Keywords

6.1 Introduction

Parental involvement has been a fundamental component of early childhood programs for decades.Footnote 1 The founding of the Head Start preschool program in the 1960s brought widespread attention to the importance of developing and implementing comprehensive family services that benefit parents personally and professionally and that foster children’s well-being. Engaging parents in meaningful relationships with their child’s schools also provides the context for ensuring that learning gains are sustained. As noted by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1974), a member of Head Start’s planning committee, “the involvement of the child’s family as an active participant is critical to the success of any intervention program [without which gains] erode fairly rapidly” (p. 17).

Since the early years of preschool expansion across the nation, however, the curricular and educational components of early education have become predominant, such that most state- and school-district-funded programs today provide few if any direct resources for parental involvement. Although cost is a factor, as the goal of public programs is to scale up to the entire population (O’Connell et al., 2009), this trend is inconsistent with evidence that the most effective programs include strong family components and demonstrate high economic returns into adulthood (Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, 1983; Schweinhart et al., 2005; Reynolds & Temple, 2019; Reynolds et al., 2017).

6.2 Parental Involvement in Early Education: The Child-Parent Center Model

This chapter describes the Child-Parent Center (CPC) program model that includes a sustainable school infrastructure to support productive family engagement across the early childhood years (ages 3–9). Longitudinal research evaluating the CPC illustrates how parent engagement in early childhood contributes to a variety of life course outcomes, including academic success and better adult health, reflected in data from two major studies: the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS) and Midwest Longitudinal Study (MLS) (Reynolds, 1999; Chicago Longitudinal Study, 2005; Reynolds et al., 2014; Reynolds et al., 2016a).

6.2.1 The Child-Parent Center (CPC) Program

The Child-Parent Center (CPC) program is a center-based early intervention that began in 1967 to provide high-quality educational and family-support services to young children. CPC centers primarily serve children from preschool through third grade in Chicago public schools with high concentrations of economically disadvantaged students. In 2012, the Chicago CPC model was expanded to four school districts in mid-western cities of the United States: Chicago, Evanston, and Normal, Illinois, and St. Paul, Minnesota. The expansion program was targeted towards more than 2500 children from preschool through third grade across 26 schools in these four school districts.

The CPC model begins with comprehensive early intervention including health and social services, with program continuity that links and aligns the preschool and early school-age years. CPC places a strong focus on six core elements: collaborative leadership teams, effective learning experiences, aligned curriculum and practices, parent involvement, professional development, and continuity and stability (Reynolds et al., 2016a; Reynolds et al., 2019b). Rather than only prescribing a specific set of intervention strategies like other programs featured in this volume, the CPC model involves structural changes in school design and staffing to support dynamic and community-informed activities that strengthen family engagement and align home and school learning supports. The program also requires the implementation of an array of child- and teacher-directed instructional activities as well family support behaviors in school, at home, and in the community (Reynolds et al., 2016a).

As shown in Fig. 6.1, the centers provide comprehensive services under the direction of a head teacher and in collaboration with the elementary school principal. Each center also includes on their staff a parent resource teacher, a school-community representative, classroom teachers and aides, nurses, speech therapists, and school psychologists. The major rationale of the program is that the foundation for school success is facilitated (a) by the presence of a stable and enriched learning environment during the entire early childhood period (ages 3–9) and (b) when parents are active participants in their children’s education. Service continuity from preschool into kindergarten and the primary grades is emphasized to increase and sustain learning gains (Fig. 6.1).

Fig. 6.1
figure 1

Chicago Child-Parent Center program

Full size image

6.2.2 CPC Parent Engagement Component

The CPC model emphasizes the role of family members in supporting a child’s learning, achievement, and readiness for school (Hayakawa & Reynolds, 2016). Parent involvement and engagement (terms used interchangeably in this chapter) is one of the six key CPC program elements. Therefore, the program makes substantial efforts to involve parents in the education of their children, with guidelines encouraging at least 2.5 hours per week of parental activities in support of the child’s learning (Reynolds, Hayakawa et al., 2016). There are four central features of the parent engagement element in the CPC model as described below.

First, a school site must have a parent resource room, which is a specific room solely dedicated for activities that support parent engagement. These activities include parent interactions, meetings with program staff, and hosting parent classes on topics ranging from nutritional education to learning financial skills, among others. Second, a school site should have specific, dedicated personnel to support parent engagement, including a parent resource teacher and a school-community representative. These staff members are employed by the school site to plan parent engagement activities and facilitate community outreach efforts to assist in engaging families at school and home. Third, a school site needs to provide ample, diverse parent engagement opportunities for parents and families that span across the following six content areas: (1) school involvement; (2) child development and parenting; (3) language, math, and science; (4) healthy, safety, and nutrition; (5) education, career, and personal development; and (6) field experiences and community resources. Lastly, the parent engagement activities provided by schools should reflect needs expressed by the families. By focusing on creating supportive school infrastructure and personnel to support parent engagement, CPC seeks to create programming that is dynamic and responsive to local school, community, and family needs and resources.

6.2.3 Evidence Documenting the Positive Impact of the CPC Model on Child Outcomes

Evidence documenting the positive long-term benefits of the CPC comes from two longitudinal studies. The Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS) is an ongoing longitudinal study with 1539 participants born in 1979 to 1980 (93% African American). The study included children who participated in the CPC program in 1983–1984 and a matched comparison group that was not part of CPC. The study has had multiple collection waves since that time point, with the most recent large data collection effort completed in 2017. The Midwest Longitudinal Study (MLS) began once the CPC program was extended into the Midwest through the Midwest Child-Parent Center (MCPC) Expansion Project, including more cities in Illinois and Minnesota (see below). The MLS includes more than 3000 participants who enrolled in CPC programs in 2012. The goals of both the CLS and MLS are to examine the effectiveness of the CPC centers, examine early predictors of life course outcomes, and examine the extent to which long-term effects of the CPC program map onto two different cohorts.

The role of parent engagement in promoting the efficacy of early education programs has been well documented through the CLS (Reynolds & Shlafer, 2010). Children who participated in the CPC preschool program have shown better educational performance and social behaviors compared to children who attended an existing preschool program available in the neighborhood (Reynolds et al., 2001; Reynolds et al., 2018). Table 6.1 shows the common types of parental involvement and engagement activities in the CPC program and example indicators. Involvement in school and learning (e.g., help with homework, communication with school and teachers) is a prominent focus in the CPC program.

Table 6.1 Common types of parent involvement in CPC and relevant indicators
Full size table

Table 6.2 summarizes program impacts on life-course outcomes from the CLS, most of which have cost savings to families and society. Compared to the usual early childhood experiences available in the participating cities, CPC program graduates have greater school readiness skills in kindergarten, lower rates of later child maltreatment and need for school remediation, lower rates of juvenile and adult arrest (court records), higher levels of educational attainment, and higher income in adulthood. These impacts are of practical significance. For example, rates of child maltreatment, grade repetition, and special education for program graduates by age 18 were lower by 51%, 40%, and 41%, respectively (Reynolds & Ou, 2011; Reynolds et al., 2001).

Table 6.2 Proportion of the Chicago CPC preschool and comparison group participants achieving school and social competence
Full size table

Data from these studies also document the fidelity of implementation of the parent engagement components of the CPC model across sites and the corresponding positive impact of the model on rates of parent engagement. In both Chicago and St. Paul public school districts (MCPC expansion project districts), CPC classrooms were more likely to include more of the site and staffing configurations designed to enhance parent engagement compared to non-CPC classrooms (e.g., parent resource room, parent resource teacher, school-community representative, and parent engagement opportunities in six content areas). In the Chicago school district, CPC classrooms met, on average, 3.5 out of 4 recommended indicators of implementation fidelity, whereas non-CPC classrooms met 0.2 out of 4. In the St. Paul school district, CPC classrooms met, on average, 2.1 out of 4 recommended implementation fidelity indicators compared to non-CPC classrooms which met 0.0 out of 4. Parents were significantly more likely to attend parent engagement events in schools that implemented 3 or more of recommended implementation fidelity indicators (Reynolds et al., 2019c). In addition, students who had more involved parents were more likely to meet the national norms of school readiness assessment than students with less engaged parents (Reynolds et al., 2019c). Similarly, program evaluation studies done in the Chicago and St. Paul districts showed that CPC program participants recorded higher levels of parent involvement on both teachers’ ratings of parent participation and parents’ rating of their own involvement in the school when compared to the comparison group (Varshney et al., 2020; Reynolds et al., 2016b). The next sections consider the mechanisms of action in CPC and how the enhancement of parent engagement may have its long-term benefits for children.

6.3 Parental Engagement as a Mechanism Promoting Long-Term Benefits

Parent engagement in school has a strong association with academic success, even after controlling for background variables like socioeconomic status (Barger et al., 2019; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Reynolds & Gill, 1994; Reynolds et al., 2016b; Reynolds et al., 2019a, b; Seefeldt et al., 1998; Sheridan et al., 2019). Various early childhood intervention programs with a parent engagement component have been evaluated through meta-analyses. A meta-analysis of 448 independent studies regarding the influence of parent engagement on children’s development showed a positive association between parent involvement and multiple dimensions of child academic and socio-emotional adjustment (Barger et al., 2019). Moreover, these positive associations were persistent over time regardless of child’s developmental period. Another meta-analysis that reviewed early childhood education evaluation studies from 1960 to 2007 similarly concluded that parent-targeted programs further enhance children’s outcomes beyond center-based programs alone (Joo et al., 2019).

6.3.1 Contributions of the CPC Family Support Component to Children’s Well-Being

What is the contribution of the family support component of the CPC program to children’s well-being? Although it is difficult to separate the effects of parent engagement from other child and family services, one approach is to investigate the extent to which the main effects of program participation are explained by parent engagement and other family support behaviors. In models testing parent engagement as a mechanism of program participation effects, the focus is on identifying the intervening or indirect influences on children’s well-being. That is, the models test parent engagement as a mediator of the association between program participation and child outcomes. Because indirect effects are more subtle than direct effects, they are underrepresented in the education and prevention literature. Few studies have investigated parent engagement as a mechanism accounting for the long-term effects of early childhood programs (Reynolds & Ou, 2011; Reynolds et al., 2017). In recognition of the complex array of factors during and after program participation that account for long-term effects, research has increasingly emphasized examination of explanatory processes. Research evaluating parent engagement as a mechanism contributing to CPC program effects has been based on the Five-Hypothesis Model of Intervention Effects (5HM ; Reynolds, 2000). Derived from the accumulated research over five decades, 5HM posits, as shown in Fig. 6.2, that the effects of CPC (and other similar early childhood programs) can be explained by indicators of five general paths of influence described in more detail below: family support behavior, cognitive-scholastic advantage, school quality and support, motivational advantage, and socio-emotional adjustment. Because the major purpose of early childhood programs is to promote enduring effects into adulthood, the extent to which this pattern is observed will depend on the magnitude of effects on one or more of the processes.

Fig. 6.2
figure 2

Five hypothesis model for the Chicago longitudinal study

Full size image

As shown in Fig. 6.2, the family support hypothesis suggests that longer-term effects will occur to the extent that CPC participation enhances parenting skills, attitudes and expectations, and the parent behaviors that support children’s education (Ou & Reynolds, 2010; Reynolds et al., 2004). To test this hypothesis, we use measures of parent involvement in school (i.e., participation in activities and instruction), parent expectations for child achievement, and parent support for learning at home. Conceptually, these parenting attitudes and behaviors should lead to improved child achievement and school attainment by increasing children’s learning time directly (e.g., reading with parents, higher school attendance) or indirectly (e.g., parental monitoring), enhancing children’s motivation and school commitment, and increasing children’s own expectations for their educational attainment and success. These parenting attitudes and behaviors may also reflect improvements in parenting skills and social support, which would reduce social isolation and the risk of child maltreatment. Supporting this mechanism of action in general, meta-analyses of family interventions and parenting behaviors (Farrington & Welsh, 2007; Jeynes, 2007) show that involvement and monitoring link to higher achievement and crime prevention.

Research on the CPC suggests that promoting increases in family support plays a critical role in the program’s positive impact promoting children’s academic success and long-term well-being. Using longitudinal data, Hayakawa and colleagues (Hayakawa et al., 2013) reported that the increases in kindergarten parent engagement associated with CPC participation influenced later child achievement via two major pathways. First, increased parent engagement in kindergarten was sustained over time, leading to later and ongoing parent engagement and support for child learning in elementary schools. Second, increased parent engagement promoted higher levels of child achievement motivation. These findings suggest that one way that CPC has its long-term benefits is by promoting parents’ sustained involvement across the elementary years which, in turn, affects other factors in a cumulative process that promotes children’s school success and well-being. Reynolds and Ou (2011) found additional evidence for the family support hypothesis, as parent involvement in school and reduced rates of later child maltreatment mediated the effects of CPC preschool on child educational attainment, crime, and health behaviors in early adulthood. Increased parent involvement in school led to greater school commitment and student achievement, which in turn reduced the incidence of child maltreatment. The generalizability of these results is supported by research from three different programs (Abecedarian Project, Perry Preschool Project, CPC), each of which identified parent involvement as a contributing path from participation in intervention and later educational attainment (Englund et al., 2014).

Further evidence on the importance of family support in fostering well-being comes from home visiting and parenting interventions, including Nurse-Family Partnership (Eckenrode et al., 2010), Family Check-Up, and Parents as Teachers (PAT; Avellar & Supplee, 2013). In a large-scale PAT study, Zigler et al. (2008) found that significant improvements in third-grade achievement for a state sample were initiated by parental home literacy and school readiness skills, both of which were further impacted by preschool participation. This suggests that the effects of early parent engagement programs may operate in multiple ways, including boosting family support for child learning and also increasing child cognitive skills (represented in Fig. 6.2 as cognitive advantage). Other parenting and home visiting programs generally support these findings (Avellar & Supplee, 2013; Sweet & Appelbaum, 2004), though the strongest impacts are for high-need families at relatively high levels of dosage.

6.3.2 Summary of CPC Processes of Influence on Youth and Adult Outcomes

In Fig. 6.3 we summarize the contributions of three of the five hypothesized mechanisms of CPC for youth and adult outcomes. Specifically, we present the percentage contribution of cognitive advantage, family support, and school support to the total indirect (mediated) effect linking CPC preschool to four key adult outcomes (e.g., high school completion, juvenile and early adult arrests, depressive symptoms; see Reynolds and Ou (2011) and Reynolds and Temple (2019) for more details). The figure denotes the extent to which the influence of CPC participation depends on or is mediated by the three hypothesized processes (cognitive advantage, family support, school support). Values for each hypothesis are above and beyond the influence of the motivation construct and social advantage construct that are also included in the 5HM model.

Fig. 6.3
figure 3

Percentage contributions to total effects of CPC preschool program

Note. The figure summarizes the proportion of the total standardized indirect effect from CPC preschool to long-term outcomes accounted for by cognitive advantage, family support, and school support. Estimates are from LISREL and take into account measurement error and correlated errors. The total indirect effect is the sum of all paths of influence from preschool to outcomes. The indirect effects are categorized by mediator, with the primary emphasis on the mediators that initiated the indirect effect – which were directly and significantly associated with program participation

Full size image

Parent engagement and its influence on children’s long-term life course outcomes is considered one dimension of the family support hypothesis. In our analyses, family support was measured by the frequency of teacher and parent ratings from ages 8 to 12 on the item “parents’ participation in school.” Teacher and parent ratings were used to minimize possible reporter bias. The second measure used was substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect between ages 4 and 12.

For brevity, we excluded motivational advantage and socio-emotional adjustment hypotheses. They are both influential, however. As shown in Fig. 6.3, the outcomes are high school completion, juvenile arrest, adult felony arrest, and depressive symptoms at age 24 (see Reynolds & Ou, 2011). The findings are based on structural equation modeling of longitudinal associations in which measurement error, multiple indicators of each process, and alternative specifications are taken into account.

Figure 6.3 summarizes the contributions of three hypotheses to the four life course outcomes. After adjusting for gender, family risk, and the influence of other processes, the family support hypothesis (improved parent involvement in elementary school, reduced maltreatment) accounted for 26% of the total contribution of the effect of CPC attendance on high school completion and 22% of the total contribution on reduced juvenile arrest. In other words, controlling for other hypothesized mechanisms of action, CPC program participation was directly associated with higher levels of parent involvement in elementary school and these higher levels of involvement were significantly linked to school completion and juvenile arrest. Also shown in Fig. 6.3, these same aspects of family support accounted for 24% and 18% of the CPC-related reductions in felony arrest and depressive symptoms in early adulthood, respectively.

The hypothesis that school support may also account for the later benefits of the CPC model was tested using measures of school mobility and attendance in selective enrollment magnet schools. CPC promoted more stable and more supportive subsequent school placements which accounted for 30% of the impact of CPC preschool program participation on high school completion and 50% of the CPC program impact on reduced juvenile arrests. By age 24, CPC promotion of later school stability and quality accounted for 27% and 29% of the program impact on reduced felony arrest and depressive symptoms, respectively. Finally, CPC participation was linked with improved cognitive skills (the cognitive advantage hypothesis), measured by word analysis test scores at age 6, which accounted for 32% of the total indirect effect of CPC preschool participation on high school completion, 19% of the effect on reduced juvenile arrest, 29% of the effect on reduced felony arrests at age 24, and 40% of the effect on depressive symptoms. These contributions included many paths of influence initiated by the hypothesis and accounted for the influence of other 5HM hypotheses.

Similar patterns have been found for school achievement and occupational attainment. Studies have also used structural equation modeling to strengthen validity. Re-analyses of the Perry Preschool Project, Abecedarian Project, and CPC programs (Englund et al., 2014; Reynolds et al., 2010), which included matched measures and sequences of each process (i.e., family support, school support, cognitive advantage), revealed that the processes accounted for a majority of the observed impacts on educational attainment and health behaviors at age 21. The studies also showed that classroom socio-emotional adjustment helped transmit the effects of cognitive advantage. Cognitive advantage contributed more to long-term effects for the Perry Preschool Project and Abecedarian Program, whereas family support and school support influences were larger for CPC.

Overall, these findings indicate the substantial contributions of parent involvement and other intervening factors to the long-run effects of the CPC program. The extent to which other family support measures, ranging from expectations to monitoring and parenting practices, yield similar findings warrants further investigation.

6.3.3 Economic Impact of the CPC Program

To illustrate the economic implications of our intervention effects, a cost-benefit analysis of the CPC program showed that for every dollar invested in the preschool component, $10.15 was returned to society at large through government savings on remedial education and justice system treatment, which increases economic well-being (e.g., higher income and tax revenues; Reynolds et al., 2011). Extrapolating from Fig. 6.3, $2.90 of these economic benefits (over 28%) can be attributed to the family support component of the CPC model or about $15,000 per participant (in discounted 2017 dollars). This estimate is conservative to the extent that parental engagement has synergistic effects with other components of the program. Cognitive advantage as well as school support experiences in the elementary grades also contribute substantially (see Fig. 6.3) to many outcomes and these likely reflect additional components of the CPC model in addition to the family engagement components . Through an intensive family support component in preschool centers (Reynolds, 2000; Sullivan, 1971), CPC enhances the capacity of parents to positively influence their own and their children’s well-being. These benefits are major contributors to long-term and sustained program effects on a wide variety of life course outcomes.

6.4 Future Directions in Research on Parent Engagement and Long-Term Child Outcomes

6.4.1 Understanding Developmental Cycles and Cascades

Parent engagement plays a key role in a cycle of achievement and motivation throughout elementary school. Existing research has begun to document some of these associations, but additional research is needed to fully understand its developmental role. For example, Hayakawa et al. (2013) utilized path analyses for participants in the CLS to examine associations between early parent school engagement, student motivation and achievement, and later parent engagement. Early parent school engagement was related to higher achievement in kindergarten, which led to more motivation for the student to do well in school, which then led to more parent engagement in later elementary school. This study speaks to the need to initiate parent engagement at an early age, so this cycle of achievement and motivation can begin early in a student’s academic career.

Parent engagement also interacts with and predicts longer-term academic outcomes in the CLS, such as chronic absenteeism and attending a 2- or 4-year college. Attendance in school is a key factor in a child’s academic achievement and attainment. Chronic absenteeism, defined as missing 10% or more days of school in a given school year (e.g., Van Eck et al., 2017) is associated with reduced achievement in eighth grade and reduced probability of four-year high school graduation (Smerillo et al., 2018). Data from the CLS showed that parent engagement during grades one to three was associated with a reduced probability of chronic absenteeism in both the middle grades (grades 4–6) (marginal effect = −2.2%, p < 0.05), and during the first 2 years of high school (marginal effect = −7.1%, p < 0.01), even after controlling for the association of baseline family characteristics, achievement, and several other school related factors.

In addition, the association between chronic absenteeism and graduation was moderated by levels of parent engagement. Smerillo et al. (2018) found that participants with below-average parental school engagement between grades 1 and 3 had stronger negative associations between early middle school chronic absenteeism and graduating high school with a diploma in 4 years than participants with above-average parental school engagement. Ou and Reynolds (2014) found that parent school engagement between grades 1 and 6 was associated with attending college, such that a 1-point higher teacher-rated parent school involvement score was associated with a 44% higher likelihood of attending a 4-year college (and 33% higher odds of attending a 2-year college). This finding is especially notable as parent school involvement predicted greater odds of attending college above and beyond parent expectations regarding the number of years of education and the test scores their child would obtain. These findings suggest a dynamic role for parent engagement in student pathways toward academic success that should be a focus of further research.

Recent work with the CLS has begun to examine long-term health and health behavior outcomes and their relation to early parent school engagement. Hayakawa et al. (2016) examined the pathway between early childhood education, kindergarten through third-grade parent engagement, adolescent problem behaviors, and age 22–24 substance abuse. The authors found that early childhood education led to increased parent school engagement and more positive parent expectations concerning their child’s educational attainment, which then led to fewer problem behaviors, finally leading to a decreased likelihood of substance abuse in early adulthood. This study highlights developmental cascades that emerge over an extended time span between early childhood and adulthood, linking early parent engagement with reductions in later substance abuse. Additionally, higher parent school involvement in grades 1 through 4 was associated with a reduced odds of lifetime smoking by age 22–24, after controlling for demographic and risk variables (Reynolds et al., 2019a). These studies highlight the potential pathways through which early parent engagement may contribute to better health in early adulthood. Future research should continue to address this association longitudinally and understand the cascading developmental processes.

6.4.2 Measurement Issues in the Study of Parent Engagement

In investigating differences by source of report, Reynolds (1992) examined differences in sources of reporter for parent involvement. The author found that there were weak correlations between teacher, parent, and child ratings of parent involvement. Furthermore, teacher ratings of parent involvement at school had the strongest relation with achievement. Hence, future research should attend carefully to the source of data on parent engagement and further explore the correlates of teacher versus parent ratings.

Recently, researchers with the CLS examined correlations between a parent’s attitudes about their child’s education, their expectations about how far their child would go in school, and parent involvement at home from grades 4 through 6 (see Table 6.3). A parent’s school involvement from grades 1 to 3 was very weakly correlated with their home involvement at grades 4 through 6 (r = 0.02). School parent involvement also had the most robust correlations with outcomes such as college attendance, high school completion, and reading achievement than the other parenting variables. The low-to-medium correlations between all of the parent attitudes, behaviors, and expectations implies that domain does matter in the parent involvement literature, and school parental involvement in particular has a specific role in academic success later in life.

Table 6.3 Correlations of parent engagement measures with measures of educational progress and attainment
Full size table

In other research conducted by the CLS, parent involvement predicted academic success and socio-emotional adjustment in first grade (Reynolds, 1999) as well as increased reading achievement, lower grade retention, and fewer years in special education by age 14 (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). Parent involvement in school activities also significantly predicted school achievement across two successive school years, academic growth from year 1 to year 2, and growth in reading achievement from kindergarten through ninth grade. Further analyses demonstrated that parent involvement was also significantly related to high school completion and lower levels of juvenile delinquency (Graue et al., 2004; Reynolds et al., 2009). These findings suggest that, even in schools serving disadvantaged areas, children’s early school success can be enhanced by providing opportunities for parents to be involved in school and in children’s education.

6.4.3 Parent Engagement as a School-Level Versus Family-Level Variable

In addition to considering parent engagement as an individual difference within families, the CPC studies have assessed parent engagement at the school (or site) level. Interestingly, CPC parent engagement at the site level was associated with early academic outcomes in kindergarten and was the only program factor out of others examined (i.e., instructional approach, size of site) that predicted child outcomes. Lower income levels within a school district were also linked with poorer school and social outcomes. These findings also suggest a value in future research in measuring parent engagement at both the school level and the individual parent level, given potential differences in the predictive associations of these two aspects of parent engagement.

6.4.4 Understanding Links between Parent Engagement and Parent Academic Expectations

Many other studies support the positive and significant link between measures of parental involvement and children’s school success. A meta-analysis of 25 studies by Fan and Chen (2001) found that parent expectations or aspirations had the largest effect size (ES = 0.40) in relation to measures of academic achievement with parental supervision at home (ES = 0.09) having the smallest effect size. Effect sizes between parent involvement and academic achievement were also larger for global (i.e., GPA) as compared to subject-specific academic achievement measures. Parental commitment and volunteer behavior have smaller positive influences (Fan & Chen, 2001). Parental contact and supervision tend to have small but negative influences on achievement outcomes. It is likely that children receiving more supervision and contact with the school were more in need of such supervision and contact possibly because of prior problematic behavior or academic achievement.

Parent involvement also has been found to positively influence motivational outcomes such as academic self-concept, attributions for academic achievements, and self-regulation as well as high school dropout and truancy behaviors (Barger et al., 2019; Gonzalez-Pienda et al., 2002; Hill & Tyson, 2009). In reports from National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS ; Keith et al., 1993; Singh et al., 1995), parent expectations or aspirations for children’s education were most consistently associated with eighth-grade achievement even after controlling for the influence of SES and ethnicity (Fan & Chen, 2001; Reynolds et al., 2017). Moreover, the association between parental expectations and achievement was strongest for higher SES students. Relatively few studies have examined the relation between involvement and children’s social and emotional learning, though a recent meta-analysis of school-family interventions by Sheridan et al. (2019) showed sizable impacts of interventions on a variety of socio-emotional competencies. Consistent with the CPC studies reviewed here, meta-analytic impacts were also found to be larger for ethnic minorities (Sheridan et al., 2019). Differential effects over time and continuing studies of impacts by SES and ethnicity are warranted, especially given the high priority on reducing achievement and health disparities among low-income and minority populations.

6.5 Conclusion and Future Research Directions

In conclusion, longitudinal research on CPC and many other programs demonstrate how parent engagement and family support services contribute to children’s school readiness, academic achievement, and well-being over time. Impacts are both direct and complex and indicate that parents provide not only a fundamental context for supporting children’s learning but that their behavior on behalf of children’s well-being is a mechanism supporting long-term effects. This is consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s original belief of the importance of parent involvement for sustaining gains as children progress through elementary school. How parental involvement and engagement contribute to life course well-being into adulthood deserves to be a major focus of future research, as the mechanisms of linkages to outcomes found in CPC studies can be examined for generalizability.

The findings reviewed in the chapter have two major implications for enhancing the effects of early childhood programs. First, as is the case for Head Start and the CPC program, increased funding for family support staff and services is warranted for state and local programs (Meloy et al., 2019). Given the importance of leadership in organizing and implementing services, parent engagement coordinators, family liaisons, and home visitors deserve to be more fully integrated with the educational mission. Dedicated school staff are needed to support family engagement in the provision of home support for child learning, participation in school and center activities, community engagement and referral, and opportunities to further parent education and job training. A menu-system approach (choices among a variety of activities, strategies, and supports) to family support as found in the CPC program model is consistent with the most effective programs and also can be tailored to the needs and interests of individual families (Reynolds et al., 2017).

Second, family support and parent engagement efforts deserve further attention as key elements supporting the effectiveness of early childhood programs through preschool and over the transition into elementary grades. The evidence presented in this chapter, this volume, and in the larger field demonstrates the positive contributions that families make to the effectiveness of early education programs. Including family support services as formal elements in early childhood education effectiveness frameworks could lead to an increase in the programming and resources available to support families as new programs are developed and scaled for wide implementation. Family support services are a key element of effectiveness in many frameworks (Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Reynolds et al., 2017; Zigler et al., 2006), but are not so designated in the 10 effectiveness elements of state prekindergarten programs (National Institute for Early Education Research [NIEER, 2018] or in philanthropic guides (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2015). Although more research is needed to document the most effective approaches for involving parents and enhancing educational benefits for different children, the overall benefits of family support and engagement to early childhood programs and the communities they serve are clear. In addition to increasing the priority on family engagement, financial resources to ensure a strong and well-implemented system of services is essential to effectiveness, especially as programs continue to advance to scale.