geert driessen, frederik smit & peter sleegers (2005) berj. parental involvement and educational...

Parental Involvement and Educational

Achievement

Geert Driessen*a, Frederik Smita and Peter Sleegersb

aITS—Institute of Applied Social Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the

Netherlands; bDepartment of Education, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

(Submitted 6 February 2004; conditionally accepted 8 April 2004; accepted 5 July 2004)

Parental involvement is seen as an important strategy for the advancement of the quality of

education. The ultimate objective of this is to expand the social and cognitive capacities of pupils.

In addition, special attention is paid to the children of low-educated and ethnic minority parents.

Various forms of both parental and school-initiated involvement are examined. On the one hand,

the connections between a number of characteristics of parents and schools such as the social and

ethnic background of the parents and the composition of the school population will be examined.

On the other hand, the connections between a number of outcome measures such as the language

and mathematics skills of the pupils will be examined. Data will be drawn from the large-scale

Dutch PRIMA (primary education) cohort study, which contains information on more than 500

schools and 12,000 pupils in the last year of primary school and their parents. An important

finding is that predominantly schools with numerous minority pupils appear to provide a

considerable amount of extra effort with respect to parental involvement, but that a direct effect of

such involvement cannot be demonstrated.

Introduction

Expanding the involvement of parents in the education of their children has recently

been viewed as an important strategy to advance the effectiveness and improve the

quality of education (Epstein, 1995; Chrispeels, 1996; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997).

Within the framework of providing greater autonomy for schools, strengthening

parental involvement is also considered important with the underlying thought that

parents can be construed as a force with a vested interest and thereby the potential to

balance the efforts of directorates and school boards at times. In addition,

strengthening the cooperation between schools and parents appears to be critical

to improve the school careers of disadvantaged groups, such as ethnic minority and

*Corresponding author: ITS—Institute of Applied Social Sciences, Radbad University, Nijmegen,

P.O. Box 9048 6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

British Educational Research Journal

Vol. 31, No. 4, August 2005, pp. 509–532

ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/05/040509-24

# 2005 British Educational Research Association

DOI: 10.1080/01411920500148713

low socio-economic status pupils (Smit et al., 2002). And along these lines, more

and more pleas to better integrate the activities of schools, parents and local

communities are being heard (McNamara et al., 2000; Smit et al., 2001). Activities

vary from the provision of home support for parents, support for learning activities in

the classroom (e.g. reading mothers), parent nights, helping-hand services at school

(e.g. parent help with celebrations) to the formal participation of parents in school

boards or councils and the integrated provision of services to the local communities.

Research on parental involvement has shown considerable variation to occur in

the level of involvement and this variation to largely depend on the socio-economic

position and ethnic background of the parents (Boethel, 2003). At the same time,

parental involvement has indeed been found to influence the cognitive and social

development of children. Just which forms of parental involvement are particularly

effective and which aspects of the development of children are specifically affected

remains unclear. Research on the differential effects of parental involvement on

pupil-related outcomes is scarce (Jordan et al., 2001).

In studying the cooperation between school and parents at least two perspectives

can be discerned—school-initiated parental involvement and parent-initiated

involvement. Most research has been defined and studied from the perspective of

the school (i.e. school-initiated parental involvement). More research on parental

involvement but from the perspective of parents (i.e. parent-initiated involvement) is

therefore desired.

The research reported here represents an attempt to fill the aforementioned gaps

with an examination of the variability and effectiveness of parental involvement

across different groups of respondents. Of particular interest is the concrete

contribution of parents and schools to the education and development of pupils.

Two questions stand central in this research: (1) What relations exist between

parental involvement and the characteristics of the parents, on the one hand, and the

characteristics of the school, on the other hand? (2) What relations exist between

parental involvement and the social and cognitive capacities of the children studied

here after the differences between parents and schools are taken into consideration?

Educational partnership: overlapping spheres of influence

Various terms are used to refer to the cooperation between parents, teachers and

schools. One can speak, for example, of parental involvement, parental participation,

school–family relations, educational partnership and so forth. Internationally, the

term ‘partnership’ is increasingly being used to give form to the concept of

meaningful cooperative relations between schools, parents and the local community

(Smit et al., 1999). Such a partnership is then construed as the process in which

those involved mutually support each other and attune their contributions with the

objective of promoting the learning, motivation and development of pupils (Epstein,

1995).

The vision of partnership alluded to above is based on Epstein’s theory of

overlapping spheres of influence (Epstein, 1987, 1995; Epstein & Sanders, 2000).

510 G. Driessen et al.

This theory combines psychological, educational and sociological perspectives on

social institutions to describe and explain the relations between parents, schools and

local environments in an integrated manner. In doing this, three important contexts

or social institutions which can influence the education and socialisation of children

are distinguished: family, school and local community. It is assumed that at least

some of the objectives of the various institutions—such as support for the

development and school careers of children—are shared and therefore best reached

by communicating and cooperating. Epstein sees the three aforementioned contexts

as spheres of influence which can overlap to a greater or lesser degree. The

congruence between the different spheres of influence is then seen to be of

considerable importance for the optimal development of children, and partnership is

viewed as a means to realise this.

During the past few years, a beginning has been made and initiatives developed

to establish such educational ‘partnerships’ in various countries (e.g. the USA, UK,

Canada, Netherlands) (cf. Fowler & Klebs Corley, 1996; Goldring & Sullivan,

1996). In the Netherlands, this has been done under the rubric of so-called open

neighbourhood, window or broad schools. The starting assumptions underlying

such projects are generally that parents must emancipate further, the school

must be prepared to change and the local community should be given a role in

the child-rearing and education process. Important characteristics are: shared

objectives, sustained cooperation, a joint sense of solidarity and values and

mutual impact on the child-rearing and educational process (Sleegers & Smit,

2001).

On the grounds of empirical research, Epstein (1992, 2001) has distinguished six

types of parental involvement reflecting different types of cooperative relations

between schools and parents.

1. Parenting. Schools must help parents with the creation of positive home

conditions to promote the development of children. Parents must prepare their

children for school, guide them and raise them.

2. Communicating. Schools must inform parents about the school programme and

the progress of children’s school careers. Schools must also present such

information in a manner which is comprehensible to all parents, and parents

must be open to such communication.

3. Volunteering. The contribution and help of parents during school activities (e.g.

reading mothers, organisation of celebrations).

4. Learning at home. Activities aimed at the support, help and monitoring of the

learning and development activities of one’s school-going children at home (e.g.

help with homework).

5. Decision making. The involvement of parents in the policy and management of

the school and the establishment of formal parental representation (e.g. school

board or parent council memberships).

6. Collaborating with the community. The identification and integration of

community resources and services with existing school programmes, family

child-rearing practices and pupil learning.

Parental involvement and educational achievement 511

Teachers and parents are all seen as partners with their own but also shared tasks

and responsibilities (also see Vincent & Tomlinson, 1997; Lueder, 1998; Hall &

Santer, 2000; McNamara et al., 2000). In addition to classifications according to

type of relation and role, it is also possible to adopt who takes the initiative as

the basis for classification. In the case of school-initiated parental involvement, the

emphasis lies on the part of the school; the relevant activities are started by the

school, and the activities mainly occur at the school. In the case of parent-initiated

involvement, the emphasis lies on the home situation; the relevant activities are

started by the parents, and the activities also occur largely within the family situation.

Variation and scope of parental involvement

Recent research by Vogels (2002) has shown parental involvement in Dutch

education to be an important theme, although the involvement in primary education

is much greater than that in secondary education. When the types of activities are

examined, parents are found to most frequently visit parent nights and report

meetings (Epstein’s type 2). In addition, about 50% of the parents in the study

undertook activities which could be regarded as informal school-support activities

(Epstein’s type 3) while only 7% of the parents in the study undertook such activities

for secondary education. It was also found that parents who are active in the school

tend to make a contribution on more than one front at a time—that is, both formally

and informally (Epstein’s types 3 and 5).

Vogels (2002) concludes that four groups of parents can be distinguished:

partners, participants, delegators and invisible parents. The first two groups are

closely involved in the child’s school. Both partners and participants are actively

involved in informal school-support activities (e.g. assistance with school activities,

help with maintenance tasks). The group of partners is also active in the domain of

formal participation, and this most active group consists of primarily parents with

a high socio-economic status (e.g. high level of education, high income), a non-

denominational philosophy of life (e.g. no religious denomination, supporters of a

political party which is not a Christian party) and children attending Montessori or

Jena Plan schools (i.e., schools which base their teaching on specific educational

ideas). The largest group of participants consists of primarily parents with a middle

to high socio-economic position and their children in predominantly public (i.e.

non-religious), Catholic or Protestant schools.1 The most important difference

between the delegators and invisible parents is not so much the degree of active

involvement, as both groups are relatively passive, but the backgrounds of the

groups. The group of delegators involves primarily parents with a denominational

philosophy of life and children attending an orthodox Protestant school. In the eyes

of these parents, the directorate and teachers are the appointed experts and therefore

the people responsible for the education of their children. This group of parents

guards the foundations of the denominational school from a distance. The invisible

group of parents consists of primarily parents with a low socio-economic position.

The parents in this group participate much less in various activities organised for


pupils than the other groups. Differences also exist between Dutch parents and

ethnic minority parents with respect to helping children with their homework,

attendance at parent nights and talking about school within the family: Dutch

parents undertake these forms of parental involvement relatively more often than

ethnic minority parents (Driessen, 2002).

Comparable differences involving active versus passive parents are also apparent

in the international literature (Sanders & Epstein, 1998). In a qualitative study of

parental involvement in Cyprus, for example, three types of parents could be

distinguished: strongly involved parents, an intermediate group and a fringe group

(Phtiaka, 1994). The parents in the first group were primarily high educated, very

active at school and also satisfied with the school and the information received from

the school with regard to their child. The second group of parents consisted of well-

educated workers. These parents contacted the school when something was

bothering them but also desired more information and feedback from the school

and wanted to become more involved in school activities. The third group consisted

of mostly low-educated parents, who had considerable difficulties communicating

with the school and felt powerless in relation to the school.

The preceding results show clear variation to exist in the level of parental

involvement and this variation to relate to the socio-economic position and ethnicity

of parents (Denessen et al., 2001). The fact that parents from disadvantaged groups

experience barriers to communication with the school and, as a result, barriers to

cooperation with the school, is particularly worrisome (Todd & Higgins, 1998). In

addition to this, there are differences of opinion with regard to education and socialisa-

tion within the distinguished domains (home, school) with a significant number of the

minority parents placing responsibility more or less exclusively with the school

(Driessen & Valkenberg, 2000). It is precisely children from lower socio-economic

milieus and an ethnic minority background who generally achieve less at school (Jencks

& Mayer, 1990; Rossi & Montgomery, 1994) and therefore stand to benefit from

improved and more intensive support from the school with respect to education and

learning within the family, however. On the basis of qualitative, longitudinal research,

Lopez et al. (2001) suggest that an approach in which schools go to migrant parents and

listen to their specific questions and needs may be most successful.

In addition to the fact that parental involvement appears to differ according to

milieu and ethnicity, important differences in child-rearing styles and the home

environment have been found to influence the development and learning of children

(Levin & Belfield, 2002; Pels & Nijsten, 2003). Parents from high socio-economic

milieus have been found to create a more school supportive child-rearing

environment. The manner in which the parents in such families function as a role

model, the manner in which the parents and children interact with each other and

the interests and activities of the parents outside of school all exert a positive

influence on the achievements of the children. Parents from high socio-economic

milieus are also simply more inclined and prepared than other parents to follow the

progress of their children and help their children with their homework. For these

reasons, the necessity of providing all parents with opportunities to get involved with


the school is continually emphasised. And with the call to increase parental

involvement among disadvantaged groups in particular, a strong claim is being

imposed on today’s schools (Epstein, 1995; Sanders & Epstein, 1998).

The effectiveness of the involvement

The results of various studies have shown increased involvement on the part of

parents in schools to positively affect the cognitive and social functioning of children

(Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Along these lines, Sanders and Epstein (1998) describe

the results of a number of intervention studies conducted in a number of different

countries. Activities such as parent workshops and home visits positively affected

the cognitive school achievement of pupils. The studies further show children’s

achievement to improve in the presence of intensive involvement of parents in

interventions in the family. These findings are in keeping with the experiences and

evaluations of educational compensation programmes developed and conducted in

the 1970s. And such insights have thus played an important role in the development

of modern stimulation programmes with a strong orientation towards the parents

and child within the family.

In addition to effects of increased parental involvement on the school achievement

of children, increased parental involvement has been found in a number of studies to

exert a positive effect on the social functioning of pupils. Improvements have been

found for different aspects of the behaviour of pupils, motivation, social competence,

relations between teachers and pupils and relations among the pupils themselves

(Jordan et al., 2001). Research has also shown increased parental involvement to

influence truancy behaviour, undertaking further education and level of aspiration.

In addition to the effects of parental involvement on the cognitive and social

development of children, studies have also shown changes in parents to occur as well

(Zeijl, 2003). Support from the school for the child-rearing climate within the family

has been found to lead to a more positive attitude towards the school on the part of

the parents and to changes in child-rearing behaviour (Tesser & Iedema, 2001). In

addition, positive connections have been found between parental involvement and

various school- and community-related outcome measures (Jordan et al., 2001).

Parental involvement has been found to correlate with the functioning of the school

organization and local community, for example. To the extent that parents are more

involved in a school, the more positive the climate in the school and the stronger the

orientation of the school towards the surrounding environment (i.e. the greater the

openness of the school). The involvement of parents has also been found to

influence the change capacity of schools and local communities, with more formal

forms of parental participation (Epstein’s type 5) and cooperation (type 6)

influencing schools and local communities the most.

While the aforementioned results make it plausible that parental involvement can

influence the cognitive and social development of children, there are also studies

which lead to a different conclusion. In a meta-analysis of 41 studies, for example,

Mattingly et al. (2002) found little empirical support for the claim that programmes


aimed at parental development constitute an effective means to improve the

achievement of pupils or change the behaviour of parents, teachers and pupils. In so

far as effects have been ascertained, moreover, the form of parental involvement

responsible for the effect and which specific aspects of the development of children

are affected still remain unclear. Information regarding the differential effects of

parental involvement on various pupil-related outcomes is virtually non-existent. In

short, prudence is called for when it comes to the drawing of general conclusions

regarding the effects of parental involvement on the learning and development of

children despite the presence of some empirical evidence indicating the importance

of parental involvement.

In the following, the results of an empirical study of the effects of different forms

of parental involvement on the competencies of primary school children will be

presented. Attention will be paid to different forms of both school-initiated and

parent-initiated parental involvement. As already indicated, the following two

questions stand central: (1) What relations exist between parental involvement and

the characteristics of parents, on the one hand, and the characteristics of schools, on

the other hand? (2) What relations exist between parental involvement and both the

social and cognitive capacities of children after any differences between the parents

and schools have been taken into consideration?

Method

Sample

The data analysed here come from the Dutch PRIMA (primary education) cohort

study. As part of this research project, data were collected on primary school pupils,

their parents, their teachers and the relevant school directorates every two years from

the 1994/95 school year with the aid of tests and questionnaires. The project

involved a total of 600 primary schools, which is almost 10% of the total number of

Dutch primary schools, and some 60,000 pupils in grades 2, 4, 6 and 8.2 In every

PRIMA measurement one or more themes stand central. In the present analyses, use

was made of the data collected in the third measurement point taking place in the

1998/99 school year. In this measurement one of the themes was ‘parental

involvement’. In the questionnaires developed for this purpose, explicit inquiries

were made about topics pertaining to various aspects of parental involvement. The

inclusion of variables within the PRIMA study was done from a largely eclectic,

empirical perspective based on a review of the literature with regard to ‘what works’

and what previous research has shown to be of relevance. This means that an

integrated theoretical model did not motivate the PRIMA study (Driessen et al.,

2000). However, the study does concern both school- and parent-initiated activities

and thereby contains some overlap with the distinctions employed by Epstein (1992)

but with an emphasis on the first four types of cooperative relations: child-rearing,

provision of information, informal school-support activities and supportive home

activities. For the present analyses, the information from the pupils in grade 8, their

parents and the relevant school directorates was used. The directorates of a total of


512 schools and approximately 12,000 pupils with their parents were thus involved

(for details, see Smit et al., 2002).

Variables

A brief description of the variables used in the present analyses is presented below.

In the presentation of the results, the specific operationalisation of the variables will

be considered in greater detail.

From the questionnaire administered to the school directorates, the following

questions with regard to school-initiated parental involvement were analysed:

N use of extra financial resources for parental contact;3

N means and strategies to realise good contact with parents;

N success of means and strategies used to realise good contact with parents;

N motives to pursue good contact with parents;

N the role of the parents in the school.

From the questionnaire administered to the parents of the eighth grade pupils, the

following questions with regard to parent-initiated involvement were analysed:

N help from parents with homework;

N parent–child relation with respect to school matters;

N leisure activities of child and parents;

N involvement in television-watching of child;

N rules at home and at school;

N choice of secondary education.

Information on the following pupil characteristics was also analysed:

N the social-ethnic background of the pupil (or the combination of socio-economic

milieu and ethnic origin) according to school records;

N cognitive measures, namely, standardised tests of language and mathematics skills

(developed by the Institute for Educational Measurement, Cito);

N non-cognitive measures of well-being, self-confidence and school-supportive

home climate as judged by the pupil’s teacher.4

Finally, the information on a number of school background characteristics was

analysed:

N degree of urbanisation;

N school size (number of pupils);

N school composition (pupil population in terms of percentages ethnic minority and

native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils).

Analyses

The school characteristics and the pupil characteristics, involving a combination of

socio-economic background and ethnic origin, are treated as background variables.


The language and mathematics scores of the pupils and teacher judgements of well-

being, self-confidence and school-supportive home climate are treated as outcome

measures. In the analyses, both the direct working of parental involvement on the

cognitive and non-cognitive criterion variables and the mediating working of

parental involvement on the relations between the background variables and

outcome variables are considered relevant. Given that the variables were not all

collected at the same level, the analyses will reflect these differences. The relations

between the background variables at the level of the school and the parental

involvement variables based on the directorate questionnaire will be described at the

level of the school. The relations between the parental involvement variables from

the parent questionnaire and the pupil characteristics will be described at the level of

the parent/pupil with school background serving as a context variable. Following an

initial description of the distributions of the parental involvement variables, the

relations of the school background variables to the parental involvement variables

and the parental involvement variables to the pupil outcome variables were

examined. Frequency analyses and analyses of variance were undertaken for this

purpose. Thereafter, structural model analysis was undertaken in an attempt to

capture the relations between all of the variables at once and thereby gain greater

insight into the independent contributions of the different variables.

Results

Aspects of parental involvement

In order to gain insight into the distribution of the different school and pupil

characteristics, a number of descriptive analyses were undertaken. The distributions

of the different parent involvement variables are presented in Table 1. The first four

blocks of school-initiated variables come from the directorate questionnaire. The

next eight blocks of parent-initiated variables come from the parent questionnaire for

the eighth graders included in the present study.

As can be seen from inspection of Table 1, 27% of the schools devoted a small

portion of extra financial resources to parental contact while 6% devoted a

considerable portion of such resources to parental contact.

Most of the schools (95%) devoted much or very much attention to ‘taking

parents seriously’, which included being available for parents to ask questions and

treating the complaints/desires of parents seriously. Much attention was also paid to

the ‘provision of information’ for parents: More than 70% of the schools devoted

much or very much attention to informing parents with regard to, for instance, the

behaviour of their child, the educational vision and rules at school. To a lesser

extent, attention was paid to ‘attachment of the parents to the school’ in the form of

stimulating parents to do something for the school and having other parents try to

activate parents: 40% of the schools indicated paying much or very much attention

to this aspect of parental involvement. The least amount of attention was paid to

‘improvement of contact with ethnic minority parents’. Given that this depends—as

we will see—on the percentage of ethnic minority disadvantaged children in the


Table 1. Distributions of parental involvement variables (in percentages)

1 2 3 4 5

School-initiated parental involvement

1. Use of extra financial resources for parent contact (15none,

25small part, 35considerable part)

67 27 6

2. Use of means and strategies to realise parent contact

(attention: 15none, 25little, 35moderate, 45much,

55very much; success: 15no, 25doubtful, 35yes)

N attention to provision of information to parents 0 1 31 64 5

N success of provision of information to parents 1 33 66

N attention to improve contact with ethnic-minority

parents

25 49 23 3 0

N success of improve contact with ethnic-minority

parents

31 59 11

N attention to attachment of parents to school 0 7 53 37 3

N success of attachment of parents to school 7 56 37

N attention to take parents seriously 1 0 4 64 31

N success of take parents seriously 2 13 84

3. Importance of good parent-school relations (15plays no role,

25incidental reason, 35main reason)

N improve achievement/well-being of children 1 14 86

N school needs parents 9 69 22

N school/parents gain better understanding of pupils 1 22 77

N connection to school, lower barriers to contact 0 19 81

4. Extent of parental contribution (15very minimal,

25minimal, 35moderate, 45strong, 55very strong)

0 7 26 56 11

Parent-initiated parental involvement

1. Help from parents with homework (15never,

25incidentally, 35regularly, 45(almost) always)

7 48 36 8

2. Parents ask for information with respect to school matters

(15no, 25sometimes, 35yes, 45definitely)

3 65 31 1

3. Leisure activities of family (15almost never,

25sometimes, 35regularly, 45often)

N play games at home 8 55 30 7

N go to museums, exhibitions, etc. 39 49 11 2

4. Involvement in child’s watching of television (15almost

never, 25sometimes, 35regularly, 45often)

4 39 45 12

5. Rules at home and at school (15no, 25sometimes, 35yes,

45definitely)

N teacher should be boss at school 8 29 45 17

N different and stricter rules are needed at

school than at home

20 44 29 7

N parents should know school rules exactly 4 12 60 23

N more is allowed at home than at school 26 46 23 6

6. Choice of school for secondary education (15never,

25incidentally, 35sometimes, 45definitely)

N talk with other parents about school choice 5 11 38 46

N use school selection list 30 24 21 26


school, 49% of the schools devoted only moderate attention to this aspect of parental

involvement and 23% much attention.

The success of the means and strategies used by the schools to realise good

contact with the parents in the eyes of the school directorates roughly parallels the

amount of attention devoted to the different means and strategies. However, closer

examination of the relations between the attention devoted to the different aspects of

parental involvement and the judgements of success show the devotion of attention

to particularly the ‘attachment of parents to the school’ and ‘improvement of contact

with ethnic minority parents’ to not constitute a guarantee for success. Only 37% of

the directorates with respect to the former and 11% with respect to the latter judged

the efforts of the school to be a success.

More than 75% of the schools selected improvement of the achievement and well-

being of the child, improved understanding of the child on the part of the school/

parents and improved attachment to the school as the main reasons to pursue good

contact with parents. The involvement of parents in helping-hand activities or tasks

was only an incidental reason for most of the schools to pursue good relations with

the parents.

For some 66% of the primary schools, the contribution of the parents was viewed

as strong or very strong.

With regard to the parent-initiated involvement variables, it can be seen that less

than half (44%) of the parents of the eighth grade pupils in the present study

regularly helped the pupil with his or her homework.

Almost 33% of the parents reported being definitely well informed with respect to

school matters involving their child while the majority reported being only

sometimes well informed.

More than 33% of the parents reported either regularly or frequently playing

games with the child in question. Visiting museums and other places where children

can learn things was not a popular leisure-time activity among parents: only 13% of

the parents reported regular/frequently doing this.

The majority of parents (57%) reported being actively involved in the television-

watching of their child, which could involve explanation of what is seen and/or

regulation of what is seen.

The majority of the parents thought that the teacher should be the boss at school

and that parents should know the rules which hold at school. About one-third of the

1 2 3 4 5

7. Actions in connection with school choice (15no, 25probably

not, 35perhaps, 45definitely)

N visit school open days with child 3 2 10 85

N assemble and compare information 9 13 37 41

8. Consider qualitative criteria to make school choice (15not at

all, 25not really, 35yes, 45very good)

7 38 49 6

Table 1. (Continued)


parents also thought that different/stricter rules are needed at school than at home

and that much more can be allowed at home than at school.

Finally, with respect to the choice of secondary education, almost 50% of the

parents spoke with other parents. Only 25% made definite use of the school selection

list which provides an overview of schools and their characteristics. The majority

(85%) of the parents reported that they definitely planned to visit school open days

with their child. The request of information and folders for school comparison was

undertaken by some 41% of the parents. And more than half (55%) of the parents

said they considered the quality of the school to be an important criterion for the

choice of secondary school or, stated conversely, almost half of the parents paid no

attention to this criterion whatsoever.

Relations between parental involvement, school background and pupil outcome variables

In order to gain some insight into the relations of the school-initiated and parent-

initiated parental involvement variables to the different background and outcome

variables, Pearson correlations were calculated. The results are presented in Table 2,

with correlations of .17 or higher presented in italic.

The following school background characteristics were distinguished: degree of

urbanisation, which could vary from (1) non-urban to (5) very strongly urban;

school size in terms of number of pupils; school composition in terms of the

percentage native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils; school composition in terms of the

percentage ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils; and the social-ethnic background

(SEB) of the parents with the categories of (1) low-educated Turkish or Moroccan

parents; (2) low-educated other ethnic minority parents; (3) low-educated native-

Dutch parents; (4) middle-level educated parents (vocational or other intermediate

level of education); or (5) high-educated parents (higher professional or university

educated).

Three non-cognitive and two cognitive pupil outcome variables were distin-

guished. The non-cognitive variables were based on teacher judgements of school-

supportive home climate, well-being and self-confidence for each of the pupils in the

class along a scale of (1) low to (5) high. The cognitive outcome variables were the

language and mathematics scores attained by the pupils on the standardised tests

from the Institute for Educational Measurement.

Inspection of the correlations in Table 2 shows the directorates of schools in large

urban areas to report the following relatively frequently: use of extra financial

resources for parental contact, attention to improved contact with minority parents

and moderate involvement of parents. The parents of the pupils attending schools in

such regions show a relatively greater tendency to use the school selection list and

attend to qualitative criteria for the choice of secondary school. Finally, the teacher

judgements of home climate and the language (and mathematics) scores for those

pupils in more urban areas were at a lower level than those for pupils in less urban

areas. Given the relatively high correlation between the degree of urbanisation and

percentage of ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils in a school (r5.58), it is not


Table 2. Correlations between school background, parental involvement and pupil outcome

variables

Degree

urban.

Size of

school

% Dutch

disadv.

% Minority

disadv.

SEB

School background characteristics

Degree of urbanisation 1.00 .38 2.16 .58 2.27

Size of school .38 1.00 2.15 .07 2.00

% ethnic-minority disadvantaged

pupils

2.16 2.15 1.00 2.21 2.09

% native-Dutch disadvantaged

pupils

.58 .07 2.21 1.00 2.49

Social-ethnic background (SEB) 2.27 2.00 2.09 2.49 1.00


1. Use of extra financial resources for

parent contact

.32 .15 2.02 .55

2. Use of means and strategies to

realise parent contact

N attention to provision of

information to parents

.13 2.00 2.01 .04

N success of provision of


2.09 2.03 2.06 2.14

N attention to improve contact

with ethnic-minority parents

.35 .10 2.04 .54

N success of improve contact

with ethnic-minority parents

.17 .09 2.12 .27

N attention to attachment of

parents to school

2.00 2.08 2.00 2.01

N success of attachment of

parents to school

2.17 2.05 2.08 2.31

N attention to take parents

seriously

.16 .02 2.01 .08

N success of take parents

seriously

.00 2.02 2.10 .01

3. Importance of good parent–school

relations

N improve achievement/well-

being of children

.11 2.01 2.03 .08

N school needs parents 2.05 2.06 .05 2.13

N school/parents gain better

understanding of pupils

.04 .04 2.02 .08

N connection to school, lower

barriers to contact

.01 2.03 2.03 .07

4. Extent of parental contribution 2.31 2.06 2.06 2.50


1. Help from parents with homework .00 .00 .09 2.03 2.00

2. Parents ask for information with

respect to school matters

.06 .01 .00 .07 2.05


surprising that the foregoing conclusions also largely hold for schools with a

relatively large percentage of minority pupils. Neither the size of the school nor the

percentage of native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils correlated sufficiently with any of

the parental involvement or pupil outcome variables to be considered relevant.

The correlations between the social-ethnic background (SEB) of the parents

measured at the level of the individual and the parental involvement variables

measured at the level of the school are not presented in Table 2 (see last column)

because the SEB variable cannot be construed as a background variable at the

level of the school. For social-ethnic background, thus, only the relations to the

Degree

urban.

Size of

school

% Dutch

disadv.

% Minority

disadv.

SEB

3. Leisure activities of family

N play games at home 2.05 2.03 2.00 2.06 .08

N go to museums, exhibitions,

etc.

.01 .01 2.11 2.04 .19

4. Involvement in child’s watching of

television

.05 .02 2.07 .07 .05

5. Rules at home and at school

N teacher should be boss at

school

2.01 2.01 .00 .00 2.00

N different and stricter rules

are needed at school than at

home

.07 .02 .03 .12 2.14

N parents should know school

rules exactly

.11 .03 .01 .12 2.09

N more is allowed at home

than at school

.09 .05 .01 .10 2.08

6. Choice of school for secondary

education

N talk with other parents about

school choice

2.04 .04 2.06 2.13 .17

N use school selection list .21 .07 2.05 .19 2.12

7. Actions in connection with school

choice

N visit open school days with

child

2.07 .05 2.00 2.16 .19

N assemble and compare

information

.15 .07 2.07 .09 2.00

8. Consider qualitative criteria to

make school choice

.18 .05 2.02 .24 2.20

Pupil outcome variables

School-supportive home climate 2.17 2.00 2.08 2.28 .43

Language scores 2.19 .01 2.02 2.32 .41

Mathematics scores 2.13 .02 2.03 2.22 .31

Well-being .02 .01 2.06 .00 .05

Self-confidence 2.00 .00 2.07 2.00 .08



parent-initiated parental involvement variables and pupil outcome variables are

considered of importance and indeed measured at the same level. High-educated

parents go to museums, talk with other parents about the choice of secondary

education and visit school open days with their child relatively more often than other

parents but attend to qualitative criteria during the choice of secondary school

relatively less than other parents. The latter is rather remarkable but probably due to

the fact that high-educated parents may leave the choice of school up to the child

more and possibly listen to what other parents have to say about certain schools

more. Finally, the teacher judgements of a school-supportive home climate, the

language achievement and the mathematics achievement of pupils were found to be

associated with a higher SEB level.

Relations between parental involvement and pupil outcome variables

Given large differences with respect to parental involvement across schools, it is

important to determine whether the differences in parental involvement also lead to

differences in the achievement, home climate, well-being and self-confidence of the

children. For each of the parental involvement variables, we therefore determined

whether the relation to the pupil outcome variables was linear or not. All of the

relevant relations appeared to be virtually linear: the deviations between eta and the

Pearson r were typically no larger than .03 or .04. We can also assume that Pearson

correlations of almost 0 point to no real relation and thus no linear relation. The

variables which refer to the ‘success of a strategy to foster parental involvement’

(according to the school directorate) were not included in any further analyses as we

wanted to determine the success of a strategy on the basis of actual pupil outcome

variables and not the subjective and possibly unspecific criteria used by school

directors.

In Table 3, the correlations between the different parental involvement and pupil

outcome variables are presented. Inspection of the left side of the table suggests a

number of significant but not particularly strong (r5¡.20) correlations and thereby

a number of possibly relevant effects. This is simply appearance, however, as the

majority of the correlations are spurious—that is, correlations which cannot be

interpreted as independent effects. Such a correlation can emerge when the parental

involvement variables and an outcome variable strongly correlate with a third

(causally prior) variable—in this case, a school background characteristic. In such a

manner, the school background characteristic ‘percentage ethnic minority dis-

advantaged pupils’ negatively correlates with both ‘the extent of parental

contribution’ (r52.50) and language scores (r52.32; see Table 2). The product

of these two correlations is approximately the size of the spurious correlation caused

by this structure. From the correlation between ‘the extent of parental contribution’

* language scores (r5.21, see Table 3), only a correlation of .21—(2.50 *232)5.06

thus remains as the direct effect of ‘the extent of parental contribution’ after control

for the percentage of ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils. Partial correlations

representing the correlations between the parental involvement variables and pupil


Table 3. Correlations and partial correlations between parental involvement and pupil outcome

variables

Correlations Partial correlations

Home Lang Math Well Self Home Lang Math Well Self

Pupil outcome variables

School-supportive home

climate

1.00 .38 .34 .38 .23

Language scores .38 1.00 .56 .12 .21

Mathematics scores .34 .56 1.00 .14 .30

Well-being .38 .12 .14 1.00 .40

Self-confidence .24 .22 .30 .40 1.00


1. Use of extra financial

resources for parent contact

2.15 2.21 2.15 .02 .00 .02 2.02 2.03 .03 .02

2. Use of means and strategies

to realise parent contact

N attention to provision of


2.02 2.02 2.04 .00 2.02 2.01 2.01 2.04 .00 2.02

N attention to improve

contact with ethnic-

minority parents

2.18 2.22 2.16 .01 2.02 .01 2.00 2.02 .02 2.00

N attention to attachment

of parents to school

.00 2.02 2.03 .01 2.00 2.00 2.02 2.03 .01 2.00

N attention to take

parents seriously

2.04 2.04 2.03 .03 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 .03 .01

3. Importance of good parent-

school relations

N improve achievement/

well-being of children

.03 2.03 2.02 .04 .01 .08 .02 .00 .03 .01

N school needs parents .06 .04 .00 .01 2.02 .03 .00 2.02 .01 2.02

N school/parents gain

better understanding

of pupils

2.00 2.04 2.02 .03 2.02 .02 2.00 2.00 .03 2.01

N connection to school,

lower barriers to

contact

2.01 2.05 2.06 .03 2.02 .00 2.03 2.04 .03 2.02

4. Extent of parental

contribution

.22 .21 .14 .02 .03 .05 .02 .01 .00 .00


1. Help from parents with

homework

.00 2.12 2.21 2.04 2.12 .01 2.14 2.21 2.03 2.11

2. Parents ask for information

with respect to school matters

.04 2.01 2.02 .05 .00 .07 .02 2.00 .05 .01

3. Leisure activities of family

N play games at home .12 .03 .06 .03 .00 .09 2.00 .03 .02 .00

N go to museums,

exhibitions, etc.

.18 .13 .10 .04 .05 .10 .06 .05 .03 .02


criterion variables when all of the school background characteristics have been

controlled for are presented on the right side of Table 3.

Inspection of the right side of Table 3 shows only a direct, positive effect of

‘talking with other parents about the choice of secondary education’ on ‘school-

supportive home climate’ and a negative effect of ‘help from parents with homework’

on ‘math achievement’ for the eighth grade pupils studied here. The latter finding

should be interpreted with caution as it could mean that helping children with

mathematics homework negatively influences their achievement independent of the

social or school context—which seems unlikely. The position of this parental

involvement variable within the present model should be questioned as it is even

more possible that children who are already experiencing problems with mathe-

matics are more likely to receive help from their parents but to little or no avail and

that they still lag behind. It appears that the variable ‘help from parents with

homework’ may only be done justice within a dynamic model which captures the

cyclic nature of the influence of various factors.

Correlations Partial correlations

Home Lang Math Well Self Home Lang Math Well Self

4. Involvement in child’s

watching of TV

.08 .04 .03 .02 .00 .07 .04 .03 .01 2.01

5. Rules at home and at school

N teacher should be boss

at school

.03 2.00 .02 .01 .02 .03 .00 .02 .01 .02

N different and stricter

rules are needed at

school than at home

2.08 2.08 2.05 2.02 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.00 2.01 2.00

N parents should know

school rules exactly

2.05 2.05 2.04 2.01 2.02 2.00 2.00 2.01 2.00 2.01

N more is allowed at

home than at school

2.08 2.02 2.02 2.01 2.00 2.04 .01 .00 2.01 2.00

6. Choice of school for second-

ary education

N talk with other parents

about school choice

.25 .14 .12 .05 .02 .19 .06 .07 .04 .00

N use school selection list 2.04 2.10 2.06 .01 2.02 .01 2.04 2.01 .00 2.01

7. Actions in connection with

school choice

N visit open school days

with child

.23 .14 .12 .05 .03 .16 .05 .05 .04 .02

N assemble and compare

information

2.01 2.02 2.04 2.00 2.04 2.00 2.01 2.03 2.01 2.04

8. Consider qualitative criteria

to make school choice

2.13 2.12 2.08 2.00 2.02 2.04 2.01 2.01 .00 2.00



An integrated analysis

Some relevant relations can be seen to exist between various parental involvement

variables. If we should want to take these relations into consideration in the

determination of the independent effects of the variables, then structural modelling

can be undertaken in which the effects of all variables are estimated all at once. With

the aid of LISREL, such modelling was undertaken with ‘degree of urbanisation’

entered as a prior predictor of the other school background characteristics. Degree of

urbanisation is thus treated as a contextual feature underlying the other school

characteristics and socio-economic backgrounds of the pupils. ‘School-supportive

home climate’ is similarly treated as a predictor of pupil achievement, well-being and

self-confidence but following the other parental involvement variables. It is thus

proposed that the influence of parental involvement on cognitive and non-cognitive

pupil results occurs not only directly but also indirectly via a more school-supportive

home climate (cf. note 4). Given that the present analysis led to only minimal

differences with respect to the correlation analyses for which the results have been

reported above, the discussion of the structural modelling results will be brief.

The most important direct effects involved the percentage of ethnic minority

disadvantaged pupils and native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils in relation to the

school-initiated parental involvement characteristics discussed above. Most of the

relevant relations also occurred independent of differences in the degree of

urbanisation. The only direct effect on pupil achievement involved the social-ethnic

background of the family. An indirect effect of social-ethnic background was also

seen to occur via school-supportive home climate. The fact that the percentage of

ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils—for example—does not directly influence

pupil achievement does not imply no relation whatsoever; such a relation clearly

exists but via the social-ethnic background of the families. Schools in urban areas are

again found to consider taking parents seriously and the provision of information to

parents to be important. And they cite improved pupil achievement and well-being

as the main reason for having good contact with parents. The most important

finding here is thus the result of no direct effect of parental involvement on the

achievement, well-being or self-confidence of the pupils with the exception of the

previously described, dubious negative effect of help from parents with homework

on the language and mathematics achievement of pupils. The only direct effect of

parental involvement was on home climate and the only indirect effects were on

pupil achievement, well-being and self-confidence. Parents who talk with other

parents regarding the choice of secondary education were found to have a more

school-supportive home climate and thereby foster greater achievement, well-being

and confidence on the parts of their children.

Summary and discussion

In this contribution, data from the PRIMA cohort study were analysed with respect

to a number of aspects of parental involvement. More specifically, the relations

between three types of information were examined: a number of (contextual) school


background variables, a series of parental involvement variables and a number of

cognitive and non-cognitive pupil outcome variables. With respect to parental

involvement, a distinction was made between school-initiated and parent-initiated

involvement. School-initiated parental involvement included: the use of extra

financial resources on behalf of parental contact, the use of various means and

strategies to realise good contact with parents, the importance attached to the

pursuit of good contact with parents and the degree of parental involvement in the

school. Parent-initiated parental involvement included: help from parents with

homework, parental inquiry about school matters, availability of so-called cultural

capital such as visiting museums, pedagogical rules and aspects of secondary-school

choice.

The main objective of the present analyses was to examine the direct effects of

parental involvement on the pupil outcome variables and their mediating effects on

the relations between the background characteristics and pupil outcome variables.

The background characteristics included the school characteristics degree of

urbanisation, school size, percentage of ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils,

percentage of native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils, and the pupil characteristic social-

ethnic origin of the pupils. The pupil outcome variables included: language and

mathematics achievement, well-being, self-confidence and school-supportive home

climate. After an initial description of the distributions of the parental involvement

variables, the relations of the school background characteristics to the parental

involvement variables and pupil outcome variables were next presented. Thereafter,

the relations between the parental involvement variables and pupil outcome

variables were analysed. Structural modelling was then undertaken in order to

represent the relations between the different variables all at once and thereby gain

insight into the independent contributions of the different variables.

The most important finding was that particularly those schools with a high

percentage of ethnic minority pupils devoted considerable extra attention to parental

involvement and also considered this to be quite useful while a direct effect of all the

activities considered in this study could not be demonstrated. The latter does not

mean that no effects occurred whatsoever: It is possible that certain effects occurred

but could not be substantiated using the present data. It is indeed true that schools

with numerous ethnic minority pupils consider the involvement of parents to be very

important and devote considerable time and effort to this but with little or no

success. In exactly these schools, parents are found to play little or no role. In

predominantly ‘white’ schools, in contrast, parents are found to play a considerable

role. It is therefore very possible that a direct effect of parental involvement within

the context of the present study cannot be demonstrated—that is, parental

involvement has a strong ethnic component.

The opinions and visions of teachers and parents with regard to the education of

children and parental involvement differ drastically and are culturally determined

(Lopez et al., 2001). Obviously, such opinions and visions shape the manner and

extent to which teachers and parents cooperate with each other (Lasky, 2000). When

the operation of such factors is recognised, it is easier to understand why parents


from many ethnic minority groups are not prepared to become more active or

involved in the schools of their children (Boethel, 2003). The school for such parents

often constitutes a foreign place, a place where they do not feel at home and a place

where they think they do not belong, which means that such parents may remain on

the sidelines as a result (Driessen & Valkenberg, 2000; Vincent & Martin, 2002).

The undeniable fact that families from these social groups can benefit from

cooperation with the school makes critical consideration of the roles of teachers and

schools today of utmost importance.

Educational partnership presupposes mutual respect, shared interests and open

communication between parents, teachers and the school. Educational partnership

is the process in which partners aim to strengthen and support each others’ skills in

order to produce results which signify an improvement for the children involved.

Such a partnership also presupposes a real interest in the cultural and social diversity

of child-rearing situations and educational opinions demonstrated across parents.

Tensions can arise between teachers, schools and parents particularly when parents

have different opinions with regard to what constitutes adequate support for their

school-going children. For this reason, Epstein (1995), Sanders and Epstein (1998)

and Levin and Belfield (2002) all plea for a partnership which includes all parents,

schools and local communities. In order to realise such an all-inclusive partnership, a

number of measures can be undertaken.

To realise an all-inclusive educational partnership, it is essential that parents be

given support with the design and improvement of their child-rearing practices. As

indicated in the preceding discussion, there are considerable differences in child-

rearing style and home climate which can clearly influence children’s development

and learning (Driessen, 2003). In recognition of the positive influence of a school-

supportive child-rearing environment on the development of children, Levin and

Belfield (2002) suggest that a so-called metaphorical contract should be entered into

by parents and schools. In their view such a metaphorical contract is not just a

contract in the formal sense, but contains an attempt to encapsulate comprehen-

sively the various good practices that parents would need to pursue a high chance of

educational success for their children.5 The thought behind this is that both the

parents and schools are then obligated to actually change the relevant family and

school practices to meet the terms of the agreement. In order to facilitate the relevant

change process, three complementary strategies can then be distinguished: the

provision of information (e.g. information on good practices, things not to do), the

provision of family assistance (e.g. home help, skill training) and the provision of

external support (e.g. with work, health care, pre-school education, tutoring).

Entrance into such a contractual partnership requires commitment on the parts of

both the parents and the school although such a contract is primarily intended to

help parents with the establishment of a more ‘school-supportive’ climate within the

home. Of course, Levin and Belfield are aware of the many problems that

accompany the implementation of such contracts. This particularly applies to ethnic

minority and low-income families where there is a lack of social, cultural and

material resources that are required by schools that operate from a white middle-


class perspective (Driessen, 2002; Vincent & Martin, 2002). And it is especially in

these situations that the power imbalances between parents and schools will show,

not only because of the ‘normal’ professional versus layperson difference, but maybe

more because of highly divergent norms and values. Still, Levin and Belfield are

rather optimistic as to the eventual success of their metaphorical contracts because

they believe that parents, schools and the larger society have a deep interest in the

success of the children in both school and in life. What is needed is that all parties

concerned will be convinced of the role they play in this success and good

communication is imperative to this.

It has also been shown to be important for teachers to have a number of strategies

for dealing with a heterogeneous sociocultural population before they enter into

cooperative relations with parents. For this purpose, continuing education and

support are absolutely necessary. More than is now the case, teacher training should

also include attention to the knowledge, insight and skills needed to successfully

cooperate with groups of parents from very different sociocultural backgrounds.

Within the schools themselves, the different desires and interests of parents should

also be taken more into consideration. The school itself should work more actively

on the attainment of greater insight into parental desires and interests which may or

may not be raised explicitly by the parents themselves. The extent to which such

efforts successfully activate the more reticent (or less involved) parents strongly

depends on the extent to which these same groups of parents are approached and

treated as serious educational partners. In addition, the extent to which the already

more actively involved parents are willing to give shape to the different forms of

parental involvement in interaction with ethnic minority and low-educated parents

will play a critical role. It is essential that the diversity of desires and interests among

parents be recognised, as such recognition provides the basis for the dialogue which

can then lead to consensus. In such a manner, it is possible to develop an integrated

and systematic approach to parental involvement at the level of the school. And from

such a perspective, a clear shift can be elicited from a request situation—in which

parents are occasionally called upon to lend a helping hand and schools occasionally

help parents at home—to an interaction situation—in which teachers, parents and

schools exchange ideas as equals with regard to the education and development of

children and pupils.

With the aid of the aforementioned measures, the cooperation between parents,

teachers and schools can presumably be improved in such a manner that all children

benefit from it. Along these lines, the partnership between schools and parents

should constitute an effective strategy for diminishing the differences between social

groups and not become simply rhetoric and thereby mask already existing

differences.

Acknowledgements

The data for the present article come from a study commissioned by the Netherlands

Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). A complete report of this study can be


found in Smit et al. (2002). The authors would like to thank J. Doesborgh for his

help with the statistical analyses.

Notes

1. In the Netherlands, the constitutional freedom to found schools, to organise them and to

determine the principles they are based upon is the cause of the wide variety of schools.

Parents are also free to choose a school that best fits their preferences. All schools, public and

private, are entitled to equal funding by the government. With regard to primary schools, the

most sizable denominations are the public (i.e. non-religious), Protestant Christian, and

Roman Catholic with 34%, 30% and 30% of the population, respectively. In addition, there

are 16 other denominations, such as the Islamic, the Hindu, the Jena Plan, and the Montessori

(cf. Driessen & Van der Slik, 2001).

2. Dutch primary schools are for 4- to 12-year-olds and consist of 8 years. In the first two grades

play takes up a central place; in the third grade formal instruction in reading, mathematics and

writing starts. After the last year, the eighth grade, the pupils move on to secondary school.

3. Within the Dutch Educational Priority Programme ethnic minority children and children of

native-Dutch low-educated parents are the main target groups. Schools with high numbers of

these children are given extra financial resources to improve the children’s educational

position. The schools are free to spend the money according to their own priorities (cf.

Driessen, 2000).

4. The position of the variable ‘school-supportive home climate’ is open to discussion. The

teacher judgements with regard to this variable were initially treated as an outcome measure,

but there are good reasons to treat this variable as a mediating factor, which is exactly what is

done in the final structural analysis.

5. This deviates from the signed home–school agreements that have been required from all

schools in England and Wales since 1999. Research has shown little support for the

government’s view that such formal home–school agreements will provide a framework for

improved partnership between parents and schools (Hood, 2001).

References

Boethel, M. (2003) Diversity: school, family and community connections. Annual synthesis 2003

(Austin, TX, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory).

Chrispeels, J. (1996) Effective schools and home–school–community partnership roles: a

framework for parent involvement, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 297–324.

Denessen, E., Driessen, G., Smit, F. & Sleegers, P. (2001) Culture differences in education:

implications for parental involvement and educational policies, in: F. Smit, K. van der Wolf

& P. Sleegers (Eds) A bridge to the future (Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm

Instituut).

Driessen, G. (2000) The limits of educational policy and practice? The case of ethnic minority

pupils in the Netherlands, Comparative Education, 36, 55–72.

Driessen, G. (2002) Ethnicity, forms of capital, and educational achievement, International Review

of Education, 47, 513–538.

Driessen, G. (2003) Family and child characteristics, child-rearing factors, and cognitive

competence of young children, Early Child Development and Care, 173, 323–339.

Driessen, G. & Valkenberg, P. (2000) Islamic schools in the Netherlands: compromising between

identity and quality? British Journal of Religious Education, 23, 15–26.

Driessen, G. & Van der Slik, F. (2001) Religion, denomination, and education in the Netherlands:

cognitive and noncognitive outcomes after an era of secularization, Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, 40, 561–572.


Driessen, G., Van Langen, A. & Vierke, H. (2000) Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag, Leerlinggegevens

en Oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage Prima-cohortonderzoek. Derde Meting 1998/99

(Nijmegen, ITS).

Epstein, J. (1987) Toward a theory of family–school connections: teacher practices and parent

involvement, in: K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufman & F. Losel (Eds) Social intervention: potential

and constraints (New York, Walter de Gruyter).

Epstein, J. (1992) School and family partnerships, in: M. Aiken (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of Educational

Research (New York, Macmillan).

Epstein, J. (1995) School/family/community partnerships: caring for the children we share, Phi

Delta Kappan, May, 701–712.

Epstein, J. (2001) School, family, and community partnerships: preparing educators and improving

schools (Boulder, CO, Westview).

Epstein, J. & Sanders, M. (2000) Connecting home, school, and community: new directions for

social research, in: M. Hallinan (Ed.) Handbook of the sociology of education (New York,

Kluwer).

Fowler, C. & Klebs Corley, R. (1996) Linking families: building community, Educational

Leadership, 53, 24–26.

Goldring, E. & Sullivan, A. (1996) Beyond the boundaries: principals, parents and communities

shaping the school environment, in: K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger

& A. Hart (Eds) International handbook of educational leadership and administration

(Dordrecht/New York, Kluwer).

Hall, E. & Santer, J. (2000) Building relationships with parents: lessons in time and space from

two research projects, paper presented at the annual ECER conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Henderson, A. & Mapp, K. (2002) A new wave of evidence: the impact of school, family, and

community connections on student achievement. Annual synthesis 2002 (Austin, TX, Southwest

Educational Development Laboratory).

Hood, S. (2001) Home–school agreements: a true partnership? School Leadership & Management,

21, 7–17.

Jencks, C. & Mayer, S. (1990) The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood, in:

L. Lynn Jr. & M. McGeary (Eds) Inner-city poverty in the United States (Washington, DC,

National Academy Press).

Jordan, C., Orozco, E. & Averett, A. (2001) Emerging issues in school, family and community

connections. Annual synthesis 2001 (Austin, TX, Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory).

Levin, H. & Belfield, C. (2002) Families as contractual partners in education. Occasional Paper

No. 44. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Available online

at: http://www.ncspe.org/.

Lasky, S. (2000) The cultural and emotional politics of teacher–parent interactions, Teaching and

Teacher Education, 16, 843–860.

Lopez, G., Scribner, J. & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001) Redefining parental involvement: lessons

from high-performing migrant-impacted schools, American Educational Research Journal, 38,

253–288.

Lueder, D. (1998) Creating partnerships with parents: an educator’s guide (Lancaster, Technomic

Publishing).

Matttingly, D., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T., Rodriguez, J. & Kayzar, B. (2002) Evaluating

evaluations: the case of parent involvement programs, Review of Educational Research, 72,

549–576.

McNamara, O., Hustler, D., Stronach, I., Rodrigo, M., Beresford, E. & Botcherby, S. (2000)

Room to manoeuvre: mobilising the active partner in home–school relationships, British

Educational Research Journal, 26, 473–489.

Pels, T. & Nijsten, C. (2003) Myths and realities of diversity in parenting and parent–child

relations: a comparison of indigenous and non-indigenous families in the Netherlands, in:


L. Hagendoorn, J. Veenman & W. Vollebergh (Eds) Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands:

cultural versus socio-economic integration (Aldershot, Ashgate).

Phtiaka, H. (1994) Each to his own? Home–school relations in Cyprus, paper presented at the

annual British Education Research Association conference, Oxford.

Rossi, R. & Montgomery, A. (Eds) (1994) Educational reforms and students at risk: a review of the

current state of the art (Washington, DC, US Department of Education).

Sanders, M. & Epstein, J. (1998) School–family–community partnerships and educational change:

international perspectives, in: A. Hargreaves, M. Lieberman, M. Fallon & D. Hoplcins

(Eds) International handbook of educational change (New York/Dordrecht, Kluwer).

Scheerens, J. & Bosker, R. (1997) The foundations of educational effectiveness (Oxford, Elsevier

Science).

Sleegers, P. & Smit, F. (2001) De relatie tussen school en ouders: ervaringen met formele

ouderparticipatie, Handboek Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement (Alphen a/d Rijn,

Samsom/H.D. Tjeenk Willink).

Smit, F., Driessen, G. & Doesborgh, J. (2002) Ouders en Educatieve Voorzieningen (Nijmegen,

ITS).

Smit, F., Moerel, H. & Sleegers, P. (1999) Experiments with the role of parents in primary

education in the Netherlands, in: F. Smit, H. Moerel, K. van der Wolf & P. Sleegers (Eds)

Building bridges between home and school (Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm

Instituut).

Smit, F., Van der Wolf, K. & Sleegers, P. (2001) A bridge to the future: collaboration between parents,

schools and communities (Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut).

Tesser, P. & Iedema, J. (2001) Rapportage Minderheden 2001. Deel I. Vorderingen op School (Den

Haag, SCP).

Todd, E. & Higgins, S. (1998) Powerlessness in professional and parent partnerships, British

Journal of Sociology of Education, 19, 227–236.

Vincent, C. & Martin, J. (2002) Class, culture and agency: researching parental voice, Discourse,

23, 109–128.

Vincent, C. & Tomlinson, S. (1997) Home–school relationships: the swarming of disciplinary

mechanisms, British Educational Research Journal, 18, 361–379.

Vogels, R. (2002) Ouders bij de Les. Betrokkenheid van Ouders bij de School van hun Kind (Den Haag,

SCP).

Zeijl, E. (Ed) (2003) Rapportage Jeugd 2002 (Den Haag, SCP).
