East Tennessee State University

Digital Commons @ East

Tennessee State University
Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works

12-2002

The Relationship of Home Environment and

Kindergarten Readiness.
Nancye C. Williams
East Tennessee State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons

Recommended Citation
Williams, Nancye C., "The Relationship of Home Environment and Kindergarten Readiness." (2002). Electronic Theses and
Dissertations. Paper 705. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/705

This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State
University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East
Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 The Relationship of Home Environment and Kindergarten Readiness

A dissertation

presented to

the faculty of the Department of Educational Administration and Policy Analysis

East Tennessee State University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Doctor in Education

by

Nancye C. Williams

December 2002

Dr. Russell Mays, Chair

Dr. Nancy Dishner

Dr. Norma MacRae

Dr. Russell West

Keywords: Brigance Screen, Income, Environment, Kindergarten,

Literacy, Education Level, School Readiness, Television
 ABSTRACT

The Relationship of Home Environment and Kindergarten Readiness

by

Nancye C. Williams

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between home environment and
school readiness of children entering kindergarten in a rural East Tennessee county. Variables
included family income and structure, parents' education, participation in literacy activities,
availability of home learning tools, and amount of children's television viewing. A self-reported
parent survey was used to gather information; the Brigance K Screen was used to determine
entering kindergartner's readiness for school. Three hundred thirty-eight children and parents
participated.

An initial analysis of data incorporated simple descriptive statistics in the form of frequency
tables. To examine the relationships between the dependent variable (Brigance scores) and
independent variables (family characteristics/environment), Kendall's tau-b and Cramer's V were
used. Independent sample t-tests and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) analyzed differences in
Brigance scores between groups. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis determined if
kindergarten readiness could be predicted by specific variables: socioeconomic status, literary
resources, and literacy activities.

The analysis of relationships study indicated that family income was more closely related to
success on the Brigance K Screen than any other variable; next in importance were the levels of
parents' education. Significant positive correlations indicated the value of parents reading to
their children, educational outings, availability of educational tools--specifically, a home
computer, family structure, mealtime conversation, and the number of children's books in the
home. A significant negative correlation was found between the duration of television viewing
and Brigance scores; increased television viewing time was significantly related to lower test
scores. ANOVAs and t-tests indicated significant differences in Brigance scores of
prekindergarten students from different socioeconomic status groups based on family structure,
family income, and parents' education levels. Children from two-parent homes scored
significantly higher than those from other family situations as did children from higher income
homes. Parents' education level was also reflected in the Brigance scores; more educated parents
had children who scored higher than children with less educated parents. The multiple
regression analysis reinforced the statistical significance and magnitude of the relationship
between socioeconomic factors and school readiness. Literacy resources and literacy activities
also accounted for variance in the scores.

2
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my husband

Jon

and our three sons

Matt, Dan, and Bart.

I deeply appreciate their love and encouragement.

It is a privilege to be the "mom" in such a wonderful family.

This work is also dedicated to the memory of my father

Armond L. Chandler

and in honor of my mother

Pauline Chandler.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to the chairperson of my graduate committee, Dr.

Russell Mays, and to my committee members--Dr. Nancy Dishner, Dr. Norma MacRae, and Dr.

Russell West.

I am especially appreciative of the many parents who agreed to participate in my study

and their children who are eagerly anticipating the new experience of kindergarten.

A very special thanks goes to Debby Bryan for both her professional expertise and her

constant encouragement.

4
 CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. 2

DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... 7

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 9

Statement of the Problem....................................................................................... 9

Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 12

Limitations ............................................................................................................ 13

Research Questions................................................................................................ 13

Overview of the Study ........................................................................................... 14

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................... 15

Nonprocess Variables: Family Income, Family Structure, and Parents' Educational

Levels ................................................................................................................. 16
Process Variables: Literacy Activities, Learning Tools, and Television Viewing ..... 23

Summary ............................................................................................................... 35

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 37

Research Design .................................................................................................... 37

Population ............................................................................................................. 38

Sample .................................................................................................................. 38

Instrumentation...................................................................................................... 39

5
Chapter Page

Data Collection Planning........................................................................................ 40

Data Analysis......................................................................................................... 41

4. ANALYSIS OF DATA ............................................................................................. 45

Research Question 1 .............................................................................................. 48

Research Question 2 .............................................................................................. 61

Research Question 3 .............................................................................................. 65

Research Question 4 .............................................................................................. 69

5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 73

Findings................................................................................................................. 74

Research Question 1 ........................................................................................ 74

Research Question 2 ........................................................................................ 76

Research Question 3 ........................................................................................ 76

Research Question 4 ........................................................................................ 77

Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 77

Recommendations.................................................................................................. 79

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 81

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 90

APPENDIX A: Letter to Superintendent .............................................................. 90

APPENDIX B: Letter to Principal ........................................................................ 91

APPENDIX C: Letter to Parents .......................................................................... 92

APPENDIX D: Informed Consent ........................................................................ 93

APPENDIX E: Parent Questionnaire .................................................................... 95

VITA ................................................................................................................................ 99

6
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Number of Study Participants by School .................................................................. 46

2. Mean and Median Scores on the Brigance K by School ............................................ 47

3. Frequency Distribution of Brigance K Screen Scores................................................ 47
4. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "My Child Lives With"................................. 48

5. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "Father's Education and Mother's

Education" .............................................................................................................. 49
6. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "Approximate Family Income" ..................... 50
7. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "Father's Occupation and Mother's
Occupation" ............................................................................................................ 51
8. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to “Prior to Kindergarten Entry, What Best
Describes Your Child’s Situation?”.......................................................................... 52
9. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Do You Read to Your Child?
How Often Does Your Child Read to You? How Often Do You Play With or
Teach Your Child?"................................................................................................. 53
10. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Does Your Child Visit the
Public Library, a Zoo, an Aquarium, a Museum, or Other Place With Education
Value?" ................................................................................................................. 54
11. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Does Your Family Sit Down
for a Meal Together?" ............................................................................................. 55
12. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "When Your Family Eats Together,
Who Does the Talking?".......................................................................................... 55
13. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Does Your Child Watch
Television?"............................................................................................................. 56
14. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "On an Average Weekday, How Many
Hours of Television Will Your Child Watch?" .......................................................... 56

7
Table Page

15. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Over the Past Year Has
Your Child Been Involved With Toys or Hobbies That You Feel Have Educational
Value?" ................................................................................................................. 57
16. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "Of the Following Materials--
Encyclopedia, Dictionary, Almanac, Atlas, Computer--How Many Do You
Have in Your Home?" ............................................................................................. 58
17. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to Availability of Home Computer.................... 58

18. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Many Children's Books Do You
Have in Your Home?" ............................................................................................. 59
19. Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Does Your Child Get a New
Book From the Store or Library?" ........................................................................... 60
20. Frequency Table: Written Survey Responses to “What Do You Think Is the Most
Important Thing You Have Done to Prepare Your Child for School?”..................... 61
21. Correlations of Each Independent Variable and School Readiness............................. 63
22. t-test Comparison of Means by Family Structure....................................................... 66
23. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Comparison of Means of Brigance K Screen by
Income Level........................................................................................................... 67
24. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Comparison of Means of Brigance K Screen by
Father's Educational Level ....................................................................................... 68
25. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Comparison of Means of Brigance K Screen by
Mother's Educational Level ..................................................................................... 68
26. t-test Comparison of Means by Preschool Care......................................................... 69
27. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of the Effects of Independent Variables
on Brigance Scores ................................................................................................. 70

8
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

“If you can read this, thank a teacher.” The general public is familiar with this slogan

made popular by a teachers' union. A literal interpretation of this simple statement would

suggest that most public discussion about improving education should revolve around greater

support for teachers and school-based reform, with the school assuming the basic responsibility

of influencing and developing a child’s academic potential. But is this line of reasoning

necessarily in the best interest of today’s children?

Perhaps the educational debate should shift to, or at least include another more basic and

fundamental focus--family environment. Rearing a child is one of the most difficult and

important jobs that a large number of people undertake. Family environment has a pervasive and

life-long impact on children, yet most people enter into parenthood without significant

preparation or training. What influence does a child’s family life have on school achievement?

What effect does a stimulating home environment have on school readiness? Does family

structure impact student learning? How important are early literacy activities in the home?

Statement of the Problem

Over the last two decades, considerable debate has occurred in society and in the research

community about changes in and the direction of student achievement. A large cross-national

study of Chinese, Japanese, and American school children determined that there were significant

achievement differences as early as kindergarten, with American children lagging behind others

in mathematics and reading (Stevenson, Lee, & Stigler, 1986; Walberg, 1984a). Continuing

dialogue has centered on whether student performance is improving or declining, whether

changes in family characteristics have affected student achievement, and whether social and

9
educational programs and policy changes aimed toward equal educational opportunities have

been effective. When studying the American family, Grissmer, Kirby, Berends, and Williamson

(1994) used test scores to determine that there was no evidence of a deteriorating family

environment for students ages 14 to 18 in 1990 when compared to similar students in 1970 and

1975. However, there are many who imply that the family has deteriorated to the extent that it is

losing the capacity to positively support the development of children (Walberg, 1984a).

Whether questioning or accepting the deterioration of the family unit, one should

recognize that more than 30 years of research indicate that families have more influence over a

child’s academic performance than any other factor--including schools (Laosa, 1982; Mattox,

1995). University of Chicago sociologist Coleman (1990) conducted a major research study in

the mid-1960s designed to explain differences in student performance between certain schools

and certain classes. While weighing the relative influence on student achievement of different

school factors and teacher variables, Coleman reached an interesting conclusion. Although some

specific school factors had a modest effect on school performance, the influence of family

background was considerable. Based on his studies conducted in the mid 60s, Coleman

determined that resources under control of the school were considerably less important than

those that were intrinsic to the child’s family background. That is, the resources brought to

education from the home were considerably more important for achievement than those provided

by the schools.

Likewise, 20 years later, Bevevino (1988) established that from birth to age 18, the average

child spends 87% of his or her waking time under the influence of home environment, whereas

only 13% of that time is under school supervision. It is no surprise, then, that Bevevino

concluded a child’s academic success is largely determined by parents and the environment they

provide during the child's life. Especially crucial are the first six years, a period of rapid

physical, emotional, and intellectual development. Gottfried (1984) discovered that the highest

correlation between cognitive development and environment tends to be found during the

10
preschool years. In brain research, Bruer (1997) emphasized the rapid increase of synapses that

connect neurons in the brain, starting in infancy and continuing into later childhood. Until age

10, a child's brain contains more synapses than at any other time in life. Early childhood

experiences fine-tune these connections by reinforcing and maintaining synapses that are

repeatedly used and snipping away unused synapses. According to Bruer,

This time of high synaptic density and experiential fine-tuning is a critical period in a

child's cognitive development. It is the time when the brain is particularly efficient in

acquiring and learning a range of skills. During this critical period, children can benefit

most from rich, stimulating learning environments. If, during this critical period, we

deprive children of such environments, significant learning opportunities are lost forever.

(p. 4)

In light of the family’s extraordinary influence and the changing home environment in

today’s society, a study of school readiness and its relationship to specific family environment

factors is relevant. The importance of environment cannot be overlooked or underestimated. As

Teale and Sulzby (1986) acknowledged, “Growth in writing and reading comes from within the

child and as a result of environmental stimulation” (p. xx). Previous research has shown that the

presence of specific family and home environment characteristics may contribute to school

readiness and later academic achievement; conversely, the absence of certain identifiable factors

may contribute to significant delays in readiness (Clark, 1983; Milne, 1989; Teale, 1986).

Therefore, increased knowledge of identified positive factors will be beneficial in developing

appropriate remediation strategies. In addition, public policy and funding agencies must

consider such findings to determine the most effective allocation of public resource money for

both education and social programs. If family environment is truly a key factor in student

achievement, it should be taken into account when attempting to evaluate the effectiveness of

both public policy and public investments.

11
 The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between family environment

and school readiness of children entering kindergarten in a rural East Tennessee county. For the

purpose of this study, three nonprocess and three process family factors were broadly identified.

Nonprocess or status factors are those defined as relatively static family characteristics, including

family income, family structure (two-parent home vs. other situations), and parents’ education

level. Process variables are defined as opportunities provided by parents for parent-child

interactions in different situations or the actual family investment in children’s development

through time and resources. These include literacy activities (oral reading by parent or story

telling by child, educational teaching/learning activities, educational outings, frequency of family

meal times, and meal conversation); television viewing (frequency and duration); and availability

of learning tools (educational toys and hobbies, home educational tools, computers, number of

children's books, frequency of new book acquisition, and library loans). The Brigance K Screen,

a test that assesses the basic skills necessary for success in kindergarten, was used to measure

school readiness of the participants. Data collection related to the identified variables was

gathered through self-reported parent surveys distributed to parents of incoming kindergarten

students at the four selected school sites.

Significance of the Study

With the acknowledgment that family background is an important contributor to

achievement outcomes, it becomes imperative that educators continue to acquire knowledge in

this area. This study contributes to current research by focusing on family characteristics and the

home environment of the kindergarten child while attempting to determine factors that strongly

correlate with school readiness. The study has practical significance in updating previous

research that in turn may have implications for both parents' and teachers' education. The study

also provides information about which characteristics of the home environment are most

12
conducive to promoting school readiness, so that schools and other community agencies can

guide and assist parents in providing optimal educational environments for their preschoolers.

Limitations

Limitations of the study included the population used, the objectivity of both researcher

and participants, and the instruments used. Generalizations with regard to the results must be

limited to kindergarten children within this county. The self-reported parent survey presented

several inherent limitations. Parents’ accuracy may have been limited by lack of reading ability,

lack of understanding of survey items, poor memory relating to past events, and their perceptions

of the social acceptability of certain responses. Therefore, the reliability of some responses may

have been affected. The interrater reliability of the Brigance K Screen was also considered a

limiting factor, as the instrument was administered by a number of kindergarten teachers from

various schools throughout the selected county. There was no opportunity to observe the home

environment of the students and no proximal (face-to-face) interviews were conducted.

Research Questions

Several avenues of inquiry could be developed in regard to kindergarten readiness. For

the purpose of this study, however, four basic research questions were selected as the focal point

of the investigation:

1. What are the characteristics of the study's participants and their home environments?

2. What is the relationship between specific home/family characteristics and kindergarten

readiness?

3. Are there differences in the total Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

different socioeconomic status groups?

4. To what extent can socioeconomic status, literacy activities, and learning resources be

used to predict kindergarten readiness?

13
 Overview of the Study

This study was organized as follows: Chapter 1 consists of an introduction, statement of

the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the study, limitations, research question, and

overview of the study. Chapter 2 contains a review of the related literature and research. It

broadly examines the identified process and nonprocess variables in relation to readiness and

school achievement. Chapter 3 describes the research design and methodology employed in this

study. It includes a description of subjects, procedures, and instruments, in addition to the

statistical models and analyses used. Chapter 4 presents the statistical analysis of the data and

the findings of the study. The data from this study was presented, analyzed, and discussed.

Chapter 5 contains a summary of the findings of the study and general conclusions and provides

recommendations for future consideration.

14
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature broadly addresses literature and research related to the identified

process and nonprocess variables and their relationships to both school readiness and school

achievement. Because of the broad scope of the study, the literature review is not intended to be

an exhaustive one. However, it is an attempt to highlight what the researcher considered most

relevant and pertinent to this endeavor.

It is generally accepted that the structure of the American family has changed and will

continue to change. Such phenomena as the increased divorce rate, two-employed-parent

families, a growing number of teenage pregnancies, and the decreasing influence of extended

families have substantially changed the kind of preschool experiences that children have (Gullo,

1990). Meanwhile, research has indicated that variables including family income, family

structure, parents’ educational level, amount of children’s television viewing, availability of

learning tools, and home literacy activities may be related to school readiness and academic

success (Baker et al., 1996; Burns, Griffin, & Snow, 1999; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998;

Weinberger, 1996). A comprehensive literature review in this area is difficult, not only because

of the number and variety of studies but also because of the intricate relationships that have been

hypothesized or found to exist among the variables used in these studies.

Although research specifically aimed at the relationship of environment and school

readiness is somewhat limited, numerous studies and contributions to the general study of

environment, literacy issues, and academic achievement across various grade levels are

available. Growing evidence indicates that many factors in the family environment interact in

complex ways to either facilitate or hinder children’s academic success (Chall & Snow, 1982;

Milne, 1989; Tocci & Englehard, 1991; Weinberger, 1996; Zimilies & Lee, 1991). In studying

15
elementary school children, Clark (1993) learned that “Home process variables, parental

responsibility variables, and family background circumstances worked together to shape student

achievement patterns” (p. 20).

Nonprocess Variables: Family Income, Family Structure, and Parents’ Educational Levels

Beginning with Coleman’s seminal study in the middle 1960s, research has indicated that

children’s academic achievement and school performance are strongly influenced by home

background (Coleman et al., 1966). During this early research, home background was typically

defined in terms of global social status variables including parental income, education, and

occupation in addition to family structural characteristics such as family size and birth order

(Christenson, 1990). A sizable amount of older literature exists that examines the relationship of

environment and academic achievement across grade levels.

Early landmark studies by Bloom (1964) longitudinally investigated stability, change, and

the effect of environment on school students. In addition to examining the effects of

environment on physical characteristics, he also studied intelligence, attitudes, personality, and

achievement. In arguing that the nature of home environment can modify the measured

intelligence of children, he boldly added his beliefs:

In contrast with height, which is in large part determined by heredity, is school

achievement, which is more clearly determined by environment. Although there must be

some genetic potential for learning, the direction the learning takes is most powerfully

determined by the environment. . . . General school achievement . . . is likely to be

greatly affected by the home, peer group, and school environments in which the children

live, play, and learn. . . . There are clearly some environments, which discourage school

learning, while there are other environments, which encourage and reinforce school

learning. (pp. 209-210)

16
 Static factors such as socioeconomic status, family structure, and parents’ education level

have been studied to determine their effects on academic achievement. According to Coleman

(1990), one of the focuses of the 1966 congressionally mandated Equality of Educational

Opportunities report was how schools overcame the inequalities that children came to school

with. In this impressive study, researchers initially examined the differences in family

backgrounds of individual students as a possible source of school-to-school and within-school

variations in achievement. Based on a survey of thousands of children throughout the United

States, the researchers determined not only that children from poor families performed

significantly lower than those children from middle and upper-class families but also that these

differences became greater as the children progressed through school (Coleman et al., 1966).

They further investigated the relationship of student attitudes and achievement and the

differential dynamics of attitudes among children from advantaged and disadvantaged groups.

Recognizing the special importance of a sense of control of the environment for achievement,

assumptions were made about the different background experiences children might have had.

Children from an advantaged family background most likely had all of their needs satisfied and

lived in a responsive environment, one that would continue to respond if they acted

appropriately; these children assumed they could affect their environment through their actions.

Conversely, children from disadvantaged family backgrounds lacked a sense of environmental

control. They had fewer needs satisfied and lived in an unresponsive often-unfriendly

environment, one that rarely responded to their actions. Therefore, hard work and diligent

efforts toward achievement were unlikely to be rewarding, and disadvantaged children assumed

there was nothing they could do to change things for the better (Coleman).

Early research by Coleman et al. (1966) spawned numerous studies during the last three

decades that supported the importance of home and family environment in shaping the

enhancement and subsequent outcome of children’s academic development. More recently, Cox

(1987) longitudinally studied environment and the stability of that environment as it affects

17
academic attainment and progress. Comparing a control group with a culturally and

economically disadvantaged group, he established that an advantaged early home background

had an immediate impact on early school performance and that the early level of attainment was

positively related to later achievement levels, particularly in reading. However, Cox questioned

if later academic difficulties of the disadvantaged group were actually a result of lack of early

attainment or a lack of upward socioeconomic change. Gottfried (1984) summarized a group of

longitudinal studies examining the relationship between home environment and early cognitive

development of young children. He concluded that the majority of the studies reviewed

supported the premise that early home environment related to later intellectual development

because of the environment’s stability. When the home environment was unstable and continued

to lack sufficient intellectual stimulus and guidance over time, a cumulative learning deficit

occurred. This echoes the issues of constancy and consistency cited in the earlier work of Bloom

(1964). Other early research showed a correlation between family socioeconomic status and

children’s performance on mental tests (Deutsch, 1973; Hess, 1970).

In looking at low income families, Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill

(1991) noted that psychological stress, financial stress, and disorganization in the family system

varied inversely to children’s literacy performance. They cited additional studies that noted

although low-income mothers often had high goals for their children, "The most highly stressed

low-income women simply did not have the resources of time, money, contacts, or knowledge to

provide their children with the time and attention they recognized as necessary" (p. 88). In

contrast, Snow et al. pointed out that while it is generally assumed that family stress produces

negative consequences for children's academic and social functioning, the actual nature and

severity may vary with the attributes of both the child and the family. In studying the effects of

process variables and socioeconomic status, a University of California study concluded that

parental input may reduce the proportion of low achievers, but it cannot completely overcome

the disadvantages of low income (Benson, Buckley, & Medrich, 1980).

18
 Current research suggested that economic levels alone do not determine school failure or

success. Actually, a wide range in the nature and quantity of literacy practices across

socioeconomic groups has been documented (Baker, Scher, & Mackler, 1997; Beals &

DeTemple, 1993; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Shapiro, 1995). Hart and Risley (1995) determined that

although poor uneducated families provided much the same array of language experiences as

middle-class educated families, the quantity of verbal interaction was much less. They

concluded that minimal quantity of verbal interaction constituted a risk factor to children in

relation to lower vocabulary scores with associated lower reading outcomes.

Baker, Serpell, and Sonnenschein (1995) noted income-related differences when

investigating joint storybook reading. In their study, 90% of preschool children from middle-

income families reported daily book reading activity, whereas 52% of low-income families did

so. Auerbach (1995) refuted the assumption that all homes of low-income children are literacy

impoverished, that they contain few reading materials, and that parents neither read to

themselves nor to their children. Reviewing earlier studies, she concluded that even when daily

survival was a struggle, literacy was an integral part of daily life. Children of low-income

families are often exposed to elaborate narratives during the course of their everyday lives that in

turn provide experiences that nurture a high level of familiarity with the structural organization

of stories (Snow et al., 1998). Psychologists, anthropologists, and linguists have noted that

children of society's poorest families participate fully in the language of their culture, although

they may use written language differently (McGill-Franzen & Arrlington, 1991).

Using a large national sample of preschoolers, Zill, Collins, West, and Hausken (1995)

surveyed parents to determine specific accomplishments and difficulties of their children and to

investigate five family risk factors similar to those previously named in the present study. These

included (a) mother having less than a high school education, (b) low economic status, (c)

mother not speaking English as a primary language, (d) mother being unmarried at the time of

the child’s birth, and (e) single-parent households. The researchers established that over half of

19
the preschoolers were affected by at least one risk factor with 15% affected by three or more.

All five factors were determined to have some relationship with both the preschooler’s

accomplishments and difficulties, although relationship patterns varied across developmental

domains. The research did not support the view that low family income was the primary factor

contributing to lack of educational success. Instead, the risk factors of poor maternal educational

background, minority language status, and single-parent family structure were often as good and

sometimes better predictors of the preschoolers' accomplishments and difficulties.

Research findings regarding the influence of family structure on academic performance

have been mixed. Data reveal that one in five children lives in a single-parent family (America’s

Smallest School, 1999). Recognizing from the outset that the majority of reviewed research on

single-parent families related to female-headed single-parent families, early reviews of single-

parent research by Herzog and Sudia (1973) suggested that a father’s absence was a contributory

but not a primary factor in lowering school achievement. Shinn (1978) refuted these contentions

citing outmoded research and stating that more recent investigations showed significant

detrimental effects of a father’s absence on children’s intellectual performances. Data analyzed

from the 1986 National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that third graders living

with only one parent scored considerably lower than third graders living with both parents

(Natriello, McDill, & Pallas, 1990). In contrast, Larson (1989) compared characteristics of

children who were teacher-rated as “low risk” and “high risk” and determined no significant

relationship between family intactness and degree of risk for academic failure. When examining

the effect of family structure on children’s academic performance, care must be taken about

making generalizations; parental education, age, and socioeconomic status may have significant

influence. In addition, stereotypes about two-parent and one-parent homes may actually interfere

with the academic expectations of the teacher. Other studies iterate the strong connection

between single-parent (often mother-only) families and low socioeconomic status and the

apparent link to lower school performance (Lee, 1993).

20
 Milne (1989) stressed the importance of process variables. “Family structures are not

inherently good or evil per se; what is important is the ability of the parent(s) to provide

proeducational resources for their children--be they financial, material, or experiential” (p. 58).

She concluded it was evident that living in a two-parent household was a benefit. Although no

differences between the two-parent and one-parent households reached significance, virtually no

evidence suggested that living in a one-parent household was beneficial. According to Milne,

meta analyses conducted by several researchers in 1981 and 1987 concluded that children in two-

parent families obtained higher achievement test results than children of one-parent families,

although overall differences were small. The 1981 study indicated differences generally less

than a year; the conclusion was similar in the 1987 study with the average difference for the two

groups being from three to seven months. Research by Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts,

and Fraleigh (1987) indicated that children from single-parent families are more likely to be

given early autonomy, and early autonomy was associated with behavior problems and poor

school performance.

Longitudinal studies have shown that parents’ educational levels have an important impact

on children’s achievement (Davie, Butler, & Goldstein, 1972), and higher levels of adult

education have a positive bearing on both the educational future and the income level of the

children in a family (DeBruin-Parecki, Paris, & Siedenburg, 1997). Traditional research has

shown that the children of mothers with higher levels of education have greater early success and

generally stay in school longer (Sticht, 1988; Sticht & McDonald, 1990). In a limited study of

49 predominately middle-class preschoolers, Mills (1983) concluded that in investigating fathers'

education, mothers' education, and family income, the only factor significantly related to school

academics was the father’s educational level. Results further indicated that the father’s higher

educational level promoted a richer quality of parent and child verbal interaction and a greater

variety of stimulatory activities. In contrast, Snow et al. (1991) noted that the mother’s

educational level and her aspirations for her offspring had more influence on children’s

21
achievement than did the educational level and aspirations of the father. In the Snow et al. study,

the mothers were the ones who helped with homework, selected reading materials, read bedtime

stories, and enforced television viewing rules. Similarly, Leibowitz (1977) verified that the

mother’s educational level was a better predictor of a child’s achievement in school than was the

father’s educational level.

Educational attainment of the parents also appears to affect parental beliefs about the

behaviors and attributes their children may need to succeed in kindergarten. West, Hausken, and

Collins (1995) concluded that parents with higher educational levels were generally more

informed about age-appropriate expectations and the accommodations of individual differences.

Harris and Knudsen-Lindauer (1988) reported similar findings in that parents in lower

socioeconomic groups generally placed greater emphasis on observable and concrete skills of

independence and self-sufficiency rather than the abstract development of emotional and

receptive language domains. The researchers concluded that this could be attributed to less

formal education and limited access to educational materials.

Statistics cited by Wright, Hauskin, and West (1994) from the National Center for

Education Statistics in 1993 confirmed the impact of the three identified nonprocess variables in

this study: (a) family income, (b) family structure, and (c) parents’ educational level. The

percentage of preschool children living in poverty that was regularly read to by a family member

was lower (68%) than for children not living in poverty (81%). The children living in poverty

were less likely to have visited a library (29% vs. 43%) and to have been told a story (37% vs.

42%). Consequently, children from lower economic backgrounds were more likely to have been

taught songs or music than their more affluent counterparts (41% vs. 35%). A relationship also

existed between the mother’s level of education and whether children were read to or told a story

on a regular basis. Mothers with at least a high school education or General Educational

Development diploma (GED) were more likely to read to their children than those mothers who

were less educated (81% vs. 59%); the same held true for storytelling (42% vs. 35%) and visits

22
to the library (43% vs. 24%). Additional statistics indicated that having two parents was linked

to more frequent family-child interactions. Children from two-parent households were more

likely to have been read to (81% vs. 70%) and to have visited a library (43% vs. 32%) than their

counterparts from single-parent families (Wright et al.).

Process Variables: Literacy Activities, Learning Tools, and Television Viewing

Research has shown that differences in student learning cannot be evaluated solely in terms

of static factors. Studies from previous decades suggested that how parents rear their children

might be more important than the parents’ occupations, income, or educational levels

(Marjoribanks, 1979; Snow et al., 1991; Teale, 1986). Some suggested that home learning

environment had at least twice as great an effect on achievement as family socioeconomic status

(Walberg, 1984a). Mavrogenes (1990) stated that although middle-income parents more

successfully tend to encourage literacy than do low-income parents, parents' income is not the

sole determinant in early literacy. He further added, "Most things that parents can do to

encourage reading and writing involve time, attention, and sensitivity rather than money. All

parents can learn to foster children's literacy" (p. 4).

Bus and van Ijzendoorn (1995) studied the attachment relationship between parents and

children of both high and low socioeconomic statuses as a useful concept to explain differences

in the frequency of parent-preschooler interactive reading. They concluded, "Literacy is not the

outcome of an environment enriched with written material but that it strongly depends on

parental ability to involve young children in literacy experiences” (p. 1009). In interviewing and

observing three families with parents who were unemployed high school dropouts, Genisio

(1999) concurred by emphasizing the link between love and literacy as important in promoting

academic readiness and an early interest in reading. Additional studies have indicated that

children have more positive school experiences and academic success when parents are actively

23
involved in their children’s learning and demonstrate continued interest in their progress

(Entwisle, 1979; McLoyd, 1990; Snow, 1983).

As stated in Mattox (1995), Henderson and Burla reviewed research literature and

determined the following characteristics of a stimulating home environment: (a) establishment of

a daily family routine that includes regular bedtimes and regular study times; (b) monitored

nonschool activities including television viewing; (c) modeled values of learning, self-discipline,

and work ethics, particularly through the use of home learning tools; (d) expression of high but

realistic achievement expectations; (e) encouragement of children’s development and progress in

school; (f) stimulation of reading and writing, including family discussion times; and (g)

facilitation of the use of community resources, including such things as trips to the library,

cultural events, and music lessons. What families do together actually matters. Values, habits,

and relational dynamics are all at work within the family environment.

Economists who study the development of human resources have determined that there are

surprisingly large differences in the amount of time that parents invest in their children. Studies

with preschool children showed the reported value of parental care and time invested in children

differed as much as five times from family to family (Hill & Stafford, 1974). These vast

differences contribute to the understanding of children’s varying capacities to profit from school

and other educational experiences. Through research on samples of adults, Walberg and Tsai

(1983) discovered strong cumulative advantages of stimulating educational experiences in

families and schools. Their experiences predicted adult knowledge much more decisively than

either adult effort or motivation; the research further showed that those adults who had early

educational experiences at home gained knowledge at faster rates throughout their adult lives.

Through a synthesis of research findings, Iverson and Walberg (1982) suggested that

process characteristics are more closely linked to student achievement than parental social status;

specifically, they concluded that ability and achievement are more closely linked to the

sociopsychological environment and intellectual stimulation within the home than to parents’

24
occupation or educational level. Using a “process view” describes educationally relevant factors

in the home better than any other method. Based on meta-analysis of 200 studies, White (1982)

concluded that socioeconomic status might be an indirect measure of home atmosphere and

correlated weakly (r = .22) with academic achievement whereas childrearing practices (reading

to children, taking children to the library, etc.) more directly influence student achievement

(r = .55). White commented, “It may be how parents rear their children . . . and not the parents’

occupation, income, or education that really makes the difference” (p. 471). Teale (1986) used a

naturalistic inquiry of home background and literacy development that corroborated this

position; he contended that literacy must be considered a social process as well as a cultural

practice. Similarly, Bevevino (1988) concluded that what a parent actually does with children is

a much more important factor than is socioeconomic status, level of education, or occupation.

Several specific characteristics have been linked with early literacy development. These

include: (a) a rich literacy environment where parents purchase books for their children, take

them to the library, and subscribe to a variety of magazines and newspapers; (b) an environment

conducive to early writing, where paper, pencils, and crayons are available, children’s early

attempts at writing and drawing are supported, and where children see parents writing for

functional purposes; (c) well organized and scheduled daily activities and responsibilities with

predictable eating and sleeping times; and (d) a warm accepting atmosphere with shared reading

and open conversation (Barclay, Benilli, & Curtis, 1995).

Comer (1984) stated, “The child is, in large part, a product of the teaching, modeling, and

moderating (interpreting and utilizing the environmental stimuli) skills of the household” (pp.

324-325). A child’s identification with parents and other family members provides an avenue

for intellectual, speech and language, moral, social, psychological, emotional, and academic

development. Cox (1987) determined that a child’s receptive oral vocabulary is impacted by the

quality of home experiences and verbal interactions between parent and child. Likewise, a

25
child’s motivation to learn and ability to concentrate is influenced by the degree of parental

encouragement and extent of his experiences of similar learning tasks at home.

Several studies have suggested that family atmosphere rather than family structure is most

predictive of academic failure or drop out (Snow et al., 1991; Stroup & Robins, 1972). In

studying two-parent and single-parent families, Clark (1983) noted that firm rules, parental

interest in a child’s academic program, parent-child interaction through activities such as reading

and word games, and a parent’s optimistic assertive approach to life were key ingredients of

academic achievement. Two-parent and single-parent families with these attributes produced

higher academic achieving children than did two-parent and single-parent families that lacked

these characteristics. Through a synthesis of empirical studies of academic learning, Walberg

(1984a) concluded that parents directly or indirectly influence the eight chief determinants of

cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Of particular interest to this study is the

importance of an academically stimulating home environment and a minimum exposure to low-

grade television programming. Walberg further concluded that the curriculum of the home

predicted academic achievement twice as well as the family’s socioeconomic status. This

“curriculum” was defined as including (a) informed parent and child conversations about

everyday events, (b) encouragement and discussion of leisure reading, (c) television monitoring,

(d) establishment of long-term goals, and (e) expression of affection and concern for the child’s

personal and academic growth. Goldenberg (1989) used case studies to determine that assertive

parental involvement and parental encouragement significantly influenced student achievement.

His observations and interviews suggested that parents could positively influence children’s

motivation and reading skills acquisition that in turn resulted in higher reading group placement

for the children.

Parent-child communication has often been recognized as a positive component of the

home environment (Dornbusch & Wood, 1989; Epstein, 1991; Goldenberg, 1989; Hess &

Holloway, 1984; Snow et al., 1998). In studies of younger children, Hess and Holloway noted a

26
significant association between verbal communication in the home and school achievement.

Better school performance was found among those students who participated in mealtime

conversations and who were more often asked informative questions by their parents.

Observations in an early study by Jensen (1967) yielded similar conclusions. He noted that:

Crude socioeconomic variables, such as income, occupation, and neighborhood, do not

correlate as highly with intelligence and educability as do ratings of more psychological

variables, such as whether the parents read to the children during the preschool years,

whether the family eats together, whether children are brought into the conversation at

the dinner table, and other features of parent-child interaction, especially involving verbal

behavior. (p. 11)

In reviewing Snow and Dickinson’s Home-School Study of Language and Literacy

Development, Lynn (1997) confirmed that children who are exposed to more words and more

unusual words during their conversations with adults generally tend to develop larger

vocabularies. The study noted that for many children the richest opportunities for exposure to

new and different words came during mealtimes.

Home observations and interviews by Snow et al. (1991) indicated that children who spent

time interacting with adults had an advantage over those who spent the majority of their time

with siblings, peers, or both. Also important is the use of conversation to build “shared

histories” between parent and child (Snow, 1983). This “literate” approach to information

involves asking the child questions about past-shared events in establishing shared permanent

histories.

Mills (1984) linked a child's academic success with a positive self-concept. He theorized

that self-concept is learned through interactions with parents and family members and developed

as children continually interacted with their environment; feelings and perceptions of self are

thus formed. The greater amount of success that is experienced by children, the better their self-

27
concepts, which in turn results in increased academic readiness. Likewise, Coleman (1990)

noted the strong relationship between attitudes, self-concept, and achievement.

Studies across ethnic groups have revealed similar findings. In examining the relationship

of home environment and motivational orientation of higher and lower achieving Puerto Rican

children, analyses revealed statistically significant differences in both environment and

motivation between the high and low achievers. Post-hoc analysis revealed that family

involvement accounted for a significant amount of variance in achievement. Mothers of high

achieving students also had higher expectations for both their children and themselves; they had

higher parental reinforcement of aspirations and had knowledge of their child’s educational

progress (Soto, 1989). A study of Korean adolescents determined that self-concept was a

mediating variable between home environment and academic achievement. Results did not

support the commonly held view that home environment directly affects academics. Instead,

Song and Hattie (1984) suggested that social status factors have indirect effect on self-concept

through family psychological characteristics; in turn, academic self-concept strongly affected

academic achievement.

The relationship of home environment and reading has often been of interest to

researchers. According to Anderson, Scott, and Wilkerson (1985), reading aloud to children was

discovered to be the single most important activity for building a knowledge base for future

success in reading. Reading to children has been shown to contribute directly to early literacy

development (Brock & Dodd, 1994; Teale, 1984, 1986; Weinberger, 1996; Wells, 1982). Using

longitudinal data, Durkin (1966) and Clark (1976) independently reached similar conclusions.

They reported a positive relationship between the onset and reading skill level of children with

the availability of reading materials, the child's observation of an adult reading, and parent and

child reading together. Clark observed as a feature in most homes “an interest in their children’s

progress coupled with encouragement of independence of choice” (p. 102). In particular, Durkin

iterated the importance of “the presence of parents who spend time with their children; who read

28
to them; who answer their questions and their requests for help; and who demonstrate in their

own lives that reading is a rich source of relaxation, information, and contentment” (p. 136). In a

longitudinal study, Epstein (1991) indicated that parental involvement such as listening to

children read and jointly participating in learning activities at home had a significant positive

effect on elementary students’ achievement. He discovered significant increases over time

specifically in reading skills. Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, and Angell (1994) also noted

significant gains in children’s reading skills when parents were more responsive and “dialogic”

during shared reading times.

Similarly, studies by Tizard, Schofield, and Hewison (1982) iterated the importance of

joint learning activities in the home environment. In their two-year study to assess the effects of

parental involvement in the teaching of reading, the natural settings experiment provided

evidence for a causal relationship between parents listening to their children read and actual

reading attainment. Children who read to their parents on a regular basis made more significant

reading gains than did children who received an equivalent amount of extra reading instruction

from school specialists. Particularly interesting were their findings that low parental literacy

skills did not detract from the results, suggesting that the supportive atmosphere provided by the

parents may be more important than any transfer of skills. Christenson (1990) concluded that

parental support was positively associated with children’s academic achievement. She

subsequently characterized support as “encouraging school work, listening to children read,

participating in learning activities at home, providing rewards for improvement on daily in-class

assignments, and providing opportunities and supplies for learning at home” (p. 506). Additional

studies indicated that children learn about both reading and writing through direct experiences

and also from observing others who read and write (Smith, 1981a; Smith 1981b; Teale, 1982;

Weinberger, 1996). Auerbach (1989) concluded that:

Indirect factors including frequency of children’s outings with adults, number of maternal

outings, emotional climate of the home, amount of time spent interacting with adults,

29
 level of financial stress, enrichment activities, and parental involvement with the schools

had a stronger effect on many aspects of reading and writing than did direct literacy

activities, such as help with homework. (p. 172)

Wolfgang and Stakenas (1985) investigated toy contents of preschoolers’ home

environments as a predictor of cognitive development. Results demonstrated a strong positive

relationship and further suggested that different toys and play forms were related to different

kinds of cognitive development. Importantly, the researcher acknowledged that measures could

not be based solely on the number of toys in the home, but that the parent-child relationship must

also be considered. In-home observations revealed how toys were really used during play and

what parents actually did to facilitate or impede cognitive development as they interacted with

their children. Maternal involvement, appropriate play items, and opportunities for a variety of

stimulation in academic behaviors were determined by Gottfried (1984) to have the highest

correlation with children’s cognitive performance in middle-income families. A strong

correlation between a stimulating literacy and material environment and academic success was

also confirmed by Snow et al. (1991) and Walberg (1984b, 1984c). Zeavin (1997) noted the

importance of physical environment with space for large motor learning and stressed that

"Children's movement is not only a manifestation of physical well-being, but along with sensory

experience is the foundation of intellectual functions" (p. 76). According to Snow et al. (1991),

“provisions of literacy” are vital to children’s acquisition of reading. In the early years, these

provisions include reading to children, encouraging children to read aloud, and providing library

experiences. They also established that the provision of literacy experiences was a powerful

predictor variable in their original study and subsequently was related at significant levels to

student achievement four years later in the areas of word recognition, vocabulary, and reading

comprehension.

Clark (1976) and Bradley and Caldwell (1978) reported a significant relationship between

the availability of learning tools and resources in the home and the child’s academic success in

30
school. In writing about a “hyperlearning revolution,” Perelman (1992) strongly advocated the

importance of home learning tools. In his book, School’s Out, Perelman used survey data to

determine that the number of learning tools (e.g. typewriter, calculator, encyclopedias, more than

50 books, etc.) in the home environment was a much stronger predictor of student academic

achievement than parental expectations. He boldly added “Learning tools are not just a

coincidence of family status--they are tools that help produce more learning . . . that the kids of

well-off families have more access to effective learning tools . . . is at least as notable as the issue

of access to supposedly ‘effective’ schools'" (pp. 190-191). He further added, “Actually the

point of this whole book is that tools are far more important than school” (p. 191). In the

assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), school achievement

was consistently related to the number of reading materials in the home. Unfortunately, the

number and availability of reading materials found in the home environment has declined during

the last twenty years (America’s Smallest School, 1999).

With the introduction and ongoing popularity of television, its influence and the

importance of parental monitoring of content and viewing times have become issues.

Televisions are commonplace in homes across America. In 1998, Nielsen Media Research

(Landon, 1999) indicated that 98% of United States households owned at least one television,

and each day in each household, the television was turned on an average of 7 hours and 12

minutes. Nielsen also discovered that in 1998, 74% of American homes had more than one

television and 74% had cable TV service.

Statistics on television viewing are overwhelming. Babies as young as nine months watch

television approximately 90 minutes per day (Wilson & Christopher, 1992). The average

American child watches three to five hours of television each day. The typical child entering

kindergarten and first grade watches television approximately 16 hours per week. By fourth

grade, television-viewing increases, reaching a peak of 28 hours per week for middle school

students (Gunter & McAleer, 1990). Most researchers agree that three or more hours of

31
television viewing per day are excessive (Prawd, 1995). By high school graduation, the majority

of American school children have spent more time in front of the television than in the school

classroom. According to a 1999 report by the Canadian Paediatric Society, the average child

spends more time watching television than participating in any other activity with the exception

of sleeping (Children and the Media, 1999). The 1992 NAEP Trends in Academic Progress

report showed that at age 9, 13, and 17, students reported an overall increase in their daily

amount of television viewing over the past decade with no changes in family rules about

watching television since 1986 ("Achievement Stalls," 1994).

Television represents a powerful social and educational influence on today’s children;

whether this influence is positive or negative continues to be a topic of debate. It is often

conceded that although television has the capability to be a powerful educational force, it has

been used primarily as an entertainment tool. Most preschool children enjoy programming

designed especially for them including cartoons and educational shows such as Sesame Street

and Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (Demers, 1989). However, by first grade, viewing interests

change, with 45% of first graders preferring comedies considered adult programming (Rosengren

& Windahl, 1989). America’s children watch programs designed for adult viewing audiences

about 80% of the time (Charren & Sandler, 1983).

Neuman (1991) conducted extensive research in the area of television and its effects. She

analyzed the role of television based on three premises. The first focuses on the issue of

displacement and the assumption that television viewing takes time away from other activities; in

the case of children, these include such activities as free play and reading. The second premise

suggests that television has changed the way that people learn--from active two-way

communication to more passive engagement. The third premise reflects concern for television’s

effect on behavior, particularly addressing occurrences of violence and aggression.

Research results on the effects of television viewing on achievement and readiness are

mixed. Early studies investigating the relationship between television and academic

32
performance typically noted little or no evidence supporting detrimental effects of television

viewing. A meta-analysis conducted by Williams, Haertel, Haertel, and Walberg (1982) on the

impact of leisure television watching on school achievement indicated no significant

relationship. These results were substantiated by Neuman (1988). Other research has been more

contradictory (Clarke & Kurtz-Costes, 1997). Some researchers agree that extensive television

viewing can slow the acquisition of reading skills, impair social development, and lower overall

school performance (Gunter & McAleer, 1990). A two-year Canadian study showed a strong

decrease in all areas of reading ability, social interaction, and creativity. The study also noted

that children who watched more television were less obedient (Gunter & McAleer). Looking at

10 to 12 year olds, American researchers determined that children who read more and watched

television less had higher IQ’s and were more imaginative (Charren & Sandler, 1983). Writing

ability has correlated both significantly and negatively with television viewing hours (Gunter &

McAleer). By studying 70 preschoolers, Haines (1984) determined significant correlations

between hours of television viewing and eye-hand coordination. As television viewing time

increased, eye-hand coordination decreased. Her small study could have serious implications for

successful primary school performances for incoming kindergarten students. Using data from a

statewide reading assessment in Connecticut, Neuman and Powda (1982) analyzed patterns of

reading and television viewing behavior of over 7,500 students in grades 4, 8, and 11. They

discovered negative relationships between reading achievement and viewing at all grade levels,

with low test scores at all grade levels associated with students' viewing more than four hours

daily. The NAEP consistently finds that students who watch long hours of television have lower

school proficiencies, although these assessments do not establish a significant causal relationship

(America’s Smallest School, 1999). Specifically, preschoolers’ television watching has been

studied; the amount of preschool television viewing was inversely related to both academic

achievement and sociability in the first grade (Burton, Calonico, & McSeveney, 1979). Other

33
studies have not shown a significant relationship between grades and television viewing

(Childers & Ross, 1973; Hagborg, 1995; Wiggins, 1987).

Slavenas (1984) cited both positive and negative effects of television viewing. A primary

concern related to the displacement theory is the question--specifically, what is a child not doing

during the hours spent watching television? Obviously, children are not playing, talking,

running, exploring, and questioning. This directly conflicts with Piaget’s well-known findings

that small children need to be active and learn best by doing, not just watching or listening. Van

Evra (1990) echoed a similar concern.

Closely tied to television viewing are the aforementioned nonprocess factors: the education

level of the parents, socioeconomic status, and family structure. Home environment

characteristics can be closely linked to television viewing in that environments rich in learning

opportunities, parental encouragement, and family interaction may indirectly discourage children

from becoming heavy television viewers. Designing their research around this premise, Clarke

and Kurtz-Costes (1997) studied 30 African-American preschoolers and their parents, who were

determined to be low-income parents. They discovered that children who watched more

television had poorer academic skills than their peers who watched less television. Interestingly,

further analyses confirmed that for this small sample of Black children, literacy activities in the

home were unrelated to reading scores obtained on the Metropolitan Readiness Test.

Theoretically, a negative relationship between education-related home characteristics and

television viewing substantiated previous research findings that supported the displacement

theory. Several studies noted a statistically significant negative relationship between television

viewing time and socioeconomic status (Hagborg, 1995; Morgan & Gross, 1980; Potter, 1987;

Zuckerman, Singer, & Singer, 1980).

Children from lower income families with less education tend to watch more television,

as it is often the only form of entertainment in the home. Research has shown that the

educational level of the mother is inversely related to the number of hours children watch
34
television (Burton et al., 1979; Medrich, 1979). Lower income families and those in which

mothers have less education also comprise the majority of constant television households--those

in which the television is turned on for most of the day whether or not anyone is watching

(Medrich). Also impacting television-viewing habits is the increasing number of “latchkey

kids,” those going home after school to households where no parent is present (Haines, 1984).

Research suggests that children whose parents have defined rules and guidelines concerning

television viewing achieve at significantly higher levels in both math and reading (Ridley-

Johnson, Cooper, & Chance, 1982). Unfortunately, when no parent is present, there is no one to

monitor when or what a child watches. Only about one third of parents attempt to control the

amount of their children’s television viewing. Many parents actually encourage it as a form of

babysitting (Haines).

Summary

Weston (1989) succinctly stated, “Parents are a child’s first teachers, and families are

their first, and most enduring, school” (p. 2). Morrow (1995) supported this view:

Parents are the first teachers their children have, and they are the teachers that children

have for the longest time. Parents or other caregivers are potentially the most important

people in the education of their children. Research supports a strong link between the

home environment and children's acquisition of school-based literacy. (pp. 6-7)

The research reviewed in this chapter iterates the complexities involved in examining the

effects of family demographics and structure on children’s readiness and achievement in addition

to the effects of family processes or ways parents generally interact with their children and

working relationships within the family. The results of significant research have been described,

and relevant studies pertaining to the variables used in this study have been cited. Numerous

factors appear to relate directly and indirectly and in both simple and more complex ways to
35
school readiness. The relationship between school readiness and family income, family

structure, parents’ educational levels, amount of children’s television viewing, availability of

learning tools, and home literacy activities are further examined in this study.

36
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of family environment and

school readiness of children entering school in a rural East Tennessee county. Six broad areas

for study were identified, including three nonprocess factors: family income, family structure,

and parents’ education and three process factors: participation in literacy activities, availability

of home learning tools, and amount of children's television viewing.

Although the majority of previous studies and research agree that family characteristics

and home environment affect school readiness and academic achievement, many questions

remain as earlier works emphasize the complexities inherent in such a study. The selected

variables relate both directly and indirectly in various ways to school success or the lack thereof.

Many intricate relationships have been hypothesized or found to exist among the variables

identified in this study. This chapter includes information on the research design, sample,

population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis used in this research.

Research Design

A correlational research design was chosen for this study because the researcher is

attempting to discover relationships, if any, between the designated variables. Correlational

research is defined by Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996) as “a type of investigation that seeks to

discover the direction and magnitude of the relationship among variables through the use of

correlational statistics” (p.756). This method may also be called ex-post-facto research because

“Causes are studied after they presumably have exerted their effects on another variable” (Gall et

al., p. 381).

37
 Correlational statistics can be used to explore cause-and-effect relationships between

variables, but the obtained results generally do not lead to strong conclusions.

Correlational coefficients are best used to measure the degree and direction (i.e., positive

or negative) of the relationship between two or more variables and to explore possible

causal factors. (Gall et al., p. 414)

Therefore, by examining these statistics, the researcher will be able to infer, but not

prove, causality. The emphasis on making inferences rather than justifying causality concurs

with the argument of Teale (1986) that a shortcoming of research on the effects of family

environment is its design. “Children are tested in, for example, various aspects of literacy

development (usually referred to as reading readiness) and their achievement levels are then

correlated with particular home background characteristics. Such research provides no direct

evidence for cause-effect relations” (p. 174).

Population

The study’s population was taken from parents and incoming kindergarten students

enrolling in schools located in a generally rural county of East Tennessee known primarily for its

growing tourist industry and significant in-migration of seasonal residents. Several grade

configurations exist within the 20-school public education system. State mandated kindergarten

programs are available in each of the four primary and four elementary schools within the

county. Students are eligible to attend kindergarten if their fifth birthday falls on or before

October 1 of the school year.

Sample

Convenience cluster sampling was selected for use in this study because of availability

and feasibility of selecting naturally occurring groups in the population. For the purpose of this

study, the sample consisted of incoming kindergarten students who participated in the annual

38
spring kindergarten preregistration and Brigance screening in four geographically diverse

schools within the system. Each site represented different size and school configurations: one

small K-8 school, one mid-sized K-4 school, one mid-sized K-3 school, and one large K-2

school. Together, these four schools annually house approximately 50% of the total 800+

kindergarten students in the county. It is the belief of this researcher that the selected schools,

which are located in different geographical regions of the county, fairly represent the broad

spectrum of students found in this area.

Instrumentation

The Brigance K Screen was used to determine entering kindergarteners’ readiness for

school. Adapted from the lengthy Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development, the

Brigance K tests the following:

1. general knowledge and comprehension (identification of body parts, color

recognition, following directions);

2. speech and language (personal data responses, picture vocabulary, syntax and

fluency);

3. gross motor skills (standing, walking, hopping);

4. fine motor skills (draws a shape, draws a person);

5. math (counts by rote, numerals in sequence);

6. readiness (visual discrimination, recites alphabet, recognition of lower case letters;

7. basic reading (auditory discrimination); and

8. manuscript writing (prints personal data).

Both criterion- and norm-referenced, the Brigance K provides information not only about the

child’s mastery of critical readiness skills but also about how the child’s performance compares

with that of other children.

39
 An independent study by Glascoe (1995) concluded that the Brigance Screens have a

high degree of internal consistency (.81-.99), excellent test-retest reliability (<3 months 86%, >3

months 82%), and outstanding interrater reliability (97%). A summary of the validity research

revealed substantial content validity; items were taken from research and other measures then

selected by a pool of psychologists and educators. The Brigance Screens have excellent

concurrent validity and are highly correlated with diagnostic measure of intelligence, academics,

development, and teacher/examiner ratings. In addition, the Brigance Screens have substantial

predictive validity. Additional studies provide support for these conclusions.

Based on Glascoe’s (1995) validation study, separate cut-offs are identified for younger

and older children within each form. The optimum cut-offs that best discriminate children with

and without difficulties on the Brigance K Screen are as follows: ages 4-9 to 5-2<83 and ages 5-

3 to 5-8<92. The Brigance is administered by kindergarten teachers to the incoming

kindergarten students during appointed screening times in the spring.

The second instrument used in this research study was a self-reported parent survey.

Incorporating 18 questions in a closed-form multiple-choice format, it also contained one open-

ended and three short answer questions. In addition to a survey of demographic information

including family income, family structure, and parents’ educational background, the survey

addressed home environment issues and family characteristics. The parent letter, informed

consent, and parent survey were given to the parent or primary caretaker of each incoming

kindergarten student at the four selected school sites.

Data Collection Planning

Initially, a letter was sent to the Director of Schools (see Appendix A) requesting

permission to collect data from selected school sites within the system. The principal at each site

40
received a letter of intent, explaining the purpose of the study and asking permission to survey

parents and access Brigance scores (see Appendix B).

A letter was given to the parents of each incoming kindergarten student at the selected

sites (see Appendix C). The letter accompanied the Informed Consent (see Appendix D),

explained the purpose of the study, and asked for parents’ assistance in completing the parent

questionnaire (see Appendix E). Parents were assured that all information would be confidential.

Questions and concerns about the study and questionnaires were addressed as needed. The

researcher made special efforts to obtain the parents’ truthful cooperation in response to the

questionnaire by informing them that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions and

that response accuracy was important for research purposes.

The Brigance K Screen was administered to incoming students by kindergarten teachers

during the April 2002 countywide kindergarten screening. At that time, Brigance student data

sheets with scores were completed for each kindergarten student entering school during August

2002, with one copy given to the parent and one copy placed in the child’s cumulative record.

Parents were asked to complete the survey as their children were administered the

Brigance K Screen in an adjacent area. After each child completed the screening process, the

Brigance score was individually explained to the parents by the screening coordinator during a

private exit conference. At this time, parents returned the consent form and the completed

survey. The screening coordinator noted the total Brigance score in the upper right corner of the

corresponding survey after each conference.

Data Analysis

This study describes the demographics and family/home characteristics of incoming

kindergarten students and their parents through descriptive analysis. This study also investigates

the relationship between characteristics of family environment and school readiness of

kindergarten children entering school in a rural East Tennessee county. From research question

41
2, eighteen hypotheses were developed and analyzed. From research question 3, an additional

five hypotheses were developed.

Ho21: There is no significant relationship between family structure and school readiness.

Ho22: There is no significant relationship between father's level of education and school

readiness.

Ho23: There is no significant relationship between mother's level of education and school

readiness.

Ho24: There is no significant relationship between family income and school readiness.

Ho25: There is no significant relationship between preschool care and school readiness.

Ho26: There is no significant relationship between reading to a child and school readiness.

Ho27: There is no significant relationship between the child "reading" to a parent and school

readiness.

Ho28: There is no significant relationship between participation in family teaching/learning

activities and school readiness.

Ho29: There is no significant relationship between participation in educational outings and school

readiness.

Ho210: There is no significant relationship between family mealtime and school readiness.

Ho211: There is no significant relationship between meal conversation and school readiness.

Ho212: There is no significant relationship between frequency of television viewing and school

readiness.

Ho213: There is no significant relationship between duration of television viewing and school

readiness.

Ho214: There is no significant relationship between involvement with educational toys or hobbies

and school readiness.

Ho215: There is no significant relationship between the number of home educational tools and

school readiness.

42
Ho216: There is no significant relationship between the availability of a home computer and

school readiness.

Ho217: There is no significant relationship between the number of children's books in the home

and school readiness.

Ho218: There is no significant relationship between the frequency of new book acquisition or

library loans and school readiness.

Ho31: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

two-parent homes and those from other home situations.

Ho32: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

homes with different annual income levels.

Ho33: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students based

on the father’s level of education.

Ho34: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students based

on the mother’s level of education.

Ho35: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students who

stayed at home with a parent prior to school entry and those from other preschool situations.

In answer to research question 1, descriptive analyses in the form of frequency tables

were used to describe basic demographics and family characteristics. Research question 2 was

analyzed using two correlational analyses. Kendall's tau-b was used to identify and explore the

possible relationships between the ordinal predictor variables (family characteristics) and the

dependent variable (Brigance score). Cramer’s V was used to analyze the hypotheses that

explored the association between nominal variables and the Brigance scores. Research question

3 was analyzed using analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and independent samples t-tests. A

hierarchical multiple regression was used to analyze the effects of selected independent variables

on the Brigance scores in response to research question 4.

43
 This chapter included information about the research design, population and sample,

instrumentation, and analysis of data. Chapter 4 presents an analysis of data, and chapter 5

includes the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for further consideration.

44
 CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The importance of a rich, stimulating home learning environment in the early years of a

child's cognitive development cannot be underestimated. Because of the family's extraordinary

influence and the evolving home environment in today's society, a study of school readiness and

its relationship to specific family environment factors is significant. The purpose of this study

was to investigate the relationship between family environment and school readiness of children

entering kindergarten in a rural East Tennessee county.

Four research questions evolved as the primary focus of this investigation:

1. What are the characteristics of the study's participants and their home environments?

2. What is the relationship between specific home/family characteristics and kindergarten

readiness?

3. Are there differences in the total Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

different socioeconomic status groups?

4. To what extent can socioeconomic status, literacy activities, and learning resources be

used to predict kindergarten readiness?

Data were gathered from self-reported parent surveys and Brigance K Screen results. For

research question 1, simple descriptive statistics comprised an important framework for initial

analysis of data. From research question 2, 18 hypotheses were developed and statistically

analyzed using Cramer's V and Kendall's tau-b. Five null hypotheses emerged from question 3;

t-tests for independent samples and analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used for analysis of

the data. Question 4 was analyzed through a hierarchical multiple regression.

The study's population consisted of parents and their incoming kindergarten students

preregistered in four schools in a rural East Tennessee county. The schools are identified as A,

45
B, C, and D. During the annually scheduled spring kindergarten registration, Brigance K

Screens were administered to 342 students, and parent surveys were distributed. In addition to

basic demographic information, the parent survey gathered information regarding home

environment including family activities and educational materials within the home. Three

hundred thirty-eight parents signed consent forms agreeing to participate in the study. The

overall survey return and subsequent student participation rate was 99.1%. The number of

participants by school is shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Number of Study Participants by School

School n screened n study participants %

A 139 138 99.3

B 93 92 98.9

C 24 24 100

D 86 84 97.6

Possible scores on the Brigance K Screen range from 0-100. Overall in this study, the

minimum Brigance score obtained was 45.5 and the maximum score was 100. Therefore, the

range of scores was 54.5. The mean score for all participating students was 88.43; the median

score was 93.50. Out of 338 screened students, 37 (10.9%) scored a perfect 100 on the

assessment instrument. A comparison of scores by school is shown in Table 2.

46
Table 2

Mean and Median Scores on the Brigance K by School

School M n Mdn % of Total n

A 91.19 138 94.50 40.8

B 86.99 92 92.75 27.2

C 85.40 24 96.25 7.1

D 86.33 84 90.00 24.9

Total 88.43 338 93.50 100.0

Distribution of scores is shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Frequency Distribution of Brigance K Screen Scores

f %

45.5 - 50.0 6 1.8

50.5 - 60.0 11 3.0

60.5 - 70.0 19 5.7

70.5 - 80.0 34 10.2

80.5 - 90.0 58 17.4

90.5 - 100.0 210 62.3

Total 338 100.4*

*Total valid % >100 due to rounding error

47
 Research Question 1

What are the characteristics of the study's participants and their home environments?

When reflecting on significant family characteristics, three specific socioeconomic

factors were selected for consideration: family structure, parents' educational level, and family

income. Parents' occupation was also considered an important family characteristic. As shown

in Table 4, 79.5% of the incoming kindergarten children lived with both parents. In one-parent

families, 57 (17%) lived with the mother while 5 (1.5%) lived with the father. A small number

(seven) lived with grandparents or in other situations.

Table 4

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "My Child lives With"

Child Lives with f %

Both parents 267 79.5

One parent - mother 57 17.0

One parent - father 5 1.5

Grandparents 2 .6

Other 5 1.5

Total 336 100.1*

*Total valid % >100 due to rounding error

Table 5 indicates that the majority of fathers and mothers had a high school diploma,

43.8% and 41.5% respectively. Over one fourth (26.7%) of the fathers had from 1 to 4 years of

college, while 30.1% of the mothers had some college experience. Thirteen percent of the

fathers attended graduate or professional school while 17.6% of the mothers had advanced
48
educational experience. Three percent of the surveyed parents had an eighth grade or below

education.

Table 5

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "Father's Education and Mother's Education''

Father's Education Mother's Education

f % f %

Graduate/professional 44 13.2 59 17.6

1-4 years of college 89 26.7 101 30.1

High school graduate 146 43.8 139 41.5

Some high school 49 14.7 31 9.3

8th grade or below 5 1.5 5 1.5

Total 333 99.9* 335 100.0

* Total valid % < 100 due to rounding error

Disclosure of annual family income was an optional survey item. However, 286 (84.6%)

chose to respond. Over one third (34.6%) of the parents reported an annual income of between

$20,000 and $40,000. Eighty-two (28.7%) of the respondents reported incomes in excess of

$50,000. Eight percent of the parents had yearly incomes of $10,000 or less. Table 6 shows the

frequencies of each income increment.

49
Table 6

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "Approximate Family Income"

Family Income f %

$10,000 or less 23 8.0

$10,000 - $20,000 44 15.4

$20,000 - $40,000 99 34.6

$40,000 - $50,000 38 13.3

Over $50,000 82 28.7

Total 286 100.0

Parent surveys showed that approximately one fourth of fathers were employed in skilled

trades (25.3%). As one might expect in a tourist-oriented county, many parents worked as store

managers and in sales related and personal service (housekeeping, leisure activity) occupations.

Only eight fathers were reported as being unemployed, retired, or disabled. Ninety-two (28.2%)

mothers were characterized as "stay at home" mothers. Twelve fathers (3.9%) and 28 mothers

(8.6%) were reported as professionals in their occupational fields. Table 7 shows occupation

frequencies for both fathers and mothers.

50
Table 7

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "Father's Occupation and Mother's Occupation"

Father's Occupation Mother's Occupation

f % f %

Professional 12 3.9 28 8.6

Semi-professional/tech. 33 10.7 20 6.1

Managerial 48 15.6 33 10.1

Administrative/clerical 11 3.6 42 12.9

Law enforcement 12 3.9 2 0.6

Skilled trades 78 25.3 11 3.4

Sales 36 11.7 30 9.2

Personal service 4 1.3 52 16.0

Machine/transportation 34 11.0 2 .1

Unskilled trades 12 3.9 2 .1

Stay at home mother 0 0 92 28.2

Unemployed 6 1.9 0 0

Self-employed (not

otherwise specified) 18 5.8 7 2.1

Retired 1 .3 0 0

Disabled 1 .3 0 0

Student 1 .3 5 1.5

Military service 1 .3 0 0

Total 308 99.8* 326 98.8*

Total valid % < 100 due to rounding error

51
 Table 8 describes types of preschool care afforded the children in this study. Almost one

third of the respondents (32.8%) reported that their child stayed at home with his or her parent

prior to kindergarten entry. The second most frequently used form of preschool care was

licensed professional childcare (24.3%). Sixty-five (19.2%) of the incoming kindergartners

attended a Head Start program. Similar numbers of children were cared for in a home setting

(10.4%) or a church day care (11.5%).

Table 8

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to “Prior to Kindergarten Entry, What Best Describes Your

Child’s Situation?”

f %

Stayed at home with parent 111 33.3

Child care in home setting 35 10.5

Licensed professional care 82 24.6

Church day care 39 11.7

Head start 65 19.5

Early childhood preschool (SPED) 1 .3

Total 333 99.9*

*Total valid % < 100 due to rounding error

The parent survey indicated that the respondents took an active role in various literacy

activities with their preschool children. Over half of the parents (52.1%) reported that they read

to their children a few times a week. Similarly, 50.4% of the parents reported that the children

"read" (i.e. pointed out pictures and told a story about them) to them a few times a week. Over
52
one third (34.3%) of the respondents said that they read to their child everyday. Almost one

fourth (24.6%) responded that the child "read" to them everyday. Educational games and

activities were often shared between parent and child on a daily basis (65.4%) or a few times a

week (29.9%). Table 9 reflects the response frequencies.

Table 9

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Do You Read to Your Child? How Often

Does Your Child Read to You? How Often Do You Play With or Teach Your Child?"

Reads to Child Child "Reads" Educational

Activities
f % f % f %

Everyday 116 34.3 83 24.6 221 65.4

Few times a week 176 52.1 170 50.4 101 29.9

Once a week 22 6.5 30 8.9 9 2.7

Few times a month 24 7.1 30 8.9 6 1.8

Rarely, or never 0 0 24 7.1 1 .3

Total 338 100.0 337 99.9* 338 100.1*

* Total valid % < and > 100 due to rounding error

Based on survey results, 28.1% of the incoming students participated in educational

outings a few times a month. These trips might include visiting the public library, a zoo, an

aquarium, a museum, or any other place with education value. Seventy-one children (21.1%)

took educational trips about once a month while 85 children (25.3%) enjoyed outings every few

53
months. Forty-six parents (13.7%) reported taking their children on trips with educational value

about once a week. These results are shown in Table 10.

Table 10

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Does Your Child Visit the Public Library, a

Zoo, an Aquarium, a Museum, or Other Place With Education Value?"

f %

About once a week 46 13.7

A few times a month 95 28.3
About once a month 71 21.1
Every few months 85 25.3
1-2 times a year 39 11.6
Total 336 100.0

Also considered in the category of literacy activities was the time spent together by

families at the dinner table. A majority of parents (233) reported that the family dined together

on a daily basis (68.9%). Even more (296) recorded that while eating together, there was some

talk by the entire family (88.1%). Eighty-seven respondents (25.7%) said that their family ate

together a few days a week. Twenty-six parents (7.7%) said that the children did most of the

talking during meals. Tables 11 and 12 reflect the frequency of families eating together and the

conversation patterns respectively.

54
Table 11

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Does Your Family Sit Down for a Meal

Together?"

f %

Everyday 233 68.9

Few times a week 87 25.7
About once a week 11 3.3
Few times a month 4 1.2
Does not eat together 3 .9
Total 338 100.0

Table 12

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "When Your Family Eats Together, Who Does the

Talking?"

f %

Talk by entire family 296 88.1

Talk, mostly by adults 7 2.1
Child does most talking 26 7.7
Limited or no talking 6 1.8
Family does not eat together 1 .3
Total 336 100.0

In the parent survey, two questions were specifically related to aspects of television

viewing. As shown in Table 13, an overwhelming majority of parents (315) indicated that their

children watched some amount of television every day (93.5%). Only one parent reported rare
55
or no use of the television. The survey also revealed that 128 children (38.1%) watched

television for 2 hours and 91 children (26.9%) for 3 hours on an average weekday. Sixty-one

children (18.2%) watched television for 4 or more hours as shown in Table 14.

Table 13

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Does Your Child Watch Television?"

f %

Everyday 315 93.5

Few days a week 21 6.2
About once a week 0 0
Few times a month 0 0
Rarely, almost never 1 .3
Total 337 100.0

Table 14

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "On an Average Weekday, How Many Hours of

Television Will Your Child Watch?"

f %

4 or more hours 61 18.2

3 hours 91 27.1
2 hours 128 38.1
1 hour 54 16.1
None 2 .6
Total 336 100.1*
* Total valid % > 100 due to rounding error
56
 Four questions in the parent survey related to learning tools: child interaction with

educational toys and hobbies, number of specifically named educational materials in the home,

number of children's books, and frequency of new book purchases and library loans. Based on

the survey, 198 respondents (58.8%) reported that their children were involved with educational

toys or hobbies every day during the year before kindergarten screening. Additionally, 116

parents (34.4%) replied that their youngsters played with toys or participated in hobbies of some

educational value a few days a week. Combined, this accounted for 93.2% of the total 337

children who were screened (Table 15).

Table 15

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Over the Past Year Has Your Child Been

Involved With Toys or Hobbies That You Feel Have Educational Value?"

f %

Everyday 198 58.8

Few times a week 116 34.4

Once a week 12 3.6

Few times a month 8 2.4

Rarely, almost never 3 .9

Total 337 100.1*

*Total valid % > 100 due to rounding error

As shown in Table 16, only 15 parents (4.5%) reported having none of the specifically

named educational resources in their home. In contrast, 134 respondents (39.8%) had 2 to 3

materials. Thirty percent (101) of parents had all 5 materials including an encyclopedia,
57
dictionary, almanac, atlas, and computer in their home. As indicated in Table 17, the specific

availability of computers was corroborated by a later survey question that indicated that out of

332 respondents, 264 (79.5%) of the surveyed participants had a computer in their home.

Table 16

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "Of the Following Materials - Encyclopedia, Dictionary,

Almanac, Atlas, Computer - How Many Do You Have in Your Home?"

f %

All of the above 101 30.0

4 56 16.6
2-3 134 39.8
1 31 9.2
None of the above 15 4.5
Total 337 100.1*
*Total valid % > 100 due to rounding error

Table 17

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to Availability of Home Computer

f %

Yes 264 79.5

No 68 20.5
Total 332 100.0

A majority of survey respondents (73.9%) reported that the number of children's books in

their homes was 40 or more. Considering that an additional 48 parents (14.2%) reported the
58
availability of between 30 to 40 books in the home, this would suggest the possibility of

abundant exposure to print materials for the incoming kindergarten children. As reported in

Table 18, only 2 parents recorded fewer than 10 books in their homes.

Table 18

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Many Children's Books Do You Have in Your

Home?"

Children's Books f %

Over 50 249 73.9

30-40 48 14.2
20-30 29 8.6
10-20 9 2.7
Fewer than 10 2 .6
Total 337 100.0

As shown in Table 19, most respondents borrowed books from the library or bought

books for their children a few times a month (45.2%) or once a month (34.8%). Only three

parents reported purchasing new books or borrowing from the library two times or fewer per

year.

59
Table 19

Frequency Table: Survey Responses to "How Often Does Your Child Get a New Book From the

Store or Library?"

f %

Every week 35 10.4

Few times a month 152 45.2
About once a month 117 34.8
Few times a year 29 8.6
2 times or less a year 3 .9
Total 336 99.9*
* Total valid % < 100 due to rounding error

Parent responses to the open-ended question, "What do you think is the most important

thing you have done to prepare your child for school?" substantiated the overall multiple-choice

survey results. Rather than naming a single most important means of school preparation, parents

often responded with several measures they considered important in preparing their child for

school. Three hundred seven parents responded with 583 comments regarding preparation for

school. Shared teaching and learning activities between parent and child were mentioned on 169

surveys (29.0%) as an important preparation for kindergarten. Reading to the child was named

107 times (18.4%) by parents as important preparation for school. Not previously measured in

the multiple-choice format was the importance of a nurturing home environment, rich in

conversation and interaction with both peers and adults; yet, it was cited 120 times (20.6%) by

respondents in answer to the open-ended question. Different day care options were named as

important methods of school preparation but with much less frequency. Table 20 lists the

answers given by parents; they are categorized in descending order based on the frequency found

in the written short answer.

60
Table 20

Frequency Table: Written Survey Responses to “What Do You Think Is the Most Important

Thing You Have Done to Prepare Your Child for School?”

f % of Total N

Teaching/learning activities 169 29.0

Home environment 120 20.6
Reading to child 107 18.4
Educational preschool 39 6.7
Head start 39 6.7
Day care/mother’s day out 34 5.8

Computer 26 4.5
Teaching self help skills 21 3.6
Older siblings 12 2.1
Stay at home mom 8 1.4
Church 4 .7
Monitoring television 4 .7
Total 583 100.0

Research Question 2

What is the relationship between specific home/family characteristics and kindergarten

readiness?

From question 2, eighteen statistical hypotheses were developed and analyzed. Kendall's

tau-b was used to measure the degree of association between the selected ordinal variables and

school readiness. Cramer's V was used to test the relationship between the nominal independent

variables and school readiness. In these analyses, the Brigance scores were broken into the

61
following categories: 45.5-69.5; 70.0-79.5; 80.0-89.5; 90.0-100.0. The eighteen null hypotheses

were as follows:

Ho21: There is no significant relationship between family structure and school readiness.

Ho22: There is no significant relationship between father's level of education and school

readiness.

Ho23: There is no significant relationship between mother's level of education and school

readiness.

Ho24: There is no significant relationship between family income and school readiness.

Ho25: There is no significant relationship between preschool care and school readiness.

Ho26: There is no significant relationship between reading to a child and school readiness.

Ho27: There is no significant relationship between the child "reading" to a parent and school

readiness.

Ho28: There is no significant relationship between participation in family teaching/learning

activities and school readiness.

Ho29: There is no significant relationship between participation in educational outings and

school readiness.

Ho210: There is no significant relationship between family meal time and school readiness.

Ho211: There is no significant relationship between meal conversation and school readiness.

Ho212: There is no significant relationship between frequency of television viewing and school

readiness.

Ho213: There is no significant relationship between duration of television viewing and school

readiness.

Ho214: There is no significant relationship between involvement with educational toys or hobbies

and school readiness.

Ho215: There is no significant relationship between the number of home educational tools and

school readiness.

62
Ho216: There is no significant relationship between the availability of a home computer and

school readiness.

Ho217: There is no significant relationship between the number of children's books in the home

and school readiness.

Ho218: There is no significant relationship between the frequency of new book acquisition or

library loans and school readiness.

The following analyses will serve to answer research question 2. The significance tests

are summarized and shown in Table 21.

Table 21

Correlations of Each Independent Variable and School Readiness

Variable n tau-b Cramer's V p

Family structure
336 .193** .000
(2-parent vs. other)

Father's education 333 .267** .000

Mother's education 335 .247** .000

Family income 286 .295** .000

Preschool care
(home with parent vs other) 333 .176** .001

Parent reads to child 338 .141** .004

Child "reads" to parent 337 .028 .578

Teaching/learning activities 338 .042 .417

Educational outings 336 .161** .001

Family meal time 338 .033 .519

63
Table 21 (continued)

Variable n tau-b Cramer's V p

Meal conversation 336 .164** .008

Television viewing
(frequency) 337 -.045 .356

Television viewing
(duration) 336 -.144** .002

Educational toys/hobbies 337 .019 .723

Educational tools 337 .137** .008

Home computer 332 .127* .028

Number of children's books 337 .170** .002

New books/library loans 336 .080 .127

*statistically significant at .05
**statistically significant at .01

Out of 18 null hypotheses, only 6 were retained. Based on the analyses, there was no

relationship between the Brigance scores and the following variables: child "reads" to parent,

participation in family teaching/learning activities, frequency of family meal times, frequency of

television viewing, child's involvement with educational toys or hobbies, and the frequency of

new book acquisition. Significant positive correlations existed between the remaining variables

and Brigances scores with the exception of the duration of television viewing. A negative

correlation indicated that as the number of viewing hours increased, children's Brigance scores

significantly decreased (p = .01). As a whole, the identified nonprocess variables directly

corresponding to socioeconomic factors (family structure, parents' education, and family income)

were more strongly related to higher Brigance Screens than were the identified process variables.
64
 Research Question 3

Are there differences in the total Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

different socioeconomic status groups?

Four socioeconomic variables were identified in the course of this study including family

structure (2-parent family vs. other situations) and family income (annual incomes of $10,000. or

below, $10,000-$20,000, $20,000-$40,000, $40,000-$50,000, and $50,000. and above). Also

included as socioeconomic variables were father and mother’s education (graduate or

professional school, 1-4 years of college, high school graduate, some high school, and 8th grade

or below). In addition, type of preschool care the child received was included in this analysis

(stayed at home with parent, or other child care including care in home setting, licensed child

care center, church day care, and Head Start). Therefore, from research question 3 emerged five

null hypotheses for analysis:

Ho31: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

two-parent homes and those from other home situations.

Ho32: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

homes with different annual income levels.

Ho33: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students based

on the father’s level of education.

Ho34: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students based

on the mother’s level of education.

Ho35: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students who

stayed at home with a parent prior to school entry and those from other preschool situations.

In comparing differences, an independent samples t-test was used to test Ho31 and Ho35.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the differences in Ho32, Ho33,

and Ho34. Each hypothesis test is presented below.

65
Ho31: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

two-parent homes and those from other home situations (p = .00).

As shown in Table 22, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean scores

of those children who lived in two-parent homes and those who lived in other family structures

such as single mother, single father, grandparent, or other. The null hypothesis was rejected.

Children from two-parent homes scored an average 89.61 on the Brigance compared to 83.61 for

those children in other family structures.

Table 22

t-test Comparison of Means by Family Structure

Family n M SD t p
Structure
Other situation 69 83.61 13.24 3.64 .00

2-parent home 267 89.61 11.93

Ho32: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

homes with different annual income levels.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if children from higher income

homes scored more proficiently on the Brigance K Screen. The results shown in Table 23

indicate that at the extreme limits of the income range, a significant difference was found with an

overall F=14.28, p = .00. Children from homes with annual incomes of over $50,000 scored an

average of over 13 points higher on the Brigance than those children from homes with annual

incomes of $10,000 or less. The null hypothesis was rejected.

66
Table 23

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Comparison of Means of Brigance K Screen by Income Level

Tukey LSD
Income n M SD F p
PostHoc
Comparison

(1) $10,000 or below 23 80.89 17.55 14.28 .00 < 3,4,5

(2) $10,000-$20,000 44 79.75 14.04 < 3,4,5

(3) $20,000-$40,000 99 89.06 11.07 > 1,2 < 5

(4) $40,000-$50,000 38 90.33 10.70 > 1,2

(5) Over $50,000 82 93.92 7.24 > 1,2,3

Ho33: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students based

on the father’s level of education.

Ho34: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students based

on the mother’s level of education.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was again used to determine if parents’ education

level was reflected in the Brigance scores of the incoming students, and once again, the null

hypothesis was rejected. Children whose father had attended graduate or professional school

obtained an average score of 93.68 while children whose father had an 8th grade or below

education scored an average 76.50 (F=10.56, p = .00). Children’s scores increased with the

amount of education that the fathers had completed. Results were similar in regard to the

mother’s educational status. The children with mothers who had attended graduate or

professional school had average scores (M = 93.19) that were almost 20 points higher than their

counterparts whose mothers had an 8th grade education or less (M = 73.80). Both null

hypotheses were rejected. Results are shown in Tables 24 and 25.

67
Table 24

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Comparison of Means of Brigance K Screen by Father's

Educational Level.

Tukey LSD
Educational Level n M SD F p
PostHoc
Comparison

(1) 8th grade or below 5 76.50 25.34 10.56 .00 <3, 4, 5

(2) Some high school 49 81.09 15.72 < 3, 4, 5

(3) High school graduate 146 87.90 11.15 > 1, 2 < 4, 5

(4) 1-4 years college 89 91.96 9.81 > 1, 2, 3

(5) Graduate/professional 44 93.68 8.87 > 1, 2, 3

Table 25

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Comparison of Means of Brigance K Screen by Mother's

Educational Level.

Tukey LSD
Educational Level n M SD F p
PostHoc
Comparison

(1) 8th grade or below 5 73.80 15.44 11.52 .00 < 3, 4, 5

(2) Some high school 31 77.76 17.99 < 3, 4

(3) High school graduate 139 87.90 11.80 > 1,2 < 5

(4) 1-4 years college 101 90.33 10.98 > 1, 2, 3

(5) Graduate/professional 59 93.19 7.73 > 1, 2, 3

68
Ho35: There is no significant difference in the Brigance scores of prekindergarten students who

stayed at home with a parent prior to school entry and those from other preschool situations.

Table 26 shows that there was a significant difference between the means of the two

groups. The mean for those children who had preschool experiences outside of the home was

significantly higher (M = 90.51) than that of the children who stayed at home with a parent prior

to school entry (M = 84.87). The null hypothesis was rejected.

Table 26

t-test Comparison of Means by Preschool Care

Preschool Care n M SD t p

Other situations 221 91.51 10.56 4.08 .00

Stayed at home 111 84.87 14.16

Research Question 4

To what extent can socioeconomic status, literacy activities, and learning resources be

used to predict kindergarten readiness?

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to answer research question 4. The

regression analyzed the effects of three independent variables (socioeconomic status, learning

tools, and literacy activities) on the dependent variable (Brigance score). The factors in each

variable were those identified as significant in the correlation analyses. Family structure, the

family's income, father’s education, and mother’s education were considered important

socioeconomic predictors in model one. Literacy activities included in model two were time

spent by a parent reading to the child (everyday, few times a week, once a week, few times a

month, rarely almost never), shared teaching/learning activities (“teaching” the child everyday,

69
few times a week, once a week, few times a month, rarely almost never), educational outings

(visits to educational venues once a week, few times a month, once a month, every few months,

1-2 times yearly), and conversation during meals (talk by entire family, mostly adult talk, mostly

child talk, limited or no talk, family does not eat together). The availability of a home computer,

number of specific learning resources, and number of children’s books in the home were

considered significant as learning resources and were included in model three. For the purpose

of this study, the regression was a three-step process. The first step tested the effect of the

socioeconomic variable on the Brigance scores. The second step tested the effect of the

socioeconomic variable and the literacy activity variable. Finally, the third step added the effect

of the learning resource variable with both the socioeconomic and literacy activity variables.

Table 27 shows a comparison of the effects of the independent variables (socioeconomic status,

literacy resources and literacy activities) on the dependent variable (Brigance scores).

Table 27

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of the Effects of Independent Variables on Brigance

Scores

Socioeconomic Socioeconomic and Socioeconomic,

Predictors Resource Predictors Resource, and
Activity Predictors

b Beta p b Beta p b Beta p

Socioeconomic
Variables

Family income 68.90 .24 .00* 1.89 .20 .00* 1.63 .17 .01*

Family structure -.70 -.04 .51 -.41 -.02 .70 -.90 -.05 .38

Father's education 2.25 .17 .01* 1.91 .15 .02* 2.41 .-19 .00*

Mother's education 1.49 .11 .07 1.01 .08 .24 .61 .05 .47

70
Table 27 (continued)

Socioeconomic Socioeconomic and Socioeconomic,

Predictors Resource Predictors Resource, and
Activity Predictors

b Beta p b Beta p b Beta p

Literacy resources
Variables
Home computer -.21 -.01 .91 -.73 -.03 .69

Number of books 2.53 .17 .00* 1.39 .10 .-11

Educational tools .88 .08 .20 -.43 .04 .52

Literacy activities
Variables
Parent reads 1.00 .07 .22

Educational outings 1.21 .13 .03*

Mealtime conversation 1.73 .11 .06

R2 = .18 R2 = .22 R2 = .25

F = 15.20 F = 15.20 F = 8.73
p = .00 p = .00 p = .00
*statistically significant at the .05 level

Table 27 shows that socioeconomic variables accounted for 18% of the variance of

Brigance scores among incoming kindergarten students in this study (R2 = .18). Family income

and father's education were statistically significant (p = .00 and p = .01 respectively). When

literacy resources were added in the second regression model, the percentage of variance

increased to 22% (R2 = .22); while statistically controlling for the socioeconomic factors, only

the number of children's books in the home was statistically significant (p = .00). Family income

and father's education remained significant. The availability of a home computer and
71
educational tools had no impact. When literacy activity variables were added in the third

regression model, educational outings were statistically significant along with family income and

father's education. The percentage of variance in the Brigance increased another 3% (R2 = .25).

The multiple regression showed that the identified socioeconomic factors most significantly

impacted the Brigance scores, although resource and activity predictors could account for 7% of

the variance in scores. The socioeconomic and literacy resource variables together had more

impact on the Brigance scores than the socioeconomic variable alone; likewise, the three

combined three variables impacted the scores even more significantly.

This chapter included an analysis of data. In Chapter 5, the findings are summarized and

interpreted and from the analysis, conclusions are made. In addition, recommendations for

further consideration are included.

72
 CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between family environment

and school readiness of children entering kindergarten. The study’s population consisted of

parents and their children who were incoming kindergarten students preregistered in four schools

in a rural East Tennessee county. The 4 selected schools were geographically and structurally

diverse: small K-8, mid-sized K-4, mid-sized K-3, and large K-2. Each year the 4 schools house

approximately 50% of the 800+ kindergarten students in the county. Although 342 preschool

children were screened, 4 parents chose not to participate. Therefore, 338 parents signed consent

forms to participate in the study. Data were examined through analysis of self-reported parent

surveys and Brigance K Screen results.

The parent questionnaire surveyed demographic information and home environment

issues. Primarily incorporating a multiple-choice format, it also contained one open-ended and

three short-answer questions. Parents were asked to complete the survey as their children were

assessed during the annual prekindergarten screening days in the spring prior to kindergarten

enrollment. The Brigance K Screen is routinely administered to all incoming kindergarten

students before entry into the county system. It is both criterion and norm-referenced and

provides information not only about the child’s mastery of critical readiness skills but also about

how the child’s performance compares with that of other children.

The findings of the study were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) software program, which is designed to analyze and display data (Gall et al.,

1996). Although analyses were done to identify relationships between variables, the findings

were basically descriptive in nature. The data were initially analyzed using frequency tables to

identify basic demographic information or patterns. Kendall’s tau-b and Cramer’s V were used

73
to examine the relationships between the dependent variable (Brigance scores) and independent

variables. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and t-tests were used to analyze the

differences in test scores between groups. Finally, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis

was used to analyze the effects of socioeconomic status, learning tools, and literacy activities on

Brigance scores.

Findings

With 338 participants, the participation and survey return rate for the study was excellent

at 99.1%. The mean score of the Brigance for all participating students was 88.43. A difference

of less than five points existed between the means of the highest and lowest achieving schools.

The findings were summarized as responses to the four basic research questions.

Research Question 1

What are the characteristics of the study's participants and their home environments?

Frequency distributions indicated that a majority (79.5%) of the preschool children lived

in a two-parent home. Most parents had a high school diploma or some college experience.

Over one third of the parents disclosed an income of between $20,000 and $40,000. Frequency

tables showed the most common occupation for fathers was a skilled trade, and almost one third

of mothers stayed at home with the children. Most women who worked outside the home

maintained administrative or clerical positions or worked in personal service jobs such as hotel

housekeeping. The overall description of occupational status was reinforced by the question

regarding preschool experiences in that almost one third of the respondents reported that their

child stayed at home with a parent prior to school entry.

The parent survey indicated that over one half of the parents read to their child and the

child “read” to them a few times a week. Educational activities and teaching games were

initiated on a daily basis by over 65% of the respondents. Parent responses to the open-ended
74
question regarding the most important thing done to prepare their child for school strongly

reinforced these statistics. The importance of teaching/learning activities was mentioned most, at

169 times; reading to the child was the third most frequent reply with 107 responses. The

highest frequencies of educationally related outings were distributed between a few times a

month (28.3%), about once a month (21.1%), and every few months (25.3%), which accounted

for almost 75% of the responses. Over two-thirds of the families dined together daily, and

88.1% of those eating together experienced shared conversations by the entire family.

Survey results indicated that television remains an integral part of the home environment

with 315 (93.5%) parents reporting that their children watched some television everyday. Over

one third of the incoming students watched an average of two hours of television on a typical

weekday. This was less that the three to five hours suggested by earlier studies (Gunter &

McAleer, 1990).

Educational toys and hobbies were an everyday pastime for over half of the incoming

students. An additional third of the respondents indicated that educational play took place a few

days a week. Almost 40% of the surveyed homes had two to three of the educational tools that

included an encyclopedia, dictionary, almanac, atlas, and computer. Almost 80% of the parents

reported having a home computer. Children’s books were an important component of the family

environment with 88.1% reporting 30 or more books in the home. Over 45% of the children

acquired a new book from the store or library a few times a month.

Parent comments to the open-ended question about preparation for school were most

revealing with 120 responses emphasizing a factor not addressed in the multiple-choice format--

the importance of a warm caring environment. Typical comments included the importance of

“together time,” “a secure and loving home environment,” “being supportive,” and “respect.”

Remarks also included the significance of “manners,” “caring,” “talking and answering questions

about everything,” and “self-confidence.” Another emphasized “teaching him to be kind, honest,

and loving.” One parent took advantage of the “teachable moments in everyday life.” Parent

75
comments supported earlier research findings that pinpointed the importance of a home

environment characterized by a warm accepting atmosphere with shared reading and open

conversation (Barclay, Benilli, & Curtis, 1995; Snow, et al., 1991).

Research Question 2

What is the relationship of specific home and family characteristics to kindergarten

readiness?

The analysis of relationships in this study indicated that family income was more closely

related to success on the Brigance K Screen than any other variable; there was a positive

relationship between family income and Brigance scores (r = .295). Generally, students with

higher Brigance scores came from families with higher incomes. Next in importance were the

levels of fathers' education and mothers' education. These findings support previous studies that

found certain nonprocess (socioeconomic) factors relate more significantly to school success

than the factors identified in this study as process variables. Socioeconomic factors including

family income, family structure, and parents' education do play a statistically significant role in

the school readiness of kindergarten children. In addition, the importance of parents' reading to

their children, educational outings, two-way conversation at mealtime, availability of certain

educational tools--including a computer, and the number of children's books in the home are also

indicators of student success. A significant negative correlation was found between the duration

of television viewing and Brigance scores; increased television viewing time was significantly

related to lower test scores.

Research Question 3

Are there differences in the total Brigance scores of prekindergarten students from

different socioeconomic status groups?

76
 Each of the five null hypotheses was rejected. Children from two-parent homes scored

significantly higher on the Brigance than those from other home situations. Interestingly, those

children who had preschool experiences outside of the home scored significantly higher than

those who stayed at home with a parent prior to kindergarten entry. In addition, students with

higher scores came from families with higher incomes. Finally, there were statistical differences

in scores of students based on the parents' education level. Children whose parents had attained

higher levels of education generally scored higher than those whose parents were less educated.

Research Question 4

To what extent can socioeconomic status, literacy activities, and learning resources be

used to predict kindergarten readiness?

The multiple regression reinforced the statistical significance and magnitude of the

relationship between socioeconomic factors and school readiness. Socioeconomic variables had

the strongest impact on Brigance scores, but literacy tools and literacy activities also accounted

for variance in the scores. This contrasted with earlier studies that suggested home environment

rather than socioeconomic status predicted student achievement (Iverson & Walberg, 1982;

Walberg, 1984a; White, 1982).

Conclusions

As we travel through the 21st century, we must continue to realize the importance of all

aspects of the home environment as they relate to the academic success of our children. As with

earlier endeavors during the last two decades, the findings in this study are mixed. However,

two conclusions are clear.

First, the results of the study iterated the correlation between socioeconomic factors such

as family income, parents' education, and family structure to school readiness that has been

77
frequently summarized in earlier findings. Socioeconomic factors do play a significant role in

the school readiness of kindergarten students.

Secondly, home environment is still vitally important to a child's academic development.

Reading and playing educational games with a child, enjoying educationally oriented outings,

two-way conversation with adults and peers, and the availability of books and other educational

tools--including a computer, were all important aspects of the home environment that

significantly contributed to school readiness. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by Mattox (1995)

remains quite relevant: What families actually do really matters. Values, habits, and relational

dynamics are all at work within the family environment.

In many respects, it is unfortunate that family income has such a pervasive influence on

the readiness of kindergarten children. Financial issues can either directly or indirectly affect

many aspects of the home environment. Annual family income often dictates the availability of

computers, books, and other educational tools within the home. It also influences the type of

preschool care a child receives. Family income indirectly affects the amount of time that parents

spend with their child. Parents who must labor extended hours, work second or third shifts, or

hold two jobs just to make enough money to feed and clothe the family may find it difficult or

impossible to spend time on a family outing, enjoy a meal together, or play and read. Generally,

lower income parents are also less educated. This represents a complex and unyielding cycle

that is disheartening to many educators. However, at the same time, it presents a challenge to

public schools to set goals and raise expectations for all students to succeed academically,

regardless of socioeconomic status.

Although schools cannot effect transformation in a family's socioeconomic situation, they

can promote positive change in many of the process variables mentioned in this study through

improved parent education and intervention programs, early childhood education, and relevant

teacher education programs. Other community agencies can be called upon to guide and assist

parents in providing optimal educational environments for their preschoolers.

78
 Importantly, as society bemoans the idea of a breakdown in family units, it was especially

interesting to read parent comments that spoke directly to the importance of family togetherness,

mutual respect, two-way conversation, and the importance of character traits such as honesty and

kindness. As they work and interact with parents, perhaps educators and other community

agencies can also promote the importance of these characteristics and qualities to the overall

development of children.

It should be noted that this study was done in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001,

terrorist attack on the United States. This horrific event has seemingly led to a resurgence of

patriotism with an added emphasis on family, personal character, values, and good citizenship. It

is uncertain if this tragedy affected parent comments; however, the current world situation

obviously represents a real life opportunity for the educational community to build on these

important character traits.

Recommendations

1. A naturalistic inquiry or direct observation of the home environment and family

characteristics would present a different variation of this research. In addition to being

more insightful, this method would eliminate sole reliance upon parental perceptions and

memory as a data source.

2. Proximal (face to face) interviews would provide an additional variation of this research.

This method would minimize any problems with lack of reading skills or lack of

understanding on the part of the parent.

3. An additional open-ended question asking parents what could be done to assist them as

they prepare their child for school could provide additional ideas and opinions for schools

and community agencies to consider.

4. Further correlation studies involving the same variables could be conducted with larger

samples of preschoolers from various geographical locations to determine whether or not

79
 the results from this sample can be generalized to the larger population. It would be

particularly interesting to compare percentages of two-parent families and “stay at home”

moms in other samples from various locations.

5. As several of the home characteristic variables were found to be significantly related to

readiness for kindergarten, it is recommended that educators consider more thoroughly

the home environment of the students and possible early intervention strategies. More

time and money should be allocated to educating parents about the importance of the

home environment and school readiness. Educators should encourage parents to invest

more time reading to their children and sharing educational activities with them. An

abundance of reading materials should be made available to a child throughout his or her

life. If parents are not able to financially afford a variety of books, educators should

strongly promote use of the community library. Educators should also strongly

encourage parents to monitor the amount of time children watch television.

6. Schools should make every effort to engage parents in an educational partnership by

providing various opportunities for parent involvement. This can be done even prior to

official school entry through community-oriented activities. Recognizing that not all

parents have regular working hours, activity days and times should be flexible.

7. With the acknowledgment that family ethos is constantly changing and that specific

family and home characteristics are closely aligned with school readiness and later school

achievement, it is recommended that educators continue to acquire and update knowledge

in this area.

80
 REFERENCES

Achievement stalls while TV watching grows. (1994). American Teacher, 79, 17.

America’s Smallest School: The Family. (1999). Retrieved February 9, 2000, from
http://www.ets.org/research/pic/sshighl.html

Anderson, R. C., Scott, J. A., & Wilkerson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report
of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

Auerbach, E. R. (1989). Toward a social-contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard

Educational Review, 59, 165-181.

Auerbach, E. R. (1995). Which way for family literacy: Intervention or empowerment? In L.

M. Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities (pp. 11-27).
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Baker, L., Scher, D., & Mackler, K. (1997). Home and family influences on motivations for
reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 69-82.

Baker, L., Serpell, R., & Sonnenschein, S. (1995). Opportunities for literacy learning in the
homes of urban preschoolers. In L. M. Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy: Connections in
schools and communities (pp. 236-252). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Baker, L., Sonnenschein, S., Serpell, R., Scher, D., Fernandez-Fein, S., Munsterman, K., Hill, S.,
Goddard-Truitt, V., & Danseco, E. (1996). Early literacy at home: Children’s
experience and parents’ perspectives. The Reading Teacher, 50, 70-72.

Barclay, K., Benelli, C., & Curtis, A. (1995). Literacy begins at birth: What caregivers can learn
from parents of children who read early. Young Children, 50, 24-28.

Beals, D. E., & DeTemple, J. M. (1993). Home contributions to early language and literacy
development. In D. Leu & C. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy
research, theory and practice: Forty-second yearbook of the national reading conference
(pp. 207-216). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Benson, C. S., Buckley, S., & Medrich, E. (1980). Families as educators: Time use
contributions to school achievement. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), School finance policies and
practices. The 1980s: A decade of conflict (pp. 169-204). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Bevevino, M. (1988). The 87 percent factor. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 54, 9-16.

Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

81
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1978). Screening the environment. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 48, 114-129.

Brock, D. R., & Dodd, E. (1994). A family library: Promoting early literacy development.
Young Children, 49, 16-21.

Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26, 4-
16.

Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1999). Starting out right: A guide to
promoting children’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Burton, S. G., Calonico, J. M., & McSeveney, D. R. (1979). Effects of preschool television
watching on first grade children. Journal of Communication, 29, 164-170.

Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Mothers reading to their 3-year-olds: The role of
mother-child attachment security in becoming literate. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,
998-1014.

Chall, J. S., & Snow, C. (1982). Families and literacy: The contributions of out of school
experiences to children’s acquisition of literacy. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Education.

Charren, P., & Sandler, M. W. (1983). Changing channels: Living (sensibly) with television.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Childers, P. R., & Ross, J. (1973). The relationship between television and student
achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 66, 317-319.

Children and the media. (1999). Retrieved January 23, 2000, from
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/pp/pp99-01.htm

Christenson, S. L. (1990). Differences in students’ home environments: The need to work with
families. School Psychology Review, 19, 505-517.

Clark, M. (1976). Young fluent readers: What can they teach us? London: Heineman.

Clark, R. M. (1983). Family life and school achievement. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Clark, R. M. (1993). Homework-focused parenting practices that positively affect student

achievement. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp.
61-83). Albany, NY: State University Press.

Clarke, A. T., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1997). Television viewing, educational quality of the home
environment, and school readiness. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 279-285.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Equality and achievement in education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
82
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, R., & York,
R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office.

Comer, J. (1984). Home-school relationships as they affect the academic success of children.
Education and Urban Society, 16, 323-337.

Cox, T. (1987). Educational disadvantage: The bearing of the early home environment on
children’s academic attainment and social progress. Early Childhood Development and
Care, 27, 219-237.

Davie, R., Butler, N., & Goldstein, H. (1972). From birth to seven. London: Longman.

DeBruin-Parecki, A., Paris, S. G., & Siedenburg, J. (1997). Family literacy: Examining practice
and issues of effectiveness. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 596-604.

Demers, D. P. (1989). Breaking your child’s TV addiction: A guide for parents. Minneapolis,
MN: Marquette.

Deutsch, C. P. (1973). Social class and child development. In B. M. Caldwell & H. N. Ricciuti
(Eds.), Review of Child Development Research Vol. 3 (pp. 233-282). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58,
1244-1257.

Dornbusch, S. M., & Wood, K. (1989). Family processes and educational achievement. In W.
J. Weston (Ed.), Education and the American family: A research synthesis (pp. 66-95).
New York: New York University Press.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press.

Entwisle, D. R. (1979). The child’s social environment and learning to read. In T. G. Waller &
G. E. Mackinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice Vol. 1 ( pp.
145-169). New York: Academic Press.

Epstein, J. L. (1991). Effects of teacher practices and parent involvement on student

achievement in reading and math. In S. Silvern (Ed.), Literacy through family,
community, and school interaction (pp. 14-25). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White
Plains, NY: Longman.

Genisio, M. H. (1999). What goes on at home? Conversations with three families that link love
to literacy. The Reading Teacher, 52, 396-399.

83
Glascoe, F. P. (1995). A validation study and the psychometric properties of the Brigance
screens. North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.

Goldenberg, C. N. (1989). Parents’ effects on academic grouping for reading. American

Educational Research Journal, 26, 329-352.

Gottfried, A. W. (Ed.). (1984). Home environment and early cognitive development:

Longitudinal research. New York: Academic Press.

Grissmer, D. W., Kirby, S., Berends, M., & Williamson, S. (1994). Student achievement and
the changing American family. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Gullo, D. F. (1990). The changing family context: Implications for the development of all-day
kindergartens. Young Children 47, 35-39.

Gunter, B., & McAleer, J. L. (1990). Children and television: The one-eyed monster?. London:
Rutledge.

Hagborg, W. (1995). High school student television viewing time: A study of school
performance and adjustment. Child Study Journal, 25, 155-167.

Haines, K. C. (1984). Eye-hand coordination as related to television watching among preschool

children. Early Childhood Development and Care, 13, 391-397.

Harris, K., & Knudson-Lindauer, S. (1988). Parental and teacher priorities for kindergarten
preparation. Child Study Journal, 18, 61-73.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young
American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Herzog, E., & Sudia, C. (1973). Children in fatherless families. In B. Caldwell & H. Ricciuti
(Eds.), Review of Child Development Research 3 (pp. 141-232). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Hess, R. D. (1970). Social class and ethnic influences on socialization. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology Vol. 2 (pp. 457-557). New York: Wiley.

Hess, R. D., & Holloway, S. (1984). Family and school as educational institutions. In R. Park
(Ed.), Review of Child Development Research 7 (pp. 179-222). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Hill, R. C., & Stafford, F. P. (1974). The allocation of time to preschool children and
educational opportunity. Journal of Human Resources, 9, 323-341.

Iverson, B. K., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Home environment and student learning: A
quantitative synthesis. Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 144-151.

84
Jensen, A. R. (1967). The culturally disadvantaged: Psychological and educational aspects.
Educational Research, 10, 4-20.

Landon, J. (1999). TV: The defining medium of the 20th century. Retrieved November 6, 2000,
from http://celebrate2000.juneauempire.com/stories/041599/tec_tv medium.shtml

Laosa, L. M. (1982). Introduction. In L. M. Laosa & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Families as learning

environment for children (pp. xi-xvii). New York: Plenum Press.

Larson, K. A. (1989, March). Early secondary school adjustment for at-risk and highest-risk
students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.

Lee, S. (1993). Family structure effects on student outcomes. In B. Schneider & J. Coleman
(Eds.), Parents, their children, and schools (pp. 43-75). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Leibowitz, A. (1977). Parental inputs and children’s achievement. Journal of Human

Resources, 12, 242-251.

Lynn, L. (1997). Language-rich home and school environments are key to reading success.
Retrieved October 1, 2000 from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1997-
ja/language.shtml

Marjoribanks, K. (1979). Family environments. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Educational

environments and effects (pp. 15-37). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Mattox, W. R. (1995). The one-house schoolroom: The extraordinary influence of family life on
student learning. Retrieved February 9, 2000, from
http://www.fre.org/fampol/fp95ied.html

Mavrogenes, N. A. (1990). Helping parents help their children become literate. Young Children
45, 4-9.

McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. (1991). Every child's right: Literacy. The Reading
Teacher, 45, 86-90.

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children:
Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development,
61, 311-346.

Medrich, E. (1979). Constant television: A background to daily life. Journal of

Communication, 29, 171-176.

Mills, B. C. (1983). The effects of socioeconomic status on young children’s readiness for
school. Early Childhood Development and Care, 11, 267-274.

85
Mills, B. C. (1984). An investigation of the relationship of the self-concept and young
children’s readiness for school. Early Childhood Development and Care, 14, 177-187.

Milne, A. (1989). Family structure and the achievement of children. In W. J. Weston (Ed.),
Education and the American family: A research synthesis (pp. 32-65). Albany, NY:
SUNY University Press.

Morgan, M., & Gross, L. (1980). Television viewing, IQ, and academic achievement. Journal
of Broadcasting, 24, 117-133.

Morrow, L. M. (Ed.). 1995. Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Natriello, G., McDill, E. L., & Pallas, A. M. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing
against catastrophe. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Neuman, S. B. (1988). The displacement effect: Assessing the relation between television
viewing and reading performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 415-440.

Neuman, S. B. (1991). Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.

Neuman, S. B., & Powda, P. (1982). Television viewing and reading achievement. Journal of
Reading, 25, 666-671.

Perelman, L. J. (1992). School’s out: Hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of
education. New York: William Morrow.

Potter, W. J. (1987). Does television viewing hinder academic achievement among adolescents?
Human Communication Research, 14, 27-46.

Prawd, L. (1995). The negative effects of television on children. International Journal of

Instructional Media, 22, 255-262.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV guide: Relationships between home
literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31,
406-429.

Ridley-Johnson, R., Cooper, H., & Chance, J. (1982). The relation of children’s television
viewing to school achievement and I.Q. Journal of Education Research, 76, 294-297.

Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1989). Media matter: TV use in childhood and adolescence.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

86
Shapiro, J. (1995). Home literacy environment and young children's literacy knowledge and
behavior. In W. Linck & E. Sturtevant (Eds.), Generations of literacy: Seventeenth
yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 288-300). Harrisburg, VA: College
Reading Association.

Shinn, M. (1978). Father absence and children’s cognitive development. Psychological

Bulletin, 85, 295-324.

Slavenas, R. (1984). TV or not TV, is that the question? Early Childhood Development and
Care, 13, 377-389.

Smith, F. (1981a). Demonstrations, engagement and sensitivity: A revised approach to language

learning. Language Arts, 58, 103-112.

Smith, F. (1981b). Demonstrations, engagement, and sensitivity: The choice between people
and programs. Language Arts, 58, 634-642.

Snow, C. E. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. Harvard
Educational Review, 53, 165-189.

Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled
expectation: Home and school influence on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Song, I., & Hattie, J. (1984). Home environment, self-concept, and academic achievement: A
causal modeling approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1269-1281.

Soto, L. D. (1989). Relationship between home environment and intrinsic versus extrinsic
orientation of higher achieving and lower achieving Puerto Rican children. Educational
Research Quarterly, 13, 21-35.

Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese,
Japanese, and American children. Science, 231, 693-699.

Sticht, T. G. (1988). Adult literacy education. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of Research in

Education Vol. 15 (pp. 59-96). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Sticht, T. G., & McDonald, B. A. (1990). Teach the mother and reach the child: Literacy
across generations. Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education.

Stroup, A. L., & Robins, L. N. (1972). Elementary school predictors of high school dropout
among Black males. Sociology of Education, 45, 212-222.

87
Teale, W. H. (1982). Toward a theory of how children learn to read and write naturally.
Language Arts, 59, 555-570.

Teale, W. H. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance for literacy development. In
H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 110-121). Exeter,
NH: Heinemann Educational.

Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy development. In W. H.

Teale and E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173-204).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Introduction: Emergent literacy as a perspective for
examining how young children become writers and readers. In W. Teale & E. Sulzby
(Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. vii-xxv). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tizard, J., Schofield, W., & Hewison, J. (1982). Collaboration between teachers and parents in
assisting children’s reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 1-15.

Tocci, C. M., & Englehard, G. (1991). Achievement, parental support, and gender differences
in attitudes toward mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 280-286.

Van Evra, J. (1990). Television and child development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Walberg, H. J. (1984a). Families as partners in educational productivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 65,
397-400.

Walberg, H. J. (1984b). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational

Leadership, 41, 19-27.

Walberg, H. J. (1984c). Synthesis of research on teaching. In M. C. Whittock (Ed.), Handbook

of Research on Teaching (pp. 214-229). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research.

Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. (1983). Matthew effects in education. American Educational
Research Journal, 20, 359-373.

Weinberger, J. (1996). Literacy goes to school: The parents' role in young children's literacy
learning. London: Paul Chapman.

Wells, G. (1982). Story reading and the development of symbolic skills. Australian Journal of
Reading, 5, 142-152.

West, J., Hausken, E., & Collins, M. (1995). Readiness for kindergarten: Parent and teacher
beliefs. Retrieved March 9, 2000 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/93257

Weston, W. J. (1989). Introduction. In W. J. Weston (Ed.), Education and the American

family: A research synthesis (pp. 1-3). New York: University Press.

88
White, K. (1982). The relationship between socioeconomic status and academic achievement.
Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461-481.

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., & Angell, A. L. (1994). A picture book reading
intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families.
Developmental Psychology, 30, 679-689.

Wiggins, J. D. (1987). Self-esteem, earned grades, and television viewing habits of students.
School Counselor, 35, 129-133.

Williams, P.A., Haertel, E. H., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). The impact of leisure-
time television on school learning: A research synthesis. American Educational
Research Journal, 19, 19-50.

Wilson, P., & Christopher, F. S. (1992). The home-television environment: Implications for
families. Journal of Home Economics, 84, 27-31.

Wolfgang, C. H., & Stakenas, R. G. (1985). An exploration of toy content of preschool

children’s home environments as a predictor of cognitive development. Early Childhood
Development and Care, 19, 291-307.

Wright, D., Hausken, E., & West, J. (1994). Family-child engagement in literacy activities:
Changes in participation between 1991 and 1993. Retrieved March 9, 2000 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/95689.html

Zeavin, C. (1997). Toddlers at play: Environments at work. Young Children, 52, 72-77.

Zill, N., Collins, M., West, J., & Hausken, E. (1995). Approaching kindergarten: A look at
preschoolers in the United States. Young Children 51, 35-38.

Zimilies, H., & Lee, V. (1991). Adolescent family structure and educational progress.
Developmental Psychology 27, 314-320.

Zuckerman, D. M., Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1980). Television viewing, children’s
reading, and related classroom behavior. Journal of Communication 30, 166-174.

89
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Letter to Superintendent

Dear ________________:
(Director of Schools)

As part of the requirements toward the completion of a Doctor of Education degree at East
Tennessee State University, I am planning to complete a study of how identified home and
family characteristics are related to kindergarten readiness. Procedures will include analysis of
parent responses to a questionnaire and kindergarten Brigance scores. This letter is to request
your permission for N School, N School, N School, and N School to participate in this study.

As an educator, I feel it is important to address individual needs of our students. We can best
accomplish this through an understanding of home environment. With the acknowledgement
that family background is an important contributor to achievement outcomes, it becomes
imperative that educators continue to acquire knowledge in this area. This particular study will
contribute to current research by focusing on family characteristics and the home environment of
the kindergarten child while attempting to determine factors that strongly correlate with school
readiness. The study will have practical significance in updating previous research, which, in
turn, may have implications for parent and teacher education. This study will also determine
which characteristics of the home environment are most conducive to promoting school
readiness, so that schools and other community agencies can guide and assist parents in
providing optimal educational environments for their preschoolers.

Upon completion, I will be happy to share the results of my study with you.

I appreciate your consideration. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to call me at
NNNNNNN.

Sincerely,

Nancye C. Williams

90
 APPENDIX B

Letter to Principal

Dear ________________:
(Principal)

As part of the requirements toward the completion of a Doctor of Education degree at East
Tennessee State University, I am planning to complete a study of how identified home and
family characteristics are related to kindergarten readiness. Procedures will include analysis of
parent responses to a questionnaire and kindergarten Brigance scores. This letter is to request
your permission for (name of school) to participate in this study.

As an educator, I feel it is important to address individual needs of our students. We can best
accomplish this through an understanding of home environment. With the acknowledgement
that family background is an important contributor to achievement outcomes, it becomes
imperative that educators continue to acquire knowledge in this area. This particular study will
contribute to current research by focusing on family characteristics and the home environment of
the kindergarten child while attempting to determine factors that strongly correlate with school
readiness. The study will have practical significance in updating previous research, which, in
turn, may have implications for parent and teacher education. This study will also determine
which characteristics of the home environment are most conducive to promoting school
readiness, so that schools and other community agencies can guide and assist parents in
providing optimal educational environments for their preschoolers.

Upon completion, I will be happy to share the results of my study with you.

I appreciate your consideration. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to call me at
NNNNNNN

Sincerely,

Nancye C. Williams

91
 APPENDIX C

Letter to Parents

Dear ________________:
(Parent)

In order to meet the requirements for a doctoral degree from East Tennessee State University, I
am currently doing a study about the relationship between home environment and readiness for
kindergarten. I need your help!

Attached you will find two documents. The first is an Informed Consent, a required form that
simply says you are willing to participate in the study. The second is a simple parent survey
containing items about different aspects of the home environment. Would you please take time
to complete the survey? Your survey will be matched with your child's PreK screening score
(Brigance). Surveys and scores will be completely anonymous.

Your survey is very important to the success of this study, and I certainly appreciate your time
and help! If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at NNNNNNN.

Sincerely,

Nancye C. Williams

92
 APPENDIX D

Informed Consent

East Tennessee State University

Veterans Affairs Medical Center
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Nancye C. Williams

TITLE OF PROJECT: The Relationship of Home Environment and Kindergarten Readiness

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research study is to investigate the relationship between family
environment and school readiness of children in kindergarten at selected schools in Sevier
County. Similar research has been conducted in the past by other researchers throughout the
country.

DURATION: The survey instrument is brief and should take only 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

PROCEDURES: The instrument to be used in this study is a simple instrument calling for
participants to respond by circling multiple choice answers. The instrument does not request
participants’ names, but it does contain an identification number that is strictly to permit
matching your survey form with your child’s Brigance score. In no way will the identification
number be used to determine participant identity.

POSSIBLE RISKS/DISCOMFORTS: No risks or discomforts should be associated with this

research, nor is there any direct benefit or compensation to the volunteer participants. Any
potential benefit to the participant would arise from that individual’s reflection upon the items
contained on the survey instrument and his or her personal reaction to those items. The study
will have practical significance in updating previous research, which in turn may have
implications for both parent and teacher education. This study will also provide information
about which characteristics of the home environment are most conducive to promoting school
readiness, so that schools and other community agencies can guide and assist parents in
providing optimal educational environments for their preschoolers.

CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS: If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Nancye
Williams at NNN-NNNN. You may also call the chairman of the Institutional Review Board at
NNN-NNNN for any questions you may have about your rights as a research participant.

93
CONFIDENTIALITY: Every attempt will be made to see that participants and test scores are
kept confidential. A copy of the records from this study will be stored in the Educational
Leadership and Policy Analysis Department for at least 10 years after the end of this research.
The results of this study may be published and/or presented without naming you as a participant.
Although your rights and privacy will be maintained, the Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services, the East Tennessee State University/V.A. Medical Center Institutional
Board, the Food and Drug Administration, and the ETSU Department of Educational Leadership
and Policy Analysis have access to the study records. My records will be kept completely
confidential according to current legal requirements. They will not be revealed unless required
by law, or as noted above.

COMPENSATION FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT: East Tennessee State University (ETSU)

will pay the cost of emergency first aid for any injury that may happen as a result of your being
in this study. They will not pay for any other medical treatment. Claims against ETSU or any of
its agents or employees may be submitted to the Tennessee Claims Commission. These claims
will be settled to the extent allowable as provided under TCA Section 9-8-307. For more
information about claims call the Chairman of the Institutional Review Board of ETSU at NNN-
NNNN.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: The nature, demands, risks, and the benefits of the project
have been explained to me as well as are known and available. I understand what my
participation involves. Furthermore, I understand that I am free to ask questions and withdraw
from the project at any time. I have read, or have had read to me, and fully understand this
consent form. I sign it freely and voluntarily.

____________________________________________________/______________
SIGNATURE OF VOLUNTEER PARENT OR GUARDIAN/ DATE

_____________________________________________/_____________
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR / DATE

94
 APPENDIX E

Parent Questionnaire

Some studies have indicated that a child’s home environment affects his/her school readiness.
This questionnaire is an attempt to examine this influence. You can contribute to research on
this topic by answering the following questions as carefully as possible. Because all families are
different, there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. All responses are confidential and will not be
part of any school records. By completing this survey, you give permission to correlate your
answers with your child’s Brigance scores. Please circle one response for each question.

How often do you read to your child?

1. everyday
2. a few times a week
3. once a week
4. a few times a month
5. rarely, almost never

How often does your child “read” to you? (For example, this could be by showing you
pictures and telling a story about them.)

1. everyday
2. a few times a week
3. once a week
4. a few times a month
5. rarely, almost never

How often do you play with or “teach” your child? This could be writing, counting,
playing games, etc.

1. everyday
2. a few times a week
3. once a week
4. a few times a month
5. rarely, almost never

How often does your child visit the public library, a zoo, an aquarium, a museum, or some
place with educational value?

1. about once a week

2. a few times a month
3. about once a month
4. every few months
5. 1-2 times a year
95
 How often does your family sit down for a meal together?
1. everyday
2. a few days a week
3. about once a week
4. a few times a month
5. family does not eat together

When your family eats dinner together, who does the talking?
1. some talk by the entire family
2. some talk, mostly by adults
3. child does most of the talking
4. limited or no talking at the table
5. family does not eat together

How often does your child watch television?

1. everyday
2. a few days a week
3. about once a week
4. a few times a month
5. rarely, or almost never

On an average weekday, how many hours of television will your child watch?
1. 4 or more hours
2. 3 hours
3. 2 hours
4. 1 hour
5. none

How often over the past year has your child been involved with toys or hobbies that you
feel have educational value?
1. everyday
2. a few days a week
3. about once a week
4. a few times a month
5. rarely, or almost never

Of the following materials – encyclopedia, dictionary, almanac, atlas, computer – how

many do you have in your home?
1. all of the above
2. 4
3. 2-3
4. 1
5. none of the above
96
How many children’s books do you have in your home?

1. over 50
2. 30-40
3. 20-30
4. 10-20
5. fewer than 10

How often does your child get a new book from the store or library?

1. every week
2. a few times a month
3. about once a month
4. a few times a year
5. 2 times or less a year

My child lives with

1. both parents
2. one parent – mother
3. one parent – father
4. grandparents
5. other

Father’s education
1. graduate or professional school
2. 1-4 years of college
3. high school graduate
4. some high school
5. 8th grade or below

Mother’s education
1. graduate or professional school
2. 1-4 years of college
3. high school graduate
4. some high school
5. 8th grade or below

Approximate family income: (OPTIONAL)

1. $10,000 or below
2. $10,000 to $20,000
3. $20,000 to $40,000
4. $40,000 to $50,000
5. over $50,000

97
Prior to kindergarten entry, what best describes your child's situation?

1. Stayed at home with parent

2. Child care in a home setting
3. Licensed professional child care center
4. Church day care
5. Head Start

Please complete the following:

Father's occupation: ______________________________

Mother's occupation: ______________________________

Ages of your children: ____________________________

Do you have a computer in your home? Yes____ No____

What do you think is the most important thing you have done to prepare your child for school?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your help.

98
 VITA

NANCYE C. WILLIAMS

Personal Data: Date of Birth: October 26, 1949

Place of Birth: Pineville, Kentucky
Marital Status: Married

Education: Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky, 1972

B.A., History

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, 1976

M.S., Elementary Education

Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, Tennessee, 1996

Ed.S., Administration and Supervision

East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, 2002

Ed.D., Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis

Professional
Experience: Classroom Teacher, Montgomery County Schools,
Mapleton Elementary, Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, 1972-1973

Classroom Teacher, Sevier County Schools,

Pigeon Forge Elementary, Tennessee, 1974-1987

Assistant Principal, Pigeon Forge Primary School,

Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, 1987-Present

99