PARENTING

overview
laurence steinberg

high-risk neighborhoods
claire smrekar

influence of parents' level of education
joan m. t. walker
claire smrekar

influence on child's educational aspirations and attainment
joan m. t. walker
claire smrekar

OVERVIEW

The study of parenting and its impact on children and adolescents has long been a central concern to scholars interested in child development and education. Although some contemporary commentators have suggested that social scientists have overestimated the influence of parents on their children's development and have underemphasized the importance of genetic factors and forces outside the family, most experts continue to believe that children's emotional, cognitive, and behavioral development is profoundly affected by the ways in which their parents have raised them.

This confidence in parental influence notwithstanding, it is important to note that much research on parenting and child development, which tends to be correlational in nature, leaves open the question of causal direction. The observation that children with certain characteristics are more likely than not to come from parents who engage in certain ways of parenting can be accounted for with a variety of explanations, of which parental influence is just one. Consider, for example, the commonly observed correlation between parental harshness and childhood aggression. Although it is reasonable to suggest that this observation reflects the fact that parental hostility creates aggressive children, it is also reasonable to suppose that parents are influenced by their children (i.e., that aggressive children elicit harsh parenting), that other environmental or genetic factors influence both parents and children in certain directions (e.g., that poverty makes parents harsh and children aggressive, or that harsh parents and aggressive children share a genetic predisposition for violence).

Researchers interested in disentangling these different accounts have generally followed one of three approaches. First, through the use of longitudinal designs, researchers have studied the links between parenting and child adjustment over time, examining whether certain types of parenting precede, rather than simply accompany or follow from, the emergence of certain child characteristics. Second, in studies of animals, researchers have been able to randomly assign infants and juveniles to rearing environments in which adults vary in their parenting practices, and by doing so, scientists have been able to examine the impact of variations in parenting on adjustment through experimentation. Finally, a number of investigators have studied the impact of parent-focused interventions on child adjustment. In these studies, parents' behavior is changed through some sort of psychoeducational treatment, and any resultant change in child adjustment is examined in relation to the parenting intervention. All three designs (longitudinal, experimental, and interventional) have buttressed the findings from correlational work.

Parenting, of course, encompasses many different phenomena. Nancy Darling and Laurence Steinberg (1993) have suggested that researchers distinguish between parenting style and parenting practices. They define parenting style as a constellation of attitudes toward the child communicated to the child by the parent, that taken together create an emotional climate in which the parent's behaviors are expressed. These behaviors include both the specific, goal-directed behaviors through which parents perform their parental duties (what Darling and Steinberg refer to as parenting practices ) as well as non-goal-directed parental behaviors, such as gestures, changes in tone of voice, or the spontaneous expression of emotion. The focus of the current entry is on parenting style. Information on specific parenting practices, especially those related to parenting practices designed to influence educational achievement, may be found in other entries.

Dimensional Approaches to Research on Parenting

Whether through correlational, longitudinal, or experimental designs, research on parenting style and its impact has traditionally followed one of two approaches. In the dimensional approach, researchers isolate critical dimensions of parenting along which parents differ and examine the relations between variability on one or more of these dimensions and variability in one or more child outcomes. The most frequently studied dimensions of parenting have been warmth (sometimes referred to as acceptance or responsiveness), firmness (sometimes referred to as demandingness or behavioral control), and restrictiveness (sometimes referred to as intrusiveness or psychological control). Four broad sets of child adjustment indicators have been examined in relation to each of these dimensions of parenting: psychosocial development (including social competence, self-conceptions, and self-reliance); school achievement (including school performance, school engagement, and academic motivation); internalized distress (including depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic problems); and problem behavior (including delinquency, aggression, and drug and alcohol use).

Generally speaking, research shows that children and adolescents fare better when their parents are warm, firm, and nonrestrictive. Although variability in parental warmth has been associated with variability in all four areas of child adjustment listed in the preceding paragraph, it appears that variations in parents' firmness and restrictiveness contribute relatively more to some aspects of children's development than to others. In general, variations in firmness are linked most strongly to variations in problem behavior (with children whose parents are low in firmness exhibiting more problem behavior than their more vigilantly reared peers), whereas variations in restrictiveness are linked most strongly to variations in internalized distress (with children whose parents are high in restrictiveness scoring higher on measures of depression, anxiety, and the like). Thus the distinction between behavioral and psychological control is important not only because each is related to different outcomes but also because optimal child development is associated with high levels of one type of control (behavioral) but low levels of the other (psychological).

Configurational Approaches to Research on Parenting

The dimensional approach attempts to separate various aspects of parenting from one another, to isolate their independent relations to child outcomes. In contrast, the configurational approach to parenting attempts to identify particular types or styles of parenting that are defined by certain constellations of parenting characteristics (e.g., a group of parents who are high on warmth, low on behavioral control, and low on psychological control; a group who are high on warmth, high on behavioral control, and low on psychological control, etc.). This has been done by using configurations that are defined a priori on the basis of theory as well as by identifying naturally occurring clusters of parents whose parenting has been assessed on several of the key dimensions identified earlier. The advantage of the a priori approach is that all possible constellations of parents are identified, even those that are relatively rare. The advantage of identifying naturally occurring clusters of parents is that the end result is a categorization system that accurately reflects the type of parenting found within the particular ecological niche studied. This can be an important consideration for researchers who are interested in cultural groups whose parenting may not be easily classified using preexisting configurational models. Some critics, for example, contend that the most commonly used configurational models of parenting have greater applicability within white, middle-class, American samples than within samples of parents from other backgrounds.

The most widely used configurational model of parenting is one that derives from the work of Diana Baumrind (1971), whose theory of parenting style has been enormously influential. Although Baumrind's initial conceptualization of parenting styles was not explicitly based on the dimensions of parental warmth, behavioral control, and psychological control, more contemporary models of parenting, such as those of Darling and Steinberg, have attempted to bridge Baumrind's configurational approach with research on these three dimensions of parenting. Within this parenting-style framework, parents are classified as authoritative (high in warmth, high in firmness, and low in restrictiveness), authoritarian (low in warmth, high in firmness, and high in restrictiveness), or indulgent (high in warmth, low in firmness, and low in restrictiveness). Contemporary variations of this framework have also included a fourth group, indifferent parents, who are characteristically low in warmth, low in firmness, and low in restrictiveness. Although it is theoretically possible to derive additional configurations of parents based on other combinations of warmth, firmness, and restrictiveness, most empirical research suggests that, at least in contemporary Western cultures, the authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and indifferent styles account for the vast majority of parents.

Authoritative parents. These four general styles of parenting can be distinguished in many respects beyond their scores on measures of parental warmth, firmness, or restrictiveness. For example, in addition to being both warm and firm, authoritative parents set standards for the child's conduct but form expectations that are consistent with the child's developing needs and capabilities. They place a high value on the development of autonomy and self-direction but assume the ultimate responsibility for their child's behavior. Authoritative parents deal with their child in a rational, issue-oriented manner, frequently engaging in discussion and explanation with their children over matters of discipline.

Authoritarian parents. In contrast, authoritarian parents place a high value on obedience and conformity, favoring more punitive, absolute, and forceful disciplinary measures. Verbal give- and-take is not common in authoritarian households, because the underlying belief of authoritarian parents is that the child should accept without question the rules and standards established by the parents. They tend not to encourage independent behavior and, instead, place a good deal of importance on restricting the child's autonomy.

Indulgent parents. Indulgent parents behave in an accepting, benign, and somewhat more passive way in matters of discipline. They place relatively few demands on the child's behavior, giving the child a high degree of freedom to act as he or she wishes. Indulgent parents are more likely to believe that control is an infringement on the child's freedom that may interfere with the child's healthy development. Instead of actively shaping their child's behavior, indulgent parents are more likely to view themselves as resources that the child may or may not use.

Indifferent parents. Finally, indifferent parents try to do whatever is necessary to minimize the time and energy that they must devote to interacting with their child. In extreme cases, indifferent parents may be neglectful. They know little about their child's activities and whereabouts, show little interest in their child's experiences at school or with friends, rarely converse with their child, and rarely consider their child's opinion when making decisions. Rather than raising their child according to a set of beliefs about what is good for the child's development (as do the other three parent types), indifferent parents are "parent centered"–they structure their home life primarily around their own needs and interests.

In light of research findings linking positive child adjustment to the presence of parental warmth and firmness, and to a lack of parental restrictiveness, it is not surprising to find that child adjustment varies as a function of parenting style, with children from authoritative households exhibiting relatively healthier adjustment than their peers and children from neglectful homes exhibiting poorer functioning on virtually all measured indicators. More specifically, children and adolescents from authoritative homes score better than their peers on measures of psychosocial development, school achievement, internalized distress, and problem behavior, whereas those from neglectful homes score worse across all four sets of outcomes. Youngsters raised in authoritarian or permissive homes score somewhere between the two extremes, with authoritarian parenting associated with special problems in self-reliance, social competence, and internalized dis-tress, and permissive parenting associated with somewhat lower school achievement and elevated rates of problem behavior.

Although occasional exceptions to these general patterns have been noted from time to time, the evidence linking authoritative parenting and healthy child and adolescent development is remarkably strong, and it has been found in studies of a wide range of ethnicities, cultures, regions, social classes, and family structures. At the other extreme, parenting that is indifferent, neglectful, or abusive has been shown consistently to have harmful effects on the adolescent's mental health and development, leading to depression and a variety of behavior problems, including, in cases of physical abuse, aggression toward others.

The Power of Authoritative Parenting

Why is authoritative parenting so consistently associated with healthy child and adolescent development? First, authoritative parents provide an appropriate balance between restrictiveness and autonomy, giving the child opportunities to develop self-reliance but providing the sorts of standards, limits, and guidelines that developing individuals need. Authoritative parents, for instance, are more likely to give children more independence gradually as they get older, which helps children develop self-reliance and self-assurance. Because of this, authoritative parenting promotes the development of and enhances their ability to withstand a variety of potentially negative influences, including life stress and exposure to antisocial peers.

Second, because authoritative parents are more likely to engage their children in verbal give- and-take, they are likely to promote the sort of intellectual development that provides an important foundation for the development of psychosocial competence. Family discussions in which decisions, rules, and expectations are explained help the child to understand social systems and social relationships. This understanding plays an important part in the development of reasoning abilities, role taking, moral judgment, and empathy.

Finally, because authoritative parenting is based on a warm parent-child relationship, adolescents are more likely to identify with, admire, and form strong attachments to their parents, which leaves them more open to their parents' influence. Adolescents who have had warm and close relationships with their parents are more likely, for example, to have similar attitudes and values. Adolescents who are raised by indifferent parents, in contrast, often end up having friends their parents disapprove of, including those involved in antisocial activity.

Cultural Differences in Parenting

A number of researchers have asked whether parents from different ethnic groups vary in their child rearing and whether the relation between parenting and child and adolescent outcomes is the same across different ethnic groups. These, of course, are two different questions: The first concerns average differences between groups in their approaches to parenting (e.g., whether ethnic minority parents are firmer than white parents), whereas the second concerns the correlation between parenting practices and child adjustment in different groups (e.g., whether the effect of firmness is the same in ethnic minority families as it is in white families).

In general, researchers find that authoritative parenting is less prevalent among African-American, Asian-American, or Hispanic families than among European-American families, no doubt reflecting the fact that parenting practices are often linked to cultural values and beliefs. Nevertheless, even though authoritative parenting is less common in ethnic minority families, its effects on adolescent adjustment are beneficial in all ethnic groups. In other words, ethnic minority youngsters for the most part benefit just as much from parenting that is responsive and demanding as do their nonminority peers.

Research has also indicated that authoritarian parenting is more prevalent among ethnic minority than among white families, even after taking ethnic differences in socioeconomic status into account. As opposed to research on authoritative parenting, however, which suggests comparable effects across ethnic groups, research on authoritarian parenting indicates that the adverse effects of this style of parenting may be greater among white youngsters than among their ethnic minority counterparts. Several explanations have been offered for this finding.

First, some writers have suggested that because ethnic minority families are more likely to live in dangerous communities, authoritarian parenting, with its emphasis on control, may not be as harmful and may even carry some benefits. Second, as several researchers (Ruth Chao, 1994; Nancy Gonzales, Ana Mari Cauce, and Craig Mason, 1996) have pointed out, the distinction between "authoritative" versus "authoritarian" parenting may not always make sense when applied to parents from other cultures. For example, nonwhite parents frequently combine a very high degree of restrictiveness (like white authoritarian parents) with warmth (like white authoritative parents). If they focus too much on parents' strictness when observing family relationships, European-American researchers may mislabel other ethnic groups' approaches to child rearing (which appear very controlling, but which are neither aloof nor hostile) as authoritarian.

In the last years of the twentieth century, new models of parenting began to emerge, which attempted to move beyond the traditional, often stale, debates between those who believe that parents are relatively impotent in the face of genetic and non-familial influence on child development and those who believe that parents' influence is limitless. These new models emphasize the importance of studying parenting as a bidirectional process, in which parents both influence and are influenced by their child, and as an embedded process, in which a range of forces in the proximal and distal environment influence the parent-child relationship. New research on parenting examines such questions as whether and in what ways the child's temperament moderates the impact of certain types of parenting on child adjustment; whether and how the impact of parenting varies across neighborhood and community contexts; and whether and through what processes the influence of parents on their children is itself affected by the other settings in which the child spends time, such as the peer group, day-care center, or classroom.

See also: Adolescent Peer Culture, subentry on Parents' Role; Parental Involvement in Education; Parenting, subentries on High-Risk Neighborhoods, Influence of Parents' Level of Education, Influence on Child's Educational Aspirations and Attainment.

bibliography

Baumrind, Diana. 1971. "Current Patterns of Parental Authority." Developmental Psychology Monograph 4 (1), part 2.

Chao, Ruth. 1994. "Beyond Parental Control and Authoritarian Parenting Style: Understanding Chinese Parenting through the Cultural Notion of Training." Child Development 65:1111–1119.

Collins, W. Andrew, et al. 2000. "Contemporary Research on Parenting: The Case for Nature and Nurture." American Psychologist 55:218–232.

Darling, Nancy, and Steinberg, Laurence. 1993. "Parenting Style as Context: An Integrative Model." Psychological Bulletin 113:487–496.

Gonzales, Nancy; Cause, Ana Mari; and Mason, Craig. 1996. "Interobserver Agreement in the Assessment of Parental Behavior and Parent-Adolescent Conflict: African American Mothers, Daughters, and Independent Observers." Child Development 67:1483–1498.

Harris, Judith R. 1998. The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do. New York: Free Press.

Steinberg, Laurence. 2001. "We Know Some Things: Adolescent-Parent Relationships in Retrospect and Prospect." Journal of Research on Adolescence 11:1–20.

Steinberg, Laurence, et al. 1994. "Over-Time Changes in Adjustment and Competence Among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Families." Child Development 65:754–770.

Laurence Steinberg

HIGH-RISK NEIGHBORHOODS

Avenues of inquiry regarding successful parenting in high-risk neighborhoods, particularly as it relates to students' ability to succeed in school, include the following: How do researchers define "high-risk," and how does the concept differ from "disadvantaged"? What is known about the socio-demographic conditions associated with individuals and neighborhoods characterized by "risk"?

To answer these questions, three intersecting lenses of analysis are examined: (1) individual: parenting and resilience; (2) community: social capital and capacity; and (3) interinstitutional: ecology of schooling. The discussion focuses upon the elements associated with educational management functions among families in high-risk neighborhoods.

Definition of "At-Risk"

The concept of a high-risk neighborhood is derived from the set of social and economic conditions that place individuals "at-risk" of failure, or of encountering significant problems related to employment, education, self-sufficiency, or a healthy lifestyle. At-risk conditions include both environmental or community characteristics, such as crime and limited employment opportunities, and individual qualities, such as poverty and low educational attainment. The problems or failures encountered by those labeled at-risk are oriented toward the future but linked to current conditions.

The understanding that interactions between particular environmental and individual characteristics may lead to a heightened risk of negative outcomes is rooted in the health and medical literature, and is widely examined in studies of social stratification, educational inequality, and social policy. Common arguments, such as those of sociologists Karl Alexander and Doris Entwisle, among others, suggest that individuals "disadvantaged" by low socioeconomic status are more susceptible to adverse environmental or community conditions, such as unsafe housing and poor quality schooling. Decades of social science research provide compelling evidence that the extent and concentration of neighborhood poverty and the presence (or absence) of affluent neighbors are associated with an array of outcomes, including rates of teenage pregnancy and school dropout. But policymakers and social scientists also underscore the finding that in socially depleted neighborhoods, residents are often constrained in their efforts to transmit positive values and productive norms because of a lack of community structure and effective social controls.

High-Risk Neighborhoods

Historically, neighborhoods have functioned as the social, political, and cultural webbing for families and children. This context links families and individuals to a set of norms, routines, and traditions. The social scripts embedded in the geography and culture of the neighborhood, if well known and well defined, become institutionalized practices for children and adults. Social actions flow from perceptions of safety and opportunity, expectations regarding appropriate parenting styles and child behavior, norms regarding home maintenance and respect for property. The neighborhood environment defines the formation of particular social networks among families and the levels of trust, familiarity, and face-to-face engagement among members.

Clusters of interlocking and corrosive conditions are persistent in high-risk neighborhoods, and are evidenced by the dense and dilapidated housing, a real and constant threat of violent crime, inadequate and inaccessible health care, a lack of employment opportunities that pay a living wage, and unreliable and limited public transportation. These concrete indicators of poverty and social isolation give rise to an insidious and entrenched culture of fear, disconnection, and distrust in high-risk neighborhoods. Families may be paralyzed by fear of gangs and guns. Omnipresent drug traffic and a constant threat of victimization minimize opportunities for interdependence and delimit social interaction among neighbors within the community. High transience rates in these neighborhoods lead to blocks of unstable and abandoned housing.

How does this social fabric influence children's well-being, particularly their success in schooling, when the population is so heavily marked by concentrated poverty, unemployment, low levels of education, and large numbers of struggling, single parents? How is a parent's pattern of involvement in home- and school-based learning activities affected by these neighborhood-level conditions–beyond individual characteristics (income, education, family structure)? These community-level conditions frame the challenging conditions for parents engaged in managing their children's educational experiences at home and at the school site. Researchers agree that these out-of-school environments constitute vital components that are deeply connected but external to students' experiences in formal school settings.

Resiliency and Community Capacity

Although it is clear that certain family conditions are associated with higher rates of poverty–low parent education, young parental age, and single parent status–it is less well understood how parenting practices in circumstances of poverty may overcome or mediate these "high-risk" conditions to produce successful educational outcomes for children. Emerging research findings point to the important role of resiliency in guiding the actions of individuals. Resiliency research refers to a long tradition of studies aimed at understanding how individuals or groups overcome high-risk conditions, such as poverty, or succeed despite severely adverse family situations, such as an alcoholic or abusive parent.

Certain elements present in the individual or community, known as "protective factors" function to assist people in high-risk environments to over-come the adverse conditions. Internal protective factors include social competence (ability to form positive and productive relationships with others); problem solving (the ability to identify problems and apply appropriate resources to solving them); autonomy (an ability to act independently and with control over their environment); and sense of purpose (the disposition to set goals, persist in achieving them, and maintain a focus). These internal elements function in partnership with external protective factors to produce resiliency and positive outcomes. Thus, schools and neighborhoods that offer resiliency to individuals include the following properties: a sense of caring and heightened familiarity for individual members or students; high expectations coupled with appropriate resources to reach these goals; opportunities for meaningful participation and demands for personal responsibility.

The research literature on community capacity extends and elaborates upon the important influence that neighborhood conditions exert in shaping social action in positive ways that lead to productive outcomes among members. Robert Chaskin has identified four central elements that are often weak or tenuous in high-risk neighborhoods.

1. A sense of community or degree of connectedness among neighbors–their sense of being similarly situated socially, economically, and geographically
2. Level of commitment among neighbors who view themselves as stakeholders and assume responsibility for collective outcomes
3. A mechanism for problem identification, planning and priority-setting, and problem solving
4. Access to financial, political, and human resources

Community capacity focuses upon the significance of social interaction across individuals, organizations, and networks of organizations. A central asset required for community capacity is human capital–the skills, knowledge, and dispositions among individual members of a community that are profitable for both individuals and the neighborhood in optimizing the processes outlined in the communit-building literature. As James Coleman and Thomas Hoffer note, residents in high-risk neighborhoods who fit the traditional definition of "disadvantaged," that is, are marked by low levels of education and low income, have little human capital and face challenging obstacles in their efforts to build community capacity.

Social capital bridges human capital theory, which underscores the economic value of individuals for collective purposes, and social organization theory. The capacity of neighborhoods to provide constructive assets for parents engaged in managing their children's educational success can be examined through the concepts embedded in social capital.

Social Capital

The concept of social capital emphasizes the role of organizational (e.g., school) relationships in establishing social ties between members who share similar attitudes, norms, and values instrumental in promoting a strong sense of obligation, shared expectations, and trust. These critical elements of social capital help promote trust, facilitate open and fluid communication, and produce purposeful and meaningful activities that benefit students and adults alike. Social capital is sustained when there is "a sense of community" or a set of organizational and institutional affiliations (e.g., civic, religious, professional) that bind families in stable, predictable, and enduring social ties.

The economic and social environments in high-risk neighborhoods may militate against the development and sustainability of social capital. These neighborhoods often reflect their social and economic context: scarce economic resources, unstable social networks, limited social trust, and a perceived lack of consensus on parenting. There are few after-school programs, church-related youth groups, or recreation/civic programs for children, youth, and families. Research studies of parenting practices in high-risk neighborhoods–community contexts bereft of social capital assets–describe parenting as a highly private, protected, and isolated set of activities. Under manifestly dangerous conditions, parents in high-risk neighborhoods manage risk and opportunity by adopting stringent child monitoring and youth control, or "lock-down" strategies. These individual patterns of confinement and insularity in childrearing and parenting reflect the larger, collective neighborhood dynamics. As more and more parents adopt these defensive tactics, increasing numbers of neighbors are disconnected and social networks of support dissolve.

Thus, the capacity of parents in high-risk neighborhoods to manage and promote educational success and healthy outcomes for their children is powerfully influenced by the nature of, and the ability to activate, social capital assets and community capacity-building in the neighborhood. Successful parents, that is, parents whose children are thriving socially and academically despite the distracting and disabling conditions in their neighborhood environments, demonstrate resiliency and an ability to activate internal protective factors. These parents manage to capture "scarce opportunities" in ways that suggest "super motivation" and "unusual diligence," according to Frank Furstenberg and his colleagues, who have studied urban neighborhoods and youth development for decades in Baltimore.

What role do schools play in promoting enduring social ties between families and educators in high-risk neighborhoods? Against this backdrop of distracting and disabling social contexts, how does a school community bind families in networks of support that enhance parents' abilities to promote positive educational outcomes for their children?

School Community

Research suggests that the type and strength of community in schools differentially affects the critical social connections that bond families and schools in the joint enterprise of education. This concept of community refers to two types: functional and value. Functional communities are characterized by structural consistency between generations in which social norms and sanctions arise out of the social structure itself, and both reinforce and perpetuate that structure. Functional communities exhibit a high degree of uniformity and cohesion within geographical, social, economic, and ideological boundaries. Value communities describe a collection of people who share similar values about education and childrearing but who are not a functional community; they are strangers from various neighborhoods, backgrounds, and occupations united around an educational organization–their children's school. Re-search findings indicate that Catholic schools often reflect the elements of functional communities; magnet schools sometimes suggest the elements of a value community.

The families of students in high-risk neighborhoods, however, may possess few if any of the constitutive elements of either a functional or value community. Although public neighborhood schools a century ago served residential areas that were functional communities, social, economic, and technological changes have transformed many of these communities from enclaves of shared values and daily face-to-face talk, to somewhat disparate sets of interests and weak affiliations.

Parent Involvement

Substantial research evidence indicates the positive effects of both home- and school-based parent involvement programs for all parents, teachers, and students. Findings, such as those of Carole Ames in 1993, indicate that parent involvement enhances parents' attitudes about themselves, school, school personnel, and the role each plays in the development of the child. This increased understanding promotes greater cooperation, commitment, and trust between parents and teachers. Finally, evidence, such as that of James Comer in 1980 suggests that students' achievement and cognitive development increases when effective parent involvement practices are in place.

Most significant in the generally positive and optimistic reports on parent involvement may be the evidence that patterns of parental participation are related to differences in socioeconomic status: Higher income and more educated parents participate at higher rates than lower class parents, both in terms of school-based activities and home learning exercises. Studies have identified educative enrichment activities that are crucial for children's cognitive development and school success (reading to children, taking children to the library, attending school-based events) that middle-class parents engage in more frequently than lower class parents. Beyond the benefit of home-based activities (reading, math games, inquisitive conversation) on children's learning, there are strong indications of the connection between teachers' expectations for student performance and the actions and attitudes of parents. Decisions regarding retention/promotion and ability grouping may well hinge on teachers' perceptions of parental interest and commitment.

Research by Deborah Vandell and colleagues in 1999 suggests that parents' patterns of participation (as reported by teachers) may be an important factor in mediating the negative impact of neighborhood risk on academic performance of elementary school students. The types of involvement reported by teachers to benefit children in high-risk neighborhoods include visiting the school for discussions with teachers, supervising homework, and providing children with enrichment activities at home. Vandell and colleagues point to resilience factors evidenced among parents to explain these families' active and purposeful participation in a range of home and school-based activities that benefit their children's academic performance.

School-Linked Social Services

The critical interaction between social structure and school organization in high-risk neighborhoods is amplified by the school-linked social services movement launched more than 100 years ago and rekindled with new programmatic priorities in the late 1980s. The school-linked social services movement has triggered a shift from a model of education based upon separate spheres between home and school to an ecological perspective of family life that considers the human context of need and locates the school as the nexus for expanded social and economic services.

Rebuilding community-based groups and youth development organizations, such as neighborhood centers, recreation programs, youth groups, and after-school art and educational enrichment programs, is critical to improved family functioning in high-risk neighborhoods. The research on family functioning, poverty, and neighborhoods is clear: A multipronged community-capacity building effort is necessary to enhance the ability of parents who are embedded in a context of economic survival and social isolation. Only then can parents overcome the daunting array of formidable obstacles to manage successfully their children's educational experiences in the neighborhood and inside the classroom.

See also: Adolescent Peer Culture, subentry on Parents' Role; Family, School, and Community Connections; Parental Involvement in Education; Parenting, subentry on Influence on Child's Educational Aspirations and Attainment.

bibliography

Alexander, Karl L., and Entwisle, Doris R. 1996. "Schools and Children at Risk." In Family-School Links, ed. Alan Booth and Judith Dunn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ames, Carole; Khoju, Madhab; and Watkins, Tom. 1993. Parents and Schools: The Impact of School-to-Home Communications on Parents' Beliefs and Perceptions. Baltimore, MD: Center on Families, Communities, Schools and Children's Learning, Johns Hopkins University.

Baker, David P., and Stevenson, David L. 1986. "Mothers' Strategies for Children's School Achievement." Sociology of Education 59:156–166.

Becher, Rhoda M. 1986. "Parent Involvement: A Review of Research and Principles of Successful Practice." In Current Topics in Early Childhood Education, ed. Lillian G. Katz. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Booth, Alan, and Dunn, Judith. 1996. "Preface." In Family-School Links, ed. Alan Booth and Judith Dunn. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bryk, Anthony S.; Lee, Valerie E.; and Holland, Peter B. 1993. Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cathey, D. 2001. "Building Resiliency: Exploring the Link between After School Programs and Youth Resiliency." Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University.

Chaskin, Robert J. 1999. Defining Community Capacity: A Framework and Implications from a Comprehensive Community Initiative. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

Clark, Reginald M. 1983. Family Life and School Achievement: Why Poor Black Children Succeed or Fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Coleman, James. 1987. "Families and Schools." Educational Researcher 16:32–38.

Coleman, James, and Hoffer, Thomas. 1987. Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities. New York: Basic Books.

Comer, James P. 1980. School Power. New York: University Press.

Dornbusch, Sanford M., and Ritter, Philip L. 1988. "Parents of High School Students: A Neglected Resource." Educational Horizons 66:75–77.

Driscoll, Mary E., and Kerchner, Charles T. 1999. "The Implications of Social Capital for Schools, Communities and Cities: Educational Administration as if a Sense of Place Mattered." In Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, ed. Joseph Murphy and Karen S. Louis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Epstein, Joyce L. 1987. "Toward a Theory of Family-School Connections: Teacher Practices and Parent Involvement." In Social Intervention: Potential and Constraints, ed. Klaus Hurrelmann, Franz Kaufmann, and Friedrich Losel. New York: De Gruyter.

Epstein, Joyce L., and Dauber, Susan L. 1991. "School Programs and Teacher Practices of Parent Involvement in Inner-City Elementary and Middle Schools." Elementary School Journal 91:289–303.

Furstenberg, Frank F. 1993. "How Families Manage Risk and Opportunities in Dangerous Neighborhoods." In Sociology and the PublicAgenda, ed. William J. Wilson. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Goodson, Barbara D., and Hess, Robert P. 1975. Parents as Teachers of Young Children. Washington, DC: Bureau of Educational Personnel Development, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

Henderson, Anne. 1981. Parent Participation–Student Achievement: The Evidence Grows. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Kozol, Jonathan. 1995. Amazing Grace. New York: Crown.

Lareau, Annette. 1989. Home Advantage. New York: Falmer.

Natriello, Gary; McDill, Edward L.; and Pallas, Aaron M. 1990. Schooling Disadvantaged Children. New York: Teachers College Press.

Putnam, Robert. 1995. "Bowling Alone." Journal of Democracy 6 (1):65–78.

Rich, Dorothy. 1987. Schools and Families: Issues and Actions. Washington, DC: National Endowment of the Arts Press.

Schorr, Lisbeth B. 1997. Common Purpose. New York: Doubleday.

Scott-Jones, Diane. 1987. "Mother-as-Teacher in the Families of High- and Low-Achieving Low-Income Black First-Graders." Journal of Negro Education 56:21–34.

Smrekar, Claire. 1996. The Impact of School Choice and Community. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Smrekar, Claire, and Mawhinney, Hanne B. 1999. "Integrated Services: Challenges in Linking Schools, Families, and Communities." In Handbook of Research on Educational Administration, ed. Joseph Murphy and Karen S. Louis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stevenson, David L., and Baker, David P. 1987. "The Family-School Relation and the Child's School Performance." Child Development 58:1348–1357.

Vandell, Deborah; Shumow, Lee; and Posner, Jill. 1999. "Risk and Resilience in the Urban Neighborhood." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 45:2.

Wang, Margaret C., and Gordon, Edmund W., eds. 1994. Educational Resilience in Inner-City America. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wang, Margaret C.; Haertel, Geneva D.; and Walberg, Herbert J. 1996. "Educational Resilience in Inner-City America." In Strategies for Improving Education in Urban Communities, ed. Edmund W. Gordon and Maynard C. Reynolds. Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.

Werner, Emmy E., and Smith, Ruth S. 1982. Vulnerable but Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Werner, Emmy E., and Smith, Ruth S. 1992. Overcoming the Odds: High Risk Children from Birth to Adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zill, Nicholas, and Nord, Christine W. 1994. Running in Place. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Claire Smrekar

INFLUENCE OF PARENTS' LEVEL OF EDUCATION

Traditionally, family status variables such as parents' level of education have been regarded as predictors of children's academic achievement. Increasingly, research has suggested that, rather than having a direct association with children's academic achievement, parents' level of education is part of a larger constellation of psychological and sociological variables influencing children's school outcomes.

Attendant on higher levels of education may be access to resources, such as income, time, energy, and community contacts, that allow for greater parental involvement in a child's education. Thus, the influence of parents' level of education on student outcomes might best be represented as a relationship mediated by interactions among status and process variables.

The literature also suggests that level of education influences parents' knowledge, beliefs, values, and goals about childrearing, so that a variety of parental behaviors are indirectly related to children's school performance. For example, higher levels of education may enhance parents' facility at becoming involved in their children's education, and also enable parents to acquire and model social skills and problem-solving strategies conducive to children's school success. Thus, students whose parents have higher levels of education may have an enhanced regard for learning, more positive ability beliefs, a stronger work orientation, and they may use more effective learning strategies than children of parents with lower levels of education.

While many theorists and researchers argue that student attributes conducive to achievement are deeply rooted in processes of socialization, such as learning through observation of parental modeling, others contend that through their personal qualities, children actively shape the parenting they receive: Parents socialize their children, but children also influence their parents. Supporting both theoretical perspectives is research indicating that the combination of learning behavior and intelligence exceeds the contributions of any single source in predicting children's scholastic achievement.

Parents with higher levels of education are also more likely to believe strongly in their abilities to help their children learn. A recent study exploring the relationships between level of parent education, parent self-efficacy, children's academic abilities, and participation in a Head Start program found that level of parent education and program participation was significantly related to parental self-efficacy. In turn, parental self-efficacy beliefs significantly predicted children's academic abilities.

However, examinations across varied cultural and ethnic groups within the United States suggest that level of education does not appear to determine the value parents place on education, their interest in their children's schooling or their aspirations for their children's academic success. For example, in a 1997 study comparing the relative value of varied predictors of parental involvement, Thomas Watkins found that parents' efficacy for involvement and educational goals for their children were stronger predictors of school success than parental level of education and ethnicity. Additionally, this study found that teacher communications to parents predicted parental involvement, suggesting that, regardless of education level, parents need encouragement from educators to become involved in their children's education.

In sum, it appears that process variables, or factors susceptible to the influence of parents, their children, and school personnel (e.g., educational expectations, level of involvement, child attributes conducive to achievement, and teacher invitations for parental involvement) are more predictive of children's school success than status variables such as parental level of education. This is an important conclusion, for while educators and researchers cannot influence the status of students' families, they may improve students' educational outcomes by influencing selected mediating process variables.

See also: Parenting, subentries on High-Risk Neighborhoods, Influence on Child's Educational Aspirations and Attainment, Overview.

bibliography

Baumrind, Diana. 1989. "Rearing Competent Children." In Child Development Today and Tomorrow, ed. William Damon. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, Reginald. 1983. Family Life and School Achievement: Why Poor Black Children Succeed of Fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hess, Robert D., and Holloway, Susan D. 1984. "Family and School as Educational Institutions." In Review of Child Development Research, Vol. 7: The Family, ed. Ross D. Parke. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hoover-Dempsey, Kathleen V., and Sandler, Howard M. 1997. "Why Do Parents Become Involved in Their Children's Education?" Review of Educational Research 67 (1):3–42.

Lareau, Annette. 1989. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education. New York: Falmer Press.

McGillicuddy-Delisi, Ann V. 1992. "Parents' Beliefs and Children's Personal-Social Development." In Parental Belief Systems: The Psychological Consequences for Children, ed. Irving E. Sigel, Ann V. McGillicuddy-De Lisi, and Jacqueline J. Goodnow. Hilllsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Scarr, Sandra, and McCartney, Kathleen. 1983. "How People Make Their Own Environments: A Theory of Genotype-Environment Effects." Child Development 54:424–435.

Schaefer, Barbara A., and McDermott, Paul A. 1999. "Learning Behavior and Intelligence as Explanations for Children's Scholastic Achievement." Journal of School Psychology 37 (3):299–313.

Schunk, Dale H., and Zimmerman, Barry J. 1997. "Social Origins of Self-Regulatory Competence." Educational Psychologist 32 (4):195–208.

Seefeldt, Carol; Denton, Kristin; Galper, Alice; and Younoszai, Tina. 1999. "The Relation between Head Start Parents' Participation in a Transition Demonstration, Education, Efficacy and Their Children's Academic Abilities." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 14 (1):99–109.

Steinberg, Laurence; Elmen, Julie; and Mounts, Nina. 1989. "Authoritative Parenting, Psychosocial Maturity and Academic Success among Adolescents." Child Development 60:1424–1436.

Watkins, Thomas J. 1997. "Teacher Communications, Child Achievement and Parent Traits in Parent Involvement Models." Journal of Educational Research 91 (1):3–14.

Joan M. T. Walker

Claire Smrekar

INFLUENCE ON CHILD'S EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS AND ATTAINMENT

A considerable body of research conducted within the United States and across countries has over-whelmingly demonstrated the profound influence of parents' beliefs and behaviors on children's educational aspirations and academic achievement. What remains unclear is how parental belief systems are transmitted to and manifested in children, and how belief systems function among families of varied socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds.

Effects of Socialization

Many theorists and researchers regard the development of student beliefs and behaviors conducive to achievement (e.g., belief in one's ability, effective learning strategy use, motivation for academic tasks, strong work orientation) as the product of socialization processes. In a 1996 study, Manuel Martinez-Pons tested a theoretical model indicating that parental belief and behavior systems induce their children's educational aspirations–through parental modeling of attitudes and strategies, encouragement and facilitation of academically related goals and activities, and reinforcement or rewarding of student achievement.

Examples of specific parental behaviors that may influence children's educational aspirations can be found in recent reviews of parental involvement in homework. This literature suggests that parents use a wide array of cognitive and social strategies to facilitate their children's learning. These strategies range from simple efforts such as creating a physical space for completing homework and providing general oversight and encouragement of the homework process to interacting with the child's school or teacher about homework and engaging in homework tasks with the child. Parents also appear to use more sophisticated strategies that are designed to create a "fit" between a particular task and the child's abilities (e.g., breaking tasks into discrete, manageable parts), support children's understanding of specific homework tasks (e.g., helping the child organize personal thinking about the assignment), and support their understanding of strategies conducive to achievement (e.g., developing problem-solving skills).

Parenting Styles

In addition to their involvement in specific aspects of their children's education, styles of parenting also affect children's attitudes toward academic achievement. For example, adolescents who described their parents as "warm, democratic, and firm" (i.e., a parenting style characterized as authoritative parenting ) were more likely than their peers to develop positive attitudes toward and beliefs about their achievement. These results, however, were true for a predominantly white middle-class to upper-middle-class population. Investigation of links between parenting practices and academic achievement among varied ethnic groups have suggested that the relationship between parenting style and achievement is more complex.

Students' educational aspirations appear to be influenced not only by parents, but also by peers. For example, Laurence Steinberg, Sanford Dornbusch, and B. Bradford Brown (1992) found that high-achieving white students benefited from the combination of authoritative parenting and peer support for achievement, while lower-achieving Hispanic students suffered from a combination of authoritarian parenting (characterized by high demands and low warmth) and low peer support. For African-American students, the benefits of authoritative parenting appeared to be offset by low peer support for achievement, while the negative consequences on Asian-American students of authoritarian parenting were tempered by peer support.

Theories of Influence

The combined influence of parents and peers supports theorists who argue that parents' educational aspirations for their children, and children's own aspirations, stem from socially constructed roles. Role theory suggests that beliefs are derived from expectations held by groups for the behavior of its individual members (e.g., a family's expectations for a child's academic achievement). Roles are also sets of behaviors characteristic of specific kinds of group members (e.g., minority elementary-school students). As such, role construction involves three interactive processes: (1) structural demands (i.e., What do others expect of me?), (2) personal role conceptions (i.e., What do I expect of myself?), and (3) role behavior (i.e., What do I/should I do?). Put simply, role can be characterized by two components: beliefs individuals hold and actions that individuals take.

Because it accounts for interactions among varied psychological and sociological factors experienced by members of different races, social classes, and ethnicities, role theory is a valuable tool for explaining the conflicting evidence surrounding parents' influence on children's educational aspirations. Further, some researchers speculate that understanding how parental roles are constructed may enhance educators' abilities to effectively involve parents in their children's education, and thus enhance student outcomes.

Another useful theoretical tool for disentangling differential patterns of parental belief and behavior systems is John U. Ogbu's cultural ecological theory. From this perspective, within minority groups, students' choice of strategies for succeeding in school are believed to stem from their desire to take the path of least resistance to the dominant social group, and to improve their status within their own peer group. Further, Ogbu characterizes minority groups' status as voluntary (i.e., immigrant families) and involuntary (i.e., native-born families), and he contends that voluntary minorities have more social pressure to do well in school than involuntary minorities. His argument is supported by a collection of ethnographies and other qualitative studies describing the combined influence of self, peer, and parental expectations and valuing of education among immigrant students and their native-born peers.

Specifically, these studies have noted that while many immigrant students invest personal time and energy in studying and seeking extra help, what appears to drive these self-regulatory efforts is a constellation of self, peer, and parental values that place great importance on the role of education. Moreover, when voluntary and involuntary minority families are compared, the children of immigrant families appear to have higher educational aspirations and academic achievement than their native-born peers.

Compounding the difficulty in understanding how parental aspirations influence children's ability beliefs and learning behaviors is the fact that children receive and require differing levels of support and guidance from parents and peers according to their cognitive, social, and emotional development. In general, educational psychologists view the development of beliefs and behaviors conducive to achievement as a movement from largely socially regulated experiences in the early grades to more self-regulated learning experiences in middle and high school. Thus, the quality and quantity of parental influence on students' positive aspirations for achievement differ as children move from elementary to high school.

See also: Parental Involvement in Education; Parenting, subentries on High-Risk Neighborhoods, Influence of Parents' Level of Education, Overview.

bibliography

Biddle, Bruce J. 1979. Role Theory: Expectations, Identities, and Behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Fuligni, Andrew J. 1997. "The Academic Achievement of Adolescents from Immigrant Families: The Roles of Family Background, Attitudes and Behavior."Child Development 68 (2):351–363.

Halle, Tamara G.; Kurtz-Costes, Beth; and Mahoney, Joseph L. 1997. "Family Influences on School Achievement in Low-Income, African-American Children." Journal of Educational Psychology 89 (3):527–537.

Hoover-Dempsey, Kathleen V., and Sandler, Howard M. 1997. "Why Do Parents Become Involved in Their Children's Education?" Review of Educational Research 67 (1):3–42.

Martinez-Pons, Manual. 1996. "Test of a Model of Parental Inducement of Academic Self-Regulation." The Journal of Experimental Education 64 (3):213–227.

Ogbu, John U. 1978. Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Schunk, Dale H., and Zimmerman, Barry J. 1997. "Social Origins of Self-Regulatory Competence." Educational Psychologist 32 (4):195–208.

Singh, Kusum; Bickley, Patricia G.; Trivette, Paul; and Keith, Timothy Z. 1995. "The Effects of Four Components of Parental Involvement on Eighth-Grade Student Achievement: Structural Analysis of NELS-88 Data." School Psychology Review 24 (2):299–317.

Steinberg, Laurence; Dornbusch, Sanford M.; and Brown, B. Bradford. 1992. "Ethnic Differences in Adolescent Achievement: An Ecological Perspective." American Psychologist 47 (6):723–729.

Steinberg, Laurence; Elmen, Julie; and Mounts, Nina. 1989. "Authoritative Parenting, Psychosocial Maturity and Academic Success among Adolescents." Child Development 60:1424–1436.

Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo M. 1989. Central American Refugees and U.S. High Schools: A Psychosocial Study of Motivation and Achievement. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Joan M. T. Walker

Claire Smrekar