Academic Fathership Program Participation and Academic Achievement a Causal-Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Male Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement and Behavioral Factors Among Title I Elemen (1)

Academic Fathership Program Participation and Academic Achievement: A Causal-Comparative
Evaluation of the Effect of Male Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement and

Behavioral Factors among Title I Elementary School Students.
By
Jonathan R. Wilson Jr.
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of
Wilmington University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
In
Innovation and Leadership
Wilmington University
April 18, 2018

Copyright Page
Jonathan Wilson
DocuSign Envelope ID: FDB22398-BE47-4F9B-A167-E85B0C5802C0
Academic Fathership Program Participation and Academic Achievement: A Causal-Comparative

Evaluation of the Effect of Male Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement and
Behavioral Factors among Title I Elementary School Students.
By
Jonathan R. Wilson
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and
professional standards required by Wilmington University as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Education in Innovation and Leadership.
Signed:
Dr. Michael Czarkowski Chairman of Dissertation Committee
Dr. Marlene Saunders Member of Dissertation Committee
Dr. Yasser Payne Member of Dissertation Committee

Acknowledgements
This work would not have been possible without the support of my mother and family, Dr.
Rokiesha Ashley, my community, my cohort, and the Wilmington University Department of
Doctoral Studies. I am especially indebted to my committee members; Dr. Yasser Payne, Dr.
Marlene Saunders, and Dr. Michael Czarkowski, who have been supportive of my research
interest goals and who worked actively to provide me with the guidance to pursue those goals. I
am forever grateful to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure of working with during this
awesome journey. Each of the members of my Dissertation Committee has provided me with
personal and professional guidance and taught me a great deal about both disciplined inquiry and
life in general. I thank them. I would especially like to thank Dixie Sanger. As my mentor, he has
taught me more than I could ever recognize him for here. He has shown me, by his example,
what a good person should be. My family has been the most important to me in this endeavor. I
would like to thank my parents; whose love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue. They
are the ultimate role models. Finally, I wish to thank all my 11 brothers and sisters, and loving
daughters, Stephanie, and Talina who provide me with unending inspiration.

Abstract
This causal comparative study examined the differences between student academic achievement
after father Academic Fathership Program participation and before father Academic Fathership
Program participation in one Title I elementary school. The research endeavored to identify
statistically significant differences greater than zero in reading and math proficiency scale scores,
number of accumulated unexcused tardy and absent schooldays, and number or behavior
referrals received by the children of 23 low income fathers of Title I elementary school students
before and after father Academic Fathership Program participation. This investigation employed
a repeated measures research design to determine to what extent male parent participation in the
Academic Fathership Program impacted the academic achievement of a target population of Title
I students five to ten years old, in Pre-K to 5th grade, and of low- income participant fathers and
father figures. This study revealed that father participation in the Academic Fathership Program
seemed to be associated with the most positive and significant differences in academic
achievement for fathers and their children. That is, students of low-income fathers attending this
Title I elementary school seemed to benefit from father Academic Fathership Program
participation.
Table of Contents
Chapter One — Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 4
Purpose of Study............................................................................................................ 4
Need for the Study......................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 6
Academic Fathership Program ..................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two Review of The Literature .......................................................................... 11
Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria ...................................................................... 11
Organization of the Review ........................................................................................ 12
Title I and Parent Involvement ................................................................................... 12
Low-Income Parental Involvement in Education ..................................................... 15
Low-Income Parental Involvement in Education Programs .................................... 17
Low-Income Father Involvement in Education ........................................................ 22
Low-Income Father Involvement in Early Education Programs ............................. 24
Contextual Framework ................................................................................................ 28
Chapter Three – Methodology ........................................................................................ 32
Research Design .......................................................................................................... 32

Participants ................................................................................................................... 33
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................ 33
Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 34
Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 34
Community Site ........................................................................................................... 35
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................42
Validity .................................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter Four—Results .................................................................................................... 43
Chapter Five—Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................... 54
Summary of Research Findings ................................................................................. 54
Limitations and Generalizability ................................................................................ 61
Implications for Policy, Practice, and Action ............................................................ 61
Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................... 64
References ........................................................................................................................ 66
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 74
A. Academic Fathership Program Activity Overview .................................................. 74
B. Orientation Flyer .......................................................................................................... 75
C. Child Development Workshop Flyer ............................................................................... 76
D. Participant Incentives Flyer ....................................................................................... 77

E. Contextual Framework Concept Map ....................................................................... 78
F. Permission Letters ...................................................................................................... 79
G. Human Subjects Review Committee ........................................................................ 80
H. Certificate of Completion (NIH) ............................................................................... 81

List of Tables
Table 1. Demographic Breakdown of Participants ........................................................ 34
Table 2. Participant Math Proficiency ............................................................................ 45
Table 3.T-test Participant Math Proficiency .................................................................. 46
Table 4. Participant Reading Proficiency ...................................................................... 47
Table 5.T-test Reading Proficiency ................................................................................ 47
Table 6. Participant Unexcused Days Absent................................................................. 49
Table 7.T-test Unexcused Days Absent .......................................................................... 49
Table 8. Participant Unexcused Days Tardy .................................................................. 51
Table 9.T-test Unexcused Days Tardy ........................................................................... 51
Table 10. Participant Behavior Referrals Received ....................................................... 52
Table 11.T-test Behavior Referrals Received ................................................................. 53

Chapter One
Introduction
For African American students, inequality in education has its origin in the institution of
American slavery, American anti-literacy laws, and scientific racism. These conventions (social
and legal barriers) perpetuated through the federal Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1867, the Civil
War Reconstruction era, the Jim Crow era, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, and are present today.
Moreover, it is reflected in the lack of achievement for minority students in every American
school district ( Duncan & Murnane, 2011).
Low-income African American students are not achieving as well as other racial/ethnic
groups of students in many measures of academic success nationwide. The National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), found from 1990 to 2015, the average math score difference
for African American fourth-grade students was 28 points lower than the average score for their
White peers (National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2018). In reading the
average score difference of African American fourth graders were 32 points lower than their
White peers. It was found in 2015 among fourth-grade African American students only 19 %
compared to White students, 51% of which were at or above proficient. Similarly, it was found
that among eighth-grade African Americans only 13% were at or above proficient as compared
to 43% of White students (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2018). From 2005 to
2015 the achievement gap between African Americans and Whites in reading widened for
twelfth- grade students from 1992-2015 and remained nearly the same for math from 2005-
2015(National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2018).
Presently, the academic achievement gaps continue to persist as on average, African
American students generally score lower than White students (Camera, 2016). There is a clear
1
relationship between uneven distribution of critical academic supports across schools and the
percentage of students in a school who are African American (NCES, 2018). For example,
researchers have found that schools serving large percentages of African American students are
more likely to employ teachers who have less experience (Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani, 2010;
Mickelson 2001; Payne & Brown, 2016).
It has also been identified that schools with a high density of African American students
tend to have disproportionate shares of students with low socioeconomic status. Students in low
socioeconomic conditions are more likely to have parents with lower levels of formal education
(Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani, 2010) or live in a single-parent or guardian home, usually, before a
father or father figure is present. Furthermore, these students often need additional academic
supports to be successful in school (NCES, 2018).
In combatting the effects of poverty and promoting educational equality, the United
States Congress during the Johnson Administration passed Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965(Pub.L. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. 6301). Title I provide federal funds
for remedial instruction to meet the educational needs of educationally disadvantaged children of
communities with high concentrations of families living below the poverty level (Christina
School District, 2018). The U.S Department of Education reported in 2014-2015 there weremore
than five million African American students who attended Title I schools.
Recently, education reform initiatives in the United States have prioritized parent
engagement as central to school improvement plans as school districts grapple with ways to
develop home–school partnerships (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). The effectiveness of these efforts is
contingent upon the extent to which they engage and build on the social capital and knowledge
within the homes of culturally, and socioeconomically diverse families (Dudley Marling &
2
Lucas, 2009). Under Every Student Succeeds Act (Pub.L. 114 -95, 20 U.S.C. 6301) of 2015,
school districts must reserve 1% of Title I funds to assist schools in carrying out activities that
foster family engagement, which can include programs that promote alignment between home
and school activities. Such federal support offers an opportunity for school-based parent
engagement programs, such as male parent engagement initiatives Christina School District
(2018), to provide additional academic supports in Title I schools.
Taken further, supplemental programs could prove to be a viable strategy to addressing
the achievement gap between African Americans students and White students. In populations of
lower income minorities, and English language learners, parent engagement programs may be a
sustainable avenue parents have to be more involved in their child’s education (Griffith, 1998).
Title I support the meaningful involvement of parents in children's schooling, strengthens
academic and social programs, and allows parents to contribute insights and knowledge that
complement the professional skills of schools (Comer & Haynes, 1991).
Parent-based engagement programs also provide a unique opportunity for fathers to
participate in their children’s academic success. Most existing programs for parents tend to focus
on mothers and families, not specifically fathers and their children, as traditionally, mothers
attend parent education programs more than fathers (Meyers, 1993), which may account for the
uneven focus on mothers. Father involvement in their children’s schools has a distinct and
independent influence on success in school, even after controlling for factors such as the parents’
education level, income, and in two parent families, the mothers’ involvement (Nord, Brimhall &
NCES, 1997). As research has found even in two parent families, fathers’ involvement was
associated with an increased likelihood that children in the 1st through 5th grade received higher
grades.
3
Statement of the Problem
It is unknown if male parent participation in Academic Fathership programs increases,
decreases or has no effect on Title I elementary school student reading and math proficiency, and
related factors, such as attendance and disciplinary referrals.
In 2017, Dr. Charles M. Payne stated that there is a persistent and widespread tendency to
underestimate what schools can do to help disadvantaged children, and that much of what is
known is being ignored by researchers and practitioners. Similarly, Berliner (2013) argu es the
most popular current school reform efforts have been less than successful in accomplishing their
goals because they fail to understand the fundamental problem of American schools, namely,
inequality and the poverty that accompanies such inequality. Researchers have found that
historically, institutional racism and structural inequality are at the core of American education.
Inequality and the academic achievement gaps between disadvantaged children of color in poor
performing schools and their counter parts are evident nationwide (Carter, 2006; Nkomo &
Carter, 2 013).
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this causal comparative study is to determine if there are statistically
significant differences in reading and math proficiency scale scores, number of unexcused school
absent and tardy days, and the number of behavior referrals received among Title I elementary
school students of low-income fathers before versus after their participation in the Academic
Fathership Program.
4
Need for the Study
One challenge for father-based involvement programs in schools is the lack of scholarly
research that shows the impact of these programs on academic performance and school behavior.
Many of the programs that exist specifically for fathers are conducted with little or no evaluation
of their effects (Fagan, & Iglesias, 1999).There is a need for this study due to the limited amount
of empirical literature that has examined the issue of male parent participation in Title I schools
and the influence of this participation on academic achievement. While some surveyed programs
have reported positive results, such as reductions in absenteeism, increased achievement scores,
improved student behavior, and greater confidence and participation among parents (Collins,
1982), there is much to be revealed. Furthermore, there is limited information available regarding
the characteristics of fathers and father figures who do become involved in male parent
engagement programs. The data can assist agencies in planning more effective parental
involvement programs for men (Fagan, 1999). Moreover, studying an intervention program and
the relative effects it has on its participants will be an important and timely addition to the
existing body of work on school based male parent engagement programs and academic
achievement.
Research Questions
1. Is there a statistically significant difference in the reading proficiency scale
scores received by Title I elementary school students before versus after
participation in a school Academic Fathership program?
5
2. Is there a statistically significant difference in the math proficiency scale scores
received by Title I elementary school students before versus after participation in
a school Academic Fathership program?
3. Is there a statistically significant difference in unexcused absences received by
Title I elementary school students before versus after participation in a school
Academic Fathership program?
4. Is there a statistically significant differences in unexcused tardy days received by
5. Is there a statistically significant differences in the number of behavior referrals
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the key terms are operationally defined as follows:
Academic Fathership. The acts, duties and practices associated with being a committed
father or father figure as related to academics or education (J. Wilson, personal communication,
July 1, 2016).
Academic Fathership Program (AFP). A school based male parent early childhood
education intervention.
Behavioral referral. A written reprimand issued to a student for a violation of a school
policy as defined by Student Manual in the school district where this study was conducted .
6
Eschool PLUS. The State of Delaware’s education database, which contains
demographic information, schedules, attendance records, discipline records, and grades of
students.
Father. The term “father” is used in this work in a broad sense, relating to any male
father figure in a child’s life, whether biological or otherwise and should henceforth be
understood in this more expansive manner and is applied in the study’s participants.
Fathership. The acts or duties associated with being a committed father (J. Wilson,
personal communication, July 1, 2016).
Math proficiency. Quality level of applied student mastery, skill scale, and
performance measured by school district competency scale score as related to ability in
mathematics.
Reading proficiency. Quality level of applied student mastery, skill scale, and performance
measured by school district competency scale score as related to ability in reading.
Title I. Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended (ESEA) provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools
with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that
all children meet challenging state academic standards (U.S Department of Education, 2017).
7
Academic Fathership Program
The program is provided at Elbert Palmer Elementary School. The purpose of the Elbert
Palmer Elementary School Academic fathership Program is to facilitate healthy educational
interaction between the school, fathers, teachers, and student. The program has two main
components. They are, scheduling and organizing weekly male parent classroom visits to their
child’s class room during the school day and conducting monthly academic fathership
presentations in addition to the maintenance of a data base of fathers /father figures. The
program is held from August to June of the academic school year (See Appendix A for program
activity overview). This program begins with an onsite orientation event called “Bring your Dad
to School Day”. On this day those in attendance are escorted this morning to their child’s
classroom where they remain until called down to the auditorium by the Principal. At this time
the men are debriefed as to the classroom experience of their children followed by a program
overview and formal invitation from the principal (see Appendix B). The main objective of the
program is to introduce and fuse fathers to school, teachers and the academic experience of their
children. This comprehensive program offers the fathers of students the opportunity to be
directly involved in classroom activities while making vital contributions to their child’s social
and emotional development and academic achievement (Fathership Foundation, 2018).
Empowering broad-based action, all the fathers and father figures of the students are invited to
participate onsite in classroom activities such as reading, arts integrated projects, and other
interactive academic assignments. These opportunities support emotional bonding between
fathers and students in addition to fostering supportive relationships that students and fathers or
father figures can take home and into the future (Fathership Foundation, 2018).
8
The Elbert Palmer Academic Fathership program also provides six academic fathership
workshops available monthly on site during after school hours over the duration of the academic
school year. The subject matter of these workshops alternates monthly between two subjects -
academic fathership and child development (see Appendix C). Each session is a one-hour
presentation, followed by another hour of open discussion.
The program supports male engagement with male parents in the school setting to provide an
environment of academic, social, and emotional development. It is expected that the effects will
positively impact a child’s development and future functionality as a well-adjusted adult.
Considering this, each workshop of the series is intended to enlighten and inform the fathers of
our students in a context of child development/academic achievement (Fathership Foundation,
2018). The workshop series communicates the vision of positive change in a context of
increased male parent involvement at the host school and is designed to help residential fathers,
nonresidential fathers and father figures, gain a deeper understanding oftheir importance to their
child’s academic achievement. The workshop series also help fathers explore child
development, the basic stages of child development, healthy father/child interaction, and ways
fathers can guide child-learning. In efforts to anchor this new approach to male parent
involvement, following each workshop the fathers in attendance will have the opportunity to ask
questions, exchange ideas during the agency led discussion of the fathership approach in
addition to contemporary issues about male parenting (Fathership Foundation, 2018). This
program recognizes short term progress measured by increased participation and seeks to
consolidate these gains by currently offering a free outing to a designated area pizza restaurant
and trampoline park upon the third classroom visit of a given father or father figure to their
child’s classroom during day or on-site school activity (see Appendix C).
9
This academic fathership program is located in Wilmington, Delaware provided to low income
fathers whose children are enrolled in Elbert Palmer Elementary School. Elbert-Palmer
elementary school is a Title I elementary school.
Prominent research has revealed that future study needs to address the extent to which
Academic Fathership programs are successful at affecting different subgroups of fathers (e.g.,
resident versus nonresident fathers) and the extent to which fatherhood programs impact
children (Palm & Fagan, 2008). For years, recommendations for future research included
determining individual parental goals and examining existing knowledge about their attitudes
about child rearing, considering the impact of parental characteristics, and the possible
interaction of these characteristics with different program goals and procedures (Dembo,
Sweitzer & Lauritzen, 1985). We could greatly benefit from additional close-up examinations
of individual program efforts to involve fathers (i.e., more qualitative studies of what works, for
whom, how, and why (McAllister, Wilson & Burton, 2004). The theories and research on the
concept of male parent involvement in elementary school and its potential influence on the
developing child are both very complex and relevant to the understanding of the program
presented here. There are scores of variables that must be included in such an analysis. A review
of the literature follows and attempts to report the methods and conclusions of the prominent
researchers on this topic over the last three decades.
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
Introduction
10
Research over recent decades gives evidence of the relationship between parents being
involved in the early childhood education of their children, the social competencies they acquire
over time, and their academic achievement in school(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Campbell & Ramey,
1994;; Epstein, 1986; Fan & Chen, 2001; Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry & Childs, 2004; Hoover-
Dempsey, Whetsel & Green, 2004; McBride, Dyer & Laxman, 2013Shaver & Walls, 1998;
Smith & Brahce, 1962; Walker).The topic of parental involvement in childhood education
programs, and more specifically increased father and father figure involvement in childhood
education programs, has been studied as well. Overall, it has been found that the influential
variables that influence this phenomenon include parent marginalization, the role parents expect
to play, the types of intervention programs available, teacher and parent training, and the
relationships between parents, children and schools (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Collins, 1982;
Fagan, 2007; Epstein & Dauber, 1991).
Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria
To identify relevant, empirical literature available on the topic of parent participation in
education and academic achievement, EBSCOhost was used to access the following databases:
Academic Search Premier, Education Research Complete, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, and
PsycINFO. ProQuest database was used to access Dissertations & Theses. Finally, Google
Scholar databases were used to locate relevant literature. For the purpose of conducting this
literature review, the search phrases and terms used included; parent involvement in educat ion
participation, male parent engagement programs, father involvement in early childhood
education, Academic Fathership, Academic Fathership, academic achievement, Title I schools,
grade point average, achievement gap involvement, fathers and academic achievement. During
the search different combinations of the words and phrases were used as a starting point for the
11
search. As this search continued, results were narrowed by using combinations of the key
descriptive words.
Organization of the Review
The research in this literature review is organized in subheadings that are divided into the four
major themes that emerged from the literature. Following a brief discussion of Title, I and its
requirement efforts to encourage parent involvement. The four themes reported: a) low income
parent involvement in early childhood education, b) low income parent involvement programs,
c) low income father involvement in early childhood education, and d) low income father
involvement in early education programs are followed by the contextual framework, and
conceptual underpinnings of this study. Research centered on parent involvement is described in
the coming paragraphs. The construction and results of these studies are also outlined below.
Title I and Parent Involvement
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was passed into to law to
make sure that all children have fair and equal opportunities to obtain a quality education and
reach minimum proficiency as related to state academic achievement standards and assessments
(U.S. Department of Education (Pub.L. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. 6301), 2018). Additionally, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 requires schools to involve parents of public
and private school students in the development, implementation, and yearly review of school
programs for Title I students (U.S Department of Education, 2018). Furthermore, ESEA requires
that schools engage parents in regular communication that is meaningful and pertains to
academic learning and other school activities as states have some discretion in how their schools
use Title I funds, including establishing parent involvement programs (U.S. Department of
12
Education (Pub.L. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. 6301), 2018). For example, the parent involvement
requirements for schools and districts serving students through Title I in the State of Delaware
are: (1) a written parent involvement policy, (2) all policies must be jointly developed and agreed
upon with parents, and (3) all policies must be distributed to parents of participating, and (4) all
schools must complete school-parent contracts (known as compacts). After a school has
established a written, parent involvement policy, Title I schools must develop a school-parent
compact for all children participating in Title I, Part A activities, and programs (U.S. Department
of Education (Pub.L. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. 6301), 2018). These compacts are official written
agreements that clearly organize how parents, the school staff, and students will share the
responsibility for improved student academic achievement. This as a formal way in which the
school and parents can build and develop partnerships to help children achieve the high academic
standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Research has found evidence that when compacts are effectively utilized and
implemented, positive student outcomes result, such as higher academic achievement (U. S.
Department of Education, 2004). Moreover, schools with compacts had the highest levels of
family involvement in those activities in which parents were working directly with their children
(U. S. Department of Education, 2004). These activities included parents’ monitoring of
homework and reading with their children at home (Puma, Karweit, Price, Ricciuti, Th ompson,
& Vaden -Kiernan, M., 1997). In the Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational Growth
and Opportunity, research was conducted following the 1988 Hawkins-Stafford Amendments
(Puma et al., 1997) that examined the effects of Title I activities on student achievement and
other school related outcomes. Data were collected nationally during the academic school years
1991-1994 from students in the first, third, and seventh grades from a sample of 400 schools
13
(Puma et al., 1997). An interim report of this study stated that Title I, as it stood in 1991 and
1992, was not sufficient to close the gap in academic achievement between Title I students and
their more advantaged peers. In the time period covered by this study, the achievement gap
remained a problem. However, this study also concluded that some positive student outcomes
were associated with compacts and the consistent involvement of parents in supporting their
children in academic activities. Puma et al. (1997) further found that acros s all the schools,
nearly 30 percent of the principals considered compacts very helpful and significantly aided in
homework completion. (Puma et al., 1997). The U.S. Department of Education (2017) concurs
based on research conducted later. When Title I Principals rated the benefit of compacts in
achieving different types of school and family outcomes in a follow up survey, their responses
tended to differ by level of school poverty, schools with the highest poverty levels found
compacts most helpful. More specifically, in the schools with the highest poverty rates, 85% of
principals found Title I compacts helpful in supporting homework completion (Project
Appleseed, 2018).
Low Income Parental Involvement in Education
There is a considerable amount of research documenting the contributions of parent
involvement in education to positive student outcomes realized in 1) increased academic
achievement (Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Fan & Chen,; Fantuzzo, McWayne, Perry & Childs,
2004; Shaver & Walls, 1998); 2) students sense of wellbeing (Fan & Chen, 2001); and 3)
students school attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002). Research conducted by Dearing, Kreider,
Simpkins and Weiss (2006), examined the association of the level of family involvement with literacy
performance. Three specific questions were addressed for guiding this longitudinal study. The question
14
first asked in this research was, if the average involvement level of the family was associated with
average literacy performance for children in these families? The second being, was the average family
involvement level associated with changes in their children’s literacy performance, and third, were
changes in family involvement within-families associated with changes in literacy performance? The
focus of the investigation was on the interacting processes between family involvement and parent
education level. This was central to this study, mainly because answers to these three questions would
help identify the children of families who were most likely benefit from parent involvement intervention
efforts (Dearing, Kreider; Simpkins& Weiss (2006).
It was expected that there would be between family associations, between involvement and
literacy performance, and within family association between involvement and literacy performance.
Results would reveal a direction of influence leading from the involvement of the families to the literacy
performance of their children rather than from literacy performance to their involvement. The data used
in this investigation was gathered from an impact evaluation of one national comprehensive child
development program (CCDP) and from one follow up school transition study (STS). The CCDP
included 21 sites where a federally funded program provided quality preschool, education and job training
for parents in efforts to produce enhanced child development and increased economic stability for these
low-income families. Data was also gathered from the STS which was a follow up study designed to
explore the three sites of the CCDP. The three sites were purposely selected to obtain data from a diverse
population of low-income parent’s nationwide. The results of this research conducted revealed
associations, both between-family’s differences in school involvement, and within-families changes in
school involvement, had been associated with child literacy performance. This In addition to there being
an existing performance gap between families with mothers of high education level and families with
mothers of lower education levels, as related to literacy performance (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins &
Weiss 2006). When involvement was low this gap failed to exist when family involvement levels where
15
higher even if families of mothers of low education level. From this we can deduce that high levels of
involvement benefited children of the mothers of low education level.
Research conducted by Fan and Chen (2010) found some meaningful, but only small to moderate
relationships between parental involvement and academic achievement. Fan and Chen (2010) examined
quantitative evidence on the relationship between student academic achievement and parental
involvement. This research was conducted under the realization that a large proportion of amount of the
research in this area was non empirical. This research set out to examine the quantitative literature on
relationship between student academic achievement and parental involvement. This meta-analysis had
two guiding questions. The first question was what was the strength of the relationship between measured
parental involvement and academic achievement, and the second, what study features moderated effect on
the relationship between the measured parental involvement and their children’s academic achievement?
The focus was to identify more rigid associations among the studies examined, between parent
involvements and academic achievement while taking a closer look at effect size (Fan &Chen 2010).
Starting with review of over 2000 articles and narrowed down to several hundred that reported empirical
findings. Of the hundreds only 25 were selected for this meta-analysis as they met the criterion of being
those of which included Pearson correlations between achievement indicators and academic outcomes of
students. This research examined the five study features of; age, ethnicity, measure of academic
achievement, area of academic achievement and parental involvement dimensions that used General
Linear model analysis to assess the effect of each (Fan &Chen 2010). This research found the study
feature of academic achievement area, and parent involvement dimension to have strong moderating
effect on empirically identified relationship between parent’s involvement and students’ academic
achievement (Fan &Chen 2010). The achievement area results revealed that relationship was strong when
academic achievement was not represented in global indicator of academic achievement or school GPA.
(Fan &Chen 2010). As for the parent involvement dimension, the aspirations and goals and expectations
of parents had the strongest relationship to academic achievement (Fan &Chen 2010). This supports
16
other research finding that parents define their role as related to their personal responsibility as a parent
to contribute to the education of their child appears to establish the range of activities that parents believe
are, necessary, important on behalf of their children (Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 1997). This as a
parents’ sense of efficacy or ability to affect success by helping their children succeed by believing
through their involvement, they can exert a positive influence on their children’s educational outcomes
(Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 1997)
Low income Parental Involvement in Education Programs
Although the positive impact of parent–school involvement on achievement is widely
documented, the mechanisms through which this process occurs are less well understood (Comer
& Haynes, 1991; Hill& Craft, 2003).According to Comer and Haynes (1991), Parents can
contribute knowledge and insights that complement the professional skills of school
administrations and support staff in ways that can strengthen social programs. Bolivar and
Chrispeels (2011) research pointed to a similar conclusion after examining a leadership program
that was designed for Hispanic parents and attributing the success of the program to its
specificity. Low income parent involvement programs can be utilized to enhance parent leadership by
building social and intellectual capital. Bolivar and Chrispeels (2011) examined a 12-week parent
leadership program provided by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund operating in
four major U.S cities. This case study research was conducted at two elementary schools in the Los
Angeles Unified School District, which were both were implementing the program. There were 34
parent’s participants from one school and 23 from the other. Bolivar and Chrispeels (2011) hypothesized
that enhanced social and intellectual engagement would work together to cause the participants to act as a
collective as a result thus increase their access to resources needed to support their children's school
success that they may have not been aware of before this intervention. The research questions that guided
this case study were; in what ways did the program inform parents about how the school system works
and of their rights? The second was, in what ways did the parents interact in the leadership classes among
17
themselves and with the instructor and guest speakers, and third, what collective actions did the parents
engage in as a result of attending the classes? In efforts to triangulate, the data for this research was
gathered from observations of parent classes, reviewing program documents, and holding focus group
interviews. Participant empowerment spoke directly to the purpose of the program, which was the focus
of this study. This notion was supported as the participant groups were actively engaged in collectively in
educational advocacy. Results of this study detailed growth in the community's social and intellectual
capital as evidenced by the civic activity and the sustained organizations created by program graduates.
Likewise, when male parents took part in an empowerment-based intervention, it also showed marked
improvement in their beliefs about their abilities of parenting and teaching their children (Fagan &
Stevenson, 2002). The program enabled parents to engage in purposeful collective action. Existing since
1967 the long-term sustained groups reflect a degree of community organizing not typically associated
with parent education programs. The results of this program revealed the importance of
collaboration between families’ schools, and communities.
The Epstein model of partnership between family, school, and community has been the
leading focus of the field for the last few decades. According to Epstein and Dauber (1991),
families, schools, and communities have “overlapping spheres of influence” on student academic
and social development. Partnerships among these three spheres provide valuable support for
children and contribute to a holistic environment for child development. Epste in's five-part
typology of parent participation includes: type 1: parenting support; type 2: communication-
based involvement; type 3: parent involvement at school; type 4: parent involvement in learning
activities at home; type 5: collaborative parent involvement in governance and advocacy. Using
parent participation types, Epstein’s framework for parental involvement delineates the steps
schools should take to promote student success and the importance of “family friendly”
institutions (Epstein, 1995). An important implication in the conceptualization of this model is
18
that to increase parent involvement requires not only changing the behavior of parents, but
school personnel as well (Epstein, 1995). Similarly, the ecological perspective on parent
involvement described by Comer and Haynes (1991), demonstrated the benefits of programs
based on child development. Specifically, the goal of supporting positive relationships with
significant adults in the children’s lives while recognizing low income parent participation
initiatives should include parents in a wide variety of school activities and the broader context of
the education institution and that goals should be flexible and modify traditional involvement
programs where appropriate. Epstein (1986) identified seven principles that asked researchers
across disciplines to think in new ways about how to study structures, processes and results of
family and community involvement in education. These principles are: 1) recognizing parent
involvement as partnerships and the overlapping spheres of influence of family, community and
school; 2) recognize that partnership implies investment from all sides; 3) the partnership
between school, family and community are multidimensional; 4) view partnership as part of
school classroom organization; 5) recognize leadership as a multilevel need at district and state
level; 6) focus involvement on student success, acknowledge the need for equity in involvement;
and 7) advance knowledge with more and better study.
More recent research has pointed out that the traditional models of school-parent partnerships are
constructed around conventional assumptions about parental cooperation. Such programs must
recognize the diversity within the entire parent body and the broader needs, experiences, and
values of parents of lower socioeconomic status and/or color (Aurbach 2007). Despite the
challenges with low-income parent involvement, educators must remain cognizant of the reality
of economic disadvantages (McLoyd, 1998). Inequality of access to programs and educational
resources by different social classes has been widely identified, and schools have instituted
19
parent programs to address this issue. However, despite increased attention to the topic of low -
income parent involvement, few studies have focused on educators' practices of involving
parents in "difficult" or "disadvantaged" inner-city schools (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 201; Epstein
& Dauber, 1991). According to Kunjufu (2013), many low achieving schools harbor less
optimism than others and may subscribe to the cultural deficit model or belief there is something
wrong with disadvantaged students and parents, often neglecting their academic and cultural
strengths (Kunjufu, 2013). Studies have found that schools in more socioeconomically depressed
communities make more contacts with families about the problems and challenges students are
having. They also concluded that conditions of poverty and economic insecurity oftenundermine
involvement efforts, just as they often undermine the general parenting, and child health
development goals of early childhood programs (McAllister, Wilson & Burton, 2004).
The marginalized parent needs an alternative model of involvement, one that takes into
account their relationships with their children and with the school administration as conventional
methods of parent participation might not be the most efficient way to include these parents. In
one study, Delgato-Gaitan (1991) isolated Spanish-speaking parents and introduced culturally
relevant avenues of involvement, which both increased and enhanced their interactions with
school personnel. Compared to majority group parents, the parents of ethnically and
linguistically diverse students seem to be less involved in the education of their children but the
assumption that they care less or do not value academic achievement must not be made
(Delgado-Gaitan, 1991). Marginalized parents often face systematic isolation by educators from
participation in mainstream activities of parental involvement; yet whether this is a conscious
decision of the school or not, this does affect cyclical results. The more there is
miscommunication between low-income parents and school teachers and other staff, the more
20
hostility and eventual alienation lead to exclusion of participation in parent-child events
(Delgado-Gaitan, 1991; Epstein & Dauber, 1991). Creating a learning environment that is
academically nurturing for low-income African American students requires systemic changes in
the policies, practices, and organizational cultures of K-12 schools, as well as the institutions that
prepare teachers and educational practitioners (Payne & Brown, 2016). The relationship the
parent body has with the education system must be considered when attempting to introduce
programs for low-income parental involvement. The ideal partnership between parents and
educators is where parents and teachers are educated about the importance of their alliance
(Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). Researched intervention programs that are specifically designed
for involving the entire parent body was further highlighted by Epstein’s (1986) study of the
reactions of parents to their experiences with, and perceptions of the education system. Epstein
(1986) believes this consideration is important because parents believed the school could do
more to involve them in the education of their children, including improving basic
communication between teachers and parents and establishing formal programs that instruct
parents on how they can be involved (Epstein, 1986). Epstein concluded the differences in
whether parents are involved, believe they should be involved, and could be even more involved
suggests the necessity oforganizing programs and workshops for parent involvement. In addition
to recognizing the benefits of school-based workshops, some research has noted that program
oversight is critical (Epstein, 1986).
The research recounted above discussed the variables affecting the low-income parent
participation and involvement levels in the wider system of education. In the next section, of this
review there is a greater focus on specific aspects of low-income father involvement in education
21
and involvement programs, the variety of intervention methods, reported results, and measured
effectiveness.
Low Income Father Involvement in Education
According to Dubowitz, Lane, Greif, Jensen & Lamb (2006), the role of low-income
father’s involvement in education is widely conceptualized in a context of need due to the
evidence of positive academic outcomes associated with parents being involved in the education
process. Past research has consistently revealed the positive effects of parents participating in
school programs and how it leads to increased levels of student participation and general success
at school (Eccles & Harold, 1993; Smith & Brahce, 1962). However there seems to be a gap in
the literature as related to studies that have examined low-income Latino father involvement and
Low-income father involvement programs that have a direct focus on academic outcomes. Over
the last four decades there has been an increase overall in the study of low-income father-
involvement in early childhood, and with this, interest in the research focused on Latino fathers,
as Latinos have become the fastest growing minority group of the U.S (Campos, 2008). Other
recent literature on father involvement has focused on the quality of interactions and
involvement of the father over time, as well as the direct and indirect influences of
developmental processes, and the multifaceted nature of father involvement in education
(McAllister, Wilson & Burton, 2004; Hayes, O'Toole, & Halpenny, 2017). There has been
research conducted exploring Latino father involvement in early childhood education a mong
Latino children. However, according to Campos (2008), the present research is not sufficient as
several conceptual and methodological shortcomings have been revealed in this exploration of
Latino father involvement. For example, of the 220 father-involvement empirical studies
examined, only16 articles (7%) reported at least 25% of their samples were made of Latinos.
22
From these 16 articles, only eight reported having samples of at least 50% Latino participants.
These studies also have not explored things such as which involvement activities or what cultural
determinants of involvement unique to Latino father involvement with their (Campos, 2008). A
similar dearth of study can be identified in research conducted by the U.S. Department of Hea lth
and Human Services.
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) at the Administration for Children and Families, worked with
Mathematica Policy Research in conducting a disciplined inquiry into; impact studies,
implementation studies and descriptive studies of responsible fatherhood initiatives and related
family strengthening programs designed and provided specifically for low-income fathers.
These studies of various fathership programs were assigned ratings to studies that included
programs with participant outcomes (Administration for Children and Families, 2018). The
ratings reflected how well the research design determined the program caused the reported
outcomes. Those program studies designed well to determine the effects or impacts of the
program were rated high, program studies designed fairly to determine the effects or impacts of
the program were rated medium., program studies that were not designed that could not establish
whether the outcomes resulted from the program or from other factors received a rating of low.
There were 90 studies of 70 programs examined in this research. The reviews of these studies
were summarized in the profiles, which make up the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Catalog of Research: Programs for Low
Income Fathers (Administration for Children and Families, 2018). There were no Academic
Fathership programs included in this catalog as of the 90 studies reviewed, there were no studies
23
included that examined low-income father involvement initiatives designed for low-income
fathers to increase measurable academic outcomes of Title I elementary school children.
Low-income Father Involvement Early Education Programs
Now we focus this review from research on low-income father involvement in education to a
focus more on research on the programs that are provided to engage involve father in early
childhood education. Historically over time our understanding and operationalization of low-
income father involvement in education programs has changed (Lamb, 2008). With the 1962
publication of Michael Harrington’s The Other America, public awareness about the plight of the
nation’s low-income families had grown. At this time, societal concerns about the effects of
fatherlessness were coming to the forefront as social scientists also became much more interested
in examining father involvement (Lamb, 2008), as poverty and care for children in p overty
became the nation’s focus (Kalifeh, Cohen, & Grass, 2011). Following the assassination of John
F. Kennedy, and during the height of the Civil Rights Movement and the beginning of the
Johnson administration’s War on Poverty in 1964, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan released the
Moynihan Report in 1965 (Geary, 2015). This document was an extensive report on the low -
income black family that described a desperate scenario facing poor inner-city blacks, including
a legacy of problems stemming from slavery and perpetuated by structural elements of society
like segregation and institutionalized discrimination. The Moynihan Report focused on the
economic prospects of low-income American families and the need for government action to
improve the situation. Moynihan described a “Tangle of pathology” in the African American
family as a situation of disintegrating low income African American families with poor
educational outcomes (Geary, 2015). This report also purported to present the true picture of
problems facing low-income African American families. According to the report, the cause for
24
this standard was weakness in the structure of the African American family. Out of this report
came the depiction of the African American family as matriarchal with children abandoned by
fathers. The conservative reaction to this report was the portrayal of low-income African
American family as female headed, welfare dependent and abandoned by fathers as reflected in
mass media of the 1960’s and 70’s and 80’s (Verney, 2003). Inaccurate in actuality, this depiction
of the African American family overrepresented male parent abandonment of their children, too
often conflating out of wedlock childbirth with male parent abandonment as the two are not
synonymous. Stereotypical concepts of black men have sprung from a deep-rooted racist history
in American society wherein this lens renders black fathers missing (Moon, 2017).
As a result of the Johnson Administration’s War on Poverty in 1964, Congress passed
Titles I through VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Pub.L. 114-95, 20 U.S.C.
6301), which funded primary and secondary education. Title I specifically emphasizing equal
access to education for low income students, establishing higher standards and accountability
aimed at closing the achievement gaps between low income students and their counterparts (U.S.
Department of Education, 2017, in addition to the Economic Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 2981 et
seq.) passed in 1964 which provided for a reliable stream of funding for early child care
programs for low income families, most notably Project Head Start (Kalifeh, Cohen, & Grass,
2011). Today Head Start is the nation’s largest federal early childhood program for low-income
families. In 2004, the Office of Head Start (OHS) introduced Building for Father Involvement to
the Head Start community. This resource was designed and provided with the goal of improving
services for all program fathers and increasing father involvement in Head Start. In 2013, OHS
introduced the Head Start Father Engagement Birth to Five Programming Guide. This guide is
25
designed to increase and support father engagement in every part of the Head Start program as it
offers many ideas for implementing father engagement strategies across systems and services as
a feature of its School, Family, and Community Engagement Framework (Head Start, 2018).
As evidenced by Head Start, School, Family Community Partnership Framework Model
is widely adopted in the last three decades and is prominently used in parent involvement
research, policy and practice. Developed by Joyce L. Epstein (1995 of Johns Hopkins University,
the model redefines the relationship between schools, families, and communities in terms of the
overlapping spheres of influence and the sharing of concern about the success of the child. As a
framework for increasing parental engagement in education for low income families, the model
includes six types of low-income parent educational involvement and encourages schools and
program administrators to develop activities that engage schools, families and communities.
These six types programming involve parenting, communication, volunteering, learning at home,
decision making, and community engagement (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). The parenting; helping
low income fathers supports the basic responsibilities of parenting and helps fathers establish
home environments to support children as students, volunteering enabling educators to work
with volunteers to support their children as students, communication; program administrators use
effective forms of school to home communications about school programs and support children’s
progress as students, learning at home; supporting low income parent academic engagement with
their children at home, decision making; by including parents in school decision making,
developing parents as leaders and representatives, and finally community engagement; utilizing
resources and services from the wider community to compliment or supplement school
programs, healthy family needs, student learning and development(Epstein & Dauber, 1991).
26
Summary
This review of the literature has identified a considerable amount of large-scale research
exploring low income parent more specifically low-income father involvement education and
early education programs’ association with academic performance, cultural characteristics and
determinants of their involvement, as well as studies exploring why low-income parents become
involved as related to their perceived roles as parents. However, many studies have not focused
Latino fathers on average nor teachers' practices of involving parents or fathers in "difficult" or
"disadvantaged" inner-city schools (Campos, 2008; Epstein & Dauber, 1991). Also, there are
limited evaluation of Academic Fathership programs in addition to a dearth of studies examining
the attitudes of fathers after participation in these programs (Fagan & Iglesias 1999).
Introduction
The research on the vast topic of parental involvement and more specifically, father and
father figure involvement in childhood education programs illustrates both the necessity and the
success of these programs. The participation of parents in these programs depends on a host of
variables, most notably the relationship the parents, schools and communities. This and many
valuable research conclusions have been examined through the lens of the contextual framework
and conceptual underpinnings discussed below.
Contextual Framework
This framework is utilized in this research to propose and clarify relationships among the
variables of this study as well as to also provide a theoretical context for interpreting the findings
of this research. To that end, this research may advance ecological systems theory and the
literature on the subject of low-income male parents, as related to their participation in the
academic achievement of their Title I elementary school children.
27
The following paragraphs describe the five scientific considerations of Bioecological
Systems Theory as they relate to this study. Specifically described is how each of the five
conceptual components of Bioecological systems theory align and cooperate scientifically with
the five structural components of the Title I elementary school AFP of this study. The points at
which the five conceptual components of Bioecological Systems Theory align with specific
structural components of the AFP were identified by the researcher as: 1) the AFP itself is a
school based parent engagement program provided for the purpose connecting families with
schools; 2) the required onsite visits of the fathers to their child’s classroom during the school
day; 3) the designated age and grade levels of the student population for which this AFP is
designed; and 4) the AFP’s objective on linking fathers and teachers.
Microsystemic considerations. This research considers the specific microsystems of the
home and school of the Title I elementary students whose fathers participated in the AFP.
Specifically, it examines the effect that structured interactions between fathers and teachers as
uniquely significant adults in their respective microsystems will have on the academic
achievement of Title I elementary school children. A microsystem includes a patter n of role
activities and interpersonal relationships experienced by the developing child (Hayes, O'Toole, &
Halpenny, 2017). It is primarily comprised of the daily home, school, peer group, or community
environments that exert direct influence on the child, with the family being the most influential
(Hayes, O'Toole, & Halpenny, 2017). The AFP is optimally structured because it provides a
planned learning environment that promotes stability and consistency of efforts in this regard.
The AFP also facilitates structured, interactions between the school and family,
recognizing the father and teacher as persons who are uniquely significant adults of authority to
the child in their respective microsystems. The consideration of the family and school
28
microsystems align with the first structural component of this program in that the AFP itself is a
school-based parent engagement program provided for the purpose connecting parents with
schools. This study examines the effect that this microsystemic consideration will have on the
academic achievement of Title I elementary school children of this study.
Mesosystemic considerations. The mesosystem is described as system of two or more
microsystems (Hayes, O'Toole, & Halpenny, 2017). This research considers t he mesosystem
component of bioecological system in the structured interaction between the children’s home and
school as two or more microsystems. The consideration of the family and school mesosystems
aligns with the first structural component of this program in that the AFP itself is a school-based
parent engagement program provided for the purpose connecting families with schools. This
study examines the effect that this mesosystemic consideration will have on the academic
achievement of Title I elementary school children of this study.
Exosystemic considerations. This research considers the exosystemic influences of the
home and school of the Title I elementary students whose fathers participated in the AFP. It
examines the effect that routine communicative interactions have between fathers and teachers.
This as fathers and teachers share and exchange important (and even critical) information
germane to their respective microsystems that indirectly affects the child. The exosystem
includes parts of the child’s environment that are less visible or unseen but have a profound
influence on a child's development, even though that child is not a direct participant. (Hayes,
O'Toole & Halpenny, 2017).
Moreover, the exosystem specifically recognizes the presumed advantage of the
structured relay system of exosystemic information between father and teacher of the AFP. This
facilitates a new flow of information from teachers to fathers that may indirectly affect the child,
29
such as school policy, curriculum, or administrative issues. Likewise, a corresponding flow of
information from father to teacher may also indirectly affect the child, such as details regarding
employment issues or other home life issues or concerns. The consideration of the teacher and
father exosystems aligns with the first structural component of this program in that the AFP itself
is a school-based parent engagement program provided for the purpose connecting teachers with
fathers. This study examines the effect that this exosystemic consideration will have on the
academic achievement of Title I elementary school children of this study.
Chronosystemic considerations. This research considers the chronosystem as it
examines the relationship between father AFP participation and the academ ic achievement of
their Title I elementary children. The chronosystem recognizes influences of time in the context
of the three subsystems of bioecological systems theory identified as mesotime, microtime, and
macrotime. Microtime describes what is happening in a particular time of an interaction or
activity; mesotime refers to the extent to which the interactions and are consistent in the
environment of the developing child; and macrotime is the historical time in which the child
develops, all of which influences the nature and quality of the child’s experiences (Hayes,
O'Toole, & Halpenny, 2017).
The considerations of the chronosystem in this research aligns directly with the
bioecological theory’s three subsystems (microtime, mesotime, and macrotime) and the three
main structural components of this AFP. In this study, microtime is captured as the required
classroom visits of the father in which the father’s participatory activities and interactions take
place in microtime. Mesotime is reflected in the length of the program, which generally spans
each full academic school thereby creating consistency of these particular activities over the
duration of the marking periods in mesotime. Finally, macrotime is described by this research
30
based as the age and grade levels for whom the AFP is designed, which is aligns with the
developmental timeline for psycho–social development influencing the nature and quality of the
student experience during their father’s participation in the AFP. Furthermore, macr otime is
captured by the many Title I elementary school students that come from the local Head Start
early childhood education program. This program includes male parent engagement initiatives,
which the AFP builds upon to better facilitate male parent support during the six critical
transitions between grades pre-K to five in macrotime. Through these chronosystemic
considerations this study explores father AFP and the academic achievement of Title I
elementary school children
Conceptual Underpinnings of this Study
Bronfenbrenner’s 1979 Bioecological Systems theory is the primary theoretical
foundation and contextual framework used to guide this study. Through his framework this
research explored the relationship between low income male parent AFP participation and the
academic achievement of their Title I elementary school children. Also known as Human
Ecology Theory, Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems theory offersthis investigation needed
context, as it considers a child's development within five critical environmental context level
system which forms his or her environment. Further, it holds that all children encounter these
five environmental systems, identified as the microsystem, exosystem, mesosystem, macro
system and chronosystem, which influences their development and behavior (Hayes, O'Toole &
Halpenny, 2017).
31
Chapter Three
Methodology
Research Design
The purpose of this causal comparative study is to determine if there statistically
significant differences in reading and math proficiency scale scores, number of unexcused school
absent and tardy days, and the number of behavior referrals received among Title I elementary
school students of Low-income fathers before versus after their participation in the Academic
Fathership.
This causal-comparative study utilizes ex post facto data of Title I elementary school
students (N = 24) from the two marking periods of the 2016-2017 academic school year to
determine if the effect of the AFP on academic success measured by student academic
proficiency, number of school absences, and number of behavior referrals received. Using this
method for some surveyed programs, positive results are reported, such as reduced absenteeism,
higher' achievement scores, improved student behavior, and restored confidence and
participation among parents (Collins, 1982). Preexisting data on student reading and math scores,
number of unexcused absent and tardy days, and number of behavior referrals was collected,
prior to the implementation of the Academic Fathership intervention and was compared with
same data collected following the fathership intervention. In this way, the present study follows a
causal-comparative design in that it attempts to identify a causal effect of a particular
phenomenon on a group (Gay, 1987).
Participants
The participants of this study were low income fathers of elementary school children
drawn from one Title I elementary school, located in Delaware. During the 2016-2017 academic
32
school year, the elementary school’s enrollment consisted of 244 students, of whom 77.9 percent
were African American, 14.8 percent were Hispanic/Latino and 2.5 percent were White.
The participants of the present study were recruited from 67 low-income fathers or father
figures of elementary school children who enrolled to participate in a school based Academic
Fathership program. All program participants had children who attended kindergarten through
fifth grade. Program participants were informed of this study and given the opportunity to
participate in this study following the program orientation. The orientation was held on site at the
elementary school at the start of the second marking period of the academic school year. This
was done so the researcher could isolate the attendance, academic proficiency level scores, and
in school behavior of the children of these participating fathers and father figures needed to
answer the research questions of this investigation.
The participants of this study were composed of 24 Title I elementary school students;12
male, 12 female,1 Hispanic, and 22 African American in grades Pre -K to 5th. All participants
had low-income fathers and attended a Wilmington, Delaware Title I elementary school each
marking period of the 20162017 academic school year. Authorization to use the student data was
obtained from the Director of Accountability and Assessment for the school district. All father
and father figure participants whose children’s ex post facto data was used for this study signed
and returned the Consent to Participate in Research form indicating their consent. Table 1
provides a breakdown of the demographic information of the participants in the study.
Table 1.
Demographic Breakdown of Participants

Demographic Number
Number of Participants N=23
33
Gender
Male 12
Female 11
Ethnicity
African American 23
Caucasian
Hispanic 1
Asian
Year in School
Pre-K 4
K1 6
First Grade 3
Second Grade 4
Third Grade 5
Fourth Grade 1
Fifth Grade 0
Instrumentation
The ex post facto data used in this study was obtained through the Christina School District of
the State of Delaware. This school district is where the Title I elementary is located and where
the study was conducted. School districts in the State of Delaware use two main sources to
record and house this student data: The Data Service Center’s Referral Action Profile (RAP) and
the Eschool PLUS database. The Referral Action Profile (RAP) system documents behavior
referrals for all students. Eschool PLUS is the student information system districts utilize that
records and stores student demographic information such as age, grade level, gender, ethnicity,
marking period reading and math proficiency level scores, and daily attendance records. The
Elbert--Palmer Academic Fathership Program Participant Survey was used in this study to
34
obtain descriptive statistics of the male parent participants of the AFP. This survey was provided
by the Fathership Foundation, Inc., which is the social services agency that developed this
particular AFP and provides the program to this elementary school. The survey consisted of 10
questions about the male parent program participants. The survey included questions concerning
past Academic Fathership and education level as well as demographic information (e.g., age,
marital status), to identify descriptive traits of the low-income fathers participating in this AFP.
Procedure
The ex post facto data used for this study were collected at two points in time, in the months of
November (Time 1) and then again in late April (Time 2). A number of procedures were used to
recruit low-income fathers of Title I elementary school students. The researcher of the project 1)
distributed paper media informing parents of the study during drop-off and pickup, 2) met with
male parents following the AFP orientation inviting fathers to participate, and 3) contacted
parents who did not drop-off or pickup by telephone. The School administration and support
staff also helped to recruit families for the project. Fathers were informed of the study during
other school events.
Data Collection
The study utilizes a single unit of Title I elementary school children and their fathers or
father figures who participated in the AFP of a Title I elementary school as the sample.
Quantitative data was collected on the students prior to the intervention and following the
intervention. The quantitative differences identified in expected outcomes at the post-
intervention time point represent the effect of the AFP intervention on low income student
academic achievement.
35
The present study utilizes ex-post facto data obtained from the Christina School District
on the math and reading proficiency, and behavior referral and attendance records of Elbert-
Palmer Elementary School students for the academic school year 2016-2017. This intervention
was conducted in one interval. The intervention began on January 3, 2016 and ended on June15,
2017. Although this intervention was conducted in one interval, the data was collected in two
episodes. The first episode was the collection of student math and reading proficiency levels,
number of school absences, and number of behavior referrals prior to the AFP intervention. The
second episode was the collection of male parent demographic data pulled from program
enrollment records and from the data points of AFP participant survey, including male parent
age, marital status, level of education, employment status, number of children attending school,
parental transportation of student to school, living distance from student, and if male parent
attended the parent teacher conference prior to the intervention. The third episode was the second
collection of student math and reading proficiency levels, number of school absences, and
number of behavior referrals. The data was obtained with permission from the administration of
Elbert- Palmer Elementary School and is not associated with any student identification in order
to maintain confidentiality. Appropriate measures were taken to obtain informed consent from all
participants, as all participant fathers and father figures were required to complete and sign
participant consent forms to be a part of this study. For security and confidentiality reasons all
data collected was stored in the principal investigator’s computer and secured with a password.
Data will be deleted at the conclusion of this study.
Community Site
This research was conducted at the Elbert--Palmer Elementary school which is located in
the South Wilmington residential area of Southbridge. This is the area of Wilmington Delaware
36
reaching from the Christina River to the City of Wilmington boundary (east) and from the City of
Wilmington boundary (south) to the Christina River (City of Wilmington, 2018). Elbert-Palmer
Elementary school is one Tittle I elementary school of the Christina School District located in
Wilmington Delaware (City of Wilmington, 2018).
In the 1870’s the ethnic origin of the Southbridge community began to shift from Irish to
Eastern European, this as the percentage of African-Americans in Southbridge remained steady
at 20 % to 25 %. African Union Church, the first independent African-American church in the
United States was established in Southbridge in 1812 (City of Wilmington, 2018). The African-
American population swelled in the late 1890s reaching its’ peak of 5,560 by the year 1900.
During the time period from 1927 to 1940, marked a peak in industrial activity in Southbridge, as
during this time Southbridge become entirely dependent on manufacturing for its economy.
During the post-World War II period, industry began to decline in Southbridge and the
neighborhood lost much of this economic base by the 1990s (City of Wilmington 2018).
Southbridge remains one of the few urban areas untouched by urban renewal in Delaware. Much
of the small-scale, two-story brick rowhomes remain. The majority of South Wilmington is
located within the floodplain, necessitating the adherence to special floodplain regulations (City
of Wilmington, 2018).The older developments existing in South Wilmington are not subject to
floodplain code requirements, and many not tie directly into the sewer/storm water system,
contributing to flooding problems (City of Wilmington, 2018).Since 2008 the City of
Wilmington has been exploring a central open space/storm water management system to remedy
the flooding problems in Southbridge. There have been decades of planning to develop system
designed to reduce combined sewer system input and enhance the existing wetland and flood
protection (City of Wilmington, 2018). Most of the public housing was originally built after
37
WWII for returning veterans. Renovated with state-of-the-art energy conservation measures, the
Wilmington Housing Authority provides 180 subsidized housing units in the Southbridge
community (Wilmington Housing Authority, 2018).
Southbridge has population of 1,192 (Bureau, 2018). Over seventy eight percent of the
families that live here are African American, 100% of which live below poverty level (Bureau,
2018). The median household income of Southbridge residents is 22,429 (Bureau, 2018). Nearly
five percent of this population is unemployed with 38.5% not in the labor force (Bureau, 2018).
Payne & Brown (2016), found employment opportunities to be limited for most residents
surveyed in the Eastside and Southbridge neighborhoods of Wilmington. Approximately 64% of
study participants were unemployed, 54% of whom were actively looking for work. Sixty-eight
percent of men surveyed also reported being unemployed (Payne & Brown, 2016).
According to the U.S Census Bureau census data reported in 2010, 2.3% of the
population had under a 9 th grade education, and 36% did not earn a high school diploma (Bureau,
2018). In 2010, Dr. Yasser Payne of the University of Delaware, conducted a qualitative and
quantitative ethnographic study to explore the link between structural violence and crime in
Wilmington, Delaware. The research utilized a survey sample of 520 Wilmington African
American men and women between, ages of 18 and 35, who are mostly street-identified and/or
had some involvement with the criminal justice system (Payne,2016). At the time of the study,
64% of participants lived on the Eastside, while about 23% resided in the Southbridge
community. There were 44% of this study sample who reported completing high school, the
majority (41.4%) reported dropping out of high school before graduating. There was 59% of this
study sample who reported that their fathers did not graduate from high school (40.6%), or that
they were unaware of their father’s level of educational attainment (18.6%). According to Payne
38
(2013), there was a 60% dropout rate for African American youth of Wilmington and a 65%
dropout rate for African American males. It was also found that there were consecutive years in
which no African American males residing in Southbridge graduated from high school (Payne &
Brown, 2013).
According to the Wilmington Education Improvement Commission (2018), many of
Wilmington children, most African American, or Latino, do not have access to high-quality
public education. As evidenced by most relative outcomes such as; truancy, graduation rates,
college attendance, socioemotional wellbeing, drug use, homelessness, and unemployment
(Wilmington Education Improvement Commission 2018). Considering these historic challenges,
in 2015 the Wilmington Education Improvement Commission (WEIC) was established by state
law HB148 to advise the Governor and General Assembly on concerns of the public and
improvements to the quality and availability of education for children in Pre-K through grade 12
in the City of Wilmington and New Castle County (Wilmington Education Improvement
Commission2018). The Wilmington Education Improvement Commission represents a cross-
section of the Wilmington community and focuses on long-term best interests of Wilmington’s
students while working to address the needs of all Delaware schools with high concentrations of
poor children and English language learners (ELLs) (Christina School District, 2018).The
Wilmington Education Improvement Commission is mandated to work across government
officials, educational entities, and private and nonprofit institutions to support the
implementation of all recommended policies and actions to promote the continuous improvement
of public education (Christina School District, 2018). The Wilmington Education Improvement
Commission has recommended redistricting measures be taken by the State Board of Education
organizing the four area school districts into two to meet the needs of low-income students.
39
Reform efforts date back four decades following the court ordered desegregation of Delaware
schools. It is black or Latino low-income public and charter school students, who still have
educational outcomes far below non-minority students across the county and across the state
(Rodel Foundation of Delaware, 2018). The Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System’s
(DCAS) results confirm that the majority of low-income students living in the City of
Wilmington are not proficient in English Language Arts and Math (Rodel Foundation, 2018).
According to the Wilmington Education Improvement Commission (2018),Strengthening
Wilmington education public education system requires funding adjustments in; allocation of
funds to schools with high concentrations of students in poverty, (2) an improved revenue base to
support the overall costs of public education, (3) transitional resources to effectively implement
district realignment, and (4) funds for early childhood and other programs needed to meet the
needs of low-income students.
The Parent Advocacy Council for Education Network of Wilmington Delaware or
(PACE) was established in 2013. This grassroots organization was formed by concerned
community leaders and parents to advocate for equal access to quality education and effective
education in schools and educational spaces that serve students of Wilmington Delaware (Parent
Advocacy Council for Education, 2018). Parent Advocacy Council for Education is organized to
be a unified voice for low income parents of the community on behalf of their children, in
addition to raising awareness for community parents as related to effective participation in the
public education system while cultivating understanding of education and policy. T he Parent
Advocacy Council for Education provides a yearly workshop series located at the Christina
Cultural Arts Center, here connecting its members and parents to opportunities to participate in
school governance and policymaking at local, state, and federal levels. According to Parent
40
Advocacy Council for Education (2018), Parent Advocacy Council for Education members come
together to as a unified voice of the community for educational equality, and access educational
opportunity for low-income students of Wilmington (Parent Advocacy Council for Education,
(2018).
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel and SPSS, a data analytics software
program. A paired samples t-test was conducted in order to determine the effect of the of male
parent participation in the Academic Fathership program on student reading and math
proficiency scores, school day attendance, and number of behavior referrals. A paired t-test is
utilized since the data points collected in first sample dictate the data points to be collected in the
second sample, and therefore is applicable for use when comparing results pre and post
treatment. The paired samples t-test was conducted at 5% level of significance (α = 0.05).
Descriptive statistics were conducted to quantify the demographic data. Specifically, frequencies
and measures of central tendency (means, standard deviations, and ranges) were conducted in
order to identify sample characteristics.
Validity
There are two common weaknesses in causal-comparative research. They are the inability
to manipulate an independent variable and lack of randomization (McMillan, 2000). A major
threat to the internal validity of a causal-comparative studies is the possibility of a subject
selection bias, however researchers can reduce this threat by include matching subjects on a
related variable or creating homogeneous subgroups, and the technique of statistical matching
(McMillan, 2000). Other threats to internal validity in causal-comparative studies may include
location, instrumentation, and sample shrinkage (McMillan, 2000). Aside from the threats to
41
internal validity, the present study demonstrates limitations to generalizability as well.
Specifically, the sample utilized by this study included only fathers of children attending a
specific elementary school located in Wilmington, Delaware (Will discuss limitations related to
age, race, and socioeconomic status of fathers in the study). Therefore, results may not be
generalizable to the Elbert- Palmer Academic Fathership program as administered to fathers of
other Title I Elementary schools.
Chapter Four
Results
Introduction
The purpose of this causal comparative study is to determine if there statistically
significant differences in reading and math proficiency scale scores, number of unexcused
school absent and tardy days, and the number of behavior referrals received among Title I
elementary school students of low-income fathers before versus after their participation in the
Academic Fathership Program. As a means to this end, my study identified if there were
statistically significant differences in the math and reading proficiency scale scores, number of
school absences, and number of behavior referrals received by 23 Title I elementary school
students of low-income fathers participating in a school-based AFP ante et post-program
participation.
It is generally unknown if male parent participation in academic fathership programs
increases, decreases, or has no effect on Title I elementary school student reading and math
proficiency, and related factors, such as attendance and disciplinary referrals. To determine this,
ex post facto student academic achievement data was obtained for the 23 Title I elementary
school students of low-income fathers from the first marking period of the 2016-2017 academic
42
school year during which male parents did not participate in the AFP and was compared to the
second marking period of the 2016-2017 academic school year in which male parents did
participate in this AFP. This ex post facto data student achievement data contained; reading
proficiency level, math proficiency level, school day attendance, school day tardiness, and in
school behavior. Reading and math proficiency scale scores from assessments administered in
November 2016 were compared to reading and math scale scores of May 2017, the total number
of accumulated unexcused absences and tardy school days recorded from September 2016 to
November 2016 was compared to the total number of accumulated unexcused absences and
tardy school days recorded from November 2016 to April 2017, and the total number of
accumulated behavior referrals received before January 2016 was compared t he total number of
accumulated behavior referrals received After January 2017. To analyze this data, a paired -
samples t-test was conducted, so that statistical significance, with p < .05, could be determined
by testing for differences in the reading and math proficiency scale scores, the number of days
absent and tardy and number of behavior referrals received by this sample of Title I children of
low income fathers who participated in the AFP.
In this chapter, the results of the statistical analysis of this study are reported. The
chapter begins by examining the reading and math proficiency scale scores of the Title I
elementary school students of low-income fathers, next examines the absences and tardy school
days accumulated by the students and finally examines the number of behavior referrals
accumulated. The statistical differences identified across these variables gave answer to the
research question of this investigation.
Research Question 1
43
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the math proficiency scale scores of
no father AFP participation and math proficiency scale scores with father AFP participation. The
data on math proficiency included in Tables 2 and 3 show that there was a statistically
significant difference in the math proficiency scale scores of the group of participants before
father AFP participation versus after father AFP participation. Table 2 presents descriptive
statistics math proficiency both before father AFP participation and after father AFP
participation. The mean math proficiency before father AFP participation (M =384.31, SD
=23.914) was lower than the mean with father AFP participation (M =394.17, SD =31.109).
Table 3 contains the one-samples t-test results of math proficiency before father AFP and
math proficiency with father AFP participation. A paired-samples t-test was run to determine
whether there was a statistically significant difference between the math proficiency of the
students before father AFP participation and with father AFP participation. The results of the
analysis showed there was a statistically significant difference of the math proficiency before
father AFP participation versus with father AFP participation. Results for the math proficiency
before father AFP participation and math proficiency with father AFP participation t (11) =
2.862, p = .029, which indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in
student math proficiency before father AFP participation versus after.
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics Math before AFP Participation vs. After Participation
No Participation Participation
Valid 13 12
N
Missing 10 11
Mean 384.31 394.17
Median 381.00 385.50
Std.
23.914 31.109
Deviation
44
Range 68 96
Minimum 348 349
Maximum 416 445
25 366.00 374.50
Percentiles 50 381.00 385.50
75 411.00 425.25
Table 3.
Results of t-test Before AFP participation vs. After AFP Participation
t df Sig Mean 95% Confidence

(2tailed) Difference Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Math 2.862 6 .029 9.86 69.9555.474

Proficiency
Research Question 2
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the reading proficiency scale scores of
no father AFP participation and reading proficiency scale scores after father AFP participation.
The data on reading proficiency included in Tables 4 and 5 show that there was a statistically
significant difference in the reading proficiency scale scores of the group of participants before
father AFP participation versus after father AFP participation. Table 4 presents the means and
standard deviations (SD) for reading proficiency both before father AFP participation and after
father AFP participation. The mean reading proficiency after father AFP participation
(M=403.23, SD =55.056) was lower than the mean before father AFP participation (M =407.50,
SD =35.205). Also, there was less variance in the reading proficiency of the students after father
AFP participation as compared to before father AFP participation indicating a stronger
relationship between this result and the dependent variable.
45
Table 5 contains the paired-samples t-test results of reading proficiency before father
AFP and math proficiency after father AFP participation. A paired-sample t-test was run to
determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between the reading
proficiency of the students before father AFP participation and after father AFP participation.
The results of the analysis showed there was a statistically significant difference of the reading
proficiency before father AFP participation versus after father AFP participation. Results for the
reading proficiency before father AFP participation and math proficiency after father AFP
participation t (11) =, p = .004 indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in
student reading proficiency before father AFP participation versus after.
Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics Reading Before participation vs. After Participation
No
Participation
Participation
Valid 13 12
N
Missing 10 11
Mean 403.23 407.50
Median 402.00 410.50
Std. Deviation 55.056 35.205
Range 169 152
Minimum 319 330
Maximum 488 482
25 366.50 393.50
Percentiles 50 402.00 410.50
75 459.50 424.00
Table 5.
Results of t-test Reading Proficiency before AFP participation vs. After AFP Participation
46
Difference
Lower Upper
Reading 4.461 6 .004 4.27 88.26725.733

Proficiency
Research Question 3
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the unexcused absences before father
AFP participation and unexcused absences after father AFP participation. The data on
attendance after no father AFP participation showed there was not a statistically sig nificant
difference in the number of accumulated unexcused absences before father AFP participation
and accumulated unexcused absences after father AFP participation. Table 6 presents the means
and standard deviations (SD) for attendance both before father AFP participation and after father
AFP participation. The mean number of absences before father AFP participation (M =3.4667,
SD = 2.94877) was higher than the mean number of absences after father AFP Participation (M
=1.8889, SD =1.36423). On average, students missed fewer days after father AFP participation
versus before. Before father AFP participation, the number of absences ranged from 114, which
was a significantly larger range of absences than the after fathers AFP participation range of 13,
there was less variance in the number of days missed after father AFP participation and more
dispersion before father AFP participation.
Table 7 contains the paired-samples t-test results for the number of accumulated
unexcused absences accumulated before father AFP participation versus after father AFP
participation. A pared-samples t-test was run to determine whether there was a statistically
significant different in the number of unexcused absences accumulated by the students before
47
father AFP participation and after father AFP participation. The results of the analysis showed
there was not a statistically significant difference of the number of accumulated absences before
father AFP participation and after father AFP participation. Results for analysis of number of
unexcused absent days before father AFP participation and father AFP participation was t (17) =,
p = .067, which indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference in student
unexcused absent days before father AFP participation versus after.
Table 6.
Descriptive Statistics Unexcused Absent Days before vs. After AFP Participation
No Participation Participation
Valid 15 9
N
Missing 8 14
Mean 3.4667 1.8889
Median 3.0000 1.0000
Range 10.00 4.00
Minimum 1.00 1.00
Maximum 11.00 5.00
25 1.0000 1.0000
Percentiles 50 3.0000 1.0000
75 5.0000 2.5000
Table 7.
Results of t-test Unexcused Absences before AFP participation vs. After AFP Participation

Difference
Lower Upper
Unexcused 2.114 8 .0 67 .201764.64620

Absences
Research Question 4
48
The data on unexcused tardiness after AFP participation showed there was a statistically
significant difference in the number of accumulated unexcused tardy days before AFP
participation and accumulated tardy absences after father AFP participation. Table 8 presents
the means and standard deviations (SD) for tardy days both before father AFP participation and
after father AFP participation. The mean number of tardy days before any AFP participation(M
=7.3500, SD =4.91266was higher than the mean number of tardy days after AFP Participation
(M =2.5882, SD =1.27764). On average, students had fewer days tardy after AFP participation.
The number of days tardy after no AFP participation ranged from 114 days tardy, which was a
significantly larger range of days tardy than after AFP participation ranging from 16 days tardy.
Table 9 contains the paired-samples t-test results for the number of accumulated
unexcused tardy days accumulated before AFP participation versus after AFP participation. A
paired-sample t-test was run to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference
in the number of unexcused tardy days accumulated by the students before father AFP
participation and after AFP participation. The results of the analysis showed there was a
statistically significant difference of the number of accumulated tardy days before father AFP
participation and after AFP participation. Results for analysis of number of unexcused tardy
days before AFP participation and father AFP participation was t (12) = 4.785, p = .000 which
indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in student unexcused tardy days
before father AFP participation versus after participation.
49
Table 8.
Descriptive Statistics Unexcused Tardy Days before vs. After Participation
Participation No Participation
Valid 17 20
N
Missing 6 3
Mean 2.5882 7.3500
Median 3.0000 7.0000
Range 4.00 19.00
Minimum 1.00 1.00
Maximum 5.00 20.00
25 1.0000 4.0000
Percentiles 50 3.0000 7.0000
75 3.5000 10.7500
Table 9.
Results of t-test Unexcused days Tardy Before participation vs. After Participation

Difference
Lower Upper
Unexcused Days 4.785 12 .000 4.7 8.7149823.28502

Tardy
Behavior of Students
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the number of behavioral referrals
received by students after no father AFP participation and the number of behavioral referrals
received after father AFP participation. The data in Tables 10 and 11 included the descriptive
and inferential statistics for the number of behavior referrals received both before father AFP
participation and after father AFP participation for the students in this study. Overall, the
50
number of behavior referrals received by the students after and before father AFP participation
was extremely low. Out of the father’s 23 students included in the study, 14 of the students
received zero referrals before father AFP participation and after father AFP participation.
During the study, the mean number of referrals received before father AFP Participation was
M=2.89 (SD = 3.257) and after father AFP participation the mean number of referrals was
M=4.44 (SD= 4.333).
Table 10 shows the paired sample t-test results of before father AFP participation and
after father AFP participation behavior referrals. The t-test results for the number of behavior
referrals shows there was not a statistically significant difference of the number of referrals
received after and before student father AFP participation. Results of the analysis of number of
behavioral referrals before father AFP participation and father AFP participation was t (8) =
1.556, p = .385, which indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference in student
behavioral referrals before father AFP participation versus after.
Table 10.
Descriptive Statistics Behavior before AFP participation vs. After AFP Participation
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

No father AFP 9 2.89 3.257 1.086
Participation
Father AFP 9 4.44 4.333 1.444
Participation
Table 11.
Results of t-test Behavior before Father AFP participation vs. After Father AFP Participation
51
Difference
Lower Upper
Behavior .919 8 .385 1.57 5.4582.347
Summary
Chapter Four reviewed and reported the descriptive and inferential statistics generated by
the data analysis of this investigation. Findings were positive regarding math and reading
proficiency, and number of unexcused tardy days accumulated after father AFP participation
compared to before father AFP participation. As there were statistically significant differences
across the dependent variables of this study except for the dependent variables of Unexcused
absent days and number of behavior referrals received.
Chapter Five discusses these findings and provides recommendations based on the
results. Chapter Five also provides limitations of this study, and information on continued
research on the relationship between academic achievement and Academic Fathership program
participation.
52
Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
This causal comparative study examined the differences between stude nt academic achievement
after father AFP participation and before father AFP participation in one Title I elementary
school. The investigation endeavored to identify statistically significant differences greater than
zero in reading and math proficiency scale scores, number of accumulated unexcused tardy and
absent schooldays, and number or behavior referrals received by the children of 23 low income
fathers of Title I elementary school students ante et post father AFP participation.
This chapter is organized to briefly review the findings presented in Chapter Four,
discusses the data and findings produced by this study after in the context of the ELCC
standards, and its theoretical framework of this study, and this study’s connections to the
literature reviewed prior to conducting this study. This chapter also briefly discusses limitations
of this study and the implications the findings of this study have for practice and policy. Finally,
this chapter ends after recommendations for further research.
Summary of Research Findings
The purpose of this causal comparative study is to determine if there were statistically
significant differences in the reading and math proficiency scale scores, number of unexcused
days tardy and absent, and number of behavior referrals received by Title I elementary school
students before and after father participation in the school AFP. This casual comparative study
employed repeated measures research design to determine to what extent male parent
participation in the AFP impacted the academic achievement of a target population of Title I
53
students five to 10 years old, in Pre-k to 5th grade, and of low-income participant fathers and
father figures. The broader purpose of this study is to provide relevant data to school-based
enrichment program and initiatives using an Academic Fathership program model. This data
offers a new perspective for community stakeholders and low-income fathers as it relates to the
academic success of their children as the participants for this study were recruited from the
fathers and father figures participating in the AFP held at this Title I elementary school.
This AFP is a comprehensive male parent engagement program provided by the Title I
elementary school that began in January of the second marking period of the academic school
year and ended in June during the last week of the academic school year. At this time the student
data on reading and math proficiency, attendance, and behavior of the students of the fathers
who participated in the AFP was obtained from the school district in which this Title I
elementary school is located. This student data was then analyzed using repeated measures
statistical analysis. To analyze this data, a paired-samples t-test was conducted, so that statistical
significance, after< .05, could be determined by testing for differences in the student data
collected on each of the five data points before and after father AFP participation.
Research Questions
1. Is there a statistically significant difference in the reading proficiency scale
scores received by Title I elementary school students before versus after
participation in a school Academic Fathership program?
2. Is there a statistically significant difference in the math proficiency scale scores
54
3. Is there a statistically significant difference in unexcused absences received by
4. Is there a statistically significant differences in unexcused tardy days received by
5. Is there a statistically significant difference in the number of behavior referrals
The analysis of the data in this study determined that there were statistically significant
differences in the reading and math proficiency scale scores, the number of unexcused school
absences and tardy days accumulated, and the number of behavior referrals received by the
children of low-income fathers after father AFP participation versus before.
Math Proficiency
After father AFP participation, the mean math proficiency scale score of the children of low-
income fathers was 394.17 with a standard deviation of 31.109. When the fathers were not
participating in the AFP, the mean math proficiency scale score was 384.31 and the standard
deviation was 23.914.
Reading Proficiency
After father AFP participation, the mean reading proficiency scale score of the children of low-
income fathers was 407.50 and the standard deviation was 35.205. When the fathers were not
55
participating in the AFP, the mean reading proficiency scale score was 403.23 and the standard
deviation was 55.056.
Attendance
After father AFP’s participation, the mean number of unexcused absences accumulated
was1.8889, with a standard deviation of 1.36423, and before the father participating in the AFP,
the mean number of accumulated unexcused absences was 3.4667, with a standard deviation
of unexcused absences after a standard deviation of 2.94877.Before the father participating in
the AFP The mean number of unexcused tardy days accumulated was7.3500, with a standard
deviation of 4.91266, and after the father participating in the AFP the mean number of
unexcused tardy days accumulated was 2.5882 days tardy with a standard deviation of 1.27764.
Behavior
Finally, the mean number of behavior referrals received before father AFP participation was 2.89
after a standard deviation 3.257 of and after father AFP participation the mean number of
referrals was 4.44 after a standard deviation of 4.333. This outcome was not expected. After
further investigation, it was found that of the nine students who received behavior referrals
during father AFP participation, there were three students who received 50% of all behavioral
referrals accumulated. It was also found that all three students were children of the same
participant father and family. It was also revealed that this family had become homeless during
the father’s participation in the AFP.
56
Conclusion
Overall this study revealed that father participation in the AFP seemed to be associated
with the most positive and significant differences in academic achievement for fathers and their
children. That is, students of low-income fathers attending this Title I elementary school seemed
to benefit from father AFP participation. As pointed out in Chapter Two, research included in
this study gives evidence to support the relationship between parent involvements in the early
childhood education of their children, the social competencies they acquire over time, and their
academic achievement in school (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 Epstein, 1986; McBride, Dyer &
Laxman, 2013; Smith & Brahce, 1962; Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, Whetsel & Green, 2004).
Research surveyed prior to this investigation identified that the traditional models of school-
parent partnerships are constructed around the conventional assumption of parental cooperation
and must instead recognize the variety of the parent body and the broader needs, experiences
and values of parents of lower socioeconomic status (Aurbach, 2007). Prior research also
reported that when fathers have a positive attitude and understanding about programs, their
attendance levels were positively influenced. The fathers that actively participated in a Head
Start program AFP, for example, seemed to value their involvement (Palm & Fagan, 2008).
Programs surveyed also reported positive results, such as reduced absenteeism, increased
academic achievement, improved school behavior, and restored confidence and participation
among parents (Collins, 1982).
Father participation in the AFP (which was part of this study) consisted of fathers
making scheduled visits to their child’s classroom during the school day and attendance at
monthly child development workshops conducted in the evening. Participants received awards
and rewards in
57
the form of restaurant and local trampoline park outings as incentives for participation AFP.
Father participation in this AFP supported previous research that showed that when fathers have
a positive attitude and understanding about the program, their attendance levels are influenced.
The fathers that actively participated in a Head Start AFP program, for example, seemed to value
their involvement (Palm & Fagan, 2008). In fact, fathers who became highly involved in the
program made the greatest progress in interactions after their children and this even affected the
academic achievements and changes in the behavior of the children (Fagan & Iglesias, 1999).
This was supported by the final program participation outcomes reported for this AFP. As it was
reported in the final report of this program, the son of the father who was recognized as the most
involved participating father, received the Title I elementary schools Student of the Month
Award during the final month of the program. Records show this father attended six AFP
workshops held after school and visited his son’s classroom a total of 13 times during the school
day. This particular outcome in addition to the strengths, quality, and consistency of evidence in
the findings of this study regarding math and reading proficiency, attendance and behavior,
reflect the relationship between male parent AFP participation and the academic achievement of
their Title I Elementary School Children. It also reflects the importance of alliances between
schools, teachers, and fathers.
From a balcony view through the theoretical lens of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
systems model, this research identified specific healthy interactions between the social units of
the nested structures embedded in the child’s microsystems such as the interactions created
between male parents, and elementary schools’ teachers of their children during father AFP
Participation that impact student achievement outcomes.
58
The ecological systems model of Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979), outlined five critical
overlapping spheres of influence in a child’s life and the extensive effects environmental
systems have on all areas of development. They are the microsystem, mesosystem exosystemic,
macro system, and the chronosystem. The father AFP participation examined in this study
manipulated the microsystemic sphere of influence by facilitating critical interactions between
fathers and teachers, both who are identified as significant adults in their respective
microsystems (school and home) who may seldom interact. Father AFP participation
manipulated the function of the mesosystem, by facilitating greater engagement and nuanced
communications between the home and school microsystems. Father AFP participation
manipulated the exosystemic considerations of this model by opening direct communication
between father and teacher or father and school, for the exchange of exosystemic information or
the information helpful to the differing microsystems that may affect students indirectly. Such
examples are a father’s work schedule or homework assistance availability, or a teacher’s missed
homework policy or school district curriculum changes. Three structural components of the AFP
program itself aligned after the chronosystemic considerations of this theoretical model
constituted at three levels: microtime, mesotime, and macrotime. These specific structural
components of the AFP were identified by the researcher were: (1) the required scheduling and
onsite visits of the fathers to their child’s classroom during the school day;(2) the required
attendance at monthly AFP workshops; (3) the designated age and grade levels of the student
population for which this AFP is designed; and (4) the program objective of shifting
expectancies in wider culture as related to Academic Fathership (See appendix D).
59
Limitations and Generalizability
The scope of this study was limited as it applies to Title I elementary school students, of
which 99% were African American low-income fathers of children between the ages of four and
ten. As a result, the generalizability of the findings may be limited. However, the results of this
study could apply to schools that have similar demographics and students from similar cultural,
racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Limited sample size and sample shrinkage were also
limitations to this study. Unfortunately, this study did not include a control group to compare to
its treatment group and concluded after a sample smaller than that at its beginning. There was a
total of 30 participant Title I elementary students of low-income fathers at the start of the study.
However, there were only 23 for which data was available from the school district. Of the 23 of
whom data was obtained only 12 students had taken certain standardized math and reading
assessment at times relative to the collection of data pertinent to the study. As reading and Math
assessments were conducted in November, January, and May. Because the May standardized
reading and math assessments were optional, 11 participating students opted out of the May
standardized reading and math assessments. Also because of sample shrinkage there was no 5th
grade student data to be analyzed from the final sample even though there were 5 th grade
participants.
Implications for Policy, Practice, and Action
As stated in Chapter One, this research was based on Council for the Accreditation of
Educator Preparation (CAEP) and the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC)
standards. This study addressed Standard 1.3 by collecting and using data to identify
organizational objectives, assess organizational effectiveness, and the administration of
60
organizational plans to achieve goals (National Policy Board for Educational Administration,
2018). This study provides school districts after the data needed to inform district decisions and
policy regarding existing male parent engagement programs and initiatives, as well as decisions
made in the best interest of the schools and student families. This study also addressed standard
4.2 by organizing of needed community resources and by promoting a better understanding,
appreciation, and use of diverse cultural, social, and intellectual community resources. (Council
for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2018). Considering this, the results of this study
should be shared after various stakeholders, including civic and political leadership school
district administrators, fathers, families, and students regarding the positive impact of father AFP
participation on the academic achievement of the Title I elementary school children. As
previously noted, many administrators and teachers would like to involve families, however a
great portion do not know how to go about assembling positive and productive programs and are
consequently fearful about trying. This creates a typical situation that has been described by
researchers as a rhetoric rut, in which educators are confined to communicating support for
partnerships before taking any action (Epstein, 1995).
The consistency in the evidence of the findings of this study supported the prior finding
of a 2015 meta-analysis by William Jeynes (2016), suggesting there is a positive relationship
found between paternal parental involvement and student achievement needed for present future
academic success. Moreover, the relationship between father AFP participation and academic
achievement that was determined by the statistical differences student academic achievement
scores identified in this investigation validate support for policy to provide Academic Fathership
programs to low-income fathers of Title I elementary schools statewide. This in efforts to make
sure all students develop the kind of reading and math proficiency necessary for student
61
academic achievement; therefore, state leaders should consider a policy agenda to create a
robust, AFP system to effectively support low-income fathers of children who attend Title I
elementary schools state wide. That system should begin after publicly funded AFP’s that pick
up where Head Start Pre-K AFP programs end. Pre-Kindergarten (pre-K) to 5th grade full
academic school year AFP programs which should be provided and are primarily tailored to
serve marginalized low-income fathers of Title I elementary school for 4-10-year-olds as
reflected in this study. To this point The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2018), in research of how
third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation found that 22 % of
children who had the experience of living in poverty did not complete high school, compared to
6% of those who had never had the experience of being poor. One in every six children who
were not at reading proficiency in the third grade do not graduate from high school on time
compared to graduation rates for proficient readers which are four times greater than those who
are not. (Hernandez, 2014). Considering this, the focus now should be on innovation in policy,
practice and action ensuring that poor children build strong early foundations in reading as well
as math skills, and attendance as they enter kindergarten and transition through each critical
grade level of elementary school, systematically building on the relationship between father AFP
participation and student academic achievement. This helps all students achieve optimal math
and reading proficiency, attendance, and behavior each academic year of elementary school and
beyond.
Recommendations for Future Research
Research included in this study over the last three decades gives evidence of the
relationship between parent involvement in the early childhood education of their children, the
62
social competencies they acquire over time, and their academic achievement in school
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979 Epstein, 1986; McBride, Dyer & Laxman, 2013; Smith & Brahce, 1962;
Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, Whetsel & Green, 2004). Research of parental involvement in
childhood education programs as related to father participation conducted prior to this
investigation found variables that influence this phenomenon included being marginalized
parents, the role parents are expect to play, types of intervention programs, teacher and parent
training, and the relationships between parents, children and schools (Bolívar & Chrispeels,
2011; Collins, 1982; Fagan, 2007; Epstein & Dauber, 1991). While research has been conducted
about low-income father involvement in school based male parent engagement programs and the
impact their involvement has on the academic achievement of students, much of the research
surveyed in this study examined low income fathers of preschool children. Additional research is
needed to specifically address the relationship between father AFP participation and increased
academic achievement in Title I elementary school children ages 4-10 of low-income fathers.
Additional research is also needed in critical consideration of the limitations in power
associated after the small sample size of this study of father AFP participation and academic
achievement. A larger sample size should be employed in this research to increase power and to
decrease the probability of Type I and Type II sample errors. In addition, further study may
capitalize on the benefit of the utilization of a control group to compare to the treatment group.
This would offer a more rigid basis of concluding that the treatment implemented, in this case
that the father AFP participation is having a reliable affect.
The findings of statistically significant differences among some of the dependent
variables of this study illuminates the need for further study examining father AFP participation
and the student achievement of Title I elementary children of low-income fathers.
63
References
Administration for Children and Families. (2018). Home. [Online] Available at:
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ [Accessed 4 Apr. 2018].
Aud, S., Fox, M. A., & Kewal Ramani, A. (2010). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial
and Ethnic Groups. NCES 2010015. National Center for Education Statistics.
Auerbach, S. (2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates re-conceptualizing parent
roles in education through the experience of working-class families of color. Urban
education, 42(3), 250-283.
Berliner, D. C. (2013). Effects of Inequality and Poverty vs.
Teachers and Schooling on America’s Youth. Teachers College Record 115, 1-26.
Beyond civil rights: The Moynihan report and its legacy. (2016). Choice Reviews Online, 53(05),
53-2342. doi:10.5860/CHOICE.193985
Bolívar, J. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2011). Enhancing parent leadership through building social
and intellectual capital. American educational research journal, 48(1), 438.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Camera, L. (2016, January 13). Achievement gap between white and black students still gaping.
U.S. News & World Report, Retrieved from
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/datamine/2016/01/13/achievementgapbetweenwhite
andblackstudentsstillgaping
64
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and
academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child
Development, 65, 68-498.
Campos, R. (2008). Considerations for studying: Father Involvement in Early Childhood among
Latino Families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(2), 133-160.
Carter, P. L. (2006). Straddling boundaries: Identity, culture, and school. Sociology of
education, 79(4), 304-328.
Christina School District. (2018). Christina School District. Retrieved from:
https://www.christinak12.org
City of Wilmington. (2018). Wilmington, DE | Home. Retrieved from:
https://www.wilmingtonde.gov.
Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological
approach. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 271-277.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2018). Retrieved from http://ncate.org/
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and
low-income children's literacy: Longitudinal associations between and after in
families. Journal of educational psychology, 98(4), 653-664.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991). Involving parents in the schools: A process of
empowerment. American journal of Education, 100(1), 20-46.
Dembo, M. H., Sweitzer, M., & Lauritzen, P. (1985). An evaluation of group parent education:
Behavioral, PET, and Adlerian programs. Review of educational research, 55(2), 155-
200.
65
Dubowitz, H., Lane, W., Greif, G., Jensen, T., & Lamb, M. (2006). Low-income African
American Fathers' Involvement in Children's lives: Implications for practitioners. Journal
of family social work, 10(1), 25-41.
Dudley-Marling, C., & Lucas, K. (2009). Pathologizing the language and culture of
poor children. Language arts, 86(5), 362-370.
Duncan, G., & Murnane, R. (Eds.). (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and
children's life chances. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Eccles, J., & Harold, R. (1993). Parent-school involvement during the early adolescent
years. The teacher’s college record, 94(3), 568-587.
Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents' reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The
Elementary School Journal, 86(3), 277-294.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi delta kappa, 76(9), 701
Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent
involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The elementary school
journal, 91(3), 289-305.
Fagan, J. (2007). Research on children's environmental programmatic efforts pertaining to
fatherhood. Applied development science, 11(4), 260-265.
Fagan, J., & Iglesias, A. (1999). Father involvement program effects on fathers, father figures,
and their Head Start children: A quasi experimental study. Early childhood research
quarterly, 14(2), 243-269.
Fagan, J., & Stevenson, H. C. (2002). An experimental study of an empowerment‐based
intervention for African American Head Start father. Family relations, 51(3), 191-198
66
Fan, X. & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Educational psychology review, 13(1), 1–22
Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions off family
involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low -
income children. School psychology review, 33(4), 467-480.
Fathership Foundation (2015). About Us. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.fathershipfoundation.org/aboutus/. [Accessed 6 Apr. 2018].
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. W. (1987). The causal-comparative method. Competencies for
analysis and application (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Geary, D. (2015). Beyond civil rights: The Moynihan Report and its legacy. University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Greenwood, G., & Hickman, C. (1991). Research and practice in parent involvement:
Implications for teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 279-88
Griffith, J. (1998). The relation of school structure and social environment to parent involvement
in elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 53-80.
Hayes, N., O'Toole, L., & Halpenny, A. (2017). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for
practitioners and students in early year’s education (Introducing early year’s thinkers).
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Head Start, (2018). Getting young children and their families ready for school and ready for life.
Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites.
Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty
Influence High School Graduation. Annie E. Casey Foundation.
67
Hill, N. E., & Craft, S. A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance: Mediated
pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and Euro-American
families. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1) 74-83.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do Parents become involved in their
children's education? Review of educational research, 67(1) 3-42.
Institute for Responsive Education. (1982). The home-school connection: Selected partnership
programs in large cities. Boston, MA: Collins, C.H.
Jeynes, W. H. (2016). A meta-analysis: The relationship between parental involvement and
African American school outcomes. Journal of black studies, 47(3), 195-216.
Kalifeh, P., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Grass, S. (2011). The federal role in early childhood education:
Evolution in the goals, governance, and policy instruments of project head
start. Educational Policy, 25(1), 36-64.
Kunjufu, J. (2013). Changing school culture for black males (1st Ed.). Chicago, Ill: African American
Images
Lamb, M. E. (2008). The history of research on father involvement, Marriage & family
review, 29(23), 23-42.
Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity building framework
for family–school partnerships. Austin, TX: SEDL. Retrieved from
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/framework/FECapBuilding.pdf.
McAllister, C. L., Wilson, P. C., & Burton, J. (2004). From sports fans to nurturers: An Early
Head Start program's evolution toward father involvement. Fathering, 2(1), 31.
McBride, B. A., Dyer, W. J., & Laxman, D. J. (2013). Father involvement and student
achievement: Variations based on demographic contexts. Early child development and
care, 183(6), 810-826.
68
McMillan, J. H. (2000). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. New York:
Longman.
Meyers, S. (1993). Adapting parent education programs to meet the needs of fathers: An
ecological perspective. Family relations, 42(4), 447-52.
Moon, S. (2017) Mapping the terrain of new black fatherhood in contemporary African American
literature. Trans-Humanities Journal, 10(1), 53-80.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2018). Home - National Policy Board for
Educational Administration. [Online] Available at: http://npbea.org/ [Accessed 4 Jun.
2018].
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2018). NCES Home Page. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov [Accessed 6 Apr. 2018].
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2018). NAEP Report Cards Home. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov [Accessed 14 Apr. 2018].
Nkomo, M, & Carter, P.L. (2013). "Stubborn roots: Race, culture, and inequality in U.S. and
South African Schools," Comparative education review57(4), 747-749.
Nord, C. W., Brimhall, D. A., West, J., & National Center for Education Statistics [NCES].
(1997). Fathers' involvement in their children's schools: National household education
survey. Washington, D.C: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Resear ch and
Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
Palm, G., & Fagan, J. (2008). Father involvement in early childhood programs: Review of the
literature. Early child development and Care, 178(78), 745-759.
Parent Advocacy Council for Education. (2018). Parent advocacy council for education.
Retrieved from: http://pacewilmington.nationbuilder.com [Accessed 6 Apr. 2018].
69
Payne, Y. A., & Brown, T. M. (2016). I’m still waiting on that golden ticket: Attitudes toward
and experiences after opportunity in the streets of Black America. Journal of social
issues, 72(4), 789-811.
Payne, Y. A. (2013). The people’s report: The link between structural violence and crime in
Wilmington, Delaware. City Report/The Hope Commission. Newark, Delaware:
University of Delaware, Department of Black American. Report located at:
thepeoplesreport. com.
Project Appleseed. (2018). Project apple seed parental involvement in public schools. Retrieved
from: http://www.projectappleseed.org/titlei
Rodel Foundation of Delaware. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.rodelfoundationde.org//
[Accessed 8 Apr. 2018].
Smith, M., & Brahce, C. I. (1962). Focus on achievement. Flint, Michigan, Public School.
Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. T. (1998). Effect of Title I parent involvement on student reading and
mathematics achievement. Journal of research and development in education, 31(2), 90-
97.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2018). Building a brighter future for children, families and
communities. Retrieved from: http://www.aecf.org [Accessed 6 Apr. 2018].
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). American community survey estimates selected data from 2010
Census Interactive Population Map. Wilmington DE Retrieved from:
https://www.census.gov/data.html [Accessed 27 Mar. 2018].
U.S. Department of Education (1997). Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes (USDE
Publication). Washington, DC: Puma, M. J., Karweit, N., Price, C., R icciuti, A.,
Thompson, W., & Vaden-Kiernan, M. (1997).
70
U. S. Department of Education (2017). Consolidated State Performance Reports. Washington,
D.C: Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html
U.S. Department of Education (2004). Laws & Guidance: Elementary and Secondary Education,
Title I — improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html
Verney, K. (2003). African Americans and US popular culture. London: Routledge.
Walker, J. M., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Whetsel, D. R., & Green, C. L. (2004). Parental
involvement in homework: A review of current research and its implications for teachers,
after school program staff, and parent leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family
Research Project, 15, 1-10.
Wilmington Education Improvement Commission [WEIC] (2018). More Work to Be Done |
Wilmington Education Improvement Commission. Retrieved from:
http://www.solutionsfordelawareschools.com/
Wilmington Housing Authority (2018). WHA |. Retrieved from: https://whadelaware.org
71
Appendix A
72
Appendix B
73
Appendix C
74
Appendix D
75
Appendix E
Bronfenbrenner Theoretical framework Father AFP Participation and Academic Achievement
(Mesosystemic considerations)
Family School
microsystem microsystem
(Exosystemic considerations)
Father
Teacher
(Chronosystemic considerations)
Chronosystem
Microtime
(Classroom visits)
Mesotime
(Duration and frequency
of visits)
Macrotime
( Pre-K to 5th
grade)
(Impact Student academic achievement outcomes)
76
Permission Letters
77
Human Subjects Review Committee
78
79

Academic Fathership Program Participation and Academic Achievement a Causal-Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Male Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement and Behavioral Factors Among Title I Elemen (1)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Academic Fathership Program Participation and Academic Achievement a Causal-Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Male Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement and Behavioral Factors Among Title I Elemen (1)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Academic Fathership Program Participation and Academic Achievement: A Causal-Comparative

Evaluation of the Effect of Male Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement and

Jonathan R. Wilson Jr.

A dissertation submitted to the faculty of

Wilmington University in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Innovation and Leadership

April 18, 2018

Academic Fathership Program Participation and Academic Achievement: A Causal-Comparative

professional standards required by Wilmington University as a dissertation for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Innovation and Leadership.

Dr. Michael Czarkowski Chairman of Dissertation Committee

Dr. Marlene Saunders Member of Dissertation Committee

Dr. Yasser Payne Member of Dissertation Committee

Rokiesha Ashley, my community, my cohort, and the Wilmington University Department of

daughters, Stephanie, and Talina who provide me with unending inspiration.

Chapter One — Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 4

Need for the Study......................................................................................................... 5

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 5

Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 6

Academic Fathership Program ..................................................................................... 8

Chapter Two Review of The Literature .......................................................................... 11

Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria ...................................................................... 11

Organization of the Review ........................................................................................ 12

Title I and Parent Involvement ................................................................................... 12

Low-Income Parental Involvement in Education ..................................................... 15

Low-Income Parental Involvement in Education Programs .................................... 17

Low-Income Father Involvement in Education ........................................................ 22

Low-Income Father Involvement in Early Education Programs ............................. 24

Contextual Framework ................................................................................................ 28

Chapter Three – Methodology ........................................................................................ 32

Research Design .......................................................................................................... 32

Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 34

Community Site ........................................................................................................... 35

Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................42

Chapter Four—Results .................................................................................................... 43

Chapter Five—Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................... 54

Summary of Research Findings ................................................................................. 54

Limitations and Generalizability ................................................................................ 61

Implications for Policy, Practice, and Action ............................................................ 61

Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................... 64

A. Academic Fathership Program Activity Overview .................................................. 74

B. Orientation Flyer .......................................................................................................... 75

C. Child Development Workshop Flyer ............................................................................... 76

D. Participant Incentives Flyer ....................................................................................... 77

F. Permission Letters ...................................................................................................... 79

G. Human Subjects Review Committee ........................................................................ 80

H. Certificate of Completion (NIH) ............................................................................... 81

Table 1. Demographic Breakdown of Participants ........................................................ 34

Table 2. Participant Math Proficiency ............................................................................ 45

Table 3.T-test Participant Math Proficiency .................................................................. 46

Table 4. Participant Reading Proficiency ...................................................................... 47

Table 5.T-test Reading Proficiency ................................................................................ 47

Table 6. Participant Unexcused Days Absent................................................................. 49

Table 7.T-test Unexcused Days Absent .......................................................................... 49

Table 8. Participant Unexcused Days Tardy .................................................................. 51

Table 9.T-test Unexcused Days Tardy ........................................................................... 51

Table 10. Participant Behavior Referrals Received ....................................................... 52

Table 11.T-test Behavior Referrals Received ................................................................. 53

school district ( Duncan & Murnane, 2011).

2015(National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2018).

Presently, the academic achievement gaps continue to persist as on average, African

Mickelson 2001; Payne & Brown, 2016).