Constant in Education: It Is

¶ … constant in education: it is always changing, evolving and morphing. Today's public schools face massive challenges: low test scores, greater accountability, and less funding. In addition, the schools of 2010 have become de facto parents, providing lessons in life skills, morality and even basic hygiene. An outsider looking in might ask the question, "Where are the parents?." Indeed, Fan and Chen (2001) writing almost a decade ago were curious about the effects parental involvement could have on student achievement.

While their findings were not groundbreaking or highly original, their research and conclusions offer some guidance for today's educators and parents. Parental Involvement Fan and Chen (2001) begin their article with the supposition that higher parental involvement would likely have a positive impact on student learning and student achievement.

Fan and Chen completed a thorough review of the literature and determined that (a) there is a perception that parental involvement improves student achievement (b) there are inconsistencies in the literature as to the empirical evidence of such a supposition, (c) research into parental involvement has been fr4agmented and inconclusive. Fan and Chen found there were a smattering of theoretical frameworks researchers have used in studying parental involvement and student achievement. One lens, posited by Epstein, studied what schools (e.g.

teachers) did in an effort to garner higher parental involvement. The other theory, was a comprehensive theoretical framework as to why parents became involved (or did not) and why such involvement had a positive impact on student learning. Finally, Fan and Chen noted that there is no consistent operational use of the term "parental involvement." Thus, the authors attempted to define the term in an effort to guide their research. Research Methods Fan and Chen (2001) conducted a meta analysis of previously conducted research about parental involvement and student achievement.

While a meta analysis seems appropriate for this article and/or research, it must be noted that there are critics of the practice. Indeed, DeCoster (2004) likens a meta analysis to adding apples and oranges together and hoping for a grape. This author, while understanding the value of a meta analysis, seems puzzled exactly why Fan and Chen chose such a methodology. Why not simply conduct original research, rather than stand on the shoulders of, well, not giants, but of other academics. But the author digresses.

Nonetheless, Fan and Chen attempted a noble and grand review of over 2,000 articles and papers spanning a ten-year timeframe. From this, Fan and Chen found 25 articles that met the criteria of their research. Next, Fan and Chen coded the research and derived numerous variables as well as indicators too numerous to note in a critique. Suffice it to say, Fan and Chen spent what seems, an inordinate amount of time working with other's work to derive a working model. Results Surprise.

Fan and Chen (2001) discovered that a higher parental involvement had a positive correlation on student achievement. Perhaps such results would be unexpected by an academic toiling away in obscurity, but for this author and the man on the street, the results are unsurprising. Specifically, Fan and Chen noted that the focus on core subjects in isolation (e.g. math, reading, science, etc.) rather than a cumulative effect (e.g. GPA) was not the best practice.

Fan and Chen suggest that researchers should focus on GPA/Parental Involvement because a GPA is a comprehensive analysis of a student's performance in school and that a GPA is more reliable (e.g. measurable) than an ala cart approach to student evaluation. Critique This article is bland, banal and bordering on redundancy. Fan and Chen (2001) broke no real new ground with their study.

Fan and Chen successfully turned what would normally be a review of the literature, into "research." This author, while unpublished (save for blogs, bad poetry and unpublished academic papers) respects Fan and Chen as educators and researchers, but has a difficult time embracing their work. This author has been taught that academic research is the creation of new knowledge, not the creation of a hodgepodge from other's work.

It is akin to taking a Big Mac and a Whopper, combining them into an artery clogging monstrosity and renaming it the McWhopper. It simply doesn't work. Furthermore, in this author's judgment, it seems to be a studying the obvious: students perform better in school when they.