Patterns of Parental Involvement in Selected OECD Countries: Cross-National Analyses of PISA

Abstract

Using data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), patterns of parental involvement were examined in selected OECD countries. The findings showed that, irrespective of educational qualifications, parents were frequently involved in their children’s learning at the start of primary school and at age 15. Cross-national analyses showed that a high percentage of parents were frequently involved in various ways with their children’s learning, with some OECD countries showing parental involvement to be very common. Less instrumental, more subtle forms of parental involvement such as parent-child conversations about topical social issues emerged as the strongest predictor for continuing parental literacy support at age 15. These findings have important implications for understanding patterns and forms of parenting and for guiding family policy to consider cultural, economic and educational explanations about the nature of parental involvement in children’s education.

Keywords

• Parenting, OECD, PISA, family policy, home learning

References

1. Bernstein, G., & Triger, Z. H. (2010). Over-parenting. UC Davis Law Review, 44(4), 1221-1279.
2. Borgonovi, F., & Montt, G. (2012). Parental involvement in selected PISA countries and economies. In OECD Education Working Papers, Number 73. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
3. Bianchi, S., Robinson, J., & Milki, M. (2007). Changing Rhythms of American Family Life. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
4. Bridges, D. (2010). Government’s construction of the relation between parents and schools in the upbringing of children in England 1963–2009. Educational Theory, 60(3), 299-324.
5. Chin, T., & Phillips, M. (2004). Social Reproduction and Child-rearing Practices: Social Class, Children’s Agency, and the Summer Activity Gap. Sociology of Education 77, 185–210.
6. Daly, M. (2011). Shifts in family policy in the UK under New Labour. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(5), 433-443.
7. Gershuny, J. (2000). Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Post-industrial Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8. Gregg, P., & Washbrook, E. (2011). The role of attitudes and behaviours in explaining socio-economic differences in attainment at age 11. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 2(1), 41-58.

9. Hampden-Thompson, G., Guzman, L., & Lippman, L. (2013). A cross-national analysis of parental involvement and student literacy. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 54(3), 246–266. doi: 10.1177/0020715213501183
10. Hartas, D. (2014). Parenting, family policy and children’s wellbeing in an unequal society: A new culture war for parents. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Hartas, D. (2012). Inequality and the home learning environment: predictions about 7 year olds’ language and literacy. British Educational Research Journal, 38(5), 859-879.
12. Hartas, D. (2011). Families' social backgrounds matter: socio-economic factors, home learning and young children's language, literacy and social outcomes. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 893-914. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2010.506945
13. Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763. doi: 10.1037/a0015362
14. Ho, E. S.-C.(2009). Characteristics of East Asian lLearners: What we learned from PISA. Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 327-348.
15. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74(5), 1368–1378.
16. Jeynes, W. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 747-774.
17. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
18. Lingard, B., & Rawolle, S. (2011). New scalar politics: Implications for education policy. Comparative Education, 47(4), 489-502.
19. Marano, H. E. (2004). A Nation of Wimps. Retrieved 2012 June 1, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200411/nation-wimps?
20. Park, H. (2008). The varied educational effects of parent-child communication: A comparative study of fourteen countries. Comparative Education Review, 52(2), 219-243.
21. Park, S., & Holloway, S. (2013). No parent left behind: Predicting parental ınvolvement in adolescents’ education within a sociodemographically diverse population. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 105–119.
22. Peters, M., Seeds, K., Goldstein, A., & Coleman, N. (2008). Parental Involvement in Children’s Education. Research Report. DCSF RR034.
23. Robson, K. (2010). Good, responsible parenting: Child-support guidelines in an era of neo-liberalism, Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 25(2), 129-148.
24. Seginer, R. (2006). Parents’ educational involvement: A developmental ecology perspective. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6(1), 1–48.
25. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010). Learning in the home and at school: how working class children ‘succeed against the odds’. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 463-482.
26. Smetana, J. G. (2011). Adolescents, families and social development: How teens construct their worlds. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
27. Sullivan, A., Joshi, H., Ketende, S., & Obolenskaya, P. (2010). The consequences at age 7 of early childhood disadvantage in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. A report to the Northern Ireland Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
28. Sung, Y. K. (2011). Cultivating borrowed futures: the politics of neoliberal loanwords in South Korean cross-national policy borrowing. Comparative Education, 47(4), 523-538.
29. Takayama, K. (2013). PISA, power, and policy: the emergence of global educational governance. Comparative Education, 49(4), 539-542. doi:10.1080/03050068.2013.832580
30. Wall, G. (2010). Mothers’ experiences with intensive parenting and brain development discourse. Women’s Studies International Forum, 33(3), 253–263.