early childhood education parent involvement

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier Sponsored Documents

Does early childhood education enhance parental school involvement in second grade?: Evidence from Midwest Child-Parent Center Program

Nishank varshney.

a Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States

b Human Capital Research Collaborative, University of Minnesota, 51 E River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States

Sangyoo Lee

Judy a. temple, arthur j. reynolds.

c Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, 51 E River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States

This paper examines the impact on parent involvement in second grade in the Midwest Child-Parent Centers (MCPC), a high-quality preschool-to-third-grade school reform model. A new focus of research on early childhood programs is understanding how early childhood learning gains can be sustained. Two-generation programs that provide diverse family services may be one approach. The MCPC expansion was implemented for a cohort of over 2000 Chicago and Saint Paul students beginning in preschool. Based on a comparison of the program and usual-service comparison groups matched at the school level via propensity scores, ratings were obtained for a subset of the sample by teachers and parents on parent involvement in school in second grade. After accounting for potential attrition bias via multiple imputation and propensity score weighting, results indicated that MCPC participation was associated with significantly higher parent involvement in school at the end of second grade both in the aggregate sample (Effect Size = 0.19 SD) and in Chicago (ES = 0.24). Differences in Saint Paul, however, were small (ES = 0.15) and not statistically significant. Robustness testing using different model specifications revealed similar results. Implications for assessing and sustaining early childhood learning gains are discussed with a focus on recognizing that parental involvement is an integral component of high-quality programs.

1. Introduction

Parent involvement has been consistently recognized as a key program element that can promote the effectiveness of early childhood interventions ( Castro et al., 2004 , Joo et al., 2020 , Reynolds and Temple, 2019 , Zigler et al., 2006 ). The enduring effects on educational success and adult health reported by several landmark studies of early childhood intervention ( Englund, White, Reynolds, Schweinhart, & Campbell, 2014 ) have been attributed by researchers to not only the fostering of early skills but also to the promotion by these interventions of increased parental support. Parent involvement can improve child outcomes by increasing learning time, enhancing child motivation and school commitment, and increasing expectations for achievement and success ( Abenavoli, 2019 , Reynolds and Temple, 2019 ). An important question asked in this study is whether a two-generation program offered to low-income urban families in preschool has an impact on school-based parental involvement several years later.

Parent involvement or family engagement in education has been of great interest to policymakers and consequently is mandated in various standards and legislative acts. In the federal preschool program Head Start, performance standards require that opportunities for involvement of parents or other family members must be offered ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016 ). In the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002, school districts receiving Title 1 funding were required to implement effective practices to promote parental involvement ( Epstein, 2005 ). More recently, the Every Child Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 continued to require school leaders to engage with families and imposed a requirement to devote a minimum of 1% of Title 1 funds to this purpose ( Ross, 2016 ).

There are various dimensions to parental involvement ( Epstein, 2010 ). The effects of parent involvement have been reported in various literature reviews and research syntheses. One strand of research focuses on which types of involvement are being promoted by preschool and home visiting programs, and the associations of this involvement with subsequent student academic success. Activities such as parents reading with their children, communications between parents and teachers, requirements that parents check and sign student homework, and parental expectations of student success are some of the types of parent involvement included in meta-analyses by researchers including Fan and Chen, 2001 , Jeynes, 2012 .

In a large review of the literature on the impact of parenting interventions on achievement and non-cognitive skills measured before the age of eight, Van Voorhis, Maier, Epstein, and Lloyd (2013) reported that the majority of studies from both non-experimental and experimental research designs demonstrate a positive link between involvement and student outcomes. In a meta-analysis of over 100 studies, Sheridan, Smith, Moorman Kim, Beretvas, and Park (2019) found that family-school interventions have a positive impact on children’s social-emotional outcomes. In another large meta-review of over 400 studies, Barger, Kim, Kuncel, and Pomerantz (2019) found small but significant effects of parents’ school-based involvement on children’s academic and non-academic adjustment. The findings from the literature are not entirely positive – for example, Fryer (2017) focused solely on Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) intended to promote parental involvement with the goal of impacting student test scores and does not find strong results in general. His research ( Fryer, Levitt, & List, 2015 ) involving an RCT providing financial incentives for certain parenting behaviors in an early childhood intervention showed mixed results on achievement – the achievement of white and Latino students improved but not that of black students.

The second strand of research that is more closely related to the goals of the current study focuses on whether parenting interventions can affect parenting behaviors. Analyzing the results from the Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP), Chaparro, Sojourner, and Huey (2019) reported that being offered a home visiting program followed by a high-quality preschool program for their child led to an increase in maternal care quality. In an evaluation of the Head Start Impact Study, which involved random assignment like the IHDP, Gelber and Isen (2013) found that parent involvement increased for families offered access to Head Start both during and after the intervention. Similarly, Puma, Bell, Cook, Heid, Broene, Jenkins, and Downer (2012) reported on the effects from the Head Start Impact Study and found evidence of improvements in parenting practices. In a non-experimental analysis of a large national sample, Bauer and Schanzenbach (2016) found that Head Start participation had an impact on positive parenting behaviors, especially for mothers without a high school degree. Recent studies continue to focus on preschool programs by examining the effects of randomly assigned Head Start enrichment programs intended to enhance parental involvement ( Bierman, Welsh, Heinrichs, Nix, & Mathis, 2015 ).

2. Parent involvement and the Child-Parent Centers

The focus of the current study is on evaluating the effects of the Child-Parent Center (CPC) early education intervention. Originally implemented in public-school sites in Chicago in 1967, the CPC program offers a high-quality preschool through third-grade program emphasizing parental involvement to students and families in the city’s poorest neighborhoods. A long-running study called the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS) of a cohort of over 1500 students born in 1980 continues to follow these students into adulthood ( Ou et al., 2020 , Reynolds et al., 2018 ). The Child-Parent Center model regards parent involvement and engagement as one of its primary goals. It acknowledges the role of family members in supporting a child’s learning, achievement, and readiness for school ( Hayakawa & Reynolds, 2016 ).

A number of studies in the CLS have reported associations between parental involvement and later school outcomes such as test scores and educational attainment ( Barnard, 2004 , Miedel and Reynolds, 1999 ). Hayakawa, Englund, Warner-Richter, and Reynolds (2013) elaborated on the importance of early parent involvement as an influential component in explaining continued achievement. They found that early parent involvement led to improved kindergarten achievement, which influenced children’s motivation in first grade. The higher motivated children in turn encouraged parents to continue their high levels of involvement throughout the elementary grades impacting later school achievement.

In a path analysis of the mechanisms through which CPC enhances well-being, family support behavior, including parent involvement in school, accounted for 26 percent of the total effect of preschool on high school completion and 22 percent on juvenile arrest ( Reynolds, Ou, & Topitzes, 2004 ). These contributions generalize to elementary school achievement and adult outcomes ranging from reading achievement to mental health ( Reynolds and Ou, 2011 , Reynolds and Temple, 2019 ). In addition, the impact of early parent involvement on long term adult outcomes has been examined beyond academic performance. Research shows that early parent involvement had a mediating effect on lowering rates of substance abuse among adolescents ( Hayakawa, Giovanelli, Englund, & Reynolds, 2016 ) and reduced the likelihood of ever smoking ( Reynolds, Magro, Ou, & Eales, 2019 ).

3. Parent involvement in the Midwest expansion of the Child-Parent Centers

Starting in the year 2012, the CPC was expanded to several school districts in the Midwest as well as to more sites within Chicago as part of the federal funding initiative Investing in Innovation (i3). Some initial results of the preschool intervention on school readiness have been reported by Reynolds et al., 2014 , Reynolds et al., 2016 , Reynolds et al., 2016 . The Midwest Child-Parent Center (MCPC) program assessed in this study is a preschool-to-third grade (P-3) school reform model. It was implemented in four school districts in the midwestern U.S.: Chicago, Evanston, and Normal in Illinois, and St. Paul in Minnesota. The program focuses on six core elements: collaborative leadership team, effective learning experiences, aligned curriculum and practices, parent involvement, professional development, and continuity and stability ( Reynolds, Richardson, et al., 2016 ). While other elements are equally important to the program, the current study focuses on the parent involvement element of the model. Developed as a scalable program model, MCPC has a greater emphasis on collaborative leadership, continuity in instruction between grades, and menu-based parent involvement than earlier CPC models in the 1960–1990s ( Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2016 ). The Child-Parent Center program acknowledges the role of family members in supporting children’s learning, achievement, and readiness for school ( Hayakawa & Reynolds, 2016 ). Every center of the MCPC program is equipped with a parent resource room for parents to interact with each other, meet with the program staff, or attend parent classes. These classes cover a wide range of topics such as GED/ESL (General Educational Development/English as a Second Language) preparation, nutritional education, learning financial skills, and employment training, among others. Parents participate in a needs assessment conducted at the beginning of the year to plan events that align with the identified needs of families in each center and meet their diverse needs. To promote parent participation, these activities are offered across different times of the day and week ( Reynolds, Hayakawa, et al., 2016 ).

A menu-based system of parent involvement was developed through collaborations with principals, school staff, and the community, where family members identify which events are most beneficial for them to attend. Parents can choose from a range of activities in which to participate with expected participation of at least 2.5 h per week ( Reynolds et al., 2017 ).

To manage the increased focus on parent involvement, each MCPC program requires a Parent Resource Teacher (PRT) and a School Community Representative (SCR) as core parent involvement staff members. The PRT is responsible for managing the parent resource room, communicating regularly with families, developing a monthly calendar of planned activities, implementing the identified workshops and activities, and maintaining a record of family participation in each activity through monthly logs. The SCR conducts home visits throughout the school year and is responsible for working with the families and community to identify resources available to help families meet their needs and support their children’s education.

Despite the importance of early parent involvement being well documented in the literature, there is limited research on how an early childhood program influences involvement not only in the preschool years but also in later years including the early elementary grades. If parents fail to continue their involvement past preschool, Stipek (2019) noted that the benefits of early engagement may fade out. In order to address this gap in the literature, we use detailed information on program participation and later parent involvement from the Midwest Child-Parent Center (MCPC) expansion project to investigate whether there is a sustained impact of a high-quality early childhood program on parent involvement as of second grade. Given that the detailed, later information on parental involvement was only collected for a subsample of the participants and controls, we employ rigorous non-experimental estimation methods to try to control for missing data on parent involvement. We investigate the impacts for the two school districts together and then separately by school districts. Our main research question is as follows: What is the impact of the MCPC program on parent involvement in 2nd grade?

4.1. Participants and procedure

The CPC program was offered to more than 2500 preschool children across 26 schools from preschool through third grade in high-poverty neighborhoods in the selected school districts beginning in 2012. As a quasi-experimental longitudinal design, the Midwest Longitudinal Study (MLS) involved comparing students in CPC sites to comparison school sites using matching via propensity scores at the school level. Matched control sites were chosen based on the propensity score (which was estimated on key demographic characteristics of the schools including an ethnic breakdown and 3rd-grade test scores), the neighborhood of the school, and the schools’ willingness to participate in the study. A set of schools was created from these matched sites from which individual control students were selected and compared to the CPC students ( Richardson, Reynolds, Temple, & Smerillo, 2017 ). Children in the comparison schools received half-day preschool programming which represents the usual publicly funded non-CPC preschool programming.

In this study, we limit our analysis to the two largest districts – Chicago, Illinois, and St. Paul, Minnesota which contained well-matched treatment and comparison groups. Due to local decisions made during the expansion of the CPC program to new cities, the Evanston and Normal implementations did not include non-treated comparison groups. As a requirement of project funding from the Investing in Innovation (i3) grants program of the U.S. Department of Education, the selection of treatment and comparison group sites, as well as the obtaining of consents for data collection for individual children in the study, was conducted by an outside evaluator (SRI, Inc.). A total of 3129 children participated in the study in both treatment and comparison school sites. Of that number, 2022 children participated in preschool at CPC program schools – 1724 in Chicago and 298 in St. Paul. Another 1107 children were followed as comparison group – 906 from Chicago and 201 from St. Paul. To be included in the analyses, all students had to meet the criteria of having been enrolled in preschool by January 2013 and stayed enrolled for at least 4 months.

A summary of the characteristics of the two groups is shown in Table 1 . Children in the program group and comparison group were equivalent on child and family characteristics such as gender, single-parent family status, enrollment as 3-year-olds, and receipt of special education services. We account for the difference in some of the child and family risk characteristics between the intervention and the control group by including these as covariates in the main analysis. Importantly, pre-tests were administered to both treatment and control group members. In Chicago, across-group differences on three of the four measures were insignificantly different from zero while treatment group members scored higher on the literacy pre-test. In Saint Paul, only a literacy pre-test was administered and the findings show lower mean scores for CPC participants. These child and family characteristics will be included as covariates in the empirical analyses.

Characteristics of CPC a and comparison groups for Chicago and St. Paul Districts at Fall Baseline, 2012–2013.

Note: a. CPC = Child-Parent Center. b. Data on child and family characteristics were collected from school administrative records and parent surveys. c. P values show the significance of mean (or percentage) group differences for the CPC and comparison groups. The comparison group participated in the Head Start and State PreK programs in Chicago and were matched on the school-level propensity to enroll in the program. d. Children have an Individualized Education Plan. e. Eligibility was defined at <130% of the federal poverty level.

At the beginning of the study, parents were asked for their consent to collect current and future information including assessments. Of the total 3129 kids originally in our sample, approximately 74% consented to share data (n = 2312), with the breakdown of 1783 from the program group (1571 Chicago; 212 St. Paul) and 529 from the comparison group (415 Chicago; 114 St. Paul). While the overall research project itself focused more on the determinants of schooling outcomes, in this paper we look more closely at the parent involvement outcomes that were obtained from all parents in the first year of the program for all the kids in the consented sample and approximately half of the sample during the fourth year of the program due to student mobility and other constraints. In the fourth year, detailed data on parent involvement were collected from 1093 participants – 845 from the program group (735 Chicago; 110 St. Paul) and 248 from the comparison group (198 Chicago; 50 St. Paul). Table 2 provides a summary of sample size and data loss over the years across the two districts. Our empirical strategy discussed in the next section involves different methods of controlling for missing outcomes.

Sample size and attrition.

Note: The sample size represents consented children who were still enrolled in the district’s schools in 2nd grade.

4.2. Measures of parent involvement

The original CPC program and the Midwest expansion focuses on strengthening the family-school relationship by actively inviting parents to participate in school settings.

Therefore, parent involvement in school is the focus of the study to measure the program's impact on parent involvement. Moreover, the CPC program highlights parent involvement not only in terms of parents engaging in cognitively stimulating behaviors with their children but also parents investing in themselves. Therefore, focusing on parents’ involvement in the school activities provided by the program captures a more holistic view of parent involvement and engagement. As part of MLS, data were collected from multiple sources to measure the extent of parent involvement in school through the years starting in 2012. Baseline data for the first year of enrollment (2012–13) were collected in preschool. Reynolds et al., 2016 , Reynolds et al., 2016 report positive effects associated with the CPC program on parent involvement at the end of preschool. Data from the fourth year of the study (2015–16), i.e. second grade, are the focus of the current research. While in the first year of the study (2012–13), a survey was administered to the parents, in the fourth year of the study (2015–16), a survey was administered to the teachers. Data on the involvement of parents in their child’s school activities was collected using four sources described below.

• 1. Parent Involvement Log Data - During both the study years (2012–13 and 2015–16), teachers maintained a log of individual parents’ involvement in the school activities, which was collected and analyzed for this study. The obtained measure was a continuous variable of the number of events attended by a child’s parents in the given year. This measure was then coded into a categorical variable, considering a school year of 9 months, to align with the other parent involvement measures as following: If the parents attended no events during the school year it was coded as ‘never’; participation in 1–6 events was coded as ‘less than once a month’; 7–10 events was coded as ‘once a month’; 11–18 events was coded as ‘2–3 times a month’; 19–35 events was coded as ‘once a week’, and attendance at more than 36 events was coded as ‘more than once a week.’
• 2. Parent Survey - During the first year of the study (2012–13), parents were administered a survey and asked the question: “So far this year, frequency participated in school or center activities”, among others. The question had six response options – Never, less than once a month, once a month, 2–3 times a month, once a week, and more than once a week. Values of 1 (never) through 6 (more than once a week) were assigned to create a measure of parent involvement using parent survey.
• 3. Teacher Checklist - During the fourth school year of the study (2015–16), teachers across the program and comparison sites were asked 13 questions related to the parents’ involvement in various activities at the school (see Appendix A for the list of questions). The checklist had the same six response options as those in the parent survey from the first year. We calculated the mean value of responses for the 14 questions and recoded them into the same six categories (by rounding to the nearest integer) to create a measure for parent involvement using the teacher checklist.
• 4. Teacher Survey - During the fourth school year of the study (2015–16), the teachers were asked to report the percentage of parents attending school activities or events across the same six-point scale as used in the parent survey and teacher checklist. We then calculated the weighted mean of this measure and recoded it into the six-point scale (by rounding to the nearest integer) to calculate the average parent involvement at the classroom level.

For example, if a teacher reported the percentage of parents attending school activities or events as follows: Never – 15%, less than once a month – 10%, once a month – 15%, 2–3 times a month – 20%, once a week – 35%, and more than once a week – 5%. We calculated the weighted mean as 1 ∗ 0.15 + 2 ∗ 0.1 + 3 ∗ 0.15 + 4 ∗ 0.20 + 5 ∗ 0.35 + 6 ∗ 0.05 = 3.65 . We then rounded this measure to the nearest integer, in this case, 4. We then allotted this score to all the children in this classroom, which corresponds to participating ‘2–3 times a month’, on average.

Previous studies show that the teachers’ ratings of parent involvement are valid measures of their participation in school activities ( Barnard, 2004 ). Using classroom level data can help reduce response bias and ‘halo’ effects that can be found in ratings of individual children ( Reynolds, Richardson, et al., 2016 ). Castro et al. (2004) found that the teachers’ reports of parent involvement had a higher correlation with the log data than the parents’ self-reports. Other studies of the Child-Parent Centers have used self-reported data from parent surveys ( Reynolds et al., 2014 ) and the log data to measure parent involvement ( Reynolds et al., 2017 ). Measures that combine parent and teacher reports also have been used ( Reynolds, 2000 ) and likely tap a wide range of participation events, thus enhancing content and construct validity. We next describe the composite measures of parent involvement from year 1 (the end of preschool) and year 4 (the end of second grade).

First-year composite measure of parent involvement was created using the data from the teacher’s log of the parent’s school involvement activities and the parent survey. We use the teacher’s log of parent involvement as the primary measure, but when information is missing the parent survey is used instead. As shown in Table 3 , the mean composite rating on the six-point scale for the program and comparison groups in Chicago was 3.2 and 1.8, respectively (Total mean: 2.88; SD = 1.70). For St. Paul, the corresponding ratings were 2.4 and 1.9, respectively (Total mean: 2.21; SD = 1.12). A rating of 3 indicates participation in school two to three times per month whereas a rating of 2 corresponds to participating in one event a month.

Mean values of parent involvement for different data sources with the sample size.

Note: Each parent involvement data source category ranges from 1 to 6. Detailed measure descriptions are in Table 6 . The composite measure for each of the two years was created using the data sources available for the corresponding year. 2nd grade PI Composite measure (Sample Size – Chicago: 933; St. Paul: 160) is used as the dependent variable in all further analysis.

Fourth-year composite measure of parent involvement was created using the data from the teacher’s log of parent involvement, the teacher survey, and the teacher checklist. We first assigned the value of parent involvement from the teacher’s log as a composite variable and then filled in the missing values using teacher checklist data for the cases where the log data was unavailable. If data from both these sources were unavailable, then we filled in the missing values using the data from the teacher survey. As shown in Table 3 , the mean composite ratings across these sources for the Chicago program and comparison groups were 2.2 and 2.0, respectively (Total mean: 2.16; SD = 1.06). For St. Paul, the respective values were 1.7 and 1.7 (Total mean: 1.73; SD = 0.55). For both the districts combined, the average values for parent involvement composite measure in the second grade were 2.1 and 2.0 respectively (Total mean: 2.10; SD = 1.02). On average, these ratings show a decline in parent involvement in second grade with an average participation of about once per month.

Table 3 shows the mean of parent involvement measures for each of the different data sources for both the districts. With the many sources of data utilized, the composite ratings are inclusive of a wide range of parental school involvement activities. The ratings revealed some differences by source. In year 1 (preschool), parent survey reports showed a higher level of parent involvement, which was nearly double the rating of log data documenting participation records at the school. In year 4 (2nd grade), the teacher survey at the classroom level and parent log data showed similar mean ratings but the teacher checklist data on individual students showed substantially lower mean ratings. Although teachers have substantial knowledge about parental school involvement, they may not be fully aware of all types of participation for their students. Hence, a composite measure may provide a more valid profile of involvement.

More details about the parental involvement measures are shown in Table 4a , Table 4b . While our estimation focuses on the factors predicting parent involvement in year 4 (by the end of second grade), we again report information from both the preschool year as well as 4 years later. Looking at these data shown as involvement by month or even more frequently, the results suggest that parent involvement was higher overall in the preschool years and few parents continued their involvement on a weekly or more often basis as their children advanced in school. The impact of the MCPC program on parent involvement at the end of preschool was analyzed by Reynolds et al., 2014 , Reynolds et al., 2016 , Reynolds et al., 2016 .

Frequency table of children meeting each parent involvement composite variable category – Chicago.

Frequency table of children meeting each parent involvement composite variable category – St. Paul.

Some changes in parent involvement in the school setting are evident over time and across the two districts. For both Chicago and St. Paul district, parent involvement in school setting decreases from preschool to second grade. Besides, one can observe that for both CPC and comparison sites, parents are more likely to be involved in school settings during preschool, and the involvement decreases by second grade. The difference, however, is that parents with children who attended CPC sites are more likely to be involved than parents with children who attended comparison sites despite the overall decreasing involvement trend over the years. Parents who participated in any parent involvement events in the school setting were 78.5% (CPC) vs 73.4% (Comparison) for the Chicago district and 71.8% (CPC) vs 64.0% (Comparison) the St. Paul district.

In the next section, we focus our attention on estimating the effects of participation in the CPC program on parent involvement at the end of second grade. The greatest empirical challenge is the amount of missing data on the outcome of interest. Table 5 provides a summary of the family and child characteristics of the children that had data on second-grade parent involvement and those that did not. Data on some of the child and family risk measures were missing if the parents chose not to respond to those questions in the parent survey (see Appendix B ). There was no evidence that the probability of missing the key outcome of interest varied across treatment and comparison groups in either Chicago or Saint Paul nor by gender or maternal employment. The estimation methods described below attempt to control for the differences across observed characteristics in the probability of having a missing outcome on the outcome of interest.

Mean values of explanatory variables for students with and without 2nd grade parent involvement (PI) information.

Note: a. Data on child and family characteristics were collected from school administrative records and parent surveys. b. P values show the significance of mean (or percentage) group differences for the children for whom parent involvement data in 2nd grade was available and the children for whom this data was missing. c. Children have an Individualized Education Plan. d. Eligibility was defined at < 130% of the federal poverty level.

Our empirical strategy involves the estimation of several linear models with different approaches used to handle missing explanatory variables and missing parental involvement outcomes. All regression models control for the influence of the following covariates listed in Table 5 : fall baseline performance in early literacy, child's gender, race/ethnicity, immigrant/refugee status, special education assignment in pre-school, household language other than English, eligibility for subsidized lunches, whether the child lived with a single parent, mother’s education status, mother’s employment status, whether the household income was within 185% of the federal poverty level, whether the parents moved during the last one year, and a dichotomous indicator of whether parents received any government assistance during the last year. These covariates were measured at the fall baseline through parent surveys and school administrative records.

To account for missing data, we use two methods of data imputation – simple imputation and Multiple Imputation (MI). In the first method, we first fill in missing explanatory variables with the mean of continuous measures calculated from the students not missing this information. For categorical variables, we fill in using the mode. Further, we include a series of missing data indicator variables in the empirical analysis.

In the second method, using the mi estimate command in Stata 15, we obtain estimates of regression coefficients by creating several imputed data sets with imputations drawn from an underlying distribution of the observed data to estimate multiple values that reflect the uncertainty around the true value of the missing explanatory variables. In these initial analyses, both the simple imputation and the multiple imputation approaches are conducted only for the sample of 1093 students who have data on the parent involvement outcome. As explained by Donders, van der Heijden, Stijnen, and Moons (2006) , a benefit of using multiple imputation is that MI can result in obtaining correctly estimated standard errors while simple imputation results in estimated standard errors that are too small. Stata’s multiple imputation estimator is suitable for two different assumptions regarding the missing data: data missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing at random (MAR). Missing at random refers to the possibility that the students’ probability of having missing data is correlated with the included covariates but the actual values of the missing data are not.

Two additional methods make use of the larger analytic sample consisting of students who are lacking the key outcome of interest. One method involves the use of Inverse Propensity Score weighting (IPW) and the final method involves using MI to simulate regression estimates for both the missing explanatory variables as well as the independent variable. Our analytic strategy involves estimating four regression models that take different approaches to address missing data. In addition to using imputation for missing data, we address concerns about missing outcomes through the use of Inverse Propensity Weighting (IPW) and also through a combination of IPW and multiple imputation. While IPW is more often used when treatment assignment is non-random, it can also be of use in attrition analyses ( Seaman & White, 2013 ). Data were analyzed in Stata, Version 15 ( StataCorp, 2017 ).

The IPW results make use of the larger analytic sample to better understand and control for the differences in characteristics of students who have and who are missing parent involvement measures at the end of second grade. To do this, we first run a probit regression using the larger sample of students with and without parent involvement information in second grade to generate predicted probabilities for each student of having this information using observable characteristics assumed to influence attrition. Being able to predict missingness for the dependent variable is important. Hence the prediction model includes a comprehensive set of child and family risk variables that also will be included in the main outcomes regressions as well as a set of additional variables (see Appendix C ).

With the results of the probit estimation, we then assign a weight of 1/p1 to each child, where p1 is the predicted probability of the child being in the recovery sample ( Reynolds, Temple, Ou, Arteaga, & White, 2011 ). While only the students having data on the parental involvement outcome are included in the weighted regression, there exist significant differences in their probability of reporting the second-grade outcome. Students with characteristics associated with a lower predicted probability of being included in the analysis (but who actually have information for the second-grade outcome) are rarer and consequently are given larger weight. Students with characteristics associated with a higher predicted probability of being in the regression are assigned smaller weights. In a sense, the use of IPW reweights the sample to better resemble a sample in which the outcome is missing at random. Our approach in Model 3 has been used by other researchers using longitudinal data, for example in Caldwell et al. (2008) , who used IPW to adjust for the fact that over 40% of the outcome of interest was missing in a longitudinal follow-up of survey participants who also had missing data on explanatory variables addressed using MI. Additional possibilities for combining IPW and MI are discussed in Seaman, White, Copas, and Li (2012) .

Table 6 , Table 7 , Table 8 report regression results from Chicago, Saint Paul, and the two districts aggregated, respectively. Models 1 and 2 can be compared to examine the results arising from simple imputation and multiple imputation for missing explanatory variables. In Model 3, multiple imputation for the explanatory variables is combined with Inverse Propensity Score weighting to reweight the observed sample of students with data available on the parent involvement outcome. For Chicago, the sample size used in the initial regression models is 933 students while in Saint Paul the sample size is 160. Finally, to better understand the robustness of the methods we employ, in Model 4, multiple imputation procedure is applied to the explanatory variables as the outcome variable. Model 4 results are reported for the larger sample of 1963 students in Chicago and 326 students in Saint Paul.

Estimation results: Effects of CPC preschool participation on second grade parent involvement for Chicago District.

Notes: 1. In Model 1, missing data on explanatory variables are filled in with the mean value and a set of missing data indicators are included but not shown. The estimated coefficients on the missing data indicators are not significantly different from zero. 2. The effect sizes of CPC program participation on second-grade parent involvement outcome for the four models are 0.20, 0.22, 0.24, and 0.19 respectively. 3. Standard errors clustered at the preschool site in parentheses. 4. Statistical Significance Levels ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Estimation results: Effects of CPC preschool participation on second grade parent involvement for St. Paul District.

Notes: 1. In Model 1, missing data on explanatory variables are filled in with the mean value and a set of missing data indicators are included but not shown. The estimated coefficients on the missing data indicators are not significantly different from zero. 2. The effect sizes of CPC program participation on second-grade parent involvement outcome for the four models are 0.15, 0.14, 0.15, and 0.22 respectively. 3. Standard errors clustered at the preschool site in parentheses. 4. Statistical Significance Levels ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

Estimation results: Effects of CPC preschool participation on second grade parent involvement for Chicago and St. Paul Districts Combined.

Notes: 1. In Model 1, missing data on explanatory variables are filled in with the mean value and a set of missing data indicators are included but not shown. The estimated coefficients on the missing data indicators are not significantly different from zero. 2. The effect sizes of CPC program participation on second-grade parent involvement outcome for the four models are 0.19, 0.18, 0.19, and 0.14 respectively. 3. Standard errors clustered at the preschool site in parentheses. 4. Statistical Significance Levels ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Model 3 (IPW/MI) represents our preferred specification. Multiple imputation is used when the individuals are missing values for the explanatory variables and this imputation also is incorporated in the probit model that predicts whether or not students have second-grade parent involvement information. But given the significance of the data loss on the dependent variable, we heed Seaman et al. (2012) ’s caution that inadequacies in the imputation model could be of greater concern and lead to considerable bias. Instead of imputing the outcome, Model 3 combines IPW to reweight the set of cases that have information on the outcome so that the resulting sample is more representative of the larger sample.

A comparison of the results generated from these different methods for addressing missing data is discussed below where we begin our analyses of examining the impact of preschool CPC participation on second-grade parent involvement in the school setting for Chicago and St. Paul districts separately.

5.1. Chicago district

Table 6 shows results from regression analyses of the association between preschool CPC participation on second-grade parent involvement for the students who attended the Chicago Public Schools. The column labeled Model 1 contains estimates from a standard linear regression in which participation in the CPC program is the key policy variable of interest included along with a set of covariates such as the early literacy pre-test score and child and family demographic characteristics. Missing data for these characteristics are replaced by the median or mode and additional indicator variables reflecting whether or not each variable as imputed is included in the regression but not shown in the table. CPC program attendance is significantly associated with higher levels of parent involvement in school at the end of second grade. The estimated coefficient of 0.208 on CPC participation corresponds to a 0.20 Standard Deviation (SD) increase in second-grade parent involvement. Next, we use a multiple imputation approach to fill missing values of explanatory variables whose result is shown in Model 2. Using this model, CPC attendance during preschool year again is associated with significantly higher second-grade parent involvement by 0.22 SD. As predicted, Model 1 contains a larger set of estimated coefficients that have achieved statistical significance as compared to Model 2.

But to what extent are the results in Models 1 and 2 affected by the significant reductions in sample size arising from the lack of missing data on the outcome? Both Models 3 and 4 make use of the information from the larger sample by including in the analyses those students who lack parent involvement information in second grade. In addition to using multiple imputation for the missing covariates, we apply Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) to account for program attrition from preschool to second grade as described in the Methods section above. This weighted regression (Model 3) shows that CPC program attendance in preschool is associated with significantly higher second-grade parent involvement by 0.24 SD. Finally, we apply the multiple imputation approach to fill missing values on both - the explanatory as well as the outcome measures. As shown in model 4, CPC attendance in preschool is significantly associated with a 0.19 SD increase in second-grade parent involvement.

Overall, the Chicago district’s analysis indicates that participation in the CPC program improves the rate of parent involvement in second grade compared to children who attended a regular preschool program in similar socio-demographically matched sites. Results do not seem sensitive to the method used to control for missing data.

5.2. St. Paul district

Following the same model application from the Chicago analyses but using a much smaller sample, results for St. Paul district are reported in Table 7 . Model 1 shows standard linear regression with the simple imputation approach where CPC program attendance is associated with a 0.15 SD increase in second-grade parent involvement; however, the difference is statistically insignificant. In Model 2, using MI on explanatory variables, CPC program attendance in the preschool year is associated with a 0.14 SD increase in parent involvement in second grade. However, this difference is also not statistically significant at the 10% level. Next, we combine IPW with MI in model 3, where CPC program participation in preschool is associated with a 0.15 SD increase in parent involvement in second grade. Finally, applying multiple imputation on both - explanatory and outcome measures in model 4, we observe that the CPC attendance in preschool is associated with a 0.22 SD increase in second-grade parent involvement. As with the other models, these estimates of the effects of the CPC program are not significantly different from zero at the 10% level of significance. Given the rigorous approach to deal with missing data from program attrition, we believe that our findings are robust. However, due to a much smaller sample size in the St.Paul district, there is a possibility that the statistical power may be weak.

5.3. Chicago and St. Paul districts combined

During the implementation period of the CPC program, each school was assessed on the program implementation quality using a rubric created by the researchers based on program guidelines. Implementation fidelity scores reflect how well the CPC program was implemented at each of the program sites. We analyzed the impact of CPC participation on second-grade parent involvement separately for the Chicago and St. Paul districts as the two districts had different implementation fidelity scores as shown in Appendix D . However, to estimate the impact of the CPC program as a scale-up intervention program, in Table 8 , we show the results for both the districts combined. In the combined regression, the early literacy pretests, which were different assessments in the two districts, are normalized to allow better comparisons.

Applying the same methodological approach from the two districts above, we also introduce a control for the district variable to capture any variation coming from different districts. The simple imputation model (Model 1) shows that CPC participation in preschool is associated with a statistically significant increase of 0.19 SD parent involvement in second grade. The MI model on explanatory variables (Model 2) shows that program participation is associated with a 0.18 SD increase in parent involvement in second grade which is also significant at 5% level. In the IPW and MI combined analysis (Model 3) we observe that CPC attendance is significantly associated with a 0.19 SD increase in second-grade parent involvement. In model 4, employing MI on both dependent and independent variables, program participation is associated with a statistically significant 0.14 SD increase in second-grade parent involvement.

6. Discussion

In this study, we follow a cohort of students who attended publicly funded preschool programs in high-poverty neighborhoods of urban school districts in St. Paul, MN, and Chicago, IL. Making use of the detailed parent involvement information collected on a subset of preschool participants and their families, we employ multiple imputation and inverse probability weighting approaches to address missing data concerns. Our results indicate that participation in preschool programs emphasizing the role of parents in children’s early schooling is associated with higher parent involvement with effect sizes ranging from 0.14 to 0.19 depending on the model specification.

Our study contributes to the literature in multiple ways. This is the first evaluation study looking at the impact of the Midwest Expansion of the Child-Parent Center's early childhood intervention on parent involvement in second grade. Despite previous evaluation studies of the Midwest CPC program showing evidence of an increase in parent involvement by end of preschool ( Reynolds et al., 2016 , Richardson et al., 2017 ), the impact several years later was unknown. Given the concern of positive preschool impact “fading out” or “dropping off” in other preschool evaluation studies, our findings show the promising prospect of sustaining gains. We attribute this high parent involvement in early elementary grades to the CPC program’s emphasis on active parent engagement in child development. As the longitudinal path analysis of early parent involvement on student achievement from the CLS suggests ( Hayakawa et al., 2013 ), early parent involvement influence kindergarten and first-grade academic motivation of children, which in turn encourages parents to continue active engagement in child development throughout later grades. We hypothesize that our findings are a result of a similar cyclical process shown from the CLS.

Another highlight of this study is the way we measured parent involvement as a composite measure utilizing information from multiple sources. As our study was implemented in public school districts across numerous sites, inconsistency in data collection was inevitable. Despite the implementation effort to be consistent across sites, there were difficulties in collecting the same parent involvement information. Moreover, with student mobility and study attrition over time, not all data collection was available over the implementation years. Our study shows how a composite measure can be created using multiple data sources. This way of incorporating multiple data sources to account for missing data can help researchers to overcome implementation barriers and further help accurately evaluate the program's impact.

This study evaluates the impact of the CPC program not only in Chicago but also in St. Paul district as well as both districts combined. Our findings show that the positive CPC program's impact on second-grade parent involvement is mainly driven by the Chicago district. This may be because the Chicago district had a longer history of offering a CPC program with an emphasis on parent involvement to both schools and parents. In St. Paul, however, the Child-Parent Center program was new to the district and there may have been a ‘startup cost’ where it takes time for schools and parents to develop expectations of parent involvement in school settings. One reason for the lack of strong significance in St. Paul may be the small amount of variation in the parent involvement measure in second grade for St. Paul district, where the majority of parents were categorized as participating in school less than once a month.

6.1. Relationship to earlier results on Child-Parent Centers

Previous research has reported on the link between participation in the Child-Parent Centers from an earlier cohort. How do our findings compare to the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS) of the CPC program in the 1980s? Based on teacher ratings of parental involvement in school, Reynolds (1995) reported an effect size of 0.32 SD for CPC preschool on teacher ratings of parent involvement in school in second grade. This estimated effect was stable over time as effect sizes for first and third grades were also sizable (0.51 and 0.44 SD, respectively). The findings in the current study show a smaller effect size, though several differences between the two CPC studies are noteworthy. First, the measure in the current study is a composite of teacher and parent ratings and is likely to capture a wider range of school involvement practices. Second, whereas parent involvement in school was the major component of family support services in the 1980s CPC program, it was more balanced in priority among home and community involvement in the present new-generation program.

The third difference between the two CPC studies is that the participants in the current study are racially and ethnically more diverse than in the CLS. Over 90% of the CLS sample was black whereas it is less than 50% in the present study with much larger percentages of Latino and Asian families. These demographic differences may account for some of the differences in effect size and the fact that the implementation of the family support component was the first year of a large school reform expansion. Moreover, as noted in the introduction, parent involvement has also been identified as a major mechanism of change that accounts for the long-term effects of the program on educational attainment, income, and other measures of well-being ( Reynolds & Ou, 2011 ). This suggests that, despite a smaller effect size reported in the current study, parental involvement is likely to contribute to cumulative advantages that lead to positive well-being in adolescence and beyond.

Finally, there are two key differences in the study design comparing the older and newer cohorts. In the Chicago Longitudinal Study of children born around 1980, the comparison group consisted of children who generally lacked preschool participation experience. In the newer cohort study, the comparison group children attended publicly funded non-CPC preschools offered in high-poverty schools (in St. Paul) and offered universally (in Chicago). Second, the outcome regressions reported in this research include a pre-test available for both treatment and control groups that was not part of the study design for the older study.

6.2. Limitations and future directions

There are limitations in our study that need further research. First, while home support for learning is more emphasized in the Midwest expansion of the CPC program as opposed to the original CPC program, we did not assess home parental involvement. Our measure of parent involvement focuses only on participation in the school setting because the main purpose of the CPC program and the Midwest expansion was to strengthen the family-school relationship. Although the focus of this study is on parent involvement in school, we acknowledge the importance and the need of examining the program's impact on other parent involvement measures outside of the school setting. For example, examining home involvement and parent expectations in the parent involvement measure could yield larger program effects than reported in earlier studies. Jeynes (2010) suggests that educators and early childhood program developers should recognize the importance of more subtle forms of parent involvement such as expectations for success rather than focusing on easier to measure or monitor forms such as homework checking or attendance at school events. Hayakawa et al. (2016) also emphasize the role of parent expectations as a form of parent involvement that may enhance students’ commitment and motivation for school. Which of the two forms of involvement is more important for student achievement is also contested in the literature. While Lee and Bowen (2006) found that parent involvement at school showed the strongest associations with students’ achievement, Barger et al. (2019) suggest that school involvement perhaps has a smaller impact than cognitively stimulating their children.

Next, our evaluation of the MCPC program on second-grade parent involvement is limited to two districts, Chicago and St. Paul. The MCPC program was implemented in two more districts of Illinois - Evanston, and Normal. These two districts did not have comparable comparison sites to accurately evaluate the program impact, which is why they were excluded from our initial analysis. Future work is needed to evaluate the impact of the program on these districts to capture the overall program impact holistically. This will help us get a better understanding of the impact of the MCPC program in school districts outside of Chicago that do not have a history of the original CPC program.

Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the U. S. Department of Education Office of Innovation (U411B110098), National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (No. HD034294), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (No. OPP1173152). The funders had no role in the manuscript preparation and decision to submit for publication.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Nishank Varshney: Conceptualization, Data curation. Sangyoo Lee: Conceptualization, Data curation. Judy A. Temple: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition. Arthur J. Reynolds: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Chicago Public School District, Saint Paul Public School District, participating families, and many philanthropic partners for their collaboration and assistance in the Midwest Child-Parent Center Expansion Project. We also are grateful to SRI International for their partnership and leadership in data collection throughout the program implementation period.

Appendix A. 

Year 4 (2nd grade) teacher checklist

About how often does {student}’s parent(s) participate in the following?

Appendix B. 

Sample size for child and family risk variables

Appendix C. 

Variables included in regression and inverse probability weighting (IPW) models

Appendix D. 

See Table D1 , Table D2 .

Implementation Fidelity Scores for Preschool Year (SY12-13) – Chicago.

Implementation Fidelity Scores for Preschool Year (SY12-13) – St. Paul.

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• Administration for Children & Families
• Upcoming Events
• Open an Email-sharing interface
• Open to Share on Facebook
• Open to Share on Twitter
• Open to Share on Pinterest
• Open to Share on LinkedIn

Prefill your email content below, and then select your email client to send the message.

Recipient e-mail address:

Send your message using:

Parent Involvement and Family Engagement for Early Childhood Professionals

Explore this resource to understand the differences between parent involvement and family engagement. Learn why moving from parent involvement to family engagement practices can help you build strong relationships with families.

Download the PDF

Resource Type: Publication

National Centers: Parent, Family and Community Engagement

Last Updated: January 19, 2022

• Privacy Policy
• Freedom of Information Act
• Accessibility
• Disclaimers
• Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
• Viewers & Players

Parent Involvement in US Early Childhood Education: Benefits, Limitations, and Reconceptualizations

Cite this chapter.

• Angela Pons Clifford 3 &
• Marisha L. Humphries 4  

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

11k Accesses

9 Citations

This chapter aims to broaden interpretations of how families in low-income, immigrant, and minority communities in the United States are involved in their early childhood age children’s learning. By examining the benefits and limitations of previous conceptualizations of US parent involvement and studies that employ them, the chapter presents an argument for an expanded, sociocultural approach to involvement that incorporates a range of childhood activities such as play and work at home, at school, and in the community as well as social-emotional learning and childrearing lessons that are facilitated by parents and other adult caregivers. In addition to these contextual variations, the chapter advocates for a conceptualization of US parent involvement that takes into account parents’ cultures, values, and expectations for their children’s learning. The chapter provides implications for research, theory, and practice that give greater consideration to the educational contributions of diverse US families as well as the school practices that support them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abdul-Adil, J. K., & Farmer, A. D. (2006). Inner-city African-American parental involvement in elementary schools: Getting beyond urban legends of apathy. School Psychology Quarterly, 21 , 1–12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics and education . New York: Teachers College Press.

Google Scholar  

Baker, A. J. L., Kessler-Sklar, S., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Parker, F. L. (1999). Kindergarten and first-grade teachers’ reported knowledge of parents’ involvement in their children’s education. The Elementary School Journal, 99 , 367–380.

Bernhard, J. K., Lefebvre, M. L., Kilbride, K. M., Chud, G., & Lange, R. (1998). Troubled relationships in early childhood education: Parent-teacher interactions in ethnoculturally diverse child care settings. Early Education & Development, 9 , 5–28.

Broussard, C. A. (2000). Preparing teachers to work with families: A national survey of teacher education programs. Equity and Excellence in Education, 33 , 41–49.

Broussard, C. A. (2003). Facilitating home-school partnerships for multiethnic families: School social workers collaborating for success. Children & Schools, 25 , 211–222.

Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., Wen, X., Faria, A., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Korfmacher, J. (2012). National profiles of classroom quality and family involvement: A multi-level examination of proximal influences on head start children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27 , 627–639.

Clifford, A.P. & Göncü, A. (2010). Reexamining family involvement from the family perspective . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Coleman, M., & Wallinga, C. (1999). Teacher training in family involvement. Childhood Education, 76 , 76–87.

Cooper, C. W. (2009). Parent involvement, African American mothers, and the politics of educational care. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42 , 379–394.

Davies, D. (1993). Benefits and barriers to parent involvement: From portugal to boston to liverpool. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralistic society (pp. 205–216). New York: University of New York Press.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom . New York: The New Press.

Diamond, J. B. (2000). Beyond social class: Cultural resources and educational participation among low-income Black parents. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 44 , 15–54.

Diamond, J. B., & Gomez, K. (2004). African American parents’ educational orientations: The importance of social class and parents’ perceptions of schools. Education and Urban society, 36 , 388–427.

Doucet, F. (2008). How African American parents understand their and teachers’ roles in children’s schooling and what this means for preparing preservice teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29 , 108–139.

Doucet, F., & Tudge, J. (2007). Co-constructing the transition to school: Reframing the novice versus expert roles of children, parents, and teachers from a cultural perspective. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, & K. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 307–328). Baltimore: Brookes.

Edwards, P. A., McMillon, G. T., & Bennett, C. T. (2003). Mining the fields of teacher education: Preparing teachers to teach African-American children in urban schools. In C. C. Yeakey & R. D. Henderson (Eds.), Surmounting all odds: Education, opportunity, and society in the new millenium (pp. 389–409). Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Epstein, J. L. (1994). Theory to practice: School and family partnerships lead to school improvement and students’ success. In C. L. Fagnano & B. Z. Werber (Eds.), School, family and community interaction: A view from the firing lines (pp. 39–54). Colorado: Westview Press.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational psychology review, 13 , 1–22.

Fantuzzo, J., Tigue, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 , 367–376.

Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review, 33 , 467–480.

Fantuzzo, J., Gadsden, V., Feifei, L., Sproul, F., McDermott, P., Hightower, D., & Minney, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of family engagement in early childhood education: Evidence for a short form of the family involvement questionnaire. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28 , 734–742.

Fine, M. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power, and urban public schools. Teachers College Record, 94 , 682–730.

Fitzgerald, L. M., & Göncü, A. (1993). Parent involvement in urban early childhood education: A vygotskian approach. Advances in Early Childhood Education and Day Care, 5 , 197–212.

García Coll, C., Akiba, D., Palacios, N., Bailey, B., Silver, R., DiMartino, L., & Chin, C. (2002). Parental involvement in children’s education: Lessons from three immigrant groups. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2 , 303–324.

Gillanders, C., McKinney, M., & Ritchie, S. (2012). What kind of school would you like for your children? Exploring minority mothers’ beliefs to promote home-school partnerships. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40 , 285–294.

Graue, E., & Hawkins, M. (2010). “I always feel they don’t know anything about us”: Diverse families talk about their relations with school. In M. M. Marsh & T. Turner- Vorbeck (Eds.), (Mis)Understanding families: Learning from real families in our schools (pp. 109–125). New York: Teachers College Press.

Graue, M. E., Kroeger, J., & Prager, D. (2001). A Bakhtinian analysis of particular home school relations. American Educational research Journal, 38 , 467–498.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement . Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 , 161–164.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., & Sandler, H. M. (2005a). Parents’ motivations for involvement in their children’s education. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weissberg, S. Redding, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School-family partnerships for children’s success (pp. 40–56). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005b). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106 , 105–130.

Jaime, A., & Russell, C. (2010). Reaching Native American families to increase school involvement. In M. M. Marsh & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), (Mis)understanding families: Learning from real families in our schools (pp. 145–161). New York: Teachers College Press.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40 (3), 237–269.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lamb-Parker, F. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., Baker, A. J. L., Kessler-Sklar, S., Clark, B., & Peay, L. (2001). Understanding barriers to parent involvement in head start: A research community partnership. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16 , 35–51.

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

Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72 , 37–53.

Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38 , 77–133.

Li, G. (2010). Social class, culture, and “good parenting”: Voices of low-ses families. In M. M. Marsh & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), (Mis)Understanding families: Learning from real families in our schools (pp. 162–178). New York: Teachers College Press.

López, G. R. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons on parent involvement from an (im)migrant household. Harvard Educational Review, 71 , 416–437.

López, G. R., & Stoelting, K. (2010). Disarticulating parent involvement in latino- impacted schools in the Midwest. In M. M. Marsh & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), (Mis)understanding families: Learning from real families in our schools (pp. 19–36). New York: Teachers College Press.

López, G.R. & Vàzquez, V.A. (2006). “They don’t speak English”: Interrogating (racist) ideologies and perceptions of school personnel in a Midwestern state. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning , 10 , Retrieved from http://iejll.synergiesprairies.ca/iejll/index.php/ijll/article/download/629/291

Mapp, K. L. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their children’s learning. The School Community Journal, 13 , 35–64.

Marcon, R. A. (1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance. School Psychology Review, 28 , 395–412.

McKay, M. M., Atkins, M. S., Hawkins, T., Brown, C., & Lynn, C. J. (2003). Inner-city African American parental involvement in children’s schooling: Racial socialization and social support from the parent community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32 , 107–114.

McWayne, C. M., Melzi, G., Schick, A. R., Kennedy, J. L., & Mundt, K. (2013). Defining family engagement among Latino Head Start parents: A mixed-methods measurement development study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 593–607.

McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H. L., & Sekino, Y. (2004). A multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41 , 363–377.

Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement for early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37 , 379–402.

Nzinga-Johnson, S., Baker, J. A., & Aupperlee, J. (2009). Teacher-parent relationships and school involvement among racially and educationally diverse parents of kindergartners. The Elementary School Journal, 110 , 81–91.

O’Connor, S. (2001). Voices of parents and teachers in a poor White urban school. Journal of Education For Students Placed At Risk, 6 (3), 175–198.

Osterling, J. P., & Garza, A. (2004). Strengthening Latino parental involvement forming community-based organizations/school partnership. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2 , 270–284.

Parent Teacher Association (2009). PTA national standards for family-school partnerships: An implementation guide . Retrieved from http://www.pta.org/files/National_Standards_Implementation_Guide_2009.pdf

Pianta, R. C., & Kraft-Sayre, M. (2003). Successful kindergarten transition: Your guide to connecting children, families, & schools . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Reynolds, A. J., Mavrogenes, N. A., Bezruczko, N., & Hagemann, M. (1996). Cognitive and family-support mediators of preschool effectiveness: A confirmatory analysis. Child Development, 67 , 1119–1140.

Russell, A. (1991). Parental role conceptions associated with preschool involvement. Australian Journal of education, 35 , 273–291.

Scribner, J. D., Young, M. D., & Pedroza, A. (1999). Building collaborative relationships with parents. In P. Reyes, J. D. Scribner, & A. P. Scribner (Eds.), Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning communities . New York: Teachers College Press.

Shivers, E., Howes, C., Wishard, A. G., & Ritchie, S. (2004). Teacher articulated perceptions and practices with families: Examining effective teaching in diverse high quality child care settings. Early Education and Development, 15 , 167–186.

Smalley, S. Y., & Reyes-Blanes, M. E. (2001). Reaching out to African American parents in an urban community: A community-university partnership. Urban Education, 36 , 518–533.

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

Tinkler, B. (2002). A review of literature on Latino parent involvement in K-12 education . Denver: Assets for Colorado Youth.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. (2012). Family engagement as parent involvement 2.0 . Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/ttasystem/family/center/familyengparin.htm

Weiss, H. B., Mayer, E., Kreider, H., Vaughan, M., Hencke, R., & Pinto, K. (2003). Making it work: Low-income working mothers’ involvement in their children’s education. American Educational Research Journal, 40 , 879–901.

Wen, X., Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Korfmacher, J. (2012). Head start program quality: Examination of classroom quality and parent involvement in predicting children’s vocabulary, literacy, and mathematics achievement trajectories. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27 , 640–653.

Wilson, T. L. Y., & Banks, B. (1994). A perspective on the education of African American males. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21 , 97–100.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Aiken County Public Schools, Aiken, SC, USA

Angela Pons Clifford

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Marisha L. Humphries

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Pons Clifford .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Marilyn Fleer

Department of Theory & Research in Education, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Bert van Oers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Clifford, A.P., Humphries, M.L. (2018). Parent Involvement in US Early Childhood Education: Benefits, Limitations, and Reconceptualizations. In: Fleer, M., van Oers, B. (eds) International Handbook of Early Childhood Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0927-7_37

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0927-7_37

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-024-0925-3

Online ISBN : 978-94-024-0927-7

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Downloadable Content

The Effects of Family Engagement in Early Childhood

• Masters Thesis
• Aguirre, Brenda
• Brown, Jodi
• Park, Hyun-Sun
• Lipscomb, Allen
• Social Work
• California State University, Northridge
• Dissertations, Academic -- CSUN -- Social Work.
• Family Engagement
• Family Invovlement
• Early Childhood Milestones
• Outcomes of early childhood involvement
• http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12680/0v838761h
• by Brenda Aguirre

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The Role Parents Play in Shaping Children's Emotion Regulation

Different strategies help children to navigate emotions..

Posted June 17, 2024 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer

• Parents play a large role in shaping their child’s emotion regulation skills early in life.
• Supportive parenting is linked to positive outcomes in youth.
• A balanced approach that acknowledges children’s emotions and focuses on problem-solving is promotive.
• Parents who model positive emotions at home may enhance their children’s ability to regulate emotions.

Written by guest author Michelle Ramos, Ph.D.

In early childhood , parents play a critical role in helping their children develop their emotion regulation skills, that is, the skills to label, understand, and manage emotions. This process, known as Parent Socialization of Emotion (PSE), is essential for shaping how children learn to navigate their emotional world.

PSE is the process through which parents communicate their values about emotional behaviors, teach their children to understand and control their emotions, and model appropriate emotional responses. This guidance can happen both indirectly, through the emotional climate of the family and observational learning, and directly, through specific parenting practices, such as the ways in which parents respond to their child's emotions.

Research shows that supportive parental responses, such as focusing on the child’s problem or emotions, encourage and guide children's emotional expressions and regulation and are linked to positive outcomes in youth. Conversely, restrictive and punitive parental responses focused on verbal or physical punishment are associated with negative outcomes, including a higher risk of social, behavioral, and mental health issues (Hooven et al., 1995; Hurrell et al., 2015; Ramakrishnan et al., 2019).

By understanding how parents help their children manage emotional challenges, we can gain insights into the early contextual factors that influence emotion regulation. This understanding is crucial, as it impacts a wide range of child outcomes, from social and behavioral functioning to mental health issues, including eating disorders and substance use.

As our lab is interested in understanding the various ways parents might respond to their toddlers’ emotions, parents were asked to respond to a series of hypothetical scenarios in which a child gets upset or angry. Parents indicated the degree to which they would respond to each scenario in six theoretically meaningful ways of coping with children's negative emotions. The possible ways of responding corresponded to six coping strategies that reflect both supportive and non-supportive coping responses: problem-focused (like finding solutions), emotion-focused (like acknowledging feelings), expressive encouragement (like showing empathy), minimization (downplaying the issue), punitive (punishing the child), and distress (expressing their own negative emotions). This helped us explore the range of ways parents manage their children's negative emotions and identify three distinct patterns of strategy use:

1. Adaptive Support

This group of parents reported the highest levels of using problem-focused strategies, emotion-focused strategies, and expressive encouragement, and rarely used minimization, punitive responses, or express distress themselves.

2. Solution-Focused Responding

This group of parents seemed to prioritize problem-solving and emotional support, and engaged in low levels of minimization, punitive, and distress responses. With less emphasis on expressive encouragement, these parents focused more on solving problems and acknowledging emotions without as much emphasis on emotional expressiveness.

3. Diverse Strategy Use

This group used a diverse mix of strategies when responding to their child’s emotional displays. These parents showed high levels of problem- and emotion-focused responses and also reported engaging in moderate amounts of expressive encouragement, minimization, punitive, and distress responses.

Using these distinct patterns of parenting behaviors around emotions, we were also interested in understanding how these strategies influenced later child emotion regulation, as well as parental factors that might contribute to the different strategy uses.

Mothers who express higher levels of positive emotionality in the family climate were more likely to adopt adaptive support strategies, while mothers who express lower levels of positive emotionality tended to adopt solution-focused responding strategies.

Although overall expression of positive emotionality was low among parents using the solution-focused approach, when these parents did express positive emotion, this predicted better emotion regulation one year later when children were three years of age. This suggests that the balanced approach of focusing on finding a resolution, while still acknowledging their child’s emotions, may promote greater emotion regulation as parents model more positive emotion expression in the home.

As parents are unlikely to strictly adhere to one singular strategy across (and even within!) an emotional interaction with their child, it is important to understand how the use of different strategies can effectively foster the heathy development of emotion regulation.

About the guest author: Michelle Ramos, Ph.D., has been part of the Emotion Development Lab as a post doc since 2021. Her research centers on understanding factors that contribute to differences in the way children and adolescents participate in risky behavior. Her ongoing research is focused on the development of emotion regulation early in life and the role of parenting.

Hooven, C., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1995). Parental Meta-emotion Structure Predicts Family and Child Outcomes. Cognition and Emotion, 9(2–3), 229–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939508409010

Hurrell, K. E., Hudson, J. L., & Schniering, C. A. (2015). Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relationships with emotion regulation in children with an anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 29, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.10.008

Ramakrishnan, J. L., Garside, R. B., Labella, M. H., & Klimes-Dougan, B. (2019). Parent Socialization of Positive and Negative Emotions: Implications for Emotional Functioning, Life Satisfaction, and Distress. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(12), 3455–3466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01528-z

Kristin A. Buss, Ph.D., is the Tracy Winfree and Ted H. McCourtney Professor in Children, Work, and Families, Head and Professor of Psychology & Human Development and Family Studies at Penn State.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• About Barry
• Find Your Program
• Financial Aid
• Living on Campus

With our Catholic liberal arts heritage and over 100 degree programs, including nursing and marine biology, from bachelors through PhDs, we've got your options covered. Focus on arts and sciences, business, education, social work, communication, nursing, medical sciences, theology, or law. Take things further with personalized research and experiential learning opportunities, on and off-campus. Enhance your prospects with hands-on internships at some of the country's top organizations.

• Colleges and Schools
• College of Arts and Sciences
• School of Business and Public Administration
• School of Education, Leadership, and Human Development
• College of Health and Wellness
• School of Law (Orlando)
• School of Nursing
• School of Podiatric Medicine
• School of Social Work

• Academic Support
• Center for Academic Success and Advising (CASA)
• Learning Center
• Testing Center

• Enrollment Services
• Student Accounts
• Student Services Center

The path to your perfect career begins with planning and support. Career Development has resources for you to help you make the most of your time at Barry. Guidance is just an appointment away.

Service-learning integrates relevant community service with course work and critical reflection to enrich the learning experience, foster social responsibility and civic engagement, and strengthen communities.

The Honors Program at Barry is designed to challenge, enrich, and prepare especially motivated students to pursue their fullest potential. By participating in a rigorous curriculum rounded out by an array of edifying and interactive events, students explore crucial issues that we face in our daily lives. Students are given the space for discussion and debate and the opportunity to learn from experts in their fields. The Office of Financial Aid can assist with determining eligibility for the Honors Program.

The Monsignor William Barry Memorial Library is located in the center of the beautiful Miami Shores campus of Barry University. The Library is named in loving memory of Monsignor William Barry, one of the founders of Barry University and an inspirational figure in the Catholic Church within the Archdiocese of Miami. The extensive Library research collections include more than 950,000 physical items, over 40,000 print and on-line journal subscriptions, and several thousand on-line books and streaming video resources.

At Barry University, you will experience a small community atmosphere where you can always rely on our administrators and faculty for advice, encouragement and personal attention. We take great pride in giving individual attention from the very beginning. You can start building a personal relationship with one of our admissions counselors who will help answer any questions, and guide you through the entire admissions and enrollment process.

• Undergraduate
• How to pay for college
• International Students
• Financial Aid FAQs

• Graduate and Doctoral

• Adult learners
• Degree-Completion Programs

• Admitted Students

Continuing Education (CE) offers a variety of courses and non-credit programs designed to respond to the diverse educational interests and lifelong learning needs of individuals of all ages. We offer certificate, credential exam preparation, and licensure programs for professional and personal enrichment.

High school students: Get a jump-start on your college education with dual enrollment courses from Barry University! You can earn high school and college credit at the same time, right at your own school.

We are committed to providing programs and services that are guided by Barry University's rich educational mission and intended to enhance your Barry experience. Through partnerships with others in the university community, we aim to create experiences that will help transform you into leaders for a just and humane world.

We are an NCAA Division II school and a member of the Sunshine State Conference with 12 varsity teams, including men's baseball, basketball, golf, soccer and tennis; and women's basketball, golf, rowing, soccer, softball, tennis and volleyball. So far, we've won 24 NCAA championships, had 338 All-Americans, 413 Scholar All-Americans, and nine NCAA "Women of the Year" finalists, the most of any Division II school. Not bad at all, but we're going for more.

• Campus Life
• Living on-campus
• Office of Student Life

For students currently enrolled in classes at Barry, we have a wealth of resources you can tap into to bring ease and efficiency to your university experience. Get the help you need with administrative or financial questions, or check out course catalogs to help plan your schedule by semester. All the information you need to excel is at your fingertips.

• Skill Development and Well Being
• Accessibility Services
• Campus Recreation
• Counseling & Psychological Services
• Health Promotion and Wellness
• Health Services
• Public Safety

• Student Engagement
• Campus Ministry
• Center for Community Service Initiatives (CCSI)
• DePorres Center for Ethical & Inclusive Leadership
• Housing and Residence Life
• International Programs
• New Student Programs
• Office of Mission Engagement

• Student Resources
• Dual Enrollment

• Early Childhood

Montessori Early Childhood

Certificate Program

Certificate Program Montessori Early Childhood The purpose of the Montessori Early Childhood certificate program is to educate teachers with the professional competencies to implement the Montessori approach in the early childhood classroom (Ages 2.5 – 6).

The Programmatic Outcomes for the Montessori Early Childhood Certificate Program are:

Following completion of the CERTIFICATE IN MONTESSORI EARLY CHILDHOOD, graduates will have acquired the ability to:

• Identify the learning needs of each early childhood student;
• Integrate the knowledge, understanding, skills, and values necessary to meet individual and group developmental needs;
• Analyze data from classroom observation to improve effectiveness of instruction;
• Design, organize, and implement a developmentally appropriate program for the early childhood age group in accordance with the Montessori philosophy; and
• Interpret student and classroom observable data to administrators, parents, and the community.

Cost Per Credit: $415.00

Montessori Early Childhood Certificate Courses

Edm 600 introduction to montessori (3 credits).

Examines Montessori philosophy, theory, teaching strategies, rationale, and basic methodology for the materials in the areas of the curriculum.

**Waived for students holding AMS credential at another level.

EDM 601 Montessori Methods and Materials I: Practical Life and Sensorial (3 credits)

Introduces students to the philosophy and rationale for everyday living and sensory-motor curriculum areas. Students learn how to design and maintain developmentally appropriate activities in those two areas for the young child.

EDM 602 Montessori Methods and Materials II: Language and Mathematics (3 credits)

Examines how a child develops linguistic skills and presents strategies for facilitating development in a holistic foundation for the understanding of quantity and the development of number sense through specially-designed hands-on materials sequenced to correspond with the child's development.

EDM 603 Montessori and Child Development (3 credits)

Explores the philosophy, theory, and strategies of the Montessori approach to early childhood and elementary education. The course is designed to provide a background for understanding the sequence of normal human development, the study and practice of objective observation, and its use as an assessment tool for educational planning.

EDM 611 Humanities and Science in the Early Childhood Classroom (3 credits)

Includes the teaching of the fine arts and the performance arts (art, music, movement/dance). Emphasis is placed on the role of the related arts in the development of the young child and how these can be integrated into the daily curriculum. The course includes cultural studies (history and geography) and explores ways of broadening one's horizons in physical and life sciences (botany, zoology, earth science and physical science) while nurturing a sense of wonder and spirit of inquiry inherent in each student.

EDM 649 Classroom Leadership and Parent Involvement for Montessori EC Teachers (3 credits)

EDM 649 Classroom Leadership for Montessori Early Childhood Teachers (3) Classroom Leadership for Montessori Early Childhood Teachers equips students with the necessary knowledge and skills in classroom management, record-¬keeping, curriculum and environmental design, and human relationship skills to successfully implement the Montessori approach in the Early Childhood (2.5–6 years) classroom, and interpret classroom observations to the public.

EDM 656 Practicum I - EC (3 credits)

Student teacher applies Montessori instructional strategies in implementing early childhood curriculum with supervision by a certified Montessori teacher. Student is visited three times during the semester. One on one consultation is given by University instructor during these visits.

EDM 662 Montessori Practicum II - EC (3 credits)

Continues the application of Montessori curriculum and instruction techniques at the secondary level under the supervision of a Montessori-certified teacher and a University advisor. Prerequisite: Completion of all certificate coursework.

NOTE: Students earning a Montessori Early Childhood Certificate can apply those credits towards a Master of Science in Curriculum and Instruction with a Specialization in Montessori Early Childhood degree program.

Additional Credential Information

Graduates of the program who fulfill practicum requirements set by the American Montessori Society will be recommended for the American Montessori Society Early Childhood teaching credential for ages 2.5 - 6 years.

As stipulated in the AMS Handbook for Teacher Education Program Affiliation “For college or university programs, the adult learner registration and fee is due at the conclusion of the academic phase, or when the adult learner enters the practicum phase (whichever comes first), and no later than six calendar weeks from the start of the practicum phase.” Upon enrollment in Practicum I (EDM-656 for Early Childhood students). AMS/MACTE Adult Learner Fees will be collected as an additional student fee tied to the course. Payment of the professional Adult Learner fees will allow the Montessori Program Director to submit registration information and Adult Learner fee payments to the American Montessori Society and to the Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education. Adult learners will receive a practicum membership in AMS with its accompanying rights and privileges. AMS and MACTE do not accept fees directly from the adult learners.

Additional Graduation Requirement

Written verification of Practicum EDM-656 and EDM 657 (for Early Childhood students) completion must be filed with the advisor.

Sign in to use the pins

The importance of parental involvement in children’s education

• By Xavier Washington
• Jun 24, 2024

Contrary to common misconceptions, Black parents are highly involved in their children’s education. This is one of the key findings highlighted in the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) report titled “Hear Us, Believe Us: Centering African American Parent Voices in K-12 Education.” The report provides an in-depth look at the experiences, challenges, and goals of Black parents regarding their children’s educational journey, focusing on aspects such as racial dynamics, college preparedness, and parental engagement.

Key findings and recommendations

Dr. Meredith B.L. Anderson, UNCF’s Director of K-12 Research, sheds light on the report’s significant insights. The study underscores the proactive role that Black parents play in advocating for their children’s academic success. It also offers recommendations for schools and policymakers to better support these parents in navigating the educational system and ensuring their children are college-ready.

Engagement strategies for parents

Ashley Thomas, CEO of the A.N.T. Foundation and a dedicated parent advocate from Indianapolis, shares valuable strategies for parents aiming to enhance their engagement with their child’s school. These tips are designed to empower parents to take an active role in their child’s education, fostering a collaborative environment between families and educational institutions.

By highlighting the dedication of Black parents and providing actionable advice, the UNCF report serves as a crucial resource for families seeking to overcome educational barriers and champion their children’s academic achievements.

Sign up for Rolling Out news straight to your inbox.

• african american parents , ashley thomas , college preparedness , digital , educational advocacy , k-12 education , meredith b.l. anderson , parental engagement , racial dynamics , uncf report

Celebrating influential voices in Black cultural discourse

Exploring the intersection of culture and sports

Elevate your wardrobe with inspiration from street style icons

The legislative battle over reparations in California continues

Ohio woman faces charges after fatal incident involving her mother and police

The link between physical fitness and mental health in youth

• More in Careers & Education

The importance of math literacy as a civil right

Why people should ignore flirting in the workplace

How to politely turn down a co-worker who asks for a date

• Community News
• Justice For All
• All Entertainment
• Reality Check
• All Culture
• Relationships
• Cocktail & Beer
• Creative Lens
• All Business
• Black Intellectuals
• Diversity Equity & Focus
• Sisters with Superpowers
• Home Ownership & Real Estate
• Entrepreneurs & Business Leaders
• Executive Suite
• Finance & Wealth
• Marketing & Branding
• Be the Match Atlanta
• Food & Nutrition
• Browse Places & Events
• HBCU Culture
• Privacy Policy

Change Location

Find awesome listings near you.

You are here

Developmentally appropriate practice requires deep knowledge about each child, including the context within which each child is living. Educators acquire much of this knowledge through respectful, reciprocal relationships with children’s families. Across all ages, families’ expertise about their own children is sought out and valued.

Educators who engage in developmentally appropriate practice take responsibility for forming and maintaining strong relationships with families and communities. They recognize that the traditional models of “parent involvement” or “parent education” are one-sided approaches that fail to give educators the knowledge or insights they need to provide learning experiences that are fully responsive to each child’s needs and experiences.

The following descriptions of educators’ behavior indicate the kinds of relationships that are developmentally appropriate for children from birth through the primary grades, in which family members and educators work together as members of the learning community.

A. Educators take responsibility for establishing respectful, reciprocal relationships with and among families.  As they work to facilitate their own relationships with families, educators also encourage and support families to get to know each other, serve as resources to each other, and collaborate within and outside of the program. They strive to ensure mutual respect, cooperation, and shared responsibility and to help negotiate conflicts as they work toward achievement of shared goals. (Also see guideline 1, “Creating a caring community of learners.”)

B. Educators work in collaborative partnerships with families, seeking and maintaining regular, frequent, two-way communication with them and recognizing that the forms of communication may differ for each family.  Early childhood educators employ a variety of communication methods and engagement skills, including informal conversations when parents pick up and drop off children, more formal conversations in teacher-family conference settings, and reciprocal technology-mediated communications, such as phone calls, texting, or emails. When educators do not speak a family’s home language, they enlist the help of community resources to provide interpreters or use volunteers identified by the family. The use of children as translators should be avoided.

C. Educators welcome family members in the setting and create multiple opportunities for family participation.  Families are offered multiple ways of participating, including weighing in on any program decision about their children’s care and education. If families cannot communicate with educators during drop-offs and pick-ups, alternative means provide frequent, ongoing communication.

D. Educators acknowledge a family’s choices and goals for their child and respond with sensitivity and respect to those preferences and concerns.  In the event of disagreements between the family and the educator, educators listen carefully to the family’s concerns and use the  NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct and Statement of Commitment  to guide their decision making as they strive to find mutually agreeable solutions.

E. Educators and the family share with each other their knowledge of the particular child and understanding of child development and learning as part of day-to-day and other forms of communication (e.g., family get-togethers, meetings, support groups).  Educators support families in ways that maximally promote family decision-making capabilities and competence. When communicating with families about their children, educators stress children’s strengths and abilities and use this information to support future instructional decisions.

F. Educators involve families as a source of information about the child (before program entry and on an ongoing basis).  They engage families in the planning for their child, including teaching practices, curriculum planning and implementation, and assessments.

G. Educators take care to learn about the community in which they work, and they use the community as a resource across all aspects of program delivery.  The community serves as an important resource for implementing the curriculum as well as a resource for linking families with a range of services based on identified priorities and concerns. Early childhood educators also look for ways that they can contribute to the ongoing development of the community.

Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) Position Statement

40 Facts About Elektrostal

Written by Lanette Mayes

Modified & Updated: 01 Jun 2024

Reviewed by Jessica Corbett

Elektrostal is a vibrant city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia. With a rich history, stunning architecture, and a thriving community, Elektrostal is a city that has much to offer. Whether you are a history buff, nature enthusiast, or simply curious about different cultures, Elektrostal is sure to captivate you.

This article will provide you with 40 fascinating facts about Elektrostal, giving you a better understanding of why this city is worth exploring. From its origins as an industrial hub to its modern-day charm, we will delve into the various aspects that make Elektrostal a unique and must-visit destination.

So, join us as we uncover the hidden treasures of Elektrostal and discover what makes this city a true gem in the heart of Russia.

Key Takeaways:

• Elektrostal, known as the “Motor City of Russia,” is a vibrant and growing city with a rich industrial history, offering diverse cultural experiences and a strong commitment to environmental sustainability.
• With its convenient location near Moscow, Elektrostal provides a picturesque landscape, vibrant nightlife, and a range of recreational activities, making it an ideal destination for residents and visitors alike.

Known as the “Motor City of Russia.”

Elektrostal, a city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia, earned the nickname “Motor City” due to its significant involvement in the automotive industry.

Home to the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Elektrostal is renowned for its metallurgical plant, which has been producing high-quality steel and alloys since its establishment in 1916.

Boasts a rich industrial heritage.

Elektrostal has a long history of industrial development, contributing to the growth and progress of the region.

Founded in 1916.

The city of Elektrostal was founded in 1916 as a result of the construction of the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Located approximately 50 kilometers east of Moscow.

Elektrostal is situated in close proximity to the Russian capital, making it easily accessible for both residents and visitors.

Known for its vibrant cultural scene.

Elektrostal is home to several cultural institutions, including museums, theaters, and art galleries that showcase the city’s rich artistic heritage.

A popular destination for nature lovers.

Surrounded by picturesque landscapes and forests, Elektrostal offers ample opportunities for outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, and birdwatching.

Hosts the annual Elektrostal City Day celebrations.

Every year, Elektrostal organizes festive events and activities to celebrate its founding, bringing together residents and visitors in a spirit of unity and joy.

Has a population of approximately 160,000 people.

Elektrostal is home to a diverse and vibrant community of around 160,000 residents, contributing to its dynamic atmosphere.

Boasts excellent education facilities.

The city is known for its well-established educational institutions, providing quality education to students of all ages.

A center for scientific research and innovation.

Elektrostal serves as an important hub for scientific research, particularly in the fields of metallurgy , materials science, and engineering.

Surrounded by picturesque lakes.

The city is blessed with numerous beautiful lakes , offering scenic views and recreational opportunities for locals and visitors alike.

Well-connected transportation system.

Elektrostal benefits from an efficient transportation network, including highways, railways, and public transportation options, ensuring convenient travel within and beyond the city.

Famous for its traditional Russian cuisine.

Food enthusiasts can indulge in authentic Russian dishes at numerous restaurants and cafes scattered throughout Elektrostal.

Home to notable architectural landmarks.

Elektrostal boasts impressive architecture, including the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord and the Elektrostal Palace of Culture.

Offers a wide range of recreational facilities.

Residents and visitors can enjoy various recreational activities, such as sports complexes, swimming pools, and fitness centers, enhancing the overall quality of life.

Provides a high standard of healthcare.

Elektrostal is equipped with modern medical facilities, ensuring residents have access to quality healthcare services.

Home to the Elektrostal History Museum.

The Elektrostal History Museum showcases the city’s fascinating past through exhibitions and displays.

A hub for sports enthusiasts.

Elektrostal is passionate about sports, with numerous stadiums, arenas, and sports clubs offering opportunities for athletes and spectators.

Celebrates diverse cultural festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal hosts a variety of cultural festivals, celebrating different ethnicities, traditions, and art forms.

Electric power played a significant role in its early development.

Elektrostal owes its name and initial growth to the establishment of electric power stations and the utilization of electricity in the industrial sector.

Boasts a thriving economy.

The city’s strong industrial base, coupled with its strategic location near Moscow, has contributed to Elektrostal’s prosperous economic status.

Houses the Elektrostal Drama Theater.

The Elektrostal Drama Theater is a cultural centerpiece, attracting theater enthusiasts from far and wide.

Popular destination for winter sports.

Elektrostal’s proximity to ski resorts and winter sport facilities makes it a favorite destination for skiing, snowboarding, and other winter activities.

Promotes environmental sustainability.

Elektrostal prioritizes environmental protection and sustainability, implementing initiatives to reduce pollution and preserve natural resources.

Home to renowned educational institutions.

Elektrostal is known for its prestigious schools and universities, offering a wide range of academic programs to students.

Committed to cultural preservation.

The city values its cultural heritage and takes active steps to preserve and promote traditional customs, crafts, and arts.

Hosts an annual International Film Festival.

The Elektrostal International Film Festival attracts filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts from around the world, showcasing a diverse range of films.

Encourages entrepreneurship and innovation.

Elektrostal supports aspiring entrepreneurs and fosters a culture of innovation, providing opportunities for startups and business development .

Offers a range of housing options.

Elektrostal provides diverse housing options, including apartments, houses, and residential complexes, catering to different lifestyles and budgets.

Home to notable sports teams.

Elektrostal is proud of its sports legacy , with several successful sports teams competing at regional and national levels.

Boasts a vibrant nightlife scene.

Residents and visitors can enjoy a lively nightlife in Elektrostal, with numerous bars, clubs, and entertainment venues.

Promotes cultural exchange and international relations.

Elektrostal actively engages in international partnerships, cultural exchanges, and diplomatic collaborations to foster global connections.

Surrounded by beautiful nature reserves.

Nearby nature reserves, such as the Barybino Forest and Luchinskoye Lake, offer opportunities for nature enthusiasts to explore and appreciate the region’s biodiversity.

Commemorates historical events.

The city pays tribute to significant historical events through memorials, monuments, and exhibitions, ensuring the preservation of collective memory.

Promotes sports and youth development.

Elektrostal invests in sports infrastructure and programs to encourage youth participation, health, and physical fitness.

Hosts annual cultural and artistic festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal celebrates its cultural diversity through festivals dedicated to music, dance, art, and theater.

Provides a picturesque landscape for photography enthusiasts.

The city’s scenic beauty, architectural landmarks, and natural surroundings make it a paradise for photographers.

Connects to Moscow via a direct train line.

The convenient train connection between Elektrostal and Moscow makes commuting between the two cities effortless.

A city with a bright future.

Elektrostal continues to grow and develop, aiming to become a model city in terms of infrastructure, sustainability, and quality of life for its residents.

In conclusion, Elektrostal is a fascinating city with a rich history and a vibrant present. From its origins as a center of steel production to its modern-day status as a hub for education and industry, Elektrostal has plenty to offer both residents and visitors. With its beautiful parks, cultural attractions, and proximity to Moscow, there is no shortage of things to see and do in this dynamic city. Whether you’re interested in exploring its historical landmarks, enjoying outdoor activities, or immersing yourself in the local culture, Elektrostal has something for everyone. So, next time you find yourself in the Moscow region, don’t miss the opportunity to discover the hidden gems of Elektrostal.

Q: What is the population of Elektrostal?

A: As of the latest data, the population of Elektrostal is approximately XXXX.

Q: How far is Elektrostal from Moscow?

A: Elektrostal is located approximately XX kilometers away from Moscow.

Q: Are there any famous landmarks in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to several notable landmarks, including XXXX and XXXX.

Q: What industries are prominent in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal is known for its steel production industry and is also a center for engineering and manufacturing.

Q: Are there any universities or educational institutions in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to XXXX University and several other educational institutions.

Q: What are some popular outdoor activities in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal offers several outdoor activities, such as hiking, cycling, and picnicking in its beautiful parks.

Q: Is Elektrostal well-connected in terms of transportation?

A: Yes, Elektrostal has good transportation links, including trains and buses, making it easily accessible from nearby cities.

Q: Are there any annual events or festivals in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal hosts various events and festivals throughout the year, including XXXX and XXXX.

Elektrostal's fascinating history, vibrant culture, and promising future make it a city worth exploring. For more captivating facts about cities around the world, discover the unique characteristics that define each city . Uncover the hidden gems of Moscow Oblast through our in-depth look at Kolomna. Lastly, dive into the rich industrial heritage of Teesside, a thriving industrial center with its own story to tell.

Was this page helpful?

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact: