faculty of education mphil in education · mphil in education thesis parental perceptions, family...

1

Faculty of Education

MPhil in Education

Thesis

Parental perceptions, family economic status and parental involvement in children's learning

and schooling in rural India

Name: Laura Marie Cashman

Route: Educational Research

Supervisor: Dr. Ben Alcott

College: Lucy Cavendish College

Submission Date: 07/07/2019

2

Declaration of Originality

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of

work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. This thesis does

not exceed 20,000 words in length.

Signature ………………………………………………………………………

3

Abstract

Parental involvement, arguably the most important element of parental engagement in

education, has attracted considerable academic interest as of late. Unsurprisingly, this

growing literature base has resulted in a noticeable increase in public discourse around the

subject globally. Yet, despite this, there are significant gaps in knowledge and in the existing

research base that need to be addressed. These include a lack of studies that explore parental

involvement empirically, studies that are situated in the Global South and studies that focus

on the motivating factors behind parental involvement. In response to this, this thesis

quantitatively analyses data pertaining to two drivers of parental involvement in the Global

South; parental perceptions and family economic status. Using data from the Accountability

from the Grassroots project in Uttar Pradesh, India, these results indicate that both parental

perceptions and family economic status influence parental involvement in their children’s

education. More specifically, it appears that ‘wealthier’ parents become involved in their

children’s schooling and learning if they recognise their child’s potential, whereas ‘poorer’

parents become involved if they perceive academic weakness. These findings could have

important implications for policy, practice and future parental involvement-focused research

in rural India. A selection of these are implications are outlined in the penultimate chapter of

this thesis.

4

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the participants of the Accountability from the

Grassroots project. Without their time and support, this study would not have been possible.

Thank you to Dr. Ricardo Sabates and Dr. Ben Alcott for their guidance and support

throughout the academic year. I am gratefully indebted to them both for their valuable

comments and feedback. I would also like to thank the wider Accountability from the

Grassroots team. It has been a pleasure to work with such a supportive and friendly group.

Thank you to my friends and colleagues at Lucy Cavendish College, especially stats wizard

John Atkins who was an invaluable source of statistics know-how and always willing to lend

a hand. I would also like to thank the National University of Ireland for their continued

support of my work and for providing funding for this study.

Last, but not least, I want to express my profound thanks to my family, especially my parents,

for their unfailing support, love and encouragement. This, along with so much else, would not

have been possible without you. Thank you, mam and dad.

5

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 7

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 8

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 9

2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 13

2.1. Parental Involvement................................................................................................. 13

2.2. Parental Perceptions .................................................................................................. 15

2.3. Family Economic Status............................................................................................ 16

2.4. Parental Involvement and Parental Perceptions ........................................................ 18

2.5. Parental Involvement and Family Economic Status ................................................. 19

2.6. Parental Perceptions and Family Economic Status ................................................... 21

2.7. Literature Gap and Research Questions .................................................................... 22

3. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 24

3.1. Research Context....................................................................................................... 24

3.2. Paradigmatic Assumptions ........................................................................................ 26

3.2.1. Epistemological and ontological assumptions. ....................................................... 26

3.2.2. Theoretical perspective. .......................................................................................... 27

3.2.3. Methodological approach. ...................................................................................... 28

3.2.4. Proposed methods. .................................................................................................. 29

3.3. Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 29

3.3.1. Accountability from the Grassroots project. ........................................................... 29

3.3.2. Sampling ................................................................................................................. 30

3.3.3. Instrumentation. ...................................................................................................... 31

3.4. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 33

3.4.1. Analysis plan. ......................................................................................................... 33

3.4.2 Measures. ................................................................................................................. 34

6

3.4.3. Validity and reliability. ........................................................................................... 37

3.5. Limitations ................................................................................................................ 38

3.6. Ethical Considerations............................................................................................... 39

4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 41

4.1. Research Question One: Do Parental Perceptions of their Children’s Learning Align

with Children’s Learning Outcomes? .................................................................................. 41

4.2. Research Question Two: Does Family Economic Status Appear to Influence the

Alignment of Parental Perceptions with their Child’s Learning Outcomes? ....................... 44

4.3. Research Question Three: Does (a) the Alignment of Parental Perceptions and (b)

Family Economic Status Appear to Influence Parental Involvement at School, Home or in

the Community? ................................................................................................................... 47

5. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 62

5.1. Parental Perceptions .................................................................................................. 62

5.2. Family Economic Status............................................................................................ 65

5.3. Parental Involvement................................................................................................. 68

5.4. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 72

6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 73

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 75

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 88

PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS, FAMILY ECONOMIC STATUS AND INVOLVEMENT IN LEARNING

7

List of Tables

Table 1. Respondent Relationship to Sample Child ................................................................ 30

Table 2. Sampling Procedures for the Accountability from the Grassroots Project ................ 31

Table 3. Percentage of Sampled Households with Selected Assets ......................................... 36

Table 4. Percentage of Sampled Household by Level of Deprivation Group ......................... 37

Table 5. Alignment of Parental Perceptions by Children’s Actual Learning Outcomes ......... 41

Table 6. Alignment of Parental Perceptions by Children’s Actual Learning Outcomes (Four

Level Model) ............................................................................................................................ 42

Table 7. Alignment of Parental Perceptions and Learning Outcomes by Family Economic

Status ........................................................................................................................................ 44

Table 8. Parental Perception Groups by Family Economic Status .......................................... 45

Table 9. Student Outcomes in Mathematics by Level of Deprivation Group ......................... 45

Table 10. Parental Perceptions by Family Economic Status ................................................... 46

Table 11. Perception Groups by Parental Involvement Indicators .......................................... 47

Table 12. Percentage of Parents, by Deprivation Group, that Visited the School this Session

.................................................................................................................................................. 50

Table 13. Percentage of Parents, by Deprivation Group, that Indicated There is Someone at

Home to Help the Sample Child with their Studies ................................................................. 50

Table 14. Percentage of Parents, by Deprivation Group, that Check their Child’s Notebook or

Textbook .................................................................................................................................. 50

Table 15. Regression Models for Visit School Activity .......................................................... 53

Table 16. Regression Models for Study Help Activity ............................................................ 54

Table 17. Regression Models for Check Book Activity .......................................................... 55

Table 18. Summary of Model Three – Perception Group ....................................................... 56

Table 19. Summary of Model Three – Family Economic Status ............................................ 57


8

List of Figures

Figure 1. Parental Perceptions – Family Economic Status - Parental Involvement Model ..... 11

Figure 2. Crotty’s Approach to Research Schema (Crotty, 1998) ........................................... 25

Figure 3. Sample Mathematics Measurement Tool used in ASER Surveys............................ 33

Figure 4. Updated Parental Perceptions – Family Economic Status – Parental Involvement

Model ....................................................................................................................................... 74


9

1. Introduction

Parental engagement in education has been the subject of a significant amount of

academic research and discourse in recent decades. Despite notable exceptions (Shute,

Hansen, Underwood, & Razzouk, 2011), much of this literature indisputably promotes the

benefits of certain facets of parental engagement. One such example includes parent’s direct

involvement in their children’s schooling and learning. I believe that this unquestioned

endorsement of parental engagement, and its components, is erroneous. This statement is not

a reflection on the merits of parental engagement itself. Decades of extensive research in the

area demonstrate the potential and promise of parental engagement in an educational context.

At the very least, studies have shown that it is one of the most consistent influences on a

child’s educational experience (Epstein, 1987). However, as demonstrated in a preparatory

essay for this thesis (Cashman, 2018), there are several unexplored avenues in the existing

parental engagement body of research that should be addressed before these claims are made.

One such literature gap, as highlighted by this preparatory essay, is the lack of parental

engagement research situated within the context of the Global South.

Yet, despite this gap, policy-makers and practitioners often promote parental

engagement as a possible solution to a myriad of educational issues and problems within

these contexts. This is demonstrated through the informal promotion of specific ways to

engage parents in their children’s education in the Global South1 or, more specifically,

through the transfer of some of the responsibility for a child’s schooling and learning from

the state to the parent in India (Maithreyi & Sriprakash, 2018). Considering the lack of

1 Countless blogs, policy briefs and articles promote parental engagement in the Global South. Many of these endorse certain ‘evidence-based’ methods to engage parents in their children’s education. Examples from India include articles from non-governmental organisations (https://childrenincorporated.org/involving-parents-in-education-in-india/). Globally, UNESCO has published several blogs on parental engagement (https://learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en/blog/increasing-parental-involvement-in-learning) and (https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2018/06/01/lets-not-forget-the-role-of-parents-in-education/)

https://childrenincorporated.org/involving-parents-in-education-in-india/


https://learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en/blog/increasing-parental-involvement-in-learning

https://gemreportunesco.wordpress.com/2018/06/01/lets-not-forget-the-role-of-parents-in-education/


10

reliable evidence from the Global South, this somewhat blind acceptance of certain methods

of engaging parents in their children’s education while simultaneously placing the onus on

parents who may not be prepared to take on this responsibility is concerning. In response to

this, this study quantitatively explores one specific aspect of parental engagement in the

Global South, parental involvement. This aspect was selected as a result of this

aforementioned essay which, alongside the relevant literature gaps, also explored the

accepted definitions of parental engagement in existing literature. There are innumerable

definitions of parental engagement in use. This has led to a conflicting and inconsistent body

of parental engagement research. In this study, I adopt Carreón, Drake and Barton's definition

that parental engagement incorporates both parent’s actions as well as their “orientations to

the world and how those orientations frame the things they do” (2005, p. 467). Relatively,

this is a broad definition of the concept (see Epstein, 1990, 2010; Epstein & Sheldon, 2006;

Hill et al., 2004; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Reynolds, 1992). Therefore, considering the scope of

my thesis, I decided that it was not appropriate to comprehensively account for parental

engagement in my analysis. Instead, I only focus on the singular element of parental

involvement.

Parental involvement, according to Carreón et al. (2005), only accounts for the

specific things parents do in relation to their children’s schooling and learning. As such, it

provides an easily quantifiable aspect of the umbrella concept of parental engagement.

Additionally, by adopting this approach, this study will respond to recent calls to consider

parental involvement empirically (Jeynes, 2018). However, it is important that this context is

provided here so that my findings are situated within the broader context of parental

engagement and will, hopefully, stimulate further research in this fruitful but rather

inconsistent area of educational research. Two influencing factors of parental involvement are


11

Figure 1. Parental Perceptions – Family Economic Status - Parental Involvement Model

considered; parental perceptions of their children’s education and family economic status. My

hypothesis is that family economic status and the alignment of parental perceptions influence

parental involvement, and therefore engagement, in their children’s education. However, this

relationship can also be confounded by several mediating factors, many of which are included

in my analysis. It also accounts for the potential impact of family economic status on the

alignment of parental perceptions. My final hypothesis model is presented in Figure 1.

This hypothesis is tested in this study in state of Uttar Pradesh in rural India using

data from the Accountability from the Grassroots project which is led by Pratham, a non-

governmental organisation based in India, ASER, the assessment, survey, evaluation and

research unit within the Pratham network, and the Research for Equitable Access and

Learning (REAL) Centre at the University of Cambridge. The project aims to evaluate

whether schools' accountability for learning can be strengthened from the grassroots in Uttar

Pradesh, India (“Accountability : Faculty of Education,” 2018). As such, it provides an

appropriate and relevant 20,000 respondent-strong data set to analyse the parent-school

relationship and parental involvement in their children’s learning and schooling within one


12

context in the Global South. Further details about the project and methodology are outlined

later in this thesis. However, first, I will consider the existent bodies of parental involvement,

parental perceptions and family economic status literature and how they relate, both

individually and collectively, to my hypothesis, conceptual framework and, in turn, my study.


13

2. Literature Review

2.1. Parental Involvement

While parental involvement in education has been extensively explored in recent decades,

the academic narrative around this concept is often unclear and contradictory. There are a

number of reasons for this, ranging from a lack of empirical parental involvement research

(Jeynes, 2018) to a disproportionate focus on contexts in the Global North within this body of

literature (Kim, 2018). However, one of the most impactful ongoing debates, and perhaps the

most relevant for this study, concerns the definition of the concept itself. Parental

involvement, and its constituents, have been described and defined in a variety of ways in

existent literature. Many parental involvement scholars choose to define the concept in

relation to the underlying activities stakeholders engage in (Banerji, Berry, & Shotland,

2015; Fan & Williams, 2010; Reynolds, 1992); others in terms of the engagement setting

(Hill & Tyson, 2009; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996); and some through the role of the individual

participants (Epstein, 1990, 2010). Some, markedly, do not provide a concrete definition at

all (Catsambis, 2001). This is further complicated by the wide variety of terms used to

operationalise the concept. In the past, researchers have used an assortment of terms

including parental ‘participation’ (Banerji et al., 2015), ‘connection’ (Henderson & Mapp,

2002) and ‘partnership’ (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006). I have, and will continue to, use the term

‘parental involvement’ throughout this study. My use of ‘parental involvement’ only is

deliberate and is linked to my adopted definition of the concept. As outlined in my

Introduction, Carreón, Drake and Barton claimed, in a 2005 study on immigrant parents’

parental engagement practices in the U.S., that ‘involvement’ is how we describe the specific

things parents do, while ‘engagement’ “also includes parents’ orientations to the world and

how those orientations frame the things they do” (2005, p. 467). Considering that

involvement simply describes actions that caregivers take to support children’s learning or


14

schooling whereas engagement moves beyond this and towards contextualising these

practices, the authors felt that ‘parental engagement’ was the more useful and appropriate

term for their study.

This sentiment and use of ‘engagement’ are echoed by other notable researchers who

have undertaken theoretical work in this field. This includes Warren, Hong, Rubin, and Uy

who claim that ‘engagement’ emphasises “a more active and powerful role for parents in

schools” (2009, p. 2211) and the distinguished parental involvement researcher Janet Goodall

who distinguishes between ‘involvement’ and ‘engagement’ in her work. She argues that

‘parental involvement with children’s schooling’ could be construed, especially by school

leaders and teachers, as involvement in school-initiated activities only and may not account

for meaningful parental engagement with the child’s learning (Goodall, 2013). I agree with

these arguments unreservedly. ‘Engagement’ is the more active, powerful and empowering

term and encompasses a wider spectrum of contextualised activities. That said, it is because

of this broader understanding of the concept that I have decided against using ‘engagement’.

Instead, I choose to analyse parental ‘involvement’ in their children’s learning and schooling

within this broader context. More specifically, I have decided to focus on two potential

drivers of parental involvement; parental perceptions of their children’s learning and family

economic status. The following two sections delineates the relevant debates from the bodies

of research associated with these concepts to operationalise these in the context of this study.

Following this, literature concerning the intersection between these three concepts is outlined

and critiqued.


15

2.2. Parental Perceptions

Parental perceptions of children’s learning, like parental involvement in education, has

garnered much academic interest as of late, especially in the field of educational psychology.

Once again, one of the overarching narratives throughout this body of research, which is also

primarily situated in the Global North, concerns the many conflicting and contradictory

definitions of the concept (Yamamoto & Holloway, 2010). As such, like the preceding

section, I will outline the rationale behind the adoption of this study’s definition of parental

perceptions to ensure that it is positioned within the broader corpus of parental perceptions

literature. However, like the parental involvement terminology debate, there are varying

terms for parental ‘perceptions’ in use across literature which influence how different

scholars define the concept. Primarily, the terms ‘perceptions’ and ‘expectations’ have been

used interchangeably in recent research, often by authors who fail to define or distinguish

between the two. In fact, despite my adoption of the term parental ‘perceptions’, the

definition that I adopt for this study is from Alexander, Entwisle, and Bedinger's 1994 study,

“When Expectations Work: Race and Socioeconomic Differences in School Performance”

(own emphasis added). Yet, while I assume Alexander et al’s., definition and measurement of

parental perceptions, parent’s estimates of their child’s current learning, I shy away from

using the term ‘expectation’ in this study. This is due to the association between parental

‘expectations’ and parental ‘aspirations’ in many existing studies.

Parental aspirations has been defined, based on Seginer’s (1983) seminal work in the

area, as the “desires, wishes or goals that parents have formed regarding their children's

future attainment rather than what they realistically expect their children to achieve”

(Yamamoto & Holloway, 2010, p. 191). As such, this characterisation of ‘aspirations’ differs

from my definition of parental ‘perceptions’ is several ways. For example, my understanding

of parental perceptions is associated with the child’s immediate educational progress and


16

outcomes. On the other hand, Yamamoto and Holloway’s definition of ‘aspirations’ very

clearly deals with the parent’s long-term, or ‘future’, goals for the child. Secondly, while I

assert that parental perceptions are measurable and discernible beliefs regarding the child’s

academic attainment, aspirations are often considered to be vague, lofty goals for the child’s

future. Thirdly, and lastly, perceptions, and expectations, are often considered to be more

realistic than aspirations (Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001). Therefore, while

I recognise the association between ‘perceptions’ and ‘expectations’, and ‘expectations’ and

‘aspirations’, I believe that parental ‘perceptions’ and ‘aspirations’ are too far removed from

each other and should be treated as separate concepts. As such, I will not use the term

‘expectations’ throughout this study to avoid complicating the interpretation of these results.

However, it is important for this study to be situated within the broader, cross-disciplinary

context of parental perceptions, or indeed ‘expectations’, literature.

2.3. Family Economic Status

Considering Jones and Schipper’s assertion that “in less egalitarian education systems

family background characteristics are a fundamental driver of differences in education

outcomes” (Jones & Schipper, 2015, p. 8), I believe it is necessary to account for family

background characteristics in the research context of rural India. These characteristics can

include a variety of factors, such as family composition, race, ethnicity, religion or caste.

Considering the time and space constraints of this study, only one characteristic - economic

wellbeing - will be considered here. However, even within this one characteristic, there are a

number of ways that family economic wellbeing can be operationalised. One of the more

recognisable approaches that researchers adopt is the measurement of a combination of

sociological and economic factors for an individual, family or population group. This is


17

typically dubbed ‘socioeconomic status’, or ‘SES’. Studies focusing on socioeconomic status

and educational outcomes have made countless contributions to educational research,

including through studies situated in the Global South. However, I do not include social

factors in my operationalisation of family economic wellbeing. Instead, in line with Wang,

Deng, and Yang (2016), I use the term family economic status throughout this study.

I adopted family economic status over socioeconomic status, or other forms of economic

wellbeing measurements, in response to Murdock's (2000) argument that few empirical

studies focus on economic status alone. While this study is now quite dated, this still rings

true in the context of the Global South where many development economists and

educationalists combine economic and social factors when considering the impact of family

background on educational outcomes. While this approach has led to several significant,

valuable contributions to educational research, I maintain, in line with Murdock (2000), that

there is equally a lot to learn when we isolate economic wellbeing from social capital. This

led me to adopt Wang, Deng, and Yang’s (2016) approach and measurement of family

economic status. However, while I employ their general understanding of the concept, I do

not, in their like, use family income as the key measure of family economic status. Instead,

based on Jones and Schipper’s 2015 study, I measure family economic status through asset

ownership. Using this measure ensures that this study can contribute to the noticeable

literature gap around asset ownership and children’s education and wellbeing (Zhan, 2006).

Additionally, considering Wolff’s (2000) argument that wealth inequality is generally more

skewed than income inequality, this measure may give us a better indication of the actual

disparity in this sample. This operationalisation will be outlined in the subsequent

Methodology chapter. But, first, I will turn to the intersection between these three key

concepts in literature, beginning with parental involvement and parental perceptions.


18

2.4. Parental Involvement and Parental Perceptions

While the parental involvement and parental perceptions bodies of literature are

individually pertinent, it is how these two intersect that is of most relevance to this study.

This is an interesting, if confusing, area of educational research. This confusion is, perhaps,

unsurprising considering the ongoing debates within both individual bodies of research, as

outlined above. The differing approaches to this intersection can be split in three. The first, as

promoted by noted American educationalist William Jeynes, maintains that parental

perceptions of their children’s education influences their involvement in schooling and

learning (Jeynes, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2012; 2018). This body of literature, by in large,

contends that high parental perceptions lead to high involvement levels (Alexander et al.,

1994; Halle, Kurtz-Costes, & Mahoney, 1997; Jeynes, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2012; 2018;

Wigfield et al., 2015). The second grouping, on the other hand, asserts that parental

involvement drives parental perceptions. Hao and Bonstead-Bruns' 1998 study is a good

example of this. This study found that parents with high levels of involvement in their

children’s education were more likely to hold more accurate perceptions of their children’s

education. The third, and final, strand of literature considers parental perceptions as just one

element of the multi-faceted concept of parental involvement.

This third strand is promoted by a number of parental involvement scholars, such as

Frensch (2000), Reynolds (1992) and Reynolds and Walberg (1992). However, it is most

fluently elaborated by Englund, Luckner, Whaley, and Egeland when they claimed that

perceptions are just one of many different types of involvement but they differ in that they are

“beliefs, whereas other measures of parental involvement focus on actual behaviours, such as

attending parent–teacher conferences or helping with homework” (2004, p.724). While the

relationship between these three differing strands of research is unclear at times, I do not

believe that they are wholly incompatible. Instead, I believe there is some truth in each of


19

these claims and that the overall relationship between the two is very much based on setting

and context. For example, I maintain that parental perceptions could influence overall

involvement at certain times, for certain groups, whereas specific types of involvement, such

as helping children with their homework, may influence perceptions of children’s learning for

other parents. However, for the sake of this study, as demonstrated through the outline of my

hypothesis in the Introduction chapter, I primarily align with literature that maintains that

parental perceptions of their children’s education influence their involvement levels.

2.5. Parental Involvement and Family Economic Status

Those familiar with parental involvement research will recognise family economic status

as a recurring variable of interest across this literature. This extensive exploration of this area

has led to a body of research that demonstrates the effectual explanatory power of family

economic status in the study of parental involvement (Alexander et al., 1994; Crozier &

Davies, 2007; Kumar, Vellymalay, & Malaysia, 2011; Wang et al., 2016). As such, this study

includes family economic status as a variable of interest. However, before I present these

findings, I want to engage in one of the main overarching narratives in this literature; that

parents from lower economic status backgrounds are less likely to engage in their children’s

education. A slew of recent academic literature has presented strong evidence in favour of

this argument (Crozier & Davies, 2007; Fan & Chen, 2001; Wang et al., 2016). Existent

literature, based on the ground breaking work of sociologist Annette Lareau in the early

2000s (Lareau, 2003), has also made the compelling argument that children from a low

family economic status background gain more from parental involvement relative to their

‘wealthier’ counterparts (Roksa & Potter, 2011; Wang & Sheikh-Khalil, 2014). This literature

has, in part, propelled this narrative into international development public discourse as is


20

demonstrated through the countless blogs and non-governmental organisation websites

promoting parental involvement for ‘disadvantaged’ parents in India.2

However, this discourse, academic or otherwise, often fails to recognise the complexities

and nuances of this narrative. Firstly, there are the outrightly conflicting cases such as

Cheadle and Amato (2011) or Roksa and Potter (2011) who support the counter-argument

that low-income parents and less educated parents are more likely to be involved in their

children’s education. There are also examples, such as Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, and

Sandler (2007), who adopt a more in-depth approach and demonstrate that parents from lower

economic backgrounds can have varying involvement levels depending on the activity or

setting. These varying levels of involvement are often linked to issues with employment,

transportation or language constraints (Hill et al., 2004) or a lack of academic self-efficacy

(Fan & Williams, 2010) in this literature. For example, Green et al.’s 2007 study shows that

there is no significant difference in how these parents engage in parental involvement in the

home, but there is in how they engage in school-based activities (2007). There are also the

instances where scholars believe that school leaders and teachers have a compounding

influence on how parents from these backgrounds engage with the child’s learning and

schooling (Crozier, 1999; Crozier & Davies, 2007; Goodall, 2013; Harris & Goodall, 2008).

As such, the intersection between family economic status and parental involvement needs to

be approached with an understanding of the complexities of the literature, particularly in the

Global South. In this study, considering the three key core focus areas, this understanding

also needs to be extended to the relationship between family economic status and parental

perceptions which I will address now.

2 For examples see: https://earlyinsights.org/saarthi-transforming-parents-involvement-in-their-child-s-development-ec6db10edff0 and https://childrenincorporated.org/involving-parents-in-education-in-india/

https://earlyinsights.org/saarthi-transforming-parents-involvement-in-their-child-s-development-ec6db10edff0

https://earlyinsights.org/saarthi-transforming-parents-involvement-in-their-child-s-development-ec6db10edff0



21

2.6. Parental Perceptions and Family Economic Status

There are two key areas that I will focus on when addressing literature concerning family

economic status and parental perceptions. Firstly, there the existing body of literature that

maintains that family economic status shapes parental perceptions of children’s learning. The

underlying consensus in this literature is that parents from a lower economic status

background are more likely to have lower expectations of their child’s educational

achievement (Carolan & Wasserman, 2015; Davis-Kean, 2005). This has been attributed to

higher numbers of parents with lower levels of education (Davis-Kean, 2005), differing levels

of social capital (Dika & Singh, 2002) and differing parenting styles in these different

communities (Carolan & Wasserman, 2015). While this is fascinating, considering my

research hypothesis, it is the body of literature that focuses on the potential impact of family

economic status on the alignment of parental perceptions that I find most interesting. While

dated, Alexander, Entwisle, and Bedinger’s 1994 study is of particular interest to me as it

demonstrates that parents from a relatively ‘wealthier’ background have a perception of their

children’s learning that is closer to their child’s actual learning outcomes than those of low-

income parents. On the other hand, their study demonstrates that low-income parents hold a

perception of their child’s learning that is higher than the child’s actual performance.

This thesis is supported by Halle, Kurtz-Costes, and Mahoney (1997) who show that the

higher the mother’s socioeconomic status, the higher their perception of their child’s

academic ability. Interestingly, Halle et al., also found that these positive perceptions were

associated with higher amounts of parental involvement in the home. This finding aligns with

more recent studies in this area (Benner, Boyle, & Sadler, 2016). Therefore, if literature

shows us that the alignment of parent’s perceptions to their child’s actual learning outcomes

is linked to family economic status the next step would be to question why this is the case.

Existing literature provides several possible answers. For example, McLoyd (1998), based on


22

Seginer (1983), claims that parents with less education themselves or those whose children

have performed poorly in the past, may perform a ‘value stretch’. This is where parents

‘lower the bar’ and, as such, lower their accepted thresholds for academic success. Another

accepted reasons for this misalignment amongst the ‘poor’ or ‘disadvantaged’ is based on the

work of educational psychologist Martin Kohn around ‘focal values’ (Kohn, 1977). This

narrative asserts that this misalignment is based on differing emphases in high/low-income

communities around "doing well" and "being good" in school (Alexander et al., 1994).

Considering the limited scope of this thesis, I will not be able to answer this why question.

Instead, as is demonstrated by my research questions, I will address a literature gap around

the alignment of perceptions with children’s learning in rural India. It is hoped that future

research can then build on this to answer some of these pertinent questions in the Global

South.

2.7. Literature Gap and Research Questions

This chapter provides a concise account of three complex and interconnected areas of

educational research. While there are several gaps within each individual focus area, such as

a lack of research which considers involvement within the broader context of engagement or

that considers the alignment of parent’s perceptions of their child’s immediate academic

outcomes, the gaps that interest me the most are those that link these three areas. One of these

main gaps concerns research that is situated in and focuses on contexts in the Global South.

While this review demonstrates that several of these strands of research are currently being

considered in the Global North, we cannot say the same for contexts within the Global South.

This is especially the case when the intersection of these three focus areas are considered in

the Global South. This is not to say that there is no worthwhile or relevant ongoing around


23

family economic status and parental perceptions of and involvement in their children’s

education in the Global South. There is a small but substantial strand of work being

undertaken in this context. However, even within this, there is little empirical work being

undertaken. As such, it is hoped that this study will contribute towards discourse in this area

and promote further empirical research with the eventual aim of closing this gap in this

context. As outlined in the Introduction chapter, I will do this by analysing quantitative data

from the Accountability from the Grassroots in India project data set. My research questions

are:

1. Do parental perceptions of their children’s learning align with children’s learning

outcomes?

2. Does family economic status appear to influence the alignment of parental

perceptions with their child’s learning outcomes?

3. Does the (a) alignment of parental perceptions and (b) family economic status appear

to influence parental involvement at school, home or in the community?

The findings from this analysis are outlined in my Results chapter. However, first I will

delineate the philosophical underpinnings, methodological approach and the data collection

and analysis plans of this study within the context of the research setting.


24

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Context

India was selected as the focus country for this study in response to the literature gap

outlined in the preceding chapter. However, the rationale for choosing India extends far

beyond this. In line with global trends, India has experienced a shift in the discourse and

policy surrounding parental engagement and involvement in education in recent decades.

This was most noticeably demonstrated through the enacting of the current national education

act, the Right to Education Act, in 2009. This act “positioned parents alongside the state as

responsible for ensuring the child’s right to education” and hailed parents “specifically and

explicitly as individualised duty-bound choice makers in an increasingly marketized school

system” (Maithreyi & Sriprakash, 2018, p. 353). Combined with the relatively stable political

climate in India, this development presents parental engagement and involvement scholars

with a favourable research environment in the Global South. That said, while there are many

reasons for researchers to consider India as an ideal focus country to undertake parental

engagement or involvement studies, significant complexities still exist for those working

within this context. For example, teachers often consider parents to be principally responsible

for children’s progress, or lack thereof (Bhattacharjea, Wadhwa, & Banerji, 2011). Yet, with

more than 50% of school children in India being first-generation learners (Wadhwa, 2018),

we need to ask if parents are aware of these expectations, equipped to meet them and

question what factors lead to appropriate, effective parental engagement in India. Therefore,

India provides a conducive but also an interesting environment to carry out research in this

area.

However, as outlined in the Introduction chapter, this study is limited to one state in

India, Uttar Pradesh. Each state in the Indian Union is unique. Uttar Pradesh (UP) was

selected as the focus state of this study for a number of reasons. Firstly, UP has consistently


25

achieved poor educational outcomes in recent decades, including graduation rates below the

national average (Census, 2011), increasing numbers of out-of-school children (ASER, 2016)

and significant gender disparities at all levels of the education system (World Bank, 2016).

These issues have been attributed to many factors including high levels of teacher absence

overcrowding in classrooms and low levels of school funding (Banerjee, Banerji, Duflo,

Glennerster, & Khemani, 2006). Low levels of parental education, parental involvement and

socioeconomic factors were recently correlated with these poor outcomes (Chaudhuri & Roy,

2009). This is highly relevant for this study. However, there are few studies beyond this one

that consider these factors in the context of UP. Additionally, while various programmes and

projects have tried to address the lack of direct parental engagement through information

campaigns in UP, they have been, largely, unsuccessful (Banerjee, Banerji, Duflo,

Glennerster, & Khemani, 2010; Pandey, Goyal, and Sundararaman, 2008). Therefore, not

only is there is a significant parental engagement and involvement literature gap in the

context of UP, there is also a need for this kind of research. It is for these reasons that I have

undertaken an empirical study of parental perceptions of and involvement in children’s

learning, with a specific focus on family economic status, in Uttar Pradesh, India in the hopes

of contributing to this literature gap. The following chapter outlines the results of this

analysis, but first I will outline the paradigmatic assumptions underpinning this study.

Figure 2. Crotty’s Approach to Research Schema (Crotty, 1998)


26

3.2. Paradigmatic Assumptions

I engaged with the debates surrounding educational research paradigms and their

associated assumptions at length in a preparatory essay for this study (Cashman, 2019).

Considering the space constraints of this thesis, I will not outline these debates in detail here.

However, this review, which was supported by Crotty’s four questions3, has informed my

adoption of the paradigmatic assumptions for this study. As such, these will be delineated in

this section through Crotty’s interconnected, four element approach, as demonstrated in

Figure 1. Although Crotty emphasises that researchers should feel free to move from element

to element freely, and in any order, I start with my epistemological position, through which I

also discuss the ontological assumptions of my study, as these are commonly considered the

building blocks of the other research process elements.

3.2.1. Epistemological and ontological assumptions. Crotty defines epistemology as

“a way of understanding and explaining how we know what we know” (Crotty, 1998, p.3). I

adopt the epistemological principle of objectivism, which can be defined by the assumption

that an objective truth, or a knowable reality, exists outside of individual’s perceptions

(Johnson, 2013), throughout this research. However, in response to recent claims that

traditional objectivism has been “turned on its head” as scientific evidence changes our idea

of the concept (Johnson, 2013, p.45), I have not adopted traditional objectivism in its entirety.

Instead, in agreement with Habermas' (1972; 1974) idea that objectivism silences a moral and

values-driven debate and, as a result, cannot answer vital questions about social life, I have

also assumed a complementary axiological caveat throughout this study. This caveat calls on

3 What methods do we propose to use? What methodology governs our choice and use of methods? What theoretical perspective lies behind the methodology in question? What epistemology informs this theoretical perspective? (Crotty, 1998)


27

researchers to acknowledge that their background knowledge, perspectives and values can

influence their interpretation of research findings (Robson, 2002). As such, I acknowledged

the potential impact of my background throughout this study to mitigate for any potential

biases in my data analysis and interpretation (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011; Robson,

2002).

Returning to Crotty’s schema, as outlined in Figure 1, the next level to be addressed

in terms of research planning is the theoretical perspective of this study. However, as

“ontological issues and epistemological issues tend to emerge together” (Crotty, 1998, p. 10),

I will first address the ontological assumptions of this study before we embark on the journey

towards this next level. Ontology can be defined as the, “claims and assumptions that are

made about the nature of social reality, claims about what exists, what it looks like, what

units make it up and how these units interact with each other” (Blaikie, 2000, p. 8).

Therefore, if epistemology is ‘how we know what we know’, ontology is ‘what we know’. I

adopt the ontological principle of realism throughout this study. This principle maintains that

reality exists independently, or externally, of the individual, can be captured by our senses

and, therefore, predicted (Scott, 2013). Borrowing from the approach of the natural sciences,

the scientific method is usually emphasised as part of this assumption and, as such, this

approach is usually associated with positivist research. However, considering the knowledge

my research questions seek, and the epistemological and axiological assumptions adopted,

this study is post-positivistic in nature.

3.2.2. Theoretical perspective. In identifying the theoretical perspective element of

his framework as “the philosophical stance informing the methodology and thus providing a

context for the process and grounding its logic and criteria” (Crotty, 1998, p. 3), Crotty


28

stresses the need for researchers to define their theoretical perspective before going on to plan

their methodological approach. Post-positivism is the theoretical approach I adopt throughout

this study. This can be defined by, once again, referring to the epistemological and

ontological assumptions of this paradigm - an adapted objectivism and realism - and thus, this

study. It is in understanding and adopting these two assumptions that post-positivists seek a

‘probabilistic knowledge’. Post-positivists do this by emphasising independence from what is

being researched by using the scientific method, as opposed to the absolute truth of

traditional positivism (Popper, 1994). It is also by searching for ‘probabilistic’ rather than

absolute knowledge in quantitative research that post-positivists ‘humanise’ research and its

participants. Post-positivists argue that this approach allows researchers to recognise

participant’s subjective experiences. This definition of post-positivism, and the associated

assumptions and elements of this paradigm, have guided the methodological approach of this

study.

3.2.3. Methodological approach. Considering post-positivism’s reliance on the

scientific method, the knowledge that my research questions seek and the importance of

generalisability to my study, the methodological approach of this study is quantitative in

nature. My adopted definition of quantitative research is based on that used in Aliaga and

Gunderson's 1999 statistics book that claims that quantitative research is “explaining

phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analysed using mathematically based

methods (in particular statistics)” (as cited in Muijs, 2010, p. 1). Crotty defines a study’s

methodological approach as “the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the

choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired

outcomes” (Crotty, 1998, p. 3). As such, the next, and final, element that will be addressed in


29

terms of paradigmatic commitments is an outline of the ‘mathematically based methods’ of

data collection and analysis utilised in this study.

3.2.4. Proposed methods. This study addresses two research questions by

quantitively analysing data from the Accountability from the Grassroots baseline data set.

This is achieved by employing both descriptive and inferential statistics of analysis.

Therefore, while the study does not aim to answer any why questions, I maintain that, based

on Campbell, Daft and Hulin’s (1982) assertion, it offers an important descriptive function to

further research which could build on, triangulate, replicate or verify findings. The

methodological approach to each question, and details concerning the statistical package that

was used, is outlined below as are the critiques of and approaches to analysing data from a

secondary data set. However, first, I will address contextual issues relating to the project,

specifically around data collection, sampling, instrumentation and data analysis.

3.3. Data Collection

3.3.1. Accountability from the Grassroots project. The data used for this study was

collected in 2018 by the Accountability from the Grassroots project team. As outlined in my

Introduction chapter, this research project is being led by Pratham, ASER and the REAL

Centre at the University of Cambridge. Community-school and parent-school accountability

partnerships will be investigated throughout the lifespan of the project, which runs from 2018

to 2020. Pratham is leading the data collection component of the project. Considering the

non-governmental organisation’s expertise in this area (e.g. Banerjee et al., 2010), this is of

considerable benefit to the project. So far, baseline data collection has been carried out in the

sampled schools and villages with the mid-line to be completed in the latter half of 2019.

This study used baseline data for data analysis.


30

Table 1. Respondent Relationship to Sample Child

Relationship %

Mother 53

Father 37

Grandparent 4

Uncle/aunt 3

Sibling 3

Other 0.09

3.3.2. Sampling

3.3.2.1. Sample characteristics. Tools used during this baseline data collection phase

include a children’s learning assessment and a caregiver’s questionnaire. The baseline

learning assessment was carried out with over 20,000 children in second, third and fourth

grades in schools across UP. The caregiver’s questionnaire was then administered to one

respondent at the sample child’s household. This sample has comparable numbers of boys

(47%) and girls (53 %) as well as comparable second (34%), third (33%) and fourth

(32%)graders. The summary categorisation of the caregiver’s relationship to the sample child

is outlined in Table 1.

3.3.2.2. Sampling procedures. The Accountability from the Grassroots project team

undertook four stages of sampling in 2017/18; state, villages, schools, children. Uttar Pradesh

was selected as the target state by the project team due to the high amenability towards new

interventions in the state, as expressed by government officials during the inception phase.

Following this, 400 villages in UP were randomly sampled based on the size and number of

government schools in the village. It was necessary, in terms of sample size and project costs,

for these villages to be relatively large and to have at least two government schools.


31

Table 2. Sampling Procedures for the Accountability from the Grassroots Project

• If there were 20 children or less enrolled in the sampled class, all children on the

monthly register4 were selected.

• If there were 21 children or more enrolled in the sampled class, the field staff selected

a random number between 1 and the total number of children enrolled in the class and

this was the first sample child in the list. After that, every fifth child was selected until a

total of 20 children were selected.

o The children present from this 20 (or less if it was a smaller class) were then

tested.

o The children absent from this 20 were tracked down and tested at home.

o This process was stopped as soon as ten children from this 20 were found to be

below the learning threshold. These ten children made up the final list of ten

sample children in that class.

Considering that the vast majority of children attending government schools in India are from

lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Alcott & Rose, 2015), this emphasis also ensured that

marginalised children and families in these villages would be accounted for in my analysis.

Following this, two government schools from each of these 400 villages were selected.

Lastly, up to 20 children in these schools were randomly sampled from second, third and

fourth grades. Detailed sampling procedures are outlined in Table 2. The Accountability from

the Grassroots sampling tool used by field staff is presented in Appendix One.

3.3.3. Instrumentation. There are two tools from the Accountability from the Grassroots

project that are relevant to my data analysis: a learning assessment tool and a caregiver’s

questionnaire. Both tools were piloted during the inception phase of the project. These were

then adapted as needed, thereby increasing their reliability, validity and practicability (Cohen

et al., 2007), and were then employed during the baseline data collection phase. This section

outlines some pertinent details about each of these individual tools.

4 These schools do not have enrolment registers separate from the daily attendance register. These registers contain the names of children enrolled in the current month.


32

3.3.3.1. Caregiver’s questionnaire. The caregiver’s questionnaire consists of six main

sections: general information; family engagement with sample child’s school; perceptions,

attitudes and actions related to sample child’s learning and education; general perceptions and

attitudes on learning and education; a household roster and, lastly, a section on household

indicators. This questionnaire is presented in Appendix Two. These questionnaires were

administered in person in sampled villages by Pratham field staff. Administering

questionnaires in person is a recognised technique to reduce potential non-response

(Wellington, 2015).

3.3.3.2. Learning assessment. The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) is a

nationwide survey of reading and math achievement of children in India. ASER have

developed two testing tools, one for each subject, to assess children’s foundational learning

levels as part of this report. There are four levels in each subject: letters; words; Standard I

text (paragraph) and Standard II text (story) in reading and number recognition 1 to 9;

number recognition 10 to 99; subtraction and division in arithmetic. This study used data

from the mathematics test only. This mathematics testing tool is presented in Figure 2.

Testing is conducted in the local language of the child, which is Hindi in the case of Uttar

Pradesh. Sample children are all tested using the same tool regardless of age, grade or

schooling status for the ASER report. In terms of the Accountability from the Grassroots

project, all of those tested had attended school at some point that month. Children do not

attempt all levels as the testing process is “adaptive to the child’s ability” (ASER, 2018, p.

32). These tools have been extensively piloted and tested. Additionally, the reliability and

validity of the tool has been independently assessed (Banu Vagh, 2012).


33

Figure 3. Sample Mathematics Measurement Tool used in ASER Surveys

3.4. Data Analysis

3.4.1. Analysis plan. My data analysis plan consisted of three main steps. Firstly,

descriptive analysis of relevant variables outside of my questions of interest were provided to

guide the reader and contextualise my research (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Secondly,

correlations were carried out to address both research question two and three. Lastly, three

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were estimated to build on these

preliminary correlations for research question three. OLS regression is a generalised linear

model that enables researchers to assess the impact of an independent factor while controlling

for other variables. Considering the binary nature of my dependent variable, parents’

participation in involvement activities, I could have used a logistic regression, instead of an

OLS regression, for research question three. I chose the latter as recent methodological

focused literature in the social sciences has demonstrated that OLS is comparable to logistic

regressions in terms of accuracy of predictions and superior in terms of the intuitiveness for

the researcher to interpret the model estimated coefficients (Angrist & Pischke, 2008;

Hellevik, 2009; as cited in Alcott & Rose, 2017). In this study, I estimate the following OLS

model:


34

Y = α + β1Pi + β2Ei … + βnXn + ε

Y represents the response variable, one of three parental involvement activities (visit school,

study help or check book), which is predicted by perception group (Pi) and level of family

economic status (Ei) and multiple other explanatory variables (Xn) – the child’s age, the

child’s class, the child’s sex, the respondent’s relation to the child, the household’s religion

and caste - as controls. The development of these three variables are outlined in the Measures

section. α indicates the value of Y when all values of the predictor variables are 0. All of the

β parameters indicate the average change in Y that is associated with a one-unit change in X,

whilst controlling for the other predictors.

3.4.2 Measures.

3.4.2.1. Parental involvement. Parental involvement was measured through ten,

individual binary variables. Eight of these were activity-based indicators: household member

visited the school this session, respondent is a member of the School Management

Committee, sample child has someone at home to help them with their studies, sample child

takes paid tuition, sample child participated in an activity in the village related to children’s

learning, respondent participated in an activity in the village related to children’s learning,

respondent looks at the sample child’s textbooks or notebooks and a member of the

household reads or tells stories to the sample child. Two of these indicators were knowledge-

based indicators: respondent knows the name of at least one of the sample child’s teachers

and respondent knows about the School Management Committee. All ten of these indicators

were used for the correlations, three were selected for the regression models. These three

were selected following a review of the overall participation rates for all ten variables.


35

Variables with participation rates less than 30% and greater than 70% were eliminated, as

well as any with a sample size less than 20,000, leaving the following three;

1. household member visited the school this session (visit school);

2. sample child has someone at home to help them with their studies (study help)

and;

3. respondent looks at the sample child’s textbooks or notebooks (check book).

3.4.2.2. Parental perceptions. Parental perceptions of children’s learning were

measured in both the correlations and regression model based on the combination of two

measures. Firstly, the parent’s perception of their child’s mathematics learning was measured

by the binary question: “Sampled Child can count till 100”. If parents answered yes, they

were considered to have a ‘high’ perception of their child’s mathematics ability, if they

answered no they were considered to have a ‘low’ perception. Secondly, the children’s

mathematics learning outcome was measured using the results of the ASER arithmetic testing

tool. If children achieved a level two or above (number recognition 10 to 99; subtraction and

division) they were considered to have a high learning outcome in mathematics, if they

achieved a level one or zero, they were categorised as having a ‘low’ learning outcome.

Caregiver’s questionnaire respondents were then categorised into four binary ‘perception

group’ variables. These four groups were:

1. High parental perception of learning/high child’s learning outcome;

2. Low parental perception of learning/high child’s learning outcome;

3. High parental perception of learning/low child’s learning outcome and

4. Low parental perception of learning/low child’s learning outcome.


36

3.4.2.3. Family economic status. I developed an economic wellbeing scale, based on

Jones and Schipper (2015), to measure family economic status. In this paper, Jones and

Schipper used the ownership, or the lack thereof, of six assets to assess the level of

deprivation in a household. As this study was undertaken in an Eastern African context, I felt

it was not appropriate to simply copy this list of six verbatim for this study. Therefore,

instead, I developed and adapted an independent scale to the context of Uttar Pradesh.

Household asset data was collected for 21,463 respondents through the baseline caregiver’s

questionnaire. These 28 household assets or indicators ranged from the type of house to

transportation assets to reading material in the house. I selected six assets, either individual

assets or combinations of assets, for my scale by comparing the overall percentage of

respondents with each of the individual assets in the study. Those less than 5% and greater

than 40% were eliminated. These overall percentages were then cross compared to ensure

that there wasn’t significant overlap. Literature from the global and Indian context was

consulted to support the choice of each asset. Four individual assets were included in the

finalised economic wellbeing scale: an electricity connection in the household; a toilet facility

available for use inside the house; a T.V. and a chair. Two assets were created by combining

a number of individual assets; ownership of a motorised vehicle (combination of a

motorbike/scooter; car; tractor; auto rickshaw) and the primary mode of cooking in the

household (combination of a coal stove; kerosene stove; gas stove/LPG; bio gas; and

Table 3. Percentage of Sampled Households with Selected Assets

Asset %

Electricity 36

Toilet 34

Primary mode of cooking (excl fire stove) 18

Motorised vehicle 19

T.V. 7

Chair 22


37

Table 4. Percentage of Sampled Household by Level of Deprivation Group

smokeless chullah). The overall percentages of respondents with these six assets is outlined in

Table 3. Like Jones and Schipper, I then grouped the respondents, by asset ownership, into

three categories. The first group are the ‘non-poor’. These respondents consist of those who

own three to six of the listed assets and would be considered, relatively, wealthier than the

majority of the other respondents. As outlined in Table 4, 18% (n = 3,774) of sampled

participants are in this cohort. The second group are the ‘poor’. This group consists of those

who have access to or own one to two assets. The majority of the sample, 51% (n = 10,940),

make up this group. Lastly, the third group are those with no access or ownership of these

assets. They are the ‘ultra-poor’. 31% (n = 6,712) of sampled respondents are in this group.

3.4.3. Validity and reliability. Validity and reliability are at the core of the scientific

method. While threats to both cannot be completely avoided, researchers can, and should,

take steps to mitigate against these (Cohen et al., 2011). I define validity as the degree to

which the findings captured the reality of the situation under investigation (Hitchcock &

Hughes, 2002, p.324). Reliability, on the other hand, is defined as an assessment of

consistency that entails that what was measured at some point should yield the same results if

conducted at a later point (Gray, 2004, p.207 - 208) in this study. Cohen et al. (2011) claimed

that “if a piece of research is invalid, then it is worthless.” (p. 179). In agreement with this

sentiment, I have taken various steps to ensure the validity and reliability of this research by

focusing on three core areas identified in the planning of this study: sampling strategy;

Group Description %

Non-poor 3 to 6 assets 18

Poor 1 to 2 assets 51

Ultra-poor 0 assets 31


38

measurement and instrumentation, and statistical treatments. Firstly, while I did not engage in

the development of the sampling strategy, I did undertake an independent analysis of these

processes for the Accountability from the Grassroots project during my study planning phase.

I deduced from this analysis that the adopted randomised sampling approach was, indeed,

suitable and appropriate for the study design and timeline (Thompson, 2012).

In terms of measurement, ASER published a 2012 paper that outlines several salient

points from various empirical studies regarding the reliability and validity of their reading

and mathematics tools. Validity-wise, the findings provide favourable evidence for

concurrent and convergent-discriminant validity (Cohen et al., 2011). Lastly, I based my

analysis plan on an extensive literature review and applied appropriate statistical treatments

to my data as well as avoided the equating of correlations to causes in my write-up. These

also contribute to the validity of the study. As with validity, there have been several steps

taken by both the project team and me to ensure a level of reliability in the data and this

study. Carmines, Zeller, and Zeller (1979) claim there are three ways of testing reliability in

quantitative research: stability, equivalence and internal consistency. In line with this, I ran

Cronbach’s alpha to assess the reliability of these tools (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). This

guarantees the internal consistency, and therefore the reliability, of the data and this study’s

findings.

3.5. Limitations

As with any research project, this study has faced several challenges and limitations.

Firstly, as I was working within the boundaries of the project’s plans and procedures, I did

not have the opportunity to feed into the project planning phase, including the sampling

strategy or tool development. However, I undertook an independent analysis of these


39

procedures during my own study planning phase and, as outlined above, deem that these

procedures are in line with my research plan. While another, often-cited limitation of using

secondary data for analysis is that researchers cannot retrospectively access samples if more

detail is necessary, this was not required in my case considering the knowledge that my

questions seek and the scope of my thesis. However, if in the future this is needed, perhaps

for triangulation of these results or replication of this study, I have access to this sample

through my agreement with the research team. In addition, while the model and conceptual

framework employed in my study was informed by theory and existing research, the

possibility of alternative models exists due to the cross-sectional nature of the data. For

example, it may be that perceptions aren’t necessarily mediating parental involvement but

rather this is a by-product of this relationship. I also cannot draw casual conclusions due to

the cross-sectional nature of this study. However, the overall, ongoing research project is

longitudinal in nature and, therefore, I could build on this study in the future.

3.6. Ethical Considerations

Schratz and Walker (2005) assert that a post-positivistic approach demands that the

uses and purposes of research are as much ethical as they are technical. In line with this,

ethical considerations were of the utmost importance during the planning phase of this study

and throughout the data analysis and write-up. As data from a secondary data set was used,

not only did I have to ensure that my research design and plan was ethical but also that of the

original project team. As such, I reviewed the relevant documentation prior to my use of the

data to ensure that guidance provided by the British Educational Research Association

(BERA) was being adhered to (BERA, 2018). More specifically, I ensured that the

participants in the Accountability from the Grassroots research project were fully informed of


40

the purpose of the research and that the right to withdraw being offered to them at any time.

Following this review, I completed the University of Cambridge Ethical Clearance process

which complements the original ethical clearance of the project. Guidance concerning

research ethics in the Global South was consulted both before and after this process and

guided my research design and analysis plan (Robinson-Pant & Singal, 2018).


41

4. Results

4.1. Research Question One: Do Parental Perceptions of their Children’s Learning

Align with Children’s Learning Outcomes?

The results of the analysis undertaken in response to this question offer several

interesting insights as well as provides a solid foundation for analyses pertaining to my

second and third research questions. At its most basic, my study answers this question with a

swift no. As demonstrated in Table 5, essentially half of the 22,403 sampled parents (n =

11,478, 51%) hold a perception of their child’s mathematics learning that is misaligned with

their child’s actual learning. In contrast, 49% (n = 10,925) of sampled parents hold a

perception of their child’s mathematics learning that is aligned with the child’s actual

learning outcomes in the subject. As demonstrated in my Literature Review, there is a

noticeable literature gap around alignment theory in existing parental perception research.

However, this finding contradicts the basic assumption that a majority of parents are aware of

their child’s immediate and ongoing educational progress. That said, I wanted to explore and

unpick this misalignment and alignment further to understand the nuances of this breakdown.

This resulted in a parental perception alignment model which considers four potential

scenarios for this misalignment/alignment. These are presented in Table 6.

Table 5. Alignment of Parental Perceptions by Children’s Actual Learning Outcomes

Aligned

%

Misaligned

%

Sampled Parents 49 51

Note. Sample size (n = 22,403)


42

Table 6. Alignment of Parental Perceptions by Children’s Actual Learning Outcomes

(Four Level Model)


Table 6 includes all 22,403 sampled parents who completed the baseline household

survey. Those who hold parental perceptions of learning that align with children’s learning

outcomes (49%, n = 10,925) are accounted for in the first and fourth groups, those who hold

parental perceptions of learning that are misaligned with children’s actual learning outcomes

(51%, n = 11,478) are accounted for in the second and third groups. The largest group

consists of parents who fall into the third scenario. This describes a situation in which

parental perceptions of learning are high, but children’s learning outcomes are low

(“Misaligned (High Perceptions, Low Outcomes)”). 49% of parents (n = 10,977) are in this

category. On the other hand, the smallest group, only 2% (n = 501) of sampled parents, are

those who fit into the second scenario. This scenario assumes that parental perceptions of

learning are low, but children are achieving high outcomes (“Misaligned (Low Perceptions,

Perceptions

Learning

outcomes

High Low

High

Aligned

(High Perceptions/

High Outcomes)

16%

Misaligned

(Low Perceptions/

High Outcomes)

2%

Low

Misaligned

(High Perceptions/

Low Outcomes)

49%

Aligned

(Low Perceptions/

Low Outcomes)

32%


43

High Outcomes)”). Therefore, the vast majority of the misaligned group (96%), are

overestimating their children’s ability in contrast to the 4% of parents in the misaligned group

who underestimate their child’s mathematics ability.

In terms of the breakdown of the aligned parents, 32% (n = 7,237) of parents fit into

the fourth scenario. This scenario assumes that parental perceptions of learning are low as are

children’s learning outcomes (“Aligned (Low Perceptions/Low Outcomes)”). 16% (n =

3,688) of sampled parents, on the other hand, are in the first group which assumes that

parental perceptions of learning are high and aligned with high learning outcomes (“Aligned

(High Perceptions/High Outcomes)”). However, this result could be skewed by the

significantly larger number of children achieving low outcomes in mathematics compared to

those achieving high outcomes (82% versus 18%). While Table 6 only outlines four possible

scenarios, there is a fifth scenario that could be included here. This could include parents who

have not reported their perception of their child’s learning. This may not have been reported

for several reasons. For example, it could indicate that the parent may not recognise the value

of education (Kurosaki, Ito, Fuwa, Kubo, & Sawada, 2006), that they do not have the internal

knowledge or resources, such as self-efficacy, to feel comfortable in reporting (Bandura,

Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001) or that they do not have enough time, have

concerns around confidentiality or they do not understand the question (National Research

Council, 2013). While these respondents could be of interest to future researchers,

considering the indeterminate status of this group I have not included them in my analysis.


44

4.2. Research Question Two: Does Family Economic Status Appear to Influence the

Alignment of Parental Perceptions with their Child’s Learning Outcomes?

This question challenges the common notion, outlined in my Literature Review, that

parents from lower economic status backgrounds are more likely to hold lower perceptions of

their child’s learning outcomes. Considering that my hypothesis supposes that the alignment

of parental perceptions and children’s learning influences parental involvement, the

examination of the potential effect of family economic status on this alignment is an

important step. As outlined in my Methodology chapter, this was achieved by developing a

family economic status scale that assesses the level of deprivation in a household as based on

Jones and Schipper's work (2015). Following the development of this scale, it was mapped on

to the aligned/misaligned groups. As demonstrated in Table 7, all three groups – the ‘non-

poor’, ‘poor’ and ‘ultra-poor’- are equally aligned (49%) and misaligned (51%). Therefore,

contrary to the accepted narrative in parental perceptions literature, family economic status

does not appear to influence the alignment of parental perceptions and children’s learning

outcomes in this population.

Table 7. Alignment of Parental Perceptions and Learning Outcomes by Family Economic

Status

Aligned % Misaligned %

Non-poor 49 51

Poor 49 51

Ultra-poor 49 51



45

Table 8. Parental Perception Groups by Family Economic Status

Note. Sample size (n = 20,435). Row totals used.

However, in order to delve into this further, I mapped this scale on to the original

perception groups from research question one (High Perception/High Outcome, Low

Perception/High Outcome, High Perception/Low Outcome and Low Perception/Low

Outcome). The resulting findings, as outlined in Table 8, paint an interesting picture. If a

respondent is from a non-poor background and holds aligned perceptions of children’s

learning, they are more likely than expected to hold High Perception/High Outcome aligned

perceptions than Low Perception/Low Outcome aligned perceptions. The opposite is true for

those from the poor group and even more extreme for those from the ultra-poor group.

However, this finding could be explained by Table 9 which shows that, as expected in the

context of rural India (see Alcott & Rose, 2015), children from the non-poor group are

generally achieving higher learning outcomes. This could result in more children in the High

Outcome category therefore increasing the likelihood of a non-poor parent being in the High

Perception category which may be skewing results.

Table 9. Student Outcomes in Mathematics by Level of Deprivation Group

Expected % High Outcome % Low Outcome %

Non-poor 18 25 16

Poor 51 49 51

Ultra-poor 31 26 33

Total 100 100 100


HighPerception/

HighOutcome%

LowPerception/

HighOutcome%

HighPerception/

LowOutcome%

LowPerception/

LowOutcome%

Expected 17 2 49 33

Non-poor 24 2 49 25

Poor 16 2 49 33

Ultra-poor 13 2 48 36


46

Table 10. Parental Perceptions by Family Economic Status

Note. Sample size (n = 20,435). Row totals used.

Equally, when High Perception versus Low Perception is broken down by level of

deprivation, while those in the poor group are within one percentage point of expected, we

see a clear division between the ‘wealthiest’ and ‘poorest’ in this sample. As demonstrated in

Table 10, those in the non-poor group are seven percentage points more likely to hold high

perceptions of their children’s learning than expected, whereas the ultra-poor are five

percentage points less likely. Therefore, the alignment of perceptions does not appear to be

impacted by family economic status. That said, the main take away for this question is not

how family economic status appears to influence the breakdown of the four perception

groups. Instead, rather surprisingly and contrary to our common understanding around the

perceptions of parents from lower economic status groups, the main finding is that family

economic status does not appear to influence the alignment or misalignment of parental

perceptions of children’s learning, but it appears to influence whether a parent holds high or

low perceptions, aligned or otherwise.

High Perception % Low Perception %

Expected 66 34

Non-poor 73 27

Poor 65 35

Ultra-poor 61 39


47

4.3. Research Question Three: Does (a) the Alignment of Parental Perceptions and (b)

Family Economic Status Appear to Influence Parental Involvement at School,

Home or in the Community?

The third, and final, research question of this study builds on the findings outlined

above to fully test the hypothesis outlined in my Introduction. To do this, I will explore the

influence of the alignment of parental perceptions and family economic status on parental

involvement. I will begin by outlining the results from a correlation and then move on to an

outline of the results of an OLS regression. The correlation was run for ten parental

involvement indicators, as outlined in the Measures section of the Methodology chapter. A

Phi Coefficient test was run measuring the association between these ten indicators and the

four perceptions groups from research question one (High Perception/High Outcome, Low

Perception/High Outcome, High Perception/Low Outcome and Low Perception/Low

Outcome). This test was selected as all variables of interest were binary in nature (Ary,

Jacobs, Razavieh, & Sorensen, 2009). The results of this test are outlined in Table 11.

Table 11. Perception Groups by Parental Involvement Indicators

Sample

size

Overall

%

High

Perception/

High

Outcome

%

Low

Perception/

High

Outcome

%

High

Perception/

Low

Outcome

%

Low

Perception/

Low

Outcome

%

Visit school 23,071 34 +5 -3 0 -2

Know teacher 22,121 25 +6 -4 +2 -4

Know SMC 23,279 4 +2 -1 0 -1

SMC member 907 39 +2 -1 -1 +3

Study help 23,292 56 +11 -6 +3 -8

Paid tuition 23,374 8 +7 -1 +1 -4

Village activity (child) 23,071 34 +5 -3 0 -2

Village activity (parent) 381 33 -4 -33 -2 +12

Check book 23,220 66 +9 -3 +4 -6

Read to child 23,310 18 +4 -3 +1 -3

Note. Percentages points for perception groups compared to overall percentages for involvement activities


48

As demonstrated, the group with the highest percentage point increase from the

overall percentage across eight out of ten of the indicators, were the parents with high

perceptions of their child's learning which aligned with the child’s high learning outcomes

(High Perception/High Outcome). The two exceptions, member of the School Monitoring

Committee (SMC member) and the respondent participated in activities related to learning at

the village level (Village activity (parent)), are the only two indicators with a substantially

smaller sample size, which may be skewing these findings. The group with the second

highest percentage point increase across all eight of these indicators was recorded for the

group of parents with high perceptions of children’s learning which were misaligned with

low learning outcomes (High Perception/Low Outcome). As such, the groups with the first

and second highest involvement were those, whether aligned or misaligned, with high

parental perceptions (High Perception). Therefore, this correlation indicates that the

alignment of parental perceptions with their child’s learning outcomes does not appear to

influence their parental involvement activity but the parent holding a high/low perception of

their children’s learning, whether aligned or not, does.

Of course, there could be a number of confounding and mediating variables skewing

these results. While I could not consider every one of these factors, I re-ran this correlation,

in part, to account for family economic status to address this argument as well as to

contribute to part (b) of this question. Considering the scope of this thesis, only three of the

ten indicators were selected to do this. These were, as outlined in the Methodology chapter;

1. whether the respondent (or another household member) has visited the school this

session (Visit school);

2. whether the sample child has someone at home to help them with their studies

(Study help) and;


49

3. whether the respondent checks the sample child's notebooks or textbooks (Check

book).

The results of this test are outlined in Table 12, 13 and 14.


50

Table 12. Percentage of Parents, by Deprivation Group, that Visited the School this

Session

Visit School

Expected

High

Perception/

High

Outcome

%

Low

Perception/

High

Outcome

%

High

Perception/

Low

Outcome

%

Low

Perception/

Low

Outcome

%

Non-poor 22 9 -3 0 -6

Poor 50 -4 4 0 3

Ultra-poor 28 -4 0 0 3

Note. Percentages points for perception groups compared to expected percentages for

involvement activities

Table 13. Percentage of Parents, by Deprivation Group, that Indicated There is Someone

at Home to Help the Sample Child with their Studies

Study Help

Expected

High

Perception/

High

Outcome

%

Low

Perception/

High

Outcome

%

High

Perception/

Low

Outcome

%

Low

Perception/

Low

Outcome

%

Non-poor 22 8 0 0 -5

Poor 50 -3 0 0 3

Ultra-poor 28 -5 -1 0 2



Table 14. Percentage of Parents, by Deprivation Group, that Check their Child’s Notebook

or Textbook

Check Book

Expected

High

Perception/

High

Outcome

%

Low

Perception/

High

Outcome

%

High

Perception/

Low

Outcome

%

Low

Perception/

Low

Outcome

%

Non-poor 22 7 -2 -2 -6

Poor 50 -2 -2 1 2

Ultra-poor 28 -4 0 1 4




51

These tables demonstrate that while family economic status does appear to influence

parental involvement in these three activities if they hold perceptions aligned in either way

(High Perception/High Outcome or Low Perception/Low Outcome), it does not appear to

have as noticeable of an affect if perceptions are misaligned in either way (Low

Perception/High Outcome or High Perception/Low Outcome). For instance, non-poor parents

are 15 percentage points more likely than average to have visited the school if they are in the

High Perception/High Outcome group than if they are in the Low Perception/Low Outcome

group. This is in contrast with poor or ultra-poor parents who are seven percentage points less

likely to have visited the school if they are in the High Perception/High Outcome group than

the Low Perception/Low Outcome group. There are similar patterns across the Study Help

and Check Book activities. In terms of the two misaligned groups, however, the biggest

percentage point difference is seen in the Visit School activity. Here, non-poor parents are

three percentage points less likely than those in the High Perception/Low Outcome to have

visited the school if in the Low Perception/High Outcome group. On the other hand, poor

parents are four percentage points more likely than those in the High Perception/Low

Outcome to have visited the school if in the Low Perception/High Outcome group. Similarly,

there is a relatively small difference across the other two activities when compared to the two

aligned groups.

This could indicate that family economic status does not impact parental involvement

levels if the parent is a member of a misaligned group. However, it could influence those who

are in the aligned groups. Specifically, if a parent with aligned perceptions is in the non-poor

group, they are more likely to engage in these three activities if their perceptions are aligned

High Perception/High Outcome. On the other hand, a parent with aligned perceptions in the

poor or ultra-poor group is more likely to engage in these activities if their perceptions are


52

aligned Low Perception/Low Outcome. This could indicate that non-poor parents in this

population choose to engage if they recognise that the child has academic potential, whereas

the involvement choice of the poorer parents could be a response mechanism to academic

weakness. Considering these emerging findings, I ran the three OLS regression models, as

described in my Methodology chapter, to build on these results. Table 15, 16 and 17 outline

the resulting findings of these regressions.


53

Table 15. Regression Models for Visit School Activity

Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

(1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3)

Perc Group Std. Error FES Std. Error Add Controls Std. Error

Perception Group

High High 0.07*** (0.00981) 0.06*** (0.01018) 0.07*** (0.0108)

Low High -0.01 (0.0216) -0.01 (0.02331) -0.01 (0.0230)

High Low 0.02*** (0.00717) 0.02*** (0.00759) 0.03*** (0.00767)

Deprivation Group

Ultra-Poor -0.03*** (0.00761) -0.02*** (0.00761)

Non-Poor 0.07*** (0.00926) 0.07*** (0.00969)

Child Age -0.02*** (0.00387)

Child Class

Std 3 0.01 (0.00932)

Std 4 0.00 (0.0117)

Child Gender: Girl -0.01 (0.00682)

Resp. Relation to

Sampled Child

Mother -0.10*** (0.00729)

Siblings -0.09*** (0.0200)

Grandparents -0.03 (0.0180)

Uncle/Aunt -0.03 (0.0222)

Other Relative 0.08 (0.137)

Religion

Muslim -0.02** (0.0111)

Christian 0.10 (0.107)

Sikh 0.10 (0.110)

Buddhist 0.29 (0.278)

Jain 0.15 (0.393)

Caste

SC -0.04*** (0.0128)

ST -0.01 (0.0590)

OBC -0.04*** (0.0124)

Constant 0.31*** (0.00553) 0.32*** (0.00671) 0.55*** (0.0306)

Observations 22,050 20,094 19,470

R-squared 0.003 0.008 0.023


54

Table 16. Regression Models for Study Help Activity

(1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3)

Perc

Group

Std. Error FES Std. Error Add

Controls

Std. Error

Perception Group

High High 0.19*** (0.00974) 0.17*** (0.01040) 0.18*** (0.0107)

Low High 0.02 (0.0232) 0.01 (0.02388) 0.02 (0.0242)

High Low 0.10*** (0.00755) 0.10*** (0.00776) 0.11*** (0.00800)

Deprivation Group

Ultra-poor -0.05*** (0.00778) -0.05*** (0.00801)

Non-poor 0.13*** (0.00946) 0.12*** (0.00925)

Child Age -0.03*** (0.00405)

Child Class

Std 3 -0.01 (0.00954)

Std 4 -0.01 (0.0121)

Child Gender: Girl 0.01 (0.00696)

Resp. Relation to

Sampled Child

Mother -0.08*** (0.00740)

Siblings 0.04** (0.0199)

Grandparents -0.01 (0.0174)

Uncle/Aunt 0.09*** (0.0204)

Other Relative 0.31*** (0.0725)

Religion

Muslim -0.04*** (0.0115)

Christian -0.00 (0.104)

Sikh 0.02 (0.0985)

Buddhist 0.09 (0.266)

Jain -0.62*** (0.0193)

Caste

SC -0.06*** (0.0122)

ST -0.08 (0.0605)

OBC -0.06*** (0.0119)

Constant 0.48*** (0.00590) 0.48*** (0.00685) 0.78*** (0.0314)

Observations 22,247 20,290 19,658

R-squared 0.018 0.033 0.051



55

Table 17. Regression Models for Check Book Activity

(1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3)

Perc Group Std. Error FES Std. Error Add Controls Std. Error

Perception Group

High High 0.16*** (0.00919) 0.14*** (0.00990) 0.16*** (0.0100)

Low High 0.03 (0.0225) 0.03 (0.02273) 0.04* (0.0239)

High Low 0.10*** (0.00728) 0.10*** (0.00738) 0.10*** (0.00775)

Deprivation Group

Ultra-poor -0.05*** (0.00740) -0.04*** (0.00774)

Non-poor 0.09*** (0.00901) 0.08*** (0.00860)

Child Age -0.02*** (0.00391)

Child Class

Std 3 -0.01 (0.00909)

Std 4 -0.01 (0.0116)

Child Gender: Girl 0.00 (0.00664)

Resp. Relation to

Sampled Child

Mother -0.05*** (0.00703)

Siblings 0.03 (0.0187)

Grandparents -0.06*** (0.0170)

Uncle/Aunt -0.01 (0.0202)

Other Relative 0.09 (0.108)

Religion

Muslim -0.07*** (0.0112)

Christian -.00 (0.0984)

Sikh 0.21*** (0.0528)

Buddhist 0.32*** (0.0500)

Jain -0.71*** (0.0231)

Caste

SC -0.10*** (0.0108)

ST -0.18*** (0.0599)

OBC -0.09*** (0.0106)

Constant 0.60*** (0.00580) 0.60*** (0.00652) 0.91*** (0.0299)

Observations 22,176 20,220 19,585

R-squared 0.015 0.025 0.039



56

Mirroring the correlations outlined above, Model Three suggests that it is high

parental perceptions, rather than the alignment of perceptions with children’s learning, that

appears to influence parental involvement in these three activities even when controlling for

other relevant factors. For instance, while parents in the High Perception/High Outcome

group are seven percentage points more likely than the reference category group, Low

Perception/Low Outcome to have visited the school this session, parents in the High

Perception/Low Outcome are only three percentage points more likely and parents in the Low

Perception/High Outcome group are one percentage point less likely. Table 16, which

outlines the results for Study Help, demonstrates a similar pattern. Parents in the High

Perception/High Outcome and High Perception/Low Outcome groups are 18 and 11

percentage points more likely to indicate that there is someone at home to help the child with

their studies, respectively, whereas parents in the Low Perception/High Outcome are only two

percentage points more likely than the Low Perception/Low Outcome group. In terms of the

Check Book activity, as outlined in Table 17, those in the High Perception/High Outcome

group are 16 percentage points more likely to check the child’s notebook or textbook, those

in the High Perception/Low Outcome group are ten percentage points more likely and those

in the Low Perception/High Outcome are three percentage points more likely than those in

the Low Perception/Low Outcome group. These findings are summarised in Table 18. While

the results for the Low Perception/High Outcome group are insignificant throughout, this

could be due to the relatively smaller sample size of this group (n = 501) skewing results.

Table 18. Summary of Model Three – Perception Group

Visit School % Study Help % Check Book %

High Perception/High Outcome 7 18 16

High Perception/Low Outcome 3 11 10

Low Perception/High Outcome -1 2 4


57

In terms of family economic status, Model Three demonstrates that it does, indeed,

appear to influence parental involvement in these three activities. As demonstrated in the

summary table, Table 19, parents in the ultra-poor group are two percentage points less likely

to have visited the school this session compared to the reference group, poor. On the other

hand, non-poor parents are seven percentage points more likely to have visited the school.

Therefore, further exploration into the relationship between socioeconomic status and visiting

the school may be warranted. Once again, similar patterns are identifiable across Study Help

and Check Book. Parents in the ultra-poor group are five percentage points less likely to

indicate that there is someone at home to help the child with their studies than poor parents

whereas parents in the non-poor group are 12 percentage points more likely than poor

parents. Lastly, parents in the ultra-poor group are four percentage points less likely than the

reference group, poor, to check their child’s notebook or textbook compared to the non-poor

who are eight percentage points more likely. All p-values associated with these results are

significant at the 1% level. While the coefficients drop when controls are introduced,

compared to Model Two with no controls, they drop very slightly and are still significant

indicating that family economic status still appears to influence parental involvement through

these three activities when relevant variables are controlled for. This finding is in line with

the Literature Review chapter that presents studies outlining a strong correlation between the

level of deprivation and parental involvement activities.

Table 19. Summary of Model Three – Family Economic Status

Visit School % Study Help % Check Book %

Ultra-poor -2 -5 -4

Non-poor 7 12 8


58

Thus far, these regressions demonstrate that while the alignment of parental

perceptions does not appear to influence parental involvement in these three activities, high

parental perceptions, whether aligned or not, does appear to. Furthermore, family economic

status also, independently, appears to influence parental involvement in these three activities.

While these two points largely answer the third research question, these regressions provide a

wealth of additional information, in the form of the control variables selected, that could

contribute to wider parental involvement discourse. Beginning with the variables that are

significant across all three activities, age, the respondent being the child’s mother, the

respondent being the child’s sibling (except for Table 17), the household religion being

Muslim, the household caste being Scheduled Caste or Other Backward Class are significant

throughout. The direction of the association for age is negative across all three activities. This

is unsurprising considering a large body of existing literature indicating that parental

involvement tends to lessen as the child grows older (Green et al., 2007). However,

considering the percentage point difference between each individual activity, these findings

indicate that future research around the influence of child age on parental involvement needs

to perhaps consider an activity-by-activity as opposed to a one parental involvement indicator

approach.

In addition to age, the direction of association if the child’s mother was the

respondent, compared to the reference group father, was also negative across all three

activities. Findings indicating the negative direction of association between mothers and the

Visit School activity are, relatively, unsurprising considering the link between gender and

social capital (as outlined in Davidson & Sanyal, 2017; Scott et al., 2017) and recent

literature from the health and nutrition sector demonstrating that greater social capital

amplifies the linking ties to medical and educational institutions (Story & Carpiano, 2017).


59

However, the fact that there is a similar negative association for Study Help and Check Book

could be considered surprising considering literature situated in India that indicates that when

mothers are supported, they fully engage in their children’s learning, especially in home-

based activities (Banerji et al., 2015). This could imply that further research is needed in this

area. Once again, the association between visiting the school and the respondent being the

child’s sibling is negative and significant. This could be, once again, linked to the difference

in social capital between the two groups of stakeholders; fathers and their children and

warrants further investigation, as recognised in existent literature from India (Harpham,

2002). However, the association between a sibling status and helping the child with studying

at the home and checking the child’s notebook are both significant and positive. This result

for Check Book could indicate that intragenerational involvement is relevant in the Indian

context (see Chadha, 2012) and, therefore, needs to be treated as a policy priority as

education levels increase in India. This argument is further explored in the subsequent

chapter.

The interlinked nature of vidya (education), veda (religion) and varna (caste) has been

extensively explored in educational literature in India in recent decades (see Borooah & Iyer,

2005). Therefore, while the link between these three and parental involvement has been

rarely considered, it was important, from the theoretical perspective, to include these in my

conceptual framework and my analysis. The resulting findings are thought-provoking

especially for Muslim respondents when compared to the reference category, Hindu. This

likely a result of the size of the population when compared to the other religious groups

which are much smaller. However, what is particularly notable about this group is that the

direction of the association is negative across all six models. This merits further investigation.

The only activity where other religions are significant is the Check Book activity with four


60

out of five of the religions being significant: Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist and Jain. While

Buddhist and Sikh parents are 32 and 21 percentage points, respectively, more likely than

Hindu parents to check their child’s notebook or textbook, Muslim parents are seven

percentage points less likely. Notably, Jain parents are a massive 71 percentage points less

likely to check their child’s notebook or textbook and 61 percentage points less likely to

indicate that there is someone at home to help the study child with their studies. Therefore,

religion, even when controlling for other factors appears to have a substantial influence on

parental involvement in these three activities in rural India.

This study also highlights that being a member of the Scheduled Caste or any Other

Backwards Class castes, when compared to the reference General caste, is negative, and

significant, across all models. Being a parent from the Scheduled Tribe is significant and

negative in only one activity, Check Book. This could be explained by the smaller sample size

for this group. In terms of insignificant variables, class and being a Christian are insignificant

across these six models. Both are unsurprising, the latter because of the small population in

this sample, the former because, as literature shows age is a more important variable than

class (Green et al., 2007). However, what is surprising is the insignificance of gender across

these models. Literature demonstrates that the child’s gender is important in parental

involvement in other countries in the Global South (Kim, 2018) but, as in demonstrated in the

Literature Review chapter, there is a literature gap around parental involvement in India, so it

is difficult to present studies which show this is the case in this context. That said, gender has

been linked to other outcomes and factors in education in India (Echávarri & Ezcurra, 2010)

and, as such, I included gender in my conceptual framework and, thus, in my analysis.

However, the lack of significance here is an interesting finding in itself and warrants further

exploration.


61

The results of these analyses provide much clarification to the findings arising from

the Literature review chapter and afford a number of significant findings. Firstly, analysis

demonstrates that parental perceptions are not aligned with children’s actual learning

outcomes in a slight majority of this population. This misalignment consists overwhelmingly

of a group of parents with high perceptions of learning while their children achieve ‘low’

learning outcomes. Interestingly, while the regression analysis outlined above has

demonstrated that there is a significant association between level of deprivation and these

three parental involvement activities, preliminary correlations indicate there is no association

between having aligned perceptions of your children’s learning and level of deprivation. This

is surprising considering findings of the preceding literature review for this study. It is worth

noting, however, that non-poor parents are more likely to have aligned perceptions of their

children’s learning if they are achieving ‘high’ outcomes, whereas poor, and ultra-poor, are

more likely to align with their children’s learning if they are achieving ‘low’ learning

outcomes. These findings are echoed in the regression analysis. It also appears that parental

perceptions are the main driver of parental involvement as opposed to children’s actual

learning outcomes which is the accepted narrative in recent parental involvement literature.

However, due to the limited scope of this study, there are several areas that could be further

explored to compliment findings arising from this chapter. For example, this study was

carried out on data pertaining to learning outcomes in mathematics. Data from the

Accountability from the grassroots project is also available on outcomes around literacy and

may provide further insight into this area. The findings outlined above, and the areas of

further exploration, are discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.


62

5. Discussion

5.1. Parental Perceptions

The organisation of and guiding legislation for an education system has been linked to

parental engagement with children’s learning in the Global North (Hoover‐Dempsey et al.,

2005). In India, the current education policy, the Right to Education Act 2009, assumes and

expects parents to be ‘informed’ ‘monitoring agents and consumers’ of education on behalf

of and for the benefit of their children (Maithreyi & Sriprakash, 2018). As a result of this,

parents without the relevant knowledge and know-how are at an immediate disadvantage in

terms of fully engaging in their children’s education, schooling and learning. 51% of sampled

parents in this study hold a perception of their children’s learning that is misaligned with their

children’s actual, immediate learning outcomes. This is contrary to recent evidence from the

Global North that found that parents in the Netherlands held aspirations that were most often

aligned, or deviated only to a minimal extent (63.2%), from children’s outcomes (de Boer &

van der Werf, 2015). In a system where the responsibility for a child’s academic success lies

with the fully ‘informed’ parent but where a majority of parents hold a misaligned perception

of their children’s learning, we must question how we can enable parents to meet this

expectation, and indeed, if the Indian system is appropriate in the first place. To open a

discourse around this issue, we need to fully understand this alignment and misalignment.

However, as outlined in my Literature Review, there is a notable literature gap around

parental perceptions of education in the Global South, especially in India. As a result, there is

very little existent literature addressing this alignment in any capacity.

To address this, educational researchers must disentangle the configuration, causes and

consequences of this in rural India. Considering the scope of this thesis, I was only able to

address the basic breakdown, one potential cause, family economic status, and one potential

consequence, parental involvement levels, of this alignment or misalignment. In terms of the


63

breakdown of this misalignment, an overwhelming majority (96%) of those with misaligned

perceptions are overestimating their children’s learning (High Perception/Low Outcome).

This leads us to question if this is ‘truthful’ misalignment or are parents overestimating in

order to provide socially desirable answers to interviewers, as has been demonstrated to be a

concern in some contexts in the Global South (Middleton & Jones, 2000) Answering this

question is beyond the scope of this thesis. However, we could take the group of parents who

underestimate their children’s ability (Low Perception/High Outcome) to imply that there is

some level of honesty occurring in this sample. Therefore, this study adopted the assumption

that there is a genuine misalignment in this sample which could have important policy and

practice implications in education in India. However, while the link between the alignment of

parental aspirations and involvement has been recently explored in the Global North through

de Boer and van der Werf's study (2015), there is little existing academic literature addressing

parental overestimation of perceptions in the Global South. This study takes a step in this

direction by demonstrating that, surprisingly, this overestimation, or any misestimation, may

not matter in terms of parental involvement levels as much as originally assumed.

The findings of research question three show that misaligned parental perceptions do not

appear to influence parental involvement levels. However, high parental perceptions, whether

aligned or otherwise, do appear to lead to greater levels of parental involvement, even when

controlling for relevant variables. This is a particularly interesting finding as it corroborates

recent research from the Global North verifying the correlation between increasing parental

perceptions and parental involvement (de Boer & van der Werf, 2015; Jeynes, 2018).

Considering the accepted narrative in education that parents with extremely high aspirations

or expectations are too ambitious, as de Boer and van der Werf put it “they are believed to

push their child too much to achieve well, which is considered to have a negative impact on


64

the child’s achievements” (2015, p.254), this could have important policy and practice

implications. In terms of involvement levels, it is hoped that this study will contribute to the

ongoing debate around the importance of high parental perceptions of children’s learning

globally as well as inspire further research, empirical and otherwise, around this in the Global

South. Once we further this line of research in India, we can then return to policy and practice

in rural India and implement changes as needed to increase parental perceptions of children’s

learning. For example, teachers could be taught to recognize low parental perceptions of

education and encouraged to discuss this with parents to raise their expectations, and in turn,

their involvement. This finding also raises an interesting point for wider parental

involvement, and engagement, theory; that perhaps it is not children’s actual learning

outcomes driving parental involvement, as argued by scholars such as Alexander, Entwisle,

and Bedinger (1994), but rather parental perceptions, whether accurate or otherwise, of

children's learning. However, this area would benefit from further research exploring this

relationship as well as potential drivers of perception alignment in rural India. As a first step,

I explored the potential influence of family economic status on the alignment of parental

perceptions as part of this study. Surprisingly, this study demonstrates that alignment or

misalignment are not associated with family economic status. This is explored further in the

preceding section of this chapter, Family Economic Status.

In terms of future research, this study empirically engages with parental perceptions in a

relatively new and innovative way. Firstly, as far as I am aware, there is no model similar to

the four-alignment-scenario model in use in this study found in existent parental perception

literature. As such, it is hoped that this study can revitalise and contribute to the broader

discussion in this area that will ultimately result in research that policy-makers and

practitioners in India can draw on to make evidence-based policy and practice decisions.


65

Additionally, as outlined in my Literature Review, the terms parental ‘perceptions’,

‘expectations’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘aspirations’ of children’s learning outcomes have been

used somewhat interchangeably in literature. This study argues that parental perceptions of

children’s learning should be considered separately from these two concepts. Instead,

‘perceptions’ should be used to define parental beliefs around children’s immediate learning

outcomes. By making this distinction, I am one of the first parental involvement researchers,

as far as I am aware, to empirically tests this definition of perceptions. It is hoped that, by

theoretically and empirically furthering this definition of parental perceptions, this study will

contribute to future discourse around parental perceptions, be it in the Global North or South.

However, primarily, it is hoped that this research will inspire further studies addressing

parental perceptions in this way within the context of India, considering the need for and the

crisis around replication studies in social science (Stroebe & Strack, 2014).

5.2. Family Economic Status

As outlined in the previous section, this study demonstrates that, contrary to the work of

scholars such as Alexander et al. (1994), family economic status does not explain the

alignment or misalignment of parental perceptions. All three deprivation groups within this

sample – the ‘non-poor’, the ‘poor’ and the ‘ultra-poor’- are equally aligned (49%) and

misaligned (51%). Considering the accepted academic narrative that poorer parents are not as

aware of their children’s education progress and needs as their ‘wealthier’ counterparts

(Crozier & Davies, 2007; Fan & Chen, 2001; Wang et al., 2016), policy-makers and

practitioners may want to reassess their approach to poor parents in India. While this study

does demonstrate that the breakdown of the two aligned groups, High Perception/High

Outcome and Low Perception/Low Outcome, appears to be influenced by family economic


66

status, it also shows that this could be because children from the non-poor group are generally

achieving higher learning outcomes. Therefore, this assertion, which is supported by existing

research in the context of rural India (Alcott & Rose, 2015), shows that it is important for

further empirical research within this context to take inequitable learning provision and

outcomes into account when exploring parental perceptions. The other main finding in this

study posits that family economic status appears to influence whether a parent holds a High

Perception or a Low Perception of their children’s learning which is substantiated by a slew

of existing parental perceptions studies (Alexander et al., 1994; Davis-Kean, 2005; DeFlorio

& Beliakoff, 2015; Halle et al., 1997; Stull, 2013). Therefore, policy-makers and practitioners

in rural India should consider this when adapting and adjusting policy and practice for poorer

families.

Additionally, this study also demonstrates that family economic status influences how

parents with aligned perceptions of children’s learning engage in their child’s schooling and

learning. More specifically, it appears that ‘wealthier’ parents choose to engage in their

children’s education if they recognise the child’s potential and promise, whereas ‘poorer’

parents appear to engage if they recognise their children’s academic weaknesses. This finding

remains significant even when controlling for other impacting factors, such as religion and

caste of the household and the gender and age of the child. This is an interesting finding as it

is, once again, in conflict with the existing policy narrative and could signal the need for

change in parental perception theory, policy and practice in India. However, exploring this

more is key to the advancement of this theory considering the lack of research exploring this

phenomenon globally. Further research could consider other contributing factors that I was

unable to account for in my analysis that may be mediating this relationship. For example,

Chaudhuri and Roy (2009) have demonstrated that parental education is an important


67

determinant of the household’s demand for education in India. Parent employment status has

also, interestingly, been shown to impact parental home involvement (Kumar et al., 2011) in

India. Considering the correlation between a parent’s education level, employment status and

household economic status (Froerer, 2011), it could be that these two factors are also

impacting how and why parents choose to engage in their child’s education. Therefore, it

would be useful for parental involvement researchers to account for this in future studies. In

addition, by adopting a different research approach from my study, scholars could shed

further light on my preliminary findings. For instance, it may be by qualitatively exploring

this finding that we can unearth the reasons that certain groups of parents chose to engage in

their children’s education. Once this relationship has been explored further in India,

education policy and practice could be adapted so children from ‘wealthier’ backgrounds do

not fall behind if they’re not showing this potential and children from ‘poorer’ backgrounds

who are succeeding are given the support they need to live up to their potential.

This study also presents some interesting preliminary findings for parental involvement

researchers who are interested in how parental perceptions of their children’s learning and

family economic status interact with each other to influence their involvement in specific

activities. This study demonstrates that while the involvement of parents with a misaligned

perception of their children’s learning is not impacted by family economic status, the

involvement of parents with an aligned perception of their children’s learning is. More

specifically, if a parent with aligned perceptions is in the non-poor group, they are more

likely to have visited the school, indicate that there is someone at home to help with the

child’s studies and to check the child’s textbook or notebook if their perceptions are aligned

High Perception/High Outcome than Low Perception/Low Outcome. The opposite is true for

those in the poor or ultra-poor group who are more likely to engage in these three activities if


68

their perceptions are aligned Low Perception/Low Outcome rather than High Perception/High

Outcome. While the relationship between family economic status and specific involvement

activities, such as visiting the school, has been extensively explored in existing academic

literature (Dumais, 2006; Lareau, 2000), the interaction between family economic status and

perception group on involvement activities needs further investigation.

However, there are certain caveats to my research considering my operationalisation of

poverty and wealth. As outlined in my Literature Review chapter, this study empirically tests

Wang’s (2016) operationalisation of economic wellbeing as family economic status, as

opposed to the more commonly used ‘socioeconomic status’. Similarly, I employed Jones and

Schipper’s (2015) measurement of economic status as asset ownership as opposed to the

more commonly used measure of income. As such, other studies may produce slightly

different findings for family economic status if they operationalise economic wellbeing in the

more commonly accepted ways. For example, social factors may be mediating this

relationship so future research could include sociological considerations as usual. However,

this was a beneficial exercise considering the arguments laid out in the Literature Review

chapter that there is a need for research testing these operationalisations, particularly in the

Global South. I also hope that this finding will encourage researchers outside of education,

such as health and psychology, to the potential influence of family economic status on

outcomes in their respective fields.

5.3. Parental Involvement

While parental involvement is the main variable of interest throughout this study,

ultimately, I consider this as just one element of the broader, umbrella concept parental

engagement. This is not necessarily a new or innovative way of conceptualising parental


69

involvement. Theorists such as Goodall, Carreon and Warren, have linked parental

involvement to engagement for decades. However, few scholars have empirically tested

parental involvement in this way, and fewer yet have done so within the context of the Global

South. Considering my positioning of parental involvement in this study and my research

context of rural India, my study addresses two substantial gaps in this body of literature. As

such, my resulting findings around parental involvement could have important implications

for policy and practice in India. A selection of these, pertaining to two main findings from

this study - that high parental perceptions, whether aligned with children’s actual learning or

not, and family economic status appears to influence parental involvement levels – have been

outlined in the preceding sections. However, existent literature shows there are many other

potential motivators for parental involvement that could be considered. I have included some

of these, such as the child’s age, class, gender, the respondent’s relationship to the child, the

household’s religion and caste, in my study.

The resultant findings suggest several preliminary conclusions that could be important

to future research. Firstly, it is well accepted in parental engagement literature that the older a

child gets, the less involved the parents become (Green et al., 2007; Grolnick & Slowiaczek,

1994). This study furthers this finding in the Global South. This is particularly interesting in

the context of India, where recent scholarship has demonstrated that learning gaps associated

with inherited disadvantage widen as the child ages (Alcott & Rose, 2017). While I have not

looked at age and parental involvement in detail, this finding could signify several potential

options for further research. For example, researchers could consider secondary school age

children, a cohort that is often neglected by parental involvement researchers (Green et al.,

2007), in rural India. Equally, based on the success of recent studies undertaken in Australia

(Daniel, Wang, & Berthelsen, 2016), researchers could adopt a longitudinal approach to


70

parental involvement. Lastly, there have been calls for more qualitative studies in parental

involvement in the Global North as they tend to focus on the emotional dimension of and the

perceived barriers to parental involvement for disadvantaged minority parents (Kim, 2018).

Considering the explanatory power of these facets of parental involvement, these types of

studies could also be useful in the context of the Global South. Secondly, this study

demonstrates that the gender of the child is not significant in terms of parental involvement

levels in rural India. However, considering the comparatively higher rates of poverty and

drop-out rates for girls across the Global South, parental involvement, according to Kim

(2018), could be a useful tool for communities and parents looking to enact change in an

inequitable education system.

The non-significance of the gender of the child is also interesting from a policy point

of view considering the policy narrative in in India that adopts the assumption that parents

prioritise their son’s enrolment in education over their daughters, especially in the Middle and

Secondary school years (Azam & Kingdon, 2013). However, it is vital to situate this finding

in the context of this study which only engaged parents of children who attended school that

month. Therefore, we can assume that these parents have already committed to their

daughter’s education and are more likely to be involved. That said, future research could

focus on the intersection of gender, out of school children and their parent’s views around

involvement and engagement in schooling and learning. Thirdly, these findings indicate that

religion of the household could influence parental involvement levels. This is particularly

pertinent for Muslim parents who are the least likely group, across all three activities, to be

involved in their child’s education. The relationship between Muslim families in India and

education has been extensively explored in recent decades (Borooah & Iyer, 2005; Gupta,

2015; Shazli & Asma, 2015). However, the impact of this relationship on parental


71

involvement has rarely been considered in rural India. This study demonstrates that there is a

need to explore this further, as well as to adapt current policy and practice to account for this.

Similarly, caste, as expected, is demonstrated to have a significant influence on

parental involvement levels in rural India. Those from the Scheduled Caste or Other

Backwards Class castes are less likely, across these three activities, to engage in their child’s

schooling and learning. Like religion, a substantial amount of existing literature considers the

relationship between caste and education in India. However, very little of this research

focuses directly on the relationship between caste and parental involvement. These findings

indicate that this relationship should be further explored in the Indian context. Following this

exploration, policy and practice can be adapted to account for the influence of caste on

parental involvement. For example, considering the past success of parent-community

collaborations in education in India (Banerjee et al., 2010), parents and community members

could be engaged as potential agents of change to address any void created by governments

(Kim, 2018). Lastly, this study indicates that mothers are less likely than fathers to engage in

visiting the school, indicating that there is someone at home to help the child study and to

check the child’s textbook or notebook. Considering the spread of these activities, in that they

represent both home- and school-based parental involvement activities, this is

counterintuitive to existing parental involvement literature in India that maintains that

mothers exhibit high levels of home-based involvement in their child’s education (Banerji et

al., 2015). That said, this finding deserves further exploration in this context to ensure that

practice and policy can be adapted accordingly.


72

5.4. Recommendations

The main aim of this chapter was to outline the findings of this study within the context

of wider parental involvement literature, in both the Global North and South, and the policy

and practice setting of India. There are several specific recommendations suggested

throughout this chapter around the influence of parental perceptions and family economic

status on parental involvement. However, mindful of recent literature that emphases the

differing contexts within India (Bhattacharjea, Wadhwa, & Banerji, 2011; Wadhwa, 2014), I

would also recommend that policy-makers and practitioners consult research situated in other

contexts in India before implementing recommended changes, approaches or generalising to

the wider context of India. Equally, one could argue that the lack of parental involvement

literature in the Global South, as highlighted in my Introduction, leads to parental

involvement practitioners making sweeping generalisations to the Global South. I would also

caution against this in the context of my study. Secondly, as is evidenced throughout this

chapter, this research has provided preliminary findings on several areas of parental

involvement in India that warrant further exploration and attention. It is hoped that these

recommendations, and the wider narrative as outlined in this chapter, will open discourse, as

needed, as well as contribute to ongoing debates around parental involvement in the Global

South. There are many suggestions made in this section for future research and policy and

practice implications. However, considering the wide-ranging nature of engagement that I

promote, future studies are needed to empirically test different motivators and elements of

involvement.


73

6. Conclusion

The extensive exploration of parental involvement in education in recent decades has

resulted in a thought-provoking academic literature base for educational researchers, policy-

makers, practitioners and parents themselves. However, this research, as has been

demonstrated throughout this thesis, is not without its flaws or literature gaps. This thesis

aimed to directly address specific gaps, particularly around the lack of empirical parental

involvement research within the context of the Global South, in order to further academic

discourse in the area of parental involvement. The main finding from this analysis, broadly-

speaking, demonstrates that there appears to be a correlation between parental perceptions of

and involvement in children’s schooling and learning as well as between family economic

status and parental involvement. In terms of the former, while it was found that over half of

these parents are misestimating their children’s learning, the vast majority of whom are

overestimating, this study demonstrates that it is not, as was first hypothesised, the alignment

of parental perceptions with their children’s learning that is driving this relationship. Instead,

this study indicates that there is a significant positive correlation between parental

perceptions and parental involvement activity levels. This finding is unsurprising considering

existing literature in the field which supports this proposition. However, the second finding,

that while family economic status influences whether a parent holds a high or low perception

of their child’s education, it does not appear to influence whether the parent can accurately

predict the child’s learning outcomes, is surprising in the context of existing literature. It is

also inconsistent with the original model proposed in my Introduction chapter.

The findings outlined in this chapter thus far have isolated the effect of parental

perceptions and family economic status on parental involvement. However, I did also

consider the compounding relationship. Interestingly, these findings indicate that wealthier


74

parents with a perception that is aligned with their child’s actual learning outcomes appear to

become involved in their child’s education if they perceive academic potential, whereas

poorer parents with an aligned perception appear to become involved in response to a

recognition of their child’s weakness. This finding could have a substantial impact on

educational policy and practice in rural India. However, I believe that this warrants further

exploration as it is not fully supported by existing literature, especially in the context of the

Global South. In response to this finding, and the findings outlined above, I have updated the

original Parental Perceptions – Family Economic Status – Parental Involvement model that

was outlined in the Introduction chapter. This updated model is presented in Figure 4. It also

accounts for the findings of the control variables used in my regression analysis and,

therefore, no longer includes the control variables of Class and Gender of Child. This

finalised model provides a solid foundation for further exploration into parental perceptions,

family economic status and parental involvement in the context of the Global South.

Considering the need for further research in these areas, as demonstrated throughout this

thesis, this is a significant first step to promote further research in these areas within the

context of rural India.

Figure 4. Updated Parental Perceptions – Family Economic Status – Parental Involvement

Model


75

Bibliography

Accountability : Faculty of Education. (2018). Retrieved June 22, 2019, from

http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/centres/real/researchthemes/teachingandlearning/accounta

bility/

Alcott, B., & Rose, P. (2015). Schools and learning in rural India and Pakistan: Who goes

where, and how much are they learning? PROSPECTS, 45(3), 345–363.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-015-9350-5

Alcott, B., & Rose, P. (2017). Learning in India’s primary schools: How do disparities widen

across the grades? International Journal of Educational Development, 56, 42–51.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.05.002

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Bedinger, S. D. (1994). When Expectations Work: Race

and Socioeconomic Differences in School Performance. Social Psychology Quarterly,

57(4), 283. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787156

Aliaga, M., & Gunderson, B. (1999). Interactive Statistics. Prentice Hall.

Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s

Companion. Princeton University Press.

Annual Status of Education Report (2016), Annual Status of Education Report 2016. ASER

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. K. (2009). Introduction to Research in

Education. Cengage Learning.

Azam, M., & Kingdon, G. G. (2013). Are Girls the Fairer Sex in India? Revisiting Intra-

Household Allocation of Education Expenditure. World Development, 42, 143–164.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.09.003

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-Efficacy Beliefs

as Shapers of Children’s Aspirations and Career Trajectories. Child Development,

72(1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00273


76

Banu Vagh, S (2012) Validating the ASER Testing Tools: Comparisons with Reading

Fluency Measures and the Read India Measures, ASER

Banerjee, A., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Khemani, S. (2006). Can Information

Campaigns Spark Local Participation And Improve Outcomes ? A Study Of Primary

Education In Uttar Pradesh, India. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3967

Banerji, R., Berry, J., & Shotland, M. (2015). The impact of mother literacy and participation

programs on child learning: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in India.

https://doi.org/10.23846/ow2153

Benner, A. D., Boyle, A. E., & Sadler, S. (2016). Parental Involvement and Adolescents’

Educational Success: The Roles of Prior Achievement and Socioeconomic Status.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1053–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-

016-0431-4

Bhattacharjea, S., Wadhwa, W., & Banerji, R. (2011). A study of teaching and learning in

rural India. 108.

Bharati, P., & Chaudhury, A. (2004). An empirical investigation of decision-making

satisfaction in web-based decision support systems. Decision support systems, 37(2),

187-197.

Blaikie, N. (2009). Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation. Polity.

Borooah, V. K., & Iyer, S. (2005). Vidya , Veda , and Varna : The influence of religion and

caste on education in rural India. Journal of Development Studies, 41(8), 1369–1404.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380500186960

British Educational Research Association. 2018. Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational

Research. BERA

Campbell, J. P., Daft, R. L., & Hulin, C. (1982). Campbell, John P., Richard L. Daft, and


77

Charles Hulin, What to Study: Generating and Developing Research Questions.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982.

Carmines, E. G., Zeller, R. A., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment.

SAGE Publications.

Carolan, B. V., & Wasserman, S. J. (2015). Does Parenting Style Matter? Concerted

Cultivation, Educational Expectations, and the Transmission of Educational

Advantage. Sociological Perspectives, 58(2), 168–186.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121414562967

Carreón, G. P., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The Importance of Presence: Immigrant

Parents’ School Engagement Experiences. American Educational Research Journal,

42(3), 465–498. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042003465

Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding Knowledge of Parental Involvement in Children’s

Secondary Education: Connections with High School Seniors’ Academic Success. 29.

Chadha, N. K. (2012). Intergenerational Relationships: An Indian Perspective. United

Nations

Chaudhuri, K., & Roy, S. (2009). Gender gap in educational attainment: evidence from rural

India. Education Economics, 17(2), 215–238.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290802472380

Cheadle, J. E., & Amato, P. R. (2011). A Quantitative Assessment of Lareau’s Qualitative

Conclusions About Class, Race, and Parenting. Journal of Family Issues, 32(5), 679–

706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10386305

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. Routledge.

National Council of Education Statistics, (2013). Nonresponse in Social Science Surveys: A

Research Agenda. National Academies Press.


78

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the

Research Process. SAGE.

Crozier, G. (1999). Is it a case of ‘We know when we’re not wanted’’? The parents’

perspective on parent‐teacher roles and relationships.’ Educational Research, 41(3),

315–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188990410306

Crozier, G., & Davies, J. (2007). Hard to reach parents or hard to reach schools? A discussion

of home–school relations, with particular reference to Bangladeshi and Pakistani

parents. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 295–313.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701243578

Daniel, G. R., Wang, C., & Berthelsen, D. (2016). Early school-based parent involvement,

children’s self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An Australian

longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 168–177.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.016

Davidson, T., & Sanyal, P. (2017). Associational Participation and Network Expansion:

Microcredit Self-Help Groups and Poor Women’s Social Ties in Rural India. Social

Forces, 95(4), 1695–1724. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sox021

Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The Influence of Parent Education and Family Income on Child

Achievement: The Indirect Role of Parental Expectations and the Home Environment.

Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-

3200.19.2.294

de Boer, H., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2015). Influence of misaligned parents’ aspirations on

long-term student academic performance. Educational Research and Evaluation,

21(3), 232–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2015.1039548

DeFlorio, L., & Beliakoff, A. (2015). Socioeconomic Status and Preschoolers’ Mathematical

Knowledge: The Contribution of Home Activities and Parent Beliefs. Early


79

Education and Development, 26(3), 319–341.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.968239

Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A

Critical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31–60.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072001031

Dumais, S. A. (2006). Early childhood cultural capital, parental habitus, and teachers’

perceptions. Poetics, 34(2), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2005.09.003

Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J. L., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’s

Achievement in Early Elementary School: Longitudinal Effects of Parental

Involvement, Expectations, and Quality of Assistance. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 96(4), 723–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.723

Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family-school connections: Teacher practices and

parent involvement. In K. Kurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Lasel (Eds.), Social

intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121-136). De Gruyter.

Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and Family Connections: Theory, Research, and Implications

for Integrating Sociologies of Education and Family. Marriage & Family Review,

15(1–2), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v15n01_06

Epstein, J. L. (2010). School/Family/Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children We

Share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96.

https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326

Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving Forward: Ideas for Research on School,

Family, and Community Partnerships. In C. Conrad & R. Serlin, The SAGE

Handbook for Research in Education (pp. 116–137).

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976039.n7


80

Fan, W., & Williams, C. M. (2010). The effects of parental involvement on students’

academic self‐efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation. Educational

Psychology, 30(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903353302

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental Involvement and Students’ Academic Achievement: A

Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 22.

Frensch, P. A. (2000). Parenting and Children’s School Achievement: A Multiethnic

Perspective. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 5. (pp. 124–

126). https://doi.org/10.1037/10520-060

Froerer, P. (2011). Education, Inequality and Social Mobility in Central India. The European

Journal of Development Research, 23(5), 695–711.

https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2011.43

Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A

longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents' aspirations and expectations, and their

children's school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 547-

582.

Goodall, J. (2013). Parental engagement to support children’s learning: a six point model.

School Leadership & Management, 33(2), 133–150.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.724668

Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing Research in the Real World. SAGE Publications.

Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents’

motivations for involvement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical

model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532–544.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532


81

Grolnick, & Slowiaczek. (1994). Parents’ Involvement in Children’s Schooling: A

Multidimensional Conceptualization and Motivational Model. Child Development,

65(1), 17.

Gupta, L. (2015). Education, Poverty and Gender: Schooling Muslim Girls in India.

Routledge.

Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and Practice. Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (2015). Knowledge and Human Interests. John Wiley & Sons.

Halle, T. G., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Mahoney, J. L. (1997). Family influences on school

achievement in low-income, African American children. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 89(3), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.527

Hao, L., & Bonstead-Bruns, M. (1998). Parent-Child Differences in Educational Expectations

and the Academic Achievement of Immigrant and Native Students. Sociology of

Education, 71(3), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673201

Harpham, T. (2002). 68371_Measuring Social Capital. 18.

Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in

learning. Educational Research, 50(3), 277–289.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880802309424

Hellevik, O. (2009). Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a

dichotomy. Quality & Quantity, 43(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-

9077-3

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,

family, and community connections on student achievement.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit,

G. S. (2004). Parent Academic Involvement as Related to School Behavior,


82

Achievement, and Aspirations: Demographic Variations Across Adolescence. Child

Development, 75(5), 1491–1509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00753.x

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic

assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology,

45(3), 740–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362

Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (2002). Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction

to School-based Research. Routledge.

Hoover‐Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L.,

Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why Do Parents Become Involved? Research

Findings and Implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–130.

https://doi.org/10.1086/499194

Jeynes, W. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Different Types of Parental

Involvement Programs for Urban Students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A Meta-Analysis: The Effects of Parental Involvement on Minority

Children’s Academic Achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202–218.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124502239392

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A Meta-Analysis of the Relation of Parental Involvement to Urban

Elementary School Student Academic Achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–

269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085905274540

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Urban Secondary

School Student Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Urban Education, 42(1),

82–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293818


83

Jeynes, W. H. (2018). A practical model for school leaders to encourage parental

involvement and parental engagement. School Leadership & Management, 38(2),

147–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1434767

Johnson, M. (2013). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and

Reason. University of Chicago Press.

Jones, S., & Schipper, Y. (2015). Does Family Background Matter for Learning in EAST

Africa? Africa Education Review, 12(1), 7–27.

https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2015.1036540

Kim, S. Won. (2018). Parental involvement in developing countries: A meta-synthesis of

qualitative research. International Journal of Educational Development, 60, 149–156.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.07.006

Kohn, M. (1977). The Kohn Social Competence Scale and Kohn Symptom Checklist for the

preschool child: A follow-up report. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5(3),

249–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00913696

Kumar, S., Vellymalay, N., & Malaysia, P. (2011). Parental Involvement at Home: Analyzing

the Influence of Parents’ Socioeconomic Status.

Kurosaki, T., Ito, S., Fuwa, N., Kubo, K., & Sawada, Y. (2006). Child Labor and School

Enrolment in Rural India: Whose Education Matters? The Developing Economies,

44(4), 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2006.00024.x

Lareau, A. (2000). Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary

Education. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of

California Press.


84

Maithreyi, R., & Sriprakash, A. (2018). The governance of families in India: education, rights

and responsibility. Comparative Education, 54(3), 352–369.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1430299

McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Child Development. American

Psychologist.

Middleton, K. L., & Jones, J. L. (2000). Socially desirable response sets: The impact of

country culture. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 149–163.

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<149::AID-MAR6>3.0.CO;2-L

Muijs, D. (2010). Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. SAGE.

Murdock, T. B. (2000). Incorporating Economic Context Into Educational Psychology:

Methodological and Conceptual Challenges. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 113–

124. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3502_5

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill.

Piotrkowski, C. S., Botsko, M., & Matthews, E. (2000). Parents’ and teachers’ beliefs about

children’s school readiness in a high-need community. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 15(4), 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00072-2

Echávarri, R & Ezcurra, R. (2010). Education and Gender Bias in the Sex Ratio at Birth:

Evidence from India. Demography, 47(1), 249–268.

https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0089

Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects on

academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(3), 441–462.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(92)90031-S

Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1992). A Structural Model of Science Achievement and

Attitude: An Extension to High School. 12.


85

Robinson-Pant, A., & Singal, N. (2018). Researching Ethically across Cultures: Issues of

knowledge, power and voice. Routledge.

Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-

Researchers. Wiley.

Roksa, J., & Potter, D. (2011). Parenting and Academic Achievement: Intergenerational

Transmission of Educational Advantage. Sociology of Education, 84(4), 299–321.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711417013

Schratz, M., & Walker, R. (2005). Research as Social Change: New Opportunities for

Qualitative Research. Routledge.

Scott, D. (2013). Education, Epistemology and Critical Realism. Routledge.

Scott, K., George, A. S., Harvey, S. A., Mondal, S., Patel, G., & Sheikh, K. (2017).

Negotiating power relations, gender equality, and collective agency: are village health

committees transformative social spaces in northern India? International Journal for

Equity in Health, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0580-4

Seginer, R. (1983). Parents’ Educational Expectations and Children’s Academic

Achievements: A Literature Review. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(1), 1–23.

Shazli, T., & Asma, S. (2015). Educational Vision of Muslims in India: Problems and

Concerns. 7.

Shute, V. J., Hansen, E. G., Underwood, J. S., & Razzouk, R. (2011). A Review of the

Relationship between Parental Involvement and Secondary School Students’

Academic Achievement. Education Research International, 2011, 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/915326

Story, W. T., & Carpiano, R. M. (2017). Household social capital and socioeconomic

inequalities in child undernutrition in rural India. Social Science & Medicine, 181,

112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.043


86

Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514450

Stull, J. C. (2013). Family Socioeconomic Status, Parent Expectations, and a Child’s

Achievement. Research in Education, 90(1), 53–67.

https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.90.1.4

Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of Parental Involvement on Eighth-Grade

Achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112802

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating

Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.

SAGE.

Thompson, S. K. (2012). Sampling. John Wiley & Sons.

Wadhwa, R. (2018). Unequal origin, unequal treatment, and unequal educational attainment:

Does being first generation still a disadvantage in India? Higher Education, 76(2),

279–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0208-z

Wang, M.-T., & Sheikh-Khalil, S. (2014). Does Parental Involvement Matter for Student

Achievement and Mental Health in High School? Child Development, 85(2), 610–

625. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12153

Wang, Y., Deng, C., & Yang, X. (2016). Family economic status and parental involvement:

Influences of parental expectation and perceived barriers. School Psychology

International, 37(5), 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316667646

Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. L., & Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the Bake Sale: A

Community- Based Relational Approach to Parent Engagement in Schools. 46.

Wellington, J. (2015). Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical

Approaches. Bloomsbury Publishing.


87

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U.

(2015). Development of Achievement Motivation and Engagement. In R. M. Lerner

(Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science (pp. 1–44).

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy316

Wolff, E. N. (2000). Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998. SSRN Electronic

Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.235472

World Bank. (2016). Uttar Pradesh - Gender (No. 105885; pp. 1–6). Retrieved from The

World Bank website:

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/136971468194963284/Uttar-Pradesh-

Gender

Yamamoto, Y., & Holloway, S. D. (2010). Parental Expectations and Children’s Academic

Performance in Sociocultural Context. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 189–

214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9121-z

Zhan, M. (2006). Assets, parental expectations and involvement, and children’s educational

performance. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(8), 961–975.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.10.008


88

Appendices

Appendix One

1

2

3

4

5

6

Tool 1a-

1b-1c

ESRC : Class 2 Sampling Sheet Page 1

Process for selecting 20 children from Grade 2 (This process will be done in each school at the beginning of the survey)

Sample School Name Sample School ID Sample Village Name

Total enrolment in Std 2Total attendance as per

attendance register (Day 1)

Total attendance as per

Observation (Day 1)

Surveyor Names 1) 2) Survey Date

If the total enrolment of the whole class or the selected section is 20 or less than 20, go to Page 2 and 3 of the sample sheet and write down the information (name, parents name etc.) of

all children in the class or section. Skip Steps 3 and 4, and follow the process in Step 5

If the total enrolment in the class or selected section is more than 20, follow steps 3 and 4.

Choose a random number (ANY number you want) between 1 and the total number of children enrolled. Write this number down in the space

provided. You should choose a different number for each school you visit.

For example: If the total enrolment of a class is 45, you can select any random number between 1 to 45. For example, 27.

Random number

The child whose serial number in the enrolment register corresponds to the random number you have picked is the first child in your sample.

Take the total enrolment from the current month of the attendance register of Std 2. Write this number in the space given. After this, count the total number of children marked present in

the register for Day 1 of the survey and write this information down. Go to where students of this class are seated, count the number of total children present and write down the number

in the last box. If the class has more than one section, write down the total for all sections together.

Sampling process

If the class has more than one section, select the section which has higher enrolment . Write down the name or number

of the selected section and the total enrolment for the section in the space provided.

If there are no sections in this class, do write anything in the boxes provided.

Name or Number of

the Selected Section

Total enrolment in

the selected

section

After that, pick every fifth child in the enrolment register. Write down the number of every child selected through this process in the box given

below.

For example, if your random number was 27, the first child picked will be S.No. 27 of the enrolment register. After that, you will select every 5th

child - that is, S.No. 32, 37, 42 आदि |

When you come to the end of the enrolment register (or all the different sections of it), go back to the beginning and continue counting.

Example: After child (serial number) 42, the serial numbers for other selected children will be 2, 7, 12, 17, 22 etc. |

If during this process you select a child who has already been selected previously, go to the next child on the list.

Example: After child 22, the next number selected will be 27. However, since we have already selected the child at (serial number) 27, we will

select the child on (serial number) 28.

Continue this process until you have selected 20 children from that class/section. Write their roll numbers in the table given below.

Write the roll numbers of

the selected children in this

table.

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20

2521 22 23 24

Write the names and other required information for each selected child on the following pages. If any of this information is not available in the

register, ask the child, parent or teacher and fill the same.

After filling the details of the selected children, go to the class and take down child wise observed attendance for Day 1.

26 27 28 29 30

If needed, sample 10

additional children and

write their roll numbers

here.

Beg

inn

er

Lett

er

Wo

rd

Par

a

Sto

ry

Beg

inn

er

Nu

mb

ers

1-9

Nu

mb

ers

10

-99

Sub

trac

tio

n

Div

isio

n

3 1 Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N










Class 2 Sampling Sheet

If N, write the

name of the

village where the

child lives

Page 2

Class Child

IDFill the following information from the enrollment register Child attendance Child's learning levels

Is this

child

selected

as part of

the final

sample?

Has the

HH

survey

been

done for

this

child?

Name

Test

ing

too

l nu

mb

er

Reading Test Date of birth Gender

1. Male

2.

Female

Child

lives in

sampled

school

village?

Day 1Mother's name

1: General 2: SCHEDULE CASTE 3: SCHEDULE TRIBE 4: OTHER BACKWARD CASTE 88: Don't know

Math testDay Month Year

Att

end

ance

fro

m r

egis

ter

Att

end

ance

fro

m h

ead

cou

nt

Caste

Use

codes

provided

below

Father's name

PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS, FAMILY ECONOMIC STATUS AND INVOLVEMENT IN LEARNING 88

Appendix Two

1

ESRC HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE (MAIN SAMPLED CHILD)

Instructions:

1. Fill this format for one sample child.

2. Definition of a Household: All members living in the same house and eating from the same kitchen as the

Sample Child will be considered part of one household.

3. If there is more than one sample child living in the same household and eating from the same kitchen, fill the

Additional Household Format for the second Sample Child.

Sample Village ID:

Sample Village Name

Sample School ID Sample School Name

Class of the Sample Child

Sampled Child ID

Name of the Sampled Child

Sex of Sampled Child

1: Boy 2: Girl

Date of survey (DD/MM/YYYY)

______/ _______/ 2018

Start time of the survey

Full name Surveyor 1 Full name Surveyor 2

Location of this House/tola or mohalla name

GPS OF THE HOUSEHOLD

Verbal Consent

Do you agree to participate in this

Interview?

0: No IF 0 → END THE SURVEY

1: Yes

2

Section 1: General information

1 Name of the primary respondent

2 Relationship of the primary respondent with [SAMPLED CHILD]

1: Father 2: Mother 3: Sibling 4: Grandfather/ Grandmother 5: Uncle/ Aunt/ 77: Other relatives (Specify) ____________________________

3 Name of the Head of the Household

4 Contact No. of any member of the Household

5 What is main religion of the household members?

1: Hindu 2: Islam 3: Christian 4: Sikh 5: Buddhist 6: Jain 66: Don’t wish to answer 77: Other 88: Don’t know

5.1 What is your caste? Skip Q 5.1 if

Q5 is 2-88

6 What is the reservation category of members of this household?

1: General 2: Schedule Caste (SC) 3: Schedule Tribe (ST) 4: Other backward class (OBC) 66: Don’t wish to answer 88: Don’t know

3

Section 2: Family engagement with SAMPLE CHILD’S School

IMPORTANT:

1. This section is to be filled for each sampled child, individually and separately. As far as possible the following questions

should only be administered to a parent of the Sampled Child. If neither parent is available on the day of your visit, return

another day.

2. Administer this section to the guardian only if both parents are deceased or do not live regularly in the household.

I will ask you a few questions related to your engagement with the school in which the [Sampled Child] studies

and his/her teachers.

1. Does [sample child] goes to [sample school’s name]?

0. No / नह ीं 1. Yes / ह ीं 88: Don’t know / पता नह

1.1 Does your child go to a government school or a private school?

1. Government school 2. Private school 99: Doesn’t study anywhere

88: Don’t know / पता नह

If answer to Q 1 is 1, then skip 1.1

2. After the [SAMPLED CHILD] was promoted to the current class, have you or any other household member visited the [SAMPLED CHILD]’s school? (Select any one)

0. No / नह ीं 1. Yes / ह ीं 88: Don’t know / पता नह 99: No response

IF 0 or 88 → SKIP Q. 2.1 GOTO QUESTION 3

2.1 If yes, what was the reason for your last visit?

(Can choose up to 2 options)

1: To discuss/collect scholarship, textbooks/ uniform

2: To discuss teachers’ behavior (Physical or verbal punishment) with child/children

3: To discuss child/children’s learning levels or marks

4: To discuss child/children’s attendance or

behavior

77: Other (Please specify) ______________________________________

88: Don’t know

3. Do you know the name of any of

[SAMPLED CHILD]’s teachers?

Do not prompt.

1: Respondent could give name of at least 1

teacher

88: Don’t know name of even 1 teacher

99: No response

4

4 Do you know about the School Management Committee (SMC)?

0. No 1.Yes 99. No response

4.1 If yes, are you part of the School Management Committee of the Sampled School?

0. No 1. Yes 88. Don’t Know / Can’t Say 99. No response

Skip 4.1 if Q4 = 0

4.2 If yes, when did you last attend an SMC meeting?

1. Less than a month ago 2. 1-3 months ago

3. 3-6 months ago 4. 6-12 months ago

5. More than one year

99. No response

Skip 4.2 if Q4.1=0/88

5. Does anyone from this household help the [SAMPLED CHILD] at home with his/her studies? (If anyone other than family members living in the sampled household help the child, record it as ‘No’)


5.1 If yes, who helps [SAMPLED CHILD] at home? (Multiple choice)

1. Parents 2. Siblings 3. Someone else 99. No response

SKIP 5.1 IF Q.5 = 0/88

6 Does the [SAMPLED CHILD] take any paid tuition class currently?

0. No

1. Yes 88. Don’t Know / Can’t Say 99. No response

6.1 If yes, how much do you pay for the [SAMPLED CHILD’S] tuition per month (write only number)?

SKIP Q. 6.1 IF Q.6 = 0/88

7

Do you know if there has been any activity in the village related to children’s

learning? (Other than PTA)


7.1 If yes, did the [SAMPLED CHILD] participate in this activity?


Skip 7.1 and 7.2 if Q.7= 0/88

7.2 Did you participate in this activity?

0. No 1. Yes 88. Don’t Know / Can’t Say

8 In a week, how often does [sample child] study/do homework at home after returning from school?

0 Never 1 Occasionally 2 Regularly 88 Don’t know/can’t say 99. No response

9

Does [SAMPLED CHILD] ever attend arranged study groups in the villages?

0 No 1 Yes 2 This doesn’t happen in this village 88 Don’t know/can’t say 99. No response

9.1 If Yes, how many times in a week does [SAMPLED CHILD] attend these study groups?

1 Occasionally 2 Regularly 88 Don’t know/can’t say

Skip 8.1 if Q. 8 = Option

5

99. No response

0 / 2/ 88

10

Do you ever look at [SAMPLED CHILD]’s textbooks or notebooks?

0. No 1.Yes 2.Child does not have textbooks or notebooks 99. No response

11 Do you or anyone else read or tell stories to [SAMPLED CHILD]?

0. No 1.Yes 99. No response

11.1 If Yes, in a week, how often do you read or tell stories to [SAMPLED CHILD]?

0.Never 1. Occasionally 2. Regularly 88 Don’t know/can’t say 99. No response

Skip 11.1 if Q. 11 = No

12. What responsibilities do parents have to improve their children’s education? (Multiple choice)

0 No responsibilities 1 Sending children for tuition 2 Helping children with their homework 3 Checking children’s notebooks 4 Talking to children’s teacher 5 Buying books/notebooks 6 Telling children to study 7 Sending children to school 8 Spending money on children’s studies 77 Other (specify) _______________________ 88 Don’t know / can’t say 99. No response

13 Who has the greatest responsibility to ensure that children learn? Read out options and choose only one

1. Parents 2. Teachers 3. HM 4. SMC 5. District administration 99. No response

Section 3: Perceptions, attitudes and actions related to Sample Child’s learning and education

I am going to read out a few sentences to you. Each statement is connected to your child's learning levels,

teacher, family and the community. Please listen to these statements carefully and for each, tell me whether

you agree or disagree. There are no right or wrong responses for these statements, so please respond without

any hesitation." [If after reading a statement, the respondent does not respond, mark no response. Read it out

once more only].

1 [SAMPLED CHILD] learns whatever is taught to him in the class


99. No Response

2 [SAMPLED CHILD] can read his/her Hindi textbook easily


99. No Response

3 [SAMPLED CHILD] can count till 100


99. No Response

6

4 [SAMPLED CHILD] is learning as much as other children in his/her class


99. No Response/

5 Teachers do not treat [SAMPLED CHILD] the same way as other children in the class


99. No Response

6 You can support [SAMPLED CHILD’S] studies/learning at home


99. No Response

7. You have time to help my [SAMPLED

CHILD] learn at home


99. No Response

8. You ask [SAMPLED CHILD] what they do in school everyday


99. No Response

9. You tell [SAMPLED CHILD] to work hard in school


99. No Response

10. You encourage [SAMPLED CHILD] to read books other than school textbooks


99. No Response

11. The school (or teachers) invites you regularly to discuss the learning levels of [SAMPLED CHILD]


99. No Response

12. You worry when [Sampled Child] is not able to read simple text or do simple math.


99. No Response

13. [SAMPLED CHILD] was promoted to the current grade without having learned the curriculum of the previous class


99. No Response

14.a. For girls: You are concerned that [SAMPLED CHILD] is learning less than the boys


99. No Response

14.b For boys: You are concerned that [SAMPLED CHILD] is learning less than the girls


99. No Response

Section 4: General perceptions, attitudes on learning and education

Now I will read some questions to you. Every question is related to the of all children. Listen carefully to these

questions and tell me what you think about these questions. Answer these questions in Yes / No / Don’t know.

[If after reading a statement, the respondent does not respond, mark no response. Read it out once more only].

7

1. Meeting with the teacher is a waste of time.


99. No Response

2.

Boys learn faster than girls. 0. No 1. Yes 88. Don’t Know / Can’t Say

99. No Response

3.

Teachers do everything they can to improve

children's learning.


99. No Response

4. Parents do everything they can to improve

children's learning. 0. No 1. Yes 88. Don’t Know / Can’t Say

99. No Response

5. Community members do everything they can to

improve children's learning.


99. No Response

6. You would like to volunteer time in the school if it

helps children get a better education.


99. No Response

Section 5: Household Roster (for all household members)

Instructions for the surveyor

1. This sheet is to be filled for ALL MEMBERS IN THE HH (3 years and above) who have been living in this

household regularly for the last 6 months and eat from the same kitchen as the Sampled Child.

2. Those individuals who are not family members but who live regularly in the sampled household

should ALSO be surveyed.

3. DO NOT take information about individuals who are currently visiting the sampled household or have

stayed with the sampled household for less than 12 months.

4. If the father or mother of the sampled child is dead, do not fill their information.

8

Total number of members in the household

For all members of the household (3-18) For all members of the

household Presently enrolled in School/college Not enrolled in school/college in present

Roster ID

Name of the member

Age Sex Relationship with the sample child

Main occupation Class Type of school/college

Highest level of education

Type of school/college last

attended

1: male

2: female

0: Sample child 1: Mother 2: Father 3: Siblings 77: Other

1: Student 2: Unemployed 3: Housewife 4: Agriculture 5: Agricultural labor 6: non-agricultural labor like construction work etc. 7: Artists working independently like mason, carpenter, electrician etc. 8: Home based occupation like beedi rolling etc. 9: Small business 10: Any other job(Government/Private) 66: Doesn’t apply

77: Other (Specify) 88: Don’t know

0: Pre-school(Anganwadi) 1: Std 1 2: Std 2 etc

... 12: Std 12

13: Graduate (B.A / B.Sc / B.Tech / B.Com) 14: Post graduate (M.A / M.Sc / M.Tech / M.Com 77: Other (Specify)___________ 88: Don’t know

1: Government 2: Private 77:Other 88: Don’t know

0: Never enrolled 1: Std 1 2: Std 2 etc

... 12: Std 12

13: Graduate (B.A / B.Sc / B.Tech / B.Com) 14: Post graduate (M.A / M.Sc / M.Tech / M.Com 77: Other (Specify)___________ 88: Don’t know

1: Government 2: Private 77:Other 88: Don’t know

1

2

9

Section 6: Household Indicators

Instructions for surveyors:

1. This information is being collected to understand the relationship between child’s

learning level and economic status of the household.

2.Observe and mark accordingly for questions in this section. Ask when and where necessary.

1 Type of house? (Select one option)

1: Kuccha 2: Semi pucca 3: Pucca

2 Is there electricity connection in the HH? 0 : No 1: Yes

2.1 Skip if Q.2=No Is there electricity during the HH visit?

0 : No 1: Yes

3 Is there a toilet facility available for use inside the house?

0 : No 1: Yes

4 What is the primary mode of cooking in the household? (Select one option)

1: Sticks, firewood, dung 2: Coal stove (Angithi) 3: Kerosene Stove 4: Gas stove/ LPG 5: Bio gas 6: Smokeless chullah

5 What transportation assets does your household have?

FOR EACH ITEM IN THE LIST, TICK IN ANY ONE COLUMN

0 : No 1: Yes

1 Bicycle

2 Motorcycle/Scooter

3 Car

4 Tractor

5 Cart (with bullock

6 Auto rickshaw

77 Other

6 Which of the following reading material does your household have?

FOR EACH ITEM IN THE LIST, TICK IN ANY ONE COLUMN

0 : No 1: Yes

1.None

2. Religious books

3. Any book other than school textbooks

4. Newspaper

7A: Does this Household have the following things? FOR EACH ITEM IN THE LIST, TICK IN ANY ONE COLUMN

0 : No 1: Yes

1 Mobile Phone

2 T.V.

3 Clock/Watch

4 Radio

5 Electric Fan

6 Table

7 Chair

8 Pressure Cooker

9 Sewing Machine

Ask questions in Question 7B only if the number of possessions in Question 7A is 6 or more.

0 : No 1: Yes

10 Computer

10

11 Mixer/Grinder

12 Washing Machine

13 Refrigerator

14 Air Cooler IS THERE AN ADDITIONAL SAMPLED CHILD LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD AND EATING FROM

THE SAME KITCHEN?

0 : No 1: Yes

IF YES, FILL THE ADDITIONAL SAMPLE CHILD FORMAT.

IF NO, PROCEED TO THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE NEXT SAMPLE CHILD IN YOUR LIST.

faculty of education mphil in education · mphil in education thesis parental perceptions, family...

Documents