Parental monitoring, the parent-child relationship and children's academic engagement in mother-headed single-parent families

Accepted Manuscript Parental monitoring, the parent-child relationship and children's academic engagement in mother-headed single-parent families

Benjamin R. Malczyk, Hal A. Lawson PII: DOI: Reference:

S0190-7409(16)30562-X doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.12.019 CYSR 3195

To appear in:

Children and Youth Services Review

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

28 September 2016 19 December 2016 20 December 2016

Please cite this article as: Benjamin R. Malczyk, Hal A. Lawson , Parental monitoring, the parent-child relationship and children's academic engagement in mother-headed singleparent families. The address for the corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate. Cysr(2016), doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.12.019

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

IP

T

Running head: Parental monitoring

CR

Parental Monitoring, the Parent-Child Relationship and

US

Children’s Academic Engagement in Mother-headed Single-parent Families

AN

Corresponding author: Benjamin R. Malczyk, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Social Work, University of Nebraska at Kearney

ED

M

[email protected]

Hal A. Lawson, Ph.D.

PT

Professor of Social Welfare & Professor of Educational Policy and Leadership

CE

University at Albany, State University of New York

AC

We thank the Family Studies Center at BYU, the School of Family Life, and the College of Family Home and Social Science at BYU, and we recognize the generous support of the many private donors who provided support for this project. We also thank those families who were willing to spend valuable hours with our team in interviews, and the many students who assisted in conducting the interviews.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 2

Parental Monitoring, the Parent-Child Relationship and Children’s Academic Engagement in Mother-headed Single-parent Families

Abstract This longitudinal study of 110 mother-headed single-parent families examined the

IP

T

influence of parental monitoring, parent-child attachment and observed parent-child relationship

CR

quality on the child’s academic engagement. Special interest resided in how parent-child relationship quality moderated the relationship between parental monitoring and academic

US

engagement. Analyses indicated that observed relationship quality and parental monitoring predicted children’s academic engagement. However, this relationship was not uniform. Parental

AN

influences on academic engagement are most prominent in mother-headed families with a female

M

child. Family income also matters. These preliminary findings have import for school-family

ED

research, policy, and practice.

PT

Keywords: Single-parent families; academic engagement; parent child attachment; parental

AC

CE

monitoring; school social work; family support; family income

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 3

Academic engagement, also known as classroom engagement, has three main components: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). Together these three engagement indicators are strongly associated with short- and long-term school outcomes (Ibid; Lawson & Lawson, 2013). As school leaders and school social workers

T

have strived to increase the number of students who complete high school ―college and career

IP

ready,‖ (U.S. Department of Eduation, n.d.) student academic engagement has garnered more

AC

CE

PT

ED

M

AN

US

CR

attention because it has been identified as a key factor and predictor of academic success.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 4

T

Mounting evidence regarding the extra-school forces, factors, and actors that influence

IP

students’ academic engagement makes it is clear that educators, working alone in stand-alone

CR

schools with walled-in improvement models and strategies, cannot achieve desirable engagement outcomes on their own (Lawson & Lawson, 2013). Nor can social workers assume that schools

US

essentially belong to educators, ignoring and neglecting their potential, important contributions

AN

to students’ engagement and, in turn, school completion. This study, which focuses on schoolfamily relationships, was designed to build on the growing knowledge base regarding academic

M

engagement; and with the special contributions of social workers in mind.

ED

Children in mother-headed, single parent families were the phenomenon of interest; and with the assumption that this growing family configuration merits more attention than it has

PT

received to date (McLanahan & Sawhill, 2015). Three primary research questions structured the

CE

study. Does the parent child relationship influence the child’s academic engagement? Does parent child relationship quality mediate and/or moderate the relationship between parental

AC

monitoring and academic engagement? Do the effects of parent-child relationship quality on engagement vary as a function of the child’s gender and family income? This study is particularly timely as the number of children from mother headed single-parent has nearly tripled over the last 50 years and continues to climb (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016), regardless of race or ethnicity (George & Levin, 2015).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 5

Related Literature This study is founded on two research-related pillars. One is an extensive line of theory and research that documents the importance of academic engagement. The other line focuses on parent and family system issues, but with a significant gap. Mother-headed, single parent

T

families, the focus for this study, have received short shrift in prior research and theory

IP

development, especially in the academic engagement research capsulized next.

CR

Academic Engagement of Pre-Adolescent Youth

Academic engagement is at its highest levels in the elementary grades and generally

US

declines with each higher grade a student enters (Simons-Morton & Crump, 2003). Those who

AN

experience sharp declines in academic engagement from the high levels of engagement found in elementary school are significantly more likely to also report dropping out of school (Janosz,

M

Archambault, Morizot & Pagani, 2008). The declines in engagement mirror declines in academic

ED

achievement (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Wang & Eccles, 2012). This pattern suggests a need to understand antecedents and contexts that can increase academic engagement especially in the

PT

early middle-school years. Middle schools are home to pre-adolescent aged youth, and parent

CE

and family influences may facilitate or constrain their academic trajectories. Mother-headed Single-parent Families

AC

In addition to focusing on children at a pivotal age in their academic careers, this study proceeds with a sample of mother-headed single-parent families. Academic outcomes for children from single-parent households, which are generally mother-headed, fall consistently below the outcome levels for their peers coming from two-parent households (Woessmann, 2015). This important trend is not new. The lower levels of achievement among mother-headed single-parent families has been a focus of research and policy dating back to the Coleman Report

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 6

in 1966. In order to close any achievement gap between children from single-parent and twoparent families, social workers, researchers and other leaders need a greater understanding of why this gap exists and how best to intervene and assist children from mother-headed singleparent families.

T

There are competing explanations for the varying levels of achievement between children

CR

the influence of 1) poverty and 2) the home environment.

IP

from single-parent versus those from two parent families. Two prominent explanations include

Poverty has dominated the literature as the main explanatory influence on this

US

achievement and engagement gap. The view that poverty leads to problematic child and family

AN

outcome has held for decades (Baker, 2015). Children in dire economic need, who are disproportionately single-parent families (Casey & Maldonado, 2012), may lack basic nutritional

M

support, access to quality schools (Orfield, 2013), books and other educational materials

ED

(Woessmann, 2015). Children in such circumstance may even face the challenging circumstance of attending multiple schools within any given year (Herbers, Reynolds, & Chen, 2014) along

PT

with many other economic and social correlates of poverty, all implicating educational

CE

disadvantage.

While poverty has merit as a causal mechanism for the difference in academic and child-

AC

wellbeing between single and two-parent families, it is not the only explanation and is an insufficient explanation on its own (Waldfogel, Craigie, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010). If poverty truly were the sole or major determinant of academic outcomes, then a reduction in poverty and increasing household income for low income mother-headed single-parent families would reduce the academic achievement gap between single-parent and two-parent families. Yet the gap in achievement between single-parent and two-parent families can be found in countries across the

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 7

globe that have more income equity than the United States through more generous welfare benefits (Woessmann, 2015). Such findings indicate that poverty alone is an insufficient explanation for the academic achievement and engagement gaps. While much should be done to mitigate poverty, reducing poverty in and of itself is insufficient to reduce the achievement gap

T

between single and two-parent families. Alternate explanations must be considered alongside

IP

poverty.

CR

An alternative explanation for the varying levels of academic outcomes between single and two-parent families is centered in the home environment and more specifically on parenting

US

practices and family system dynamics. This line of research examines parenting variables and

AN

family processes and functioning rather than familial income. Multiple meta-analyses confirm this empirically-based perspective and suggest that in relation to academic achievement, the

M

home environment has a larger influence than income, occupational status and parental

ED

educational level combined (Fan & Chen, 2001; White, 1982). This research also indicates that multiple factors combine to produce differential

PT

outcomes. Factors such as educational aspirations, parenting style, (Garg, Melanson, & Levin,

CE

2007), parental involvement and even the impeteus behind formation of a mother-headed single parent family (Hertz, 2006) should be considered when examining the academic outcome gap

AC

between single-parent and two- parent families. Among the most important implications for research is a strategic move away from designs focused exclusively on poverty. Alongside the focus on family income and structure, a more nuanced research approach is needed that examines family processes in tandem with family income.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 8

This study is structured in response to this need. It is designed to examine both family income and family processes that may influence academic engagement in a sample of motherheaded single-parent families. Without a proper understanding of why some children from mother-headed single-parent families are engaged and succeeding while others are not, the

T

comparison between single-parent and two-parent families will likely continue to ignore the

IP

causal mechanisms of academic engagement and achievement. In fact, researchers, practitioners,

CR

and policy makers may be led to conclude erroneously that all single-parent families are alike and so are all two-parent families.

US

The research-based reminder here is important: Not all single-parent households face dire

AN

poverty (Kalil & Ryan, 2010), and not all of them are headed by an undeducated mother. At the same time, leaders from all walks of life must accept the fact that single-parenthood is ―here to

M

stay‖ (Haskins, 2015), and they also must recognize that the single-parent households of today

ED

may look quite different than the single-parent households of ten or especially 50 years ago (Raley, Sweeney, & Wondra, 2015). This current study was framed accordingly.

PT

Parental Influences on Academic Engagement

CE

There is an abundance of school-centric research on within-school predictors of academic engagement (e.g. Christenson, Reschy, & Wylie, 2011). The school environment is likely

AC

consistent for children within the same classroom regardless of family structure suggesting that there must be family-level predictors of engagement. Research examining familial level influences on engagement has focused on specific parenting practices such as parental monitoring (Lowe & Dotterer, 2013; Spera, 2006), as well as parenting style (Jeynes, 2007; Spera, 2006; Weiss & Schwarz, 1996) and overall parent support (Estell & Perdue, 2013).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 9

Researchers also have found evidence of the importance of the connection between schools and parents (e.g. Mapp & Kuttner 2014). The strength of this connection between the school and parents significantly impacts various academic outcomes of children (Bryk, 2010), especially in historically disadvantaged communities (Warren, 2005). The evidence outlining the

T

importance of parental influences on student engagement and achievement is substantial enough

IP

that at least 39 states have legislation mandating that schools make greater efforts to work with

CR

parents (Mapp & Kuttner, 2014).

Thus, sufficient evidence exists to promote and encourage a strong parent-school

US

connection. However, these connections are likely not made or strengthened in the same way

AN

among traditionally disadvantaged communities (Ishimaru & Lott, 2014). There is a particular need to reconsider and expand pathways of familial influence on education through the

M

traditional means beyond the ―stay-at home mother‖ who is connected to the school through the

ED

PTA and runs a bake sale (Lawson, Alameda-Lawson, Lawson, Briar-Lawson, & Wilcox, 2014). Clearly, parents’ influence on engagement extends beyond merely being involved with

PT

the school (Wang & Sheikh-Khalil, 2014). While there is general agreement that parents play a

CE

key role in student engagement, there is no clearly established path between what parents do that leads directly to engagement (Bempechat & Shernoff, 2012). One way to better understand how

AC

parents can support academic engagement and achievement is to examine parental practices and interactions with their child in the quest to identify, describe, and explain parental behavior toward their children that increases academic engagement (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2016). Given the dominance of school-centered, academic research and the paucity of academic engagement research conducted with mother-headed, single parent families, the current, exploratory study begins to fill a significant void as the number of such families continues to

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 10

grow. The findings promise to be of interest to educators, social workers, other helping professionals who serve vulnerable families, and policy makers. Methods Procedure

T

The data for this study were a subset of data from the Flourishing Families Project (FFP).

IP

The FFP is a longitudinal data set examining family processes through survey measures and

CR

observations of parent-child interactions. All families resided in a large northwest city. Wave 1 data was collected in 2007 and collected annually with Wave 2 in 2008 and so on. Families were

US

identified through information purchased from a national telephone survey database. Using the

AN

database, families were randomly selected from targeted census tracts to ensure a diverse sample that matched the socio-economic and racial makeup of the city.

M

Participants

ED

This study used a subsample of 110 mother-headed single-parent families. Demographic makeup of the sample was as follows: female child 55.5% (n=61), 45.5% male child (n=49);

PT

child mean age at Time 1, 12.02, and at Time 4, 14.4. The mean grade for children in the sample

CE

at Time 2 was 6.84. Mean age for mothers was 43.29 at Time 1. The racial makeup of the sample was 47% European American, 32% African American and 21% multi-ethnic. Reported annual

AC

family levels of income are as follow: 0-$20,000, 16.4%; $20,001-40,000, 33.6%; $40,00160,000, 29.1%; $60,001-80,000, 10%; $80,001 and above, 10.9%. Approximately 42% of mothers reported having a bachelor’s degree or higher. Measures Parental monitoring. Monitoring was assessed at Time 2. The Mother and the child completed an adapted measure of monitoring from Kerr and Sattin (2000). Sample questions

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 11

included, ―I talk with my child about how he/she is doing with school work‖ ―(I talk with my parent about how I am doing with school work)‖ and ―My child tells me about his/her day at school‖ (I tell my parent about my day at school.)‖ The measure included 12 statements. The combined scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. Higher scores indicated higher levels of parental

T

monitoring.

IP

Attachment. Attachment was measured at Time 1 using a compilation of three

CR

abbreviated scales, the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) and a parent and child version of Lee, Draper and Lee’s (2001) measure of child to parent

US

connectedness. Higher scores represented greater perceived levels of connection between the

AN

parent and their child. Cronbach’s alpha for the measure combining all three scales was .916. Academic engagement. The dependent variable in this study was academic engagement.

M

Academic engagement was measured at Time 4. Parents and children completed a nine question

ED

modified version of Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2005). Respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed/disagreed with items such as ―My child pays attention in class‖ (child-I pay

PT

attention in class) and ―My child feels support from his or her teachers at school‖ (child-I feel

CE

support from my teacher at school). Higher scores reflecting greater ability to engage in prosocial behavior and focus at school. Cronbach’s alpha for the combined parent and child

AC

measure was .916.

Observational data. Observational data were based on 15 minute video footage of parent-child interactions at Time 3. Researchers set up the camera and provided the parent and child a set of cards with questions to review. Researchers then left the room, allowing the parent and child to interact more freely. Questions addressed a variety of topics pertinent to the relationship such as what things they liked to do together or parental rules and expectations.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 12

The specific coding scheme used in this study was the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scale. It included measures of both individual as well as dyadic interactions. The scale has been used successfully with a variety of families across racial and ethnic lines (Melby & Conger, 2001). Coders were trained to make assessments based on actual observed behaviors and

T

interaction, not assumptions of motivation or intent. Approximately 25% of all tasks were coded

CR

this study had an average inter-rater reliability above 86%.

IP

by a second reliability coder to ensure inter-rater reliability amongst all coders. Data coded for

Observed relationship quality was calculated by summing scores on the following scales:

US

warmth, endearment, physical affection, escalate warmth, reciprocate warmth, listener

AN

responsiveness, communication, relationship quality and group enjoyment. Melby and Conger’s (2001) work can provide additional information on the coding scheme and processes.

M

Plan for Analysis

ED

Multiple imputation in SPSS was used to replace missing data, an approach in line and argued for by Acock (2005). Following the multiple imputations, pooled averages were

AC

CE

PT

computed and then used in the statistical tests that followed.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 13

Figure 1. Specific Model to be Tested

Parent-child attachment (Time 1)

Parental monitoring (Parenting Practice) (Time 2)

US

Observed Parent-child relationship quality (Time 3)

CR

IP

T

Academic Engagement (Adolescent outcomes) (Time 4)

AN

Tests of mediation and moderation were conducted to examine the model in Figure 1.

M

Linear regression was used to test for mediation following a similar procedure to the one outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). Tests for moderation followed the procedure outlined by

ED

Aiken and West (1991). This approach examines the significance of interaction terms computed

PT

by multiplying two scores. In this case, interaction terms were computed for attachment and monitoring, as well as observed relationship quality and monitoring. The interaction terms were

CE

then included in regression models. Significant interaction terms would suggest potential

AC

moderation. Significant interactions were further examined using simple slope analysis. Given the small sample size, a median split was used to identify high and low values of both attachment and observed relationship quality. Subgroups were then identified based on gender of the child as well as level of family income to examine differences base on the gender of the child as well as family income. Family income subgroups included low income (under $40,000, 55 families) and high income (over $40,000, 55 families).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 14

Results First order correlations, means and standard deviations can be found in Table 1. Significant correlation between variables suggested relationships between key variables and the need for additional examination of stated hypotheses.

CE

Whole Sample Results

PT

ED

M

AN

US

CR

IP

T

Table 1. First Order Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (1) Child gender (2) Family race -.187x (3) Mother -.020x -.059 education (4) Income -.141x -.066 -.085 (5) T1 .000 -.129 -.005 .137x Attachment (6) T2 .039 -.027 -.082 .167* .530** Monitoring (7) T3 Observed -.162x -.015 -.031 .281* .305** .289** relationship quality (8) T4 Academic -.190* -.107 -.015 .159* .250** .371** .406** engagement Mean 106.12****** 99.94***** 44.56***** 61.72 SD 12.48****** 11.30***** 8.33***** 12.23 † Notes: p≤ .10, *p≤ .05; **p≤ .01. T=wave of data collection

It should be noted that reported estimates in Tables 2, 3, and 4 reflect standardized

AC

coefficients. Results will first be examined for the whole sample. Model 2 examines the influence of attachment, monitoring and observed relationship quality on academic engagement. Model 3 examines any potential moderation of the influence of monitoring by attachment. Model 4 tests for moderation of the influence of monitoring by observed relationship quality.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 15

US

CR

IP

T

Table 2. Regression Models for the Complete Sample Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Variable Child gender -.158 -.139 -.140 -.157 Family race .069 .078 .074 .076 Mother education -.002 -.046 -.049 -.069 Income .132 -.004 .000 .010 T1 Attachment .020 -.033 -.052 T2 Monitoring .281 ** .290 ** .316 ** T3 Observed relationship .300 ** .311 ** .296 ** quality (RQ) Attachment X Monitoring -.096 Observed RQ X Monitoring .105 R2 .058 .266 *** .273 *** .276 *** F 1.625 5.277 4.736 4.811 Notes: †p≤ .10, *p≤ .05; **p≤ .01, ***p≤ .001. T=wave of data collection

AN

Monitoring

Consistent with prior research (Lowe & Dotterer, 2013), higher levels of parental

M

monitoring significantly influenced academic engagement. Monitoring should continue to be

ED

supported as a key parenting practice to positively influence child academic engagement. This finding adds to existing literature by supporting the need for and benefit of parental monitoring

PT

specifically for children in mother-headed single-parent families.

CE

Attachment

When controlling for child gender, race, maternal education and income, attachment had

AC

no significant influence on monitoring (see Model 2 in Table 2). This runs contrary to the stated hypothesis and previous findings that attachment is strongly correlated with academic achievement and engagement (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004). As demonstrated in Model 3 in Table 2, the interaction term between attachment and monitoring was not significant. This suggests no evidence of moderation of the influence of monitoring on engagement based on the level of attachment. Observed Relationship Quality

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 16

Higher levels of observed relationship quality significantly predicted higher levels of academic engagement (Model 2, Table 2). Similar to the result for parental monitoring, this finding highlights the protective influence of a strong parent-child relationship. The additional model depicted in Figure 2 indicates that observed relationship does not

T

mediate the relationship between monitoring and academic engagement. Both observed

IP

relationship quality and monitoring independently influence engagement, suggesting that both

CR

should be viewed as important predictors and protective factors that can positively influence academic engagement. There is an additive influence of each variable indicating that children

US

who have parents that monitor them and who have a strong parent-child relationship are more

CE

Gender and Income

PT

ED

M

AN

likely to be academically engaged in school.

A key objective of this study was to examine if the relationships examined for the entire

AC

sample varied based on gender of the child or based on the income level of the family. Findings presented in Tables 3 and 4 highlight varied findings dependent on the gender of the child or family income. Gender To complete the regression models found in Table 3, the whole sample was split based on gender of the child. There were 61 families with a female child and 49 with a male child.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 17

Female Children. In families with a female child, observed relationship quality predicted engagement while monitoring ceased to be a significant predictor when compared to the whole sample. Additionally, interaction terms suggested evidence of moderation of the influence of monitoring on engagement based on the level of relationship quality (Model 3) and

.196** .231†***

CR

-.151** .097**

-.165** .047**

.230†**

.373**

.370**

.365**

.275**

.221**

.202**

.224**

ED

M

.321** .348***

-.028†

-.166** .047**

AN

.094** .142*** .131** .017** -.255†*** -.016**

-.421***

PT

Variable Family race Mother education Income .210†*^ T1 Attachment T2 Monitoring T3 Observed relationship quality (RQ) Attachment X Monitoring Observed RQ X Monitoring R2 .133** F 2.902**

Male child Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 -.262† -.149** -.111** -.151** -.009† -.062** -.025** -.060**

US

Female child Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 .287** .243** .265*** .251** -.016** -.038** -.038*** -.095**

IP

Table 3. Regression Models Split by Female and Male Child

T

attachment (Model 4).

.155** .258** .345** 3.091**

.327** 2.843**

AC

CE

.291** .403*** .350*** .069† .326** † 3.688** 5.112** 4.080*** 1.120 3.389** * Notes: †p≤ .10, *p≤ .05; **p≤ .01., ***p≤.001. T=wave of data collection

-.024**

Coulton and Chow (1992) outlined a procedure that allows for additional analysis of the moderation effects found in Models 3 and 4. Their procedure includes identifying high and low levels of the moderating variable and plotting the slope of the regression coefficient of the predictor variable on the criterion variable. Given the small sample size (66 families), high and low levels of both attachment and observed relationship quality were computed using a median split.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 18

A regression analysis was then computed for the sub-samples (high levels of attachment vs. low levels of attachment; high levels of relationship quality vs. low levels of relationship quality). The regression analyses yielded the following regression lines, which reflect unstandardized coefficients, for varying levels of attachment: low levels of attachment,

T

Y=14.07+.54X (R2 =.401, p=.000); high levels of attachment, Y=38.17+.24X (R2=.028, p=.351).

IP

The regression lines computed for observed relationship quality were: low levels of observed

CR

relationship quality, Y=52.75+.08X, R2=.006, p=.673; High levels of observed relationship quality: Y=16.61+.5X, R2=.293, p=.002.

US

Graphical depiction (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2) ease the interpretation of these slopes. Figure 3.2

AC

CE

PT

ED

M

AN

Figure 3.1

Moderation can take varying forms including opposite effects, limited effects or amplification of effects (Koeske, 1993). Moderation with limited effects is evident and is depicted in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. As the lines depict, moderation with limited effects occurs when the moderating variable limits the impact of the predicting variable for one condition of the predicting variable, while the other condition still is significantly influence by the predicting variable.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 19

The regression line for families with high levels of attachment is not significant, suggesting that monitoring was no longer a significant predictor of academic engagement. Monitoring remained a significant predictor of academic engagement for families with low levels of attachment. These outcomes were contrary to the original hypothesis that higher levels of

T

attachment would strengthen the relationship between parental monitoring and academic

IP

engagement. Some of the unexpected outcomes may stem from the measure of attachment that

CR

was used, or the timing of measure of attachment. Theoretically, attachment is established very early in life and ideally would be measured then and through observational methods, not when

US

children are approximately 12 years old and are offering their own perceptions on attachment.

AN

While the original hypothesis on the moderating influence of attachment did not receive support, the hypothesis that higher levels of relationship quality would lead to a stronger

M

relationships between parental monitoring and engagement did receive support. As depicted in

ED

Figure 3.2, a limited moderating effect was found. Monitoring only significantly predicted engagement for high levels of relationship quality and no such significant relationship was found

PT

for the low levels of relationship quality.

CE

An additional test examined the potential mediating influence of relationship quality between monitoring and engagement based on gender of the child. Figure 4.1 outlines this test.

AC

As path a was not significant, there was no support for any mediation.

Figure 4.1. Mediation Test for Families with a Female Child

Figure 4.2. Mediation Test for Families with a Male Child

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 20

Male Child. Regression analysis using just the families with a male child yielded different results compared to the whole sample and the sub-sample of families with a female child. For families with a male child, only monitoring significantly predicts academic engagement. The interaction terms in Models 3 and 4 were not significant suggesting no

T

evidence of moderation. Similarly to the mediation test for families with a female child, no

IP

evidence was found of mediation. As Figure 4.2 depicts, path b was not significant, suggesting

was a significant predictor of academic engagement.

US

Income Level

CR

no evidence of mediation. For families with a male child, it appears that only parental monitoring

AN

Table 4 contains the regression outputs examining influence on engagement based on the level of family income. The results mirror those of the analysis based on gender of the child.

M

Namely, the variable that influenced the child’s level of engagement varied based on the level of

ED

income. For low income families, only monitoring was a significant predictor of engagement. There was no evidence of moderation (see Models 3 and 4), nor any evidence of mediation (see

PT

Figure 5.1). For high income families, monitoring was not significant. Only observed

AC

(see Figure 5.2).

CE

relationship quality was significant. Tests for mediation also suggested no evidence of mediation

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 21

AC

CE

PT

ED

M

AN

US

CR

IP

T

Table 4. Regression Models Split by Family Income Low income family High income family Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Variables Child gender -.134** -.165** -.147** -.160** -.208** -.172*** -.167*** -.200† ** Family race .128** .047** .068** .076** .012** .164*** .169*** .163*** Mother -.007** -.077** -.093** -.065** .030** .051*** .048*** .036*** education T1 .016** -.154** .018** .074*** .086*** .058*** Attachment T2 .378** .341** .365** .168*** .149*** .184*** Monitoring T3 Observed .091** .138** .087** .501*** .499*** .445** relationship quality (RQ) Attachment X -.271** .047*** Monitoring Observed RQ -.043** .183*** X Monitoring R2 -.042** .210†** .250** .212** .043** .377*** .379*** .406*** F .741** 2.129** 2.239** 1.804** .769** 4.841*** 4.096*** 4.598*** † Notes: p≤ .10, *p≤ .05; **p≤ .01, ***p≤.001 T=wave of data collection

Figure 5.2. Mediation Test for High Income Families

Discussion

The two main findings need to be amplified. In mother-headed single-parent families, parental monitoring and the parent-child relationship have a significant influence on children’s academic engagement. However, patterns of parental influence may vary, depending on the gender of the child, familial income, or both. While previous research has identified parental monitoring and the parent child relationship as predictors of academic outcomes (e.g., Simons-Morton & Crump, 2003;

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 22

(Wentzel, 1998), this study proceeded with both parental monitoring and the parent child relationship in the same model. This study’s findings demonstrate the additive influence of both parental monitoring and the parent child relationship. Each variable influences child academic engagement in mother-headed single-parent families.

T

Results regarding sub-populations (based on gender of the child and family income) also

IP

are important, in part because they respond in part to the call to examine gender-specific

CR

relationships and outcomes (Videon, 2002). Findings from the current study indicate that boys and girls have different relationships with their mothers in single parent family systems. This

US

finding is consistent with prior research that demonstrates that the gender of both the parent and

AN

the child influences outcomes (Lee, Kushner, & Cho, 2007; Peterson & Zill, 1986). It may be that single-mothers perceive and treat their daughters and sons differently, just as boys and girls

M

generally are parented differently (Leaper, 2002).

ED

An alternate explanation for gendered differences could be that mothers may be more apt to build relationships with their daughters, or may be more likely to confide in them (Arditti,

PT

1999). Another explanation emphasizes the agency of the children: Boys and girls may look to

CE

their mothers for different types of support and guidance. Differences related to family income are more difficult to explain because family income

AC

implicates myriad forces and factors. For example, the lower the family income, the more likely it is that mothers and family systems overall need more assistance, social supports, and economic resources (Burney & Beilke, 2008). Single parent mothers in these families are more likely to be stressed by multiple, sometimes conflicting demands. All in all these circumstances may conspire against sufficient, dedicated time with their children, including parental monitoring and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 23

attachment-related activities. The suggestive findings from the current study pave the way for future research that attends specifically to these special income-related circumstances. Ultimately, the differing influences based on the gender of the child and family income, suggest the unique and powerful influence of the context of the parent-child relationship and the

T

need for further research and exploration. In particular, these findings suggest the danger of

IP

viewing and treating all mother-headed single-parent families in the same way. Nuanced

CR

research designs such as the one that structured this study recommend nuanced models and strategies for working with mother-headed, single parent families.

US

Attachment and Relationship Quality

AN

Contrary to the literature (see Elmore & Huebner, 2010), attachment was not found to be a significant predictor of academic engagement. Theoretically, attachment and relationship

M

quality were expected to have parallel influences on academic engagement. It was anticipated

ED

that attachment and relationship quality would be highly correlated and would follow a similar path in impacting academic engagement. The two variables followed unique paths.

PT

These differing outcomes may stem from modalities of measurement. In the current

CE

study, attachment was a survey measure, and some researchers view this measurement strategy as problematic (e.g., Morsbach & Prinz, 2006). In contrast, in the current study relationship

AC

quality was measured through observation. Another complicating factor: Even though relationship quality and attachment may follow unique patterns of influence on children, it also is the case that they are not always mutually exclusive. In brief, this attachment-relationship quality connection raises measurement questions. The current study’s contribution remains: Observed relationship quality can be conceptualized and differentiated from the attachment construct.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 24

This study found that the quality of the parent-child relationship moderated the effectiveness of parental monitoring, albeit with an important caveat. This relationship held for the mother-daughter relationship. Questions remain about mother-son relationships. Furthermore, parental monitoring predicted academic engagement only when observed

T

relationship quality was high. This finding is consistent with theory and research by Darling and

IP

Steinberg (1993), which suggests that relational and parental styles establish a context that

CR

shapes the efficacy of specific parenting practices.

Implications for Practice

US

Findings of this study underscore the powerful influence of parental monitoring and the

AN

parent child relationship on student academic engagement. The practice implications for social workers and educators striving to engage and support mother-headed, single parent families are

M

noteworthy.

ED

To assist single parent mothers in their efforts to positively influence their children and to enhance children’s academic engagement, it is not sufficient in and of itself to increase parental

PT

monitoring or other specific parenting practices. Instead, efforts should be directed toward

CE

improving the relationship quality between mothers and their children. This initial priority may facilitate and improve the efficacy of various other parenting practices such as monitoring.

AC

This research on parenting practice may be especially timely, responsive and important with mother-headed, single parent families. Practice and policy need to become more nuanced. For example, social workers can seek to adjust intervention efforts based on the unique circumstances of each family, such as the gender of the child or familial income. To wit: mother-headed, single parent families challenged by poverty and its correlates may be a special priority. Strengths-based, solution-focused, and culturally-competent practice

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 25

frameworks are especially important given the considerable family stress and parental role overload associated with mother-headed, single-parent families. This research suggests community-based and school social workers need to develop tailored interventions for each family, particularly mother-headed single-parent families. These

T

interventions must take into account multiple factors such as familial income and gender of the

IP

child. In contrast, practiticing professionals who assume that all mother-headed single-parent

CR

families need the same interventions or are equally disadvantaged risk providing misguided and ineffective interventions which may even cause harm (Allen-Scott, Hatfield, & McIntyre, 2014).

US

Social workers must also begin to incorporate family-centered rather than school centric

AN

assessment and interventions (Lawson, et al., 2014). A failure to engage parents and to support them in their role ignores an extensive body of research that demonstrates the importance of

M

parental influence on student engagement and achievement. Interventions that are multi-

at the Aspen Institute, 2012).

ED

generational, targeted at both students and their parents may prove particularly effective (Ascend

PT

Policy makers should explore policies that promote positive family processes and

CE

relationships regardless of how the family is structured. Perhaps above all, policy makers must be helped to look for the strengths in mother-headed, single parent families. Policy makers must

AC

come to accept that this mother-headed single parent family structure is not likely the causal mechanism for problematic outcomes. Instead problematic family processes, particularly motherchild interaction and relationship dynamics, pose the major problem and provide the key opportunity for intervention. Implications for research

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 26

Future research should build on the methodological strengths of this study, while seeking to avoid its manifest limitations. Specifically, future research should seek to build a more rigorous and accurate portrayal of family life through the use of observational data, measurement of dyadic and relational processes, longitudinal data and both parent and child report. A sound

T

research base exists and research should now seek for greater depth and understanding of family

IP

life rather than exploring a breadth of concepts.

CR

Future research should also seek to better understand, categorize or potentially develop typologies of single-parent families rather than seeing them all as equal. A deficit based

US

approach will likely continue unless researchers begin to focus on family process and

AN

relationships within families rather than merely focusing on family structure. As the number of

single-parent families is needed.

M

single-parent families rises (Haskins, 2015), a more nuanced and accurate understanding of

ED

Future research and interventions with children from single-parent families can build on this study by exploring and answering two key questions: 1) What does it mean to be a daughter

PT

in a, mother-headed, single-parent household? 2) What does it mean to be a son in a mother-

CE

headed, single-parent household? Parallel question should then be explored: What does it mean to be a daughter in a, father-head, single-parent household? What does it mean to be a son in a

AC

father-headed, single-parent household? Until such time as these questions are addressed, interventions with children from mother-headed, single-parent families will remain problematic. The research, practice, and policy risk is that all mother-headed, single-parent families will be lumped into one group and labeled ―disadvantaged‖—with no attention to their strengths. Another erroneous assumption will prevail if all mother-headed single-parent families of varying incomes are viewed as disadvantaged. Assuming that all mother-headed single-parent

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 27

families are alike regardless of income, has major problematic implications, especially when research concludes that many of the challenge that children from mother-headed single-parents face stems from poverty (Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan, 1994). Mother-headed single-parent families that are not plagued with extreme poverty, low

T

educational levels or other severe challenges should be viewed quite differently than mother-

IP

headed single-parent families that have abundant resources. Findings in this study support this

CR

claim and illuminate important priorities for future research on mother-headed, single parent families. Family income influences child outcomes, in part because it influences the nature of

US

the parent-child relationship. For example, having economic means may provide time and

AN

resources that wealthy, mother-headed single-parent families can use to foster academic and other outcomes for their children.

M

There is an important set of reminders here. While single-parenthood used to be strongly

ED

correlated to poverty, more single-parent families can be found across all socioeconomic levels. Societal conditions and the acceptance of divorce and single-parenthood indicate the need for

PT

additional classifications and examinations of types of single-parent families.

CE

Finally, future research needs to place families and schools in different community contexts. In brief, the social geography of the school-family-child relationship matters,

AC

particularly the neighborhood and community characteristics surrounding mother-headed, single parent families (Lawson, 2016; Sampson, 2012). The reminder here is that single parent mothers who are able to draw on significant others in the family’s near environment gain considerable child-rearing and academic engagement resources. In contrast, places that add to the perceived and actual social isolation of mother-headed, single parent families add to the academic engagement challenges and the mother’s stress and conflicts.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 28

Limitations This study is not without limitations. All conclusions must be considered in the light of a small sample size and the exploratory nature of this research. Consistent with the exploratory nature of this study, causality cannot be directly inferred. Finally, the timing and measure of

CR

Conclusions

IP

importance of attachment on student academic engagement.

T

attachment may have led to results that were contrary to prior research that suggested the

This study makes three contributions to the academic engagement literature in large part

US

because of its focus on mother-headed single-parent families. First, findings clearly connect

AN

specific parenting practices and the parent children relationship to school engagement in motherheaded single-parent families. Second, findings highlight that not all mother-headed single-

M

parent families are equally disadvantaged, indicating that deficit-oriented, harmful rhetoric aimed

ED

at all mother-headed, single-parent families is misdirected. Finally, findings suggest that family processes may have more relevance and impact on child outcome than family structure,

PT

suggesting the need for a deeper understanding of family dynamics, not just the mother headed-

AC

CE

single-parent family structure.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 29

References Acock, A. (2005) Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 10121028. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

T

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

IP

Allen-Scott, L. K., Hatfield, J. M., & McIntyre, L. (2014). A scoping review of unintended

CR

harm associated with public health interventions: Towards a typology and an understanding of underlying factors. International Journal of Public Health, 59(1), 1-

US

12. doi: 10.1007/s00038-013-0526-6

AN

Anderman, E., & Maehr, M. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287-309.

M

Annie E. Casey Foundation (2016). Engaging parents, developing leaders: A self-assessment

ED

planning tool for nonprofits and schools. Baltimore, MD: Retrieved from: http://www.aecf.org/resources/engaging-parents-developing-leaders

PT

Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its

CE

relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32(3), 651-670. Arditti, J. (1999). Rethinking relationships between divorced mothers and their children:

AC

Capitalizing on family strengths. Family Relations, 48(2), 109-119. Armsden, G., & Greenberg, M. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427-454. Ascend at the Aspen Institute. (2012). Two generations, one future: Moving parents and children beyond poverty together. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Retrieved from:

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 30

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/ascend/AscendReport-022012.pdf

Astone, N., & McLanahan, S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review, (56)3, 309-320.

IP

T

Baker, R. (2015). The changing association among marriage, work, and child poverty in the

CR

United States, 1974–2010. Journal of Marriage and Family,77(5), 1166-1178. Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

US

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

AN

Becker, G. (1993). Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical approach with special references

M

to education. Chicago: University of Chicago.

ED

Belfield, C. & Levin, H. M. Eds. (2007). The price we pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate education. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

PT

Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Parental influences on achievement motivation and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds), Handbook of

CE

research on student engagement (pp. 315-342). US: Springer.

AC

Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burney, V. H., & Beilke, J. R. (2008). The Constraints of Poverty on High Achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(3), 171-197. Casey, T. & Maldonado, L. (2012). Worst off-single-parent families in the United States: A cross-national comparison of single parenthood in the U.S. and sixteen other high income countries. Retrieved frohttp://www.legalmomentum.org

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 31

Children’s Defense Fund. (2007). American’s cradle to prison pipeline. Washington, D.C. Children’s Defense Fund. Retrieved from: http://www.childrensdefense.org/childresearch-data-publications/data/cradle-prison-pipeline-report-2007-full-lowres.pdf Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2011). The handbook of research on student

T

engagement. New York: Springer Science.

IP

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Wood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R.

CR

(1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

US

Coulton, C., & Chow, J. (1993). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Journal of Social

AN

Service Research, 16(1-2), 179-199.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.

M

Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.

ED

Dupéré, V., Leventhal, T., Dion, E., Crosnoe, R., Archambault, I., & Janosz, M. (2014). Stressors and turning points in high school and dropout: A stress process, life course

PT

framework. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 591-629.

CE

Elmore, G., & Huebner, E. (2010). Adolescents' satisfaction with school experiences: Relationships with demographics, attachment relationships, and school engagement

AC

behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 47(6), 525-537. Estell, D., & Perdue, N. (2013). Social support and behavioral and affective school engagement: The effects of peers, parents, and teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 50(4), 325-339. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A metaanalysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 32

concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research,74(1), 59-109. Garg, R., Melanson, S., & Levin, E. (2007). Educational aspirations of male and female adolescents from single-parent and two biological parent families: A comparison of influential factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(8), 1010-1023.

IP

face some hard truths. Education Next, 15(2), 30-35.

T

George, R. P., & Levin, Y. (2015). Family breakdown and poverty: To flourish, our nation must

CR

Haskins, R. (2015). The family is here to stay—or not. The Future of Children, 25(2), 129-153. Herbers, J., Reynolds, A., & Chen, C. (2013). School mobility and developmental outcomes in

US

young adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 25(02), 501-515.

AN

Hertz R. (2006). Single by chance, mothers by choice: How women are choosing parenthood without marriage and creating the new American family. New York: Oxford

M

University Press.

ED

Hirschfield, P., & Gasper, J. (2011). The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and

PT

Adolescence, 40(1), 3-22.

CE

Hooley, T., Marriott, J., & Sampson, J. P. (2011). Fostering college and career readiness: How career development activities in schools impact on graduation rates and students’ life

AC

success. UK: University of Derby. Ishimaru, A.M., & Lott, J. (2014). Charting a course to equitable collaboration: Learning from the parent engagement initiatives in the road map project. Seattle WA: University of Washington College of Education. Retrieved from: https://www.education.uw.edu/epsc/files/2015/08/EquitableCollaborationReport_0.pdf Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2008). School engagement trajectories

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 33

and their differential predictive relations to dropout. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 2140. Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82-

T

110.

IP

Kennedy, J., & Kennedy, C. (2004). Attachment theory: Implications for school psychology.

CR

Psychology in the Schools, 41(2), 247-259.

Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of

AN

Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366-380.

US

adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring.

Research, 16(1-2), 159-178.

M

Koeske, G. (1993). Moderator variables in social work research. Journal of Social service

ED

Lawson, H.A. (2016). Categories, boundaries and bridges: The social geography of schooling and the need for new institutional designs. Educational Sciences, 6, 20.

PT

Lawson, H., Alameda-Lawson, T., Lawson, M., Briar-Lawson, K., & Wilcox, K. (2014). Three

CE

parent and family interventions for rural schools and communities. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(3), 59-78.

AC

Lawson, M. & Lawson, H. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83, 432-479. Leaper, C. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (2nd ed., pp. 127–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lee, R., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 34

Psychology, 48(3), 310-318. Lee, S., Kushner, J., & Cho, S. (2007). Effects of parent’s gender, child’s gender, and parental involvement on the academic achievement of adolescents in single parent families. Sex Roles, 56(3-4), 149-157.

T

Lowe, K., & Dotterer, A. (2013). Parental monitoring, parental warmth, and minority youths’

IP

academic outcomes: Exploring the integrative model of parenting. Journal of Youth and

CR

Adolescence, 42(9), 1413-1425.

Mapp, K.L., & Kuttner, P.J. (2014). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework

US

for family-school partnerships. Austin, TX & Washington, DC: SEDL & U.S.

AN

Department of Education.

McLanahan, S., & Sawhill, I. (2015). Marriage and Child Wellbeing Revisited: Introducing the

M

Issue. The Future of Children, 25(2), 3-9.

ED

Melby, J., & Conger, R. (2001). The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales: Instrument summary. In P. K. Kerig & K. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding systems:

PT

Resources for systematic research (pp. 33–57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

CE

Morsbach, S., & Prinz, R. (2006). Understanding and improving the validity of self-report of parenting. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9(1), 1-21.

AC

Orfield, Gary. 2013. ―Housing Segregation Produces Unequal Schools: Causes and Solutions.‖ In P. Carter & K. Welner (Ed.), Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do To Give Every Child an Even Chance, 40-60, New York: Oxford University Press. Peterson, J., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(2), 295-307. Sampson, R.J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 35

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sarsour, K., Sheridan, M., Jutte, D., Nuru-Jeter, A., Hinshaw, S., & Boyce, W. (2011). Family socioeconomic status and child executive functions: the roles of language, home environment, and single parenthood. Journal of the International Neuropsychological

T

Society, 17(1), 120-132.

IP

Simons‐Morton, B., & Crump, A. (2003). Association of parental involvement and social

CR

competence with school adjustment and engagement among sixth graders. Journal of

US

School Health, 73(3), 121-126.

Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher

AN

behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.

M

Spera, C. (2006). Adolescents’ perceptions of parental goals, practices, and styles in relation to

ED

their motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 26(4), 456-490.

PT

Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73(1), 221-242.

CE

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). The majority of children live with two parents, Census Bureau

AC

Reports. Retrieved from: http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-192.html U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). College- and career-ready students. Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/college-career-ready.pdf Videon, T. M. (2002). The effects of parent‐adolescent relationships and parental separation on adolescent well‐being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 489-503. Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 20(2), 87-112.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 36

Wang, M., & Eccles, J. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 31-39. Wang, M., & Sheikh‐Khalil, S. (2014). Does parental involvement matter for student

T

achievement and mental health in high school?. Child Development, 85(2), 610-625.

IP

Warren, M. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard

CR

Educational Review, 75(2), 133-173.

US

Weiss, L. H., & Schwarz, J. C. (1996). The relationship between parenting types and older adolescents' personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child

AN

Development, 67(5), 2101-2114.

Wentzel, K. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of

M

parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.

ED

White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461-481.

PT

Woessmann, 2015. Single-parent families and student achievement: An international perspective.

CE

Education Next 15(2). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/international-look-single-

AC

parent-family/

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Parental monitoring, 37

AC

CE

PT

ED

M

AN

US

CR

IP

T

Highlights  Single-mothers influence engagement through monitoring and relationship quality  Monitoring and relationship quality independently predict engagement  Child gender and family income alter the influence that mothers have on engagement  Not all mother-headed single-parent families are equally “disadvantaged”