, such as these types of behaviors and attitudes (Kikas et al., 2014).

Classrooms have become increasingly diverse as demonstrated by immigrant and refugees’ children comprising over 20% of children under the age of six (Caughy & Owen, 2015). Nearly 93% of these children are U.S. citizens and are more likely than children of U.S. born citizens to face social, economic, cultural, or psychological hardships. These issues create significant barriers to healthy development and make these children less ready to succeed in school (Neuhauser, 2014). According to Garbacz et al. (2016), several important factors could influence immigrant and refugee parents or caregiver’s involvement (Garbacz et al., 2016). The factors include low family income, low parental education, parenting beliefs and practices, high parent-child conflicts, a lack of English proficiency (Hindman et al., 2012; Manz et al., 2014; Winsler, Kim, & Richard, 2014), parent depression (Han & Osterling, 2012; Tichovolsky, Arnold, & Baker, 2013; Tingvold, Hauff, Allen, & Middelthon, 2012), history of schooling, timing and reasons for coming to the United States, and emotional trauma and vulnerability (Nguyen, 2013; Reed-Danahay, 2015). These factors might place immigrant and refugee parents or caregivers at risk for having low involvement that affects their children’s academic performance (McCormick et al., 2013). However, the most significant factors are parents’ past traumatic experiences (Muldoon & Lowe, 2012) and current stressful life circumstances (Nguyen, 2013). These factors allow both immigrant and refugee parents to be vulnerable to disturbances in family involvement (Tingvold et al., 2012). However, a lack of parental involvement might be a result of other factors unrelated to a family’s demographic status but related to the interrelationship among demographic and characteristic variables. These factors could be related to situations where parents do not have high academic expectations for their children, do not develop and maintain communication with them about school activities, and do not help them to develop reading habits (Castro et al., 2015; Dove et al., 2015). Researchers found that low parent involvement is associated with greater family struggles such as lower monthly income, less parental education, and greater parental depression (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012). Furthermore, the continuity of high-quality experiences within the home and school that comprise higher parental home involvement and higher classroom quality is associated with higher academic and social development (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012). Researchers list more concerns regarding low levels of parent involvement related to several demographic correlates of involvement such as parent education, marital status, employment, primary language, and demographic characteristics (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012).

Immigrant and Refugee Families Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristics of immigrant and refugee groups are included in the inter-related constructs of the TPB and contribute to the level of involvement that parents have in their child’s schooling (Dove et al., 2015). Hindman, Miller, Froyen, and Skibbe (2012) stated that one challenge of identifying universal parental concerns is that not all families have the same demographic characteristics, especially with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Each family might perceive their needs differently and thus, might seek different resources (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). They also might encounter problems settling into American culture and might have many challenges, such as learning English and customs, gaining employment, adjusting to a new environment, and having little social and family support (Han & Osterling, 2012; Tingvold et al., 2012). Moreover, Tingvold, Hauff, Allen, and Middelthon (2012) agreed that the research findings concerning refugees and parenting in exile often emphasized the vulnerability of immigrant and refugee groups. They faced stresses associated with torture, trauma, and separation from and death of family members (Tingvold et al., 2012). When these families migrated to a new country, their children encountered many challenges in a new culture including mental and physical health problems, social isolation, poverty, and behavioral problems (Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). Most studies relied heavily on the samples of immigrants and refugees from three ethnic groups, African, Asian, and Hispanic or Latino because they were substantially represented in the US (Poureslami et al., 2013).

In 2011, African Americans were the second largest minority group in the US with a population of 43.9 million persons (Census Bureau Reports, 2012). Africans were among the fastest growing immigrant groups in the US, and almost all groups were more socially conservative and collectivist than the mainstream US population (Rasmussen, Chu, Akinsulure-Smith, & Keatley, 2013). Researchers found that parents and caregivers often have a hard time involving themselves in their children’s schooling (Rasmussen et al., 2013). Furthermore, the reports in the media that serve these ethnic communities were disdainful of permissive American disciplinary practices, which were perceived as the causes of rampant crime, recreational drug use, and sex (Rasmussen et al., 2013).

Middle Easterners and Southwest Asians who recently have immigrated were estimated at 276,000 persons, and approximately 39% of U.S. refugees were children and youth (Auclair & Batalova, 2013). Farsi-speaking people have many similarities with Southeast Asians; they are refugees likely fleeing from their home countries having experienced some level of trauma before their escape (Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). Researchers found that Southwest Asian immigrants engaged in less visible forms of involvement in schools; for example, they were not represented in parent-teacher associations. Still, they are often actively involved in their children’s education outside school. In particular, Southwest Asian immigrant parents tend to set high academic standards and then marshal the resources that their children need to meet those standards (Poureslami et al., 2013).

Of the Southeast Asians, more than 60% of the populations living in the United States were foreign-born (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). More than 75% of the Asian-American population immigrated to the United States within the past two decades (Han & Osterling, 2012). Asian-American ethnic groups varied in their reasons and timing of immigration to the US (Han & Osterling, 2012). According to Jacob, Gray, and Johnson (2013), most Chinese, Indian, Filipino, and Korean immigrants came to join their families and to invest in the U.S. economy. However, many of those of Southeast Asian origins, such as Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians arrived as a refugee from war and persecution (Tingvold et al., 2012). Becoming a US resident gave immigrants opportunities to “develop a more comfortable life than they have in their country of origin, although it brought many challenges related to the merging of very different cultures” (Jacob et al., 2013, p. 181). Cambodian and Vietnamese Amerasian children (Fry, McCoy, & Swales, 2012), and veterans of the former Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces are some significant members of the Vietnamese refugee community because they often are struggling with mental health, post-war loss, and trauma issues (Nguyen, 2013). Moreover, researchers found these groups of refugees were under stress because they were parenting in exile, which might increase the vulnerability of this particular group (Han & Osterling, 2012). While in exile, families also experienced changes to family roles, language difficulties, and differences in cultural expectations of their behavior (Tingvold et al., 2012). Refugee parents face similar challenges with their children and adolescents as experienced by parents of the mainstream receiving culture, which could include parental mental and physical health problems (Jacob et al., 2013), social isolation, poverty, and their children’s behavioral problems (Tingvold et al., 2012). Tingvold, Hauff, Allen, and Middlelthon (2012) also found that many immigrants had traumatic experiences before and during the process of leaving their countries of origin leading to higher levels of depression within these groups, and this made adaptation even more difficult. Furthermore, this population from Southeast Asia needs a government, a civil society organization, a development agency, and school to advocate for them and to collaborate with them across sectors to strengthen the child protection system (Fry et al., 2012).

Hispanics and Latinos or other Spanish-speaking groups were approximately 50 million persons and considered as the largest minority in the U.S. (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Spanish was the largest non-English language spoken in the U.S. (Manz et al., 2014). More than a half of Hispanics/Latinos’ children were classified as second-generation meaning that they were born in the United States to immigrant parents (Manz et al., 2014; Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). In 2009, Latinos made up the numerical majority of students enrolled in public school at 11 million (US Census, 2012). They had many struggles to overcome structural, cultural, and linguistic barriers upon entering their respective schools, and this result occurred in lower levels of school readiness and academic achievement when compared to White children (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012; Nino, 2014). Researchers found that Latin American immigrants were less likely than many other parents to engage in school involvement at levels which American schools might expect (Manz et al., 2014; Nino, 2014). In general, researchers examined parental involvement among Latinos and other minority groups focusing on school-based involvement, such as volunteering or learning at home (Nino, 2014). This choice by researchers distorted their findings concerning the true nature of parental involvement among Latinos (Nino, 2014). Furthermore, Latino parents, especially second-generation, invested a substantial amount of time in their children’s education in a home-based setting (Nino, 2014). Latin American immigrants had low rates of educational attainment and lower income than other groups (Manz et al., 2014; Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Researchers found that if parents were more educated, then they were likely to understand what was needed for their children to succeed in school (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). A higher income enabled them to puchase goods and services for their children (e.g., preschool’s books) and freed them from barriers (e.g., transportation costs, inflexible work schedules) to participation in school involvement (Caughy & Owen, 2015; Manz et al., 2014).

Parents may hold beliefs regarding the importance of education and have respect for teachers; howerver, parents may not expect to be involved with the teacher directly (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Further, moral teaching tends to focus on respect for authority, obedience, intergenerational solidarity, and hard work (Nino, 2014). Nino stressed that this model might not bring advantages to an individualistic culture as in the U.S. Likewise, the American educational system emphasizes competition, rewards demanding and entitled behavior, and views work outside of school as a threat to work inside the school (Ntuli, Nyarambi, & Traore, 2014). Researchers found that successful parent involvement of Hispanic parents begins with understanding their culture and values (Fung & Fox, 2014). If they fail to understand families’ culture and values, educators’ perception might lead to negative outcomes for schools’ involvement (Fung & Fox, 2014).

There was mixed evidence regarding the associations between family demographics and personal characteristics of immigrant and refugee family members, such as parents of children with special needs who were less likely to feel a sense of partnership with their children’s educator (Forry et al., 2012). According to Acar and Akamoglu (2014), some studies were published about parent participation in intervention programs for children with special needs. Results were that parental involvement could affect positive outcomes for children with physical disabilities; for example, parents or caregivers could recognize their children’s signals, respond appropriately to their needs, implement a variety of challenging activities to support their children’s motor behavior, and encourage their children to continue motor behaviors (Forry, 2012). Furthermore, children with special needs were at risk of the targeted domains of cognitive, socio-emotional development, and children’s health, requiring parental involvement as a predictor of satisfaction in an early childhood intervention program (Miller, Farkas, Vandell, & Duncan, 2016). Families might participate in five categories ranging from parent fulfillment of basic obligations all the way to active participation in school governance (Kocyigit, 2015). Parent involvement included providing children’s basic needs, communicating with school staff, assistance at their child’s school, supporting and participating in learning activities with children at home, and participating in school governance and advocacy activities (Kocyigit, 2015). According to Head Start programs’ policy regarding parents’ shared responsibility for children’s learning, each program must have at least 50 percentages of the parent advisory councils to input their opinions into the decisions of policy-making. In this way, they could directly affect the schools that their children attend (Kocyigit, 2015). However, to promote parent involvement in child’s school, teachers need to respect, recognize, and respond to the diversity of family needs and interests (Acar & Akamoglu, 2014). In short, children with disabilities who have non-English speaking parents more likely received positive educational outcomes when their parents or caregivers participate in their children’s school activities (Acar & Akamoglu, 2014). However, their English language ability must be particularly influential in determining the activities in which parents chose to participate in their children’s school (Forry et al., 2012). Researchers found that parent meetings were led in English, leaving many other parents who were immigrants and refugees, spoke Spanish or Farsi-speaking groups, felt alienated and resulted in a lack of parent participation in parent-teacher meetings (Forry et al., 2012; Poureslami et al., 2013).

According to McGregor and Knoll (2015), the demographic factors such as a marital status, parental skill levels of education, an occupation, employment, age, or family income could influence their ability to change the attitudes and beliefs about parental involvement. Morrison (2012) stated the two main reasons for changing families’ lives were divorce and single parenthood. Single parenthood was an important factor that impacted parent involvement (Pratt, Lipscomb, & Schmitt, 2015). Dubeau, Coutu, and Lavigueur (2013) studied 45 dual-parent families having preschool-aged children (20 girls and 25 boys). They found that children whose single fathers took an active role in discipline, assessed by childcare teachers, were more socially competent than children whose single fathers were uninvolved. They concluded that fathers were important in motivation to participate in household duties and children’s education (Dubeau et al., 2013). Also, fathers’ involvement during their children’s toddlerhood contributed to children’s later emotional security (McWayne, Downer, Campos, & Harris, 2013; Kim & Hill, 2015). McWayne, Downer, Campos, and Harris (2013), in the field of father involvement, used meta-analyses in a total of 23 experts that were contacted and asked for specific articles and authors, and they believed these analyses should include a review of father involvement and children’s early learning (McWayne et al., 2013). McWayne et al. emphasized that developmental period was crucial for children to have a positive start to school, and fathers’ direct involvement might play a unique and strong role in children’s development during this time. These researchers found that a father’s frequency of positive engagement activities and some aspects of parenting quality demonstrated a small but consistent association with the key early childhood competencies (McWayne et al., 2013). This study’s findings concerning the race and ethnicity of fathers suggested that experts have much more to learn about other ways to measure and support father involvement in non-White families. Moreover, the findings on father residential status suggested that early childhood programs could be a place to increase nonresidential father involvement, perhaps helping to strengthen fathers’ positive impact on children (McWayne et al., 2013). However, researchers found no answers to the questions on how father involvement and child development were related to one another over the course of time. In particular, it was unclear if during this all-important transition from the home into preschool and then from preschool into an elementary school certain types of father involvement were more central than others at various points in early childhood development. Moreover, issues of shared genes for positive behavior and cognitive skills, as well as the effects of omitted environmental variables such as mothers' parenting and other maternal characteristics that relate to both fathering and child outcomes, remain unclear (McWayne et al., 2013).

Findings from a growing number of studies showed that teenage mothers from immigrant and refugee families chose to raise their children with their grandparents’ assistance (Morrison, 2012). These teenage parents need support in their role as parents. As early childhood programs enroll more children of teenage mothers, they must seek ways to creatively and sensitively involve these families (Morrison, 2012). Also, according to Morrison, in the classroom, children from lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered families were more than some teachers might have thought. To involve and embrace all parents and families in children’s programs, immigrant and refugee groups should be invited with equal and quality treatment, such as with dignity, respect, and honor (Morrison, 2012).

            Morrison (2012) stated that nowadays more children than ever were living with their grandparents. Especially, immigrant and refugee grandparent’s involvement in their grandchild’s education would help grandparents understand how children and schooling have changed since they reared their children (Morrison, 2012). Pratt, Lipscomb, and Schmitt (2015) studied 181 families in the Head Start programs and found that grandmothers had a positive effect on preschool-base involvement up to 66% for non-parental families. Efforts to engage non-parental caregivers within the school setting, such as volunteering in the classroom and attending teacher conferences are effective for these families (Pratt et al., 2015).

            Researchers found when immigrant and refugee families migrated to a new country, they encountered many challenges in between an old and a new culture (Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). Poureslami et al. (2013) studied a parenting program for Chinese-, Korean-, and Farsi-speaking parents of children enrolled in a Head Start program. A total of 119 parents participated in the study. The researchers found that a Farsi-speaking group had a stronger relationship between parents and children in their home country as compared to a new country. However, cultural clashes, such as home culture practices versus mainstream Canadian cultural practices, might affect parenting values and styles (Poureslami et al., 2013). For this reason, many Farsi-speaking parents in this community believe that in their new country, the culture supports too much freedom and parents are too lenient with their children in ways unacceptable to them (Poureslami et al., 2013). Poureslami et al. (2013) noted that there might be differences in the newcomers’ cultural beliefs and practices related to early child’s education involvement when compared to the mainstream of a country’s cultural beliefs and practices (Poureslami et al., 2013). Researchers found that their cultural background shaped different aspects of home-school relationships and the practices they use for child’s educational involvement (Cardona, Jain, & Canfield-Davis, 2012). For example, in Chinese culture, parents felt that the only focus on children’s education was cognitive and intellectual development rather than physical, social, behavioral, and spiritual development. Researchers found Mexican immigrant parents tended to view schools as responsible for providing formal early instruction in math and literacy while emphasizing family connectedness, warmth, and decorum over early literacy activities or teaching of academic skills (Koury & Votruba-Drzal, 2014).

            Researchers found immigrants and refugees had war trauma after they fled their countries or experienced some level of trauma before their flight (Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). In a meta-analysis of nearly 7,000 adult refugees in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Columbia, Sudan, Somalia, Burundi, Congo, Vietnam, Turkey, and Eritrea revealed close to 60% of the sample that needed mental health services due to prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with about 8% of the control sample (Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). Researchers found that mental health issues were increasingly evident in Asian American communities, especially in immigrant and refugee people who escaped from war and persecution (Jacob et al., 2013). In a sample of 32 Vietnamese immigrants, parents revealed that mental health problems were related to a high risk for parent involvement in the child’s education (Han & Osterling, 2012).

            Researchers found that when educators focused on cultural beliefs, attitudes, values, and practices of immigrant and refugee families, they best conceptualized a framework through which actions promoted the value of cultural diversity in education (Garbacz et al., 2016; Jacob et al., 2013). For example, when considering parent involvement in education, all parents wanted to support their children, but their practices might differ in approach depending on their cultural background (Garbacz et al., 2016). Kikas, Tulviste, and Peets (2014) stated that Latino immigrant parents were likely to stress social values and concerned about children’s social development rather than their cognitive development and individual school accomplishments. Parents who emphasized social values might consider that teachers are the main educators of children and thus might be less engaged in children’s education (Fung & Fox, 2014). However, parents who give priority to self-direction values, such as independence, creativity, and self-confidence, might consider cooperation and sharing of responsibilities with teachers as inappropriate (Kikas et al., 2014).

Researchers found that an immigrant family culture played a significant role in parents’ ideas of the ways they could and should be involved in supporting their child’s learning (Garbacz et al., 2016). However, even when schools invited them, families characteristics regarding cultures suggested that parents should play a limited role in children’s formal schooling. Likewise, families whose cultures regularly expect direct family involvement might offer considerably more active involvement than what their children’s schools expects. Quantitative research concerning immigrant and refugee characteristics might reveal further variables that have previously confounded quantitative results concerning correlation with family involvement and young children’s learning.

The Importance of Parental Involvement

Researchers have reported that high levels of parental involvement are correlated with improved academic performance, higher evaluation scores, more positive attitudes toward school, fewer placements in special education, and lower behavioral problems (Garbacz et al., 2016). Furthermore, parental involvement in children’s schooling and activities make a great difference in the likelihood of important early learning during this developmental period (McWayne et al., 2013). If there is a lack of parental involvement in children’s education, they fall behind with their learning process (Ntuli et al., 2014). Researchers expressed the importance of family involvement in cultural practices and social values among immigrant and refugee families, including single parent households and grandparents (Kim & Hill, 2015). These factors might affect preschool-based parent involvement that should be investigated further to understand the issues (Pratt et al., 2015).

Mothers are more actively involved in their children’s education than fathers (Kikas et al., 2014). According to Kikas, Tulviste, and Peets (2014), fathers are less engaged in their children’s education. Kim and Hill (2015) used a meta-analysis to examine the relative strength of the association between educational involvement of fathers versus mother and achievement of school-age children. Their examination included 52 empirical studies representing 329 correlations for the relationship between parental involvement of mothers or fathers and achievement (Kim & Hill, 2015). The data represented over 52,085 father-child dyads and 65,534 mother-child dyads. Sample sizes ranged from 60 to 35,100 for studies including mothers. Kim and Hill (2015) addressed three main research questions: (a) What is the overall relationship between parental involvement in education and student achievement for fathers and mothers? How are they compared to each other? Are there any significant differences in the mean levels of involvement for mothers and fathers? (b) How does the strength of the association between involvement and achievement and mean levels of involvement vary across the different types of involvement for fathers versus mothers? (c) How does the strength of the relation between involvement and achievement and mean levels of participation vary by child grade level, child gender, and ethnicity for fathers versus mother?

Researchers found no differences in the strength of an association between father’s involvement and children’s achievement across ethnic majority and ethnic minority groups; likewise, the ethnic minority group had a marginally stronger association than the ethnic majority group for mothers (Kim & Hill, 2015). When compared with mothers, father’s involvement in children school activities was positively associated with achievement; however, when fathers were engaged in only home-based activities, there was a lower association with achievement as compared with providing homework support that contributes to cognitive enrichment (Kim & Hill, 2015). Furthermore, fathers who displayed high levels of home-based involvement might influence overall achievement as strongly as mothers do. Kim and Hill (2015) shared several limitations in their study. First, meta-analyses were limited by the quality and breadth of the existing corpus of research. Although a few longitudinal studies provided evidence for the robustness of the relationship between parental involvement and achievement over the time, the meta-analysis was based mostly on cross-sectional studies. Second, there was a wide variability in the ways parents’ involvement and student achievement have been measured across the studies in the meta-analysis. These issues made it difficult to identify and interpret consistent patterns of associations. No standard parent involvement scale was used systematically, although certain scales were adapted and used in more than one study, i.e., the parental involvement scale by Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005. There was also heterogeneity in the outcome measures, such as grades, GPA, and standardized tests. Nonetheless, they identified similar patterns in this study as were found in previous parental involvement studies. Third, a lack of power precluded them from using more sophisticated methods of analyses, such as meta-regressions that could account for shared family context. Fourth, the relatively small number of studies available for some moderator analyses was small. Thus, the results should be considered with caution.

A few decades ago, fathers were expected to be the breadwinners and providers of moral guidance to children at home (Kim & Hill, 2015). Today, some fathers stay at home in a growing number of families. Census statistics reveal that 20% of preschoolers –whose mothers work are cared for by their fathers (McWayne et al., 2013). The level of fathers’ involvement with their children’s education indicated a need for a systematic appraisal of research on the link between direct father involvement and children’s early learning during this developmental period (McWayne et al., 2013). The physical presence of fathers’ roles in the lives of children was critical for their language development, particularly in the areas of physical play, emotions, role models, companions, standard setters, guidance, and instruction; therefore, there are calls for efforts to include fathers in policies and programs targeting family-school relationships (McWayne et al., 2013). Furthermore, the role of fathers in involvement and support for schooling was a key element for children’s success in inclusive settings, especially for English Language Learners (ELLs) and children with disabilities (Kim & Hill, 2015). Negative consequences for children raised without a father are that they were three times more likely to fail at school, two to three times more likely to experience emotional or behavioral problems requiring psychiatric treatments, three times more likely to commit suicide as adolescents, and five times more likely to be deprived (Kim & Hill, 2015). Kim and Hill (2015) also noted that ethnic variations, such as African American, Latino, or Euro-American have different levels of school involvement because of their cultural values, gender role attitudes, and socioeconomic status. Even when families came from the same socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, children without an involved father encounter more challenges in school and at home (Kim & Hill, 2015).

            When home, school, and community are connected, it enhances children’s physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development (Willems & Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). Many of the techniques are geared to improve center-home-school-community relationships are already in place (Berger & Riojas-Cortez, 2012). To increase attention on partnerships and to change negative attitudes, researchers focused on the links to family, community resources, and activities that enhance children’s learning and are readily available to families in high-quality early childhood programs (Willems, Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012).

To increase parental involvement in immigrant families with low socioeconomic status and who are English language learners, teachers and school staff used strategies that provide more attention to the specific issues of minority groups (Hilado et al., 2013; Kocyigit, 2015; Youngblom & Houlihan, 2015). Hilado, Kallemeyn, and Phillips (2013) suggested that teachers focused on empowering parents to be partners and helped shift the school’s efforts from traditional forms of parental involvement to more active involvement. For example, parental involvement in meaningful homework, home learning activities, and bidirectional communication with the teachers might have more effect on academic achievement than the more traditional roles parents have played (Zhai, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2014). When parents demonstrated low involvement by not returning forms, not attending conferences, or not participating in school events, these behaviors could cause frustrations within school staff or educators (Hilado et al., 2013; Smith, 2014). Although educators may provide home learning activities, they do not expend the same amount of energy to invite parents to the school (Hindman et al., 2012). Researchers found that parental involvement was increased when the cultural expectations of the school allowed parents to feel welcomed and valued (Hindman et al., 2012). Castro et al. (2015) stressed that the parental involvement of immigrant families and their expectations for children’s educational achievement are linked. Involvement included communications with children about school issues, supervision of homework, and reading with children, attendance and participation in their school activities, and a parenting style such as supporting and helping their children (Castro et al., 2015). According to Lee and Zhou (2014), Asian immigrant and refugee children exhibited high educational aspirations and mobility outcomes regardless of their families’ disadvantaged economic backgrounds and lack of middle-class cultural capital.

            In general, the concepts of family involvement in the Head Start and Early Head Start programs were important proximal influences on children’s school readiness (Forry et al., 2012). Researchers found that when program staff and families were engaged as partners, they commited to working together on children’s behalf (McCormick et al., 2013). When family members took the lead and made decisions for their children’s learning, they were truly engaged (McCormick et al., 2013). This engagement created positive goal-directed relationships between families and program staff and was the key to children’s school readiness (Forry et al., 2012). Parent involvement and family engagement in the preschool years were linked to children’s success in kindergarten (Epstein, 1995).

In early childhood education, one of the important ways that parental involvement could increase child readiness at home is to provide children with pre-academic stimulation (Miller et al., 2014). According to Miller, Farkas, Vandell, and Duncan (2014), the association between these types of activities and academic success in early childhood has been amply documented, stressing the important role of parental pre-academic stimulation at home. Researchers suggested that low-income children on average received less pre-academic stimulation at home than did children in higher income families; although, there was wide variability in both types of households (Miller et al., 2014). Parents could transfer this commitment in the home into ways in which they could become more involved in their children’s formal schooling (Perry & Langley, 2013). However, researchers showed that Head Start programs did not affect all children in the same way because the fit between what the program provides and what the family provides to a child is likely to differ across families and programs (Miller et al., 2014). Therefore, the powerful effect of proximal processes, such as parental pre-academic stimulation, could generate variation in children’s development for the individual child and within a specific context, such as Early Head Start and Head Start programs (Miller et al., 2014).

            There are many benefits for children, families, and programs as a result of family involvement (McCormick et al., 2013). Children are at a tremendous advantage when families and teachers agree on what they expect children will learn and be able to do and when they have agreed on how to help children achieve goals (Manz et al., 2014; McCormick et al., 2013). When parents get involved with classroom teachers, some of the benefits for children include enhanced cognitive development, improve behavior, maintenance of emotional security, and increased language and problem-solving skills (Manz et al., 2014; McCormick et al., 2013). Moreover, children with the advantages of adult involvement in their education tend to have fewer disciplinary problems and a decreased need for special education classes (Manz et al., 2014). According to Dove, Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, and Wallinga (2015), parental involvement in a home-based setting influenced children’s literacy development and their family life also benefited.

Parents also experience benefits when they take advantage of opportunities to participate in their children’s early childhood education (Castro et al., 2015). For example, children’s participation in Head Start promoted parental well-being and parents’ educational advancement and employment (Sabol & Chase-Lansdale, 2015). According to Decker, Decker, Freeman, and Knopf (2009), family members might enjoy the benefits if they interact with children in an early childhood setting. Parents could contribute positively to their children’s education by assisting them with their homework. Researchers pointed out that the level of parental involvement is associated with academic success by promoting information sharing and control over children’s behavior (Hindman et al., 2012).

Family involvement helps improve early childhood education programs’ climate and plays a major role in how children adjust in school (Cardona et al., 2012). Cardona, Jain, and Canfield-Davis (2012) found in an experimental evaluation of family involvement in their children’s school that the way families understand parent involvement is strongly influenced by issues of ethnicity, social class, the level of education, and language. Likewise, according to Dove, Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, and Wallinga (2015), when families can share their familial makeup and culture with school personnel, caregivers, and teachers, these stakeholders are likely to become more aware and understand a family’s strengths. Moreover, family members who were involved in the program were more likely to understand an educational program’s rationale, curriculum, and teaching strategies. Data was collected on families and teachers from 31 sites across the country which focused on 1,943 fathers and 1,865 mothers who were Head Start attendees (Dove et al., 2015). Dove, Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, and Wallinga (2015) addressed two research questions: (a) What is the influence of family routines at home on child literacy outcomes? (b) What is the influence of family routines at school on child literacy outcomes in the areas of receptive vocabulary, letter-word identification and passage comprehension?

Dove and colleagues found that families with more consistent routines at home had children who scored higher on literacy assessments (Dove et al., 2015). The findings supported existing research and suggested that parental involvement in enriching activities with their children was associated with children’s literacy skills. This finding also contributed to evidence that when parents make activities routine, then children’s language and literacy abilities might improve (Dove et al., 2015). Finally, parent involvement provides opportunities for teachers and staff to learn about the connections between family engagement and school readiness (Smith, 2014). Teachers can learn new effective teaching and guidance strategies as they observe parents’ characteristics and cultures and exchange information with them (Porumbu & Necşoi, 2013). Also, teachers can enhance their views by gaining an insight into child development, education, desired outcomes, and approaches (Porumbu & Necşoi, 2013). These views help teachers expand a program, and thus, there is an opportunity to observe families’ values, preferences, and parenting styles (Hindman et al., 2012). In short, Hindman, Miller, Froyen, and Skibbe (2012) noted the families would learn the expectations of a program (e.g., Head Start) while the professionals learned from them through collaborative relationships. The interactions help enhance their communication as these groups relate to each other by sharing power and making the decision together. More importantly, this is a way to form supportive relationships, which can lead to a network of mutual support (Hindman et al., 2012; Morrison, 2012). Also, when families and educators in programs work together, a community also gained school-business involvement as a means of strengthening children’s program and families (Morrison, 2012).

The higher the participation of the parents and caregivers, the better the children’s educational achievement will be (Castro et al., 2015). In a meta-analysis study, researchers showed that parental involvement was associated with high achievement, positive attitudes, and better behavior in children. Parents or caregivers formed a closer bond with children’s teachers, while teachers were more willing to create better working relationships with the parents (Castro et al., 2015). Through the parent-teacher communication, teachers had an advantage as they came to know the children better. Once again, variables such as a cultural background, ethnic groups, parental in-school and in-home involvement, especially fathers, were significantly related to children’s academic performance and success (Castro et al., 2015). Significant positive correlation between family involvement and school partnerships enhances children’s early learning and developmental outcomes.

Barriers to Parental Involvement

The families of immigrant and refugee children are less likely to participate in early education programs (Hilado & Phillips, 2013; Manz et al., 2014). Qualitative data was collected from 10 immigrant or refugee parents and caregivers. These participants revealed that one of the major challenges was a language barrier (Ntuli et al., 2014). Sullivan and Simonson (2016) noted that immigrant and refugee parents from Mexico, Central America, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Iraq, and Indochina were less likely to be involved in their children’s preschool ages from two to five as compared to White families. Mendez and Westerberg (2012) addressed the fact that there were many different reasons for parents not to be involved in their children’s education. They have no means for parenting programs, limited transportation access, strict work schedules, an inability to obtain a babysitter, no convenience to discuss with others, a fear of disapproval from their family or friends, health problems, night classes, mental exhaustion, or a view that they are not necessarily involved as a key role in promoting children’s school readiness (Hindman et al., 2012; Mendez & Westerberg, 2012).

Mendez and Westerberg (2012) studied a literacy and parenting program for Latino parents of children enrolled in a Head Start program. A total of 54 Latino parents (91% female) participated in the study. These parents represented a variety of countries of origin including Ecuador, Mexico, Brazil, Honduras, Peru, Colombia, and Puerto Rica. The researchers found that these immigrant and refugee parents and caregivers faced many barriers and challenges to active involvement in their children’s literacy. In a study of early childhood education, Hilado and Phillips (2013) suggested that immigrant families of Latin American and Asian backgrounds usually had the least school involvement as compared to native-born White parents. These immigrant and refugee families often had a low-income status and emotional or mental health challenges that could include periods of stress and depression (Hindman et al., 2012). Children from these families often have educational challenges in school typically associated with low socioeconomic status, culture clashes, and language barriers (Manz et al., 2014; Nganga, 2015; Ntuli et al., 2014).

In fostering parental participation in childcare programs, there are both opportunities and obstacles (Lin, 2012). There was a causal relationship found between parental attitudes toward participation and beliefs about education (Lin, 2012). Socioeconomic status, parents’ educational level, and cultural values might mediate the relationship between these parental attitudes about education and their level of participation (Hindman et al., 2012). These mediators could be seen as barriers to parental involvement, requiring active intervention (Manz et al., 2014; Tichovolsky et al., 2013; Tingvold et al., 2012). In the case of immigrant and refugee families with young children, the schools or childcare centers could provide some intervention to help reduce these challenges and barriers to parents’ participation in their children’s education (Caughy & Owen, 2015). These barriers to the involvement of immigrant and refugee families placed their children at risk for academic failure (Tichovolsky et al., 2013).

A lack of parental involvement in child’s school more often occurs with non-English speaking parents who are in a lower socioeconomic status (Manz et al., 2014). These parents have fewer opportunities of involvement through volunteering, parent meetings, and regular communications via newsletters, memos, and phone calls (Garbacz et al., 2016). Moreover, one underlying reason for a lack of parental involvement is a lack of knowledge of the school system and its resources (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Frequently, educators are unclear about how to work as partners with immigrant parents. Communication between these families and school staff can be difficult when children have crises. Furthermore, parents might see educators as more powerful than the families. This perceived power differential might impede some family members from participating and contributing to schools (Garbacz et al., 2016).

Dove, Neuharth-Pritchett, Wright, and Wallinga (2013) found that differing cultural beliefs and attitudes between stakeholders concerning parental involvement might lead to a school’s misinterpretion that low parental activity reflects a lack of interest on the part of the parents. For example, Hispanic and African American communities often place much trust and responsibility in teachers and believe parents should only enter their children’s schools upon invitation (Dove et al., 2013). Parental involvement could be shaped by culture and social interaction (Alghazo, 2015; Han & Osterling, 2012). For example, an Asian family structure is traditionally governed by Chinese-derived Confucian ethics (Lee & Zhou, 2014). Both Vietnamese and Chinese immigrant families commonly use an authoritarian parenting style based on their cultural attitudes (Han & Osterling, 2012; Koh, 2015). These parents often misunderstand their role in children’s education, or they do not comprehend the concept of involvement as defined by the American school system (Hindman et al., 2012). Bracke and Corts (2012) recognized that some parents remain uninvolved because they believe it is not considered appropriate for them to interact with program staff. The other reason parents are not involved with their children is because they straightforwardly trust the school and never question the authority of school personnel (Dove et al., 2013). They may feel they have little knowledge of how to give input to their children’s schooling (Han & Osterling, 2012). Another study found similar responses relating to their first language and culture in which parents might perceive the school as a threat to preserving their customs; thus, they might be reluctant to fully participate with a childcare center (Osman & Månsson, 2015).

            Ntuli, Nyarambi, and Traore (2014) collected data from 10 participants using semi-structured interviews; they found that the greatest obstacle to parental involvement or participation among immigrant and refugee parents was the language barrier. For many immigrant and refugee parents who speak little or no English, communication between school and home is difficult or non-existent (Caesar & Nelson, 2014). Some schools do not have bilingual staff available to assist in orienting new families to the school or to translate written materials provided by the school (Osman & Månsson, 2015). This situation leaves without knowledge of how to help them and what is expected of them in their children’s school (Osman & Månsson, 2015). Written materials are the primary mode through which schools communicate with parents. However, if these materials are written in English only and especially at a high level of English, many parents whose first language is not English will not be able to read and respond to these communications (Turkan & Iddings, 2012). Translation of these written materials sent to parents could help, but not all schools have access to translators of all languages spoken by the families whose children are enrolled in the school. Even in cases where written materials are translated, many language minority parents have limited education in their native countries and might not read or write in their native language (Turkan & Iddlings, 2012). Moreover, immigrant and refugee parents are often reluctant to participate in school activities where spoken English is necessary; for example, telephoning from the school to report a student absence, participating in parent-teacher conferences, and volunteering in the classroom or on field trips (Hindman et al., 2012). In some cases, program personnel might perceive that immigrant and refugee parents are not interested and do not care about their children’s education (Stevens & Patel, 2015). These perceptions may be based on the language issues if the parents speak little or no English or on cultural misunderstandings between parents and childcare personnel (Dove et al., 2013). Because culture and language backgrounds and educational reality of many immigrants and refugee families do not match the U.S. cultural model, the parents and caregivers often believe that holding a high value for the early childhood education is not their responsibility (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). Rather, their beliefs and attitudes toward the behavior to their children’s learning and education are considered important for being involved (Fung & Fox, 2014).

Immigrant and refugee parents’ limited English language skills often lead to a sense of isolation (Osman & Månsson, 2015). Particularly for those whose immigration status is undocumented, some parents are reluctant to venture out into a community (Koury & Votruba-Drzal, 2014). Others fear violence in the community, and some parents do not live in areas with ready access to safe and reliable public transportation, such that coming to the school is difficult (Koury & Votruba-Drzal, 2014). Still, others do not have access to childcare for their young children, making it difficult to attend school functions for their older children (Poureslami et al., 2013). All of these barriers increase the likelihood of low parent involvement. Linguistically diverse families often face language and cultural barriers that greatly hamper their ability to become actively involved in their children’s education, although many have a great desire and willingness to participate (Morrison, 2012). Morrison (2012) stressed that because the culture of linguistically diverse families often differs from that of the majority in a community, those who seek a truly collaborative involvement must take into account the cultural features that inhibit collaboration. Styles of child rearing and family organization, attitudes toward schooling, organizations around which families center their lives, life goals and values, political influences, and methods of communication within the cultural group all have implications for parent participation (Youngblom & Houlihan, 2015).

            Although parental involvement might be influenced by parents’ language and cultural barriers, socioeconomic status might also play a role that affects parental involvement for newcomers to the U.S. (Youngblom & Houlihan, 2015). Researchers found that many immigrants and refugee parents, especially newcomers who were still struggling to find a job, make money, support their family, and adjust to a new environment, might have less time to spend with their children. These parents often lack access to childcare, making it difficult to participate in school activities (Poureslami et al., 2013). Also, Poureslami et al.’s (2013) review of research noted that parents might work the swing shift or night shift, making it impossible to attend school functions or to oversee their children’s homework. When given a chance to work overtime, parents might choose to earn a much-needed income even when this requires being away from family (Poureslami et al., 2013). Some other parents might also be responsible for caring for young children at home—both theirs and others (Manz et al., 2014). Researchers also found that it was unrealistic to expect families who are grappling with the effects of poverty and struggling to survive to willingly embrace participation in assessment and education services for their children (Ntuli et al., 2014).

Hindman, Miller, Froven, and Skibbe (2012) found a critical factor in school culture and school climate that affects a migrant family’s involvement. Some schools do not provide an atmosphere that immigrant and refugee parents perceive as welcoming (Demircan & Erden, 2015). This might be due to school personnel who are overworked, lack cultural sensitivity, or do not speak the parents’ native languages (Smith, 2014). Researchers showed that when parents thought that their involvement was not valued by teachers or schools, then they were less likely to get involved (Hindman et al., 2012). Likewise, when schools are welcoming to parents it was clear that educators valued parent involvement and developed more effective parent involvement (Hindman et al., 2012).

In sum, some school personnel might perceive parents are not interested in or do not care about their children’s education (Mendez & Westerberg, 2012). These perceptions might be based on the language issues or cultural misunderstandings from both parties–parents and school personnel. Also, parents might have extremely busy lives or a trauma such as an aftermath of war, torture, and associated symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (Nguyen, 2013). Alternatively, some schools do not provide a welcoming atmostphere that immigrant and refugee parents perceive. These barriers become issues that impact parents or caregivers attending or being involved in school functions (Tichovolsky et al., 2013). Bracke and Corts (2012) cited a big concern is that without parental involvement, children’s schools and centers will make less improvement.

Facilitators of Parental Involvement

            Researchers have proposed an increase in parent involvement would positively correlate to high achievement of children’s learning activities (Castro et al., 2015). Despite many challenges that schools, or child centers faced and the barriers that parents faced, many child center educators strived to make a priority of reaching out to involve parents (DeLoatche, Bradley-Klug, Ogg, Dromrey, & Sundman-Wheat, 2015). Researchers found different methods of involving parents that play a positive role in becoming involved in their children’s school (Kikas et al., 2014). Castro et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of 37 studies in kindergarten, and primary and secondary schools carried out between 2003 and 2013. They found that there were multiple ways in which families could be involved in children’s learning, including at home, in the community, and in the school. At home, a family’s engagement is the most important factor to a child’s development; for example, these activities included shared book reading, parent-child conversation, discussion of letters and sounds, and writing exercises. Hindman, Miller, Froyen, and Skibbe (2012) stressed that enjoyable at home learning activities might encourage children’s positive attitudes about learning. In the community, families can help children learn about the wider world and access resources that might not be readily available within the household such as visiting the library, attending museums, sport events, church functions, or other cultural opportunities (Hindman et al., 2012). School-based involvement includes various activities in which parents engage, for example, participating in school trips, volunteering in the classroom or at school events, fundraising, and attending school programs (Castro et al., 2015; Kikas et al., 2014; McCormick et al., 2013). In school-based activities, McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, and McClowry (2013) found that parents who were involved would likely have positive relationships with teachers; in turn, teachers might be less liable to perceive problematic behaviors among the children of highly involved parents. Parents and caregivers could volunteer in the classroom or staff the office, participating in decision-making bodies such as the parent policy council, or personal communication such as parent-teacher conferences (Hindman et al., 2012).

Homeschool conferencing is communication between parents and school staff on educational topics related to the specific child (Castro et al., 2015; Kikas et al., 2014). For school conferences or meetings, where oral communication skills are essential, parents with limited English language skills can be asked in advance to bring an adult whom they trust to serve as their translator (Cheatham & Ostrosky, 2013). If schools or child care centers have trouble locating translators for written school materials, schools should successfully partner with community-based organizations and refugee resettlement agencies to provide translation assistance (Manz et al., 2014). Finally, outreach to families through informal meeting settings, such as making home visits for young children below the age of 3 years is a primary means of strengthening the pivotal role of parents (Manz et al., 2014). Researchers found that although encouraging parent involvement was politically neutral and rhetorically popular, much of the research informing policy was occurring in the absence of clarity around the dimensions of parent involvement and the role of teachers in predictive relationships of children’s behaviors (McCormick et al., 2013).

Summary

Application of the TPB model to immigrant and refugee families to more fully understand, identify, explain, and predict their parental involvement could serve to extend the theory as well as to inform and distinct strategies needed for this population. The goal of this study was to explore possible avenues for improving parent involvement in Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control with regard to their involvement in their children’s education are factors that might affect parents’ intention and desire to be involved in their children’s education. However, the characteristics of immigrant and refugee families significantly contribute to the level of involvement parents have in their child’s school. This involvement should include people with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The study targeted a population of immigrant and refugee families because they have potential barriers and challenges to overcome. Indeed, due to children’s educational risk in the community and societal contexts, these parents need supportive programs starting early, at preschool age. Importantly, early intervention programs also encourage parental involvement early on in children’s educational journey. Without having positive cooperation with parents in an early childhood program, it is impossible for them to reach the high standards set for children’s educational outcomes. The perception of participation as a social norm might help increase the likelihood of parental involvement; however, the theoretical models of parents’ participation in learning activities from toddler to preschooler ages need better development.

Applying Ajzen’s TPB (1991) in Head Start and Early Head Start might strengthen the immigrant and refugee family’s positive behaviors; however, to provide the evidence of the theory’s usefulness, a TPB-based model must be tested. Testing TPB on parental behavior under the attitudes and beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls might lead to results that allow Head Start programs and immigrant and refugee parents and caregivers to perform at a higher level. When studying the targets of immigrant and refugee families, researchers need to consider potential barriers and challenges, which include parents’ beliefs about taking responsibilities in involvement based on their demographic characteristics of ethnicity, culture, genders, ages, and historical factors. Finally, it is important to note that the involvement of immigrant and refugee parents and caregivers have a significant influence on their children’s early childhood educational success. Thus, considering the change in parental involvement intention and their behavior, knowledge of parental beliefs, attitudes, norms, and barriers would be helpful to increase the likelihood of parental involvement.