relationship between household literacy and educational engagement: analysis of data from rajkot...

Relationship between household literacyand educational engagement: Analysis of datafrom Rajkot district, India

Amita Chudgar • Karyn Miller • Brij Kothari

Published online: 24 January 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Household engagement in a child’s education is a complex process;

depending on the culture and the context, it may be revealed through a variety of

behaviours. Using data from one district in rural Gujarat, India, four indicators of a

household’s educational engagement were employed to investigate the relationship

between household literacy levels and the household’s engagement in the education

of its child members. The findings on educational engagement were also compared

across households with different wealth and income levels. Uniformly, indicators of

household literacy levels were found to be more important in understanding a

household’s educational engagement than a household’s wealth and income levels.

Keywords India � Gujarat � Adult literacy � Household literacy �At-home educational engagement � At-school educational engagement

Resume Relation entre alphabetisme et engagement educatif du foyer : analyse des

donnees du district de Rajkot (Inde) – L’engagement du menage dans l’education des

enfants est un processus complexe, qui depend de la culture et du contexte, et peut se

manifester par un grand nombre de comportements differents. A partir des donnees

issues d’un district de l’Etat rural de Gujarat (Inde), quatre indicateurs de l’engage-

ment educatif des menages ont ete appliques pour examiner la relation entre niveaux

A. Chudgar (&)

Michigan State University, 408, Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

K. Miller

Michigan State University, 251, Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA


B. Kothari

Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015, Gujarat, India


123

Int Rev Educ (2012) 58:73–89

DOI 10.1007/s11159-012-9261-0

d’alphabetisme et engagement des foyers dans l’education de leurs enfants. Les

resultats sur l’engagement educatif ont ete en outre compares entre menages de

differents niveaux de richesse et de revenus. Il a ete uniformement constate que les

indicateurs des niveaux d’alphabetisme des foyers permettent davantage de cerner leur

engagement educatif que les indicateurs relatifs aux biens et aux revenus.

Zusammenfassung Zum Zusammenhang zwischen Alphabetisierungsgrad des

Elternhauses und Bildungsdrang: Analyse von Daten aus dem indischen Distrikt

Rajkot – Wie sich ein Elternhaus fur die Bildung eines Kindes einsetzt, ist ein

vielfaltiger Prozess; je nach Kultur und Kontext kann sich der Bildungsdrang in

unterschiedlichen Handlungsweisen außern. Anhand von Daten eines landlichen

Distrikts im indischen Gujarat wurde der Zusammenhang zwischen dem Alpha-

betisierungsgrad eines Haushalts und dessen Engagement fur die Bildung der

minderjahrigen Haushaltsangehorigen mittels vier Indikatoren fur den Bildungs-

drang untersucht. Die Ergebnisse wurden auch fur einen Vergleich des Bildungs-

drangs von Haushalten unterschiedlicher Wohlstands- und Einkommensniveaus

herangezogen. Es stellte sich heraus, dass die Alphabetisierungs-Indikatoren fur den

Bildungsdrang eines Haushalts durchweg von großerer Bedeutung waren als das

Wohlstands- und Einkommensniveau.

Resumen Relacion entre la situacion de alfabetizacion en los hogares y el com-

promiso con la educacion: analisis de datos del distrito de Rajkot, India – El com-

promiso de los hogares con la educacion de los ninos es un proceso complejo;

dependiendo de la cultura y del contexto, puede darse a conocer mediante una variedad

de conductas. Usando los datos de un distrito rural del estado de Gujarat, India, se han

usado cuatro indicadores de compromiso educativo de los hogares para investigar la

relacion entre los niveles de alfabetizacion en los hogares y el compromiso de los

hogares con la educacion de sus ninos. Los resultados de compromiso educativo

tambien se compararon entre hogares con diferentes niveles patrimoniales y de in-

gresos. Sin excepcion, los indicadores de niveles de alfabetizacion en los hogares

resultaron ser mas significativos para la comprobacion de su compromiso educativo

que los niveles patrimoniales o de ingresos de los hogares.

74 A. Chudgar et al.

123

Introduction

In 2006, the Education for All (EFA) report noted that literacy is ‘‘one of the most

neglected’’ (UNESCO 2006, p. 27) of the six EFA goals: it ‘‘is not prominent in

most education plans and typically accounts for only one per cent of public spending

on education’’ (ibid., p. 248). The EFA report from 2008 adds that ‘‘Illiteracy is

receiving minimal political attention and remains a global disgrace …’’ (UNESCO

2008, p. 1).

India’s education policy in this regard is no exception. Approximately 300

million Indian adults are illiterate (Government of India 2004). India is home to

34.6 per cent of the world’s illiterate population and is at ‘‘serious risk’’ of not

achieving the goal of adult literacy by 2015 (UNESCO 2006). Researchers and

policy analysts have argued that, in light of the scale of this problem, there has been

limited political and budgetary commitment to this issue (see for instance, Bhola

1988 and Mathew 2002). At the same time, India is increasing a much-needed focus

on the challenges of universal elementary education.

Some recent research emerging from India (Chudgar 2009) and elsewhere

(Archer and Cottingham 1996; Aryeetey and Kwakye 2005; Lauglo 2001; Okech

et al. 2001) has argued that children of illiterate parents may be especially

disadvantaged in attaining universal elementary education. These studies have

highlighted adult literacy as an important area for national attention not just in its

own right, but also in a nation’s pursuit of universal elementary education.

While these studies have been able to link adult illiteracy in the household to

inferior schooling outcomes of their children, they offer limited systematic

understanding of the mechanisms through which a child in a literate family may

experience different schooling outcomes compared to a child in an illiterate family.

In other words, these studies do not systematically explain or explore how the

educational experiences and opportunities enjoyed by children in literate households

differ from those living in illiterate households. This paper makes an initial attempt

to address this gap in the literature. We propose that one overarching difference

between literate and illiterate households is the nature of the household’s

engagement in their children’s education. We use a unique household dataset from

rural India to identify these differences in educational engagement between illiterate

and literate households. It is essential to clarify that we do not wish to imply that

illiterate parents are less ‘‘willing’’ to engage in their children’s education. Rather,

parents who themselves do not have the tools (including literacy) to effectively

interact with the formal education system may be less ‘‘able’’ to engage effectively

in some of their children’s educational experiences.

In the following section we first review the limited research that links household

literacy levels to better schooling outcomes (i.e. school enrolment, school

attendance and school completion). We then discuss household educational

engagement as a mechanism through which children in literate households may

display superior schooling outcomes. Lastly, we present the research literature that

links household educational engagement with other household characteristics,

specifically focusing on the household literacy levels.

Household literacy and educational engagement 75

123

Literature review

International evidence on the links between literacy levels at home

and children’s schooling outcomes

While many studies have examined the effects of family socioeconomic status and

parental educational levels on positive schooling outcomes for children, there is

little research that focuses on parental literacy levels specifically. Overall, the

limited available literature indicates that improvement in parental literacy levels,

particularly in developing countries, is associated with increased school enrolment,

school attendance and school completion. Conversely, these results indicate that

children in illiterate households are at a particular disadvantage in terms of these

three stages of schooling.

Using a nationally representative dataset from Nepal, Gajendra Man Shrestha

et al. (1986) found that adult family members’ literacy was an important

determinant of rural children’s participation in schooling. These results are

supported by evidence from Uganda that showed that parents who were graduates

of adult literacy classes were more likely than non-literate parents to send their

children to school (Archer and Cottingham 1996; Okech et al. 2001). Similarly, a

study in Ghana reported that 98 per cent of adult literacy programme participants

sent their school-age children to school (Aryeetey and Kwakye 2005). In India,

using two nationally representative datasets, Amita Chudgar (2009) found that

parental literacy within the home and adult literacy levels at the village level were

both strongly related to elementary school enrolment and completion. In addition,

several studies note that while literate parents in general are more apt to send their

children to school and keep them in school, this was particularly true for mothers

and female caregivers (DFID Background Briefing 2008; Lauglo 2001).

Research on family engagement in schooling and educational outcomes

What might explain the disadvantage that children in illiterate households face?

Broadly, we argue that parental engagement in education in a literate household

may look different from parental engagement in an illiterate household. In the

following section we review the literature on parental engagement, specifically

(a) how parental engagement is defined in the literature and its relationship to

improved schooling outcomes, and (b) the association between home background

and parental engagement. As noted before, one possibility could be that illiterate

parents are simply less able to engage in their children’s education. Interacting with

teachers and schools, and dealing with homework expectations requires a certain

degree of ease with the formal education system. It is likely that parents who are

unable to read or write themselves are less comfortable with such interactions.

Similarly, children growing up in such households may be exposed to distinctly

different educational opportunities in terms of, for example, educational conver-

sations with their parents or reading materials available at home.

Guided mainly by research in the United States, Jeremy D. Finn (1998)

conceptualised family involvement as falling within two categories: at-home


123

engagement and at-school engagement. At-home engagement refers to the actions,

conversations and expectations concerning schooling present in the parent–child

relationship. The literature suggests that at-home engagement is widely defined and

includes routines such as limited television time (Khan 1996), direct interactions

and values transmitted from parents to children. At-home parental engagement can

be manifested as home discussion, home supervision and assistance with homework,

intellectual stimulation, encouragement or the modelling of educational values, high

aspirations and positive attitudes about schooling (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003;

Heystek 2003; Khan 1996; Sui-Chu and Willms 1996).

Conversely, at-school engagement refers to parents’ relationships with teachers,

principals, schools, and even other parents. Some researchers posit that, in

comparison to at-home engagement, at-school engagement consists of more ‘‘skill-

demanding tasks’’ (Khan 1996). Examples of such tasks include direct contact with

schools, school participation and involvement in school governance (Desforges and

Abouchaar 2003; Heystek 2003; Khan 1996; Sui-Chu and Willms 1996).

The specific examples of these engagement constructs are based on a more

Western context; they may or may not apply to rural India (for instance, limiting

television time). Nevertheless, we emphasise that, generally, adults in the household

engage in their children’s education in multiple ways. Broadly, educational

engagement includes adult support of children’s educational pursuits at home and

outside interaction with the school community in order to understand and create

educational options and opportunities for children.

Research shows that, in general, both at-home and at-school engagement are

associated with positive schooling outcomes. But it is important to note that, in the

research we reviewed, school outcomes in the Western context are often measured

as student performance on standardised tests. School outcomes in the literature on

developing countries were, until recently, mainly understood to include school

enrolment, attendance and completion.

In their meta-analysis of 25 studies primarily from the United States, Xitao Fan

and Michael Chen (2001) found a modest positive relationship between parental

engagement and academic achievement. They report that academic achievement is

affected by both at-home and at-school engagement. Specifically, home discussions

between parent and child, encouragement of skill acquisition and parental

aspirations significantly influence academic achievement (DeGarmo et al. 1999;

Fan 2001; McNeal 2001; Sui-Chu and Willms 1996). Similarly, in the international

context, research from Nepal has shown that at-home parental engagement, in the

form of homework assistance, decreased the likelihood of a child repeating a grade

or dropping out of school (Burchfield et al. 2002).

Family background and educational engagement

Having identified educational engagement within the household as a potentially

important mechanism through which children from literate families may experience

better educational outcomes, we now review the literature that identifies household

factors that are associated with greater educational engagement within the home,

specifically focusing on the role of household literacy levels.


123

Particularly in Western countries, parental engagement is most commonly

studied as a function of parents’ socioeconomic status and education levels. A

review of the literature reveals that parental (or maternal) education and, to some

extent, families’ socioeconomic status may be significantly associated with parental

engagement (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Davis-Kean 2005; Kohl et al. 2000).

Using longitudinal, nationally representative data of U.S. families, Pamela E. Davis-

Kean (2005) further found that caregiver literacy (measured using the Woodcock

Johnson Passage Comprehension Test1) was also positively associated with parental

expectations and the warmth of parent–child interactions for African Americans.

Esther Ho Sui-Chu and J. Douglas Willms (1996) determined that, albeit

statistically significant, the effect sizes of socioeconomic status on parental

engagement were negligible.

While the research that specifically examines the relationship between parental

literacy and parental engagement is limited, evidence suggests that literacy may

explain why some parents are more involved than others in their children’s

schooling. Few international studies have looked at the relationship between

parental literacy levels and their engagement in their children’s schooling. These

earlier studies have mainly focused on participants in adult literacy programmes.

A longitudinal study of two integrated, female adult literacy programmes in

Nepal found that female literacy was associated with encouraging (or coercing)

children to read and with increasing financial support of schooling, particularly with

regard to hiring private tutors (Burchfield et al. 2002). Research from Uganda has

shown that parents who participated in adult literacy classes demonstrated increased

positive attitudes towards their children’s schooling, spent more time helping their

children with school work, and discussed and checked homework twice as much as

non-literate parents (Archer and Cottingham 1996; Okech et al. 2001). Further, this

research also indicated that adult literacy education improved parents’ sense of self-

efficacy and confidence, thus leading to more direct contact with teachers, parents

and schools (Okech et al. 2001). Similarly, a study of Australian parents noted that

illiterate parents were afraid of being unable to communicate with their children’s

schoolteachers. This feeling of inadequacy, coupled with the assumption that the

school would not listen to them, contributed to their lack of school involvement

(Mills and Gale 2004).

While these studies indicate an association between parental literacy and

educational engagement in the international context, they differ from our research in

some important aspects. First, several of these studies look at participants in adult

literacy programmes rather than at adults who are simply literate or illiterate.

Arguably, adults who have shown enough inclination to enrol in a literacy

programme may be fundamentally different from their counterparts who did not join

such a programme in terms of their views on the importance of providing structured

support for the education of their children. In addition, these studies have not tried

to identify systematically the relationship between adult literacy and educational

engagement after taking into account relevant household background variables. For

instance, it is possible that an adult from a well-off household has time available to

1 The Woodcock Johnson Tests are a widely-used battery of tests to measure cognitive abilities.


123

attend a literacy class; such adults’ overall higher economic status may also allow

them to be more engaged in their child’s education.

In this paper we are able to address these previous limitations by using a random

sample of households (as opposed to literacy programme participants), and by

systematically and simultaneously accounting for the relationship between other

household variables (such as household size, income, wealth, etc.) and educational

engagement. In doing so, we are able to identify more accurately the relationship

within households between adult literacy levels and educational engagement.

Data and methods

One reason for limited systematic research on literacy levels in the household and

educational engagement in the household is the lack of appropriate data. Large-

scale international datasets such as Progress in International Reading Literacy

Studies (PIRLS2) that ask questions on household engagement in children’s

education do not distinguish between illiterate and literate families. These studies

group all parents with primary level education or less into one category. The

ASER3 study (Pratham 2008) suggests why this could be problematic in the Indian

context given its finding that 64 per cent of primary school children in Classes 3 to

5 cannot read a Class 2 level text. Compounding the problem on the other hand is

that studies from developing countries that may systematically ask about literacy

levels do not provide rich and nuanced measures of household educational

engagement.

We use a secondary dataset collected from thirteen villages belonging to four

administrative blocks (talukas) in Rajkot district, as part of a study for UNESCO

(Delhi) on the Information and Communication Technologies available to people in

rural areas. These data were collected during January and February of 2001 from a

representative sample of 750 households which accounted for 10 per cent of the

households in the villages. For this study we focused only on households with at

least one child (age 18 years or under). Thus our final sample for various analyses

was less than 750. (In particular, the sample sizes depended on data availability for

various variables within households with at least one child. Table 2 provides the

sample sizes associated with each regression analysis). The survey collected

responses from household members on several closed and open-ended questions.

The richness and variety of questions and responses have allowed us to construct the

key variables we used for our analysis (see Table 1 for a list of the variables used

and their description).

2 PIRLS is a multi-country assessment of reading literacy conducted by the International Association for

the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). The study has been conducted in a five-year cycle

since 2001.3 The ASER study, facilitated by the NGO Pratham, is a large-scale systematic data collection effort to

measure the quality of learning and education in rural India. ASER has been conducted yearly since 2005.


123

Variables

Household educational engagement

In order to generate the main dependent variables, the indicators of household

engagement in children’s schooling, for our analysis, we relied on the responses to

several open-ended and closed questions directed at the parents in the survey. We

used these questions to generate indicators of family educational engagement in

children’s schooling both at home and at school. At-home indicators of engagement

include (a) family support of academic skill acquisition, either directly by teaching

skills or indirectly by monetary support for school fees, materials, and/or

supplemental services; (b) the provision of non-school books and reading materials

at home and (c) family knowledge of future educational options and opportunities

Table 1 Variable name and description with means (standard deviation), frequency and sample sizes

Variable name Description Mean (SD)/

frequency

n

Dependent variables (Measures of educational engagement in the family)

SKILL Promote/support academic skills .61 586

EDINFO Information about future .44 400

NONSCHBK Non-school reading material at home .51 586

TCHPER Knowledge of teacher performance .84 378

Independent variables (Measures of family background)

HH_NOFORMALED Both the oldest male and female

in the household have had no

formal schooling

.19 493

HH_NOLOCLANG Both the oldest male and female

are unable to read in the local

language (Gujarati)

.17 457

F_NOFORMALED Oldest female in the household

has had no formal schooling

.48 473

F_NOLOCLANG Oldest female in the household

is unable to read in the local

language (Gujarati)

.38 403

HH_WEALTH Household wealth:

television ? cable ? radio ? tape

recorder ? land ? local telephone

facility ? long distance telephone

facility

3.18 (1.52) 545

HH_INCOME Household income 25188.53

(24030.44)

481

HH_SIZE Household size 5.17 (1.64) 551

CASTE_OTHER Family belonging to caste group other

than Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe

or Other traditionally disadvantaged

caste groups

.57 438

Note SD stands for standard deviation


123

available to their child. We also measured family engagement at school as indicated

by (d) family awareness of teacher performance in their child’s school.

Household literacy levels

Aside from several household background variables that we discuss in more detail

below, the survey asked every member of the household for the number of years of

schooling completed. A respondent without any formal schooling was identified as

‘‘illiterate’’. Many researchers have argued that such an identification of illiteracy

levels could be problematic since those who are unschooled may still be literate by

some other means. The survey further asked all members of the household whether

they could read the local official language (Gujarati). Using these two separate

pieces of information for the oldest male and the oldest female in the household, we

constructed two measures of household literacy levels. The first measure indicated

that both oldest male and female in the household have no formal schooling and the

second indicated that both oldest male and female in the household cannot read the

local official language (Gujarati).4 In addition, since the literature argues that

literacy levels of the mother or female adult in the household may be especially

closely related to children’s schooling outcomes, we used two additional variables

in our analysis: the oldest female in the household has no formal schooling and the

oldest female in the household cannot read the local official language (Gujarati).

Household wealth and income, caste group and family size

The data allowed for a rich measure of family wealth. We noted whether the family

owned any land, local and/or long distance telephone facility at home, we also noted

ownership of a television, cable connection, radio and/or tape recorder. If the family

possessed all these seven items, their wealth score was 7; if they owned none of these

items, their wealth score was 0. In addition, we had information on the family’s

income level. As expected, wealth and income were positively correlated. However,

the correlation was 0.21, indicating that these two variables capture similar yet

distinct underlying measures of a family’s economic well-being. In addition, we

included information on the family’s caste group and family size in the analysis.

Method

As described above, we had four indicators of a family’s educational engagement.

All the variables are dichotomous (yes/no) variables. Therefore we used binomial

logit regressions. In every model we included family wealth, income, caste group

4 One concern with the local language reading ability could be that perhaps there are families or

communities which cannot transact in the local language but are literate nonetheless in some other

language. We had a variable that indicated if the person could read in the national language (Hindi).

However, in our sample, everyone who could read Hindi was able to read Gujarati, or in other words, by

looking at those who could read Gujarati, we are not excluding at least any Hindi readers from our

sample. This however does not rule out that some non-Gujarati readers may be able to read yet another

third language (neither Gujarati nor Hindi).


123

and family size as controls for family background. In addition we included one of

the four literacy variables.5 Overall, this meant that we conducted 4 9 4 = 16

different regression analyses.

Our main focus in conducting the analysis was to identify the extent of

disadvantage a child living in an illiterate household may experience in terms of the

household’s educational engagement. To quantify this disadvantage, we calculated

the differences in the probability of an average family becoming involved in each of

the four educational engagement outcomes for literate and illiterate families. To put

this disadvantage in perspective, we generated two additional sets of probability

differences: (1) differences in the probability of an average family with all seven

wealth indicators getting involved in each of the four educational engagement

activities compared to an average family with none of the seven wealth indicators

and (2) differences in the probability of an average family getting involved in each

of the four educational engagement activities when the family is in the top income

quintile compared to an average family who is in the bottom income quintile.

Results

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics on the data used in our study, including the

means, relevant standard deviations and sample sizes for all dependent, primary

independent, and control variables. The table shows that, while a majority of the

households indicate an awareness of teacher performance in school, the responses are

mixed in terms of other educational engagement variables. For instance, only 44 per

cent of the households indicated having any information about how to plan their

child’s future; in 51 per cent of households, children had non-school reading materials

available to read. In terms of household literacy levels, both the oldest male and oldest

female adult had no formal education in about 19 per cent of sample households and

both were unable to read the local language in 17 per cent of the households. These

numbers were much higher when we looked at the households where just the oldest

female had no formal education or was unable to read in the local language.

Table 2 presents the main findings from our study. The table is divided into four

blocks, I to IV). The four blocks are distinguished by the literacy variable used as a

control in each set of regressions. Each block presents four sets of regression

equations, one for each of the four engagement outcome variables (SKILL,

EDINFO, NONSCHBK and TCHPER). In addition to the literacy, wealth and

income variables listed here, each regression also controlled for household size and

caste. Each cell is the percentage point gain in the probability of observing a given

educational engagement (indicated by the column title), when the household

conditions improve in terms of literacy, wealth or income (indicated by the row

title). Conversely these could have been presented as the losses or reduction in the

5 A standard logit model predicting the odds of a given type of school engagement (SCHENG) can

therefore be expressed as follows:

odds (SCHENG = 1) = exp (X0b)where b is a vector of coefficients and X is the matrix of family background variables including the

literacy measure, wealth, income, caste group and family size.


123

Table 2 Percentage point gain in probability of educational engagement, calculated from results of

binomial logit regression

Improvement in household condition Gain in probability of educational engagement

SKILL EDINFO NONSCHBK TCHPER

I Household where both adults have no formal

education compared to household where either

one or both adults have formal education

.20*** .21** .29*** .08

Households with none of the seven wealth

indicators compared to households with all the

seven wealth indicators

.20* .18 .20 .08

Households in the bottom of the income quintile

compared to households in the top of the income

quintile

.05 .13 .15* .00

N 313 238 313 231

II Households where the female adult has no formal

education compared to households where the

female adult has formal education

.27*** .13* .22*** .10**




.13 -.13 .21 .06


compared to households in the top of the

income quintile

.08 .14 .18** .00

N 304 234 304 226

III Households where both adults cannot read in the

local language compared to households either

one or both adults can read in the local language

.28*** .44*** .36*** .07




.25* .19 .22 .10



quintile

.10 .10 .17* .00

N 292 215 292 203

IV Households where the adult female cannot read in

the local language compared to households

where the adult female can read in the local

language

.28*** .26** .26*** .16***




.31** -.04 .41** .29**



quintile

.16* .22** .19* -.02

N 262 190 262 179

*** p B 0.01, ** p B 0.05, * p B 0.10

These probability figures can be interpreted as ‘‘improvement/losses’’ in the likelihood of given educa-

tional engagement with an improvement/deterioration in the household condition

Each regression equation controls for all the independent variables shown in Table 1


123

likelihood of a given educational engagement if we had instead presented the results

associated with deterioration in the household conditions in terms of literacy, wealth

or income. Thus, depending on whether we are talking about improvements or a

worsening household situation, these absolute probability figures can be interpreted

as gains or losses in the likelihood of a given educational engagement.

Several patterns become apparent when looking at the table as a whole. In

general we find that the improvements in literacy levels inside the household are

most uniformly and significantly related to gains in educational engagement,

regardless of the type of engagement. Improvements in wealth or income are not

systematically associated with greater educational engagement.

Focusing on the probability that adults in a given household would promote

academic skills (column 1, SKILL), we find that a household where neither the

oldest male nor female has had any formal education is 20 per cent less likely to

promote such skills compared to other families where either one of the adults or

both have received formal education. The probability that a child receives support

for academic skills is even lower in a family where neither adult is able to read the

local language (28 per cent less), compared to a family where either one or both of

the adults are able to read the local language. The figures are similar when we single

out the households where the oldest female is not literate or unable to read the local

language. Such households are 27 to 28 per cent less likely to promote academic

skills compared to the households where the oldest female has formal education or

can read in the local language, respectively. In terms of the relationship between

promoting academic skills and improvement in household wealth or income, only

one relationship is statistically significant at p B 0.05. The remaining relationships

are significant only at p B 0.10. The one significant relationship at p B 0.05

between household wealth and promoting academic skills is found in Block IV. In

this model we find that, accounting for the local language ability of the oldest

female, a family which has none of the seven wealth indicators is 31 per cent less

likely to promote and support academic skills compared to a family where all the

seven wealth indicators are present.

The patterns are similar when we look at the probability that adults in the

household would be informed about the future educational opportunities available to

their children (column 2, EDINFO). Again, the lack of ability to read the local

language is associated with a greater disadvantage in terms of awareness of future

educational opportunities. Households where both the oldest male and female adult

cannot read the local language are 44 per cent less aware of future educational

opportunity compared to other households where either one or both adults can read

the local language. Likewise, a household where both oldest male and female adult

have not received formal education is 21 per cent less likely to be aware of future

educational opportunities for its children compared to a household where either one

or both adults have received formal education. Interestingly, unlike promotion of

academic skills, this disadvantage is more strongly associated with literacy levels of

both oldest male and oldest female. The relationship between the oldest female’s

formal education and information about future educational opportunities is

significant only at p B 0.10. Similarly in Block IV we find that when we account

only for the oldest woman’s language reading ability, the change in probability of


123

awareness about future educational option is smaller at 26 per cent. Similar to the

earlier outcome (SKILL) in this block we once again find a significant relationship

between household income and the outcome.

In terms of the availability of non-school reading material at home (column 3,

NONSCHBK), depending on the literacy measure, children are 22 to 36 per cent

less likely to have non-school reading materials at home in households disadvan-

taged in terms of formal schooling or local language abilities. The lack of local

language reading ability is more strongly related with the outcome than the lack of

formal education and here, once again, we find stronger relationships with literacy

levels of both adults rather than just the female adult. More specifically, a household

where both the oldest male and female have no formal education is 29 per cent less

likely to provide additional reading materials to their children compared to a

household where either one or both adults has received formal education. And a

household where neither of the oldest adults can read in the local language is 36 per

cent less likely to provide additional, non-school reading materials at home

compared to a household where either one or both adults can read the local

language. Like in the previous cases, here again we find that in the models where we

only control for the literacy abilities of the oldest woman (not both adults), income

(Block II) and wealth (Block IV) are significant at p B 0.05. More specifically,

accounting for the oldest female with formal education, families in the bottom

income quintile are also 18 per cent less likely to have non-school reading materials

at home. Similarly, accounting for the oldest female’s local language reading

ability, households without all seven wealth indicators are 41 per cent less likely to

have non-school reading materials at home.

In terms of information about children’s teachers (column 4, THCPER), we find

that the only significant relationships in terms of the literacy variables are with the

literacy levels of the oldest female in the household. When the oldest female has had

no formal education, the family is 10 per cent less likely to be informed about the

children’s teachers and their performance at school compared to a household where

the oldest female has formal education. Similarly, in a household where the oldest

female cannot read the local language, the family is 16 per cent less likely to be

informed about the teacher compared to a household where the oldest woman can

read the local language. In addition, controlling for the oldest female’s local

language reading ability, in such households a zero to seven gain in the wealth

indicators is associated with 29 per cent greater knowledge of teacher performance.

Discussion and limitations

Before we discuss the important findings of this study, it is important to remind the

readers that the current study is based on a sample from one district, in one state in

India. Therefore, unlike studies based on nationally representative datasets, it is not

possible to make broad national claims. Bearing in mind that limitation, these

findings highlight some important relationships. First, the results make it clear that

in the present study literacy levels in the household are much more uniformly and

strongly (as indicated by statistical significance) related to a household’s


123

engagement in their children’s education than to the wealth or the income levels of

the family. To the extent that a child’s school outcomes are associated with how

engaged his or her family is in their education, these findings highlight the

importance of adult literacy inside the home. Five of the total sixteen instances

where wealth or income have a significant positive relationship (p B 0.05) with

educational engagement are models that account for the literacy levels of only the

oldest female. But these relationships become insignificant in the models when we

jointly account for the literacy levels of the oldest male and female in the household.

This might suggest that in these models wealth or income are proxies for the literacy

levels of the adult male (which could have a direct bearing on his earning potential

and potentially the family’s economic status). Also, in those instances when these

relationships are significant, it is important to remind ourselves that these gains in

the probability of the given educational engagement are associated with large

increases in wealth (owning none of the wealth indicators to all owning all of the

seven indicators) and income (from the bottom to the top of the income quintile).

Arguably, these gains are much harder to obtain than gains in adult literacy levels.

Second, the findings highlight that the inability to read the local official language

is more strongly related to negative educational engagement than lack of formal

education. This may be due to the fact that lack of formal education does not mean

complete inability to transact formally in the local language. Conversely, having

formal education does not automatically imply an ability to read and write in the

local language. The inability to read the local language may be more closely

indicative of the adult’s inability to conduct official transactions in the local

language that involve any kind of written or formal communication.

Third, the findings also highlight an interesting relationship between adult female

and adult male literacy and educational engagement in the household. The two

educational engagement variables that are more directly related to children’s day-to-

day schooling experiences (promoting academic skills, and knowledge about

teacher performance) are more strongly and closely associated with the literacy

level of the adult female in the household. The remaining two engagement variables

that capture broader engagement in the education of the child (non-school reading

material, knowledge about future opportunities) are however more strongly

associated with the literacy levels of both adults. These figures support the

observations elsewhere in the literature that the female adult or caregiver plays a

distinct and important role in shaping a child’s schooling opportunities and

experiences.

We also notice that the disadvantage of being in an illiterate household is largest

in terms of the broader engagement variables (non-school reading material,

knowledge about future opportunities). In other words, an illiterate family does its

best to learn about its child’s teachers and to encourage its child to acquire academic

skills, but in terms of providing additional learning opportunities (through non-

school reading material) or in knowing how best to plan the child’s future

educational trajectory, such a family is especially disadvantaged.

While this study helps us understand the potential relationship between adult

literacy in the household and educational engagement, there are four key limitations

that we must acknowledge. The four school engagement variables we used for this


123

study were generated from coding and compiling responses to open-ended

questions. The data were collected in the local language (Gujarati), translated and

entered in English and coded and collapsed based on the English translation. It is

possible that in the process of data collection, translation, coding and entry we may

have lost the nuance of the responses. However, it is the richness of these open-

ended questions that allowed us to generate these engagement variables which may

otherwise not have been available. Second, our data structure did not allow us to

identify the literacy levels of the parents, but rather it identified the literacy levels of

the oldest male and female in the household. While we limited our sample to

households with at least one child aged 18 years or under, we must acknowledge it

is likely that in several instances the oldest male or female may not have been the

child’s parent but perhaps the grandparent, or uncle/aunt. In the rural Indian family

context, where hierarchies of age also closely determine an individual’s decision-

making authority in the household, the oldest individual may still provide a

reasonable (if not accurate) reflection of the education levels of the key decision-

makers in the household. Third, our measures of literacy (lack of formal education,

lack of local language reading ability) were both based on self-reports. It is possible

that such self-reporting may have inaccurately captured the true literacy levels.

However, self-report tends to be the standard practice for collecting literacy data

even in large-scale census exercises and we realise that it may be harder to obtain

better quality data on some of these variables from other sources as well. Finally,

without the benefit of a randomised field trial, or more sophisticated econometric

analysis, we must remind our readers to view these results as systematic

‘‘associations’’ rather than ‘‘causation’’.

Having noted these limitations, we conclude with the key findings of this study

and their implications. Engagement in a child’s education is a complex process and,

depending on the culture and the context, it may be revealed through a variety of

behaviours. In this study, we used four such measures of a household’s educational

engagement to investigate the relationship between the literacy levels in the

household and the household’s educational engagement. We also compared these

findings with educational engagement of households with different wealth and

income levels. Based on this descriptive analysis, we found that, uniformly,

indicators of household literacy levels were far more important in understanding a

household’s educational engagement than a household’s wealth and income levels.

We also found that the less literate households were particularly disadvantaged in

terms of educational engagement measured in terms of availability of non-school

reading materials, or information about planning the child’s future, but relatively

less disadvantaged when educational engagement was measured in terms of

information about teacher performance or the promotion of academic skills at home.

This finding underscores that illiterate families are not less ‘‘willing’’ but perhaps

simply less ‘‘able’’ to engage with their children’s schooling experience when such

an engagement requires additional information or awareness of resources. This

argument is further strengthened by the finding that it is especially the inability to

read the local language that disadvantages a family in terms of educational

engagement, indicating again that the limited educational engagement may be


123

stemming from a limited capacity to engage with the formal education system,

rather than limited willingness to do so.

Given that increased household educational engagement is associated with better

educational outcomes for children in the long run, this study highlights the

importance of focusing on adult literacy levels inside the household. Such a focus

on adult literacy, especially local language literacy, may support caregivers greatly

in learning about and creating better educational opportunities for their children.

Improved household educational engagement may, in turn, translate into improved

educational outcomes for these children.

Acknowledgments Part of Karyn Miller’s time on this project was supported by the Education Policy

Center, College of Education, Michigan State University. We thank Avinash Pandey for contributing to

the data collection efforts.

References

Archer, D., & Cottingham, S. (1996). Action research report on reflect: The experiences of three Reflect

pilot projects in Uganda, Bangladesh and El Salvador. In Education Research Serial No.17. London:

Overseas Development Administration.

Aryeetey, E., & Kwakye, E. (2005). Case Study of the National Functional Literacy Program (NFLP II)in Ghana. Paper presented at the Addressing Inequalities: Policies for Inclusive Development

Conference, Ghana.

Bhola, H. S. (1988). A policy analysis of adult literacy education in India: Across the two national policyreviews of 1968 and 1986. Atlanta: Comparative and International Education Society.

Burchfield, S., Hua, H., Baral, D., & Rocha, V. (2002). A longitudinal study of the effect of integratedliteracy and basic education programs on women’s participation in social and economicdevelopment in Nepal. Nepal: USAID, Office of Women in Development.

Chudgar, A. (2009). Does adult literacy have a role to play in addressing the universal elementary

education challenge in India? Comparative Education Review, 53(3), 403–433.

Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement:

The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology,19(2), 294.

DeGarmo, D. S., Forgatch, M. S., & Martinez, C. R., Jr. (1999). Parenting of divorced mothers as a link

between social status and boys’ academic outcomes: Unpacking the effects of socioeconomic status.

Child Development, 70(5), 1231–1245.

Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support andFamily Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review: DfES.

DFID Background Briefing. (2008). Adult literacy: An update. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from

http://www.unesco.org.uk/UserFiles/File/Education%20Report/DFID_Literacy%20Briefing.pdf.

Fan, X. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A growth modeling analysis.

The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(1), 27.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis.

Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.

Finn, J. D. (1998). Parental engagement that makes a difference. Educational Leadership, 55(8), 20–24.

Government of India. (2004). Annual report 2004–2005. New Delhi: Department of Elementary

Education and Literacy, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human

Resource Development.

Heystek, J. (2003). Parents as governors and partners in schools. Education and Urban Society, 35(3),

328.

Khan, M. B. (1996). Parental involvement in education: Possibilities and limitations. School CommunityJournal, 6, 57–68.

Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school conceptualizing

multiple dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 38(6), 501–523.


123

http://www.unesco.org.uk/UserFiles/File/Education%20Report/DFID_Literacy%20Briefing.pdf

Lauglo, J. (2001). Engaging with adults: The case for increased support to adult basic education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC: Africa Region, World Bank.

Mathew, A. (2002). Indian engagement with adult education and literacy. In R. Govinda (Ed.), Indiaeducation report (pp. 221–232). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

McNeal, R. B. (2001). Differential effects of parental involvement on cognitive and behavioral outcomes

by socioeconomic status. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(2), 171–179.

Mills, C., & Gale, T. (2004). Parent participation in disadvantaged schools: Moving beyond attributions

of blame. Australian Journal of Education, 48(3), 268–281.

Okech, A., Carr-Hill, R. A., Katahoire, A., Kakooza, T., Ndidde, A., & Oxenham, J. (2001). Adult literacyprograms in Uganda. Washington DC: World Bank Publication.

Pratham. (2008). Annual Survey of Education Report (ASER) 2008. Accessed May 28, 2009 from

http://www.pratham.org/aser08/aser08.pdf.

Shrestha, G. M., Lamichhane, S. R., Thapa, B. K., Chitrakar, R., Useem, M., & Comings, J. P. (1986).

Determinants of educational participation in rural Nepal. Comparative Education Review, 30(4),

508–522.

Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement.

Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141.

UNESCO. (2006). EFA global monitoring report 2006. Literacy for life. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2008). EFA global monitoring report 2008. Summary. Paris: UNESCO/Oxford University

Press.

The authors

Amita Chudgar is an Assistant Professor at the College of Education of Michigan State University. Her

current research focuses on equity in educational access and achievement in the international comparative

context.

Karyn Miller is a doctoral student in the Education Policy program at Michigan State University’s

College of Education.

Brij Kothari is an adjunct professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA), the

President of PlanetRead, and an Ashoka and Schwab Fellow. He and his team have innovated, researched

and nationally implemented Same Language Subtitling (SLS) in India, for mass literacy.


123

http://www.pratham.org/aser08/aser08.pdf

relationship between household literacy and educational engagement: analysis of data from rajkot...

Documents