Part C justification for elements

PART C. JUSTIFICATION OF THE ECLS-K QUESTIONNAIRES

C1.

Introduction
This section presents the content of the five Early Childhood Longitudinal Study –

Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K) eighth grade questionnaires in detail. The five
instruments are:
Student Interview—to be administered to all students in the study. The
student instrument asks about school experiences, extracurricular activities,
family and peer relationships, general health, and diet.
Parent Interview—to be administered to all parents/guardians of children in
the study. The parent instrument asks about family structure, family resources,
family practices, and parent involvement in school. Parents provide
information on children’s social skills that are comparable to those in the
student questionnaire and also report on their children’s level of physical
functioning, health, and disabilities.
School Administrator Questionnaire—to be completed by the principal or
director of each school attended by a child in the study. This instrument
includes a broad range of questions about the school setting, policies,
programs, and practices at the school level and in the eighth grade and
questions about the principal and about the teaching staff.
Teacher Questionnaires—English, mathematics, and science teachers of
students in the study will complete a questionnaire asking about background
information and a questionnaire specific to the subject matter that he/she
teaches. The second instrument includes questions about the classroom and
student characteristics, instruction, school climate and teacher efficacy.
Special Education Teacher Questionnaire—to be completed by the special
education teacher or service provider for students in the study who have
Individual Education Plans (IEPs). This questionnaire is split into two
sections. The first section includes questions about the teacher’s background
and training. The second section is completed for each child who has an IEP
and includes child characteristics and services the child receives.
Section C3 presents the content of the eighth grade questionnaires.
Section C4 presents the research questions for ECLS-K and relates the constructs to
the key questions in the instruments.

C-1

C2.

Eighth Grade Data Collection

C2.1

ECLS-K Student Interview
The ECLS-K is a longitudinal study that has followed children since their

kindergarten year into middle and high school. Thus far, data collection has been completed for
kindergarten, first, third, and fifth grade. No data were collected for children in the second or
fourth grade. The current OMB submission includes questionnaires that will be used for students
in the spring of 2007 when most of the students will be in the eighth grade.
The students in the study are from a broad range of family and community
backgrounds and entered kindergarten with widely differing abilities and levels of preparation for
school. Understanding these variations and examining the ways in which home, school, and peer
environments interact in relation to them as students progress through school is a key goal of the
ECLS-K. Conducting interviews with students is central to obtaining the information necessary to
measure these constructs over time.
The student questionnaire is included in Appendix A. Students are asked questions
that address topics central to adolescent development, with a primary focus on topics that are
important for understanding adolescent academic achievement. The sections of the student
questionnaire and abbreviations are shown below.
School Experiences (SE);
Activities (AC);
About Yourself (AY);
Weight and Exercise (WE); and
Your Diet (YD).
School Experiences. The ECLS-K is designed to collect information on a wide
variety of students’ school experiences. Most of the constructs on the student questionnaire are
related to school experiences.

C-2

The student questionnaire will collect the following information about school
experiences:
Academic track;
Education support services;
School connectedness;
Academic expectation;
Student engagement; and
Tutor/mentor assistance.
These constructs reflect important dimensions in students’ school experiences that
shape their development. Academic track information summarizes the nature and focus of the
student’s school experiences, distinguishing general from vocational or college preparatory
emphasis. Support services information such as dropout prevention programs or special collegepreparation programs may influence students’ dropout propensity and prospects for pursuing
higher education, as may school connectedness, measured here by reports of school-related affect
such as enjoying being at school. Student development is related to the fit or match between
students and their schools (Eccles et al., 1993), and the school connectedness measures may tap
into an important aspect of this fit between students and schools. Students will provide
information about their engagement with school by reporting their efforts in school, the
importance they attribute to getting good grades, how well they get along with others at school,
and how much time they spend on homework. These measures reflect aspects of student
motivation to succeed (see Eccles, Wigfiled, and Schiefel, 1998) and likely contribute to
academic success. Students will report whether they have had a tutor or mentor to help them with
math or reading skills, which will indicate the availability of a potentially valuable resource to the
students. Students will also report the highest level of education they expect to obtain, which may
be predictive of effort and achievement over time.
Activities. Adolescents pursue a wide range of leisure activities, with some
participating in school or non-school based organized activities and others pursuing unorganized
activities. Research has shown that adolescent participation in organized activities, such as
athletics, has been shown to have a positive effect on academic outcomes (Videon, 2002), while
pursuing less active forms of leisure such as television watching has been shown to have negative
effects on educational attainment (Hancox, Milne, and Poulton, 2005).

C-3

The student questionnaire will collect information on the following types of
activities:
School-sponsored activities;
Non-school sponsored activities;
Reading books;
Reading newspapers and watching TV news;
TV and video game use; and
Computer use.
About Yourself. Adolescence is the time period where students have a heightened
awareness of their self-image as they begin becoming more autonomous and responsible for
making major decisions for themselves (Rosenberg, 1989). In the third and fifth grade data
collections the ECLS-K asked students to respond to a self-description questionnaire, and the
current plan is to continue administering an age-appropriate self-description questionnaire.
The student questionnaire will collect the following information:
Self-description questionnaire; and
Locus of control/general self.
Parents remain as the central social and emotional resources for adolescents despite
transformations in the parent-child relationship during the adolescent years (Collins and Laursen,
2004). Parental influence during adolescence is still important for school performance,
expectations for the future, and relationships with adolescent peers and adults.
The student questionnaire will collect the following information about parent
relationships:
Parent communication; and
Social support (receipt of).
Peer relationships are very important in the lives of adolescents since they represent
a challenging social context that consist of dyadic relationships, small groups, and crowds

C-4

(Brown, 2004). Most adolescents report having at least one close friend and tend to choose
friends who are like themselves. Given the importance of peer relationships one consistent line of
inquiry has been to understand the effects of peer influence, or more specifically whether and
how adolescent peers affect one another (Brown, 2004). One area of interest in this study is
gauging the peer characteristics and values of the adolescents participating in the ECLS-K as
research has indicated that peer group membership is associated with academic achievement
(Wentzel and Caldwell, 1997).
The student questionnaire will collect the following information about peer
relationships:
Characteristics and values of friends; and
Social support (receipt of).
General Health, Weight, and Exercise. Approximately 16 percent of adolescents
aged 12 to 19 were classified as overweight in 2002 (Hedley, Odgen, Johnson, Carroll, Curtin,
and Flegal, 2003); though the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has estimated that nearly 30
percent of ninth to twelfth grade students in 2003 described themselves as slightly or very
overweight. Additionally it is estimated that among overweight children three out of every five
also have a risk factor for heart disease such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure
(Freedman, Dietz, Srinivasan, and Berenson, 1999). The CDC also estimated that in 2003 only 28
percent of ninth to twelfth grade students attended physical education classes daily, that 63
percent exercised or participated in physical activity for 20 minutes or longer that made them
sweat or breathe hard at least three or more of the past seven days, and that 12 percent of students
did not engage in any vigorous or moderate physical activity over the past seven days.
The ECLS-K has collected height and weight measurements at each data collection
period throughout the entire study. The plan is to continue collecting the height and weight
measurements and ask students about their perceptions of their own weight, forms of dieting they
may be considering, and the amount of exercise they get.

C-5

The student questionnaire will collect the following information about general
health, weight, exercise, and food consumption:
Perception of weight;
Dieting; and
Physical activity.
Your Diet. The ECLS-K began collecting children’s dietary habits during the 5th
Grade data collection. The plan is to continue collecting children’s dietary habits. Appendix F
provides the questions developed by the USDA. The questions ask children to report on whether
they can buy certain kinds of foods and drinks at school, how many times in the past week they
have purchased certain kinds of foods and drinks at school, and in general how often in the past
week they have eaten kinds of foods.

C2.2

ECLS-K Parent Interview
The role of the parent in these interviews is to provide information on their child’s

home environment, including parenting practices, family interactions, expectations for behavior
and performance, and the family’s involvement with the school. In addition, the parents provide
complementary information on their child’s physical and emotional health, as well as information
their child’s access to regular medical services. The ECLS-K defines the parent to be interviewed
as the child’s primary caretaker at the time of the interview. Information will also be collected
about other parental figures in the household.
In order to provide continuity with measures used with parents of fifth graders, some
of the content from earlier data collection points is included in the extension instruments. Some
questions have been modified slightly to be appropriate to eighth graders. In addition, several
questions were adapted and modified from existing NCES surveys that have targeted middle and
high school populations such as the NELS:88, and the ELS:2002. Items new to the ECLS-K and
their sources are shown in the questionnaire above the new question. Those that have been
changed for the ECLS-K are listed as “modified.” The parent questionnaire is located in
Appendix B.

C-6

The sections of the parent questionnaire and abbreviations are shown below:
Introduction (section INQ);
Parent Involvement (section PIQ);
Family Structure (section FSQ);
Home Environment, Activities, and Cognitive Stimulation (section HEQ);
Schooling (section SCQ);
Critical Family Processes (section CFQ);
Discipline, Warmth, and Emotional Supportiveness (section DWQ);
Non-resident Parent Questions (section NRQ);
Primary Home Language (PLQ);
Child Health and Well-being (section CHQ);
Parent’s Psychological Well-being and Health (section PPQ);
Parent Education (section PEQ);
Parent Employment (section EMQ);
Welfare and Other Public Transfers (section WPQ);
Food Security (FDQ);
Parent Income and Assets (section PAQ); and
Child Mobility and Plans to Move (section CMQ).
Parental Involvement. Parental involvement in education has proven to be a critical
influence on school outcomes for both preschool and school-aged children (Stallings and Stipek,
1986). However, parent involvement is not a single construct but rather refers to many diverse
types of home-school interaction. One form of parent involvement involves parents working with
their child on homework or educational activities at home or arranging for other persons inside or
outside the household to help with homework or tutor the child. Other ways that parents are
involved with their children include negotiation with school systems and teachers on behalf of
their children; parents’ knowledge about and interaction with teachers and school administrators;
parental participation in organized school activities or school management; and parents’

C-7

representations to their children about the value of school and school work, including the way in
which parents interpret grades and feedback from the school to children (Lareau, 1989).
The research on parent involvement describes not just how parents are involved with
schools but also how schools work to involve parents. Many recent programs designed to increase
the effectiveness of schools have developed procedures for increasing parent involvement
(Comer, 1988; Madden, Slavin, Karweit, Dolan, and Wasik, 1993). The middle and high school
extensions of the ECLS-K will ask parents about the parenting practices and behaviors they use to
promote their child’s performance and engagement with school. The parent interview also asks
parents the extent of their involvement in their child’s school activities such homework and
school-related events.
One question of interest is how school practices, parent education, and parent
involvement are related. Past research has shown positive correlations between parental education
and the extent of their contacts with teachers on academic issues (Lareau, 1989; Schneider and
Coleman, 1993). The ECLS-K will provide information about whether schools and teachers that
work hard to involve more parents are successful in reducing the social class differences in
participation.
The following data about parent involvement will be collected:
Parent’s choice of school for child;
Parent contact with teachers or school;
Parent attendance at parent-teacher conferences and meetings
Parent participation in school activities;
Parent’s evaluation of school practices to communicate with parents;
Parent involvement in non-school activities with their child;
Parent networks;
School climate;
Involvement of parents or other persons in helping with homework;

C-8

Parental discussions about school and post-high school plans (e.g., college
and work); and
Parent-child communication and interactions.
Home Environment, Activities, and Cognitive Stimulation. The activities and
relationship between parent and child represent the direct linkage between parental characteristics
and the child’s development. The parenting practices of the mother are closely associated with the
development of the child (see Maccoby and Martin, 1983, for a review), but the practices of the
biological father and other parent figures in the household such as stepparents and grandmothers
may also be critical.
Many studies have examined the importance of the quality of the home environment
(including both cognitive stimulation and emotional supportiveness) for children’s development.
For example, a home environment in which parents are involved and engaged in their child’s
learning and school activities has been associated with better academic outcomes for children in
the middle and high school years. These data suggest that it is not social class per se but rather the
types of home environments provided by parents that are important in children’s development. In
fact, research points to wide variability in the home environment of children within the same
socioeconomic class.
The following ECLS-K constructs will address questions concerning how the home
environment influences children’s cognitive and social development:
Family activities and routines;
Outings and activities with child;
Time spent on homework;
Parent/child communication;
Parent’s reading habits
Availability and use of a home computer; and
Parental monitoring of television viewing.
Schooling. In addition to parental involvement at home, the middle and high school
phases of the ECLS-K is also interested in ascertaining parents’ knowledge of their child’s
school. Parent’s knowledge and information about their child’s school is an important factor

C-9

associated with parental involvement in school. This includes whether their child attends a local
neighborhood school or another school of their choice. The interview will also ask parents about
their child’s school performance and history of any disciplinary actions such as suspensions or
expulsions. In addition, this section of the parent interview will also ask parents about their views
and evaluations of their child’s performance and effectiveness in educating their child.
Contact with other parents of children in child’s class;
Parent’s satisfaction with school quality and performance; and
Suspensions and expulsions.
Critical Family Processes. Primary care givers need to provide for children’s basic
material needs, nurturance, and protection. Parents are less able to perform as effective caregivers
when the family is dysfunctional. A variety of family circumstances pose threats to the healthy
functioning and development of children, for example, family illness and disability and high
levels of interparental conflict (Shonkoff, 1992; Peterson and Zill, 1986).
Conflict between parents negatively influences the psychological adjustment of
school-age children, whether parents live together or not (Grych and Fincham, 1990). Social and
material supports for parenting, both on a regular basis and in case of an emergency, may
improve parenting styles and enhance parents’ ability to foster their child’s development.
Family routines and the regularity of family life play an important role for schoolage children. Family routines provide a source of stability, especially during periods of stressful
transitions. Parental activities to teach children about their cultural/racial/ethnic identity may also
improve emotional and social development. In addition, family activities that involve attendance
at religious services has been associated with lower incidences of risk and delinquency behaviors
among older children.
The following constructs will address research questions having to do with how
family processes influence children’s development:
Social, material, and emotional support;
Religious affiliation and activity; and
Family routines.

C-10

Discipline, Warmth, and Emotional Supportiveness. Warm, accepting maternal
behaviors are positively linked to children’s intellectual and emotional development (see
Maccoby and Martin, 1983 for a review; Baumrind, 1971a, Baumrind, 1971b). The use of harsh,
controlling disciplinary techniques is negatively associated with children’s adjustment. For
example, Hess and McDevitt (1984) found that mother’s use of direct control tactics at age 4
negatively predicted children’s school-related abilities at ages 4, 5, 6, and 12 (in Powell, 1992).
Similarly, Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, and Fraleigh (1987) found that authoritarian
parenting (which stresses obedience) is negatively associated with school grades among
adolescents.
Another area of interest in the study is parental monitoring that extends beyond the
school setting. In a review of the literature on this topic, Maccoby and Martin (1983) note that
during middle childhood, parents’ awareness of the children’s whereabouts, activities, and
associates when away from home is a contributor to children’s social development. For example,
Dishion (1990) found that parental monitoring is positively related to peer acceptance in the early
school years. One way that parents can effectively know about where their children are and what
their activities are is by knowing and communicating with other parents of their children’s
friends. As a measure of this, the third grade parent interview will include an item about the
parental contact that was used previously in the study.
Parents’ beliefs and expectations about their children are another area of interest in
the ECLS-K. Parents’ expectations for student performance and their ideas about children’s
ability are powerful predictors of children’s ideas about their own academic competence in
middle and high school grades (Entwisle and Baker, 1983; Parsons, Adler, and Kaczala, 1982).
Indeed, parental perceptions of their children’s ability have a greater influence on children’s
academic performance in school than their actual ability as measured by standardized tests
(Parsons, Adler, and Kaczala, 1982).
The ECLS-K will provide information about how the following variables relate to
both family background and children’s successful development:
Parenting behaviors;
Parental monitoring;
Parenting style;
Disciplinary practices;

C-11

Listening and communication;
Contact with other parents of children in child’s class;
Parent’s educational expectations for child; and
Parent’s appraisal of child’s school performance.
Involvement of Nonresident Parent. Asking questions about nonresidential parents
is of great interest to experts on family involvement. Nearly a third of all children are born outside
of marriage, and the majority of these children do not live with their fathers. The high incidence
of divorce and separation in this country leads to more children living apart from one of their
parents.

C-12

Although many fathers who do not live with their children lose contact with them
over time and tend to play a smaller role with their children than do resident fathers, a significant
proportion of nonresident fathers do remain involved. Moreover, their involvement is important
to children’s lives (Amato 1998; Nord, Brimhall, and West, 1998). Although the majority of
nonresident parents are fathers, an increasing number of children have nonresident mothers. For
both policy reasons and to understand children’s development, it is important to learn more about
both fathers and mothers who live apart from their children.
Several studies have shown a link between receipt of child support and educational
attainment and academic achievement (Knox and Bane, 1994; Baydar and Brooks-Gunn, 1994).
Payment of child support also appears to be associated with a lower level of school behavior
problems (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). Most studies focus on formal child support
payments, but nonresident parents may also provide support informally. One study found that
among mothers with no child support awards, 24 percent of divorced or separated mothers and 47
percent of mothers of children born outside of marriage received some monetary support from
fathers (Argys, Peters, Brooks-Gunn, and Smith, 1996). Other studies have found that fathers,
particularly those who are economically disadvantaged and therefore cannot make regular support
payments, contribute to their children in other ways such as buying food or clothing (Sullivan
1993; Achatz and MacAllum, 1994).
The following data about nonresident parents will be collected in the parent
questionnaire:
Current contact;
Distance from the nonresident parent’s home to the child’s home;
Child support; and
Payment of other bills and expenses.
Primary Language Update. A child’s family background and demographic
characteristics will be important elements in addressing many research questions. For example,
aspects of family social background have been associated with children’s developmental status at
the beginning of school and to later school success as well. A persistent reality of the U.S.
educational system is the existence of disparities among racial groups in school achievement
(Entwisle and Alexander, 1994; Dreeben and Gamoran,1986; Fernandez and Nielson, 1986). An
important family background factor that is associated with school outcomes is family and parental

C-13

home

primary

language.

This

section

C-14

of

the

parent

interview

will assess primary home language and the extent to which children are raised in bilingual and
multilingual households. The ECLS-K will gather data on the following aspects of family
structure:
Spoken home language, and
English reading and speaking skills.
Child’s Health and Well-Being. The importance of children’s health for school
success is well established. Chronic conditions and disabilities, such as hearing impairment and
physical handicaps not only “flag” youngsters for administrative attention, they also shape the
way that parents, peers, and school personnel relate to the child (Alexander and Entwisle, 1988).
Even relatively mild conditions, such as earaches or allergies, may affect children’s performance
in school if left untreated.
Other important indices of children’s well-being include rate of growth, physical
fitness, health care utilization, and the consequences of the irregular medical care received by
some poor school-aged children (Newacheck and Hallfon, 1988).
A number of health risks, such as poor nutrition, obesity, and accidental injuries,
have detrimental effects on children’s school performance. For example, children who are
exposed to even moderate amounts of lead in early childhood later exhibit sevenfold increases in
school drop-out rates, sixfold increases in reading disability, and lower final high school class
standing (Needleman, Schell, Bellinger, Leviton, and Allred, 1990). In addition, this section will
assess children’s history any mental or behavioral illness as well as services obtained to treat
those condition.
The ECLS-K will collect the following data in the parent questionnaire:
General health;
Disabilities;
Chronic illness and disease;
Medical care and insurance;
Medications;

C-15

Injuries; and
Therapy service.
Parent’s Psychological Well-Being and Health. Parents who are depressed or
highly stressed are less likely to provide emotional support and more likely to employ harsh
disciplinary practices (Puckering 1989; Moore, Zaslow, Miller, and Magenheim, 1995). Maternal
emotional distress is associated with a lower frequency of positive behavior toward the child and
a higher frequency of negative behavior. In interactions with preschool children, depressed
mothers are more critical, less responsive, and less active and spontaneous (McLloyd and Wilson,
1991). Such parenting styles are consistently associated with poorer child outcomes (see
Maccoby and Martin, 1983 for a review of this literature).
The ECLS-K will collect the following dimensions of parental well-being in the
parent questionnaire:
Depression or subjective well-being;
General health status; and
Family health limitations.
Parent Education. Parent’s educational attainment has a strong influence on the
child’s odds of attaining a given level of schooling, for example, completing high school or
college (e.g., Hauser and Mossel, 1985; Sewell and Hauser, 1976; Bowles and Gintis, 1976).
Parental education also predicts the child’s success in the early primary grades (Alexander and
Entwisle, 1988).
Possible mechanisms for the effect of parental education are inherited ability, access
to educational resources, differences in the value the parent places on education for the child, and
ascriptive biases in both the formal organization of instruction and informal social relationships
within the school setting (Bidwell and Friedkin, 1988). Time use studies have shown that
maternal education is a strong predictor of the amount of time mothers spend playing with
children under 18, teaching them, and taking them on outings (Hill and Stafford, 1980). Other
research has suggested that the interaction between a parent and child, especially the amount the
parent speaks to an infant or small child, dramatically affects the child’s vocabulary development
(Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, and Lyons, 1991).

C-16

The ECLS-K will continue collecting information on educational attainment from
the parents (or the respondent and his/her spouse/partner if there are no parents in the household):
Diplomas or degrees obtained (collected for new persons to the study and
updated for those who were in the study previously);
Parents’ current school attendance; and
Parents’ current job training.
Parent Employment. Parental employment status affects the amount of material
resources available to the child. Meta-analyses of several studies document that socioeconomic
status (parent occupation and education) is positively associated with the quality of stimulation
that parents provide their children (Gottfried 1984). The ECLS-K will continue collecting the
following information from the parents:
Parents’ current employment; and
Parents’ work schedule (total hours per week worked).
Welfare and Other Public Transfers. Receipt of welfare benefits, particularly if
receipt is long-term, reflects a high level of economic deprivation and generally low human
capital on the part of the mother (Zill, Moore, Smith, Stief, and Coiro, 1991; Bane and Ellwood,
1983). McLoyd and Wilson (1991) found that poor single mothers were substantially more likely
to be depressed and to provide a nonstimulating environment to their children ages 10 to 17.
Subsequently, children of welfare families demonstrate poorer outcomes across a variety of
domains, compared with more advantaged children (Moore, Zaslow, Coiro, and Morrison, 1993).
On the other hand, net of welfare status and income, the receipt of associated benefits such as
Food Stamps, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and Medicaid should have positive
implications for children’s physical health.
One question to be considered is how the pattern of welfare receipt over time affects
children’s adjustment to and progress through school. For many children, poverty is not a
persistent fact of life but a temporary event (Duncan, 1991). In analyzing patterns of poverty
among children under 4 for the subsequent 15 years, Duncan and Rodgers (1988) found that black
children lived in poverty for an average of 5.5 years, while non-black children lived in poverty
0.9

years.

The

duration

C-17

of

poverty

has

been found to have a powerful effect on both cognitive development and behavior among
children under 5 (Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov, 1994). The following questions will be
asked:
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) receipt since child’s birth
and in last 12 months;
Receipt of Food Stamps during past 12 months;
Work or other requirements for receiving TANF/Food Stamps; and
Participation in Federal School Lunch or Breakfast Program.
Parent Income and Assets. Family income, the net of parent education and
employment, affects the family’s material standard of living, neighborhood and housing quality,
opportunities for stimulating recreation and cultural experiences, and the stress and psychological
well-being of the parents. Youngsters from more economically advantaged households tend to be
more successful in the primary grades compared to their less advantaged peers (Alexander and
Entwisle, 1988).
One area of concern is the impact of income volatility on children’s development
and adjustment to school. Duncan (1991) has found that many households with children under 5
experience extreme ups and downs in the amount of money available to the family, especially as
a result of divorce or remarriage. Over a quarter of all children under 5, and over a third of black
children, lived in households in which the ratio of income-to-needs dropped by more than half at
least once during a 10-year period. Clearly, income is not a stable background characteristic but
rather a dynamic force. The consequences for children of changes in income levels merit further
scrutiny.
The following constructs will be measured by the ECLS-K in this area:
Income;
Home ownership; and
Home value.
Child Mobility and Plans to Move. As children in the ECLS-K transition to middle
and high school, they are expected move both residences and schools. Research on children’s
adjustment to school has examined both the number and frequency of residential and school

C-18

moves. School and residential mobility has been associated with both school adjustment and
academic performance.
The following constructs will be measured by the ECLS-K in this area:
Number of previous residences;
Reasons for residential moves; and
Number of school changes.

C2.3

School Administrator Questionnaire
The ECLS-K will collect data on school composition, conditions, policies, and

practices from principals in schools attended by ECLS-K participants. The student is the central
unit of analysis, and school component data will be used to illuminate the school context of
ECLS-K children and investigate the influence of school and administrator attributes on student
outcomes. The school administrator questionnaire is contained in Appendix C. The instrument is
primarily composed of questions from prior rounds of the ECLS-K and from ELS. In comparison
to prior rounds of ECLS-K, this data collection adds or supplements coverage of constructs
including teacher salaries, the length of the school year, school-wide standardized testing, and
course offerings. The items included in the instrument are described in more detail below.
School Characteristics and Resources. The number of days the school is in session
sets bounds on the quantity of schooling children receive and thus can influence learning
outcomes. School size and average daily attendance influence the stability in classroom
membership experienced by an individual student. Grade span has important implications for
children’s school experiences, dictating the number of school transitions they must make between
levels of schooling and the age range of their potential school friends. These data will allow
comparisons of schools that vary by these organizational features.
The remaining school characteristics measure the following attributes of schools:
School type (including public or private);
Special mission or philosophy, including magnet status;
Private school tuition;

C-19

Total enrollment;
Ethnic and racial composition of the student population;
Percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch;
Percentage of students with limited English proficiency (LEP);
Standardized test score data;
Receipt of Title 1 funding; and
Implementation of adequate yearly progress or accountability standards.
This set of items broadly defines the charter and basic resources of the school. These
factors help determine the student clientele, the goals and purposes of instruction, time and
resource constraints, and opportunities and resources to meet educational objectives.
The type of school attended has important implications for student experience and
achievement. Most public elementary schools are not selective, enrolling all children within
predefined attendance zones. Private schools, by contrast, typically have some kind of admission
policy and therefore can be more selective in their enrollment. Of nonpublic schools, parochial
schools, especially Catholic schools, have received the most research attention (e.g., Bryk, Lee,
and Holland, 1993). Catholic schools tend to have high student commitment (reflected in low
absenteeism rates and, for high school students, low dropout rates) and high academic
achievement, despite a high level of heterogeneity in the student body. This success has been
attributed to a number of factors, among them uniformly high academic and behavioral standards,
common goals, and a sense of community shared with teachers, children, and parents. The ECLSK data will provide important opportunities to contribute to the literature on effects of school
type. Not only will analysts have information about sector, they will also know whether schools
include magnet programs, if they are charter schools, and if they are schools of choice. Because
much of the research on school type has been conducted at the high school level, these data will
provide important new opportunities for research in this area.
The composition of the student body will have important consequences for the types
of programs and services that schools offer. The diversity of student populations with respect to
social and economic background, preparation for school, needs for special services, and levels of
proficiency in English has created a number of challenges for schools. ECLS-K will allow
analysts to examine how schools have responded to student diversity.

C-20

Apart from its effects on program delivery, the composition of the student body may
influence student achievement and attitudes. Previous research suggests that attending a school
with a higher average ability level tends to depress children’s expectations and self-conceptions
of ability slightly because of the increased competition within the school. On the other hand,
children in higher SES schools benefit from access to more higher-level courses and interactions
with achievement-oriented peers (Alexander and Eckland, 1975; Jencks et al., 1972). Most of the
research on school composition, however, has been conducted only in high schools; ECLS-K will
allow researchers to examine similar longitudinally from early elementary school through high
school.
The other variables in this set provide the “backdrop” for educational processes
occurring within the school. Total enrollment, school capacity, and sources of funding define both
the size of the population to be served and the resources to do so. Overcrowding can be a serious
problem, as can inadequate facilities and low levels of funding. Having a relatively unstable
population of children can potentially make the educational mission much harder, as can having a
high rate of absenteeism. Altogether these variables define important differences between
schools.
Community Characteristics and School Safety. Schools’ neighborhoods may have
a long-term cumulative influence on both children and their schools. School-level characteristics
are likely to parallel those for the local neighborhood (demographically, but also, importantly, in
terms of attitudes, values, and expectations). The community characteristics items in the school
questionnaire focus on school and neighborhood safety. Schools in crime-ridden areas may have
to prioritize security within and around the school, limiting outdoor activity and exposing
students to heightened risks.
Drug and alcohol use, which may be related to gang activity, are important safety
concerns for adolescents, and the frequency of these activities in the school may affect individual
students’ propensity to engage in risky behaviors and may affect academic performance. Bullying
is also believed to have deleterious effects on adolescent development and may contribute to a
cycle of violence (Spivak and Prothrow-Stith, 2001). Items on the school administrator
questionnaire will estimate the frequency of these activities at school.

C-21

The ECLS-K items that characterize community contexts include questions about:
Neighborhood problems (racial tensions, garbage or litter, and crime);
School safety;
Alcohol and drug use at school;
Bullying; and
Gang activity.
The neighborhood questions ask about the neighborhood that the school is located
in. The data in the questionnaires can be combined with census data that characterize the
neighborhood in other ways (by racial composition, employment, and so on).
School Policies and Evaluation. Policies regarding course tracking and
standardized testing may be associated with differences in children’s opportunities to learn.
Variables included in ECLS-K are:
Tracking;
Student performance on standardized tests; and
Testing as a condition of high school graduation.

Evaluation takes a number of forms and has a range of short-term and long-term
purposes. Standardized tests and formal report cards are joined by teacher praise, stars and check
marks, and so on. The purposes and use of these forms of evaluation differ, however. For
example, standardized test scores may guide placements and special service delivery, certify that
children are prepared to move on to the next level of education, or assess school performance.
Academic Options and Course Offerings. The availability of accelerated or
Advanced Placement courses presents students with opportunities for higher achievement. Other
programs, such as remedial reading and math, IEPs, bilingual education, vocational education,
and ESL address the varied needs of students. Variables included in ECLS-K are:
Instructional programs (including IEP, ESL, remedial classes and specialized
programs);

C-22

Gatekeeping courses (Algebra in grade 8, Pre-Calculus in high school); and
Advanced Placement course and IB program availability.
Principal Characteristics. Characteristics of a school’s staff influence the quality
of the educational environment. The principal has an especially large part to play: conveying and
implementing state and district requirements and initiatives, assuming the role of inspirational
leader for the staff, coordinating reform efforts, and managing the day-to-day operations of the
school. Many principals also have additional teaching or administrative duties. How principals
exercise these duties may influence teachers’ motivation, enthusiasm, and commitment to
education.
Although there is an extensive literature on how leadership skills create conditions
conducive to effective schools, there is little evidence addressing the importance of variation in
the following principal characteristics. The following variables might help explain why certain
principals are especially successful, however:
Principal’s gender;
Principal’s age;
Principal’s race-ethnicity;
Principal’s years at this school;
Principal’s years in the role of principal;
Principal’s years of teaching experience; and
Principal’s formal education.

C2.4

Teacher Questionnaire
Although parents and the social context of the home profoundly shape the

development of the child, school experiences are also of great importance. Following the pattern
of the NELS:88, the ECLS-K will collect information from the teachers of the sampled children.
Teacher questionnaires are included in Appendix D. Each student’s English, mathematics, and
science teachers will complete a questionnaire that is tailored to the respective subject matter the
teacher teaches. The primary purpose of these data is to help describe and explain developmental
opportunity and outcome differences among the sampled children.

C-23

In addition, teachers will be asked to provide information on the study participants
who are in their classes, completing one form for each ECLS-K child. The ECLS-K assessment
battery provides an objective assessment of academic outcomes for the nationally representative
sample of children. Teachers can provide another perspective, albeit a less objective perspective,
on children’s abilities and behavior because they spend a great deal more time with the children
under far more routine conditions.
The ECLS-K teacher questionnaire remains similar in general scope to the ones
administered in prior rounds of data collection. Some items from the fifth grade questionnaire
have been retained, while many new items have been drawn from the teacher questionnaires of
the ELS, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Schools and Staffing Survey
(SASS), and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2003) to reflect the
instruction and skills appropriate to eighth graders rather than to younger children.
A large number of small-scale studies have identified relationships between various
kinds of schooling experiences and learning outcomes. ECLS-K will make two major
contributions to our understanding of these relationships. One is the assessment of the generality
of the results: Do the findings from the smaller-scale, usually local, studies hold for children
across the country? A second contribution is that ECLS-K will allow researchers to assess the
relationships more rigorously. This is because ECLS-K collects a much broader range of
variables and collects that information longitudinally. The broader range of variables allows one
to study simultaneously the relationships of several variables with the outcomes and thus assess
the relative importance of particular schooling variables compared to other schooling and family
background variables. The longitudinal nature of the ECLS-K design allows one to link children’s
classroom experiences to changes in their cognitive achievement and attitudes.
The ECLS-K teacher questionnaire will ask teachers to provide information on
student engagement and academic motivation, attendance, and academic honors; class
composition and behavior; course type, content, and activities; instructional materials and
methods of evaluation; school climate and teacher efficacy; and background information about
the teacher, including demographic and socioeconomic background, education, experience, and
qualifications. Information on the children’s special education services will be gathered from
special education teachers and related service providers. Information from the teachers will be
obtained primarily through self-administered questionnaires. The ECLS-K teacher questionnaire
appears in Appendix D.
C-24

Student information. The first set of constructs concerns the student. These items
are drawn from the ELS questionnaire and focus on topics of concern for research on adolescents.
Items ask the teacher to rate each ECLS-K child’s academic efforts, behavior, and skills at
expression. Prior rounds of ECLS-K obtained more extensive rating information from elementary
school teachers, but these items have been omitted from the present questionnaire in favor of
other sources of this information such as grades and students’ performance on assessments.
The following student-level information will be gathered from teachers in ECLS-K:
Academic effort;
Emotional behavior;
Keeping up with school work;
Classroom behavior;
Writing skills; and
Oral expression.
Class Information. The total number of children enrolled in a class is a widely used
index of instructional quality at all levels of education. Class size is usually considered important
because of the constraints it places on teacher-child interactions. The time available for
individuation and small-group supervision is reduced as class size increases, and this is widely
believed to result in lower student achievement levels. In schools that are obliged to enroll more
children than they were constructed to accommodate, class size may cause serious problems.
Most research on school-age children has analyzed correlations between schoolwide ratios and student outcomes. Because the school average can be very different from what
most children in the school actually experience, measurement error is clearly a problem in this
research. Not surprisingly, then, the record shows mixed results. Characteristics of children in the
classroom will include:
Race-ethnicity; and
Overall behavior of the class.

C-25

Instruction. This section of the teacher questionnaire contains the following
constructs:
Class time;
Course type (subject matter);
Time allocation and content coverage;
Activities;
Amount of homework;
Instructional materials;
Evaluation (grading); and
Adequacy of science laboratory resources.
A topic of research interest is the educational environments that contribute to
positive adolescent outcomes. A large number of studies over the past several years have
emphasized the importance of “time on task” for student achievement (Greenwood, 1991;
Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, and Carta, 1994; Wang, Haertel, and Walberg, 1990). Children
achieve more (as measured by achievement tests) in classrooms where a higher proportion of time
is spent in academic instruction and where they are engaged in their work with few interruptions
or few periods of unoccupied time (Crocker and Brooker, 1986; Greenwood, 1991; Powell, 1980;
Soar and Soar, 1979; Teddlie, Kirby, and Stringfield, 1989).
Time on task extends beyond the school day when teachers assign homework and
children complete the assignments. Studies of achievement among secondary students show that
outcomes are slightly higher for those who do more homework (Gamoran, 1987; Hoffer and
Moore, 1995).
Substantial research interest focuses on the relationship between subject matter
content of courses and classroom instructional processes, which are likely to affect students’
mastery of the material. Teachers will complete questions to indicate the type of course, the
relative emphasis of different subjects within the course, and the extent to which the teacher
employs selected instructional techniques, such as assigning homework, requiring students to
work with a partner, requiring classroom discussion, or giving tests or quizzes. Thus, the ECLS-K
teacher questionnaire measures what is taught and how it is taught (i.e., using what materials and
activities). This information should prove useful for understanding the complex ways that
C-26

opportunity to learn influences children’s academic development, as well as documenting
differences in those opportunities. Teachers will also report on the factors they consider when
grading student work. The basis for grading creates formal incentives for student behavior, and
the ECLS-K will be able to test for associations between these incentives and student outcomes.
Classes are likely to vary in terms of the availability and quality of instructional
materials, such as textbooks and supplies. The adequacy of non-textbook materials may be of
special interest for science classes because of materials requirements for laboratory work.
Because standards of adequacy for many resources depend on many conditions, it is probably
best to ask science teachers about the degree to which they believe laboratory equipment is
adequately provided to their classes.
School Climate and Teacher Efficacy. Teachers’ satisfaction with the amount of
autonomy afforded them and the extent to which they feel effective has a strong effect on
teachers’ overall job commitment and interaction styles with children (Manlove, 1993; Rosenthal,
1991; Webb and Lowther, 1993). A teacher’s sense of professional efficacy is associated with
student outcomes. In ECLS-K, teachers’ autonomy, input into school policies, and sense of
efficacy will be measured. These can then be used to address questions having to do with how
these relate to teaching practices and ultimately to child outcomes, such as the following:
Teachers’ influence over school policies;
Teachers’ control over classroom planning and teaching;
Teachers’ sense of efficacy; and
Teachers’ perception of school climate.
Teacher Information. Teacher demographic variables are mainly of interest in the
context of fit with children’s backgrounds. Although teacher race-ethnicity and gender are not
likely to make much difference to student achievement generally, they may interact with student
background variables to produce interesting results.
Although studies have found substantial variation in teacher training at the preschool
level, the differences tend to be smaller at higher levels. Moreover, the differences that are found
on such conventional yardsticks as highest degree earned and major field of study are at best
weakly related to student cognitive outcomes (Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald, 1994).

C-27

Nonetheless, these indicators continue to be used as bases for salary differences and hiring
decisions and should be included in ECLS-K.
A teacher’s years of teaching experience is also a variable that is taken very
seriously in schools but that has only weak systematic relationships with student test scores
(Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald, 1994). Questions are included that tap the number of years total
and the number of years at the current grade level.
The following demographic, training, and experience variables will be collected as
part of ECLS-K:
Teacher’s gender;
Teacher’s age
Teacher’s race-ethnicity
Total years teaching experience, overall and in this grade;
Total years teaching experience at this school;
Teacher’s education; and
Type of teaching certification held.

C2.5

Special Education Teacher Questionnaire
Like their regular classroom teacher counterparts, teachers who provide special

education and related services to study participants will be asked to complete a questionnaire.
Special education teacher questionnaire is presented in Appendix E. The first part of the
questionnaire gathers data on teacher background, training, and experience; the items are parallel
to those on the teacher questionnaire. On the second part of the questionnaire, these teachers are
asked to provide information on the study participants with whom they work, completing one
form for each ECLS-K child who has an IEP.

C-28

Teacher Background. The following demographic, training, and experience
variables will be collected from special education service providers of ECLS-K children:
Teacher’s gender;
Teacher’s age;
Teacher’s race-ethnicity;
Total years teaching experience;
Total years as a special education teacher;
Total years teaching experience at this school;
Teacher’s education, including degrees and coursework;
Type of teaching certification held;
Specific position held in the school;
Locations in which the teacher delivers services within the school; and
Number of students with IEPs with whom the teacher works during a typical
week.
Student-Level Information. Part B of the special education teacher questionnaire
asks the teacher to provide the following student-level information:
Child’s disabilities;
Goals contained in the child’s IEP;
Child’s classroom placement;
Type and amount of special education services the child receives;
Teaching methods and materials used, including assistive technologies;
Communications with other teachers about the child;
Communication with the child’s parents;
Individual evaluations;
Extent to which the IEP goals have been met; and

C-29

Performance and achievement groups and interactions with the child’s
parents. The academic rating scales are based on the ECLS-K assessment
battery.

C3.

Eighth Grade Data Collection

C3.1

Student-Level Information from Teacher
The teacher questionnaire asks the teacher to rate academic skills and social

behavior for students in his/her classroom.
The following student-level variables will be gathered from teachers:
Language and literacy;
Mathematics;
Science; and
Behaviors.

C3.2

Student-Level Information from Students
The self-description questionnaire asks the students to rate their ability and their

interest and enjoyment of reading, and mathematics. Other items tap other self-report
characteristics.
The following student-level variables will be gathered from students:
Peer relations;
Locus of control/general self;
Reading ability and interest;
Mathematics ability and interest; and
Social support.

C-30

C4.

Research Questions for the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten
Cohort (ECLS-K)
The following research questions served as a guide for the instrument development.

The questions themselves derive from the original formulation of the issues that ECLS-K was
designed to address and from recommendations from the original ECLS-K Technical Review
Panel. The questions were designed to apply to the entire grade span of the study, and some of
them reference constructs that were only relevant at kindergarten entry. Questions about
kindergarten entry and readiness have been left in this OMB submission to provide context for
questions that are appropriate to the middle and high school extensions. The mapping of
questionnaire items to construct areas is for the eighth grade questionnaires. Please see earlier
OMB submissions for the ECLS-K for mapping of items in kindergarten through fifth grade.
Below each set of research questions is a list of the constructs most directly related
to the set of questions.

I.

Children’s Developmental Status at Entry to Kindergarten and in Later
Grades
A.

Children’s Developmental Status
-

What is the status of children’s development (as defined by cognitive,
socioemotional development, behavior, and physical status measures)
in middle school and high school?
a.

-

How does children’s development vary by age (in months), sex,
race-ethnicity, separately and in interaction?

How do variations in children’s developmental status (as defined by
ECLS cognitive, socioemotional, and physical measures) – during
elementary school affect later success in middle school and high
school?

Constructs
Child’s Developmental Status: cognitive development (quantitative and relational
concept skills, mathematical skills, science knowledge; measured by child assessment
instruments); language development (vocabulary and pragmatic communication skills; measured

C-31

by child assessment instruments); physical development (height and weight; measured by child
assessment instruments); and socioemotional development (measured by a self-descriptive
instrument that asks about the child’s perception of him/herself on a variety topics related to
school and home).
Socioemotional Development: responsibility; self-control; problem behaviors;
creativity; enjoyment of learning; self-concept.
Child’s Health and Well-Being: routine health and dental care; health insurance
coverage; physical and mental functioning and disabilities; participation in physical or
recreational activities; special services received or special equipment used by children with
special needs.
Child Demographics: gender, age, race/ethnicity.
Schooling: child absenteeism; child tardiness; suspensions/expulsions; special
placements or referrals (e.g., regular classroom, resource room, special programs, special
education, English as a Second Language, gifted/talented); Advanced Placement/Honors classes;
grade; child’s participation in extracurricular activities.
B.
Effects of Family Sociodemographic Variables on Children’s Developmental
Status
-

How are variations in children’s developmental status at middle school
and high school related to the family’s social, demographic, and
contextual variables at the time of middle school and high school?

-

How do family sociodemographic and contextual variables influence
success in middle school within and across outcome domains and
within gender and race/ethnicity subgroups?

-

How are family sociodemographic factors associated with gaps in
achievement at middle school across and within gender and
race/ethnicity subgroups?

Constructs
Family Structure: current household roster; contact with biological parent no
longer living in household; number of times child has moved from one home or school to another;

C-32

race of all members of the household (from household roster); country of origin
(child/respondent/respondent’s spouse or partner).
Parent Education: diplomas, degrees, certificates, and licenses obtained; parents’
current school attendance; parents’ current job training.
Parent Employment: parents’ current employment; parents’ work schedule (total
hours per week worked).
Parent Income and Assets: total family income for year; homeownership; home
value; child support and paternity agreements (from nonresident parent).
Welfare and Other Public Transfers: AFDC receipt since child’s birth and in last
12 months; receipt of food stamps during past 12 months; participation in federal school lunch or
breakfast program.
C.

Effects of Family Processes and Parenting Practices on Children’s
Developmental Status
-

Over and above the effects of sociodemographic variables, what are the
effects of family processes and parenting practices (home environment,
activities, and cognitive stimulation) on children’s academic
performance, school adjustment, developmental status, and
socioemotional adjustment?
a. What do parents do to prepare their children for middle school and
high school? How are these actions related to children’s
developmental status at entry to middle and high school?
b. What is the extent of parental school involvement in middle
school? How does parental school involvement associated with
academic performance and students’ school engagement?

-

How do critical family processes and parenting practices influence later
success in both middle and high school?

Constructs
Parental Involvement with the Child’s Education: parent attendance at parentteacher conferences; parent participation in school activities; frequency and form of contact with

C-33

parents by teacher or school; barriers to involvement with the school; parent involvement with
homework; parent’s choice of school for child.
Parental Values, Beliefs, and Expectations: parent’s educational expectations for
child; parent’s expectations regarding child’s school performance; parent’s attitudes toward
dropping out of school; parents’ ratings of important college characteristics; parental satisfaction
with quality of child’s current school.
Home Environment, Activities, and Cognitive Stimulation: parent/child
communication; literacy materials in the home; outings and activities with child; TV
viewing/educational programs; parental monitoring of TV viewing; availability and use of a home
computer; parental communication with parents of child’s friends; extent of daily adult
supervision; family routines and shared meal; discussions with child about drug and alcohol use.
Discipline, Warmth, and Emotional Supportiveness: warmth; listening and
communication; parenting behaviors; disciplinary practices.
Parent’s Psychological Well-Being and Health: depression or subjective wellbeing; family health limitations; stressful life events; parental stress.
Critical Family Processes: relationship satisfaction; social support (for child);
social, material, emotional support; family conflict; family routines; religious service attendance.

II.

Classroom Practices
1.

2.

How do instructional practices, content coverage, time on task, and methods
of providing feedback differ across classrooms or schools in middle school
and high school?
-

What are the consequences of those differences for children’s academic
and social development?

-

Are differences in instructional practices or methods of providing
feedback associated with children’s social background characteristics?

How do teachers and schools deal with the diversity of children’s skills?
-

What effects do the different arrangements have on children’s progress
through school?

C-34

3.

How do children’s opportunities to learn differ across classrooms and schools,
and what are the consequences of those differences for children’s
development?
-

Are children’s opportunities to learn in the middle school and high
school grades associated with family social background variables?

Constructs
(See Child’s Developmental Status under Research Question 1.)
Class Activities: hours per day spent on subject instruction; types of instructional
materials available and frequency of use; frequency of specific reading/language arts activities;
time spent on math activities; time spent on math activities; amount of homework assigned;
classroom management strategies; frequency of computer/calculator use.
Topics Covered and Evaluation: emphasis an math topics; emphasis on
English/language arts topics; emphasis on science topics; methods of assessing children’s
progress in math (and frequency of use); methods of assessing children’s progress in reading (and
frequency of use); evaluation and grading practices.

III.

Time in School
1.

How does the length and schedule of the school year affect children’s
progress, especially cognitive gains?

Constructs
Length of School Year: school calendar year; days in session.

C-35

IV.

Children with Special Needs
1.

2.

3.

What are the varieties of service delivery models in place for special
education?
-

How do these varieties of programs affect child outcomes?

-

What is the effect of inclusion on children’s progress through the
middle school and high school grades?

How do schools teach children who have little or no proficiency in English?
-

How do these program variations related to differences in children’s
academic or social development?

-

How do schools respond to the needs of parents with little or no
English proficiency?

How and when do schools provide services to children identified as gifted and
talented?
-

4.

What effects do gifted and talented programs have on the academic and
social development of middle school and high school aged children?

What kinds of programs do school provide to children who are falling behind
academically?
-

What are the effects on children’s academic development of
remediation programs or services?

Constructs
(See Child’s Developmental Status under Research question 1.)
Special Education Programs/Services: children receiving special education
through an IEP; numbers of children with disabilities by category; location of services for
children with severe disabilities; special education policies; numbers of children receiving special
services; numbers of children referred for evaluation for special services; number of children with
disabilities who need additional help; adequacy of materials, support staff, and services for
children with disabilities.
English-as-a-Second-Language (ESLI/Bilingual Programs/Services): number of
limited-English proficient (LEP) children; number of children receiving bilingual education or

C-36

ESL services; types of services provided to families of LEP children; length of ESL program
participation (first graders); organization of instruction for LEP children; languages other than
English used in the classroom (and frequency of use); availability of resources for LEP children.
Gifted and Talented Programs/Services: gifted and talented programs and
numbers of children identified as gifted and talented; number of children placed in Advanced
Placement or Honors courses; Number of Advanced Placement or honors courses; Organization
of instruction for gifted and talented children.
Remediation Programs/Services: remediation services for children who are failing
behind; services provided to lower achieving children.

V.

School Characteristics
1.

How do basic demographic and organizational differences between schools
influence children’s academic and social development in the middle school
and high school years?

2.

Does the school or administrative climate, teacher’s opportunities for staff
development, or school goals for teacher’s progress in the classroom influence
children’s development in middle school and high school?

Constructs
(See Child’s Developmental Status under Research Question 1.)
Community Characteristics: size and type of community; neighborhood problems
(crime, racial tensions, noise).
School Characteristics: school calendar year; grades taught; school type (public or
private); total enrollment; days in session; average daily attendance; school assignment practices;
school safety.
Child Characteristics: ethnic and racial composition; number of children receiving
free or reduced price meals; standardized tests (child scores); number of LEP proficient children
by grade; number of children receiving bilingual education or ESL services; children receiving

C-37

special education through an IEP; number of children with disabilities by category; numbers of
children identified as gifted and talented.
Staffing Characteristics: total number of full- and part-time teachers; racial and
ethnic composition of teaching staff; teachers by highest levels of education; highest level of
education of teacher’s parent(s); principal’s gender, age, race/ethnicity; principal’s years as
principal; principal’s teaching experience; principal’s formal education.
School Governance and Climate: school and administrative climate; principal’s
goals and expectations for teachers; staff development opportunities; teachers’ opinions about
characteristics of the school and, school administrator; staff supportiveness and relations between
groups; control over classroom planning and teaching, and sense of teaching efficacy.

VI.

Classroom Characteristics and Resources
1.

Do teachers’ age, gender, or race-ethnicity influence children’s outcomes on
average or in interaction with children’s social backgrounds?

2.

What are the effects for children’s academic development of teachers’
educational background or experience?

3.

How do class size and child-to-teacher ratio influence children’s progress
through school?

4.

Are differences in classroom materials and supplies related to differences in
children’s outcomes?

5.

What is the degree of teacher efficacy in middle school and high school? To
what extent do teachers’ feelings of educational or instructional efficacy
influence their instructional activities and teaching methods?

Constructs
(See Child’s Developmental Status under Research Question 1.)
Demographic Characteristics of Teacher: teacher’s gender; teacher’s age;
teacher’s race/ethnicity; teacher’s teaching experience; teacher’s education and certification;
highest education of teacher’s parent(s).

C-38

Classroom Characteristics and Resources: current class enrollment; teacher’s
ratings of students’ classroom behavior; racial and ethnic composition of classroom; adequacy of
instructional materials and supplies; access to computers; teacher’s ratings of educational efficacy
or effectiveness.

VII.

Family-School Interactions
1.

How does parental involvement in children’s education affect school
performance over the course of middle and high school?
-

2.

3.

What forms of parent involvement are most influential for children’s
outcomes?

What affects the extent of parental involvement?
-

Do parental involvement levels differ by sociodemographic factors,
SES, or race-ethnicity?

-

Do school or teachers’ practices to involve parents result in higher
levels of parent involvement?

What kinds of extra services or programs do schools provide to families,
children, or community members?
-

Does the availability of these services increase the level of parent
involvement in the school?

Constructs
(See Child’s Developmental Status under Research Question 1.)
Parent Involvement at the School Building: parent attendance at school activities;
parent attendance at PTA/PTO meetings; parent attendance at parent/teacher conferences; parent
attendance at back-to-school nights.
Parent Involvement at Homes: frequency helping child with school-related
activities; frequency of cognitive stimulation at home; outings with child.

C-39

Barriers to Parent Involvement: teacher sends home notes translated into native
language; barriers to involvement with the school; inconvenient meetings times; lack of access to
childcare or transportation; lack of adequate communication from school; problems with safe
access to school.
School/Community Services and Programs: programs and services offered by the
school.

C-40

REFERENCES

Abedi, J., Lord, C., Hofstetter, C. (2001). Impact of Selected Background Variables on Students’
NAEP Math Performance. Working Paper. NCES 2001-11. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Achatz, M., and MacAllum, C.A. (1994). Young unwed fathers: Report from the field.
Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Alexander, K.L., and Eckland, B.K. (1975). Contextual effects in the high school attainment
process. American Sociological Review, 40, 402-416.
Alexander, K.L., and Entwisle, D.R. (1988). Achievement in the first two years of school:
Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53
(2).
Amato, P.R., and Gilbreth, J.G. (1998). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being.
Unpublished manuscript. Lincoln, NE: Department of Sociology, University of NebraskaLincoln.
Argys, L.M., Peters, H.E., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Smith, R. (1996). Contributions of absent fathers
to child well-being: Impact of child support dollars and father-child contact. Paper
presented at the Conference on Father Involvement, Bethesda, MD.
Baldi, S., Perie, M., Skidmore, D., Greenberg, E., and Hahn, C. (2001). What democracy means
to ninth-graders: U.S. results from the international IEA civic education study. (NCES
2001096). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Bane, M.J., and Ellwood, D. (1983). The dynamics of dependence: The routes to self-sufficiency.
Report prepared for Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health
and Human Services.
Baumrind, D. (1971a). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monograph 4 (1, pt. 2).
Baumrind, D. (1971b). Harmonious parents and their preschool children. Developmental
Psychology, 4, 99-102.
Baydar, N., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (1994). The Dynamics of Child Support and its Consequences
for Children. In Irwin Garfinkel, Sara S. McLanahan, and Philip K. Robins, editors, Child
Support and Well-Being. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Pages 257-284.
Bidwell, C.E., and Friedkin, N.E. (1988). The Sociology of Education. In N.J. Smelser (Ed.),
Handbook of sociology (pp. 449-471). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Bowles, S., and Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

C-41

Brown, B.B. (2004) Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In R.M. Lerner and L. Steinberg
(Eds.). Handbook of adolescent psychology, 2nd edition (pp. 363-394). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bryk, A.S., Lee, V.E., and Holland, P.B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1974). Youth: transition to adulthood. Report of the Panel on Youth of the
President’s Science Advisory Committee.
Collins, W.A. and Laursen, B. (2004). Parent-adolescent relationships and influences. In R.M.
Lerner and L. Steinberg (Eds.). Handbook of adolescent psychology, 2nd edition (pp. 331361). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Comer, J. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 258, 42-48.
Crocker, R., and Brooker, G. (1986). Classroom control and student outcomes in grades 2 and 5.
American Educational Research Journal, 23, 1-11.
Crystal, D.S., and DeBell, M. (2002). Sources of civic orientation among American youth: Trust,
religious valuation, and attributions of responsibility. Political Psychology, 23, 113-132.
Dishion, T.J. (1990). The family ecology of boys’ peer relations in middle childhood. Child
Development, 61, 874-892.
Dornbusch, S.M., Ritter, P.L., Leiderman, P.H., Roberts, D.F., and Fraleigh, M.J. (1987). The
relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 12441257.
Dreeben, R., and Gamoran, A. (1986). Race, instruction, and learning. American Sociological
Review, 51, 660-669.
Duncan, G.J. (1991). The economic environment of childhood. In A.C. Huston (Ed.), Children in
poverty (pp. 23-50). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Duncan, G.J., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early
childhood development. Child Development, 65, 296-318.
Duncan, G.J., and Rodgers, W. (1988). Longitudinal aspects of childhood poverty. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 50, 1007-1021.
Easton, D., and Dennis, J. (1980). Children in the Political System. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefel, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (5 ed., Vol. Volume 3: Social, emotional, and personality
development, pp. 1017-1096). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & MacIver,
D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The Impact of Stage-Environment Fit on
young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48(2),
90-101.

C-42

Entwisle, D.R., and Alexander. K.L. (1994). Winter setback: The racial composition of schools
and learning to read. American Sociological Review, 59, 446-460.
Entwisle, D.R., and Baker, D.P. (1983). Gender and young children’s expectations for
performance in arithmetic. Developmental Psychology, 19, 200-209.
Fernandez, R.M., and Nielsen, F. (1986). Bilingualism and Hispanic scholastic achievement:
Some baseline results. Social Science Research, 15, 43-70.
Flanagan, C., and Gallay, L. S. (1995). Reframing the meaning of ‘political’ in research with
adolescents. Perspectives on Political Science, 24, 34-42.
Freedman, D.S., Dietz, W.H., Srinivasan, S.R., and Berensen, G.S. (1999). The relation of
overweight to cardiovascular risk factors among children and adolescents: The Bogalusa
heart study. Journal of Pediatrics, 103, 6, 1175-1182.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of
Education, 60, 135-155.
Gottfried, A.W. (1984). Home environment and early cognitive development: Integration, metaanalyses, and conclusions. In A.W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early cognitive
development (pp. 329-342). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gottfried, A.W., and Gottfried, A.E. (1984). Home environment and cognitive development in
young children of middle-socioeconomic-status families. In A.W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home
Environment and early cognitive development (pp. 57-115). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Greenwood, C.R. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk
versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57, 521-535.
Greenwood, C.R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., and Carta, J. (1994). Identification and translation of
effective teacher-developed instructional procedures for general practice. Remedial and
Special Education, 15, 140-151.
Grych, J.H., and Fincham, F.D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitivecontextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.
Hancox, R.J., Milne, B.J., and Poulton, R. (2005). Association of television viewing during
childhood with poor educational achievement. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine, 159, 614-618.
Hauser, R.M., and Mossel, P.A. (1985). Fraternal resemblance in educational attainment and
occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 650-673.
Havighurst, R. J. (1953). Human development and education. White Plains, NY: Longmans.
Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., and Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of
studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational
Researcher, 23 (3), 5-14.

C-43

Hedley, A.A., Ogden, C.L., Johnson, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Curtin, L.R., and Flegal, K.M. (2004).
Prevalence of overweight and obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 19992002. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 23, 2847-2850.
Hess, R.D., and McDevitt, T.M. (1984). Some cognitive consequences of maternal intervention
techniques: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 55, 2017-2030.
Hill, C.R., and Stafford, F.P. (1980). Parental care of children: Time diary estimates of quantity,
predictability and variety. Journal of Human Resources, 15, 200-239.
Hoffer, T., and Moore, W. (1995). High school seniors’ instructional experiences in science and
mathematics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. NCES: 95-278.
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., and Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary
growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236-248.
Jencks, C., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in
America. New York: Harper and Row.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., and Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and
school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 2, 349359.
Klein, S., Bugarin, R., Beltranena, R., and McArthur, E. (2004). Language Minorities and their
Educational and Labor Market Indicators—Recent Trends. NCES 2004-009. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Knox, V.W., and Bane, M.J. (1994). Child support and schooling, In Irwin Garfinkel, Sara S.
McLanahan, and Philip K. Robins, editors, Child support and child well-being.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Pages 285-316.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary
education. New York: The Falmer Press.
Maccoby, E., and Martin, J. (1983). Socialization, in the context of the family. In E.M.
Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 4. Socialization, personality,
and social development (pp. 1-102). New York: Wiley.
Madden, N.A., Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., Dolan, L.J., and Wasik, B.A. (1993). Success for all:
Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-city elementary schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123-148.
Magnuson, K. (2005). Does early childhood behavior affect achievement in middle childhood and
early adolescence? (Prepared for the Society for Research in Child Development Biennial
Conference). Atlanta, Georgia.
Manlove, J. (1993). Multiple correlates of burnout in child care workers. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 8, 499-518.
McLanahan, S., and Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what
helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

C-44

McLoyd, V. and Wilson, L. (1991). The strain of living poor: Parenting, social support, and child
mental health. In A.C. Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty: Child development and public
policy (pp. 105-135). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, K.A., Zaslow, M., Coiro, M.J., and Morrison, D.R. (1993). Tabulations of the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child Supplement. Unpublished manuscript prepared for
OMB submission for JOBS Observational Study, Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.
Moore, K.A., Zaslow, M.J., Miller, S.M., and Magenheim, F.B. (1995). How well are they
faring? AFDC families with preschool-aged children at the outset of the JOBS program.
Needleman, H.L., Schell, A., Bellinger, D., Leviton, A., and Allred, E.N. (1990). The long-term
effects of exposure to low doses of lead in childhood: An 11-year follow-up report. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 322, 83-88.
Newacheck, P.W., and Hallfon, N. (1988). Preventive care. use by school-aged children:
Differences by socioeconomic status. Pediatrics, 82, 462-468.
Nord, C.W., Brimhall, D., and West, J. (1997). Fathers’ involvement in their children’s school.
NCES 98-091. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department
of Education.
Parsons, J.E., Adler, T.F, and Kaczala, C.M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and
beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310-321.
Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior
problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 295-307.
Powell, D.R. (1992). Families and young children’s school readiness. Paper prepared for the
National Center for Education Statistics.
Powell, M. (1980). The Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study: A brief history of a major research
project. In C. Denham and A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 1-5). Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education.
Puckering, C. (1989). Annotation: Maternal depression. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 30, 807-817.
Rahn, W. M., and Transue, J. E. (1998). Social trust and value change: the decline of social
capital in American youth, 1976-1995. Political Psychology, 19, 545-563.
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Revised edition). Middletown, CT:
Wesleyan University Press.
Rosenthal, M. (1991). Behaviors and beliefs of caregivers in family day care: The effects of
background and work environment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 263-283.
Schneider, B., and Coleman, J.S. (1993). Parents, their children, and schools. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Sewell, W.H., and Hauser, R.M. (1976). Causes and consequences of higher education: Models
of the status attainment process. In W.H. Sewell, R.M. Hauser, and D.L. Featherman

C-45

(Eds.), Schooling and achievement in American society, (pp. 9-27). New York: Academic
Press.
Shonkoff, J.P. (1992). Health care policy and Part H services: Early intervention as a concept. In
J.J. Gallagher and P.K. Fuller (Eds.). The coordination of health and other services for
infants and toddlers with disabilities: The conundrum of parallel service systems.
Soar, R.S., and Soar, R.M. (1979). Emotional climate and management. In P. Peterson and H.
Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings and implications (pp. 97-119).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Spivak, H., and Prothrow-Stith, D. (2001). The need to address bullying—an important
component of violence prevention. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285,
2131-2132.
Staff, J., Mortimer, J.T., and Uggen, C. (2004). Work and leisure in adolescence. In R.M. Lerner
and L. Steinberg (Eds.). Handbook of adolescent psychology, 2nd edition (pp. 429-450).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stallings, J.A., and Stipek, D. (1986). Research on early childhood and elementary school
teaching programs. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 727753). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Sullivan, M. (1993). Absent fathers in the inner city. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 501, 48-58.
Teddlie, C., Kirby, P., and Stringfield, S. (1989). Effective versus ineffective schools: Observable
differences in the classroom. American Journal of Education, 97, 221-236.
Videon, T.M. (2002). Who plays and who benefits: Gender, interscholastic athletics and
academic outcomes. Sociological Perspectives, 45, 4, 415-444.
Wang, M., Haertel, G., and Walberg, H. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of
review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 30-43.
Webb, N., and Lowther, M., (1993). Organizational commitment of child care providers
employed in Centre facilities. Journal of Child and Youth Care 8, 1-16.
Wentzel, K.R. and Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership:
Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68, 6, 11981209.
Youniss, J., and Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zill, N., Moore, K.A Smith, E.W., Stief, T., and Coiro, M.J. (1991). Life circumstances
and development of children in welfare families: A profile based on national survey data.
Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.

C-46