Multidimensional Support and the Impact on Student Achievement

Background/Purpose: Academic disparities on standardized measures such as grades and achievement tests, particularly among minority groups, continue to be a pervasive issue evading intervention and reform efforts.  Extensive literature has examined the impact of family, peer, and community factors that interfere with or mitigate barriers related to academic achievement with little change.  Factors such as support have been identified in literature to have a positive impact on student outcomes.  It is well documented that peer and parental support can positively influence student outcomes.  However, it is less known how these factors work together or specifically what types of support are most effective in reducing disparities and improving student academic outcomes.  Furthermore, literature on the relationship to and role of community level support and the potential impact on academic achievement are sparse.  Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the impact of varying types of multidimensional support on student achievement.       

Methods: An electronic survey was administered to middle and high school students (151) in a small southeastern city.  The survey consisted of 63 items examining community, family, and peer factors.  The dependent variable consisted of a latent construct measured by two observed factors: aspirations following high school and grades ranging from A-F.  The independent variables consisted of four latent constructs that were measured by questions related to community, peer, and parental support. Control variables included items such as age, grade level, gender, race, and whether participant’s father and/or mother completed high school. A structural equation model (SEM) was conducted to examine correlates of achievement.         

Results: The results of the EFA offered a four factor solution (i.e., social, emotional, instrumental, and esteem support).  All questions, with the exception of three, had a loading score >0.50.  All fit statistics of the final model, with the exception of the SRMR (0.126), demonstrated good model fit as evidenced by the chi-square (p<0.01), RMSEA (0.000), TLI (0.706), and CFI (0.750).  Emotional (0.515) and instrumental (5.644) support were statistically significant (p<0.01) suggesting that students receiving the aforementioned forms of support perform higher in comparison to those students who receive less support in these areas.  Most, two of the three, peer variables measuring support were statistically significant (p<0.01), and all parent and community measures of support were statistically significant (p<0.01).  Results indicate that those students receiving more support on all levels reported having higher levels of achievement. 

Conclusion/Implication: These results support prior research that has identified support as a potential buffer to academic disproportion.  However, more research is essential to clarify how and what types of support more positively affect student outcomes.  Additional analysis is needed, including analysis of longitudinal data, to further assess the role of community support on academic achievement and to examine the impact on disparities over time.  Efforts are needed to advocate for the expansion of community based programming that provide academic resources directly to communities and families that reduce barriers to support by providing free community based resources and programs.