Chapter Two Data

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter reviewed literature related to the study. It was done in
three sections, the theoretical framework, conceptual framework, and the
review of empirical studies.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study reviewed theories which give
explanation to how single parenting influences the academic performance of
students. Theories that were reviewed include the Family Deficit Model,
Risk
and Protective Factor Model, The Social Exchange Theory, Family
Socialization Perspective Model, The Theory of Social Network Paradigm,
The Theory of Overlapping Spheres of Influence, Economic Deprivation
Theory and other perspectives (No-Impact Perspective and Systems
Perspective).
Family Deficit Model
The Family Deficit Model was propounded by Hetherington and Kelly
(2002). This model viewed the intact or two-parent home as the ideal home
or
family structure. The model assumes that the lack of a nuclear family
structure
in single-parent families is what results in a negative impact on the children
hence the proponents of the Family Deficit Model postulate that single
parenting is bad for children. Marsh (1990) indicated that early research into
the effects of single parenting focused on a "family deficit model".
It was assumed that single parenting can cause deficits in children's

cognitive,
emotional, and behavioural development. The model plays down the effects
that economic and other background factors could have on the academic
attainments of the learners (Donahoo, 2003). Moreover, it has been opined
by
Hill (2006) that the family deficit model holds the belief that single-parent
households are deficient in various critical ways for effective child training.
Hill argued that this could be so because there may not be any single parent
(father or mother) that can fully play the roles of the father and mother in the
raising of a child in all areas such as feeding, clothing, shelter and
education.
On this basis, the Family Deficit Model assumes that single parent homes
can
have an influence on the academic performance of pupils.
Risk and Protective Factor Model

The Risk and Protective Factor Model was developed in the early
1990s by Raiter and colleagues as cited in Amoakohene (2013). The Risk
and
Protective Factor Model describes the family structure as having many risk
factors which can be either background characteristics or life events that
may
have a negative effect on the development of the child. The foundation for
the
model is that all families have both strengths and weaknesses and as such
this
model does not regard single-parent families as irregular. It is these
strengths
and weaknesses, they propose, that lead to differing outcomes in children's
adjustment (Marsh, 1990). The Risk factors are the quantifiable attributes
that
have the tendency to reduce the effective and appropriate accomplishment
of a
family’s goals. Protective factors, on the other hand describe all measurable
potentials that can ensure the success and appropriate family achievement.
Several researchers have suggested with this model as their basis that there
are
several risk and protective factors which work together to influence a child's
academic performance positively or otherwise (Donahoo, 2003; Ushie,
Emeka, Ononga, & Owolabi, 2012). The researchers take this stand instead
of
seeing single parenting as the sole predictor of academic success or failure
for
children.
Single parents can indulge in child abuse which includes venting out
their anger, pain or problematic state of mind on their children. This can
result
in a devastating effect. However, the effect of a single parent turning out to
be
abusive can be negated by having both parents around. This is so because
there can be hope and moral support as the child can look up to the good
parent. Single parenting can therefore be viewed in the overall framework of
the risk and protective factor model. Thus, rather than being defined as the
cause of problems during development, single parenting can be identified as
one risk factor that can lead to unsuccessful outcomes. Effective
interventions
can then be designed by practitioners with knowledge of which protective
factors can deal with the risk. Single parents can strive to enhance the
protective factors in the case when single parenting is identified to be one
risk
factor in the development of children.
The Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory has its origins in Structural Anthropology
(Levi-Straus), Behavioral Psychology (B. F. Skinner, Albert Bandura),
Utilitarian Economics (D. Ricardo, Adam Smith, J. S. Mill), Sociology
(George Homans, Peter Blau) and Social Psychology (Thibaut & Kelly).
When two parents or intact homes separate, the children often lose both the
financial and emotional support of their fathers, which can have a negative
impact on academic performance. The social exchange theory suggests that
economic hardship in single-parent families is likely to require adolescents
to
work long hours and to take greater responsibility for younger brothers
and/or
sisters.
Schneider and Coleman (1993) emphasized that family structure can
constrain the availability of economic and social resources such as the
parents’ ability to spend time with their child, get involved in their
children’s
educational activities, and use monetary resources in ways that can promote
positive educational outcomes. As a result, these time-consuming activities
are likely to be related to lower school achievement. In this sense then,
exchanging time spent with children for some economic and financial gain,
has the tendency to affect the life of the children in the house.
Family Socialization Perspective Model

The Family Socialization Perspective model by Bowen (1971) as cited
in Amoakohene (2013) proposes that the absence of a parent is probably
associated with a decrease in total parental involvement, which is in turn
related to poorer school outcomes. It has been revealed by Santrock (as cited
in Berns, 2007) that girls who live with fathers and boys who live with
mothers tend to be less well-adjusted than those who live with the same sex
parents. In explaining further, boys who live with fathers tend to be less
demanding, more mature, independent, sociable, and have self-esteem than
girls in the fathers’ custody situation. Likewise, girls who live with mothers
tend to be less demanding, more mature, independent, and sociable and have
higher self-esteem than boys in mothers’ custody situation. When children
live with their parents of the same sex, they are able to freely ask questions
pertaining to their sexuality. Female children might not feel comfortable to
ask their fathers questions related to their sexuality as they could do when
they were living with their mothers. In this same line of understanding, boys
will not feel comfortable talking to their mothers about their sexuality. In
terms of being more specific, it is often claimed that the absence of fathers
has
particularly negative socialization influences, which may be especially
detrimental for boys. It is very practical for children to be curious on the
things that they watch on television and hear from friends. As a result,
Brusius
(1989) admonished that “there is a great need for parents to teach clear
values
regarding sexuality because the society is teaching its own values”. This
therefore behooves on parents to make issues more understandable for them
so that they can take the necessary precautions. Children need the ideas of
both parents; therefore, single parenting has a great impact on them.
The Theory of Social Network Paradigm

The theory of social network paradigm highlights the value of
significant others in an individual’s social system who make available
support
and resources such as information and money (Blau, 1964, Barnes, 1972).
Although there are several definitions of social network, the most common
mention is to the linkages between individuals, groups, and institutions with
which a person has contact and on which a person perceives he or she can
depend for support (Bott, 1971). One of the primary functions of an
individual’s social network is to provide a buffer against negative stresses,
thereby promoting greater psychological and personal wellbeing (D’ Abbs,
1982). In educational research, it has been found that children with
welldeveloped social networks have more positive educational outcomes
thanchildren without them (Coates, 1987). It has been opined by Clark
(1991) thatsocial networks provide social support which is defined as the
availability of
people on whom others can rely, people who let others know that they care
about, value and love them. Clark asserts that the greater a child’s social
support, the greater the likelihood that he or she will succeed in school. With
this in mind, it can be inferred that the family structure (single or two-parent
homes) can affect the achievement of pupils in school. The parental support
will serve as a source of social network.
The Theory of Overlapping Spheres of Influence
Epstein (1987) propounded the theory of overlapping spheres of
influence. The theory of overlapping spheres of influence emphasizes the
vital
role of schools, families and communities working together to meet the
needs
of children. This theory integrates educational, sociological, and
psychological perspectives on social organizations as well as the effects of
family, school and community environment on educational outcomes. It
acknowledges the interlocking histories of the major institutions that
socialize
and educate children. A principle central to this theory is that certain goals
such as students’ academic success, is of mutual interest to people in each of
these institutions, and is best achieved through their cooperative action and
support. This theory acknowledges the fact that support from families,
teachers and other significant factors such as achievement motivation are
responsible for the socialization of children which influence their school
attitude, behaviours and academic achievement. In this regard, the structure
of
the family is likely to have an effect on the overall academic performance of
pupils.
© University of Cape Coast https://erl.ucc.edu.gh/jspui
Digitized by Sam Jonah Library
21
Economic Deprivation Theory
The economic deprivation theory suggests that economic hardship in
single-parent families is likely to require adolescents to work long hours and
to take greater responsibility for younger brothers and/or sisters. As a result,
these time-consuming activities are likely to be related to lower school
achievement. In the view of Lanier and Huff-Corzine (2006), family
disruption can be a factor to young people’s behaviour. They argue that
young
people who are from female headed households where the spouse is absent
will more likely feel at a disadvantage than their peers and engage in more
violence. Black, Howard, and Nina (1998) opined that interventions for
youths who face economic deprivation should not be focused solely on
economic deprivation indicators. They made use of an ecological approach
to
examine the precursors of violence and direct attention to risk and protective
factors at the individual, parent, family, and neighbourhood levels. Black et
al.
argue that preventative interventions for young people particularly those in
poverty should be implemented in childhood. The interventions should also
promote positive options for young people and help to develop life and
employment skills. From this point of view, it can be argued that when there
is
only one parent in the home, children are likely to be affected because there
will be a deprivation of resources and thus affecting their behaviour and
academic work.
Other Perspectives
No-Impact Perspective
The no-impact perspective claims that the association between
changing family structures and children's academic outcomes can be
attributed
22
to a combination of family background factors such as parents' education
and
incomes and the ethnicity/race of the family. Further, some researchers
propose that much family structure research is inconclusive because it has
failed to differentiate among various types of single-parent families such as
whether they result from marital disruption (divorce or separation), parental
death, or a never-married parent. In addition, it is suggested that many
studies
fail to take into account the timing in a child's life of a family disruption, the
duration of the effects of that disruption, and whether the lone parent is the
father, mother, or a guardian.
Systems perspective
Several perspectives have considered by researchers in studying
structure of the family and its impact. However, researchers began looking
at
Single Parent homes from a Systems perspective in the 1980’s. They tried to
determine the actual reasons why children from Single Parent homes were
disadvantaged in comparison to children from two-parent (TP) homes. It
was
found by Milne, Myers, Rosenthal and Ginsburg (1986) that parental
expectations, number of books in the home, and income were significant
predictors of academic performance of children and especially so in children
of Single Parent Homes. In a similar fashion, Teachman (1987) discovered
four important educational resources that play a significant role in
determining
level of schooling for both men and women. This generated further research
when Downey (1994) used the study of Teachman as a foundation and
identified 11 key educationally related objects. These included: a place to
study, a daily newspaper, regular magazine, encyclopedia, atlas, dictionary,
typewriter, computer, more than 50 books, calculator and one’s own room.
23
Downey argued that the presence or absence of these things predictors of the
academic performance of children in the future.
Further, in the systems perspective, Krein and Beller (1988) studied
the differences of the effect of living in a Single Parent homes on
educational
achievement by gender and the length of parent absence. In terms of gender
it
was revealed that the negative effects were greater for boys than girls.
Negative effects of living in a Single Parent home also was found to
increase
with the total time spent in a Single Parent home. Kim (2004) reported that
while family income is important, other factors have a greater influence on
academic performance. Parental expectations, family size, and the quality of
the parent child relationship were seen as stronger predictors of future
academic success than income. The focus for this perspective is that there
could be several reasons responsible for the effects of living in a single
parent
home. With this in mind, the effect cannot be attributed to only one thing.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework used for the study is an adapted model of
the framework developed by Amoakohene (2013). The model is related to
the
model of parental involvement by (Nechyba, McEwan, & Older–Aguilar,
1999) as cited in Amoakohene (2013). In the view of Nechyba et al., the
academic achievement and adjustment of pupils are influenced by people,
processes and institutions. In the current model, single parent families is
considered as an institution that can influence academic performance,
however, being also influenced by some intervening or mediating variables
such as gender.
24
Figure 1: Effects of Family Structure on Academic Performance
Source: Adapted from Amoakohene (2013). The variables in the model are
explained as to how they all fit together as a conceptual framework for the
study.
Single Parent Family
Single-parent family is a social phenomenon which has become more
common over the past few decades (Gucciardi, Celasun and Stewart, 2004).
A
single parent is the parent who has the day to day duty in the raising of his
or
her children alone without the help of the wife or husband. It has been
indicated by Eweniyi (2005) and Tenijbanije (2009) that single parent
families’ results from issues such as divorce, loss of one parent, never
married, and separation. Lee, Kusher, and Cho (2007) viewed single-parent
family unit as threats to a child’s development. This they argue is so because
single-parent families are unable to fulfill the appropriate responsibilities
towards the child. Bellavia and Frone (2005) have also indicated that single
parents struggle with most family demands. Milkie, Mattingly, Nomaguchi
and Bianchi (2004) report that even though single parents suffer from the
Family Structure
(Single-Parent
Family)
Academic
Performance
Intervening Variables
(Gender)
25
highest rates of time-strain based conflicts, they are not more likely to report
spending insufficient time with their children.
Further, family structures have been widely identified by several
studies to have a significant influence on learners` overall performance
including cognitive attainment level (Eweniyi, 2005; Tenibiaje, 2009). This
can be verified to be true since Osunloye (2008) opined that family
background including family structure size, socio-economic status and
educational background play important roles in the educational achievement
and level of social development of individuals. From the foregoing, the
place
of single parent family in the framework as having predictive linkage to
academic success can be supported.
Intervening Variable (Gender)
The gender of a particular child can be an intervening or mediating
variable between the effects of single parenting and academic performance.
In
some instance it can have an influence or otherwise. Thus, it can either
mediate the effect of single parenting positively or negatively. This means
whether an individual is male or female is likely to determine the degree to
which the individual child is affected by living in single parented home.
Academic Performance
Onzima (2011) opined that children of single parent homes have the
tendency of not finishing up their studies at the high school and college
levels.
They also have less parental care, parent monitoring of school work and less
social supervision. In the view of Dreyer (1994) and Zangqa (1994) there
are
three requirements for Academic Achievement that should be met by the
school. They are:
26
a. Children must be helped to recognize their potentials
b. They should have to be motivated to utilize these potentials
c. The school must recognize learners’ potentials.
These requirements indicate that the school is the place where
adolescents can realise or actualise their academic potentials. However, the
achievement of academic success is not the work of the school alone;
parents
have to play their part. Getting time of their commitments, their office work,
and businesses to get involved in the academic work of their children is vital
for the children to succeed. Therefore, it is expedient that parents do not
overlook their teens irrespective of tight their schedules, they should devote
their time to be with their children at home.
Other Concepts Related to the Study
This section reviews other concepts that are related to the study.
Factors that can affect student performance
Several factors affect the academic performance of pupils and so when
society refuses to take responsibility and when children themselves behave
inappropriately towards their studies they may fail to meet a passing
standard.
Regardless of the fact that there can be many factors responsible for why
children or pupils might struggle with academic work, by grouping factors
according to sources, you can begin to identify where specific performance
factors come from and how they are connected to each other.
The factors can be grouped into the following:
Student-related factors
There are some reasons for poor performance that are specific or
related to the students and not related to external factors. One issue as that
can
27
be bullying especially cyber bullying. The evolution of technology and
social
media communication has, in some countries if not most, made it easier than
ever for young people to be exposed to environments that can make bullying
unbearable and even more threatening than ever before.
Other student related issues can involve self-motivation and learning
disability. The issues are student-centered and may create an obstacle to
reaching certain academic standards. The role of motivation in performance
is
visible in the sense that a student may be fully capable of earning high
grades
but might simply not care enough about education to exert the effort. Issues
of
motivation could be placed upon the parents or even the school, but
sometimes a child simply does not enjoy learning.
Teacher-Related Factors
Teachers play a significant role in student performance and also can be
responsible for poor student performance. For instance, if a teacher lacks
experience or is dispassionate about teaching, the children might not be able
to develop comprehensive understandings of the subject material.
Furthermore, if the teacher has classroom management problems, such as
extreme authoritarianism, the classroom environment might hinder fruitful
class discussions and collaborative learning. Poor classroom management
can
also deter students from applying themselves to the best of their abilities.
School-related factors
Schools themselves can then be contributors to pupils’ performance. In
an environment where learning is not conducive, pupils usually put forth
less
effort because the expectations placed upon them have been lowered in
order
to cope with increased demand for education. In schools that can’t afford
28
more teachers or building expansions, classes sometimes become
overcrowded to the point that children learn under trees and teachers have to
spend more time on ‘classroom’ management than on teaching, which can
result in lower student performance. Rural and township schools are the
most
affected and in these areas you also find the highest levels of poverty.
Family-related factors
Finally, family-related factors can play a critical role in a student’s
academic performance. This is the main focus of the study.
Family
Generally, family can be seen as a group of people who have
biological, emotional or legal ties to each other (McDaniel, Campbell, &
Seaburn, 1990). The concept of family has changed from the large extended
family to smaller units, the nuclear family, and nowadays to even smaller
single-parent families. Family was earlier seen as an institution, but
nowadays, the family is based on the intimate relationship between two
adults
and as such if the relationship is not working, the family will probably be
broken (Jallinoja, 2000).
The concept of parenting
Parenting can be simply defined as the process or the state of being a
parent (Brooks, 1987). You are involved in the process of parenting, once
you
have a child. However, it is not that simple and Morrison (1978) defined
parenting as the process of developing and utilizing the knowledge and
skills
appropriate to planning for, creating, giving birth to, rearing and/or
providing
care for offspring. This definition implies that parenting starts when there is
a
plan for it and it involves not just bringing up the children but also providing
29
care for them. Parenting has been seen as a ‘task’ that includes the
dimensions
of sensitivity to a child’s needs, social communication and emotional
expressiveness and disciplinary control (Rutter, 1985). Parenting is also
viewed as being situated within a relationship which is affected by a wide
variety of factors. The interaction of these ‘determining factors’ in
increasing
risk or acting as compensatory ‘buffers’ is crucial to an understanding of the
parenting process (Woodcock, 2003). Further, Bornestein (2002) viewed
parenting in this sense “parents create people; is the entrusted and abiding
task
of parents to prepare their offspring for the physical, psychological and
economic conditions in which they will eventually fare, and it is hoped,
flourish; parents are the final common pathway to children’s development
and
stature, adjustment and success” (p. 9).
The purpose of parenting is to facilitate the child’s optimal
development within a safe environment (Reder, Duncan, & Lucey, 2003). It
is
important to recognise that the qualities a family is expected to encourage
and
develop in a child are culturally determined and thus will differ. For
example,
in the view of Small (2004), self-reliance and independence are seen as
important for parents of children in western cultures to foster, whereas
reliance on others and community interdependence can be viewed as
important in other cultures. It is generally accepted that the role of parents is
to ensure the successful socialization of children.
Based on a comprehensive review of the research on parenting
competence, Teti and Candelaria (2002) noted general areas of agreement in
the empirical literature about strategies that assist in the successful
socialization of children. They include:
30
1. parental warmth, sensitivity, and acceptance of children’s basic needs
are core features of parenting associated with positive outcomes in
children, irrespective of their developmental stage
2. harsh, coercive parenting is regarded to be detrimental to children,
although the extent of negative impact depends on the age and
temperament of the child
3. parental involvement appears to be better than no involvement at all,
although involvement by itself is not a good indicator of parenting
competence
4. parental control in the context of high parental warmth and sensitivity
produces better adjusted children than circumstances in which parental
control is not accompanied by warmth
5. the most successful disciplinary strategies enable children to
internalize the message behind the discipline attempt. Excessive
control can raise a child’s arousal to the point where greater attention
is paid to the parent’s emotion than the message he or she is wishing to
convey.
Some core elements of parenting have been enlisted by Hoghhughi
(1997) as cited in White (2005):
1. Care: This involves meeting the child’s needs for physical, emotional
and social well-being and protecting the child from avoidable illness,
harm, accident or abuse.
2. Control: Involves setting and enforcing appropriate boundaries.
3. Development: This involves realizing the child’s potential in various
domains.
31
In order to be effective, the parent needs to have:
1. Knowledge: Involves knowledge of how the child’s care needs can
best be met, the child’s developmental potential, how to interpret the
child’s cues and sources of harm.
2. Motivation: Having the motivation to protect, to sacrifice personal
needs.
3. Resources: Includes both material and personal resource.
4. Opportunity: The right time and space.
These elements are not static but need to be achieved within the
evolving relationship between parent and child.
The Concept of Single Parenting
Single-parenting can be defined as a situation in which one of the two
individuals involved in the conception of the child is being responsible for
the
upbringing of the child (Henslim, 1985; Whitting & Child, 1993).
Singleparenthood may also arise when either the male or the female decides
to
produce and raise a child or children outside wedlock (Ortesse, 1998). This
implies that the other partner is possibly alive but has neglected his or her
responsibilities to the child. Single parent families are either headed by
mothers, fathers, and/or grandparents raising up grandchildren.
The Chambers English Dictionary (2007) also define single-parenting
as a mother or father bringing up children alone. The definition however
ignores those who legally adopt children as parent. Therefore,
singleparenting in this study refers to a situation where one of the two
individuals
who brought a child to the world or legally adopted a child is dead or alive
but
32
does not perform any responsibility in the nurturing and upbringing of the
child.
Single-parenting is one of the biggest challenges facing the world
today. According to Parent Easy Guide Series [PEGS] (2011), parenting in a
single or sole parent household is different in many ways from parenting in
a
two parent household. Some people choose single parenting; others have it
thrust upon them. PEGS (2011) went ahead to say that, there are those who
choose to raise a child alone, those who decide to leave a two parent
relationship and to become a sole parent and those who are left behind with
the children. Each path has its own issues to deal with.
The increase of the proportion of children living only with one parent
especially their mothers is accounted for mainly by a rise in the proportion
of
children living with the divorced mother, although there has also been a
dramatic rise in the proportion of children born to never-married mothers
(Hernandez, 1988; Bumpass, 1990).
The step-parent family
It has been estimated that most of the single parents remarry a few
years after a divorce or death of a former spouse (Bumpass & Raley 1995,
Piha 2000). A new family is formed with one parent and his/her biological
children and a step-parent. Thus, children receive a new “social parent “.
Sometimes both parents bring their children from the previous marriage to a
new family and may even have new children together.
Factors responsible for single parenting
The 21st century has witnessed an increase in single parent families
which is deemed to have emerged from circumstances such as divorce,
33
separation, hospitalization, imprisonment, desertions, out of-state
employment, and so on (Hamner & Turner, 1990). Ambert (2009) revealed
that one of the causes of single parenting is divorce. Other factors
responsible
include the loss of one partner through death (Maier & Lachman, 2000),
separation of partners (Burke, McIntosh, & Gridley, 2009) and
imprisonment
of a partner (Glaze, Maruschak, & Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008). These
same factors have been reported by Salami and Alawode (2000) who
asserted
that single parenting results from factors such as divorce, separation, having
children from wedlock and death of one spouse. The findings of Salami and
Alawode further confirmed the findings of Ortese (1998).
According to Holakooi, Gotbi and Jazayeri (2004) the reasons for
divorce could be lack of mutual understanding between couples, addiction,
interference from extended family, financial problems, demographic factors
and parental psychopathology which leads to an unstable relationship
between
the family. Further, Amato (2000) pointed out that single parent families
were
historically as a result of parental death, as it was shown that about one-
fourth
of children born around the turn of the nineteenth century experienced death
of a parent before they reached the age of fifteen. In developing countries, it
has been found by Kinnear (1999) that divorce is not common compared to
desertion, death, and imprisonment in producing single-parent families,
mainly under the care of women. Several factors that are responsible for
single parenting were identified in the review, such as divorce, separation,
death, imprisonment etc. Comparatively, however, single parenting in
developing countries may be less caused by divorce as in the developed
countries. This may be due to the fact in places like Ghana, there is much
34
cultural relevance to staying married and as such seeking official divorce
can
be seen as shameful.
Effects of single parenting on children
Children from single-parent families may be more likely to experience
less healthy lives, on the average, than children from intact families. For
instance, children growing up with only one parent are more likely to drop
out
of school, bear children out of wedlock, and have trouble keeping jobs as
young adults. One factor that may be responsible for this variation between
the lives of children from intact families and those from single parent
families
is income. Lack of income has been identified as the single most important
factor in accounting for the differences in children from various family
forms
(Lindblad-Goldberg, 1989).
Specifically, it will not be surprising that in most mother-only families
are more likely to be poor because of the lower earning capacity of women,
inadequate public assistance and child care subsidies, and lack of enforced
child support from non-residential fathers. Poor, single, working parents
often
are forced to choose between quality and flexibility of child care
arrangements. Many jobs offering adequate pay require long and/or irregular
hours. As such, for many single parents, this may mean using caregivers and
other less well-trained or experienced child care providers who are working
long hours or supervising too many children.
Influences of Family structure
McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) found that other things being equal,
teenagers who spent part of their childhood apart from their biological father
were twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to become
35
parents themselves before age twenty and one and a half times as likely to
be
idle in their late teens and early twenties. McLanahan and Sandefur revealed
further that low incomes and sudden drops in income are the most important
reasons that children in single-mother families fare worse than other
children.
Specifically, McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) summarised their research by
writing: “Children who grow up in a household with only one biological
parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household
with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or
educational background, regardless of whether the parents are married when
the child is born, and regardless of whether the resident parent remarries” (p.
1).
Another factor behind the disadvantages faced by children in singleparent
families is inadequate attention and guidance from the single parent.
Children need more than just economic security to thrive; they require
parents
who have the time to help them with their homework, read to them and
listen
to how their day went in school. They also need parents who can supervise
their activities outside of school. One parent alone might not have the time
to
do these things, whereas two parents working together could have the time
for
this.
Other specific areas of influence of the family structure are:
Educational attainment: Family structure is related to educational
attainment.
Ginther (2004) indicated that individuals from intact families completed, on
average, more years of schooling and were also more likely to graduate from
high school, attend college and complete college compared to peers raised in
single-parent families.
36
School behaviour: Adolescents in intact families may be less likely to
exhibit
problem behaviour in school and may tend to have higher levels of
academic
achievement compared to children living in single parent families.
Special needs classes: On average, a greater proportion of children who are
in
special education classes may come from single-parent households.
Parental marital disruption and academic achievement: Parental divorce
or
separation is related to youths’ academic performance and educational
expectations. Compared with their peers from intact families, students who
had experienced parental marital disruptions scored lower on academic tests
and had lower educational aspirations both before and after the disruptions
(Sun & Li, 2002).
Parental involvement in education: Family structure can be associated with
parents’ educational expectations and involvement with their children’s
school
work. Astone and McLanahan (1991) found that children of single parents
reported that their parents had lower educational expectations for them
compared to reports from children in intact families. The children from
singleparent families group also reported that their parents are less likely to
monitor
school work and provide “less overall supervision of social activities”
compared to reports from children in intact families.
Divorce and school attendance: Compared with their peers in intact
families,
children from divorced single-parent households tend to have greater levels
of
absenteeism, tardiness and truancy in school (Demo & Acock, 1988).
Parental
divorce altered daily routines and work schedules while imposing additional
demands on both adults and children living in single-parent households.
This
is because most adolescents might have to assume extra domestic and
37
childcare responsibilities. These are what might cause children from single
parent households to be involved in greater levels of absenteeism, tardiness
and truancy in school.
Other Influences on Children
Home environment
It has been found that even when students live in comparable
neighborhoods and do not differ on traditional measures of socioeconomic
status, home environment variables still explain a significant amount of
achievement variance (Levine, Lachowicz, Oxman, & Tangeman, 1972).
Dave (1963) examined the relationship between the family environment and
academic achievement of children at age 11. He identified six process
variables as characterizing the educational "press" of the family
environment:
(1) achievement press, (2) language models, (3) academic guidance, (4)
activeness of the family, (5) intellectuality in the home and (6) the work
habits
of the family.
Clark (1982) used a case study approach to distinguish between
surface structure of families (traditional socioeconomic indicators such as
income, occupation, and education as well as family intactness and
ethnicity)
and internal structure of families (personality characteristics,
communication
patterns, and learning opportunity structures). Three types of home activities
that appear to be more relevant for school achievement: (1) explicit
literacynurturing activities, which include studying, reading, writing, and
explicit
social etiquette practices; (2) cultural literacy-enhancing activities that serve
leisure needs such as watching television and engaging in hobbies and (3)
home and personal health maintenance activities such as chores, caring for
38
children and other household members, and attending to one's own personal
upkeep and well-being.
There is some disagreement over the extent and direction of the
interactive influences of home environment variables and individual child
characteristics on achievement outcomes. It has been suggested by Mercy
and
Steelman (1982) that it is possible that bright children select intellectually
stimulating activities or encourage their parents to provide such experiences.
However, it is also possible that parents' aspirations for their child, parental
concern for academic achievement, and other achievement "press" variables
are based on parents' perceptions of their child's ability or potential. It can
therefore be realised that it is unlikely that the home environment effect
represents a one-way flow from parent to child.
Parental involvement
There is a general view that children of parents who are more involved
in their children's education adapt better to the demands of school than do
the
children of less-in-involved parents. Epstein and Becker (1982) pointed out
however that not all forms of parental involvement are equally effective or
equally welcomed by school personnel. Participation in PTA meetings and
conferences and as classroom volunteers typically involves relatively few
parents who show up to be involved. But almost all parents can be involved
in
their children's educational activities at home. As a result, Epstein and
Becker
(1982) opined that of all types of parental involvement, supervision of
learning activities at home may be the most educationally significant. This
view was supported by Bronfenbrenner (1974) that there is some evidence
that intervention programs based on the principle of parental involvement,
39
either as home educators of their own children or as teacher aides or tutors,
have been relatively successful.
Child-parent centers that stress parental involvement have been
particularly effective in enhancing the achievement of low-income inner-
city
minority children (Fuerst, 1977). Combining a warm, supportive home
atmosphere with a warm, supportive school setting was found to enhance
the
achievement of children in Project Head Start (Shipman et al., 1976). Comer
(1980) also stressed the importance of parental involvement in contributing
to
effective student outcomes.
Poverty's effects on parenting
Income loss appears to affect the well-being of children indirectly
through negative impact on family relations and parenting. Single parents
experience a variety of stressors related to poverty (i.e., financial, emotional,
social). The link between economic stress and mental health has been
documented in various studies.
Financial strain appears to be one of the strongest predictors of
depression in single parents. Higher levels of depression is predictive of
more
punitive disciplinary practices and decreased parental nurturance, support,
and
satisfaction with the parenting role (McLoyd, Jayaratne, Ceballo, &
Borquez,
1994). This is because single parents must obtain sufficient money to cover
the most basic needs, such as food, shelter, and clothing. The chronic strains
of poverty combined with task overload significantly increases vulnerability
to new life stressors. Poor single mothers often experience a cycle of
hopelessness and despair which is detrimental to both themselves and their
children.
40
Overcoming difficult circumstances as single parents
Despite the seemingly insurmountable challenges facing poor single
parents, many families have increasingly demonstrated themselves to be
viable, well-adjusted and alternative family forms (Lindbald-Goldberg,
1989).
Most single parent families are able to function well and to promote
education, resourcefulness, and responsibility in their children.
Successful single parent families have adopted more adaptive
functioning styles. This includes:
1. more available personal resources, which enhances their coping
effectiveness;
2. better family organization, which balances household responsibilities
and decreases task overload;
3. a positive family concept, which values loyalty, home-centeredness,
consideration, communication, and closeness;
4. an ability to highlight positive events and place less emphasis on
negative aspects of stressful events and
5. possessing less stress-producing, supportive social networks.
Parenting among other factors to academic performance of pupils in
Ghana
Parenting has been identified as a major or most crucial factor to a
child’s education and academic performance. Agyeman (1993) reported that
a
teacher who does not have both the academic and the professional teacher
qualification would undoubtedly have a negative influence on the teaching
and learning of his/her subject. However, he further stated that a teacher
who
is academically and professionally qualified, but works under unfavorable
41
conditions of service would be less dedicated to his work and thus be less
productive than a teacher who is unqualified but works under favorable
conditions of service.
Neagley and Evans (1970) were of the view that effective supervision
of instruction can improve the quality of teaching and learning in the
classroom. Etsey, Amedahe and Edjah (2004) in a study of 60 schools from
peri-urban (29 schools) and rural (31 schools) areas in Ghana found that
academic performance was better in private schools than public schools
because of more effective supervision of work.
Another factor is motivation. A highly motivated person puts in the
maximum effort in his or her job. Several factors produce motivation and
job
satisfaction. Young (1989) examined the job satisfaction of Californian
public
school teachers in the USA and found that one of the overall job predictors
was the salary one earned from it. Studies by Lockheed and Verspoor (1991)
indicated that lack of motivation and professional commitment produce poor
attendance and unprofessional attitudes towards students which in turn
affect
the performance of students academically. The availability and use of
teaching
and learning materials affect the effectiveness of a teacher’s lessons.
According to Broom (1973), the creative use of a variety of media increases
the probability that the student would learn more, retain better what they
learn
and improve their performance on the skills that they are expected to
develop.
Ausubel (1973) also stated that young children are capable of
understanding abstract ideas if they are provided with sufficient materials
and
concrete experiences with the phenomenon that they are to understand.
Class
sizes have also been identified as determinants of academic performance.
42
Studies have indicated that schools with smaller class sizes perform better
academically than schools with larger class sizes. Kraft (1994) in his study
of
the ideal class size and its effects on effective teaching and learning in
Ghana
concluded that class sizes above 40 have negative effects on students’
achievement. Asiedu-Akrofi (1978) indicated that since children have
differences in motivation, interests and abilities and that they also differ in
health, personal and social adjustment and creativity generally good
teaching
is best done in classes with smaller numbers that allow for individual
attention.
Butler (1987) has also found homework to be a correlate of academic
performance. He stated that homework bore a positive relationship with
learning outcomes when it is relevant to learning objectives, assigned
regularly in reasonable amounts, well explained, motivational and collected
and reviewed during class time and used as an occasion for feedback to
students. Another school factor that can affect performance in schools was
when Churchill (1965) as cited in Etsey (2005) found a positive relationship
between the location of a school and the student and teacher performance.
Review of Empirical Studies
This section deals with the review of related empirical studies. The
review is done under headings related to the research questions and
objectives
of the study.
Parental Involvement and Pupils Academic Performance
Most empirical evidence suggests that parental or guardian
involvement is associated positively with students’ performance in school
(Nyarko & Vorgelegt, 2007; Topor, Keane, Shelton, & Calkins, 2010). A
43
study conducted by Abudu and Fuseini (2013) revealed that the sample from
two parent homes have most of their parents helping them in their academic
work as compared to those from single parent families. In a similar vein, the
findings of Chowa et al. (2012) revealed that married parents in Ghana are
more likely to engage in their children’s education than single parents.
To further endorse the influence of parental involvement Kellaghan,
Sloane, Alvarez and Bloom (1993) carried out a study that revealed that
family and parental interactions in the house are more significant to pupils’
academic work than the socio-economic background of the pupils. In the
formulation of a model of human development, Ceci, Rosenblum, de Bruyn
and Lee (1997) proposed that parent-child interactions are the forces that
lead
to academic performance. In furtherance, Gutman and Akerman (2008)
revealed that the level of educational achievement of adolescents depends
on
the level of parental and children`s attitudes and aspirations. Parents who
have
high aspirations tend to be more involved in the education of their children
in
order meet up with their set goals for the family. Undeniably, it has been
found that adequate parental investments in the education of their children
are
a common factor to determine the level of success made by the children at
school (Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002; Gershoff, Aber, Raver, &
Lennon, 2006).
In terms of the involvement of single parents, Bondenhorn (2006) as
cited in Ochonogor (2014) posits that single parents are not easily in charge
over their children compared to the intact parents. Single parents have a lot
of
engagements to cover hence they might not able to meet up children’s
academic demands. They can tend to be less involved in outside activities of
44
children education. The studies reviewed indicate that parental involvement
is
vital to the success of students or pupils in their academic work. However,
because of the several tasks that single parents have to undertake it was seen
that single parents can sometimes become less involved with their children.
Nature and Level of Parental Involvement
Chowa et al. (2012) investigate the nature and level of parental
involvement—including engagement and monitoring—by comparing
parents
who had never been engaged in their children’s education to those who had
been involved both in the school environment and at home. Their study
based
in Ghana reviews that while Ghanaian parents often have engaged in their
children’s schooling in one form or another, their involvement historically
has
been limited to school related activities at home (e.g., ensuring completion
of
homework) and that this is changing as more parents are interacting with the
school environment by attending school meetings and recreational events
(Elam, Rose, & Gallup, 1994).
Their study and other empirical research consistently have found
associations between a host of socio-demographic factors (e.g., economic
circumstances, personal priorities, self-interest, child’s and parents’ level of
education, family structure, and family size) and the nature, extent, and
educational outcomes of parental involvement (Schmitt & Kleine, 2010;
Schimpl-Neimanns, 2000).
Parental Involvement and Socio-demographic Characteristics of
Parents
Nearly every empirical study on parental involvement finds that
parents’ engagement in their children’s education varies by
sociodemographic and economic circumstances, such as marital status,
educational
45
level, and the child’s gender (Georgiou, 2007; Schimpl-Neimanns, 2000;
Schmitt & Kleine, 2010). These differences are consistent with findings
from
the Ghana Experiment baseline data by Chowa et al. (2012). They present
differences in parental involvement found for parents’ marital status,
education level, and gender and the child’s gender:
Parents’ Education Level
According to Chowa et al. (2012) a comparison of parents’ educational
level and involvement in their children’s education shows parents are more
engaged when their own educational level exceeds their children’s current
level of education. However, parents less educated than their children are
more engaged within their children’s school environment than parents who
have a level of education equivalent to or greater than their children’s. Less
educated parents are more involved perhaps because many would like to see
their children attain higher education than they did. Similarly, parents more
educated than their children are more engaged at home than those whose
education is equivalent to or lower than that of their children.
Other studies have also observed that parents are the most immediate
relation of a child and that educated parents better understand the
educational
needs and their children’s aptitude. They, thus help their children in their
early
education which affects their proficiency in their relative area of knowledge.
Parents’ education or academic background definitely contributes
immensely
toward the academic life of children. According to Grissmer (2003),
parents’
level of education is the most important factor affecting students’ academic
achievement. Taiwo (1993) submits that parents’ educational background
influence the academic achievement of students. This, according to him, is
46
because the parents would be in a good position to act as second teachers to
their children; and even guide and counsel them on the best way to perform
well in education and provide the necessary materials needed by them.
Musgrave (2000) argues that children who come from an educated
home would like to follow the steps of their family and by this, works
actively
in their studies. Jeynes (2002) also avers that a child from a well -educated
family with high socio-economic status is more likely to perform better than
a
child from an illiterate family. This he suggests apparently because children
from an educated family are seen to have lots of support such as a decent
and
good environment for academic work, parental support and guidance,
enough
textual and academic materials and decent feeding. Eamon (2005) again
claims that virtually in all nations, children of parents high on the
educational,
occupation and social scale have far better chance of getting into good
secondary schools and from there into the best colleges and universities than
equally bright children of ordinary workers or farmers.
In fact, the most important factor said to be associated with the
educational achievement of children is not race, ethnicity or immigrant
status;
instead the most critical factor is parents’ education (Considine & Zappala,
2002).
Parents’ Gender
Chowa et al. (2012) found slightly higher involvement at home among
mothers (72.66% of 2,371 interviewed) than fathers (71.6% of the 2,205
interviewed). More fathers talk about their expectations (90.3%) than
discuss
school work, assist with homework, or ensure homework is done. Reflecting
a
contrary trend, 67.18% of fathers engage at school contrasted with 64.56%
of
47
mothers. Overall, engagement at school is low contrasted with engagement
at
home.
Marital Status
Married parents are more likely to be involved in their children’s
education than single parents. Using a scale of 1 (never involved) to 5 (very
often involved), Chowa et al. (2012) found that married parents report
checking whether their children have done their homework more frequently
(M=3.51) than single parents (M=3.37; p<.001). Among the 1,270 single
parents, 38.7% assist their children within homework, but 44.8% of the
3,291
married parents provide more direct assistance with homework.
Child’s Gender
Chowa et al. (2012) found that overall, parents’ involvement is fairly
consistent for male and female children. However, parents are more
involved
at home than at school for female children and more involved at school than
at
home for male children, and that this gender difference may be a
consequence
of social norms that long favored active participation in school for boys and
at-home schooling for girls. This disparity is changing as Ghana attempts to
eliminate the gender gap in education (ICF Macro, 2010).
Earlier Studies on Single Parenting
Many research studies have documented the challenges faced by single
parents and the disadvantages of their children relative to children raised in
two-parent households. Although some studies have been inconclusive, a
large majority of studies show that children from single-parent (SP) homes
score lower on tests of cognitive functioning and standardized tests, receive
lower GPAs, and complete fewer years of school when compared to
children
48
from two-parent (TP) homes (Bain, Boersma, & Chapman 1983; Balcom,
1998; Biller, 1970; Chapman, 1977; Daniels, 1986; Downey,
AinsworthDarnell, & Durfur, 1998; Fry & Scher, 1984; Man-dara &
Murray, 2006;
Milne, Rosenthal, & Ginsburg, 1986; Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2004).
Even when controlling for economic and racial differences of the family,
children from two-parent households outperform children from one-parent
households across a variety of measures (Downey, 1994; Kim, 2004; Krein
&
Beller, 1988; Mulkey, Crain, & Harrington, 1992; Teachman, 1987).
McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) summarize their research by writing
that Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent
are
worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both
of
their biological parents, regardless of the parents’ race or educational
background, regardless of whether the parents are married when the child is
born, and regardless of whether the resident parent remarries.
Father Absence
In his literature review Barajas (2012) notes that early research of
single parent homes focused on “father absence” (FA) and that the interest
in
FA homes was due to the large number of single-parent female headed
households and to the influence of psychoanalytic theories that called
attention to the importance of the presence of a father in the development of
a
child’s personality (Hetherington et al., 1983). In a 1970 literature review,
Biller reported evidence showing a correlation between FA and juvenile
delinquency. He also showed evidence that FA boys have more difficulty
forming peer relationships and long lasting heterosexual relationships as
compared to boys raised in a father present (FP) home. Chapman (1977)
49
reported lower SAT scores among FA males compared to FP males, and
Bain
et al. (1983) showed that FA third graders performed significantly worse in
reading achievement and scored lower in a measure of internal locus of
control than FP children. In 1984, Fry and Scher found evidence suggesting
poor ego development, low motivation, and an external locus of control
among ten year-old children from FA homes.
Daniels (1986) in her study of young African American men,
discovered that the length of father absence from the home was the strongest
predictor of future employment for the young men. In a more recent study,
Mandara and Murray (2006) reported that boys raised in FA homes were
much more likely to use drugs than were boys from FP homes.
Prevalence of single parenting situation in the schools
The findings of Kinnear (1999) give a lot of information about
percentage of single parent families. The findings revealed that in countries
such as Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago
more than 25 percent of households are single parent families, primarily
headed by women. Udansky (2008) as cited in Amoakohene (2013)
identified
single parenting as a major social problem that is on the rise. In a study
reported by The Adoption MediaLLC (n.d) as cited in Amoakohene (2013),
it
was revealed that more than 60% of children born since 1984 will spend an
average of 5 years of their childhood in a single-parent family. The report
continued that 30% of all children in the United States spend their entire
lives
with single parents. The findings of Andersson (2002) as cited in Barajas
(2011) from his study in The United States of America indicated that one
third
of the present children will have to live in a single-parent family before they
50
reach age 15. The findings further states that single-parent families have
become more common than the nuclear family over the past twenty years.
He
revealed that though the phenomenon is not new there are numerous factors
that contribute to single parenting.
Single parenting can therefore, on the basis of the findings above be
seen as more common in this era even though has existed for a long period
of
time.
Effect of single parenting on pupils’ academic performance
Research on the effects of single parenting on pupils’ academic
performance has been more directional. In the study of Yongm and
Yuanzhang (2008) cited in Amofa (2013) makes clear that in some cases
children in homes of separation or divorce do not always perform well
academically. Studies such as those of Nyarko (2007) and Nyarko and
Vorgelegt (2007) revealed that children’s academic performance improve
when both parents are actively involved in their education. In this sense the
reverse can be presumed to be true. Uwaifo (2008) examined the effects of
family structure and parenthood on the academic performance of Nigerian
university students. The study found that differences in academic
performance
of children existed in terms of those from single parent and those from two
parent families. Abudu and Fuseini (2013) after their study found that there
is
a significant difference between the academic performance of pupils from
single parent homes and pupils from two parent homes. Abudu and Fuseini
continued that there is evidence that single parenting has a negative effect
on
the academic performance of pupils.
51
The amount of money which parents invest in a child's studies
influence the academic achievement of children. Single motherhood
diminishes the economic resources available to families (McLanahan &
Sandefur, 1994; Page & Stevens, 2002) as non-custodial fathers provide less
money in their children's household. These are deemed to be true since
Brooks-Gunn et al. (1999) discovered that there is a link between family
income and children's attainment. It can therefore be gathered from these
that
the academic performance of pupils from single parent homes can be low
compared to those from intact homes.
Students learn more and perform better at school when there is strong
parental involvement (Goldring & Shapira, 1996; Ho & Willms, 1996). In
this
light, the study by Downey (1994) have found that the low parental
involvement at school such as attendance at school functions and meetings
and providing help in school chores are responsible for the low academic
performance of children living in single parent (mothers) families. In the
findings of Usher et al (2012) cited in Ochonogor (2014), respondents in
their
study with excellent and brilliant performances revealed that 2.6% came
from
single parent homes whiles 7.9% came two parent homes. Their findings
show
the evidence of low academic achievement of single parent children. In
contrast to all the findings above, the findings of Debell (2007) as cited in
Amofa (2013) suggest that conventional wisdom may exaggerate the
detrimental effects of father absence. Almost being a general consensus, the
studies reviewed have shown that single parenting affects the academic
work
of children in a negative way.
52
Challenges of single parented pupils
Several studies have been carried out into the challenges that pupils
face in a single parent home. Agbo (1997) and Salami (1998) are of the view
that adolescents' from broken homes are usually associated with anti-social
behaviour and poor academic records. There is a likelihood of the child
becoming a misfit in the society when the remaining parent cannot cope
with
the problem of single parenthood. This finding substantiates the findings of
other researchers such as Bokan and Akinade (1994) and Stephens (1997) as
cited in Salami and Alawode (2000) who found that children from
singleparent homes have low self-esteem, low achievement motivation and
low
tolerance for delay of gratification than those from intact families where
father
and mother are present. Further, in single-parent families, most of the
affected
people are confronted with several stressors and changes which prevent
them
from enjoying a healthy lifestyle (Marziyeh & Khaidzir, 2009).
Characteristically, McLanahan et al. (2001) revealed that single parent
families can have limited human capital and financial resources.
Again, it has been identified by Furstenberg and Cherlin (1991) and
Edin and Kefalas (2005) that non-custodial fathers which include fathers of
children born out of wedlock and divorced fathers result in decreased
involvement with their children as time progress. Farrell (2001) suggested
that
children who lived with their fathers had a greater sense of well-being than
those who lived with their mothers. This finding is in support with the
findings of Hilton and Devall (1998) that there are challenges in well-being
when it comes to living in single parent homes. Additional research by
Biller
and Kimpton (1997) are in this same line of findings. McLanahan and
53
Sandefur (1994) claimed that divorce leads to the loss of social and
economic
resources that cause such drastic changes occurring in the life of a child
produce social stress.
They attributed loss of resources to a loss in the household income,
residential movement and meeting with the non-custodial parent. In this
sense,
children who are raised by one biological parent fare worse on a host of
social
and economic measures than children raised by both biological parents
(SigleRushton & McLanahan, 2002). Uwaifo (2008) further states that
children
from intact families show less anxiety about their academic activities
because
they are emotionally more stable with less emotional problems. In
comparison
to the view of Uwaifo, Schultz (2006) revealed that higher levels of
emotional, social and academic problems are recorded among children from
uneven households than from intact households.
The review suggests that it has been proven by several researchers that
single parent homes breeds more problems for young people compared to
two-parent or intact homes. The view of Johnson (2005) that higher levels of
emotional risks and failures are commonly observed among learners from
separated families and all forms of single parenthood sums it up. However,
Johnson believes that there could be some exceptions to such a claim since
there are still some learners that are gifted and so no matter the conditions
surrounding their home background, they fight hard and become successful.
Several challenges can be identified on the bases of the previous studies
reviewed, behavioural challenges, financial and economical challenges and
of
course academic challenges.
54
Gender Studies (differences between boys and girls raised in SP homes)
In terms of gender, several studies have sought to identify how males
and females have fared in single parent homes. A number of studies have
documented differences between boys and girls raised in single-parent (SP)
homes. In their review, Hetherington et al. (1983) concluded that “the
intellectual and social development of males may be seen as more adversely
affected by living in one-parent homes than that of females from similar
family circumstances” (p. 271). Studies published since Hetherington et al.
have reported similar results. Fry and Scher (1984) discovered that the
achievement motivation scores of boys declined significantly over a five-
year
period of living in a SP home while the scores of girls in similar home
environments remained stable.
In 1998, Krein and Beller documented a significant negative effect of
the number of years spent in a SP home on educational attainment for all
groups except Caucasian women. According to their findings, Caucasian
males spending 18 years in a SP home complete 1.7 fewer years of school as
compared to Caucasian males spending 18 years in a TP home. African
American males complete 1.26 fewer years of school, and African American
females complete 0.73 fewer years of school when compared to their
counterparts living in TP homes. For Caucasian women, the difference was
only 0.03 years. In their recent study of African American adolescents,
Mandara and Murray (2006) found FA to be a significant risk factor for drug
use among boys but not among girls. They reported that African American
boys in a FA home were almost six times more likely to use drugs than
African American boys in a FP home, while the risk factor for African
55
American girls was the same regardless of the number of parents in the
home.
Uncovering a reason to explain the greater negative effect of family
disruption
on boys compared to girls is a compelling future line of research and will be
discussed later.
The study of Salami and Alawode (2000) on influence of gender on
the academic achievement of adolescents revealed that there is a significant
difference between the academic achievement of male and female
adolescents
from single parent homes. Specifically, they found that girls were scoring
higher than boys. However, regarding males and females from intact or two
parent homes, Salami and Alawode found that there was no significant
difference in the academic achievements of males and females from two
parent homes. In examining the impact of family structure on academic
performance, Eweniyi (2005) found that there was a significant difference in
academic performance of male and female students on the basis of family
structure thus single and two parent homes.
Eweniyi also discovered that there is a significant difference between
the academic achievement of the male and female adolescents from single
parent homes with girls scoring higher or performing better than boys.
Similarly, Pong et al. (2003) compared the achievement gap between
children
in Single Parent homes and those in Two Parent homes across 11 countries.
They found that the United States had the largest gap between the academic
achievement of children from Single Parent homes and children from Two
Parent homes. The findings of Abudu and Fuseini (2013) revealed that there
is
a significant difference between the academic performance of male pupils
and
female pupils from single parent homes. In terms of direction, it was
revealed
56
that the female pupils from single parent homes perform better academically
than the male pupils from the same family. In contrast to popular view in
most
of the studies reviewed, a meta-analysis of 37 studies which examined the
long-term consequences of parental divorce for adult well-being, Amato and
Keith (1991) found no support for the contention that parental divorce has
more detrimental consequences for males than females.
Differences have been identified by most of the studies between the
academic performance of male and female students who live in single parent
homes. Even though they both live in the same house, majority of the
studies
reviewed point to the fact that they react to the single parenting issue in
different ways and as such are affected by it in very different ways.
Resiliency and strength
Not all studies, however, have focused on the disadvantages of single
parenting. A few researchers have focused on resiliency (Hunter &
Chandler,
1999; Rutter, 1990) and the strengths of single parent (SP) homes (Amato,
1987; Hanson, 1986; Murry, Bynumm, Brody, Willert, & Stephens, 2001;
Richards & Schmiege, 1993; Shaw, 1991). Hurtes and Allen (2001) created
a
scale for measuring resiliency in youth and identified commonalities in
Single
Parenting homes where the children achieve academic success. For many
years, theorists have suggested a greater emphasis on strength based
research
of families of all types (Giblin, 1996).
Barajas (2012) has argued that understanding the disadvantages
focuses only on half of the issue: the other half is to understand the strengths
and resiliency factors exhibited by children raised in a father absent (FA)
homes. Although children raised in a home where a father is present
graduate
57
from high school and attend college at much higher rates than children
raised
in a fatherless home, nearly 70% of children from FA homes do graduate
from
high school and 50% of them attend college (Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan,
2004). Barajas believes there is a great need for research focusing on the
strengths of these academic achievers from FA homes.
Summary
The review of related literature was done in three main sections. The
first section was the theoretical framework, the second section was the
conceptual framework and the last section was the review of related
empirical
studies. The theoretical framework of this study reviewed theories such as
the
Family Deficit Model, Risk and Protective Factor Model, The Social
Exchange Theory, Family Socialization Perspective Model, The Theory of
Social Network Paradigm, The Theory of Overlapping Spheres of Influence,
Economic Deprivation Theory and the other Perspectives. The conceptual
framework was based on an adaptation of the framework of Amoakohene
(2013). The framework had bearings and relations with the parental
involvement framework of Nechyba et al. (1999) as cited in Amoakohene
(2013).
The review of empirical studies was done based on themes that were
derived from the research questions and objectives for the study. The studies
reviewed indicated that parental involvement is vital to the success of
students
or pupils in their academic work whiles it was also found that single parents
were less involved with their children because of the several activities they
had to undertake. Several factors that are responsible for single parenting
were
also identified in the review, such as divorce, separation, death,
imprisonment
58
etc. Divorce was identified to be less common in developing countries.
Single
parenting was again identified to be more common in this era even though it
has existed for a long period of time. Behavioural challenges, financial and
economical challenges and of course academic challenges were some of the
challenges that were identified to be associated with single parenting. In
terms
of the effects of single parenting on academic work of children, the studies
reviewed revealed that single parenting had a negative effect on the
academic
work of children. Differences were also identified between the academic
performance of male and female students who live in single parent homes.
59
rary

Chapter Two Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Two Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Two Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER TWO

It was assumed that single parenting can cause deficits in children's

Risk and Protective Factor Model

The Social Exchange Theory

Family Socialization Perspective Model

The Theory of Social Network Paradigm

You might also like