Family Involvement Makes a Difference

Family Involvement in Early Childhood Education

Number 1, Spring 2006

Heather Weiss, Margaret Caspe, and M. Elena Lopez, Harvard Family Research Project

Download this report:

170KB Acrobat file

Help for Acrobat file

The family seems to be the most effective and economical system for fostering and sustaining the child's development. Without family involvement, intervention is likely to be unsuccessful, and what few effects are achieved are likely to disappear once the intervention is discontinued.1
—Urie Bronfenbrenner

This brief is dedicated to Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005) whose pioneering research influenced the work of Harvard Family Research Project.

Introduction

Family involvement matters for young children's cognitive and social development. But what do effective involvement processes look like, and how do they occur? This research brief summarizes the latest evidence base on effective involvement—that is, the research studies that link family involvement in early childhood to outcomes and programs that have been evaluated to show what works.

The conceptual framework guiding this research review is complementary learning. Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP) believes that for children and youth to be successful from birth through adolescence, there must be an array of learning supports around them. These learning supports include families, early childhood programs, schools, out-of-school time programs and activities, higher education, health and social service agencies, businesses, libraries, museums, and other community-based institutions. HFRP calls this network of supports complementary learning. Complementary learning is characterized by discrete linkages that work together to encourage consistent learning and developmental outcomes for children. These linkages are continuously in place from birth through adolescence, but the composition and functions of this network changes over time as children mature.2

Family Involvement Makes a Difference is a set of research briefs that examines one set of complementary learning linkages: family involvement in the home and school. As the first in the series, this brief focuses on the linkages among the family, early childhood education settings, and schools. Future papers will examine family involvement in elementary school, middle school, and high school settings. Taken together, these briefs make the case that family involvement predicts children's academic achievement and social development as they progress from early childhood programs through K–12 schools and into higher education.

Family Involvement Processes in Early Childhood

Substantial research supports family involvement, and a growing body of intervention evaluations demonstrates that family involvement can be strengthened with positive results for young children and their school readiness. To achieve these results, it is necessary to match children's developmental needs, parents' attitudes and practices, and early childhood programs' expectations and support of family involvement. The evidence base currently suggests three family involvement processes aid in creating this match and promoting healthy outcomes: parenting, home–school relationships, and responsibility for learning outcomes. (See Figure 1.) Parenting refers to the attitudes, values, and practices of parents in raising young children. Home–school relationships are the formal and informal connections between the family and educational setting. Responsibility for learning is an aspect of parenting that places emphasis on activities in the home and community that promote learning skills in the young child.

These processes do not represent all the ways in which families support their children's education. For example, participation in home visitation programs, parent leadership, community organizing, and participation in school decision making are not represented in this review. Readers must therefore keep in mind that family involvement covers other processes beyond those described in this set of briefs.

The sources of this research brief primarily come from the field of human development and psychology. A detailed explanation of the methods for this brief can be found in Appendix I.

Figure 1. Processes of family involvement and young children's outcomes

Family Involvement Matters for Young Children's Development

Young children benefit most from their school years if they enter kindergarten ready to succeed. Not all children, however, come to kindergarten equally prepared. Too many low-income students of color start school far behind their economically advantaged White peers. Early childhood programs now recognize that they alone cannot prepare children for kindergarten. Instead, they need the support of families and communities. To acquire this support, they need to encourage the family involvement processes that research has shown to be effective in encouraging children's learning and socio-emotional development.

Early childhood—in this case, defined as the period from birth to age 5—is a time of life during which significant transformations take place. The newborn infant, equipped with basic reflexes, develops into an active, curious child capable of walking, talking, and pretending. Children's vocabulary increases rapidly, and they acquire the ability to remember experiences, sustain attention, count, and recognize letters. Through interactions with adults and peers, young children develop self-concepts and self-esteem, improve emotional self-regulation, and form their first friendships.3 In short, the early years are important because they are the period during which children acquire the basic skills that serve as the foundation for later learning. Moreover, these years are the time when parents' beliefs about their children's abilities are shaped and when children's own academic self-concepts begin to form.4

Parenting in Early Childhood

Parenting is the family involvement process that includes the attitudes, values, and practices of parents in raising young children. Nurturing, warm, and responsive parent–child relationships and parental participation in child-centered activities relate to positive learning outcomes in early childhood.

Nurturing relationships provide an emotional refuge for children, fostering the development of a healthy sense of belonging, self-esteem, and well-being. When parents are sensitive and responsive to children's emotions, children are more likely to become socially competent and show better communication skills.5 Warm, reciprocal parent–child interactions and fewer life stresses in the home facilitate children's prosocial behavior and ability to concentrate.6

Parent participation in child-centered activities, specifically play, is also important for children's social and emotional development.7 Children who play at home and whose parents understand the importance of play in development are likely to demonstrate prosocial and independent behavior in the classroom.8 In addition, parent participation with their children in activities such as arts and crafts is associated with children's literacy development.9

However, parenting is embedded in social and cultural contexts that influence parenting styles. Poverty is related to access to fewer social parenting supports, which in turn is associated with maternal depression and less nurturing parenting behavior.10 Moreover, parent–child activities are culturally influenced such that activities that are characteristic of one ethnic group might not be characteristic of another.11 For example, teaching letters, words, songs, and music is more characteristic of Black non-Hispanic groups, while reading and telling stories is more typical of White non-Hispanic groups.12

Home–School Relationships

In the early childhood years, the home–school relationship refers to the formal and informal connections between families and their young children's educational settings.15 Both participation in preschool-based activities and regular communication between families and teachers are related to young children's outcomes. Parent participation practices can include attending parent–teacher conferences, participating in extended class visits, and helping with class activities. Such participation is associated with child language, self-help, social, motor, adaptive, and basic school skills.16 Maintaining relationships with fathers is important too. In a study of low-income African American fathers, involvement in Head Start was associated with higher levels of children's emotion regulation.17

The frequency of parent–teacher contact and involvement at the early childhood education site is also associated with preschool performance.18 Parents who maintain direct and regular contact with the early educational setting and experience fewer barriers to involvement have children who demonstrate positive engagement with peers, adults, and learning.19 In addition, teachers' perceptions of positive parental attitudes and beliefs about preschool are associated with fewer behavior problems and higher language and math skills among children.20

Not only do strong home–school relationships matter for children's outcomes during the early childhood years, but the benefits persist over time. For example, family involvement activities such as keeping in touch with a teacher, volunteering in the classroom and attending school activities were related to children's promotion after kindergarten into the first grade.21 More frequent parental engagement in school activities is important—probably because it contributes to parents' greater knowledge of the school program and familiarity with school experiences. Moreover, parental presence in school may model for the child the importance of schooling.

The home–school relationship buffers the negative impacts of poverty on the academic and behavioral outcomes of poor children. For example, children of low-income parents who participated in Chicago Child–Parent Centers (CPC) were more prepared for kindergarten, were less likely to be referred to special education, and later had higher rates of eighth grade reading achievement and high school completion and lower rates of grade retention.22 (See text box.)

Why do the benefits of home–school relationships sustain over time? One possible answer is that family involvement in early childhood sets the stage for involvement in future school settings. For instance, family involvement in the CPC program during the early years was associated with greater parent involvement in the elementary school years, which in turn was related with positive youth outcomes in high school.23 Thus, early positive patterns in a home–school relationship bridge children's experiences over time and across educational settings.

Because of the importance of linkages across settings over time, policymakers, practitioners, and researchers recently have begun to focus their attention on the period of transition from preschool to formal schooling. Although research in this area has not focused on which transition practices relate to specific child outcomes, there is growing consensus that both early childhood settings and elementary schools have a responsibility to support families and help them to sustain their family involvement trajectories. Unfortunately, as children transition to kindergarten, teacher and family contact decreases, and there is a shift away from parent-initiated communication.24 Logistical barriers (e.g., schools generating kindergarten class lists late in the summer, no summer salary for teachers, little teacher training in this area, etc.) hinder ideal transition practices.25 Yet schools that provide more opportunities for family involvement and occasions for nontraditional contact—such as home visits, parent discussion groups, parent resource rooms, and home lending libraries—enjoy increased levels of family participation.26

Responsibility for Learning Outcomes

Responsibility for learning outcomes refers to an aspect of parenting that involves placing emphasis on educational activities that promote school success. In early childhood, this family involvement process tends to focus on how parents can support children's language and literacy. For example, children whose parents read to them at home recognize letters of the alphabet and write their names sooner.29 Direct parent-teaching activities—such as showing children how to write words—are linked to children's ability to identify letters and connect letters to speech sounds.30 Mothers who use more complex sentences and a wider range of different words in their everyday conversations have children with richer expressive language and higher scores on literacy-related tasks in kindergarten.31 In addition, children of parents who emphasize problem solving and curiosity for learning develop long-term individual interests and the ability to attend to tasks for longer periods of time.32

Families, however, differ in the extent to which they expose their children to language. In their seminal research, Hart and Risley (1995) found that children from professional families show significantly greater rates of vocabulary growth than children from welfare families and demonstrate richer forms of language use and interaction. They conclude that the achievement gap begins even before preschool, in the home environments of children from birth to age 3, and they recommend that poor parents receive the parenting supports that can promote the literacy development of their children.33 In fact, responsibility for learning activities, such as reading to children, and providing complementary learning experiences, such as making library visits, going on trips to the zoo, having picnics and attending and participating in sporting events, has the power to alter the influence of poverty on children's language and literacy development.34

Responsibility for learning might be the family involvement process that is most important for young children's outcomes. Fantuzzo and his colleagues (2004) recently showed that practices associated with responsibility for learning (e.g., providing a place for educational activities, asking a child about school, reading to a child), above and beyond aspects of the home–school relationship, are related to children's motivation to learn, attention, task persistence, and receptive vocabulary and to fewer conduct problems.35

Implications

This research brief began with the idea that family involvement in early education is connected to the concept of complementary learning. Complementary learning emphasizes the linkages—such as those among the home, early childhood setting, and school—that work toward consistent learning and developmental outcomes for children. In line with the concept of complementary learning, this review suggests several ways that policymakers, practitioners, and researchers can advance the practice of family involvement and strengthen the linkages among early childhood programs, schools, community-based organizations, and families. These suggestions are based upon the three family involvement processes that are included in the review and have been shown to be effective by empirical research.

For policy

• Invest in projects that increase the family involvement processes. This review points to the importance of three family involvement processes for young children's outcomes. Early childhood initiatives can emphasize outreach to families and invest in projects that increase family involvement in children's learning and development. They can promote training and professional development efforts, including higher education and community partnerships, that demonstrate how early childhood and elementary school teachers can create multiple avenues for parent participation in their children's learning. For example, the Incredible Years program has developed training modules for parents as well as for parents and teachers together to promote both parenting and home–school relationships. (See text box.)
  
  
• Support early childhood programs in the community. Family involvement in the early years can have long-term effects for children, such that policymakers and local funders would be well-served to encourage family involvement in early childhood. The more a community recognizes the importance of what goes on in families during children's earliest years and the amount of support parents require, the more resources can get mobilized to accomplish it. Moreover, early childhood and elementary school settings can work together to promote opportunities for family involvement within the community. For example, the Raising a Reader program, originally a local initiative, has spread to libraries, child care centers, and visiting nurse programs nationally and internationally. (See text box.)
  
  
• Advance best practices for family involvement in early childhood. Early childhood programs that engage in best practices around family involvement regard family involvement as a continuous process and as a result, create smooth transitions for families and children. Policy can develop systems and mechanisms that ensure that these best practices are realized. For example, standards can be put into place to guarantee that early childhood teachers are well paid and trained so that they have the ability and time to invite parents' participation and the knowledge to provide parents with clear strategies for rich relationships with their children. Moreover, policy can mandate that employers in the community allow parents of young children time off from work to participate in their children's learning environments and transition activities.
  
  
• Sponsor dialogue about research on family involvement in early childhood. Several federal and state early childhood policy initiatives with research and evaluation components already exist. Policymakers and funders can bring together these researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to form communities of practice to discuss emerging research findings, specifically as they relate to families, as well as to address issues such as translating the learning about family involvement into curriculum, guidelines for practice, and usable evaluation tools at the program level. These communities of practice can also advance new directions for research. For example, research on family involvement in early childhood can begin to look more closely at how family involvement in early childhood and at points of transition, relates to children's outcomes over time. In addition, as more young children are born to ethnically and economically diverse families, research will begin to unpack what family involvement practices work, under what conditions, at what points in development, and for what groups.

For practice

• Approach family involvement in multiple ways. The three family involvement processes described in this brief are important for children's success. Therefore, early childhood practitioners can and should approach family involvement in overlapping and multiple ways. For example, early childhood practitioners can help promote warm and nurturing parenting through workshops, trainings, and parent–child groups. To develop home–school relationships, teachers can communicate with parents frequently about their young children's learning patterns and provide opportunities for parents to visit the classroom. Moreover, early childhood practitioners can help parents take responsibility for their children's learning outcomes by providing materials and ideas for activities that parents can do at home and in the community with their children.
  
  
• Think about family involvement as a continuum. Teachers must recognize that families often enter their classrooms with histories of parenting experience and memories of prior relationships with child care providers and early childhood educators. Teachers must actively reach out to and invite parents to share both their child's and their own experiences in a previous setting, as well as how they would like to be involved in the present. In particular, kindergarten teachers can actively reach out to early childhood programs in the community, while early childhood programs can form relationships with the elementary schools where children will be enrolled.
  
  
• Create mechanisms for smooth transitions. Families are often the most consistent context in children's lives and provide a natural link between the early childhood and elementary school learning environments. Early childhood practitioners must provide and sustain the kind of support and modeling needed to reduce stress for parents and give them clear strategies for positive interactions and relationships with their children. Pamphlets and flyers can offer useful information but are not enough. Parents need real opportunities to interact with providers. School administrators can also alleviate logistical obstacles to transition practices by generating class lists early, providing professional development to kindergarten teachers regarding the importance of transition, and creating opportunities for parents and early childhood professionals to visit kindergarten classrooms in the spring and summer.
  
  
• Respect diversity. This review also points to the diversity of families and family practices. Teachers must be aware of and sensitive to differences in home culture and practices while at the same time helping parents to understand the features of family involvement that are related to positive outcomes for children. Programs such as Early Authors build on parents' strengths and benefit children by giving parents a prominent role as their children's literacy teachers. (See text box.)
  
  
• Partner with the community. Early childhood and elementary school settings can work together to promote opportunities for family involvement within the community. For example, classes and programs can take place in libraries, museums, zoos, and other community facilitates. By connecting to resources in their communities early in their child's development, families can develop a broad network that can serve as a resource later in their child's life. For example, the Raising a Reader Program, which is often conducted in libraries, increases both the amount of time parents spend reading with their children and the number of visits parents and children make to the library. (See text box).

For research

• Devote time to longitudinal studies that examine the impact of family involvement in early childhood over time. More than ever, we now know that families make a difference in the lives of young children. It is important for researchers to continue to examine how family involvement in early childhood relates to children's outcomes both in the early years and over time. Research of this nature can go a long way in helping practitioners and policymakers bolster their arguments for well-funded, high-quality early childhood programs across the country. For example, over 30 years of research on the Chicago Child–Parent Centers has shown that children of low-income parents who got involved in their children's education in the early years had higher rates of eighth grade reading achievement and high school completion.37 (See text box.)
  
  
• Trace the relationships between transition practices and child outcomes. Studies can begin to associate how the relationships among early childhood programs, schools, and families at points of transition relate to children's outcomes both in kindergarten and later in their education. Researchers might consider outcomes for children beyond traditional measures like developmental scores. For example, positive transitions might result in lower rates of special education referrals. Research can also begin to identify the complex relationships between transition practice and child outcomes. It is possible that best transition practices increase parents' sense of connectedness to the elementary school and shift the tone away from formal contacts between teachers and the family. Consequently, parent–teacher relationships might become more focused on problem solving and more collaborative, in turn creating better child outcomes.
  
  
• Build a culturally responsive knowledge base. The educational agenda for the 21st century must account for the fact that a growing number of children entering U.S. schools are from ethnically and culturally diverse families. Research on family involvement can respond to these trends by respecting, responding to, and building on the culturally grounded resources of families. Research can develop from the “ground up” a more finely tuned understanding of what family involvement practices work, under what conditions, and for what groups. It is unclear how well many of the recommended strategies for parental involvement fit with the life rhythms and demand of non-White and poor families. Research can also test the utility and feasibility of the frequently proposed models of parent involvement.
  
  
• Connect research to policy and practice. Researchers can support policymakers and practitioners who are charged with developing programs and policy for young children and families grounded in evidence by translating complex research into quick and easy-to-read summaries. These research snapshots can reach the field through online networks, listservs, conferences and/or practitioner publications. Moreover, researchers might begin to develop a community of practice around family involvement in early childhood to share findings and new ideas for how to translate well-designed research into practice.

Appendix I: Method

This research brief examines the family involvement processes related to children's academic and social achievement. It synthesizes the research published over the last 6 years (1999–2005) catalogued in the Family Involvement Network of Educators bibliographic database (www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/
bibliography). The FINE bibliographies compile family involvement research using the electronic databases ERIC, Education Abstracts, PsychINFO, SocioFILE, Current Contents, and Dissertation Abstracts. A combination of the keywords “parent,” “family,” “home,” “teacher,” and “school” were searched. The search was further refined to include specific terms such as “family school relationships,” “parent teacher cooperation,” “teacher training,” and “family involvement.” This review culled only articles from the FINE bibliographies that focused on family involvement as it relates to child outcomes.

The articles in this review were published in peer-reviewed journals. The majority of them used quantitative analyses on data yielded from sound research designs. Some qualitative studies that described the family involvement practices associated with children's school achievement were included, as were seminal articles and books published prior to 1999. All journal articles and books were summarized and coded for methodology, family involvement practices, and children's outcomes. In addition, evaluation reports of the four programs featured in this review were examined. These reports came from various sources including journals, the Internet, and unpublished manuscripts from HFRP's evaluation database. Altogether, 38 articles and reports were included in this review.

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this brief was made possible through the support of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. We would also like to thank Celina Chatman of the University of Chicago, Lei-Anne Ellis and Lauren Leikin of The Agenda for Children, Lisa Klein of Hestia Advising, Christine McWayne of New York University, and Holly Kreider, Ellen Mayer, Priscilla M.D. Little, and Abby Weiss of Harvard Family Research Project for their insightful review and feedback.

Notes

1 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Is early intervention effective? Teachers College Record, 76(2), 279–303.
2 For more information about complementary learning and HFRP's other projects, visit www.hfrp.org. To learn more about this series of publications, email fine@gse.harvard.edu. To be notified when future HFRP publications become available, subscribe to our e-news email at www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/subscribe.html.
3 Brooks-Gunn, J., Fuligni, A. S., & Berlin, L. J. (Eds.). (2003). Early child development in the 21st century: Profiles of current research initiatives. New York: Teachers College Press.
4 Harter, S. (1999). The construction of self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford.
5 Connell, C. M., & Prinz, R. J. (2002). The impact of childcare and parent-child interactions on school readiness and social skills development for low-income African American children. Journal of School Psychology, 40(2), 177–193; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network. (1998). Early child care and self-control, compliance and problem behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Development, 69(4), 1145–1170; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Multiple pathways to early academic achievement. Harvard Educational Review, 74(1), 1–28.
6 Lamb-Parker, F., Boak, A. Y., Griffin, K. W., Ripple, C., & Peay, L. (1999). Parent–child relationship, home learning environment, and school readiness. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 413–425.
7 Paley, V. G. (2004). A child's work: The importance of fantasy play. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8 Fantuzzo, J., & McWayne, C. (2002). The relationship between peer-play interactions in the family context and dimensions of school readiness for low-income preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 79–87.
9 Nord, C. W., Lennon, J., Liu, B., & Chandler, K. (1999). Home literacy activities and signs of children's emerging literacy, 1993 and 1999 (NCES Publication No. 2000-026). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/
pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000026
10 Marshall, N. L., Noonan, A. E., McCartney, K., Marx, F., & Keefe, N. (2001). It takes an urban village: Parenting networks of urban families. Journal of Family Issues, 22(2), 163–182; McLoyd, V. C. (1995). Poverty, parenting, and policy: Meeting the support needs of poor parents. In H. E. Fitzgerald, B. M. Lester, & B. Zuckerman (Eds.), Children of poverty: Research, health, and policy issues (pp. 269–303). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
11 Arzubiaga, A., Ceja. M., & Artiles, A. J. (2000). Transcending deficit thinking about Latinos' parenting styles: Toward an ecocultural view of family life. In C. Tejeda, C. Martinez, Z. Leonardo, & P. McLaren (Eds.), Charting new terrains of Chicana(o)/Latina(o) education (pp. 93–106). Cresskill, NY: Hampton Press; Barbarin, O. (2002). Ready or Not!: African American males in kindergarten. In B. Bowman (Ed.), Love to Read: Preparing African American Children for Reading Success (pp. 1–15). Washington, DC: National Black Child Development Institute, Inc.; Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2001). The power of community: Mobilizing for family and schooling. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
12 Nord et al., 1999.
13 Smith, S. (1995). Two-generation programs. A new intervention strategy for directions for future research. In P. L. Chase-Landsdale & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds), Escape from poverty: What makes a difference for children? (pp. 299–314). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14 Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2004). Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: Intervention outcomes or parent, child, and teacher training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 105–124.
15 Note that the studies reviewed in this brief focused on early educational settings such as preschool and Head Start and did not include environments such as child care or family day care.
16 Marcon, R. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers' development and academic performance. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 395–412.
17 Downer, J. T., & Mendez, J. L. (2005). African American father involvement and preschool children's school readiness. Early Education and Development, 16(3), 317–340.
18 Izzo, C. V., Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J., & Fendrich, M. (1999). A longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children's education and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 817–839.
19 McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y. (2004). A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3), 363–377.
20 Rimm-Kauffman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Teacher-rated family involvement and children's social and academic outcomes in kindergarten. Early Education and Development, 14(2), 179–200.
21 Mantizicopoulos, P. (2003). Flunking kindergarten after Head Start: An inquiry into the contribution of contextual and individual variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 268–278.
22 Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children & Youth Services Review, 26(1), 39–62; Clements, M. A., Reynolds, A., J. & Hickey, E. (2004). Site-level predictors of children's school and social competence in the Chicago Child–Parent Centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 273–296; Graue, E., Clements, M. A., Reynolds, R. J., & Niles, M. D. (2004). More than teacher directed or child initiated: Preschool curriculum type, parent involvement and children's outcomes in the child parent centers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(72), 1–38. Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/
v12n72; Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 379–402.
23 Ou, S. (2005). Pathways of long-term effects of an early intervention program on educational attainment: Findings from the Chicago longitudinal study. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 578–611.
24 Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family Involvement Questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367–370; Rimm-Kauffman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). An ecological perspective on the transition to kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide empirical research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 491–511.
25 Early, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Taylor, L. C., & Cox, M. J. (2001). Transition practices: Findings from a national survey of kindergarten teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28, 199–206.
26 Ramey, S. L., Ramey, C. T., Philips, M. M., Lanzi, R. G., Brezausek, M. S., Katholi, C. R., et al. (2000). Head Start children's entry into public school: A report on the National Head Start/Public Early Childhood Transition Demonstration Study. Birmingham: Civitan International Research Center, University of Alabama. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/ch_trans/index.html
27 Reynolds A. J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child–Parent Centers. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
28 Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest—A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of American Medical Association, 285(18): 2339–2346.
29 Nord et al., 1999.
30 Haney, M. H., & Hill, J. (2004). Relationships between parent-teaching activities and emergent literacy in preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 17(3), 215–228.
31 Britto, P. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2001). Beyond shared book reading: Dimensions of home literacy and low-income African American preschoolers' skills. In J. Brooks-Gunn & P. R. Britto (Eds.), New directions for child and adolescent development: Vol. 92. The role of family literacy environments in promoting young children's emerging literacy skills (pp. 73–93). New York: Jossey-Bass; Tabors, P. O., Roach, K. A., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Home language and literacy environment: Final results. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Ta-bors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language (pp. 111–138). Cambridge, MA: Paul Brookes Publishing.
32 Leibhaman, M. E., Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., Neitzel, C. L., & Reis-Henrie, F. P. (2005). Parenting behaviors associated with the maintenance of preschoolers' interests: A prospective longitudinal study. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(4), 397–414; Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., & Perry, M. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. The School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467–480.
33 Hart, B., & Risley. T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
34 Foster, M. A., Lambert, R., Abbott-Shim, M., McCarty, F., & Franze, S. (2005). A model of home learning environment and social risk factors in relation to children's emergent literacy and social outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(1), 13–36.
35 Fantuzzo, McWayne, & Perry, 2004.
36 Bernhard, J. K., & Cummins, J. (2004, November). Cognitive engagement and identity investment in literacy development among English Language Learners: Evidence from the Early Authors Program. Paper presented at the English Language Learners Conference, National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems, Scottsdale, AZ.37 Barnard, 2004; Clements, Reynolds, & Hickey, 2004.
37 Barnard, 2004; Clements, Reynolds, & Hickey, 2004.

All rights reserved. Information on this site may not be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission from Harvard Family Research Project.

© 2006 President and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project
3 Garden Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel: 617-495-9108
Fax: 617-495-8594
Email: hfrp@gse.harvard.edu