Parental involvement and educational achievement, Geert Driessen, Frederik Smit and Peter Sleegers

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228654074
Parental Involvement and Educational Achievement
Article  in  British Educational Research Journal · August 2005
DOI: 10.1080/01411920500148713
CITATIONS
192
READS
8,040
3 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
School effectiveness View project
Opbrengstgericht werken in het primair onderwijs View project
Geert Driessen
Semi-retired
439 PUBLICATIONS   3,330 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Frederik Smit
Frederik Smit Research & Advies
77 PUBLICATIONS   594 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Peter Sleegers
BMC
145 PUBLICATIONS   5,487 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Geert Driessen on 25 December 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Parental Involvement and Educational
Achievement
Geert Driessen*a
, Frederik Smita
and Peter Sleegersb
a
ITS—Institute of Applied Social Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the
Netherlands; b
Department of Education, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
(Submitted 6 February 2004; conditionally accepted 8 April 2004; accepted 5 July 2004)
Parental involvement is seen as an important strategy for the advancement of the quality of
education. The ultimate objective of this is to expand the social and cognitive capacities of pupils.
In addition, special attention is paid to the children of low-educated and ethnic minority parents.
Various forms of both parental and school-initiated involvement are examined. On the one hand,
the connections between a number of characteristics of parents and schools such as the social and
ethnic background of the parents and the composition of the school population will be examined.
On the other hand, the connections between a number of outcome measures such as the language
and mathematics skills of the pupils will be examined. Data will be drawn from the large-scale
Dutch PRIMA (primary education) cohort study, which contains information on more than 500
schools and 12,000 pupils in the last year of primary school and their parents. An important
finding is that predominantly schools with numerous minority pupils appear to provide a
considerable amount of extra effort with respect to parental involvement, but that a direct effect of
such involvement cannot be demonstrated.
Introduction
Expanding the involvement of parents in the education of their children has recently
been viewed as an important strategy to advance the effectiveness and improve the
quality of education (Epstein, 1995; Chrispeels, 1996; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997).
Within the framework of providing greater autonomy for schools, strengthening
parental involvement is also considered important with the underlying thought that
parents can be construed as a force with a vested interest and thereby the potential to
balance the efforts of directorates and school boards at times. In addition,
strengthening the cooperation between schools and parents appears to be critical
to improve the school careers of disadvantaged groups, such as ethnic minority and
*Corresponding author: ITS—Institute of Applied Social Sciences, Radbad University, Nijmegen,
P.O. Box 9048 6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: g.driessen@its.ru.nl
British Educational Research Journal
Vol. 31, No. 4, August 2005, pp. 509–532
ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/05/040509-24
# 2005 British Educational Research Association
DOI: 10.1080/01411920500148713

low socio-economic status pupils (Smit et al., 2002). And along these lines, more
and more pleas to better integrate the activities of schools, parents and local
communities are being heard (McNamara et al., 2000; Smit et al., 2001). Activities
vary from the provision of home support for parents, support for learning activities in
the classroom (e.g. reading mothers), parent nights, helping-hand services at school
(e.g. parent help with celebrations) to the formal participation of parents in school
boards or councils and the integrated provision of services to the local communities.
Research on parental involvement has shown considerable variation to occur in
the level of involvement and this variation to largely depend on the socio-economic
position and ethnic background of the parents (Boethel, 2003). At the same time,
parental involvement has indeed been found to influence the cognitive and social
development of children. Just which forms of parental involvement are particularly
effective and which aspects of the development of children are specifically affected
remains unclear. Research on the differential effects of parental involvement on
pupil-related outcomes is scarce (Jordan et al., 2001).
In studying the cooperation between school and parents at least two perspectives
can be discerned—school-initiated parental involvement and parent-initiated
involvement. Most research has been defined and studied from the perspective of
the school (i.e. school-initiated parental involvement). More research on parental
involvement but from the perspective of parents (i.e. parent-initiated involvement) is
therefore desired.
The research reported here represents an attempt to fill the aforementioned gaps
with an examination of the variability and effectiveness of parental involvement
across different groups of respondents. Of particular interest is the concrete
contribution of parents and schools to the education and development of pupils.
Two questions stand central in this research: (1) What relations exist between
parental involvement and the characteristics of the parents, on the one hand, and the
characteristics of the school, on the other hand? (2) What relations exist between
parental involvement and the social and cognitive capacities of the children studied
here after the differences between parents and schools are taken into consideration?
Educational partnership: overlapping spheres of influence
Various terms are used to refer to the cooperation between parents, teachers and
schools. One can speak, for example, of parental involvement, parental participation,
school–family relations, educational partnership and so forth. Internationally, the
term ‘partnership’ is increasingly being used to give form to the concept of
meaningful cooperative relations between schools, parents and the local community
(Smit et al., 1999). Such a partnership is then construed as the process in which
those involved mutually support each other and attune their contributions with the
objective of promoting the learning, motivation and development of pupils (Epstein,
1995).
The vision of partnership alluded to above is based on Epstein’s theory of
overlapping spheres of influence (Epstein, 1987, 1995; Epstein & Sanders, 2000).
510 G. Driessen et al.

This theory combines psychological, educational and sociological perspectives on
social institutions to describe and explain the relations between parents, schools and
local environments in an integrated manner. In doing this, three important contexts
or social institutions which can influence the education and socialisation of children
are distinguished: family, school and local community. It is assumed that at least
some of the objectives of the various institutions—such as support for the
development and school careers of children—are shared and therefore best reached
by communicating and cooperating. Epstein sees the three aforementioned contexts
as spheres of influence which can overlap to a greater or lesser degree. The
congruence between the different spheres of influence is then seen to be of
considerable importance for the optimal development of children, and partnership is
viewed as a means to realise this.
During the past few years, a beginning has been made and initiatives developed
to establish such educational ‘partnerships’ in various countries (e.g. the USA, UK,
Canada, Netherlands) (cf. Fowler & Klebs Corley, 1996; Goldring & Sullivan,
1996). In the Netherlands, this has been done under the rubric of so-called open
neighbourhood, window or broad schools. The starting assumptions underlying
such projects are generally that parents must emancipate further, the school
must be prepared to change and the local community should be given a role in
the child-rearing and education process. Important characteristics are: shared
objectives, sustained cooperation, a joint sense of solidarity and values and
mutual impact on the child-rearing and educational process (Sleegers & Smit,
2001).
On the grounds of empirical research, Epstein (1992, 2001) has distinguished six
types of parental involvement reflecting different types of cooperative relations
between schools and parents.
1. Parenting. Schools must help parents with the creation of positive home
conditions to promote the development of children. Parents must prepare their
children for school, guide them and raise them.
2. Communicating. Schools must inform parents about the school programme and
the progress of children’s school careers. Schools must also present such
information in a manner which is comprehensible to all parents, and parents
must be open to such communication.
3. Volunteering. The contribution and help of parents during school activities (e.g.
reading mothers, organisation of celebrations).
4. Learning at home. Activities aimed at the support, help and monitoring of the
learning and development activities of one’s school-going children at home (e.g.
help with homework).
5. Decision making. The involvement of parents in the policy and management of
the school and the establishment of formal parental representation (e.g. school
board or parent council memberships).
6. Collaborating with the community. The identification and integration of
community resources and services with existing school programmes, family
child-rearing practices and pupil learning.
Parental involvement and educational achievement 511

Teachers and parents are all seen as partners with their own but also shared tasks
and responsibilities (also see Vincent & Tomlinson, 1997; Lueder, 1998; Hall &
Santer, 2000; McNamara et al., 2000). In addition to classifications according to
type of relation and role, it is also possible to adopt who takes the initiative as
the basis for classification. In the case of school-initiated parental involvement, the
emphasis lies on the part of the school; the relevant activities are started by the
school, and the activities mainly occur at the school. In the case of parent-initiated
involvement, the emphasis lies on the home situation; the relevant activities are
started by the parents, and the activities also occur largely within the family situation.
Variation and scope of parental involvement
Recent research by Vogels (2002) has shown parental involvement in Dutch
education to be an important theme, although the involvement in primary education
is much greater than that in secondary education. When the types of activities are
examined, parents are found to most frequently visit parent nights and report
meetings (Epstein’s type 2). In addition, about 50% of the parents in the study
undertook activities which could be regarded as informal school-support activities
(Epstein’s type 3) while only 7% of the parents in the study undertook such activities
for secondary education. It was also found that parents who are active in the school
tend to make a contribution on more than one front at a time—that is, both formally
and informally (Epstein’s types 3 and 5).
Vogels (2002) concludes that four groups of parents can be distinguished:
partners, participants, delegators and invisible parents. The first two groups are
closely involved in the child’s school. Both partners and participants are actively
involved in informal school-support activities (e.g. assistance with school activities,
help with maintenance tasks). The group of partners is also active in the domain of
formal participation, and this most active group consists of primarily parents with
a high socio-economic status (e.g. high level of education, high income), a non-
denominational philosophy of life (e.g. no religious denomination, supporters of a
political party which is not a Christian party) and children attending Montessori or
Jena Plan schools (i.e., schools which base their teaching on specific educational
ideas). The largest group of participants consists of primarily parents with a middle
to high socio-economic position and their children in predominantly public (i.e.
non-religious), Catholic or Protestant schools.1
The most important difference
between the delegators and invisible parents is not so much the degree of active
involvement, as both groups are relatively passive, but the backgrounds of the
groups. The group of delegators involves primarily parents with a denominational
philosophy of life and children attending an orthodox Protestant school. In the eyes
of these parents, the directorate and teachers are the appointed experts and therefore
the people responsible for the education of their children. This group of parents
guards the foundations of the denominational school from a distance. The invisible
group of parents consists of primarily parents with a low socio-economic position.
The parents in this group participate much less in various activities organised for

pupils than the other groups. Differences also exist between Dutch parents and
ethnic minority parents with respect to helping children with their homework,
attendance at parent nights and talking about school within the family: Dutch
parents undertake these forms of parental involvement relatively more often than
ethnic minority parents (Driessen, 2002).
Comparable differences involving active versus passive parents are also apparent
in the international literature (Sanders & Epstein, 1998). In a qualitative study of
parental involvement in Cyprus, for example, three types of parents could be
distinguished: strongly involved parents, an intermediate group and a fringe group
(Phtiaka, 1994). The parents in the first group were primarily high educated, very
active at school and also satisfied with the school and the information received from
the school with regard to their child. The second group of parents consisted of well-
educated workers. These parents contacted the school when something was
bothering them but also desired more information and feedback from the school
and wanted to become more involved in school activities. The third group consisted
of mostly low-educated parents, who had considerable difficulties communicating
with the school and felt powerless in relation to the school.
The preceding results show clear variation to exist in the level of parental
involvement and this variation to relate to the socio-economic position and ethnicity
of parents (Denessen et al., 2001). The fact that parents from disadvantaged groups
experience barriers to communication with the school and, as a result, barriers to
cooperation with the school, is particularly worrisome (Todd & Higgins, 1998). In
addition to this, there are differences of opinion with regard to education and socialisa-
tion within the distinguished domains (home, school) with a significant number of the
minority parents placing responsibility more or less exclusively with the school
(Driessen & Valkenberg, 2000). It is precisely children from lower socio-economic
milieus and an ethnic minority background who generally achieve less at school (Jencks
& Mayer, 1990; Rossi & Montgomery, 1994) and therefore stand to benefit from
improved and more intensive support from the school with respect to education and
learning within the family, however. On the basis of qualitative, longitudinal research,
Lo´pez et al. (2001) suggest that an approach in which schools go to migrant parents and
listen to their specific questions and needs may be most successful.
In addition to the fact that parental involvement appears to differ according to
milieu and ethnicity, important differences in child-rearing styles and the home
environment have been found to influence the development and learning of children
(Levin & Belfield, 2002; Pels & Nijsten, 2003). Parents from high socio-economic
milieus have been found to create a more school supportive child-rearing
environment. The manner in which the parents in such families function as a role
model, the manner in which the parents and children interact with each other and
the interests and activities of the parents outside of school all exert a positive
influence on the achievements of the children. Parents from high socio-economic
milieus are also simply more inclined and prepared than other parents to follow the
progress of their children and help their children with their homework. For these
reasons, the necessity of providing all parents with opportunities to get involved with

the school is continually emphasised. And with the call to increase parental
involvement among disadvantaged groups in particular, a strong claim is being
imposed on today’s schools (Epstein, 1995; Sanders & Epstein, 1998).
The effectiveness of the involvement
The results of various studies have shown increased involvement on the part of
parents in schools to positively affect the cognitive and social functioning of children
(Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Along these lines, Sanders and Epstein (1998) describe
the results of a number of intervention studies conducted in a number of different
countries. Activities such as parent workshops and home visits positively affected
the cognitive school achievement of pupils. The studies further show children’s
achievement to improve in the presence of intensive involvement of parents in
interventions in the family. These findings are in keeping with the experiences and
evaluations of educational compensation programmes developed and conducted in
the 1970s. And such insights have thus played an important role in the development
of modern stimulation programmes with a strong orientation towards the parents
and child within the family.
In addition to effects of increased parental involvement on the school achievement
of children, increased parental involvement has been found in a number of studies to
exert a positive effect on the social functioning of pupils. Improvements have been
found for different aspects of the behaviour of pupils, motivation, social competence,
relations between teachers and pupils and relations among the pupils themselves
(Jordan et al., 2001). Research has also shown increased parental involvement to
influence truancy behaviour, undertaking further education and level of aspiration.
In addition to the effects of parental involvement on the cognitive and social
development of children, studies have also shown changes in parents to occur as well
(Zeijl, 2003). Support from the school for the child-rearing climate within the family
has been found to lead to a more positive attitude towards the school on the part of
the parents and to changes in child-rearing behaviour (Tesser & Iedema, 2001). In
addition, positive connections have been found between parental involvement and
various school- and community-related outcome measures (Jordan et al., 2001).
Parental involvement has been found to correlate with the functioning of the school
organization and local community, for example. To the extent that parents are more
involved in a school, the more positive the climate in the school and the stronger the
orientation of the school towards the surrounding environment (i.e. the greater the
openness of the school). The involvement of parents has also been found to
influence the change capacity of schools and local communities, with more formal
forms of parental participation (Epstein’s type 5) and cooperation (type 6)
influencing schools and local communities the most.
While the aforementioned results make it plausible that parental involvement can
influence the cognitive and social development of children, there are also studies
which lead to a different conclusion. In a meta-analysis of 41 studies, for example,
Mattingly et al. (2002) found little empirical support for the claim that programmes

aimed at parental development constitute an effective means to improve the
achievement of pupils or change the behaviour of parents, teachers and pupils. In so
far as effects have been ascertained, moreover, the form of parental involvement
responsible for the effect and which specific aspects of the development of children
are affected still remain unclear. Information regarding the differential effects of
parental involvement on various pupil-related outcomes is virtually non-existent. In
short, prudence is called for when it comes to the drawing of general conclusions
regarding the effects of parental involvement on the learning and development of
children despite the presence of some empirical evidence indicating the importance
of parental involvement.
In the following, the results of an empirical study of the effects of different forms
of parental involvement on the competencies of primary school children will be
presented. Attention will be paid to different forms of both school-initiated and
parent-initiated parental involvement. As already indicated, the following two
questions stand central: (1) What relations exist between parental involvement and
the characteristics of parents, on the one hand, and the characteristics of schools, on
the other hand? (2) What relations exist between parental involvement and both the
social and cognitive capacities of children after any differences between the parents
and schools have been taken into consideration?
Method
Sample
The data analysed here come from the Dutch PRIMA (primary education) cohort
study. As part of this research project, data were collected on primary school pupils,
their parents, their teachers and the relevant school directorates every two years from
the 1994/95 school year with the aid of tests and questionnaires. The project
involved a total of 600 primary schools, which is almost 10% of the total number of
Dutch primary schools, and some 60,000 pupils in grades 2, 4, 6 and 8.2
In every
PRIMA measurement one or more themes stand central. In the present analyses, use
was made of the data collected in the third measurement point taking place in the
1998/99 school year. In this measurement one of the themes was ‘parental
involvement’. In the questionnaires developed for this purpose, explicit inquiries
were made about topics pertaining to various aspects of parental involvement. The
inclusion of variables within the PRIMA study was done from a largely eclectic,
empirical perspective based on a review of the literature with regard to ‘what works’
and what previous research has shown to be of relevance. This means that an
integrated theoretical model did not motivate the PRIMA study (Driessen et al.,
2000). However, the study does concern both school- and parent-initiated activities
and thereby contains some overlap with the distinctions employed by Epstein (1992)
but with an emphasis on the first four types of cooperative relations: child-rearing,
provision of information, informal school-support activities and supportive home
activities. For the present analyses, the information from the pupils in grade 8, their
parents and the relevant school directorates was used. The directorates of a total of

512 schools and approximately 12,000 pupils with their parents were thus involved
(for details, see Smit et al., 2002).
Variables
A brief description of the variables used in the present analyses is presented below.
In the presentation of the results, the specific operationalisation of the variables will
be considered in greater detail.
From the questionnaire administered to the school directorates, the following
questions with regard to school-initiated parental involvement were analysed:
N use of extra financial resources for parental contact;3
N means and strategies to realise good contact with parents;
N success of means and strategies used to realise good contact with parents;
N motives to pursue good contact with parents;
N the role of the parents in the school.
From the questionnaire administered to the parents of the eighth grade pupils, the
following questions with regard to parent-initiated involvement were analysed:
N help from parents with homework;
N parent–child relation with respect to school matters;
N leisure activities of child and parents;
N involvement in television-watching of child;
N rules at home and at school;
N choice of secondary education.
Information on the following pupil characteristics was also analysed:
N the social-ethnic background of the pupil (or the combination of socio-economic
milieu and ethnic origin) according to school records;
N cognitive measures, namely, standardised tests of language and mathematics skills
(developed by the Institute for Educational Measurement, Cito);
N non-cognitive measures of well-being, self-confidence and school-supportive
home climate as judged by the pupil’s teacher.4
Finally, the information on a number of school background characteristics was
analysed:
N degree of urbanisation;
N school size (number of pupils);
N school composition (pupil population in terms of percentages ethnic minority and
native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils).
Analyses
The school characteristics and the pupil characteristics, involving a combination of
socio-economic background and ethnic origin, are treated as background variables.

The language and mathematics scores of the pupils and teacher judgements of well-
being, self-confidence and school-supportive home climate are treated as outcome
measures. In the analyses, both the direct working of parental involvement on the
cognitive and non-cognitive criterion variables and the mediating working of
parental involvement on the relations between the background variables and
outcome variables are considered relevant. Given that the variables were not all
collected at the same level, the analyses will reflect these differences. The relations
between the background variables at the level of the school and the parental
involvement variables based on the directorate questionnaire will be described at the
level of the school. The relations between the parental involvement variables from
the parent questionnaire and the pupil characteristics will be described at the level of
the parent/pupil with school background serving as a context variable. Following an
initial description of the distributions of the parental involvement variables, the
relations of the school background variables to the parental involvement variables
and the parental involvement variables to the pupil outcome variables were
examined. Frequency analyses and analyses of variance were undertaken for this
purpose. Thereafter, structural model analysis was undertaken in an attempt to
capture the relations between all of the variables at once and thereby gain greater
insight into the independent contributions of the different variables.
Results
Aspects of parental involvement
In order to gain insight into the distribution of the different school and pupil
characteristics, a number of descriptive analyses were undertaken. The distributions
of the different parent involvement variables are presented in Table 1. The first four
blocks of school-initiated variables come from the directorate questionnaire. The
next eight blocks of parent-initiated variables come from the parent questionnaire for
the eighth graders included in the present study.
As can be seen from inspection of Table 1, 27% of the schools devoted a small
portion of extra financial resources to parental contact while 6% devoted a
considerable portion of such resources to parental contact.
Most of the schools (95%) devoted much or very much attention to ‘taking
parents seriously’, which included being available for parents to ask questions and
treating the complaints/desires of parents seriously. Much attention was also paid to
the ‘provision of information’ for parents: More than 70% of the schools devoted
much or very much attention to informing parents with regard to, for instance, the
behaviour of their child, the educational vision and rules at school. To a lesser
extent, attention was paid to ‘attachment of the parents to the school’ in the form of
stimulating parents to do something for the school and having other parents try to
activate parents: 40% of the schools indicated paying much or very much attention
to this aspect of parental involvement. The least amount of attention was paid to
‘improvement of contact with ethnic minority parents’. Given that this depends—as
we will see—on the percentage of ethnic minority disadvantaged children in the

Table 1. Distributions of parental involvement variables (in percentages)
1 2 3 4 5
School-initiated parental involvement
1. Use of extra financial resources for parent contact (15none,
25small part, 35considerable part)
67 27 6
2. Use of means and strategies to realise parent contact
(attention: 15none, 25little, 35moderate, 45much,
55very much; success: 15no, 25doubtful, 35yes)
N attention to provision of information to parents 0 1 31 64 5
N success of provision of information to parents 1 33 66
N attention to improve contact with ethnic-minority
parents
25 49 23 3 0
N success of improve contact with ethnic-minority
parents
31 59 11
N attention to attachment of parents to school 0 7 53 37 3
N success of attachment of parents to school 7 56 37
N attention to take parents seriously 1 0 4 64 31
N success of take parents seriously 2 13 84
3. Importance of good parent-school relations (15plays no role,
25incidental reason, 35main reason)
N improve achievement/well-being of children 1 14 86
N school needs parents 9 69 22
N school/parents gain better understanding of pupils 1 22 77
N connection to school, lower barriers to contact 0 19 81
4. Extent of parental contribution (15very minimal,
25minimal, 35moderate, 45strong, 55very strong)
0 7 26 56 11
Parent-initiated parental involvement
1. Help from parents with homework (15never,
25incidentally, 35regularly, 45(almost) always)
7 48 36 8
2. Parents ask for information with respect to school matters
(15no, 25sometimes, 35yes, 45definitely)
3 65 31 1
3. Leisure activities of family (15almost never,
25sometimes, 35regularly, 45often)
N play games at home 8 55 30 7
N go to museums, exhibitions, etc. 39 49 11 2
4. Involvement in child’s watching of television (15almost
never, 25sometimes, 35regularly, 45often)
4 39 45 12
5. Rules at home and at school (15no, 25sometimes, 35yes,
45definitely)
N teacher should be boss at school 8 29 45 17
N different and stricter rules are needed at
school than at home
20 44 29 7
N parents should know school rules exactly 4 12 60 23
N more is allowed at home than at school 26 46 23 6
6. Choice of school for secondary education (15never,
25incidentally, 35sometimes, 45definitely)
N talk with other parents about school choice 5 11 38 46
N use school selection list 30 24 21 26

school, 49% of the schools devoted only moderate attention to this aspect of parental
involvement and 23% much attention.
The success of the means and strategies used by the schools to realise good
contact with the parents in the eyes of the school directorates roughly parallels the
amount of attention devoted to the different means and strategies. However, closer
examination of the relations between the attention devoted to the different aspects of
parental involvement and the judgements of success show the devotion of attention
to particularly the ‘attachment of parents to the school’ and ‘improvement of contact
with ethnic minority parents’ to not constitute a guarantee for success. Only 37% of
the directorates with respect to the former and 11% with respect to the latter judged
the efforts of the school to be a success.
More than 75% of the schools selected improvement of the achievement and well-
being of the child, improved understanding of the child on the part of the school/
parents and improved attachment to the school as the main reasons to pursue good
contact with parents. The involvement of parents in helping-hand activities or tasks
was only an incidental reason for most of the schools to pursue good relations with
the parents.
For some 66% of the primary schools, the contribution of the parents was viewed
as strong or very strong.
With regard to the parent-initiated involvement variables, it can be seen that less
than half (44%) of the parents of the eighth grade pupils in the present study
regularly helped the pupil with his or her homework.
Almost 33% of the parents reported being definitely well informed with respect to
school matters involving their child while the majority reported being only
sometimes well informed.
More than 33% of the parents reported either regularly or frequently playing
games with the child in question. Visiting museums and other places where children
can learn things was not a popular leisure-time activity among parents: only 13% of
the parents reported regular/frequently doing this.
The majority of parents (57%) reported being actively involved in the television-
watching of their child, which could involve explanation of what is seen and/or
regulation of what is seen.
The majority of the parents thought that the teacher should be the boss at school
and that parents should know the rules which hold at school. About one-third of the
1 2 3 4 5
7. Actions in connection with school choice (15no, 25probably
not, 35perhaps, 45definitely)
N visit school open days with child 3 2 10 85
N assemble and compare information 9 13 37 41
8. Consider qualitative criteria to make school choice (15not at
all, 25not really, 35yes, 45very good)
7 38 49 6
Table 1. (Continued)

parents also thought that different/stricter rules are needed at school than at home
and that much more can be allowed at home than at school.
Finally, with respect to the choice of secondary education, almost 50% of the
parents spoke with other parents. Only 25% made definite use of the school selection
list which provides an overview of schools and their characteristics. The majority
(85%) of the parents reported that they definitely planned to visit school open days
with their child. The request of information and folders for school comparison was
undertaken by some 41% of the parents. And more than half (55%) of the parents
said they considered the quality of the school to be an important criterion for the
choice of secondary school or, stated conversely, almost half of the parents paid no
attention to this criterion whatsoever.
Relations between parental involvement, school background and pupil outcome variables
In order to gain some insight into the relations of the school-initiated and parent-
initiated parental involvement variables to the different background and outcome
variables, Pearson correlations were calculated. The results are presented in Table 2,
with correlations of .17 or higher presented in italic.
The following school background characteristics were distinguished: degree of
urbanisation, which could vary from (1) non-urban to (5) very strongly urban;
school size in terms of number of pupils; school composition in terms of the
percentage native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils; school composition in terms of the
percentage ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils; and the social-ethnic background
(SEB) of the parents with the categories of (1) low-educated Turkish or Moroccan
parents; (2) low-educated other ethnic minority parents; (3) low-educated native-
Dutch parents; (4) middle-level educated parents (vocational or other intermediate
level of education); or (5) high-educated parents (higher professional or university
educated).
Three non-cognitive and two cognitive pupil outcome variables were distin-
guished. The non-cognitive variables were based on teacher judgements of school-
supportive home climate, well-being and self-confidence for each of the pupils in the
class along a scale of (1) low to (5) high. The cognitive outcome variables were the
language and mathematics scores attained by the pupils on the standardised tests
from the Institute for Educational Measurement.
Inspection of the correlations in Table 2 shows the directorates of schools in large
urban areas to report the following relatively frequently: use of extra financial
resources for parental contact, attention to improved contact with minority parents
and moderate involvement of parents. The parents of the pupils attending schools in
such regions show a relatively greater tendency to use the school selection list and
attend to qualitative criteria for the choice of secondary school. Finally, the teacher
judgements of home climate and the language (and mathematics) scores for those
pupils in more urban areas were at a lower level than those for pupils in less urban
areas. Given the relatively high correlation between the degree of urbanisation and
percentage of ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils in a school (r5.58), it is not

Table 2. Correlations between school background, parental involvement and pupil outcome
variables
Degree
urban.
Size of
school
% Dutch
disadv.
% Minority
disadv.
SEB
School background characteristics
Degree of urbanisation 1.00 .38 2.16 .58 2.27
Size of school .38 1.00 2.15 .07 2.00
% ethnic-minority disadvantaged
pupils
2.16 2.15 1.00 2.21 2.09
% native-Dutch disadvantaged
pupils
.58 .07 2.21 1.00 2.49
Social-ethnic background (SEB) 2.27 2.00 2.09 2.49 1.00
1. Use of extra financial resources for
parent contact
.32 .15 2.02 .55
2. Use of means and strategies to
realise parent contact
N attention to provision of
information to parents
.13 2.00 2.01 .04
N success of provision of
2.09 2.03 2.06 2.14
N attention to improve contact
with ethnic-minority parents
.35 .10 2.04 .54
N success of improve contact
with ethnic-minority parents
.17 .09 2.12 .27
N attention to attachment of
parents to school
2.00 2.08 2.00 2.01
N success of attachment of
parents to school
2.17 2.05 2.08 2.31
N attention to take parents
seriously
.16 .02 2.01 .08
N success of take parents
seriously
.00 2.02 2.10 .01
3. Importance of good parent–school
relations
N improve achievement/well-
being of children
.11 2.01 2.03 .08
N school needs parents 2.05 2.06 .05 2.13
N school/parents gain better
understanding of pupils
.04 .04 2.02 .08
N connection to school, lower
barriers to contact
.01 2.03 2.03 .07
4. Extent of parental contribution 2.31 2.06 2.06 2.50
1. Help from parents with homework .00 .00 .09 2.03 2.00
2. Parents ask for information with
respect to school matters
.06 .01 .00 .07 2.05

surprising that the foregoing conclusions also largely hold for schools with a
relatively large percentage of minority pupils. Neither the size of the school nor the
percentage of native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils correlated sufficiently with any of
the parental involvement or pupil outcome variables to be considered relevant.
The correlations between the social-ethnic background (SEB) of the parents
measured at the level of the individual and the parental involvement variables
measured at the level of the school are not presented in Table 2 (see last column)
because the SEB variable cannot be construed as a background variable at the
level of the school. For social-ethnic background, thus, only the relations to the
Degree
urban.
Size of
school
% Dutch
disadv.
% Minority
disadv.
SEB
3. Leisure activities of family
N play games at home 2.05 2.03 2.00 2.06 .08
N go to museums, exhibitions,
etc.
.01 .01 2.11 2.04 .19
4. Involvement in child’s watching of
television
.05 .02 2.07 .07 .05
5. Rules at home and at school
N teacher should be boss at
school
2.01 2.01 .00 .00 2.00
N different and stricter rules
are needed at school than at
home
.07 .02 .03 .12 2.14
N parents should know school
rules exactly
.11 .03 .01 .12 2.09
N more is allowed at home
than at school
.09 .05 .01 .10 2.08
6. Choice of school for secondary
education
N talk with other parents about
school choice
2.04 .04 2.06 2.13 .17
N use school selection list .21 .07 2.05 .19 2.12
7. Actions in connection with school
choice
N visit open school days with
child
2.07 .05 2.00 2.16 .19
N assemble and compare
information
.15 .07 2.07 .09 2.00
8. Consider qualitative criteria to
make school choice
.18 .05 2.02 .24 2.20
Pupil outcome variables
School-supportive home climate 2.17 2.00 2.08 2.28 .43
Language scores 2.19 .01 2.02 2.32 .41
Mathematics scores 2.13 .02 2.03 2.22 .31
Well-being .02 .01 2.06 .00 .05
Self-confidence 2.00 .00 2.07 2.00 .08

parent-initiated parental involvement variables and pupil outcome variables are
considered of importance and indeed measured at the same level. High-educated
parents go to museums, talk with other parents about the choice of secondary
education and visit school open days with their child relatively more often than other
parents but attend to qualitative criteria during the choice of secondary school
relatively less than other parents. The latter is rather remarkable but probably due to
the fact that high-educated parents may leave the choice of school up to the child
more and possibly listen to what other parents have to say about certain schools
more. Finally, the teacher judgements of a school-supportive home climate, the
language achievement and the mathematics achievement of pupils were found to be
associated with a higher SEB level.
Relations between parental involvement and pupil outcome variables
Given large differences with respect to parental involvement across schools, it is
important to determine whether the differences in parental involvement also lead to
differences in the achievement, home climate, well-being and self-confidence of the
children. For each of the parental involvement variables, we therefore determined
whether the relation to the pupil outcome variables was linear or not. All of the
relevant relations appeared to be virtually linear: the deviations between eta and the
Pearson r were typically no larger than .03 or .04. We can also assume that Pearson
correlations of almost 0 point to no real relation and thus no linear relation. The
variables which refer to the ‘success of a strategy to foster parental involvement’
(according to the school directorate) were not included in any further analyses as we
wanted to determine the success of a strategy on the basis of actual pupil outcome
variables and not the subjective and possibly unspecific criteria used by school
directors.
In Table 3, the correlations between the different parental involvement and pupil
outcome variables are presented. Inspection of the left side of the table suggests a
number of significant but not particularly strong (r5¡.20) correlations and thereby
a number of possibly relevant effects. This is simply appearance, however, as the
majority of the correlations are spurious—that is, correlations which cannot be
interpreted as independent effects. Such a correlation can emerge when the parental
involvement variables and an outcome variable strongly correlate with a third
(causally prior) variable—in this case, a school background characteristic. In such a
manner, the school background characteristic ‘percentage ethnic minority dis-
advantaged pupils’ negatively correlates with both ‘the extent of parental
contribution’ (r52.50) and language scores (r52.32; see Table 2). The product
of these two correlations is approximately the size of the spurious correlation caused
by this structure. From the correlation between ‘the extent of parental contribution’
* language scores (r5.21, see Table 3), only a correlation of .21—(2.50 *232)5.06
thus remains as the direct effect of ‘the extent of parental contribution’ after control
for the percentage of ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils. Partial correlations
representing the correlations between the parental involvement variables and pupil

Table 3. Correlations and partial correlations between parental involvement and pupil outcome
variables
Correlations Partial correlations
Home Lang Math Well Self Home Lang Math Well Self
Pupil outcome variables
School-supportive home
climate
1.00 .38 .34 .38 .23
Language scores .38 1.00 .56 .12 .21
Mathematics scores .34 .56 1.00 .14 .30
Well-being .38 .12 .14 1.00 .40
Self-confidence .24 .22 .30 .40 1.00
1. Use of extra financial
resources for parent contact
2.15 2.21 2.15 .02 .00 .02 2.02 2.03 .03 .02
2. Use of means and strategies
to realise parent contact
N attention to provision of
2.02 2.02 2.04 .00 2.02 2.01 2.01 2.04 .00 2.02
N attention to improve
contact with ethnic-
minority parents
2.18 2.22 2.16 .01 2.02 .01 2.00 2.02 .02 2.00
N attention to attachment
of parents to school
.00 2.02 2.03 .01 2.00 2.00 2.02 2.03 .01 2.00
N attention to take
parents seriously
2.04 2.04 2.03 .03 .00 2.00 2.00 2.00 .03 .01
3. Importance of good parent-
school relations
N improve achievement/
well-being of children
.03 2.03 2.02 .04 .01 .08 .02 .00 .03 .01
N school needs parents .06 .04 .00 .01 2.02 .03 .00 2.02 .01 2.02
N school/parents gain
better understanding
of pupils
2.00 2.04 2.02 .03 2.02 .02 2.00 2.00 .03 2.01
N connection to school,
lower barriers to
contact
2.01 2.05 2.06 .03 2.02 .00 2.03 2.04 .03 2.02
4. Extent of parental
contribution
.22 .21 .14 .02 .03 .05 .02 .01 .00 .00
1. Help from parents with
homework
.00 2.12 2.21 2.04 2.12 .01 2.14 2.21 2.03 2.11
2. Parents ask for information
with respect to school matters
.04 2.01 2.02 .05 .00 .07 .02 2.00 .05 .01
3. Leisure activities of family
N play games at home .12 .03 .06 .03 .00 .09 2.00 .03 .02 .00
N go to museums,
exhibitions, etc.
.18 .13 .10 .04 .05 .10 .06 .05 .03 .02

criterion variables when all of the school background characteristics have been
controlled for are presented on the right side of Table 3.
Inspection of the right side of Table 3 shows only a direct, positive effect of
‘talking with other parents about the choice of secondary education’ on ‘school-
supportive home climate’ and a negative effect of ‘help from parents with homework’
on ‘math achievement’ for the eighth grade pupils studied here. The latter finding
should be interpreted with caution as it could mean that helping children with
mathematics homework negatively influences their achievement independent of the
social or school context—which seems unlikely. The position of this parental
involvement variable within the present model should be questioned as it is even
more possible that children who are already experiencing problems with mathe-
matics are more likely to receive help from their parents but to little or no avail and
that they still lag behind. It appears that the variable ‘help from parents with
homework’ may only be done justice within a dynamic model which captures the
cyclic nature of the influence of various factors.
Correlations Partial correlations
Home Lang Math Well Self Home Lang Math Well Self
4. Involvement in child’s
watching of TV
.08 .04 .03 .02 .00 .07 .04 .03 .01 2.01
5. Rules at home and at school
N teacher should be boss
at school
.03 2.00 .02 .01 .02 .03 .00 .02 .01 .02
N different and stricter
rules are needed at
school than at home
2.08 2.08 2.05 2.02 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.00 2.01 2.00
N parents should know
school rules exactly
2.05 2.05 2.04 2.01 2.02 2.00 2.00 2.01 2.00 2.01
N more is allowed at
home than at school
2.08 2.02 2.02 2.01 2.00 2.04 .01 .00 2.01 2.00
6. Choice of school for second-
ary education
N talk with other parents
about school choice
.25 .14 .12 .05 .02 .19 .06 .07 .04 .00
N use school selection list 2.04 2.10 2.06 .01 2.02 .01 2.04 2.01 .00 2.01
7. Actions in connection with
school choice
N visit open school days
with child
.23 .14 .12 .05 .03 .16 .05 .05 .04 .02
N assemble and compare
information
2.01 2.02 2.04 2.00 2.04 2.00 2.01 2.03 2.01 2.04
8. Consider qualitative criteria
to make school choice
2.13 2.12 2.08 2.00 2.02 2.04 2.01 2.01 .00 2.00

An integrated analysis
Some relevant relations can be seen to exist between various parental involvement
variables. If we should want to take these relations into consideration in the
determination of the independent effects of the variables, then structural modelling
can be undertaken in which the effects of all variables are estimated all at once. With
the aid of LISREL, such modelling was undertaken with ‘degree of urbanisation’
entered as a prior predictor of the other school background characteristics. Degree of
urbanisation is thus treated as a contextual feature underlying the other school
characteristics and socio-economic backgrounds of the pupils. ‘School-supportive
home climate’ is similarly treated as a predictor of pupil achievement, well-being and
self-confidence but following the other parental involvement variables. It is thus
proposed that the influence of parental involvement on cognitive and non-cognitive
pupil results occurs not only directly but also indirectly via a more school-supportive
home climate (cf. note 4). Given that the present analysis led to only minimal
differences with respect to the correlation analyses for which the results have been
reported above, the discussion of the structural modelling results will be brief.
The most important direct effects involved the percentage of ethnic minority
disadvantaged pupils and native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils in relation to the
school-initiated parental involvement characteristics discussed above. Most of the
relevant relations also occurred independent of differences in the degree of
urbanisation. The only direct effect on pupil achievement involved the social-ethnic
background of the family. An indirect effect of social-ethnic background was also
seen to occur via school-supportive home climate. The fact that the percentage of
ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils—for example—does not directly influence
pupil achievement does not imply no relation whatsoever; such a relation clearly
exists but via the social-ethnic background of the families. Schools in urban areas are
again found to consider taking parents seriously and the provision of information to
parents to be important. And they cite improved pupil achievement and well-being
as the main reason for having good contact with parents. The most important
finding here is thus the result of no direct effect of parental involvement on the
achievement, well-being or self-confidence of the pupils with the exception of the
previously described, dubious negative effect of help from parents with homework
on the language and mathematics achievement of pupils. The only direct effect of
parental involvement was on home climate and the only indirect effects were on
pupil achievement, well-being and self-confidence. Parents who talk with other
parents regarding the choice of secondary education were found to have a more
school-supportive home climate and thereby foster greater achievement, well-being
and confidence on the parts of their children.
Summary and discussion
In this contribution, data from the PRIMA cohort study were analysed with respect
to a number of aspects of parental involvement. More specifically, the relations
between three types of information were examined: a number of (contextual) school

background variables, a series of parental involvement variables and a number of
cognitive and non-cognitive pupil outcome variables. With respect to parental
involvement, a distinction was made between school-initiated and parent-initiated
involvement. School-initiated parental involvement included: the use of extra
financial resources on behalf of parental contact, the use of various means and
strategies to realise good contact with parents, the importance attached to the
pursuit of good contact with parents and the degree of parental involvement in the
school. Parent-initiated parental involvement included: help from parents with
homework, parental inquiry about school matters, availability of so-called cultural
capital such as visiting museums, pedagogical rules and aspects of secondary-school
choice.
The main objective of the present analyses was to examine the direct effects of
parental involvement on the pupil outcome variables and their mediating effects on
the relations between the background characteristics and pupil outcome variables.
The background characteristics included the school characteristics degree of
urbanisation, school size, percentage of ethnic minority disadvantaged pupils,
percentage of native-Dutch disadvantaged pupils, and the pupil characteristic social-
ethnic origin of the pupils. The pupil outcome variables included: language and
mathematics achievement, well-being, self-confidence and school-supportive home
climate. After an initial description of the distributions of the parental involvement
variables, the relations of the school background characteristics to the parental
involvement variables and pupil outcome variables were next presented. Thereafter,
the relations between the parental involvement variables and pupil outcome
variables were analysed. Structural modelling was then undertaken in order to
represent the relations between the different variables all at once and thereby gain
insight into the independent contributions of the different variables.
The most important finding was that particularly those schools with a high
percentage of ethnic minority pupils devoted considerable extra attention to parental
involvement and also considered this to be quite useful while a direct effect of all the
activities considered in this study could not be demonstrated. The latter does not
mean that no effects occurred whatsoever: It is possible that certain effects occurred
but could not be substantiated using the present data. It is indeed true that schools
with numerous ethnic minority pupils consider the involvement of parents to be very
important and devote considerable time and effort to this but with little or no
success. In exactly these schools, parents are found to play little or no role. In
predominantly ‘white’ schools, in contrast, parents are found to play a considerable
role. It is therefore very possible that a direct effect of parental involvement within
the context of the present study cannot be demonstrated—that is, parental
involvement has a strong ethnic component.
The opinions and visions of teachers and parents with regard to the education of
children and parental involvement differ drastically and are culturally determined
(Lo´pez et al., 2001). Obviously, such opinions and visions shape the manner and
extent to which teachers and parents cooperate with each other (Lasky, 2000). When
the operation of such factors is recognised, it is easier to understand why parents

from many ethnic minority groups are not prepared to become more active or
involved in the schools of their children (Boethel, 2003). The school for such parents
often constitutes a foreign place, a place where they do not feel at home and a place
where they think they do not belong, which means that such parents may remain on
the sidelines as a result (Driessen & Valkenberg, 2000; Vincent & Martin, 2002).
The undeniable fact that families from these social groups can benefit from
cooperation with the school makes critical consideration of the roles of teachers and
schools today of utmost importance.
Educational partnership presupposes mutual respect, shared interests and open
communication between parents, teachers and the school. Educational partnership
is the process in which partners aim to strengthen and support each others’ skills in
order to produce results which signify an improvement for the children involved.
Such a partnership also presupposes a real interest in the cultural and social diversity
of child-rearing situations and educational opinions demonstrated across parents.
Tensions can arise between teachers, schools and parents particularly when parents
have different opinions with regard to what constitutes adequate support for their
school-going children. For this reason, Epstein (1995), Sanders and Epstein (1998)
and Levin and Belfield (2002) all plea for a partnership which includes all parents,
schools and local communities. In order to realise such an all-inclusive partnership, a
number of measures can be undertaken.
To realise an all-inclusive educational partnership, it is essential that parents be
given support with the design and improvement of their child-rearing practices. As
indicated in the preceding discussion, there are considerable differences in child-
rearing style and home climate which can clearly influence children’s development
and learning (Driessen, 2003). In recognition of the positive influence of a school-
supportive child-rearing environment on the development of children, Levin and
Belfield (2002) suggest that a so-called metaphorical contract should be entered into
by parents and schools. In their view such a metaphorical contract is not just a
contract in the formal sense, but contains an attempt to encapsulate comprehen-
sively the various good practices that parents would need to pursue a high chance of
educational success for their children.5
The thought behind this is that both the
parents and schools are then obligated to actually change the relevant family and
school practices to meet the terms of the agreement. In order to facilitate the relevant
change process, three complementary strategies can then be distinguished: the
provision of information (e.g. information on good practices, things not to do), the
provision of family assistance (e.g. home help, skill training) and the provision of
external support (e.g. with work, health care, pre-school education, tutoring).
Entrance into such a contractual partnership requires commitment on the parts of
both the parents and the school although such a contract is primarily intended to
help parents with the establishment of a more ‘school-supportive’ climate within the
home. Of course, Levin and Belfield are aware of the many problems that
accompany the implementation of such contracts. This particularly applies to ethnic
minority and low-income families where there is a lack of social, cultural and
material resources that are required by schools that operate from a white middle-

class perspective (Driessen, 2002; Vincent & Martin, 2002). And it is especially in
these situations that the power imbalances between parents and schools will show,
not only because of the ‘normal’ professional versus layperson difference, but maybe
more because of highly divergent norms and values. Still, Levin and Belfield are
rather optimistic as to the eventual success of their metaphorical contracts because
they believe that parents, schools and the larger society have a deep interest in the
success of the children in both school and in life. What is needed is that all parties
concerned will be convinced of the role they play in this success and good
communication is imperative to this.
It has also been shown to be important for teachers to have a number of strategies
for dealing with a heterogeneous sociocultural population before they enter into
cooperative relations with parents. For this purpose, continuing education and
support are absolutely necessary. More than is now the case, teacher training should
also include attention to the knowledge, insight and skills needed to successfully
cooperate with groups of parents from very different sociocultural backgrounds.
Within the schools themselves, the different desires and interests of parents should
also be taken more into consideration. The school itself should work more actively
on the attainment of greater insight into parental desires and interests which may or
may not be raised explicitly by the parents themselves. The extent to which such
efforts successfully activate the more reticent (or less involved) parents strongly
depends on the extent to which these same groups of parents are approached and
treated as serious educational partners. In addition, the extent to which the already
more actively involved parents are willing to give shape to the different forms of
parental involvement in interaction with ethnic minority and low-educated parents
will play a critical role. It is essential that the diversity of desires and interests among
parents be recognised, as such recognition provides the basis for the dialogue which
can then lead to consensus. In such a manner, it is possible to develop an integrated
and systematic approach to parental involvement at the level of the school. And from
such a perspective, a clear shift can be elicited from a request situation—in which
parents are occasionally called upon to lend a helping hand and schools occasionally
help parents at home—to an interaction situation—in which teachers, parents and
schools exchange ideas as equals with regard to the education and development of
children and pupils.
With the aid of the aforementioned measures, the cooperation between parents,
teachers and schools can presumably be improved in such a manner that all children
benefit from it. Along these lines, the partnership between schools and parents
should constitute an effective strategy for diminishing the differences between social
groups and not become simply rhetoric and thereby mask already existing
differences.
Acknowledgements
The data for the present article come from a study commissioned by the Netherlands
Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). A complete report of this study can be

found in Smit et al. (2002). The authors would like to thank J. Doesborgh for his
help with the statistical analyses.
Notes
1. In the Netherlands, the constitutional freedom to found schools, to organise them and to
determine the principles they are based upon is the cause of the wide variety of schools.
Parents are also free to choose a school that best fits their preferences. All schools, public and
private, are entitled to equal funding by the government. With regard to primary schools, the
most sizable denominations are the public (i.e. non-religious), Protestant Christian, and
Roman Catholic with 34%, 30% and 30% of the population, respectively. In addition, there
are 16 other denominations, such as the Islamic, the Hindu, the Jena Plan, and the Montessori
(cf. Driessen & Van der Slik, 2001).
2. Dutch primary schools are for 4- to 12-year-olds and consist of 8 years. In the first two grades
play takes up a central place; in the third grade formal instruction in reading, mathematics and
writing starts. After the last year, the eighth grade, the pupils move on to secondary school.
3. Within the Dutch Educational Priority Programme ethnic minority children and children of
native-Dutch low-educated parents are the main target groups. Schools with high numbers of
these children are given extra financial resources to improve the children’s educational
position. The schools are free to spend the money according to their own priorities (cf.
Driessen, 2000).
4. The position of the variable ‘school-supportive home climate’ is open to discussion. The
teacher judgements with regard to this variable were initially treated as an outcome measure,
but there are good reasons to treat this variable as a mediating factor, which is exactly what is
done in the final structural analysis.
5. This deviates from the signed home–school agreements that have been required from all
schools in England and Wales since 1999. Research has shown little support for the
government’s view that such formal home–school agreements will provide a framework for
improved partnership between parents and schools (Hood, 2001).
References
Boethel, M. (2003) Diversity: school, family and community connections. Annual synthesis 2003
(Austin, TX, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory).
Chrispeels, J. (1996) Effective schools and home–school–community partnership roles: a
framework for parent involvement, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 297–324.
Denessen, E., Driessen, G., Smit, F. & Sleegers, P. (2001) Culture differences in education:
implications for parental involvement and educational policies, in: F. Smit, K. van der Wolf
& P. Sleegers (Eds) A bridge to the future (Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm
Instituut).
Driessen, G. (2000) The limits of educational policy and practice? The case of ethnic minority
pupils in the Netherlands, Comparative Education, 36, 55–72.
Driessen, G. (2002) Ethnicity, forms of capital, and educational achievement, International Review
of Education, 47, 513–538.
Driessen, G. (2003) Family and child characteristics, child-rearing factors, and cognitive
competence of young children, Early Child Development and Care, 173, 323–339.
Driessen, G. & Valkenberg, P. (2000) Islamic schools in the Netherlands: compromising between
identity and quality? British Journal of Religious Education, 23, 15–26.
Driessen, G. & Van der Slik, F. (2001) Religion, denomination, and education in the Netherlands:
cognitive and noncognitive outcomes after an era of secularization, Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 40, 561–572.

Driessen, G., Van Langen, A. & Vierke, H. (2000) Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag, Leerlinggegevens
en Oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage Prima-cohortonderzoek. Derde Meting 1998/99
(Nijmegen, ITS).
Epstein, J. (1987) Toward a theory of family–school connections: teacher practices and parent
involvement, in: K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufman & F. Losel (Eds) Social intervention: potential
and constraints (New York, Walter de Gruyter).
Epstein, J. (1992) School and family partnerships, in: M. Aiken (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of Educational
Research (New York, Macmillan).
Epstein, J. (1995) School/family/community partnerships: caring for the children we share, Phi
Delta Kappan, May, 701–712.
Epstein, J. (2001) School, family, and community partnerships: preparing educators and improving
schools (Boulder, CO, Westview).
Epstein, J. & Sanders, M. (2000) Connecting home, school, and community: new directions for
social research, in: M. Hallinan (Ed.) Handbook of the sociology of education (New York,
Kluwer).
Fowler, C. & Klebs Corley, R. (1996) Linking families: building community, Educational
Leadership, 53, 24–26.
Goldring, E. & Sullivan, A. (1996) Beyond the boundaries: principals, parents and communities
shaping the school environment, in: K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger
& A. Hart (Eds) International handbook of educational leadership and administration
(Dordrecht/New York, Kluwer).
Hall, E. & Santer, J. (2000) Building relationships with parents: lessons in time and space from
two research projects, paper presented at the annual ECER conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Henderson, A. & Mapp, K. (2002) A new wave of evidence: the impact of school, family, and
community connections on student achievement. Annual synthesis 2002 (Austin, TX, Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory).
Hood, S. (2001) Home–school agreements: a true partnership? School Leadership & Management,
21, 7–17.
Jencks, C. & Mayer, S. (1990) The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood, in:
L. Lynn Jr. & M. McGeary (Eds) Inner-city poverty in the United States (Washington, DC,
National Academy Press).
Jordan, C., Orozco, E. & Averett, A. (2001) Emerging issues in school, family and community
connections. Annual synthesis 2001 (Austin, TX, Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory).
Levin, H. & Belfield, C. (2002) Families as contractual partners in education. Occasional Paper
No. 44. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Available online
at: http://www.ncspe.org/.
Lasky, S. (2000) The cultural and emotional politics of teacher–parent interactions, Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16, 843–860.
Lo´pez, G., Scribner, J. & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001) Redefining parental involvement: lessons
from high-performing migrant-impacted schools, American Educational Research Journal, 38,
253–288.
Lueder, D. (1998) Creating partnerships with parents: an educator’s guide (Lancaster, Technomic
Publishing).
Matttingly, D., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T., Rodriguez, J. & Kayzar, B. (2002) Evaluating
evaluations: the case of parent involvement programs, Review of Educational Research, 72,
549–576.
McNamara, O., Hustler, D., Stronach, I., Rodrigo, M., Beresford, E. & Botcherby, S. (2000)
Room to manoeuvre: mobilising the active partner in home–school relationships, British
Educational Research Journal, 26, 473–489.
Pels, T. & Nijsten, C. (2003) Myths and realities of diversity in parenting and parent–child
relations: a comparison of indigenous and non-indigenous families in the Netherlands, in:

L. Hagendoorn, J. Veenman & W. Vollebergh (Eds) Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands:
cultural versus socio-economic integration (Aldershot, Ashgate).
Phtiaka, H. (1994) Each to his own? Home–school relations in Cyprus, paper presented at the
annual British Education Research Association conference, Oxford.
Rossi, R. & Montgomery, A. (Eds) (1994) Educational reforms and students at risk: a review of the
current state of the art (Washington, DC, US Department of Education).
Sanders, M. & Epstein, J. (1998) School–family–community partnerships and educational change:
international perspectives, in: A. Hargreaves, M. Lieberman, M. Fallon & D. Hoplcins
(Eds) International handbook of educational change (New York/Dordrecht, Kluwer).
Scheerens, J. & Bosker, R. (1997) The foundations of educational effectiveness (Oxford, Elsevier
Science).
Sleegers, P. & Smit, F. (2001) De relatie tussen school en ouders: ervaringen met formele
ouderparticipatie, Handboek Schoolorganisatie en Onderwijsmanagement (Alphen a/d Rijn,
Samsom/H.D. Tjeenk Willink).
Smit, F., Driessen, G. & Doesborgh, J. (2002) Ouders en Educatieve Voorzieningen (Nijmegen,
ITS).
Smit, F., Moerel, H. & Sleegers, P. (1999) Experiments with the role of parents in primary
education in the Netherlands, in: F. Smit, H. Moerel, K. van der Wolf & P. Sleegers (Eds)
Building bridges between home and school (Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm
Instituut).
Smit, F., Van der Wolf, K. & Sleegers, P. (2001) A bridge to the future: collaboration between parents,
schools and communities (Nijmegen/Amsterdam, ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut).
Tesser, P. & Iedema, J. (2001) Rapportage Minderheden 2001. Deel I. Vorderingen op School (Den
Haag, SCP).
Todd, E. & Higgins, S. (1998) Powerlessness in professional and parent partnerships, British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 19, 227–236.
Vincent, C. & Martin, J. (2002) Class, culture and agency: researching parental voice, Discourse,
23, 109–128.
Vincent, C. & Tomlinson, S. (1997) Home–school relationships: the swarming of disciplinary
mechanisms, British Educational Research Journal, 18, 361–379.
Vogels, R. (2002) Ouders bij de Les. Betrokkenheid van Ouders bij de School van hun Kind (Den Haag,
SCP).
Zeijl, E. (Ed) (2003) Rapportage Jeugd 2002 (Den Haag, SCP).
View publication statsView publication stats

Parental involvement and educational achievement, Geert Driessen, Frederik Smit and Peter Sleegers

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Parental involvement and educational achievement, Geert Driessen, Frederik Smit and Peter Sleegers

Similar to Parental involvement and educational achievement, Geert Driessen, Frederik Smit and Peter Sleegers (20)

More from Frederik Smit

More from Frederik Smit (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Parental involvement and educational achievement, Geert Driessen, Frederik Smit and Peter Sleegers