MANAGING THE HOME LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: PARENTS, ADOLESCENTS, AND THE HOMEWORK PROBLEM

MANAGING THE HOME LEARNING ENVIRONMENT:

PARENTS, ADOLESCENTS, AND

THE HOMEWORK PROBLEM

ROBERT SWEET, Lakehead University

NANCY MANDELL, York University PAUL, ANISEF, York University

MARIA ADAMUTI-TRACHE, University of British Columbia

October 2007

Managing the Home Learning Environment 1

This work was funded by a contribution from the Canadian Council on Learning

All documents produced by the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) will be available in both French and English. However, documents produced by external organizations for CCL will be posted on the website only in the language of origin. When a full translation

is not available, CCL will ensure that an executive summary is available in the other official language.

The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors. The Canadian Council on Learning bears no responsibility for its content.


Introduction

The majority of Canadian parents expect their children will acquire some form of post-

secondary education but are aware that access to university and college is increasingly

competitive. Enrolment and successful participation in university or college is dependent on

possessing a strong academic record from high school, the requisite study skills, and the desire

to persist in a course of study (Gladieux & Swail, 2000; Davies, 2005). Ensuring access to PSE

then requires that parents enact long-term educational planning and preparation strategies.

These involve not only establishing realistic PSE goals but also investing considerable material,

social, and emotional capital in their children’s K-12 schooling -- a phenomenon known as

‘intensive parenting’ and widely regarded by the middle class as an essential addition to their

already extensive list of parenting tasks (Hays, 1996; Reay, 1998).

Parents’ investment motivations are matched by the demands of the K-12 system where

a key element of the ‘school reform movement’ calls for parents to take more responsibility for

the academic engagement and achievement of their children (Dehli, 2004; Pushor, 2007). This

changed home-school partnership requires increased parental involvement in the extra-

curricular life of the school as well as the establishment of a home learning environment (HLE)

that complements the work of the classroom teacher (Epstein & Lee, 1995). Constructing and

managing the HLE is a complex undertaking and its implementation is especially problematic

during early and mid-adolescence when children are attempting the transition from elementary

to middle school or high-school (Lipps, 2005). An essential developmental milestone during this

period is the acquisition of a sense of personal autonomy. The academic expression of

autonomy is seen in the repertoire of self-regulated learning skills that emerge by the

intermediate grades. These extend from the classroom to the home where they include the

ability to initiate and successfully complete homework assignments. The daily homework

assignment is also the means by which parents become most directly involved in their children’s

learning. Homework, however, is a source of stress for many children and their parents and

remains so throughout the adolescent years (Kohn, 2006, Marshall, 2007).

Managing the HLE then involves two related tasks for parents. The first is the need to

promote a sense of autonomy in their adolescent children. Autonomy in this context is

synonymous with several concepts used in the ‘self’ psychology literature to describe

adolescents and their cognitive and emotional development through schooling. These include

broad terms such as competence, agency, self-efficacy, and more domain-specific terms such

as self-concept of ability (in e.g. reading or math), attributions for success or failure, and self-


regulation of behaviour (Gonzales-Dehaas, Willems & Holbein, 2005). The dynamics underlying

parents’ contribution to the development of autonomy in adolescence have been described in

terms of parenting styles and parents’ beliefs about the role of ability and effort in determining

achievement. An authoritative style of parenting that emphasizes both high academic

expectations and warmth in the parent-child relationship is correlated with children’s social

competence and school achievement, although the strength of this association varies across

social groups (Spera, 2005). Parents become involved in various ways but monitoring

homework is considered among the most common, and most important, means by which

parents promote autonomy in their children’s approach to learning. To the extent parents are

able to become involved in homework, some parenting practices may be more effective than

others. Monitoring or supervising homework helps elementary school children establish

necessary study routines. However, recent research suggests other forms of regulation --

described by Barber (2002) as involving psychological control -- discourage academic

engagement and achievement. Continued expressions of dissatisfaction with children’s level of

effort or achievement is perceived (especially by adolescents) as ‘pressure’ and frequently leads

to discouragement and disengagement (Campbell, 1994; Okagaki & Luster, 2005).

The second HLE task requires parents to incorporate homework within established

family routines while at the same time moderating the added stress associated with this

commitment. Despite its general acceptance as a necessary part of the formal learning process,

homework has become a contentious issue. Proponents argue that it improves grades and

develops personal autonomy as children become better able to regulate their own study

behaviour (Cooper, Robinson & Patall, 2006). However, the initiation and completion of

homework assignments can lead to disagreement and conflict between parents and their

children. How parents manage the emotional stress of these situations is important to the

establishment of effective study habits while, at the same time, maintaining the child’s natural

intellectual curiosity. Critics of homework reject claims for its academic efficacy and add that a

reliance on homework increases stress in families that vary in their possession of the material,

social, and emotional resources needed for effective involvement. These constraints are

typically indicated by social structural indicators of socio-economic status, ethnicity (or

immigrant status), and child’s gender. Situational factors also are important. In many families,

both parents are employed and have limited available time with which to take on the

responsibility of homework (Kralovec & Buell, 2000).


The purpose of this study is to examine the processes of autonomy promotion and

stress management as they are practiced by parents in the home learning environment and to

gauge the extent to which these practices are constrained by selected social structures. The

data for these analyses are drawn from the Survey of Approaches to Educational Planning

(SAEP) series which is designed to provide information on parents’ planning and preparation for

their children’s post-secondary education (PSE) (Sweet & Anisef, 2005). In the present study we

employ the 2002 cycle of the SAEP as it contains detailed information on social structures (e.g.

immigrant status) and several questions on the HLE that deal specifically with parents’

involvement in their children’s homework.

We begin our analysis of the SAEP data by first establishing the effect of parenting

practices on children’s achievement while controlling for social structure. More specifically, we

examine the relative importance of parents’ attempts to promote autonomy and manage stress

in the prediction of achievement. We then address the following questions:

1. What beliefs guide parents’ attempts to promote personal autonomy in children’s

learning and how is this pursued in families?

Parents’ beliefs about children’s development and learning shape the relationships they

establish with their child and the school. In particular, beliefs about intellectual ability or potential

set parents’ expectation levels for their children’s academic engagement and effort. In the

context of the home learning environment, these expectations are applied to the initiation and

completion of homework assignments. Comparisons are made between parents’ use of

behavioural regulation and psychological control in monitoring children’s homework effort

2. Does the management of homework stress in families vary by work-life balance,

SES, immigrant status and by (child’s) gender?

Although differentiated by SES, immigrant status, and child’s gender, parents

nevertheless attempt to moderate family stress associated with teachers’ demands for

homework completion. We include in this analysis of parenting processes an assessment of the

cumulative effects of homework stress and stress associated with parents’ employment – the

work-life balance problem encountered especially by families in which both parents are

employed.

We conclude the study by relating the results of our analyses to current discussions

about improved home-school relations and the derivative debate about homework’s effects on

families. Our findings have implications for school reforms that strongly encourage (even

require) parents to become more responsible for their children’s school success. Where

parental involvement in the home learning environment fails to mediate the influence of social


structures or is rendered ineffective because of faulty beliefs or ineffective practices, PSE

opportunities for children will be correspondingly limited. Modifications to existing home-school

policies need to take into account not only structural constraints but also specific parenting

practices if we are to avoid reinforcing differences in an already stratified PSE system.

Parenting in the Home Learning Environment Parents have always been committed to their children’s well-being and most view

education as essential to their children’s futures. Reviews of the parent involvement literature

have nevertheless noted rising levels of parental concern and investment in their children’s

formal and informal learning as relative advantage is sought in preparing for post-secondary

education (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Desfourges & Abouchaar, 2003). The anxiety

surrounding increased parental investments in the educational, social, and emotional well-being

of the child are captured in the concept of the ‘precious child’ (Zelizer, 1985). Where children

once were considered in purely economic terms they now are seen as individuals with unique

needs and in possession of a potential worthy of investment. A similar progression in

‘revisioning’ the child in Canada has been documented by the historian Neil Sutherland

(Sutherland, 1997). Changing views of children have paralleled the emergence of a knowledge-

based economy which rewards highly educated and skilled labour. As a consequence, social

mobility and status today is achieved not by a generational transfer of material wealth but by

developing children’s intellectual capabilities from an early age (Quirke, 2006). Parents’

investments in their children’s learning are not, however, driven solely by instrumental motives.

The intensive parenting culture that emphasizes the uniqueness of children seeks also to

personalize their education. Aurini & Davies (2005) describe this aspect of parenting in relation

to investments in tutoring, private schools and home-schooling which are seen as attempts to

shape the curriculum to the interests and abilities of the child. Intensive parenting in the home

learning environment then displays strong individualizing intentions while being energized by

distinctly instrumental motives.

Intensive Parenting

It is from the perspective of parenting the ‘precious child’ that we review selected

writings and empirical studies to describe the dimensions of intensive parenting. Descriptions of

parenting and specifically the home-school relationship are varied but there are at least 3

perspectives, each linked to a particular social structure: 1) a ‘Family Resource’ approach view

of parenting practices as expressions of class-based differences in the possession of cultural


and social capital. This work derives from the theories of Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988)

and attempts to provide explanations for class reproduction processes in families and schools;

2) A feminist view of parenting as ‘intensive mothering’ that emphasizes the gendered nature of

the home-school relationship and the differentiated socialization of boys and girls; and 3) a

cultural difference perspective that examines immigrants’ belief in the value of education as an

aspect of a more general ‘immigrant optimism’ in social mobility. It also gives priority to

language competence (in English or French) in qualifying school success and, consequently,

PSE aspirations.

Family Resource Perspectives

Studies consistently identify inadequate family resources as a basic risk factor in

children’s schooling. The use of socio-economic (SES) gradients to link school outcomes with

family income, parents’ educational levels, or father’s occupational status highlights the

importance of inequalities in the possession of essential social and cultural capital (Keating &

Hertzman, 1999; Willms, 2002; Corak, Lipps & Zhao, 2003). Similar assessments are made of

particular social structural groups such as single-parent families which are typically female-

headed and low-income (White, Marshall, & Wood, 2005).

Social and cultural capital explanations of the relationship between family resources and

children’s success in the school system are today less static and deterministic than earlier

formulations. The more recent interpretations of capital have broadened the range of skills,

habits and cultural orientations considered relevant in distinguishing social advantage (Farkas,

2003). These more dynamic interpretations allocate a greater, although not unqualified, role to

personal agency in constructing educationally-relevant forms of capital. Looker’s (1994)

characterization of parents as ‘active capital’ assigns them the task of marshalling the resources

needed to support the education of their children. In this, and similar work (see e.g. Andres et al,

1999), parents’ educational level is an indicator of their ability to provide the direction and

opportunities that promote children’s PSE aspirations and current school engagement. Urban-

rural differences are another set of indicators employed in this research. Region is associated

with gender differences in academic encouragement and support as well as the distribution of

resources among siblings in families although in general parents strive for equity in resource

allocation to children (Anisef, Frempong, and Sweet, 2005; Thiessen & Looker, 2005).

Lareau and her colleagues (e.g., Lareau & McNamara-Horvat, 1997) have examined

parental involvement in children’s learning in a series of studies that highlight differences in

parents’ possession and activation of capital in specific neighbourhood-school contexts.


Detailed examination of parents’ attempts to facilitate and encourage their children’s homework,

school attendance, and engagement in extra-curricular and leisure activities revealed a complex

pattern of (educationally-relevant) capital construction. Lareau (2003) differentiates these

parenting practices along class lines. In her analysis, middle-class parents see themselves as

obliged to direct or steer the development of their children and engage in a process of

‘concerted cultivation’ that organizes children’s leisure time toward skill-building activities. In

contrast, working-class parents pursue a logic of ‘accomplishment of natural growth’ in which

children are given greater control over their leisure time. Class differences are also noted in

relations between parents and children. Middle-class parents are inclined to negotiate

differences with their children while working-class parents tend to be more arbitrary and

prescriptive. Lareau suggests these different approaches have important implications for

children’s perceptions of school and the schooling process. Where the middle-class logic

encourages a sense of entitlement in children that facilitates their adaptation to the routines and

rituals of the classroom, the working-class logic is more likely to lead to disengagement and

alienation. Similar accounts of class-based differences in parenting practices are given by

researchers in Australia and the UK (Connell, 2003; Reay, 1998).

Feminist Perspectives

Lareau’s description of parenting as ‘concerted cultivation’ is consistent with recent

accounts of changes in mothers’ parenting role, broadly termed ‘intensive mothering’. Hays

(1996) describes mothers as being assigned primary responsibility for ensuring their children’s

engagement (and success) in a range of leisure and skill-development activities. Reay (1998)

similarly describes mothers’ acceptance of responsibility for undertaking ‘educational work’ by

constructing home learning environments that facilitate children’s learning and study. While

mothers appear to be held primarily responsible for educational work in the family, fathers

nevertheless play a role and although their involvement is less well understood we may speak

of both as engaged in the practice of intensive parenting, at least as this applies to children’s

education (Hawkins et al, 2002; Hall, 2005).

In many families with school-age children mothers are employed either part-time or

fulltime. Where both parents are employed there is less time available for interacting with

children. Much of the work-life balance issue centers around the inability of parents to spend

what they perceive as sufficient leisure time with their children (Duxbury & Higgins, 2001). Time

constraints can contribute to stressful relations between parent and child but stress levels vary

by child’s age as well as the level of responsibility of the parent’s occupation (Crouter & McHale,


2005). Despite perceptions of time pressures, working mothers appear to compensate by

assigning high priority to school-related parenting tasks such as homework (Mandell & Sweet,

2004).

An essential aspect of parenting is the provision of emotional support to children. While

this is often a matter of comforting a distressed younger child, parents also work at the more

difficult task of developing emotional competence in their children. Reay (2000) views the latter

as investment or transfer of what she terms emotional capital. Among adolescents, emotional

competence involves an increasing awareness of one’s own and other’s emotional states. It

also comprises a set of problem solving skills designed to deal with stressful situations (Saarni,

1999). Recent work on ‘emotional intelligence’ employs a somewhat different terminology but

retains much of Saarni’s original range of cognitive and behavioural dispositions and skills

(Zeidner et al, 2003). Common to this literature is the primary role played by mothers in

supplying emotional support to children as well as modelling and teaching emotional

competence through adolescence (Edwards, 2004; Gillies, 2000).

The theme of differentiated or gendered parenting runs throughout the literature on

home-school relations. Current discussions about the ‘gap’ in achievement between boys and

girls typically include reference to family socialization patterns as a possible explanation

(Weaver-Hightower, 2003; McMullen, 2004). Reviews of the empirical research suggest there is

little evidence that parenting has meaningful gender effects on achievement although the results

are somewhat equivocal. Lytton & Romney (1991) reviewed 172 studies in search of differential

socialization effects in families. Their general conclusion was that little evidence existed of

systematic differences in parenting practices. Ruble and Martin (1998) more recently

summarized the literature on children’s socialization to their respective gender roles and

questioned the analysis of effect sizes in the Lytton & Romney review.

A child’s gender nevertheless has significant effects on family dynamics and may

influence the allocation of resources among siblings. Lundberg & Rose (2004) found the birth of

boys more than girls shifted the direction of family spending from consumer to investment items,

the latter benefitting the child rather than the adults. Raley and Bianchi (2006) similarly report

fathers’ expenditures increased more with the birth of a boy. These authors also found that

parental support and involvement for educational activities varied between boys and girls

depending on the type of activity. Anisef, Frempong & Sweet (2005) also found Canadian

parents’ PSE expectations and savings for boys were somewhat higher among rural parents.

However, evidence that parents attempt to balance the distribution of family resources among


siblings irrespective of gender was provided by Thiessen & Looker (2005). They concluded

parents employ a principle of equity when investing resources in their children.

Cultural Perspectives

Research on immigrant youth, especially those from non-English or non-French-

speaking countries, does not offer a clear picture of their academic achievement in the K-12

system. While some studies report that most immigrant children and youth adapt readily to the

classroom and achieve high marks in essential subjects, others do not (Marks, 2005, Worswick,

2004; Gunderson, 2006).

With regard to home-school relations, relatively few Canadian studies have examined

these linkages or the more specific issues of the immigrant home learning environment. There

is, however, a more extensive U.S. literature on the immigrant family that characterizes their

parenting behaviours as expressing a ‘newcomer optimism’ in the instrumental value of

education (Kao & Tienda, 1998; Louie, 1995). Immigrant parents with post-secondary

aspirations for their children then are likely to invest significant amounts of time and energy in

activities that facilitate school success. Studies in the U.S. and Canada indicate that immigrant

parenting is driven by very high PSE aspirations. A university education in particular is seen by

immigrant parents as a means of gaining entry to the professions with their attendant social

rewards as well as economic returns (Krahn & Taylor, 2004).

Whether immigrant optimism is enacted in the same way as the intensive parenting

approach of Canadian-born parents will depend on immigrants’ possession of relevant material

and human capital as well as the opportunity to effectively mobilize those resources (Marks,

2005). Because of its rigorous immigrant selection system, Canada admits many highly

educated immigrants. The literature suggests those immigrant parents’ with post-secondary

experiences value education, understand the processes of learning, and possess important

practical knowledge of how school systems work. While the specific dynamics of Canadian

classrooms may not always be well understood by immigrant parents from markedly different

cultures, many of the attributes of the successful learner (e.g. effort, attention, persistence) are

similar across cultures (Dyson, 2001; Li, 2003). Similarities (and some differences) in immigrant

and native-born approaches to parenting are noted in recent comparative research (Dinovitzer,

Hagan, & Parker, 2003; Kwak, 2003; Sweet, 2005).


Parenting Style

While diverse in orientation, concept use, and language, these interpretations of

intensive parenting can be characterized as reflecting an authoritative parenting style. According

to Baumrind (1991), authoritative parents convey to children their expectations for application

and diligence in school and at the same time provide the encouragement and support needed to

sustain effort.

There is broad, although qualified, empirical support for a positive relationship between

the authoritative approach and children’s adjustment in school (Steinberg, 1996; Darling &

Steinberg, 1993). Research on this relationship has been directed towards elaborating the

various elements of the authoritative construct. Initially, a number of these studies employed

the underlying dimensions of control and responsiveness (Scott-Jones, 1995). Maccoby and

Martin (1983), Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbush, and Darling (1992) and others subsequently

defined constructs of warmth, demandingness, and responsiveness as characterizing the

authoritative approach. More recent formulations emphasize the dimensions of connectedness,

regulation, and autonomy.

Connectedness

The importance to children of positive interpersonal relationships with important persons

in their lives is amply demonstrated in the literature on parenting (Barber, 1997). Studies of

attachment and of warm, supportive relations with parents consistently show a positive

relationship with the child’s emotional security and with the development of important social

skills. A specific aspect of connection explored by Barber & Olsen (1997) is the function of

acceptance in parent-child relationships. The sense that one is accepted within the family is of

primary importance to children’s well-being although other contexts -- the peer community,

school, and the neighbourhood -- also influence children’s development. The various contexts

nevertheless interact, with the family influence being central and enduring.

Regulation

Parents exert a measure of control over their children’s behaviour in several ways.

Behavioural control is seen in the extent to which parents supervise, monitor and set rules. The

assumption underlying parental control is that in its absence, children do not develop the ability

to regulate their own behaviour and, further, are more susceptible to influence from other


sources (Collins et al, 2000). Regulation also is thought to counter impulsive behaviour thereby

promoting the development of the delayed gratification so necessary for success in learning

(Goleman, 1995).

Autonomy

There are various forms of adolescent autonomy. Behavioural autonomy is very closely

related to regulation and often described in relation to family decision-making (Dornbush, Ritter,

Leiderman, Mont-Reynaud, & Chen, 1990). Emotional autonomy is a less easily defined

construct although in their study Herman, Dornbush, Herron, and Herting (1997) view it as the

extent to which parents employ non-coercive, democratic discipline, and encourage the

adolescent to express individuality within the family. Generally speaking, psychological

autonomy among adolescents involves development of an independent sense of identity while

still maintaining emotional connections with parents. Barber (1997, p. 7) defines psychological

autonomy as “.... the extent to which socialization processes facilitate and do not intrude on the

child’s development of an independent sense of identity, efficacy, and worth”.

The dimensions of connection, regulation, and psychological autonomy are not

independent. They ‘naturally’ occur together and this justifies their aggregate use in typological

studies of parenting. Each, nevertheless, is more (or less) salient in relation to the particular

situations occupied by the adolescent, school being one of the more important of these

domains. Relevant studies address two questions: first, is the practice of authoritative parenting

distinguishable by social structure; and secondly does social structure moderate the effects of

structure on achievement? Reviews of the empirical literature -- that involve both dimensioned

and aggregated measures -- have concluded that the link between authoritative style and

achievement is stable across social structures although these frequently moderate its effect on

specific school outcomes such as engagement (e.g. homework), attitude to school, and test

scores or teacher grades. (Barber, 1997; Chao & Willms, 2002; Steinberg 1997; Steinberg &

Morris, 2001; Spera, 2005).

In the academic context, research on the association between the authoritative style and

social structure suggest a particularly complex set of relationships. Dimensions of authoritative

parenting have been identified with middle-class parenting in many studies (Lareau, 2003;

Marjoribanks, 2002). However, Chao & Willms (2000) found parents’ use of the authoritative

style did not differ significantly across income categories. Their study used Canadian survey


data – the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) -- and found lower-SES

parents were just as likely to adopt an authoritative approach as middle-class parents. To some

extent these results may reflect overlapping income distributions in Canada (Yalnizian, 2006).

However, other studies using either income or a composite index of the authoritative style

developed from the NLSCY also failed to find particularly strong class-style linkages (Chao &

Willms, 2002; Mandell & Sweet, 2004).

While several studies of gendered parenting have been conducted, few have employed

direct measures of style in addressing the question of whether or not authoritative parenting

practices are distinguished by gender. Hein and Lewko (1994) provide one example. They

examined authoritative, authoritarian, permissive (and inconsistent) parenting styles and effects

on Canadian high-school students’ achievement in Science and found that gender differences

did exist, specifically within the authoritative group.

Ethnicity also has been examined in relation to style and adolescent school outcomes.

Chao & Tseng (2002) reviewed studies that demonstrated that style can produce quite different

outcomes in non-European youth. For example, Chao & Tseng report results from studies that

show Asian youth did not benefit from an authoritative style. At the same time, their adjustment

and achievement was not negatively affected by an authoritarian style. There is substantial

variation in parenting among Asian parents. Chinese parents’ interpretation of appropriate

parenting as a form of ‘child training’ appears more consistent with a Confucian approach to

learning than an authoritative style which derives from Western psychology. Fewer studies have

examined immigrant status although, given the non-European background of most recent

immigrants, the relevant studies could include or be related to the larger body of research on

ethnicity. Chao (2001) and Kao (2004), for example, examined parenting style differences with

first- and second-generation immigrant children of Asian origin. Their results reinforce the

presence of culturally distinct approaches to parenting among immigrant groups (see also Pong,

Hao, & Gardner, 2005).

Recent reviews of the research on parenting style highlight the need to recognize the

possibility that parental demands for achievement and extensive involvement in their children’s

learning can limit development of their children’s independence and autonomy. These reviews

conclude that further research is needed to identify the mechanisms underlying effectiveness of

parent styles and strategies, especially those relevant to the promotion of autonomy in children

(Okagaki, 2001; Okagaki & Luster, 2005; Steinberg, 2001).


Intrusive Parenting

In their research on parenting style, Barber and his colleagues (Barber, 2002; Otto &

Atkinson, 1997; Barber & Olsen 1997) have raised the issue of parental intrusion in the lives of

children and the risk this poses to their development of autonomy. Parents vary in the nature of

the demands they make on their children and in the support they provide. Demands typically are

expressed as expectations and enacted through regulation of the child’s behaviour. A key

distinction in Barber’s assessment of parental regulation of children’s lives is made between

behavioural and psychological control. Behavioural control is seen, for example, in parents’

insistence that children begin and complete their homework. Often, this involves monitoring,

supervising and, on occasion, directly helping with assignments. Such regulation typically is

positively correlated with emotional and social adjustment and with school performance.

Psychological control, on the other hand, expresses dissatisfaction through the withdrawal of

emotional support, guilt induction, and other manipulative behaviours. These actions defeat the

child’s attempts at autonomy or individuation. And all are negatively correlated with the child’s

sense of agency and competence.

Discussions of psychological control are found in several recent analyses of

adolescents’ school achievement. Pomerantz and Eaton (2001) studied what they termed an

‘intrusive parenting style’ by parents of elementary school children. They found that parental

worry about children’s grades and homework supervision when this wasn’t requested by the

child led to a cycle of parental worry and further and more intense intrusion. This progression

was associated with a decline in their children’s grades. Adams et al (2000) studied school-

related interactions between parents and children in grades 4 and 7. They distinguished

parental ‘support’ and ‘pressure’ and related these behaviours to children’s social and academic

performance at school. At both grade levels they found pressure was associated with lower self-

esteem and intellectual effectiveness. These definitions are similar to earlier work by Campbell

(1994) who also distinguished between parental ‘encouragement’ and ‘pressure’. The latter was

expressed as ‘nagging’ about achievement or effort and was associated with poor social

adjustment and lower levels of math achievement.

Pressure to conform to the parent’s (sometimes unrealistic) demands may constrain and

inhibit the child’s development of a sense of efficacy. Praise and encouragement are necessary

to the development of competence; and competence forms a central element in the child’s

emerging view of self. Since much of what is meaningful in children’s lives centers around their

accomplishments at school, evidence of their academic competence (and its recognition by

such significant others as parents) is essential to the further development of self-esteem and a


sense of personal competence. This is consistent with the earlier writings of Bloom (1976) and

others who examined children’s competence in relation to their school performance and the

growth of a strong sense of agency (Elliott & Dweck, 1983). It also reflects more closely the

view of life-course psychologists that the achievement of competence among adolescents is a

major developmental milestone (Erikson, 1963; Eccles et al, 1993; Clausen, 1991).

Although derived from Western psychology, various forms of the intrusive parenting

construct are found in other than Anglo-European cultures. Barber (2005) assessed intrusive

parenting in several counties and regions and found considerable cross-cultural stability in his

measures. Campbell (1994) reported similar results from the application of a survey instrument

designed to distinguish parental support from parental pressure in a number of countries and

demonstrated the uniformly negative effects of the latter on children’s academic performance.

Parenting Beliefs

Intrusive parenting reflects particular parental beliefs about child development and

appropriate child-rearing strategies. The literature on parental belief systems and their

relationship to children’ development is embedded in a larger literature on parents’ social

cognitions’ and is summarized in several sources (Okagaki, 2001; Okagaki & Bingham, 2005;

Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi & Goodnow 1992). Parenting cognitions include attitudes towards

education, PSE aspirations for their children, perceptions of their own parenting efficacy, as well

as beliefs about children’s learning and development, including a range of causal attributions

about the factors that bear on school success. The conclusions drawn from this research

literature suggest that parents’ beliefs not only underlie styles and strategies but also have

direct, independent effects on children’s school engagement, adjustment, and achievement.

In relation to children’s academic performance, relevant parenting beliefs include their

notions of intelligence. Work by Okagaki & Sternberg (1993) illustrates how intelligence is a

social construct whose meaning varies by domain of application and by culture (Gardner, 1983;

Sternberg, 1985). In Canadian schools great emphasis is nevertheless placed on indicators of

cognitive skill as demonstrating intelligent behaviour. Other countries and cultures assign

greater priority to social and emotional intelligence and the ability to work cooperatively and

harmoniously in the classroom setting (Goleman, 1995). Differences also exist between

conceptions of intelligence that reflect ability as opposed to effort. In many Asian countries

intelligent behaviour is synonymous with effort. In the Anglo-European tradition intelligence is

equated with native ability and effort is viewed as a separate, motivational construct. Separating

ability and effort gives rise to the notion of potential. Ability is assumed to define an upper bound


to achievement. Those who work hard to ‘realize their potential’ are exhibiting a desirable social

value and are consequently praised for their attempts. The separation of ability and effort also

raises the possibility of a discrepancy. Collins (1992) has discussed discrepant perceptions in

relation to developmental lags (being ‘off-time’ with respect to age-mates) and aspirations

(where children do not share their parents’ PSE aspirations). Discrepancies also apply to

achievement. There frequently exists a perceived gap between a child’s effort and ability. It is,

for example, possible for the intelligent child to be a high achiever but exert little effort. This is

consistent with parents’ aspirations for the child although not with most parents’ views of the

value of effort. In most cases, however, parental dissatisfaction is directed toward the so-called

underachievers -- those children who are ‘not working to potential’. This becomes a form of

pressure for children when parents’ assessment of their potential is unrealistic or inaccurate

(Miller, Manhal, & Mee, 1991).

Parenting Practices

The literature on parenting practices through which academic dispositions and

behaviours are developed is extensive and has been reviewed by several authors (Grolnick &

Slowiaczek, 1994; Ryan, Adams, Gullotta, Weissberg, & Hampton ,1995; Hoover-Dempsey &

Sandler, 1997, Hoover-Dempsey et al, 2005; Barton et al, 2004). These reviews of the ‘parent

involvement’ literature underscore the importance of developmentally appropriate parenting

behaviours (Dickinson, 2002). As children mature, the relationship between parent and child

changes -- where young children are anxious to please parents and conform to their wishes,

adolescents increasingly seek responsibility, the opportunity to exercise their competencies, and

greater freedom from parental supervision. Parents who are sensitive to these changes respond

in ways that allow children, and especially adolescents, to assume personal responsibility.

Responsiveness in this sense is akin to the support dimension of the authoritative

parenting style. Parents both encourage and regulate children’s academic behaviour in the

home. Importantly, their actions involve the behavioural rather than psychological control that

Barber (2002) distinguished as essential to the promotion of autonomy. Developmentally

appropriate regulation then is tied to the willingness and ability of the child to acquire self-

regulating study skills. Thus, as children assume responsibility for their homework, parents are

able too disengage from requests for direct help with homework and also moderate their

supervisory role. The gradual decline in parental oversight of homework has been noted in

studies of the elementary and middle school period where parental disengagement is

associated with a corresponding increase in children’s self-initiated homework time (Mandell &


Sweet, 2004; Sweet & Mandell, 2005). Other explanations are possible. Some parents express

a lack of confidence in helping their children with homework tasks and their number increases at

the middle-school and high school levels (Jones & Prinz, 2005; CCL, 2006).

Adolescent Transitions and Homework Stress

Previous research on parent involvement in adolescent school transitions has focused

on age 13 or entry to Grade 8 (Ho & Willms, 1989; Baker & Stevenson, 1986). More recently,

there is greater recognition that parents attempt to prepare their children for a successful

transition by actively involving themselves in school-related activities -- such as homework --

during the intermediate grades (Hoover-Dempsey et al, 2001).

Homework plays a key role in the transformation of the elementary school curriculum

between primary and intermediate grades (Gorges & Elliott, 1995). Essential literacy skills are

developed in the primary grades and in the intermediate grades are applied in distinct subject-

matter domains such as social studies, math, and science. Successful achievement in these

subjects increasingly relies on independent study by students. Curricular changes in the

intermediate grades and their demands for greater student initiative anticipate two significant

shifts in the early adolescent period. The first is the transition from elementary to middle or

secondary school. The move from the typically smaller, neighbourhood elementary school to a

larger middle or junior-high school requires considerable adjustment including a willingness to

take even greater responsibility for homework assignments involving a wider range of subject

matter. The second shift involves pubertal changes that signal greater interest in social relations

and the formation of peer-group norms, including those that apply to academic engagement

(Harris, 1995).

Homework, or too much homework, appears to contribute to stress during this period of

personal and institutional change. Pressure on adolescents to do well in school comes from

parents, teachers, and sometimes from peers. Certainly Canadian adolescents perceive the

demands to do well in school – and the concomitant requirement for homework – as a source of

considerable stress (Bibby, 2001). And these demands appear to increase or at least continue

through the high school grades (Marshall, 2007). Critics of homework find support for their

position in studies of general stress among high-achieving students. This research indicates that

an over-emphasis on academic excellence is frequently counter productive, inducing stress and

lower levels of performance (Pope, 2001). Other studies, however, find benefits to high levels of

academic and social engagement in school activities (Mahoney, Harris & Eccles, 2006)


To some extent, criticism of parents and schools as a source of stress is embedded in a

larger argument that children and adolescents are burdened with too many demands on their

time (Elkind, 1994). Most adolescents are willing to invest considerable time in their homework,

although U.S. survey data suggest clear limits to adolescents’ tolerance for increasing

workloads (Gill & Schlossman, 2003). The willingness to commit time to homework is influenced

not only by proximal persons and events but also by social structures. For example, recent

surveys indicate that Canadian girls are more willing than boys to engage in homework and

immigrant adolescents also are more academically engaged than their native-born classmates

(Sweet, 2005; Sweet & Mandell, 2005).

Parents and Homework Stress

Homework is a behavioural expression of academic engagement that involves the home

more than the classroom. Although homework may be incorporated in the teacher’s instructional

plans, Cooper (1989, 7) distinguishes it from classroom activity: “tasks assigned to students by

school teachers that are meant to be carried out during non-school hours”. Some schools have

‘study hall’ or make an attempt to incorporate homework into the school day but in most schools

homework is taken home. For parents, homework thus becomes a link with schools and is their

most direct means of involvement in children’s learning. For adolescents, homework as a form

of academic engagement is both an antecedent and correlate of achievement (Fredricks,

Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Looker & Thiessen, 2004)

This connection with the home is a source of much controversy. Proponents of

homework claim it enhances children’s achievement and engenders positive attitudes toward

formal learning (Cooper, 2001; Trautwein & Kohler, 2003). Opponents assert that homework

has little demonstrable impact on achievement. Kohn (2006), for example, has critiqued the

research that asserts a link between homework and achievement and finds little or no support

for claims that homework time is correlated with grades or test scores. Parents (and teachers)

nevertheless appear to agree on the value of homework and are prepared to invest time and

energy in its supervision and support (Sweet & Mandell, 2005)

Kralovec & Buell (2000) have developed an extensive critique of the effect homework

has on family relations. In their view, homework significantly contributes to stress in families,

especially disadvantaged families who lack either the time or educational resources to become

effectively involved in their children’s learning. In many families of school-aged children and

youth, both parents work which consequently limits the time available for their children.

Research on working parents’ attempts to balance demands of job and home emphasize the


constraints these duties impose on leisure time-use in families (Duxbury & Higgins, 2001).

Work-life imbalance and demands for involvement in homework then would have a cumulative

effect in limiting parent availability and increasing stress. Other families subjected to greater

stress are those with low-income, and those who have recently immigrated. The latter are

particularly affected if they belong to a visible minority or do not possess competence in either

English or French. The activation of material resources in the home learning environment is

most obviously and directly tied to low-income or parents’ educational attainment. Parents who

cannot afford an internet connection, for example, must necessarily limit the effectiveness of the

HLE as a place of independent study. More important, perhaps, is the activation of cultural or

social resources. As previously indicated, these assets are dependent on parents’ possession

and transfer of dispositions that are rewarded in schools – such as effort, persistence, and the

delay of gratification. All these characteristics are more likely found among highly educated

parents.

Method Design Rationale

The literature review suggests that four general sets of factors operating in the home

learning environment form important relationships: social structure, parenting beliefs and styles,

parenting practices that promote adolescent autonomy and moderate homework stress, and

children’s achievement. These are represented in Figure 11 which indicates the basic

antecedents and correlates of the two tasks parents face in managing the home learning

environment – promoting autonomy and moderating stress associated with homework assigned

by teachers.

1 Note: The rural-urban residence variable is available in the 1999 SAEP but not in the 2002 SAEP.


Figure 1. Managing the HLE Model: Promoting Autonomy and Moderating Homework Stress

Figure 1 indicates adolescent autonomy is fostered by a specific configuration of

parenting practices described in the literature as ‘authoritative’. The authoritative style is

characterized by high parental demands accompanied by emotional warmth and support.

Authoritative parents attempt to promote autonomy in their children. An intrusive form of the

authoritative style emerges when regulation involves psychological rather than behavioural

control. Elements of intrusiveness include guilt induction and expressions of dissatisfaction that

are viewed as ‘pressure’ by children. In the HLE context, these are based on assumptions about

intelligence that consider ability and effort as separate constructs. Discrepancies between the

two lead parents to express dissatisfaction with children who are not ‘working to their potential.’

Under these discouraging conditions, autonomy is either delayed in its development or

altogether suppressed.

Homework is a form of academic engagement that indicates belief in the necessary

relationship between effort and achievement and, more broadly, acceptance of the purposes of

formal learning. Parents inculcate these dispositions and values in their children as they attempt

to socialize them to the role of student. In the elementary grades this requires a measure of

supervision and regulation to ensure the conditions in the home are conducive to study and that

children attend and persist in their homework assignments. At the same time most parents are

Social Structures

SES

Ethnicity Gender

Situational

Mother Works

Home Language Family Structure Time Pressures (Work-life Balance)

Style Dimensions

Regulation Connection Autonomy

Beliefs

Aspirations Expectations

Potential

Practices (HLE Goals/Tasks)

Autonomy Promotion HW Stress Moderation Other tasks -- related to Home-school partnership

Engagement / Achievement


responsive to the goals, preferences, and inclinations of their children as they mature into

adolescence. To the extent parental demands and forms of support are developmentally

appropriate, acquiring the skills and attitudes of an effective and autonomous learner is likely to

be a successful undertaking. Critics of homework, however, argue that in many disadvantaged

homes this is not the case. In their view, homework is too often a burden to both parents and

children and a continuing source of family stress.

Objectives

Objective 1: The first objective is to establish the strength of any relationship between

achievement and indicators of social structure and parenting practice. Based on the literature

review, we would expect:

a. Parenting beliefs and behaviours to be important additions to social structural factors in predicting adolescents’ school achievement.

b. Psychological control, indicated by assessments of adolescents’ intellectual potential, to be negatively associated with achievement.

c. Homework stress to be negatively associated with achievement.

Objective 2: In elaborating parents’ attempts to promote adolescent autonomy in the

HLE, we contrast behavioural and psychological control practices of parents. The literature

suggests that behavioural regulation in the home learning environment is helpful to young

children. However, there is a generally negative association between school performance and

(prolonged) behavioural regulation. It suggests an even stronger negative relationship between

psychological control and measures of academic engagement (homework) and achievement.

Application of the latter form of regulation becomes especially intrusive when, despite

reasonable levels of achievement, parents continue to express dissatisfaction with the level of

effort expended by the child.

Objective 3: The analysis of homework stress in families follows the critique of Kralovec

and Buell (2000) who focused on parents’ time and resource limitations. The latter are indicated

by parental education and immigrant status. To these we add child’s sex -- controlling for

achievement to better indicate the presence of gendered parenting effects. In applying

developmentally appropriate criteria to the management of homework stress by parental groups

we distribute stress over the three age ranges in our sample and assess the intensity, duration,

and timing of stress.


Research Sample

The SAEP 2002 is the second survey of educational planning in Canadian families

undertaken by Statistics Canada. Like the initial 1999 SAEP, the 2002 version uses a nationally

representative sample of families with children 0-18 years of age. It differs from the 1999 SAEP

in that it samples only one child per family. Thus, the data file contains responses from 10,788

parents2. In the 2002 SAEP, information pertaining to homework and related parenting practices

was gathered from families with children between the ages of 5 and18. Because the focus of the

study was on the transition period between elementary and middle school or high school, the

research sample excluded parents of pre-school and primary school children as well as those

with adolescent children over the age of 16. This reduced the working sample to 4786, sufficient

to model parenting effects and make comparisons among parent groups of interest in the study.

The analysis used the public-use micro data file for which there are no bootstrap weights.

Normalized weights were instead constructed from the survey weights.

Variable Profile

Table 1 lists the variables selected for use in the study as well as their associated means

or proportions. The variables are arranged in separate categories: Family Resources; Parenting

Practices; and Child Characteristics and Achievement.

Table 1: Variable Description and Research Sample Profile (n=4786)

Variable Name Variable Description Variable Characteristic

Means (SD) /

Proportion

Family Resources Levels (1-13) 6.59 (3.20) Income All income sources

Aggregated $ (,000) 0-29 30-49 50-79 80-150+

21 21 28 29

Parents Education University or Other Univ=1 .27 (.44) Immigrant status Immigrant or non-immigrant Immig=1 .28 (.45) Mother’s Employment Mom at-home or employed Yes=1 .70 (.46) Family Structure Dual or single-parent families Single=1 .19 (.40) Home Language English-French or Other Other=1 .12 (.32) Work-Life balance stress

Time pressures Scale (1-3) 2.01 (.67)

2 Respondents were ‘persons most knowledgeable’ about the child (PMK’s). In nearly all cases this was the mother.


Table 1: Variable Description and Research Sample Profile (n=4786)

Variable Name Variable Description Variable Characteristic

Means (SD) /

Proportion

Parenting-School Practices Aspirations PSE aspirations <=High School

College/Tech University

10 26 64

Expectations Expectations-do well in school Scale (1-4) 3.61 (.58) Child Works to Potential Believe child working to potential No=1 .48 (.50) Help with HW Help with HW Scale (1-5) 3.91 (1.22) HW Study Conditions Remove distractions/Ensure quiet Scale (1-5) 3.03 (1.04) Time Monitoring Leisure time regulation (TV) Scale (1-5) 3.18 (1.57) Praise Effort Praise ‘trying hard’ Scale (1-5) 3.24 (.88) Interaction Spends time with child Scale (1-4) 3.06 (1.00) Communication Discusses School Work/Activities Scale (1-5) 4.40 (.84) HW Demands Times per week HW assigned Scale (1-5) 4.42 (.87) HW Stress Level HW stress level Scale (1-5) 2.51 (1.39)

Child Characteristics and Outcome

Gender Male / Female Female=1 .49 (.50) Age / Grade Intermediate

Middle High School

9-12 13-14 15-16

50 25 25

Achievement Report card (percentage range) 0-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

4 14 36 32 14

Resources. The Resource category describes the socio-demographic background of the

family and comprises measures of cultural and material resources as well as the availability of

parental time. Both family income and parents’ educational level are basic dimensions of socio-

economic status. Family income is frequently used in constructing SES-Achievement gradients

and associated distinctions between working and middle class families (Willms, 2002; Lareau,

2000). An examination of (approximate) income quintiles shows that 21% of families live on less

than $30,000 per year and 18% earn above $100,000. The remaining 60% of the sample are

equally distributed across the intervening earnings categories suggesting the difficulty of

assigning meaningful differences to working and middle class labels in the Canadian case

(Yalnizian, 2006). An important family resource resides in parental education. In 27% of the

families at least one parent possesses a university degree indicating a familiarity with the

processes of schooling and, presumably, an appreciation of the value of an education to the

individual.


Family structure was included as an indicator of diminished resources available to the

child. Some 19% of families were headed by a single-parent, for the most part the mother.

Previous research suggests single-parent status has a (negative) effect on children’s

adjustment and achievement beyond that attributable to reduced income. However, work by

White, Marshall, and Wood (2005) with the 1999 SAEP data suggests that effective parenting

practices can offset the disadvantages of reduced income and father-absence.

The sample had 28% respondents who indicated that at least one parent was born

outside Canada. This indicates the very large number of immigrant families in the sample. In

defining the immigrant category we merged those reporting ‘both parents’ or ‘one parent’ as

foreign-born (Krahn & Taylor, 2005). Unfortunately, the SAEP does not provide any means of

determining the date of immigration or the generational status of the children. Nor were cultural

differences among immigrant families directly assessed. In the SAEP sample, 12% of

respondents spoke a language at home other than English or French. As an indicator of cultural

and ethnic difference, language would be expected to characterize many immigrant families and

in the SAEP sample this amounted to 40%

Most parents (78%) report ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of stress in balancing work and family time

commitments. This reflects, in part, the large number of employed women (70%). Educational

work in the home is a task assumed, for the most part, by women who must balance the time

requirements of this role with those of work and of managing the home. Time demands of home

and work, when combined with the additional responsibilities of homework monitoring and help,

can have a cumulative effect on family stress levels (Mandell & Sweet, 2004).

Parenting Practices. Parenting Practices include indicators of the various dimensions

underlying the authoritative parenting approach – pressure, help and regulation,

encouragement, and communication between parent and child. PSE aspirations and academic expectations are the ‘drivers’ behind parental

involvement and in virtually all previous research they are positively correlated with children’s

achievement. In the SAEP, aspirations are measured against a scale that reflects the stratified

nature of formal education in Canada. With high school graduation (or less) representing direct

entry to workforce and an educational ‘baseline’, post-secondary education is arranged

hierarchically, with the community college/CEGEP system and other forms of technical and

trades training being the next level and university entry representing the highest level. The

mean aspirations score (2.55) suggests that most parents strongly favour PSE as a desirable

goal for their children. Most parents also expect a high standard of work through the


intermediate and middle school years. On a scale of 1 to 4, the average level of expected

performance was 3.61 indicating that high levels of academic performance were held to be very

important by nearly all parents.

The SAEP 2002 data file is particularly useful in that it describes parents’ beliefs about

children’s academic abilities and school performance. Social cognitions, of which beliefs about

ability are an important component, have been shown to significantly influence parents’

intentions and behaviours towards their children (Sigel, McGillicuddy-Delisi, & Goodnow, 1992).

The SAEP survey asks all parents in the sample if they believe their children are ‘working to

potential’. A surprising 48% do not believe their children are exerting the effort needed to realize

their potential. Barber (2002) and others argue that parents’ beliefs need to be expressed in

order to represent an attempt to exert psychological control over their children. Those who

employ the similar construct of pressure similarly require a behavioural expression (Campbell,

1994). Of those parents in the SAEP sample who believed their children were not academically

engaged, some 95% voiced this concern to their children. It would appear then that, in the

context of the home learning environment, the measure of parents’ beliefs about children’s

‘potential’ is an adequate index of psychological control or ‘pressure.’

Several measures were used to assess the ‘regulation’ and ‘connection’ dimensions of

the authoritative style (Barber & Olsen, 1997). The regulatory aspects of parenting were

indicated by parent involvement in helping with homework assignments, ensuring quiet during

homework and study times, and setting time limits on leisure time use, principally TV viewing

(Keith et al , 1986). Connection variables included praising academic effort, spending time with

the child in leisure activities, and discussing his or her school work or activities. Previous work

with the SAEP data shows these variables cluster empirically to distinguish regulation and

connection (Sweet, 2005). However, for the purposes of this analysis separate indicators were

employed as being more informative (McIntosh, 2007).

Parents were also asked to report on the level of family stress associated with

homework. This measure allows one to gauge the emotional costs and benefits of parental

involvement. Table 1 includes the homework demands made by teachers (HW Demands) which

indicates that most students from grade 4 to 10 are assigned homework on a daily basis, if one

restricts the school ‘work week’ to Monday through Thursday. Stress levels, although not

directly comparable to the homework demand scale, do suggest that stress is kept to

reasonable levels and may not be a function of the amount of homework assigned. This doesn’t

mean that students don’t experience stress – the variability associated with this factor suggests

many adolescents (and families) experience considerable homework stress.


Children’s Characteristics and Achievement. To recognize the contribution adolescents

make to their own growth and development we included sex and age variables. Gender is

recognized not only as being associated with male-female school achievement and adjustment

differences but also, when achievement is controlled, as an indicator of gendered parenting.

Age was used to position adolescents in the elementary-high school transition period and

accommodate maturational differences in personal autonomy (Willms, 2002). Many aspects of

parental involvement decrease as the child matures and assumes responsibility for meeting the

demands and obligations of school. In the present study, the spread between ages 9 and 16

marks the shift between preadolescence and mid-adolescent, or the evolution from a ‘tween’ to

a ‘teen’.

Achievement is indicated by parents’ assessment of their children’s academic standing

based on report cards and other communications with their child’s teachers and the school.

Unlike standardized test scores, teacher-assigned grades are particularly sensitive to students’

work habits and the qualities of the relationship established between teacher and parent.

(Farkas, 2003; Lareau, 2003). Teacher grades thus contain information on academic

engagement as well as academic standing relative to peers. In the SAEP, the achievement

variable has 5 levels each of which represents a grade range – e.g. 80-89, 90-100. Analyzing

intervals containing percentages can be dealt with in various ways, none of which are entirely

satisfactory. In this instance we employed standard OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) regression

as an acceptable method (McIntosh, 2007). The distribution of marks shown in Table 1 is

somewhat skewed. This may reflect a tendency among parents to overestimate the

achievement of their children although all were basing their judgements on several years of

teachers’ report cards. Alternatively, the reported performance levels of children then may

reflect some grade inflation in teacher reporting, which accelerates as children approach and

enter high school (Cote & Allahar, 2007).

Results

Parent Involvement Effects

Table 2 presents results of a regression analysis that examined the effects of parenting

practices on children’s achievement after controlling for general family resources and individual

differences among children. The regression analysis was developed in two steps. Model I

introduces family resource variables and child characteristics which, together, account for 9% of


the variability in achievement. Model II then introduces parenting practices which account for an

additional 25% of achievement variance.

Table 2: Parenting Effects on Children’s School Performance (Achievement) OLS Coefficients (SE) Categories Variables Model I Model II

Income .02 (.01) .01 (.01) Parents’ Educational Level (Univ=1) .37 (.04) .23 (.03) Immigrant status (Yes=1) - .00 (.04) - .03 (.04) Mother employed (Yes=1) - .02 (.04) - .06 (.03) Family Structure (Dual=0) - .08 (.04) - .07 (.04) Home Language (Other=1) .18 (.06) - .08 (.05)

Family Resources

Work-Life Balance Stress -.13 (.02) - .01 (.02) Gender (Female=1) .25 (.03) .08 (.03) Child

Characteristics Age -.18 (.02) - .17 (.02) PSE Aspirations (Univ=1) .30 (.02) Expectations – Do well in school .18 (.02) HW Help .01 (.01) HW Study Conditions - .07 (.01) HW Monitoring /Regulation - .02 (.01) Encouragement - .01 (.02) Daily Interactions .03 (.01)

Parenting Beliefs & Practices

Discuss School Work .01 (.02) Belief child works to potential

(Yes=1) - .64 (.03)

HW Stress - .17 (.01) Constant 3.99 (.09) 3.37 (.16)

Adjusted R2 .09 .34 Bold entries p < .05 Normalized weight

Structural Variables

As expected, social structural variables are important to adolescents’ academic

achievement. Income and educational level are both key elements of family SES and both

significant predictors of children’s achievement. In the Model I equation, parents’ level of

educational achievement appears to be the more important predictor. This is consistent with

previous research which indicates parents’ own educational experiences are especially relevant

in socializing children to the role of student. Highly educated parents are familiar with the school

system and consequently are better positioned to advise and assist their children.

Neither Family Structure nor Immigrant Status is significantly related to children’s

achievement. However, both are qualified by the presence of other, conceptually or practically-

related variables in the equation. Because single-parent homes are typically low-income, the

Income term may be expected to capture some of the relevant variance. Similarly, given the


culturally distinct immigrant population, immigrant status likely is reflected in the home language

variable. Interestingly, the coefficient is significant and positive, indicating perhaps the resiliency

and determination of immigrant children.

Work-life balance is negatively related to achievement. This indicates the importance of

having available enough non-work time to attend to family affairs. However, it doesn’t consider

the compensatory measures busy parents take in arranging their daily schedules. Nor does it

recognize parents’ ability to assign priorities to their activities during those periods of time that

are available for family interaction, including involvement in homework supervision.

Individual differences among adolescents – specifically, gender and age -- are both

significant predictors of achievement. The gender variable has a strong, positive effect on

achievement, indicating the relatively better classroom behaviour and academic performance of

adolescent girls (Farkas, 2003). Although included primarily as a control variable to take into

account the increasing maturity of adolescents, age can also indicate processes of institutional

filtering that occurs in schools as those who are deemed less capable are presented with

evidence of failure (lower marks). The negative coefficient associated with age suggests the

presence of significant discouragement and disengagement across the crucial elementary-

secondary school transition.

Introducing Parenting Variables

As indicated, introducing the parenting practice variables (Model II) dramatically

increases the variance accounted for in achievement -- from 9% to 34%. Adding the parenting

variable set to the prediction also moderates the effect on achievement of the social structural

and individual difference variables. This occurs most obviously with home language and work-

life balance. The indicators of SES – Income and Parent Education -- remain significant. Parent

Education in particular continues to exert a strong, independent effect. There are various

interpretations of the stability of the Parent Education coefficient. Increasingly, genetic

explanations are being offered for differences in children’s educational performance and

outcomes (Hechman & Masterov, 2007). Parents’ education is often used as a proxy measure

for children’s intellectual inheritance. However, McIntosh (2006) discusses the limits of using

parents’ education as a genetic indicator since their educational attainment can equally well

signal differences in socialization practices.

As expected, children’s individual differences contribute to their achievement. Gender

remains a significant factor in the prediction, although with reduced effect. Parenting practices

work to reduce male-female differences in achievement, presumably by investing more remedial


time with boys who appear to need greater attention. This is consistent with Mandell & Sweet’s

(2004) findings that mothers were responsive to their children’s academic difficulties and this

usually meant more supervision and help with boys’ homework assignments.

Whatever the aims of parents, others have the capacity to affect adolescents’ school

adjustment and academic progress. For example, the relationship between achievement and

age remains basically unchanged with the addition of parenting variables. This independence

from parent-related factors suggests the presence of other sources of influence in the transition

process such as personal maturity, peers, or the practices of the school itself.

In considering the parent involvement variables, it is clear that some contribute more

than others to the prediction of achievement. Parents’ PSE aspirations and expectations play a

predictably positive role in shaping children’s academic achievement. This finding confirms the

results of numerous other studies that have assessed the motivational effects of PSE goals

across social structures, especially SES, gender, and immigrant status (Davies, 2005).

In relation to other variables in the equation, the authoritative style factors played a

modest role in predicting achievement. Significant effects were, however, evident from selected

parenting style indicators. Homework Study Conditions and Daily Interaction may be seen to

index, respectively, the regulation and connection style dimensions. Previous research has

typically found parents’ attempts to monitor their children’s leisure time affects achievement

more than other forms of regulation. The extent of parental monitoring depends on the child’s

age. For example, setting conditions conducive to study and homework activities is a common

parenting practice with younger children but is seldom found in parents’ relations with older

adolescents who are able to establish their own study conditions (Mandell & Sweet, 2005).

Among the parenting involvement factors considered, the ‘working to potential’ variable

was most strongly associated with achievement (b= -.63). This is a measure of the pressure

imposed on children by parents who feel they are not putting enough effort into their

schoolwork. Expressing dissatisfaction with children’s school performance in relation to their

perceived ability is seen as a form of psychological control. A belief that children are failing to

reach their potential is negatively correlated with their achievement and, to the extent teacher

grades reflects both engagement and attainment, applications of pressure delay development of

autonomy. An important distinction between behavioural and psychological control and their

effects on autonomy was made in the literature. However, in this analysis, forms of behavioural

regulation – specifically, attempts to ensure HW study conditions -- also had a negative effect

on achievement.


An essential task of managing the home learning environment is the moderation of

stress related to homework. In this analysis, home work stress is negatively associated with

achievement (b= -.17). It may be expected that homework stress would parallel the distribution

of grades, with low achievers experiencing greater frustration and stress with their homework

assignments. At the same time, parents’ efforts to become involved and to assist through

regulation and connection behaviours seem not to be effective – the impact of homework help

and supervision as well as encouragement are minimal, although they may help moderate

stress.

In the full regression equation constructed for this analysis (Model II), most variables

confirm the results of previous studies. Among social structural factors, SES and gender stand

out as strong predictors of achievement. Children with parents who possess a university degree

and female adolescents attain better grades. Parenting practices add to the prediction, with

parents’ PSE goals and expectations that their children should do well in school exerting a

strongly positive influence on achievement. Indicators of the authoritative parenting style make

only a modest contribution to the prediction. However, indicators of the effective management of

the home learning environment -- the ‘working to potential’ and ‘homework stress’ variables --

exert a strong, negative influence on adolescents’ school grades.

Managing the Home Learning Environment

As indicated, both the potential and HW stress variables represent important parenting

goals in managing the home learning environment: promoting autonomy and moderating

homework stress among family members. We first examine the nature of parents’ beliefs about

ability and effort and their regulation of the home learning environment. Two issues are

addressed: the relationship between behavioural regulation and psychological control

(pressure); and the relationship between parents’ beliefs about potential and children’s actual

academic achievement.

Regulation and Pressure Dimensions of Parental Involvement

Figure 2 contrasts parents regulatory behaviour with their beliefs about whether their

child is working to his or her potential across the school transition period of interest that

incorporates children aged 12 to 16. Both variables are dichotomies. Regulation is defined by

the proportion of parents who monitor children’s time use at least once per week. Psychological

control or pressure is defined by the proportion of parents who indicate the child does not work

to potential. Parents decreased the level of monitoring from elementary to high school. For the


three age groups considered, the proportion of parents who regulated their children’s time-use

dropped from 70% to 62% and 56%. This trend may be contrasted with the proportion of

parents who believed their child was not working to potential which increased over the same

age range – from 43% for the younger group to 56% for the older group.

The literature suggests parents’ regulation of homework conditions and routines benefits

children but that exerting pressure does not. Previous research has also noted the gradual

disengagement of parents as children accept personal responsibility for homework assignments

(Sweet & Mandell, 2005). To the extent children acquire self-regulating skills, effective parenting

of adolescent children should see a decline in overt monitoring of their study and homework

behaviour. Parents who continue to exert pressure on their children may, however, delay the

decision to reduce their level of homework monitoring. And where parents do disengage,

continued pressure may undermine the adolescents’ motivation for developing self-regulating

skills (Gonzalez-Dehaas, Willems & Holbein, 2005).

Figure 2. Proportion of parents who monitor child’s leisure time and believe child does not work to potential by age group.

Most parents will express dissatisfaction with children who are not devoting enough time

and effort to their school work. And most rely on report cards to provide evidence for

determining any ability-effort ‘gap’ in their children’s performance. Assuming parents believe the

curriculum is sufficiently challenging and that schools provide a range of learning opportunities,

we would expect to see greater dissatisfaction among lower-performing students and relatively

low levels , if not a complete absence, of dissatisfaction among high performing students. Some

parents may hold unrealistic or unreasonable expectations but most will be responsive to

evidence of effort and achievement. Where parents’ beliefs about effort (in relation to ability) are

inconsistent with children’s reported academic achievement we have some indication of the

extent of psychological control associated with parental involvement in children’s learning.

0

50

100

9-12 yo 13-14 yo 15-16 yo

Monitoring leisure time Child does not work to potential


Table 3 tabulates the proportion of parents who don’t believe their children are working

to potential in relation to achievement, expressed in percentages (0-59, etc). Three quarters of

parents are dissatisfied with their children’s performance when they receive grades up to 69%.

Between 70-79, some 61% of parents are dissatisfied. For achievement in the 80-89 range,

35% of parents are dissatisfied and, finally, 12% of parents are dissatisfied with their children’s

performance despite their being placed in the top 10% of the grade distribution. These results

indicate that most parents’ beliefs about effort and ability are informed by evidence of

achievement provided by schools. However, when children are receiving ‘A’ grades and a

significant number of parents remain dissatisfied, there appears to be some basis for reports

(often made by students) of undue parental pressure. Combined with the inherent tensions of

adolescence, parental pressure for better grades can only exacerbate stress levels associated

with school transitions.

Table 3: Parent’s belief that child works to potential by achievement level

Achievement levels (counts and column %) 0-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 Frequency

N % N % N % N % N % Yes 43 26 164 25 660 39 975 65 587 88No 121 74 494 75 1014 61 515 35 79 12TOTAL 164 100 658 100 1674 100 1490 100 666 100

Moderating Stress in the Home Learning Environment

Our analysis of the effectiveness with which parents control the level of stress

associated with homework begins with Kralovec & Buell’s (2000) argument that homework

creates tensions in families when parents attempt to comply with the school’s requirement for

homework. More specifically, they argue that families vary in the time and resources they have

available to invest in children’s learning. In our analysis, these are indicated, respectively, by a

work-life balance variable and by parents’ educational attainment. Kralovec & Buell also discuss

cultural differences but in a U.S. context where diversity is racialized and consists primarily of

comparisons between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. We have included immigrant

status as a proxy for cultural diversity to better reflect the Canadian context. As well, immigrant

status is important apart from its association with diversity -- not only are most immigrant youth

of non-European extraction, they also represent a rapidly expanding segment of the school-age

population. We have expanded the Kralovec & Buell set of correlates to include gender. The

literature on boys’ underachievement is typically explained by their poor classroom behaviour.

This portrayal of male resistance is contrasted with the better adjustment of girls to school


norms and the demands of the curriculum. To this might be added girls’ increasing interest in

PSE and their greater motivation to succeed academically. It is useful first to examine the general relationship between the homework demands

schools make on adolescents and stress in the family. For this purpose, the Homework Stress

and Homework Demand variables were recoded. HW Stress was dichotomized to distinguish

respondents who reported any level of stress from those who reported none. HW Demand was

similarly dichotomized to distinguish those receiving daily or near-daily homework assignments.

While virtually every child receives some homework in the course of a school week, our concern

in this paper was with the effect of relatively high levels of assigned homework.

Figure 3 shows that school homework demands are constant throughout the transition

years. The same proportion of parents – slightly over half -- report their children are assigned

homework ‘at least 4 times per week’ at each age level. While one might expect the workload to

gradually increase during this period, it appears elementary and high school teachers’ demands

are similar. Certainly, the stress associated with homework is greater during the elementary

(intermediate) years when children are adjusting to the increasingly difficult curriculum and

expectations that they take more responsibility for their own learning. Homework stress,

manifested in the form of individual anxiety and family conflict, might be expected to be high

initially but moderate as routines are established and intellectual competencies improved.

However, the adjustment appears minimal, and for over half the families included in the SAEP

sample, homework stress continues to be a problem through the middle and high school period.

Reported homework stress then is quite extensive among families with children in the age group

9-16 and appears to support Kralovec & Buell’s contention that homework stress is a significant,

if not pervasive, problem and one which persists across the transition years.

Figure 3. Proportion of parents who experience homework stress and proportion who note homework demands ‘at least 4 times per week’ by age group

0

50

100

9-12 yo 13-14 yo 15-16 yo

HWSress HWDemand


Homework and Social Constraints

The second claim made by Kralovec & Buell (2000) is that well-educated and adequately

resourced parents will encounter less homework stress, or manage it in ways that make it less

disruptive to family harmony. Our analysis of homework stress associated with social structures

and work-life balance – shown in Table 4 -- is based on a series of logistic regression models

applied to the homework stress variable defined as a dichotomy (stress-versus-no stress) First,

the likelihood of homework stress in the family is predicted by the work-life balance variable (3

categories), parental education (measured as a binary variable, in which the highest level

corresponds to at least one parent holding university degree), and immigrant status, also a

binary variable. This model explains about 7% of the variability in homework stress, and

remains practically unchanged when child’s sex is introduced in Model II. A third model includes

the child’s achievement and while this variable significantly increases the predicted variance (to

15%), it is used primarily as a control. This was done to better understand the relationship

between achievement and the balance and structure variables by observing any changes in the

coefficient values.

Table 4: HW Stress – Logistic regression coefficients (no stress=0; any stress=1)

Variables Reference categories & Levels

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Work-family balance No stress (ref) Balance (1) Some stress 2.4** 2.4** 2.3** Balance (2) Lot of stress 3.4** 3.5** 3.3** Parental education No university (ref) 1.1 1.1 1.4** Immigrant status Canadian-born (ref) .7** .7** .7** Child’s sex Male (ref) .8** .8* Achievement Between 0-59 (ref) Achievement (1) Between 60-69 .9 Achievement (2) Between 70-79 .5* Achievement (3) Between 80-89 .3** Achievement (4) Between 90-100 .2** Model Constant 1.0 1.2 2.8** Nagelkerke R2 0.066 0.071 0.151 * p<0.05; ** p<0.001

Table 4 also contains odds ratios for the predictors -- the likelihood of experiencing

homework stress for each category of a factor with respect to its reference category. Those

reporting difficulty in balancing work and family commitments are 2 to 3 times more likely to

report homework stress as compared to parents that do not experience any work-family balance

problems. Immigrant parents are about 30% less likely to report HW stress. And parents are

20% less likely to report any homework stress if they have daughters. At this stage in the

analysis, there is no significant relationship with parents’ level of education. While some of these


findings are consistent with the literature, others are not, or they at least offer some qualification

to previous findings. For example, the research reviewed for this study indicated that when both

parents worked there was no difference in the amount of time they were able to spend either

helping or monitoring their child’s homework. However, those parents who find balancing work

and family commitments to be stressful also report that homework adds additional stress.

Immigrant parents report less stress than non-immigrant parents. This finding runs counter to

qualitative studies of immigrant parental beliefs and behaviour, especially those of Asian ethnic

origin (Dyson, 2001). On the other hand, many immigrant families successfully impress upon

their children the value of education and the necessity for hard work (Krahn & Taylor, 2005).

Model III allows an examination of parenting effects of homework stress independent of

children’s academic achievement. Adding children’s achievement to the equation, however, has

no appreciable effect on the coefficients of previously entered variables, with the exception of

parents’ education. Here, controlling for children’s achievement results in university-educated

parents being 1.4 times more likely than other parents to report homework stress. It appears,

then, that highly educated parents demand higher levels of homework effort without making any

reference to their child’s academic performance. This may occur because they have higher PSE

aspirations for their children and concern for the eventual attainment of these goals generates a

measure of anxiety.

The coefficient for the sex variable did not change in Model III. Controlling for children’s

achievement doesn’t constitute a direct test of the gendered parenting hypothesis but the

absence of any significant change in the sex coefficient suggests that parents’ relationship with

sons and daughters is different, at least in relation to homework stress.

Developmentally Appropriate Parenting

The notion of a developmentally appropriate curriculum in schools – one which

acknowledges and adapts to the growing autonomy of children – has its parallel in the home

learning environment. Parents gauge the amount of help and regulation their children require as

they mature and gradually acquire the self-regulating skills needed for independent study.

Promoting this autonomy in children during the adolescent years is highly important to

moderating stress associated with school matters, including homework (Hoover-Dempsey et al,

2001).

Kralovec and Buell appear to argue that homework is a significant and persistent source

of stress across the grades. They also assert that social and situational differences affect

parents’ abilities to accommodate the homework task within existing family routines. To further


examine the homework critique we have constructed a series of figures in which homework

stress is considered in relation to work-life balance limits and social structural constraints across

each age group. Including children’s age in these plots incorporates the concept of

developmentally appropriate parenting (DAP) in the analysis of stress. To assess the presence

of DAP parenting we propose criteria that include intensity, duration, and timing elements.

Intensity refers to the level of stress reported at any point from ages 12 to16. Duration refers to

consistent presence of stress over that age range; and timing refers to where in the transition

period stress is most apparent. The timing criterion is, perhaps, more applicable when the entire

K-12 sequence is considered. However, the elementary-middle school transition period included

in our analysis marks a distinct shift in children’s social situation and learning conditions. While

middle school teachers recognize the social adjustment strains associated with adolescence

they nevertheless expect higher levels of personal responsibility in academic matters that may

contribute to stress around issues homework

Figure 4a shows that the proportion of parents who report homework stress as a

problem is much higher in families that also report difficulties in balancing the demands of work

and family, especially those with children in elementary school. Homework stress remains a

significant problem for those parents into the middle-school years and doesn’t moderate until

high-school. Even at that stage, work-life balance and homework stress remain an issue for

parents struggling to juggle time and competing demands of work and family. Even for parents

who are able to manage their commitments at work and home, about half report that homework

adds stress to the family.

Figure 4a. Proportion of parents who report homework stress by work-life (im)balance by age group

0

50

100

9-12 yo 13-14 yo 15-16 yo

Balance Some Imbalance Much Imbalance


Figure 4b indicates that HW stress levels don’t differ across parental education levels, as

found in the previous (unadjusted) logistic analysis Models I and II. University educated parents

slightly increase their concern with HW for the older children but, when distributed across

children’s age, there are essentially no differences between groups. Comparing both parent

groups across children’s age categories, they each appear to experience greater stress with

their elementary age children.

0

50

100

9-12 yo 13-14 yo 15-16 yo

No parent has univ educ At least one parent univ educ

Figure 4b. Proportion of parents who report homework stress by level of education and age group

As Figure 4c shows, immigrant families are less likely to experience homework stress

than their Canadian-born counterparts. The differences are not, however, large. And all families,

irrespective of their immigrant status, experience relatively more homework stress at the

elementary level.

0

50

100

9-12 yo 13-14 yo 15-16 yo

Canadian Immigrant

Figure 4c. Proportion of parents who report homework stress by immigrant status and age group


Finally, Figure 4d shows that families with daughters experience less homework stress

than do families with sons across all age categories. However, the differences are not great and

stress associated with homework assignments is a concern for parents of girls as well as boys,

especially at the elementary level.

0

50

100

9-12 yo 13-14 yo 15-16 yoFemale Male

Figure 4d. Proportion of parents who report homework stress by child’s sex and age group

The pattern of homework stress across the transition years is surprisingly uniform for

families that differ by parents’ education, immigrant status, and child’s gender. While there is

some variation most families experience about the same level of homework stress. Greater

differences are seen in the homework stress reported by families differentiated by their ability to

cope with the time demands and emotional priorities of work and family. The level and duration

of homework stress for all families, however defined or characterized, supports Kralovec &

Buell’s contention that families have difficulty accommodating homework within their available

time and routines. Moreover, homework appears to remain a contentious issue in many families

across the entire transition period from elementary to high school.

Summary In this paper we examined the phenomenon of ‘intensive parenting’ in the context of

current school reforms that require greater parental involvement in children’s learning. Intensive

parenting calls for significant investment in children’s current learning in order to ensure their

future educational prospects. In promoting their children’s academic progress, parents often

establish complex relationships with teachers but the major link between the two is the

homework assignment. Initiated in the classroom, homework is the means by which parents

become most directly engaged in their children’s schooling. Much debate surrounds school

reforms that demand greater accountability from both teachers and parents. In particular,


controversy attends the practice of assigning homework. Critics of (increasing) homework argue

that it fails to enhance either achievement or study skills. Moreover, it threatens the goal of

improved home-school relations by introducing further stress to the parent-child relationship.

Perhaps of greater concern to homework’s critics is that the effectiveness of parental

involvement likely depends on material and cultural resources which are not equally distributed

across social or ethnic groups; nor are they always equally allocated by gender.

Based on a review of the literature, we first identified relevant antecedents and

correlates of parental involvement in the home learning environment. The resulting profile of

‘intensive parenting’ was then employed in assessing the contribution of parenting practices to

children’s school achievement during the transition years – extending from the intermediate

grades through middle school. These effects were calculated after (statistically) controlling for

social structures such as SES, immigrant status, gender and situational constraints such as

mother’s employment, home language, and work-life balance issues. We then focused attention

on homework as a means of studying parental management of the home learning environment.

Two home learning environment tasks were examined: 1) the promotion of personal autonomy

in children; and 2) the moderation of stress associated with homework assignments.

In examining parenting practices in relation to homework we addressed the following

questions:

What is the basis for promoting personal autonomy in children’s studying and how is this

pursued in families?

Children’s personal autonomy is affected by the patterns of behavioural and

psychological control practiced by parents. Behavioural regulation is generally beneficial but

only where it is responsive to children’s capacity to assume responsibility for their own

academic study. On the other hand, parental demands for greater effort and improved academic

performance – usually discussed in the literature as ‘pressure’ -- is viewed as a form of

psychological control that has negative effects on children’s development of autonomy. In the

context of the home learning environment, pressure stems from parents’ beliefs about children’s

ability and their willingness to realize their intellectual potential through study. Our analysis of

parents’ beliefs about ability and effort in relation to children’s reported academic achievement

suggest that while most parents align their evaluations of children’s performance with evidence

of achievement based on school records and report cards, many parents make unreasonable

demands of already high-achieving children. This lends credence to the assertions of homework


critics that homework creates conflict and tension in families and to the claims of counsellors

and researchers who point to an increased incidence in cases of student stress associated with

the demands of their teachers and parents for ever-higher levels of achievement.

Does the management of homework stress in families vary by work-life balance, SES,

immigrant status and by (child’s) gender?

Our analysis addressed issues raised by Kralovec and Buell (2000) in their critique of

homework practices in the U.S. Their assessment of the impacts of homework on families

focused on time limitations of employed parents and the fact that many parents lack the

necessary resources for involvement while others lack the knowledge to activate those

resources they do possess. Our sample of parents included those whose children were aged 9-

16 who therefore were in a period of transition as they matured into adolescence and

progressed through a changing school structure and curriculum. The literature on the

authoritative parenting style suggests that parent-child relations are most likely to be positive

where parents are responsive to the changing needs of their children, whose primary task is the

acquisition of competence and autonomy. In examining parenting practices by social structure

we imposed a set of criteria related to the notion of developmentally appropriate parenting

(DAP). Derived from educational and developmental psychology, DAP may be applied to the

relationship between homework stress and social structure by distributing responses across

children’s age ranges -- in this case 9-12, 13-14, and 15-16. Stress then can be viewed in

relation to intensity, duration, and timing differences between parent groups. Our results

generally support the Kralovec & Buell arguments. While there are significant differences

between parent groups defined by educational level, immigrant status, and child’s gender, there

is considerable uniformity in the level of stress experienced across groups. Not only is the level

of stress very similar across groups it also persists throughout the age range. Interestingly,

stress levels for all parent groups were highest among families with children 9-12 – those who

are preparing for the shift from elementary to middle school. Differences were noted between

the work-life balance categories where parents who had difficulty establishing a balance

between home and work experienced greater homework stress involving not only their 9-12

year olds but also those 13-16 years of age.


Policy and Research Directions

Families and School Partnerships

A great deal of research has been conducted on the benefits of directly involving parents

in the classroom routines and extra-curricular activities of schools. An equally extensive body of

research has been developed on the role of homework in children’s learning. Both are a

response to demands for greater accountability on the part of schools and families and have led

to the formation of a new partnership between home and school, one in which parents are

increasingly responsible for the educational success and social adjustment of their children

(Ontario Education, 2005). This new partnership also reflects broad shifts in social priorities that

now value greater individuality (Beck, 1997). To some extent these perspectives are based on

the realities of global markets and knowledge-based economic growth. In this environment,

school-work transitions are no longer predictable, linear pathways to the labour market. While

economic surety is not possible, most parents feel their children will be better positioned

economically if they obtain a post-secondary credential. Preparing children for further education

requires investment of parents’ time and resources in a system they see as increasingly

competitive.

An instrumental view of education in the K-12 system forces many parents to adopt

practices that have been described as intensive. School involvement may help build social

network that facilitate their children’s adjustment and progress but the research indicates direct

involvement in schools is not the most effective investment for parents (Dehli, 2004; Mattingly et

al, 2002). More effective investments can be made in the home learning environment where

parents can become more directly involved in their children’s learning activities, especially

homework. However, parent involvement in homework becomes problematic when their

presence fails to foster self-regulation and contribute to the child’s sense of autonomy. Parents’

beliefs about children’s academic ‘potential’ often do not promote autonomy. To the extent

pressuring adolescents inappropriately stems from a view of intelligence as fixed, parents’

beliefs about ‘potential that is realized through effort’ needs to be questioned, at least as this is

applied in the current home-school partnership.

Adolescents have a developmental imperative to acquire intellectual competence and to

act autonomously in important arenas of life, including the school. The workplace and

communities (both urban and rural) offer many opportunities to develop an identity as an able

individual. Schools tend to limit those opportunities or force individuals to proceed along

restricted curricular tracks. Current discussions about school reform should then consider


vocational as well as academic pathways for adolescents and these discussions need to include

parents and their adolescent children (Rosenbaum, 2001). European models of ‘alternation

education’ that embed learning in the workplace (or community) are examples that have been

proposed in the Canadian context (Schuetze & Sweet, 2004). A broader range of curricular

possibilities would be consistent with current views of intelligence as being both malleable and

capable of a broader range of expression than is possible with traditional definitions of cognitive

capacity. Sternberg (1985) and Gardner (1983), for example, propose definitions of intelligence

that include practical and creative thinking. These more inclusive views of competent behaviour

extend to the emotions. Goleman (1995) proposes the concept of emotional intelligence as an

essential attribute of individuals entering the increasingly interdependent, cooperative

workplace.

With respect to homework stress, our analysis suggests that homework seems to be a

continuing source of anxiety for over half the families of children in the intermediate grades and

moderates only slightly through the middle and (early) high school period. This indicates the

need to reconsider the role of homework in the current instructional model encountered by

adolescents in our schools, especially in the pre-adolescent, intermediate grades.

The ‘homework debate’ has developed around extreme views. Advocates recommend a

dramatic increase in the amount of homework assigned and point to international achievement

test results to justify their position. Critics call for the complete abolition of homework citing a

lack of supportive research and evidence of social and emotional costs to families. A third view

argues for schools to relieve parents of the responsibility for homework and establish school-

based study halls as part of the school routine. There is yet another alternative. A practical,

hands-on literature proposes changes to classroom instruction that would see homework used

in ways that extend its use beyond that of independent practice. A problem with current

homework policies is not just that homework is a marginal, repetitive activity but that it too

frequently constrains or ignores individual children’s interests. Several articles and books have

responded with recommendations for project work as a means of linking home and classroom

learning. These offer opportunities to broaden and extend children’s experiential learning.

Involving children’s family and other community members in learning activities that are not

prescribed and repetitive has the potential to motivate and liberate the child’s thinking. It also

may reduce the stress many families associate with the daily homework assignment (Walker et

al, 2004).

Intensive parenting adds an educational role to parenting that many parents appear to

find burdensome. As basic dimensions of this phenomenon, both autonomy promotion and


stress reduction need to be addressed in discussions of the home learning environment. One

avenue for debate and action are proposals for the implementation of government-supported

parent education programming. However, research on such programs shows little evidence of

their effectiveness. Certainly government insistence on parent education programs is likely to be

resisted by Canadian parents (Dickinson, 1993). To date, most ‘discussions’ of the means of

improving parenting have been in the form of ‘expert’ recommendations published in women’s

magazines and parenting handbooks. These have been criticized by Hays (1996) and Quirke,

(2006), as misguided and unhelpful attempts at influencing parents. While deferring to experts

on matters of child-rearing has not proven attractive to most parents, the magazines do at least

offer parents perspectives that extend their own experience and views on effective parenting. A

more informed exchange among parents and teachers (who also are parents) about the costs

and benefits of different homework models would be useful. It would be an even more useful

discussion were it undertaken in the context of a broader critique of home-school relations

where issues of parental involvement in children’s learning were debated.

Future Research

This paper assessed several factors related to the ‘educational vulnerability’ of families

engaged in planning and preparing their children for post-secondary education. The literature

reviewed and the exploration of the 2002 SAEP data lays the groundwork for more targeted

analyses and a more thorough treatment of specific topics. The following list represents only a

sample of possible research topics. However, they indicate a direction that fits within the theme

of intensive parenting and would contribute to our understanding of the complex issues

surrounding parental involvement in children’s learning.

1. Psychological Control: We need a better understanding of how parents’ beliefs

determine their actions towards adolescents. Barber’s (2002) work with psychological

control as derived from the parenting style research is a useful concept to employ in

examining the antecedents of parents’ behaviour in the home learning environment. Our

use of parents’ beliefs about intelligence and ‘potential’ is promising as a means of fitting

the study of psychological control to the home learning environment. However, the

concept is complex and more detailed analyses are required to determine its association

with parent involvement practices such as homework or with the many other forms of

home-school contact.


2. Immigrant PSE Savings: A major issue for parents is financial planning for their

children’s PSE. Many immigrant parents encourage their children’s aspirations for a

university education and attempt to provide the resources needed to attain this goal.

However, in recent years immigrants have suffered a significant decline in earnings that

must necessarily limit their ability to set aside money needed for (rising) PSE tuition and

associated costs. An important policy question to pursue in the future involves the effect

of lower income on immigrant plans for financing children’s PSE.

3. Immigrant Achievement and Mobility: There is an extensive literature on immigrant

labour market integration but relatively little has been written on the school adjustment,

achievement, and mobility of 1st and 2nd generation immigrant youth. Work by

Gunderson (2007) on the school trajectories of immigrant and visible minority youth

enrolled in ESL classes in the Vancouver School District suggests that disengagement

and dropout is a major problem. Of particular importance are the differences in academic

achievement and retention of immigrant youth from culturally different countries

(McAndrew et al, 2005).

4. SES and Cultural/Social Capital: There is an extensive literature on processes that

reinforce social class differences in educational attainment. This has involved a detailed

examination of the activation of cultural and social capital and has compared working

class and middle class families (Lareau, 2003). More recently, attempts have been made

to extend the notion of capital to include ‘emotional capital’ and link this with the work of

mothers in families who are seen as principal agents in supplying the emotional support

needed by children and adolescents (Reay, 2000).

5. External Investments: Increasing numbers of parents are seeking professional tutoring

to further their children’s learning. For some, tutoring is needed as a remedial service but

for others it ‘adds value’ to the work of the school. The latter is consistent with the

intensive parenting concept but has not been examined from that perspective. Previous

work on the Canadian tutoring industry by Scott Davies and colleagues (Davies, 2004)

provides a context within which research could proceed on the family antecedents and

correlates of parents’ decision to engage a tutoring service.


6. Gendered Parenting: Boy’s underachievement (or girl’s relatively higher achievement)

have been explained in terms of masculine socialization practices in the home,

reinforced by school values and routines. To the extent socialization explains boy’s

underachievement, it would be important to determine if ‘gendered parenting’ is a

contributing factor. There is some comparative research on parent-child relations in rural

and urban regions and on the allocation of resources among siblings that is suggestive

of differential treatment of boys and girls. But little research has considered if parents are

responding in gendered ways to the additional pressures inherent in the intensive

parenting approach. The focus on accountability and academic success as measured by

‘marks’ is rarely associated with intellectual curiosity and initiative. Male resistance to

classroom routines (and homework) may be a special case of the general

disengagement from the ideals of formal learning observed by Cote & Allahar (2007).


References Adams, G. Ryan, B., Ketsetzis, M. & Keating, L. (2000). Rule compliance and peer sociability: A

study of family process, school-focused parent-child interactions and children’s classroom behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(2), 237-250.

Andres, L., Anisef, P, Krahn, H., Looker, D., Thiessen, V. (1999). The persistence of social structure : Class and gender effects on the occupational aspirations of Canadian youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 2, 261-282.

Anisef, P. & Phythian, K. (2005). Rising Low-income Rates and Adaptation of Canadian Immigrant Youth. Unpublished paper. York University. Dept of Sociology.

Anisef, P., Frempong, G. & Sweet, R. (2005). The effects of region and gender on educational planning in Canadian families. In R. Sweet, & P. Anisef (Eds.). Preparing for Post-Secondary Education: New Roles for Governments and Families (249-272). McGill-Queens University Press.

Audas R., & Willms, J.D., (2001) Engagement and Dropping Out of School: A Life-Course Perspective. Ottawa, Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources and Development Canada.

Aurini, J. & Davies, S. (2005). Choice without markets: Homeschooling in the context of private education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(4), 461-474.

Baker, D.P., & Stevenson, D.L. (1986). Mothers’ strategies for children’s school achievement: managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59(3), 156-166.

Barber, B. (1997). Introduction: Adolescent socialization in context – the role of connection, regulation and autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5-11.

Barber, B. (2005). Positive adolescent functioning: An assessment of measures across time and group. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 70(4), vii-155.

Barber, B. (Ed.), (2002). Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Barber, B. & Olsen, K. (1997). Socialization in context: Connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family, school, neighbourhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12: 287-315.

Barton, A., Drake, C., Perez, J. St. Louis, K. & George, M. (2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3-12.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development In J. Brookes-Gunn, R. Lerner, A Peterson (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Adolescence. New York: Garland.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage. Bibby, R. (2001). Canada’s Teens: Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow. Toronto: Stoddart. Bloom, B. (1976). Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) and R. Nice (Trans.).

Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Campbell, J. (1994). Differential socialization in mathematics achievement: Cross-national and cross-cultural perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 665-747.

Canadian Council on Learning (2007). What Canadians Think About Homework. Downloaded May 13, 2007: http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Newsroom/Releases/20061010SCALStructuredLearning.htm

Chao, R. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832-1843.

Chao, R. & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. Bornstein (Ed), Handbook of Parenting (Second Edition), Volume 4: Social Conditions and Applied Parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Chao, R. & Willms, D. (2000). Family Income, Parenting Practices, and Childhood Vulnerability: A Challenge to the ‘Culture Of Poverty’ Thesis. Policy Brief No. 9. Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy. University of New Brunswick.

Chao, R. & Willms, D. (2002). The effects of parenting practices on children’s outcomes. In D. Willms, Vulnerable Children (pp. 149-165). University of Alberta Press.

Clausen, J. (1991). Adolescent competence and the life course, or why one social psychologist needed a concept of personality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54: 4-14.

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, Supplement: S95-S120.

Collins, W. (1992). Parents’ cognitions and developmental changes in relationships during adolescence. In I. Sigel, I., A. McGillicuddy-Delisi & J. Goodnow (1992). Parental Belief Systems: The Psychological Consequences for Children (Second Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, W., Maccoby, E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, M. & Bornstein, M. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55: 218-232.

Connell, R. (2003). Working-class families and the new secondary education. Australian Journal of Education. 47(3), 235-250.

Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. New York: Longman. Cooper, H. (2001). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers,

and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage. Cooper, H., Robinson, J. & Patall, E. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement?

A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62. Corak, M., Lipps, G. & & Zhao, J. (2003). Family Income and Participation in Post-Secondary

Education. Analytic Research Studies Branch Research Paper No. 210. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Cote, J. & Allahar, A. (2007). Ivory Tower Blues: A University System in Crisis. University of Toronto Press.

Crouter, A. & McHale, S. (2005). The long arm of the job revisited: Parenting in dual-earner families. In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.). Parenting: An Ecological Perspective, 2nd edition (pp.275-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Schneider, B. (2000). Becoming Adult. New York: Basic Books Darling, N. & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.

Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496. Davies, S. (2005). A revolution of expectations? Three key trends in the SAEP data. In R. Sweet

& P. Anisef (Eds.), Preparing for Post-Secondary Education: New Roles for Governments and Families (149-165). Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

Davies, S. (2004). School choice by default? Understanding the demand for private tutoring in Canada." American Journal of Education, 110(3), 233-255.

de Broucker, P. (2005). Getting There and Staying There: Low-income Students and Post-Secondary Education, A Synthesis of Research Findings. Canadian Policy Research Networks Report. Ottawa: CPRN

Deforges, C. & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support, and Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review, Report No. 433. London: Department of Education and Skills.

Dehli, K. (2004). Parental involvement and neo-liberal government: Critical analysis of contemporary education reforms. Canadian and International Education, 33(1), 45-73.

Dickinson, D. (2002). Shifting images of developmentally appropriate practice as seen through different lenses. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 26-32.

Dickinson, H. (1993). Scientific parenthood: The mental hygiene movement and the reform of Canadian families, 1925-1950. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 24(3), 387-402.


Dinovitzer, R., Hagan, J. & Parker, P. (2003). Choice and circumstance: Social capital and planful competence in the attainments of immigrant youth. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28(4), 463-488.

Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Leiderman, Mont-Reynaud, R., & Chen, Z. ( 1990). Family decision making and academic performance in a diverse high school population. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5: 143-160.

Duxbury, L. & Higgins, C. (2001). Work-life balance in the new millennium: Where are we? Where do we need to go? CPRN Discussion Paper No. W|12. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.

Dyson, L. (2001). Home-school communication and expectations of recent Chinese immigrants. Canadian Journal of Education. 26, 455-476.

Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C., Reuman,D., Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’’ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48:90-101.

Edwards, R. 2004. Present and absent in troubling ways: Families and social capital debates. The Sociological Review, 52, 1-21.

Elliott, E. & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 5-12.

Epstein, J.& Lee, S. (1995). National patterns of school and family connections in the middle grades. In B. Ryan, G. Adams, T. Gullotta, R. Weissberg & R. Hampton (Eds.), The Family-School Connection: Theory, Research and Practice (pp.108-154). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Elkind, D. (1994). Ties That Stress: The New Family Imbalance. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Erikson, E. (1993). Childhood and Society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Farkas, G. (2003). Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors in stratification

processes. American Review of Sociology, 29, 541-62. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P. and Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,

state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic. Gill, B, & Schlossman, S. (2003). A nation at rest: The American way of homework. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (3), 319-337. Gillies, V. (2006). Working class mothers and school life: Exploring the role of emotional capital.

Gender and Education, 18(3), 281-293. Gladieux, L. & Swail, S. (2000). Beyond Access: Improving the odds of college success. Phi

Delta Kappa 81: 688-92. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York:

Bantam. Gonzalez-Dehaas, A. Willems, P. & Holbein, M. (2005). Examining the relationship between

parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.

Gorges, T. & Elliott, S. (1995). Homework: Parents and student involvement and their effects on academic performance. Canadian Journal of School Psychology,11, 28

Green, E. (1999). Transitions from Childhood to Youth and Adulthood. Vancouver: First Call-The B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition.

Grolnick, W. & Slowiaczek, M. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivation model. Child Development, 65, 237-252.

Gunderson, L. (2007). English-Only Instruction and Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools: A Critical Examination. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Hall, S. (2005). Change in paternal involvement from 1977 to 1997: A cohort analysis. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 34(2), 127-139.

Harris, J. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Bulletin, 102: 458-489.

Haveman, R. & Wolfe, B. (1995). The determinants of children’s attainments: A review of methods and findings. Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 1829-1878.

Hawkins, A, J., Bradford, K. P., Palkovitz, R., Christiansen, S. L, Day, R. D., & Call, Vaughn R.A.. 2002. The inventory of father involvement: A pilot study of a new measure of father involvement, The Journal of Men’s Studies, 10(2), Winter, 183-196.

Hays, S. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

Heckman, J. & Masterov, D. (2007). The Productivity Argument for Investing in Children. Discussion paper No. 2725. Bonn (Germany): Institute for the Study of Labour (IZA).

Hein, C. & Lewko, J. (1994). Gender differences in factors related to parenting style: A study of high performing science students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 9: 262-281.

Herman, M., Dornbusch, S., Herron, M., & Herting, J. (1997). The influence of family regulation, connection, and psychological autonomy on six measures of adolescent functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12:34-67.

Ho (Sui-Chu), E., & Willms, J. D. (1989). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126-141.

Hoover-Dempsey, K., Battiato, A., Walker, J., Reed, R., Dejong, J. & Jones, K. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195-209.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3-42.

Jones, T. & Prinz, R. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 341-363.

Kao, G. (2004). Parental influences on the educational outcomes of immigrant youth. International Migration Review, 37(4), 427-449

Kao, G. & Tienda, M. (1998). Educational aspirations of minority youth. American Journal of Education, 106: 349-371.

Keating, D. & Hertzman, C. (1999). Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations. New York: The Guilford Press

Kohn, A. (2006). The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids get Too Much of a Bad Thing. Cambridge, MA: DaCapo Press/Perseus Books Group.

Krahn, H. & Taylor, A. (2005). Resilient Teenagers: Explaining the High Educational Aspirations of Visible Minority Immigrant Youth in Canada. PCERII Working Paper Series. (WWP02-05). Edmonton: The University of Alberta.

Kralovec, E. & Buell, J. (2000). The End of Homework: How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning. Boston: Beacon Press.

Kwak, K. (2003). Adolescents and their parents: A review of intergenerational family relations for immigrant and non-immigrant families. Human Development, 46, 115-136.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Lareau, A. & McNamara-Horvat, E. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1): 37-53

Li, J. (2003). Affordances and constraints of immigrant Chinese parental expectations on children’s school performances. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49: 198-200.


Lipps, G. (2005). Making the Transition: The Impact of Moving From Elementary to Secondary School on Adolescents’ Academic Achievement and Psychological Adjustment. Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper No.242. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Looker, D. 1994. Active capital: The impact of parents on youth’s educational performance and plans. In L. Erwin and D. MacLennan (Eds.). Sociology of Education in Canada (pp. 164-187). Toronto: Copp-Clark Longman.

Looker, D. & Thiessen, V. (2004). Aspirations of Canadian Youth for Higher Education. Final Report (SP-600-05-04E) Ottawa: HRSDC.

Louie, V. (2001). Parents’ aspirations and investment: The role of social class in the educational experiences of 1.5 and second-generation Chinese Americans. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 438-474.

Lundberg, S. & Rose, E. Investments in sons and daughters: Evidence from the consumer expenditure survey. In A. Kalil & T. Deleire (Eds.), Family Investments in Children’s Potential (pp.163-179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lytton, H. & Romney, D. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109: 267-296.

McAndrew, M., Anisef, P., Blais, J.-G., Ungerleider, C., Sweet, R. (2005). Performance et cheminement scolaires des jeunes d’origine immigrée au Canada : apport actuel et utilisation des banques de données provinciales. Note de recherche. Cahiers québécois de démographie.

McIntosh, J. (2007). Family Background, Parental Involvement and Academic Achievement in Canadian Schools. Unpublished paper. Department of Economics, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec.

McMullen, K. (2004). The gap in achievement between boys and girls. Education Matters, No. 4. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Maccoby, E. & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4. (pp 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Mahoney, J., Harris, A. & Eccles, J. (2006). Organized activity participation, positive youth development, and the over-scheduling hypothesis. Social Policy Report, 20(4), 3-30

Mandell, N. & Sweet, R. (2004). Homework as homework: Reproducing class through women’s unpaid labour. Atlantis, 28, 7-18.

Mandell, N. & Sweet, R. (2004). Parental involvement in the creation of home learning environments: Gender and class patterns. In R. Sweet, & P. Anisef (Eds.). Preparing for Post-Secondary Education: New Roles for Governments and Families (249-272). McGill-Queens University Press.

Marjoribanks, K. (2002). Family and social capital: Towards a context theory of students’ school outcomes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Marks, G. (2005). Accounting for immigrant and non-immigrant differences in reading and mathematics in twenty countries. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(5), 925-946.

Marshall, K. (2007). The busy lives of teens. Perspectives, 8(5), 5-15 Mattingly, D., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T., Rodriguez, & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations:

The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 549-576.

Miller, S., Manhal, M. & Mee, L. (1991). Parental beliefs, parental accuracy and children’s cognitive performance: A search for causal relations. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 267-276.

Okagaki, L. (2001). Parental beliefs, parenting style, and children’s intellectual development. In E. Grigorenko & R. Sternberg (Eds.). Family Environment and Intellectual Functioning: A Life-Span Perspective (pp. 141-172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Okagaki, L. & Bingham (2005). Parents’ social cognitions and their parenting behaviors. In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.). Parenting: An Ecological Perspective, 2nd edition (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Okagaki, L. & Luster (2005). Research on parental socialization of child outcomes: Current controversies and future directions. In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.). Parenting: An Ecological Perspective, 2nd edition (pp.275-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Okagaki, L. & Sternberg (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance. Child Development, 64, 36-56.

Ontario Education (2005). Excellence for All: Developing Partners in Education. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.

Otto, L. & Atkinson, M. (1997). Parental involvement and adolescent development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12: 68-89.

Pomerantz, E. & Eaton, M. (2001). Maternal intrusive support in the academic context: Transactional socialization processes. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 174-186.

Pong, S-L., Hao, L. & Gardner, E. (2005). The roles of parenting styles and social capital in school performance of immigrant Asian and Hispanic adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 86(4), 928-950.

Pope, D. (2001). “Doing School”: How we are Creating a Generation of Stressed Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pushor, D. (2007). Parent Engagement: Creating a Shared World. Paper presented at Ontario Education Research Symposium (January 18-20) Toronto, Ontario.

Quirke, L. (2006). “Keeping young minds sharp”: Children’s cognitive stimulation and the rise of parenting magazines, 1959-2003. CRSA/RCSA, 43(4), 387-406

Raley, S. & Bianchi, S. (2006). Sons, daughters and family processes: Does gender of children matter? Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 401-421.

Reay, D. (1998). Class Work: Mother’s Involvement in their Children’s Primary Schooling. London: UL Press.

Reay, D. (2000). A useful extension of Bourdieu’s conceptual framework? Emotional capital as a way of understanding mother’s involvement in their children’s education. The Sociological review, 48(4), 568-585.

Rosenbaum, J. (2001). Beyond College for All: Career Paths for the Forgotten Half. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ruble, D. & Martin, C. (1997). Gender development. In W. Damm & N. Eisenberg (ed.). Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed.): Vol.3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (pp. 933-1016). New York: Wiley.

Ryan, B. Adams, G., Gullotta, T., Weissberg. R. & Hampton, R. (1995) The Family-School Connection: Theory, Research and Practice (pp.108-154). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Saarni, C. (1999). The Development of Emotional Competence. New York: Guilford. Schuetze, H. & Sweet, R. (2003). Integrating School and Workplace Learning in Canada.

McGill-Queens University Press. Scott-Jones, D. (1995). Parent-child interactions and school achievement. In B. Ryan, G.

Adams, T. Gullotta, R., Weissberg, & R. Hampton (1995) The Family-School Connection: Theory, Research and Practice (pp.75-107). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sigel, I., McGillicuddy-Delisi, A. & Goodnow, J. (1992). Parental Belief Systems: The Psychological Consequences for Children (Second Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125, 146.

Sternberg, R. ((1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the Classroom. New York: Simon & Schuster. Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-child relationships in retrospect and

prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(1), 1-19. Steinberg, L. & Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,

83-110. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting

practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.

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

Sutherland, N. (1997). Growing Up: Childhood in English Canada from the Great War to the Age of Television. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Sweet, R. (2005). Educational Plans and Parenting Practices in Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Families. Paper presented at the International Metropolis Conference, Toronto, Ontario.

Sweet, R. & Anisef, P. (2005). Preparing for Post-secondary Education; New Roles for Governments and Families. McGill-Queens University Press.

Sweet, R. & Mandel, N. (2004). Parents’ involvement in homework: An overview of Canadian research. Polyglossia, 9, 29-39.

Sweet, R. & Mandell, N. (2005). Exploring limits to parental involvement in their children’s homework. In R. Sweet & P. Anisef (Eds.). Preparing for Post-Secondary Education: New Roles for Governments and Families (273-288). McGill-Queens University Press.

Thiessen, V. & Looker, D. (2005). Distributing scarce resources: Parental involvement in their children’s post-secondary education. In R. Sweet, & P. Anisef (Eds.). Preparing for Post-Secondary Education: New Roles for Governments and Families (249-272). McGill-Queens University Press.

Trautwein, U. & Koller, O. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement – Still much of a mystery. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 115-145.

Walker, J., Hoover-Dempsey, K., Whetsel, D. & Green, C. (2004). Parental Involvement in Homework: A Review of Current Research and its Implications for Teachers, After School Program Staff, and Parent Leaders. Harvard Family Research Project, Cambridge, Mass.

Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). The ‘boy turn’ in research on gender and education. Review of Educational Research, 73, 471-498.

White, J., Marshall, S. & Wood, J. (2005). Family structure, child well-being, and post-secondary saving: The effect of social capital on the child’s acquisition of human capital. In R. Sweet, & P. Anisef (Eds.). Preparing for Post-Secondary Education: New Roles for Governments and Families (222-248). McGill-Queens University Press.

Willms, D. (2002) Vulnerable Children in Canada. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. Willms, D. (2003). Student Engagement at School: A Sense of Belonging and Participation:

Results from PISA 2003. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Worswick, C. (2004). Adaptation and inequality: Children of immigrants in Canadian schools. Canadian Journal of Economics, 37, 53-77.

Yalnizian, A. (2006). The Rich and the Rest of Us: The Changing Face of Canada’s Growing Gap. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., Roberts, R., MacCann, C. (2003). Development of emotional intelligence: Towards a multi-level investment model. Human Development, 46, 69-96.

Zelizer, V. (1985). Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value of Children. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

MANAGING THE HOME LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: PARENTS, ADOLESCENTS, AND THE HOMEWORK PROBLEM

Documents