Parents and their children’s education

Foreword

At a time when many parents are concerned about the quality of their children’s schooling, and the importance of an adequate education in a world where knowledge and information are the foundations of human capital and individual achievement, a great deal of attention ahs been given to the public and private education systems, their relative merits, and the crucial roles of good schools in providing foundations for later careers.

This is as is should be, of course, but it tends to overlook the fact that adequate performance is not solely a function of good schooling. Parents themselves play a vital educational function. The children of parents who are unaware of the importance of their educational roles and who do not help as much as they can may be significantly disadvantaged in their education.

In this analysis of parents and their children’s education, Alison Rich probes the many facets of the parental educational role, in cooperation with the schools, and summarises the now considerable body of research that is available. The study explores what parents may contribute in terms of such factors as parental income, education and employment. The extent to which parents help by participating in school affairs, by creating a home environment in which education is valued, and by taking a keen and supporting interest in their children’s school work is also examined.

Yet, parental circumstances may vary widely and hence the capacity to support, interact and participate effectively in their children’s education. This is not merely a question of individual parental differences in capacity and financial means, although such things may be important. Rather it includes issues of family structure and the possibilities for cooperation between both parents in advancing a child’s education.

Predictably, sole parent families face special difficulties which usually include urgent financial problems as well as the burden of coping without help of the absent parent. The study accordingly pays considerable attention to such difficulties and the strategies and policies that might be pursued to help overcome them.

The author concludes by exploring the various ways in which parental resources, participation and support can be mobilised and focused to maximum advantage in advancing the education of their children, and by offering some proposals for action to bring this about.

Barry Maley, Director, ‘Taking Children Seriously’ Programme

Executive Summary

• The home environment and parental characteristics significantly influence a child’s educational performance. The components of parental influence are parental resources, parental involvement, and parental support.
• Parental resources — Income: A high family income often leads to increased educational opportunities and access to educational materials in the home. Parental education: Various studies have indicated that a child is more likely to complete high school and/or undertake further study if their parents did so. Employment: Children whose parents are unemployed and dependent on welfare lack a work-force-attachment model. This can cause decreased motivation to succeed at school.

• Parental involvement — Participation in school activities: It has been found that children with parents who participate in school activities perform at a higher standard than others, because their parents are more likely to promote the school’s objectives and the importance of education. Furthermore, schools with a high degree of parental participation have higher levels of academic performance. Maintains an interest: Parents can orient their children towards high achievement by taking a keen interest in their grades and other school activities, by monitoring homework, and by taking the time to discuss their children’s future plans. Home environment: A home environment that promotes and encourages learning has been linked with high academic performance. This can be achieved by providing educational materials in the home or simply by family members engaging in intellectual discussions.
• Parental support —High academic performance has been linked to families where the parents have high expectations of their children, provide encouragement and believe that education is important.
• The research literature strongly suggests that family life has a significant impact on the educational outcomes of children. Family structure, is therefore a serious issue for educational reform, especially given the increasing number of non-traditional families.
• There is a growing body of evidence indicating that students from sole parent families do not perform as well at school as those from traditional families. They are also more likely to drop out or be suspended from school.
• The reasons for poor educational performance in children from sole parent families include — Lack of economic resources: sole parent households earn barely half that of two parent households. Dearth of social capital: sole parents have less time and energy to devote to their children, resulting in socialisation and communication problems. These problems may lead to difficulties at school and increased delinquency. Dearth of human capital: research has shown that the home environment of children from sole parent families often does not provide the educational needs necessary for school achievement; including educational materials and parental support. Detachment from school community: sole parents are less likely to be involved in the school compared to other parents. Welfare dependency: the majority of sole parents are relying on welfare (77% in 1998), and their detachment from the workforce means that the children do not have a good work-force-attachment role model. Low parental education: sole parents are less likely to have completed high school and this may affect a child’s educational attainment.

Introduction

Most parents take an interest in advancing their children’s education, whether by formal schooling in religious or secular institutions, private tutoring or instruction by the parents themselves and other family members. Indeed, parental interest and involvement has long been an educational factor of considerable significance.

The extension, however, of both public and private schooling throughout the whole community, at least since the 19^th century, combined with the more recent vocational importance and availability of advanced education, and the increase in the number of years spent in schooling, has tended to focus attention on the school itself and what happens in the school. Meanwhile the significance of parental involvement has either been taken for granted or placed in the background. Formal research on the parental contribution to school level education has been relatively scanty. Then, from about the 1940s and predominantly in the United States, the pace of research began to pick up and in the last few years published work in this field has expanded rapidly.

No doubt the increasing centrality of education to career, as well as industrial and commercial concerns, has been important in provoking such research. But it is also possible that another factor has been the changing family life of the last 20 or 30 years, given the increasing likelihood that the presence of both natural parents in the lives of children cannot be taken for granted. Whatever the reasons, there is now a very substantial body of research that throws considerable light upon the consequences for children’s education of the presence or absence of positive parental involvement.

In the pages that follow, this research is combed for the light it throws on how parents, and the family situation, may influence children’s school level education. What emerges from this review is the need for greater recognition, from both parents themselves and educational authorities, of the potential of parents to enhance their children’s education. This need not be dependent upon parental income or material resources, but rather a sympathetic and interested engagement with their children’s school life and work. Schooling, in short, should not be left entirely to the school and its teachers.

What also emerges is the need to understand more fully the educational disadvantages that may arise for some children when the circumstances of their family life are such that parental involvement is difficult or less than it could be. This is more frequently the case nowadays, given the current climate of family instability arising from divorce, separation and sole parenthood. Too often, children’s education may be one of the casualties.

The Parental Role

The boy or girl who leaves school early, or who, for whatever reason, leaves without a decent education, faces a relatively bleak future in a world where ‘human capital’ is highly valued. Many teenagers are being left stranded by a labour market that expects a high level of education and skill. The key to a successful and stable future is therefore a decent education.

A child’s education is the shared responsibility of the school and the home. However, parental influences are often overlooked in discussions of academic success and failure. While the school may be directly involved in providing a formal education for children, parents must also play their role in the education process. Outside the school, the home is the most salient source of learning, encouragement and support for a child. The failure of parents to play their part in their child’s education can contribute to failure at school.

The parental role in academic development has several facets. Figure 1 (below) illustrates the kinds of influence parents can have on their children’s education.

Parental resources may make an indirect rather than a direct contribution to a child’s education.

Income

A high income enables parents to live in a good neighbourhood, close to the good schools. It also allows them to provide their children with extra private tutoring, educational materials in the home (such as a computer), and access to other educationally relevant experiences. Students from poorer families, however, are often excluded from school activities that incur an extra cost, such as sport, excursions and certain elective subjects. In the early years of development, a low income may mean that parents cannot provide even the simplest learning materials, such as books and pencils. When such children first start school, they are already behind the rest of the class. Consequently, students from families with low incomes may have a very different experience at school leading to lower performance and/or early drop out rates (Mukherjee 1995).

Parental Education

The level of parental education also contributes to a child’s educational performance. Studies have shown that if parents completed school, and perhaps undertook further education, then their children were more likely to complete school and exhibit higher satisfaction with their schooling (Power 1984). Moreover, a mother’s level of education can directly influence grades and educational aspirations, in a positive way (Smith 1989).

The strength of the parental education effect was demonstrated in Garasky’s (1995) study, which found that having a mother who was a high school graduate had a stronger positive effect on the probability that a child would graduate than either family structure or poverty.

Data collected by the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) on school completion is consistent with this literature (Ainley & McKenzie 1999). The results indicate that the higher the level of education attained by a student’s parent, the more likely the student was to complete year 12 (see Table 1).

 

Table 1 – The percentage of school completion, by the education of a student’s parents.

 

	Year 12 completion (%)
Parents’ Education	Males	Females	All persons
University	85	95	90
Other tertiary	78	88	83
Secondary or less	64	80	72

Source: Ainley & McKenzie (1999).

 

Explanations for the effect of parental education are not extensively discussed in the research literature, although one study conducted by Power (1984) did examine the possible causal factors involved. The results demonstrated that the parent’s educational level influences the amount of encouragement given to a child. The more encouragement a child receives, the higher his or her academic self-concept. This in turn leads to a higher probability of the child completing school.

In addition to this one may speculate that better educated parents have a deeper understanding of the educational system and what is required from them, as parents, to enhance their child’s education. Indeed, Baker and Stevenson (1986: 165) argue that a child’s educational achievement and performance is partly a product of how the parent’s manage their child’s schooling and that “…better educated mothers seem to be better managers of school careers.”

Employment

Parents appear to act as role models to their children. Those parents with a higher education and higher earnings encourage similar behaviour in their children, which the parents believe will lead to similar outcomes.

This role model theory is supported by the welfare culture hypothesis, which proposes that parents on welfare do not act as positive educational role models. In an Australian study it was observed that low academic performance was predominant in families where parents were unemployed (Zubrick et al. 1997). Haveman, Wolfe and Spaulding (1991) argue that welfare dependency discourages motivation for success at school.

Parental employment is a further factor contributing to the academic performance of a child. Parents who are employed act as good work-force-attachment models, by exposing their children to how the workforce operates and what is needed to succeed in it.

The type of occupation that a parent has also affects educational outcomes. In the Australian 1996 National School English Literacy Survey, Year 3 and 5 students were more likely to meet the reading and writing performance standards if their parents had a higher status occupation – that is, a managerial or professional position (Masters and Forster 1997). Parental occupation status may also influence the types of subjects that students undertake at school. Teese et al (1993) found that students who had parents with professional backgrounds were more likely to choose subjects that were relevant for tertiary studies.

Parental Involvement

Parental involvement in the education process can take on a number of different forms. Research by the Australian Council for Educational Research (McGaw et al. 1992) examined different types of parental involvement in the Effective Schools Project. School committees were required to rate the importance of four different types of involvement for school effectiveness. The results of this study are displayed in Table 2. The respondents rated parents’ interest in their child’s learning process and parental involvement in school activities as the strongest contributors to school effectiveness.

Table 2 – Importance ratings of four types of parental involvement

Proposition	% Responses
	Minor Importance	Some Importance	Very Important
Interest in learning	0.4	3.8	95.8
Involved in school	0.9	9.2	89.9
Communication with school	5.6	45.8	48.6
Decision making	11.4	51.1	37.5

Source: McGaw et al. (1992).

Participation in school related activities

Parents can actively contribute to the functioning of their child’s school by taking on a role in a school committee, volunteering for school based activities, helping with fundraising, attending school sport and social events, or by attending parent-teacher meetings. Such parental participation has been linked to student success (Stevenson & Baker 1987; Grolnick & Slowiackez 1994).

Some argue that children are more likely to realise the importance of education if their parents are involved (Epstein 1988). Grolnick et al (1991) maintain that parental involvement may not necessarily contribute directly to children’s child’s skill levels, but it can influence their attitudes and motivations at school. A parent’s close contact with the school may therefore be a source of confidence for children. A study by Patterson (1986) demonstrated that children perceive themselves as being more competent if they see that their parents are involved in their education.

By being involved in school activities, parents gain a good understanding of the school’s policies and objectives. This can help ensure that the home and the school have complementary approaches to life and learning.

Parental participation can influence not only a child’s performance, but also the overall performance of the school. A study by Pong (1998) found that schools with a high degree of parental involvement also have high levels of academic achievement. The greater the number of parents who become involved in school processes and events, the greater the impact they can have on a school’s effectiveness.

Maintains interest

Apart from participating in school activities, parents can also influence the educational outcomes of their child by maintaining an interest in other ways. Fehrmann et al. (1987) found that parents’ interest in their child’s progress at school, and their post-school plans, is related to their grades. A higher degree of interest (for instance, inquiring about grades and school activities and discussing future plans) is associated with higher grades.

Children who are more achievement orientated tend to have parents who frequently communicate with them, show an interest in their daily activities and know where they are and whom they are with at most times (Pulkinnen 1982). Parents can also help their children achieve higher grades by showing an interest in their homework and helping out where they can.

Home environment

Ideally, the home of any student should be conducive to learning. Studies have shown that students from homes where parents provide educational materials perform at a higher level (Teachman 1987; Lareau 1987). A home environment that provides educational resources allows a child to develop intellectually and may help to bridge the gap between home and school. Wang, Haertel and Walberg  (1993: 278) stressed the importance of parents providing intellectual stimulation at home: ‘. . . the home is central to students daily experience. Consequently, the home functions as the most salient out-of-school context for student learning, amplifying or diminishing the school’s effect on school learning.’

A cognitively stimulating home need not be one that is rich in material resources. Parents can simply discuss issues of importance with their children, expose them to newspapers and the like, talk to them about what they are doing in school, offer to help with their schoolwork, or spend time doing activities that will develop their skills and abilities. In the early years, children who read to their parents and talk to them about their reading often have higher reading abilities compared with children who are not given the opportunity to do so (Hewison & Tizard 1980). Australian studies have also shown that the number of books in the home is strongly correlated with academic achievement – such that the more books in the home, the higher the levels of academic performance (Lokan, Ford and Greenwood 1997, 1998). It is possible that having books in the home and reading at home not only develops essential skills but also reinforces important educational values.

Parental Support

If parents cannot invest time in active school participation, or cannot afford to provide educational materials, or lack the academic ability to help academically with schoolwork, they can at least provide support for their child.

An emotionally supportive home can increase academic performance, regardless of income (Dubow & Ippolito 1994). A child’s academic achievement benefits from encouragement, whether this takes the form of explicit verbal praise, recognition of progress, or the establishment of educational goals. If parents have developed a close relationship with their child they can exert influence by making an effort to enforce good study habits and by holding high educational expectations. Studies have shown that if parents have high aspirations, so too does the child (Astone & McLanahan 1991).

Parental support can help students tackle obstacles that might otherwise have discouraged them from finishing school, or caused them to lose confidence. Groome and Hamilton (1995: 30) investigated Aboriginal school performance and found that high achievers attributed their success to their parents. They reported that ‘[parents’] support and encouragement had given them the courage and determination to persevere through the difficult periods of racism and depression.’

Ambition to succeed and interest in learning may be related to parental attitudes towards education. Parents who value education can win the fight against all odds to ensure that their children achieve academically. Gandara (1994) looked at high-achieving Hispanic students in the U.S.A who came from very poor and uneducated families (and thus met most of the criteria for failure). The study focused on the backgrounds of these students. The parents of these high achievers all valued education and made sacrifices to ensure that their children were given the best opportunities within their power to succeed academically.

Family Structure and Education

The changing family unit

It is clear from the literature that family life can have a significant impact on the academic achievement of a child. Family structure, then, becomes an important issue with respect to educational outcomes. The resources and support that a child has access to in his/her family largely depend on the structure of that family. It is not unreasonable to assume that sole parent families, stepfamilies, and original couple families function differently. Consequently, there may be major disparities in the average educational attainment of children from these different family types.

The traditional family unit is becoming less common. As can be seen in Figure 2, while the major family type remains two natural parents and their children, a married couple family constitutes only about two thirds of all families. In 1997, lone parents made up 20% of all families, with lone mothers being the majority (85%).

 

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.

 

The frequency of families headed by a sole parent has increased over the years. Figure 3 illustrates the steady increase in families headed by a sole parent over the past ten years. In 1989, sole parent families constituted 14% of all families. By 1998 this figure had risen to 21.5%. The proportion of sole mother families amongst all sole parent families also increased to 91% in 1998.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1999.

Why are sole parent families increasing?

A primary reason for the increase in sole parents is the sustained high divorce rate. Other causes include de facto separations and women deciding to raise children without a partner.

Divorce and births outside marriage are now less stigmatised. In the past, married couples were more inclined to stay married, and were encouraged to try and sort out their differences or simply put up with them. Furthermore, pregnancies frequently led to a ‘shotgun’ wedding, whereas now government benefits enable lone mothers to support a family unpartnered.

The movement towards equal opportunity has made increased independence possible. Women do not see themselves as having to rely on a man to raise a family. Lone mothers are able to survive financially because: (1) the educational opportunities now available to females lead to careers that will earn a reasonable salary, and (2) in the absence of a high level of education or skill, a lone mother is able to rely on governmental parenting payments for an income.

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that divorce is the major cause of sole parenting. The breakdown of lone parents with dependant children in 1997 is as follows: 62.3% are divorced or separated from a marriage, 31.1% have never been married, and 6.5% are widowed (ABS, 1999). Included in the ‘never married’ division are lone parents of de facto breakups as well as those who started off alone. There is no data to indicate the exact proportions of each. However, an indication is given by birth statistics. In 1995, 12% of all births were to unpartnered mothers, 14% to de facto mothers and the rest to married mothers (Sullivan et al. 1999: 21). Of course, this figure is only an approximation, as those who gave birth as an unpartnered mother may not remain unpartnered. Conversely, mothers who give birth whilst in a de facto relationship are more likely than married mothers to separate and become sole parents.

Educational outcomes and sole parent families

A number of studies have been conducted to investigate the association between family structure and educational outcomes. Many of these studies have found that growing up in a sole parent family can be detrimental to a child’s achievement at school. Poor educational outcomes, such as early school dropout, lower grades, suspension, and grade repetition have all been associated with living in a sole parent family.

Astone and McLanahan (1991) investigated the scholastic achievement of high school students from different types of families. It was found that students from sole parent families and step families had poorer grade point averages, lower attendance and scored worse on indicators of educational attainment compared to students from intact families.

Mulkey, Crain and Harrington (1992) found that living in a single parent family lowers the academic grade achievement of a student. They report that the effect of family structure is greater for educational outcomes that ‘involve effort’, such as school grades. Educational outcomes that do not involve effort, such as vocabulary tests, do not seem to be as strongly affected by family structure. A possible explanation is that grades are more likely to be dependent on factors where parents can exert an influence, such as homework completion and school attendance.

It has been argued that the educational disadvantage faced by children living in a sole parent family is due solely to the lowered socioeconomic status commonly associated with sole parenting (Herzog and Sudia 1973). Finn and Owings (1994) found a significant decline in school achievement for 8th graders living with their mother only, compared to those living with both parents. This effect disappeared however, when the analysis controlled for race and socio-economic status. This research points to the conclusion that sole parenthood is not the cause of educational disadvantage, and that the critical factors are race and socioeconomic status. However, many researchers argue against this conclusion and insist that economic deprivation is not the only way to explain the poor performance of children from sole parent families. In fact, contrary to Finn and Owings’ results, educational differences between family types have been found even when the analysis controls for socioeconomic status (Entwisle & Alexander 1995; McLanahan & Sandefur 1994; Zill 1996; Pong 1998). Zill (1996) found that there is a decline in academic performance for children from stepfamilies as well as sole parent families. Despite the fact that stepfamilies have two incomes, this result suggests that educational disadvantage in non-traditional families cannot be attributed solely to a decrease in family income. It appears that sole parenthood per se is an important factor.

The timing and duration of living in a sole parent family has been canvassed as an important consideration when looking at education effects. Hofferth (1982) claimed that factors such as the age of the child and the time spent living with a sole parent are more important than whether or not a child has ever lived in a sole parent family. Krein and Beller (1988) argue that the years prior to school are when parental inputs into the educational development of their children are most crucial. Their research has shown that it is during these pre-school years that living in a sole parent home has the largest negative effect on academic achievement. In addition, Krein and Beller found that the longer a child lives in a sole parent home, the greater the negative effect on their education.

Garasky (1995) maintains that as a child grows older, the impact of an undesirable family situation diminishes. He argues that a child will adjust to new living arrangements over time and hence any negative effects caused by a change in family structure will diminish as the child grows older.

Not only do students living in sole parent families suffer, but so too do schools that have a high population of students from sole parent families. Pong (1998) found that 10th grade mathematics and reading achievement were poorer in schools where there was a large number of students from sole parent families. This effect was reduced, though not abolished, when the analysis controlled for socioeconomic status. One possible reason for this is that schools with a high concentration of students from sole parent families lack economic resources and parental involvement, the ingredients necessary for a successful school.

The majority of the research on sole parent families does not make an explicit distinction between lone fathers and lone mothers. While this is not likely to cause any major problems for the results since 91% of sole parents are mothers, some research suggests that the home life for children living with a lone mother is different to those living with a lone father. Downey (1994) found that children from both lone father and lone mother families perform well below children from intact families. However, the contributing factors to this poor performance differed between mothers and fathers. Lone mothers were more likely to be involved in school activities, to know other parents, and their children were more likely to live by household rules. Lone mothers however, had lower incomes and lower levels of education. On the other hand, lone fathers had higher incomes and education levels and so could provide more educational material in the home, but lone fathers were not as involved in the school activities or other activities of their children.

Australian evidence for the educational effect of sole parenting is sparse. One study in Western Australia, however, did collect data on family type and education outcomes. The Western Australian Child Health Survey (Zubrick et al. 1997) found that 30% of children from sole parent families are low academic performers, compared with 17% from couple families. In addition, it was found that students from one-parent families are more likely to be attending a disadvantaged school. The study also provided evidence indicating that students from disadvantaged schools perform less well compared to others.

Whilst Australian research is lacking on this issue, a review of the literature led Rodgers (1996: 180) to conclude that ‘Australian studies with adequate samples have shown parental divorce to be a risk factor for a wide range of social and psychological problems in adolescence and adulthood, including poor academic achievement. . .’ Further Australian research is required to validate such claims and to explore the issue in more detail, particularly in terms of educational disadvantage.

Sole parent families and educational disadvantage

Lack of economic resources

Perhaps one of the most obvious explanations for the poorer school performance by children from sole parent families is that these families rely on only one income. Sole parent families survive on a weekly income that is approximately half that of couple families (see Figure 4). Some 54% of sole parents earn less than $400 per week, whereas 55% of couple families earn more than $800 per week. Moreover, there are higher levels of poverty in sole parent families than in couple families, especially for never married single parents (see Table 3).

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.

 

 

Table 3. Percentage of families with children in poverty by family structure, 1995-6

 

Type of family	% in poverty
Married/ de facto parents	9%
Divorced/ separated sole parent	23%
Never married single parent	27%

 Source: Harding & Szukalska (1999)

The large difference in family income and the occurrence of poverty demonstrated in Table 3 would certainly disadvantage children living with a sole parent. While education is a right for all children, a quality education comes at a cost. One can attend a public school with relatively low fees, but parents still have to be able to afford uniforms, stationery, books and extra fees for excursions; not to mention home educational materials, such as computers and encyclopedias, that can significantly help a child’s progress at school.

Dearth of social capital

In a family with two parents, household chores, providing for the family and spending time with the children can be spread across two people. A sole parent, however, must do this without any help from a partner. It is often the case that sole parents struggle to find the time and energy to devote to their children; consequently, their children are likely to suffer from either maternal or paternal deprivation. Hetherington at al. (1982) found that recently divorced mothers communicated less with their children, were less affectionate and less efficient in enforcing rules compared to married mothers with a similar socioeconomic status. This lack of social capital in the family can cause socialisation and communication problems for the children, which may carry over to problems at school (Entwisle & Alexander 1996).

Various behaviour problems have been reported in the literature for children from one-parent families. Wilson & Herrnstein (1985) found that there were more occurrences of delinquency in homes where the father was absent. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research found a significant positive correlation between living in a sole parent family and juvenile participation in crime (Weatherburn & Lind 1997). It has also been shown that children living in a sole parent home are more susceptible to peer pressure in terms of deviant behaviour (Steinberg 1987). On the other hand, children from intact families tend to exhibit fewer emotional and behavioural problems. The behavioural problems associated with living in a sole parent home are sure to affect the educational achievement of these children.

Dearth of human capital

Education is not just an accomplishment of the classroom. The home environment can encourage or discourage academic progress. It can be a source of motivation to achieve at school or it may fail to be.

Studies have shown that the home environment of a sole parent family is often not as cognitively stimulating or supportive as that of couple families (Edgar & Headlam, 1982). This is a serious disadvantage for children from sole parent families, especially in the years prior to school when the foundations for the academic development of a child lie solely in the hands of the parents. A home environment that is not conducive to learning may lead to a child struggling to keep up in the classroom.

Socialisation theory indicates that the educational attainment of a child is related to the ability of the parent(s) to provide the necessary motivation and skills for success. The evidence suggests that children in sole parent homes are less motivated to do well at school, in part because their parents have lower expectations of success (Astone & McLanahan 1991). According to research by Astone and McLanahan, sole parents provide less supervision of home activities, including homework, and give less encouragement in educational activities. Entwisle and Alexander (1996) found that, compared to married mothers, lone mothers had lower expectations for their child’s reading ability. They also point out that the expectations of a sole parent influence a child’s abilities, with the corollary that children of sole parents are likely to have lower reading ability than those from intact families.

Detachment from school community

Sole parents tend to become cut off from the school community as a result of time constraints or a feeling of detachment from the school social circle (Lee 1993). This lack of parental involvement in school activities is a contributing factor to declining academic achievement. Pong (1998) partly attributed the poor performance of schools with a high proportion of sole parents to the lack of parental participation in these schools.

Employment and welfare dependency

A large number of children are growing up with a sole parent who does not work. The negative effect this may have on their educational attainment is twofold. First, they are more likely to live in poverty and second, they are deprived of a model of workforce attachment.

Sole parents are less likely to be in the labour force and are more likely to be unemployed compared to couple parents. Some 44.3% of lone mothers are not in the labour force compared with 37% of married mothers; 27.6% of lone fathers are not in the labour force compared with 7.2% of married fathers (see Table 4). Of those lone mothers who are in the labour force, 15.7% are unemployed (looking for work). This is the highest unemployment rate of all parents, although unemployment is also high for lone fathers (12.6%). Most lone mothers who are employed work part-time.

Table 4. Labour force participation of different types of parents with dependent children

 

	In the labour force			Not in the labour force *
	Employed		Unemployed (%)
	Full time (%)	Part time (%)
Father – married	95.0	5.0	4.5	7.2
Mother – married	42.7	57.3	4.8	37.0
Lone father	83.5	16.5	12.6	27.6
Lone mother	47.6	52.4	15.7	44.3

* As a percentage of each group’s civilian population aged over 15.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1999.

These figures indicate that the majority of children living in sole parent homes (where 91% of sole parents are female) do not have a parent to act as a working role model. In couple families, 60% of mothers are employed and 90% of fathers are employed. Hence, children in a couple family are far more likely to be exposed to parents who are working.

The age of the youngest child is a strong predictor of labour force participation for mothers, but not for fathers. Regardless of the age of children, 95% of fathers in couple families were in the workforce. On the other hand, workforce participation of mothers varies with the age of the youngest child (Figure 4). The younger the child, the lower the probability that the mother will be in the workforce, especially for lone mothers.

Figure 5.

 

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1999.  (ABS Cat. 6224.0)

In 1996-7 42.3% of lone parents were relying on government benefits for more than 90% of their gross income compared with 8.2 % of couple parents (ABS 1999). Sole parents who rely on welfare are more likely to be in poverty compared to sole parents who work (Mitchell 1993). The negative effects of poverty on the educational attainment of children from sole parent families have already been discussed. A further point here is that poverty can result in parental preoccupation with their financial matters, which may interfere with ability to support and encourage their children’s school activities. Haveman, Wolfe and Spaulding (1991) show that having parents who are poor and dependent on welfare is negatively associated with a child’s educational outcomes.

Although sole parents are less likely to live in poverty if they work, they face barriers to the workforce that couple parents do not. If both parents in a couple family work, then the cost of childcare can be spread across two incomes. Conversely, if a sole parent decides to work they will have to cover these costs with a single income. Aside from financial issues, the children in a sole parent family will have even less time with a parent if he/she enters the workforce. On beginning work, a sole parent would have to bear the responsibility of being an employee, caring for the children and maintaining the household. At least in a couple family there are two parents to share these responsibilities, even if both are working.

Most sole parents do not have access to a car, so transport can be a problem for sole parents who wish to work. Finally, most sole parents have a low level of education, and on the birth of their first child cease working for a few years. It becomes difficult for a sole parent to re-enter the workforce after taking such time off, and their lack of skills and qualifications adds to the obstacles blocking them from the workforce. In addition to this, the areas in which most sole parents can afford to live are suburbs where employment prospects are low.

The Western Australian Child Health Survey (Zubrick et al. 1997) emphasised the association between parental unemployment and academic competence. Thirty-nine percent of students from a one-parent family where the parent was unemployed were low academic performers.

Low education levels

As we have already seen, parental education is a strong predictor of the level of education gained by a child. A mother’s level of education can directly influence a child’s grades and educational aspirations (Smith 1989).

Sole parents have a relative low level of education. ABS data (1997) show that 62% of lone parents do not have post school qualifications compared to 47% couple parents. Of those who do have post school qualifications, couple parents are more likely to have some kind of higher education degree than lone parents.

Based on the above statistics and previous research, it can be argued that another source of educational disadvantage for children in lone mother families is therefore their mother’s low level of education.

Conclusions and Recommendations

To provide the best possible education for all children, regardless of their background or school, parents need to be involved. Schooling reforms will be incomplete if the influence of parents is not acknowledged. Appropriate policy measures need to be taken to maximise the benefits of parental involvement.

The research shows that a strong partnership between the family and the school is necessary for a child to perform at his or her best. The first section of this paper described how parents influence the education of their children. These factors need to be considered when proposing recommendations for education policy.

One component of parental influence is parental resources, including variables such as income, employment and level of education. While this component is significant, it is beyond the scope of education policy to deal with such issues. Recommendations will therefore focus on parental involvement and support.

Involving parents

The first step is to increase awareness among parents of their capabilities for influence. Essentially, parents need to understand that their role in the education process is an important and influential one. Russell (1991: 273) found that ‘parental beliefs about their educational role is likely to be a factor influencing the nature and extent of parental involvement.’ Thus, a lack of awareness may lead to a lack of parental involvement in the education of children. Initiatives need to be taken to overcome ignorance and any feelings of inadequacy that parents may have. At the very least, action is needed to expose parents to information explaining the importance of their contribution. Parents need to realise that the home is a place of learning as well as the school. Such programmes can be implemented by targeting families in the years prior to their children attending school as well as while they are at school.

Schools, and the teachers who have the most direct contact with the parents’ children, are crucial in initiating action. Rosenholtz (1989: 52) termed and distinguished between teachers in ‘stuck’ schools versus those in ‘moving’ schools. Teachers in moving schools saw parents as having a major role in school progress. Specifically, these teachers ‘…focused their efforts on involving parents with academic content, thereby bridging the learning chasm between home and school.’ On the other hand, teachers from stuck schools failed to recognise the potential contribution of parents and consequently, ‘…held no goals for parent participation.’  By encouraging parental participation in schoolwork, homework and other educational activities, teachers may change the attitudes of parents so that they understand how important it is for them to take an active interest in their child’s education.

Given a commitment by schools to a systematic attempt to involve parents in the education of their children, there are several specific measures that could be adopted in pursuit of this objective. A number are described below.

Information pamphlets / booklets

When children begin school or move from primary to secondary school, it may be useful for parents to receive a booklet detailing the various ways in which they can help their child’s progress, and how they should go about it. This booklet may encourage parents to:

• Read to their child and listen to their child read;
• Make books, dictionaries and other materials available in the home;
• Set aside time to do homework, and monitor homework activities;
• Show an interest in what their child is learning at school and discuss current issues;
• In secondary school parents can help the child with subject selection, perhaps involving the school’s career advisor if there is one;
• Provide a suitable study and work area, especially in the later years;
• Provide general support and encouragement to their child;
• Meet with the child’s teacher(s) to discuss progress and problems, if any.

The school’s responsibilities

Once parental awareness has been achieved and interest stimulated, other strategies are needed to facilitate home learning. In addition to the broad measures described above, parents need information explaining more specifically what it is that they can and should be doing to help their child. Dauber & Epstein (1989) demonstrated that the level of parental involvement is directly linked to a school’s strategies encouraging parents to be involved, and to the schools ability to provide guidance on how parents can play their part as educators. This means that schools should:

• Encourage maximum participation in the school’s activities by keeping parents informed of appropriate school events in which they are welcome to participate. Such communication can be channeled via a regular school newsletter.
• Pay particular attention to end-of-term or end-of-year progress reports and the need to ensure that parents have an accurate, fully-informed picture of their child’s progress in individual subjects, relative position in class, and any problems with progress that a child might be having so that parents can work with the school to overcome them.
• Set up meetings at the beginning of each school year to allow parents to meet with teachers and other parents. The school can take this as an opportunity to reinforce the objectives of the school, outline what is expected from parents and provide information on what the children will be learning that year.
• Regularly revise their strategies for communicating with parents. It is important that schools do not become content with seeing the same faces at school meetings and events. An effort should be made to reach those parents who, for whatever reasons, fail to participate or show an interest.

The special problems of the sole parent family

 The considerable body of evidence demonstrating the relative educational underperformance of children from sole parent families highlights one of the most urgent yet difficult tasks for education policy. Their disadvantages include lower income, the special difficulties of one parent coping with issues that might normally be tackled by two parents; detachment from the school community; the difficulties of schools maintaining contact with sole parents; feelings of inadequacy and shrinking from school involvement; low levels of education of many sole parents and, often the low priority they place on education in the face of multiple difficulties.

Here again, alleviating much of this disadvantage is quite outside the scope of education policy. Nevertheless, there are some possible courses of action.

Getting sole parents involved

The research literature suggests that, on average, sole parent families function quite differently from couple families. Sole parents are less likely to be involved in their child’s education. Action is needed to make education a high priority for sole parents so that they are willing to become involved and provide a home life that encourages and supports academic achievement. Even though sole parents are considered to be ‘hard to reach’, it is likely that the children from these families will benefit the most from parental involvement. The challenge is to find ways of reaching the parents and establishing programmemes to which they are able to respond. In developing programmes to increase parental support and involvement in education, special attention must be paid to the different types of families targeted. What is effective for couple families may not necessarily be so for sole parents.

Teachers and schools need to be aware of the family situation of their students so that they can be flexible and accommodating in their execution of programmes and strategies. Instead of expecting sole parent families to function as a traditional two parent family does, sole parent families should be encouraged to work with what they have to enhance their child’s education.

It is important to establish programmes where communication is based on the times and places that are convenient for these families. Specific projects are needed to address the underlying issues that cause certain parents to be ‘hard to reach’.

Parents-as-Teachers Programme

 The Parents as Teachers programme was first introduced in Missouri, in the United States in 1981. Since then many other pilots have been conducted, including twelve in Australia (New South Wales and Northern Teritory). It is a voluntary programme providing families with children between 0-3 years with information, and help in developing their child’s skills. This programme was not developed specifically for sole parents but has features which may be used in developing a programme that targets sole parents. These include:

• Helping parents give their children the best possible start in life and in building the foundations for a successful school life.
• Personal visits by a trained officer who initially sets up a workable programme for each family, and monitors and evaluates progress.
• Group meetings, developmental screening and resource networking.
• A home liaison officer to provide parents with support and information on raising their children, and encouragement to develop the language skills of the children, as well as their social and cognitive skills.

Evidence suggests that the Parents as Teachers programme is successful in preparing children for school and that children involved in the programme are often more advanced than their classmates (Ehlers & Ruffin 1990).

The family and children’s education

There can be no question of the importance of parental factors in children’s education. Every child’s future depends deeply upon the level of his or her educational attainment and, leaving aside questions of individual intelligence and other facets of mind and body influenced by genetic factors, that outcome is determined almost entirely by the parents and school. Parents, by way of their resources and the home environment, therefore play one of the most influential roles in the education of their children.

As we have seen, the significance of the parental contribution is in turn powerfully affected by the structure of the family. While different types of families—married couple, sole parent, step and blended, de facto couple—can be encouraged and helped by school policies to play their parts and involve themselves positively in their children’s education, this is not a complete answer to some of the problems. There remain issues and impediments peculiar to family structure as a variable in its own right which fall outside the purview of educational policy per se. We have examined several of these in detail in discussing the difficulties of the sole parent family, where they are at their starkest. But we have also seen that children in step, blended and de facto families are more vulnerable to certain kinds of problems than traditional families. By and large, the source of most of theses problems is change and instability arising from the absence of one natural parent and the advent of a non-biological parent in the life of a child.

The reasons for the greater instability of family life in Australia today is not an appropriate question in the context of this review. However, if this instability is deemed worthy of attention by our governments, it will need to be addressed by broader policies concerning family law, employment and labour markets, family taxation, and welfare policy. In the meantime, there is much that conscientious parents and enterprising schools can do to raise the educational performance of Australian children.

References

Ainley, J., and P. McKenzie 1999, ‘The influence of school factors’, in Australia’s Young Adults: The Deepening Divide, Dusseldorp Skills Forum.

Astone, N.M., and S.S. McLanahan 1991, ‘Family structure, parental practices and high school completion’, American Sociological Review 56: 309-320.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1997, Family Characteristics, ABS Cat. No. 4442.0.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1997, Transition from education to work, ABS Cat. No. 6227.0.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999, Labour Force Status and other characteristics of Families, ABS Cat. No. 6224.0.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999, Australian Social Trends, ABS Cat. No. 4102.0.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999, Children, Australia: A social report. ABS Cat. No. 4119.0.

Baker D.P. & D.L. Stevenson 1986 ‘Mother’s strategies for children’s school achievement: managing the transition to high school’, Sociology of Education 59: 156-66.

Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services 1998, Some common questions about Lone Parents answered.

Dauber, S.L., and J.L. Epstein 1989, Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools, Paper presented at American Educational Research Association annual meeting.

Downey, D.B. 1994, ‘The school performance of children from single-mother and single father families: Economic or interpersonal deprivation?’ Journal of family issues 15(1): 129-147.

Dubow, E.F., and M.F. Ippolito 1994, ‘Effects of poverty and quality of the home environment on changes in the academic and behavioural adjustment of elementary school-age children’, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 23: 401-412.

Edgar, D., and F. Headlam 1982, One parent families and educational disadvantage, Australian Institute of Family Studies: Melbourne.

Ehlers and Ruffin 1990, ‘The Missouri Project – Parents as Teachers’ Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(2).

Entwisle, D.R., and K.L. Alexander 1995, ‘A parent’s economic shadow: family structure versus family resources as influences on early school achievement’, Journal of marriage and the family 57: 399-409.

Entwisle, D.R., and K.L. Alexander 1996, ‘Family type and children’s growth in reading and math over the primary grades’, Journal of Marriage and the Family 58: 341-355.

Fehrmann, P.G., T.Z. Keith, and T.M. Reimers 1987, ‘Home influence on school learning: Direct and indirect effects on high school grades’, Journal of Educational Research 80(6): 330-337.

Finn, J.D., and M.F. Owings 1994, ‘Family structure and school performance in eighth grade’, The Journal of Research and Development in Education 27(3): 176-187.

Gandara, P. 1994, ‘Choosing higher education: Educationally ambitious Chicanos and the path to social mobility’, Education Policy Analysis Archives 2(8).

Garasky, S. 1995, ‘The effects of family structure of educational attainment: Do the effects vary by the age of the child?’ American Journal of Economics and Sociology 54(1): 89-105.

Grolnick, W.S., R.M. Ryan, and E.L. Deci 1991, ‘Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents’, Journal of Educational Psychology 83: 508-517.

Grolnick, W.S., and M.L. Slowiaczek 1994, ‘Parents’ Involvement in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualisation and motivational model’, Child Development 65: 237-252.

Groome, H., and A. Hamilton 1995, Meeting the Educational needs of Aboriginal Adolescents, Commissioned Report No. 35. Australian Government Publishing Service.

Harding, A. and A. Szukalska 1999, Trends in Child Poverty in Australia: 1982 to 1995-6, Discussion Paper, No. 42, April 1999 NATSEM (National Centre for Social and Economic Modeling).

Haveman, R., B. Wolfe, and J. Spaulding 1991, ‘Circumstances influencing high school completion’, Demography 28(1): 133-157.

Hetherington, M.E., M. Cox, and R. Cox 1982, ‘Effects of divorce on parents and young children’, in M. Lamb (ed), Nontraditional families: Parenting and Child Development, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Herzog, E., and C. Sudia 1973, ‘Children in fatherless families’, in B. Caldwell and H. Ricciuti (eds), Review of Child Development Research, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hewison, J., and J. Tizard 1980, ‘Parental involvement and reading attainment’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 50: 209-215.

Hofferth, S.L. 1982, Children’s family experience to age 18: A cohort life table analysis, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, San Diego.

Krein, S.F., and A.H. Beller 1988, ‘Educational Attainment of children from single parent families: Differences by Exposure, gender, and race’, Demography 25(2): 221-234.

Lareau, A. 1987, ‘Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital’, Sociology of Education 60: 73-85.

Lee, S. 1993, ‘Family Structure effects on student outcomes’, in B. Schneider and J.S. Coleman (eds), Parents their children, and schools, Boulder, Co: Westview Press.

Lokan, J., P. Ford & L. Greenwood 1997 Maths and Science on the line: Australian secondary students’ performance in the third international mathematics and science study. TIMSS Australia Monograph No 2, Melbourne: ACER.

Lokan, J., P. Ford & L. Greenwood 1998 Maths and Science on the line: Australian middle primary students’ performance in the third international mathematics and science study. TIMSS Australia Monograph No 2, Melbourne: ACER.

Masters, G, and M. Forster 1997, Mapping literacy achievement: Results of the 1996 National School English Literacy Survey. Canberra: DEETYA

McGaw, B., K. Piper, D. Banks, and B. Evans 1992, Making Schools more effective, ACER: Victoria.

McLanahan, S.S., and G. Sandefur 1994, Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mitchell, D. 1993, ‘Sole parents, work and welfare: Evidence from the Luxembourg income study’, in S. Shaver (ed), Comparative Perspectives on Sole Parent Policy: Work and Welfare, Social Policy Research Centre, Reports and Proceedings, No. 106.

Mukherjee, D. 1995, Regional Inequalities: Income, occupation and education, A.C.E.E. Research Monograph No. 2.

Mulkey, L.M., R.L. Crain and A.J. Harrington 1992, ‘One parent Households and achievement: Economic and behavioural explanations of a small effect’, Sociology of Education 65: 48-65.

Patterson, G.R. 1986, ‘Performance models for antisocial boys’, American Psychologist 41: 432-444.

Pong, S. 1998, ‘The school compositional effect of single parenthood on 10^th grade achievement’, Sociology of Education 71: 24-43.

Power, C. 1984, ‘Factors influencing retentivity and satisfaction with secondary schooling’, The Australian Journal of Education 28(2): 115-125.

Pulkinnen, L. 1982, ‘Self-control and continuity from childhood to adolescence’ in P.B. Baltes and O.G. Brim (eds), Life span development and behaviour, vol. 4: 63-105, New York: Academic Press.

Rodgers, B. 1996, ‘Social and psychological wellbeing of children form divorced families: Australian research findings’, Australian Psychologist 31(3): 174-182.

Rosenholtz, S. 1989, Teachers’ workplace: The social organisation of schools, New York: Longman.

Russell, A. 1991, ‘Parental role conceptions associated with involvement’, Australian Journal of Education 35(3): 273-291.

Smith, T.E. 1989, ‘Mother-Father differences in parental influence on school grades and educational goals’, Sociological Inquiry 59(1): 88-98.

Steinberg, L. 1987, ‘Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility to antisocial peer pressure’, Child Development 58: 269-275.

Stevenson, D.L., and D.P. Baker 1987, ‘The family-school relation and the child’s school performance’, Child Development 58(5): 1348-1357.

Sullivan, L., J. Buckingham, B. Maley, and H. Hughes 1999, State of the Nation: Indicators of a changing Australia, The Centre for Independent Studies.

Teachman, J.D. 1987, ‘Family background, educational resources, and educational attainment’, American Sociological Review 52: 548-577.

Teese, R., G.McLean, and J. Polesel 1993, Equity Outcomes: A Report to the Schools Council’s Task Force on a Broadbanded Equity Programme for Schools, National Board of Employment, Education and Training, AGPS, Canberra.

Wang, M.C., G.D. Haertel and H.J. Walberg 1993, ‘Toward a knowledge theory of school learning’, Review of Educational Research 63: 249-294.

Weatherburn, D., and B. Lind 1997, Social and Economic Stress, Child Neglect and Juvenile Delinquency, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney.

Wilson, J., and R. Hernnstein 1985, Crime and Human Nature, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Zill, N. 1996, ‘Family change and student achievement: What have we learned, what it means for schools’, in A. Booth and J.F. Dunn (eds), Family school links: How do they effect educational outcomes, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zubrick, S.R., S.R. Silburn, L. Gurrin, H. Teoh, C. Shepherd, J. Carlton and D. Lawrence 1997, Western Australian Child Health Survey: Education, Health and Competence, Perth, Western Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics and the TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health Research.