Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say: A Case Study in Mixed Methods Social Science Research [1st ed.] 9783030595012, 9783030595029

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xxi
Introduction (Katy Smart)....Pages 1-15
The Parents (Katy Smart)....Pages 17-33
The Importance of Learning and Using Parenting Strategies (Katy Smart)....Pages 35-61
The Value of Spending Quality Time with Their Child (Katy Smart)....Pages 63-75
How Children Benefit from Opportunities That Promote Their Development (Katy Smart)....Pages 77-96
The Significance of the Family Working Together (Katy Smart)....Pages 97-107
The Importance of the Right Environment to Share Parenting Experiences with Other Parents (Katy Smart)....Pages 109-118
Discussion and Conclusion (Katy Smart)....Pages 119-136
Back Matter ....Pages 137-141

Citation preview

Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say A Case Study in Mixed Methods Social Science Research

Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say

Katy Smart

Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say A Case Study in Mixed Methods Social Science Research

Katy Smart School of Education University of Bristol Bristol, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-59501-2 ISBN 978-3-030-59502-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

I would like to dedicate this book to my husband Chris who has always believed in me and encouraged me to follow my passion to try and make a difference to the lives of children, young people and their families. I am so grateful for all the hours Chris has patiently listened to me as I have talked about every other aspect surrounding my Ph.D. research and then this book. I am so appreciative for all the time he has given up to spend with me over the years as I have worked on my research. When you undertake a Ph.D. and then decide to write a book about it, it is all encompassing and permeates most aspects of your life. It is especially thanks to Chris’ constant support, love and encouragement that I am now in a position to share my research with you.

Acknowledgements

There are so many people that I want to thank for helping me complete the research that has led to this book Firstly, I must thank the participants, the parents, all of whom were so generous with their time completing questionnaires and taking part in the interviews; without them there would have been no research. Although I do not discuss the data from the trainers, they do deserve a thank you for the time they gave me. This provided triangulation of data sources and promoted the trustworthiness of the data. I must also thank the local authorities, children’s centres and schools who acted as gatekeepers and gave me permission to invite their parents to take part in my research. Without their support I would not have been so successful in recruiting so many parents. I would also like to thank my supervisors at the University of Bristol, Professor Anthony Feiler and Dr. Sara Meadows, for their ongoing support and encouragement throughout my Ph.D. The time and guidance they gave me was invaluable. Although sadly no longer with us I would like to thank Professor Roy Bhaskar for encouraging me to attend his fortnightly reading group sessions, annual conference and webinars at the Institute of Education in London, to help me better understand his multi-faceted philosophy of Critical Realism. He very sadly passed away on the 19 November 2014 however his philosophy lives on.

vii

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Finally, I must thank my family, my husband Chris and children Nathan, Francis and Eleanor, for all their love and continual support throughout my research and the writing of this book. When you take on a Ph.D. so does your family and for this I am most grateful. I thank you all.

About This Book

This book captures the key findings from my Ph.D. research at the University of Bristol looking at parenting programmes. The first two chapters address the reasons why I considered it necessary to undertake this research and highlight some key elements of my methodology. Chapter 2 also introduces the parents who took part in the study, in particular the eight interviewed parents. The following five chapters are each framed around one of the five key themes that developed from my analysis of the parents’ questionnaire and interview data. I make extensive use of direct quotations so that the parents’ voices can be heard. The final chapter summarises my key findings regarding the parents’ perspectives of the parenting programmes. It further demonstrates how parenting programmes are a real-world example of the Transplant model of parent-professional practice in action. Finally, I discuss how elements of my methodological approach might be more widely applicable within social science research.

ix

Contents

1

Introduction Introduction to Key Terms Parents Parenting Styles Parenting Skills Parental Involvement and Parental Engagement Introduction to Parenting Programmes Research Aims A Critical Realist Research Approach Summary References

1 3 4 4 4 4 5 7 9 13 14

2

The Parents Targeted Groups Fathers and Parenting Programmes Teenage Mothers and Parenting Programmes Poverty and Parenting Research Design The Parents for Interview The Interviews Summary References

17 18 18 19 21 22 27 28 30 32

xi

xii

3

CONTENTS

The Importance of Learning and Using Parenting Strategies Theory of Good Parenting Developing Parenting Skills The Importance of Parental Confidence The Parenting Programmes in This Research Triple-P Webster Stratton’s The Incredible Years PEEP What the Parents Say What This Tells Us References

35 36 39 42 44 44 45 45 46 57 59

4

The Value of Spending Quality Time with Their Child The Impact of Attachment on Parenting The Impact of Parenting on Children’s Behaviour What the Parents Say What This Tells Us References

63 64 66 67 72 74

5

How Children Benefit from Opportunities That Promote Their Development Assuring Confidentiality and Anonymity Confidentiality Anonymity The Impact of Parenting on Children’s Development and Attainment What the Parents Say Speech and Language Development Social Development Behavioural Development Improved Confidence School Readiness and Education What This Tells Us References

6

The Significance of the Family Working Together Parenting Programme Critique

77 77 78 78 80 85 86 87 89 90 92 93 95 97 98

CONTENTS

7

8

xiii

What the Parents Say What This Tells Us References

102 104 106

The Importance of the Right Environment to Share Parenting Experiences with Other Parents What the Parents Say What This Tells Us References

109 111 114 118

Discussion and Conclusion What Parents Thought About the Impact of Parenting Programmes Research Question 2: Parents’ Views Regarding Parental Changes Research Question 3: Parents’ Views on the Impact to the Children Parenting Programmes as a Real-World Example of a Transplant Model in Practice Research Question 1: Parents’ Views on Parenting Programmes How My Methodology Can Serve as an Example for General Social Science Research Critical Realism as a Philosophy Maximising Participation Through Anonymity and Confidentiality Engaging to Maximise Participation Respecting the Data Current Parenting Programme Availability Conclusion References

Index

119 120 120 122 124 124 126 126 127 128 129 130 133 134 137

About the Author

Katy Smart has Ph.D. research interest, which forms the basis of this book, that came about through over 30 years of working with children, young people and parents. This included being a parent programme designer and facilitator, NVQ lecturer and assessor in childcare and education, Educational Psychologist Assistant, preschool leader and primary school teacher. She was also the Parent Support, Extended Services and Children’s Centre Advisor for 78 primary, secondary and special schools and 14 children’s centres for a local authority in the south-west of the UK for over six years. Her interest in parenting and parental engagement has also been influenced by 31 years of being a mother. As a mother she always treasured the time she spent with her three children from reading stories and playing with them as they discovered the world through encouraging them to develop and explore their imaginations and creativity, to supporting their learning with field trips and helping with homework, to embracing their passions and helping them achieve their dreams. Katy is currently a Post-doctoral Researcher at the University of Oxford; prior to that she was a Senior Teaching Associate at the Graduate School of Education at the University of Bristol. Since 2013 she has been the editor of the Psychology of Education Review, the journal of the Psychology of Education Section of the British Psychological Society. Previous publications by Katy include a chapter in Psychology Applications and Developments III entitled Parenting Programmes: A Transplant xv

xvi

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Model in Practice. She also was the co-editor of The Role of Competence Beliefs in Teaching and Learning, part of the Current Trends monograph series from the British Journal of Educational Psychology.

Abbreviations

1M 2E 3L 4D ALSPAC ASD BPP CR DCR DCSF DfES EYFS LA NICE PALS PEEP PEIP PRU PSA SES

First Moment in DCR Second Edge in DCR Third Level in DCR Fourth Dimension in DCR Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Autistic Spectrum Disorder Better Parenting Programme Critical Realism Dialectical Critical Realism Department for Children, Schools and Families Department for Education and Skills Early Years Foundation Stage Local Authority National Institute for Clinical Excellence Parents Altogether Lending Support Peers Early Education Partnership Parenting Early Intervention Programme Pupil Referral Unit Parent Support Advisor Socio-Economic Status

xvii

List of Figures

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1

Ontological layers in Critical Realism Research timeline Initial groupings of nodes Analysis process from transcript to themes Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model

10 25 30 31 37

xix

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2

Parents recruited per programme Parents selected for interview

23 26

xxi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract Parenting is one of the most important and rewarding roles you can have, yet it comes with many challenges—it is not an innate skill. It is widely recognised that parenting contributes significantly to children’s development, learning and achievement. Consequently, the UK Government provided funding for the nationwide delivery of parenting programmes to increase positive parental engagement with their child and their child’s education, with the ultimate goal of improving the life chances of children and young people. Keywords Parenting programme · Parental engagement · Parental involvement · Critical Realism

When it comes to children’s development and education, parents matter. Parents matter. Parents matter to me. When it comes to jobs the most important has to be parenting. Although without pay, it is arguably the most rewarding position you will ever have. Yet it comes with so many challenges and yes probably some heartbreak. I wish I could say being a good parent is innate, but even if you have a solid foundation in preparing you to be a parent you will, most likely, at some time be faced with situations that you do not know how best to handle.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_1

1

2

K. SMART

With the growing international recognition of the importance of the parental role in their child’s education, the UK Government commissioned Charles Desforges and Alberto Abouchaar to examine research findings on the relationship between family education, parental support and parental engagement on the one hand and their child’s achievement and adjustment in schools on the other. Desforges and Abouchaar’s (2003) review suggested that to improve the educational achievement of children and young people parents need to support their children; this goes beyond providing the basic needs such as housing, love, safety and nutrition and extends to include parent–child interaction, helping with school work and educational choices and communication with their child’s educational setting. The most important finding from Desforges and Abouchaar’s review was that parental engagement in their child’s learning and development could have a notable positive impact on their child’s attainment and achievement. In the primary age range the impact caused by different levels of parental involvement is much bigger than differences associated with variations in the quality of schools. The scale of the impact is evident across all social classes and all ethnic groups. (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003, pp. 4–5)

This suggests that parental engagement can have a greater impact on the child’s achievement than the variations in teaching quality between schools. This is quite a remarkable finding. I should highlight here that the terms “involvement” and “engagement” are frequently used interchangeably in the literature; I will clarify this distinction later in this chapter in the section Introduction to Key Terms. Before I share the details of my study, first a little about myself and why I considered this to be an important area that required investigation. My Ph.D. research interest came about through over 30 years of working with children, young people and parents. This has included being a parent programme designer and facilitator, Educational Psychologist Assistant, preschool leader and primary school teacher as well as the Parent Support, Extended Services and Children’s Centre Advisor for a local authority in the south-west of the UK. The differences in relationships between children and their parents, through observation

1

INTRODUCTION

3

in my professional experience, appeared to have a noticeable impact on children’s behaviour, development, attainment, school attendance, social interaction and ultimately on their future outcomes. My interest in parenting and parental engagement has also been influenced by 31 years of being a mother. As a mother I have always treasured the time I have spent with my three children from reading stories and playing with them as they discovered the world through encouraging them to develop and explore their imaginations and creativity, to supporting their learning with field trips and helping with homework, to embracing their passions and helping them achieve their dreams. However the knowledge and skills necessary for positive parenting do not come with the arrival of a new baby; for many parents they have not had positive parenting experiences themselves or have lacked the opportunity to learn these skills. For parent and child, this can mean missing out on these formative shared experiences; for the child this can also mean not reaching their full academic potential without such valuable parental engagement. In my role as a parent programme facilitator, parents frequently shared with me that attending the programme had improved their knowledge around child development and made a positive difference to their parenting skills. A common comment after completing the programme was that they wished they had attended a course earlier. As a preschool leader and primary school teacher parents have thanked me for the time I have given them to discuss their child and for my support. This relationship between myself, as an educational professional, and parents is I believe fundamental in promoting communication between home and the educational setting and in fostering partnership working. It can help parents feel less threatened about coming to talk to teachers around any concerns they may have or asking for assistance in explaining how they can best support their child with their education. This I believe helps promote parental engagement in their child’s education and subsequently improved achievement for their child.

Introduction to Key Terms Throughout this book, a number of terms are introduced which might benefit from a clear definition of how I use them.

4

K. SMART

Parents Although when using the term “parents” I am referring to both mothers and fathers, the parents involved in this study were predominantly mothers; in both my professional experience and the evidence from the literature it is still mainly mothers who are the primary caregivers (Shuffelton 2015) and it is the mother who usually attends a parenting programme. However there are fathers, albeit fewer, who are the primary caregiver and who attend the parenting programme so the use of parents rather than mothers is used to reflect this. Parenting Styles Parenting styles refers to the broader pattern of parenting practices relating to the behaviours and interactions between the parent and their child. For example Baumrind (1967) described four styles of parenting in her research: neglectful, permissive, authoritarian and authoritative. Gottman’s (1997) research also identifies four central parenting styles: the dismissing parent, the disapproving parent, the laissez-faire parent and the emotion-coaching parent. Parenting Skills Parenting skills are the techniques and tools that the parent can adopt in their interactions with their child including: using positive praise; establishing routines; setting clear consistent boundaries; engaging in parent– child activities to support and promote their child’s social, emotional, physical and cognitive development. Parental Involvement and Parental Engagement Specifically here I will be referring to parental involvement and engagement with their child’s education and development. Parental involvement focuses primarily on the educational process and educational setting. This is largely concerned with information sharing between parents and school or school-related activities including: parents’ evenings; school assemblies; home/school agreement; supporting the Parent Teacher Association; helping out in the library. These activities are not directly associated with the child’s learning and may have little impact on the child’s attainment (Harris and Goodall 2007).

1

INTRODUCTION

5

Parental engagement goes one step further with parents actively taking a role in supporting or creating activities to promote their child’s development and education. This could include: developing a stimulating and positive home learning environment; actively taking an interest and supporting their child’s schoolwork and homework; engaging in activities with their child that would promote their child’s social, emotional, physical and cognitive development. Parents are “doing with” rather than “being done to” or “doing to”. I have defined above how I use and interpret these two terms, however in the literature these phrases are often used interchangeably; an example of this would be when Desforges and Abouchaar use the term “involvement” yet when Goodall and Vorhaus (2011) refer to this document they use the term “engagement”—both referring to the same parental interactions. Feinstein and Symons (1999) is another example who refer to “involvement” however by my definition they are talking about “engagement”. Other than in direct quotations I will be using my definition to avoid ambiguity.

Introduction to Parenting Programmes Desforges and Abouchaar’s (2003) review was a key factor that led to the UK Government introducing a number of initiatives aimed at promoting children’s attainment through parental interaction with their children and their children’s school. Particular emphasis was placed on local authorities’ engagement with parenting programmes and the recruitment of a new workforce of Parent Support Advisors (Lindsay et al. 2009) to help bridge the gap between schools and parents. The success of Parent Support Advisor (PSA) pilot programmes resulted in specific Government funding being provided to introduce this scheme to all local authorities across the country, with additional funding being made available to provide training for and delivery of parenting programmes. To access this funding, each authority was presented with five evidence-based parenting programmes to choose from. An expected outcome from this provision was the improvement of parental engagement with their child’s education and a subsequent improvement in their child’s educational attainment. Children’s centres also received funding to ensure they provided similar support for parents whose children were not yet in school, including the delivery of parenting programmes.

6

K. SMART

In 2009 I was asked to lead on the Parent Support Advisor project for a south-west local authority, and my responsibilities included co-ordinating the recruitment and training of all the Parent Support Advisors across the borough. Each cluster of schools, a cluster comprising a secondary school and its primary feeder schools, recruited one PSA. I worked closely with the head teachers from each cluster to recruit the PSA that would best suit their cluster; it was important that the heads were involved in this process as they would be referring the parents they considered needed support to their PSA. All the PSAs received extensive training including being trained as a parenting programme facilitator. The importance of the parental role in their child’s development and education was further substantiated in 2010 when the UK Government commissioned Frank Field to conduct an independent review on life chances and poverty. Field’s review also acknowledged the importance of the role of parents in preventing poor children becoming poor adults: Nothing can be achieved without working with parents. All our recommendations are about enabling parents to achieve the aspirations that they have for their children. (Field 2010, p. 6)

Field’s review highlighted the increasing number of parenting programmes being offered at the time of writing his report in support of disadvantaged families, particularly those with children in the early years, and the positive impact such programmes can have on parenting and the home learning environment. One of his recommendations was that all new parents should be encouraged by children’s centres to take advantage of a parenting programme. However it was not long before the Government started to withdraw funding, first from the PSA initiative and then from the children’s centres. Frustrated by this change of direction, which seemed to be based on factors other than feedback about the efficacy of the programmes, I submitted my research proposal to the University of Bristol—and so my Ph.D. study began. During my research I watched the funding being taken away completely from the PSA initiative and then gradually from the children’s centres who were also delivering parenting programmes.

1

INTRODUCTION

7

Research Aims A number of parenting programmes have been developed, both internationally and in the UK, to meet the varying needs and approaches most suitable to parents. One of the key aims of many parenting programmes is to help parents develop positive parenting skills to support them in preventing or reducing challenging behaviour in children. Other aims integral to the philosophy of parenting programmes include strengthening the parent–child relationship, increasing children’s social and emotional learning, promoting school readiness, promoting parents’ awareness of children’s development and the importance of maximising learning opportunities. As part of a wider agenda, parenting programmes have had a greater emphasis placed on their value after the research findings of Desforges and Abouchaar; this had a powerful influence on local authorities offering and delivering more parenting programmes. The existing research into parenting programmes has primarily focused on their impact to children’s behaviour; this could be attributed to the primary aim of many parenting programmes being directed in this area. However, having a background in psychology and education I was additionally interested in the impact that the programmes have on parental behaviour and the subsequent effects on children’s development and attainment. Specifically, I was interested in the parents’ perspectives; my research provided parents the opportunity to express their views on parenting programmes. My study followed a number of families through one of three parenting programmes and beyond. My aim was not to advocate any particular parenting programme or indeed parenting programmes in general; rather my purpose was to explore parents’ perspectives on whether they considered parenting programmes to have had an impact on their own behaviour and whether they considered this had subsequently had any impact on their child. My study explored the longitudinal perspective by revisiting the families participating in my research one year after they had completed a parenting programme to examine the parents’ perceptions of any lasting influence. The three parenting programmes my research focused on were, Triple-P , Webster Stratton’s The Incredible Years and Peers Early Education Partnership ( PEEP ), three of the most popularly adopted programmes across the south-west of the UK at the time of starting my research. I will describe these programmes in more detail in the next chapter. In total 136 parents attending 20 courses took part in my study.

8

K. SMART

By gaining the parents’ perspectives I aimed to establish how effective parenting programmes are in terms of being a vehicle to deliver advice and guidance—how well do they succeed in getting across information and new ideas? Do they ensure parents feel empowered by the programme rather than being made to feel inadequate? Do parenting programmes change how a parent interacts with their child? Does this in turn improve the child’s progress? Does this really change the cycle that affects so many families—poverty (Blanden et al. 2005), teenage pregnancies (Smart 2003) and mental health problems (Murray and Cooper 1997). An investigation into the parenting programme process was a key component of my research. It is suggested that if a parent has formed a positive attachment to their child and continues to interact and take an interest in their life, it will have a positive impact on their future outcomes (Ainsworth et al. 1978; Bowlby 1980). Many factors come into play that influence how a parent develops a relationship with their child: their own role models when growing up; mental health issues; domestic violence; addiction (drugs, alcohol, gambling); socio-economic factors; their own education; initial mother–infant attachment. How do parenting programmes fit into this landscape? The main aim of my research was to explore the parents’ perceptions, but to ensure a degree of triangulation and to promote trustworthiness in the data, I needed to seek a secondary source to provide an alternative perspective to the parents’ reports. To this end my research incorporated the views from parent programme trainers—they saw the parents typically on a weekly basis, following them through the entirety of the course, and were well-placed to provide this additional perspective. However the focus of this book is solely on the parents’ voices. With these considerations in mind, my study addressed the following three research questions: 1. What are the views of parents regarding the parenting programme? 2. What are the views of parents regarding the changes that parents have made as a result of attending a parenting programme? 3. From the perspective of parents, what impact has the parenting programme had on the children? My research questions were framed in this way to allow for the voices of the parents to be heard and for them to share their views on the parenting

1

INTRODUCTION

9

programme process, any parental behaviour changes and any impact on the child. The heart of my research is the parents’ voices and as such I have tried to include as many as possible in this book; a key component will be the use of direct quotations from parents, allowing their voices to be heard in the context of my research. These quotations come from both questionnaire responses and interviews and will be identified as such. Responses from the post-programme questionnaire are labelled “Qpost”; responses from the one-year-on questionnaire “Q-year”; interview quotations will be labelled with the participant’s pseudonym. Transcribed phrases starting mid-way through a sentence will be prefixed with an ellipsis (…), words inserted for contextual clarity will be contained within square brackets [ ], emphasised phrases will be underlined and a pause in the participant’s response will be indicated with two dots (..).

A Critical Realist Research Approach The purpose of my research was to increase the knowledge and understanding of the impact of parenting programmes without actually affecting what already exists; my aim was to develop this understanding without distorting the mechanisms that led to its generation. Further, my research goes beyond a direct empiricist view and uses the parents’ stories to better appreciate the underlying reality—in other words I wanted to try and understand more about what mechanisms might be causing the impacts that are observed. This placed my study comfortably within Bhaskar’s (1975) Critical Realist philosophy in that by employing interviews with participants I would gain an insight into the underlying reality through an analysis of their experiences. Also in line with this philosophy it is possible to view the parenting programmes as “an ensemble of structures, practices and conventions that individuals reproduce or transform” (Bhaskar 1991, p. 76). I wanted to make connections between what the parents were saying and what was happening in their lives. Sims-Schouten and Riley (2014) consider this as providing a sense of justice to their research participants. Central to Critical Realism is the concept of different ontological domains or layers—the Real, the Actual and the Empirical—see Fig. 1.1. As each deeper layer is revealed and understood it becomes necessary to return to the original event for further critical analysis. Here the Real encapsulates the underlying structures, mechanisms and processes that are ultimately responsible for what we can observe; the Real

10

K. SMART

Empirical Actual Real

Fig. 1.1 Ontological layers in Critical Realism

cannot be seen but we can speculate on it, although it is not something we have any direct knowledge of. An example of this would be gravity; we do not see gravity however we know if we drop an object it will fall. Above the Real, the next layer is the Actual; this refers to events, the events that are caused by the Real mechanisms. We cannot observe the Real however we can observe the Actual: using the example of gravity we can see the object drop, that is to say we cannot observe gravity itself but we can observe an event caused by gravity. Finally the third ontological level of Bhaskar’s Critical Realism is the Empirical, the domain of the experience, where the Actual events translate into measurable outcomes. This is the position occupied by the researcher and is characterised by the measurements and observations that they make. For example in the case of gravity, the Empirical domain includes the measurements of how long an object took to fall. Applying this ontological model to my research reveals how the responses from individual parents and trainers comprise an empirical view of parenting programmes. Through the combination and analysis of these experiences I aim to uncover an understanding of the actual impacts of the programmes and then ultimately to determine the real mechanisms and processes that led to these outcomes. Through my research I am gaining knowledge from individual parent’s experiences and using induction to draw conclusions about larger populations (Danermark et al. 2002); however as part of this induction I have to revisit my understanding of the original event. This steady cycle of discovery, understanding, more discovery and amendment will get me closer to an accurate conclusion (Patomäki and Wight 2000).

1

INTRODUCTION

11

A second key component of Critical Realism is the recognition of the epistemic fallacy—the mistaken idea that ontological questions can be translated into purely epistemological terms, whereby being can be explained by our knowledge of being. Bhaskar highlights this fallacy through his ontological model presented above; the existence of the underlying reality, the domain of the Real, is independent of our knowledge and awareness of it, as experienced in the Empirical domain. Bhaskar goes on to further distinguish these two entities as an intransitive underlying reality compared to a transitive and changeable empirical understanding of that reality. Continuing the earlier example of gravity, we can see how Newton’s laws of gravity have been superseded by Einstein’s General Relativity as our epistemological understanding of this phenomenon, however the ontological reality of gravity has remained unchanged. In terms of my research, this distinction allows me to recognise that the impact of parenting programmes, the underlying reality, will be experienced and reported differently by different participants. I therefore need to combine multiple perspectives in order to fully appreciate the impact. It could be argued that allowing the voices of the participants the opportunity to tell their story is enough. This would be a purely narrative approach and would flow naturally from the interview structure of my research. However Clough and Nutbrown (2002) suggest that social research is political and question the point of any research that does not have an impact on either the researcher or society. Dowling and Brown consider research can bring with it a means of understanding the world that you did not have before, which could impact on your own “professional practices” (Dowling and Brown 2010, p. 1) as well as encouraging further research. My research could have focused on the stories of one or two families however I feel it is important to go beyond the narrative, where the reader is left to draw their own conclusions, and rather to explicitly analyse the real mechanisms and processes behind the impact of parenting programmes in order to propose further research and potentially influence social policy. Bhaskar’s (2008) four planar social being MELD model helps me to do this, where the four planes are defined and characterised as: • First Moment or 1M: stratification and the epistemic fallacy • Second Edge or 2E: absences and negative power2 • Third Level or 3L: totality and reflexivity

12

K. SMART

• Fourth Dimension or 4D: transformative agency and positive power1 To help understand this model and how it applies to my research I need to clarify some of the terminology Bhaskar uses, namely the elements that I drew upon in my research. The First Moment (1M) refers to basic Critical Realism which is the starting point for the model, beginning with the stratification into the three ontological levels as shown in Fig. 1.1 earlier and the recognition of the epistemic fallacy. The Second Edge (2E) introduces the concept of absence and its associated negative “power2”. It highlights the importance of elements that we cannot see but which have significant effects. Collier (1998) uses the example that the absence of vitamin C in our diet would cause scurvy. Through observation of crew members on long sea voyages it was the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables that was discovered to be the direct contributory cause that led to this disease. In the Third Level (3L) Bhaskar explains that totalities “must exist for social life to be possible” (Bhaskar 1998, p. 629). He relates how each individual exhibits a subset of the features of the larger group to which they belong and therefore the experiences of an individual need to be analysed and understood within this wider context. Recognition of these totalities is a vital step on the path to influencing change, which is the ultimate goal of Bhaskar’s Fourth Dimension (4D), wherein the positive “power1” of transformative agency, the human ability to change the world, is captured. To demonstrate how this model works I have outlined below how my research contributes by mapping it onto the MELD framework: • 1M observe and collect the perspectives of parents and trainers on the parenting programme process, changes in parental behaviour and impact on the child, understanding how each individual’s experience is one manifestation of the underlying reality. • 2E identify what was the nature of the changes reported by parents, recognising the nature of both becoming and “be-going” (Bhasker’s terminology for changes associated with loss or absence). What is or was missing in regard to parenting behaviours and child development. Are there any contradictions in what parents and trainers are saying?

1

INTRODUCTION

13

• 3L looking at the whole picture, the totality, of the impacts of the parenting programme process. Examining this totality through multiple time points, multiple perspectives, both parents and trainers, and multiple methodologies. • 4D using this new knowledge and understanding to pursue real change; refocusing the Government and local authority attention to addressing these changes. Although it is my longer-term intention to influence social policy, my research was not intended to change the objects or events which form part of the study itself; I was simply observing through the information from the questionnaires and interviews. This allowed me to develop knowledge and understanding through the experiences of the participants. It was through critical examination of the questionnaires and interview transcripts and other data collected, including casual conversations whilst taking part in group sessions, that themes were developed. Although I was looking at events on the surface, the relationship with the real underlying mechanisms and structures needed to be understood; Critical Realism helped me appreciate that my observations were just abstractions of the true reality and that I needed to critically interpret these observations to fully understand the deeper causal relationships.

Summary Parenting programmes have been developed and delivered as part of a wider initiative to increase positive parental engagement with their child and their child’s education, with an ultimate goal of improving the life chances of children and young people. In my professional experience I have seen first-hand how much difference parental engagement can make and I felt there was a real need to explore parents’ perceptions of whether or not parenting programmes can make a difference in this regard. I therefore considered it important to explore parents’ views on the structure, content and delivery of parenting programmes, how they have personally been impacted by attending such a programme and finally whether or not this might be affecting their child. In the next chapter I will move away from discussions of why I undertook this research and introduce the parents who took part in my study, in particular the eight interviewed parents, along with a description of how I collected and analysed their perspectives.

14

K. SMART

The following chapters will be framed around five key themes that developed from my interactions with the parents as part of this research: • Chapter 3 discusses how the parents valued the parenting strategies that they had learnt and the impact it had on their parenting and their relationship with the child; • Chapter 4 shows that having attended a parenting programme parents are now appreciating spending quality time with their child; • Chapter 5 goes on to demonstrate how the children benefit from opportunities provided by their parents that promote their development; • Chapter 6 raises the importance of the family working together to adopt these new strategies and the potential consequences of not doing so; • Chapter 7 discusses the significance of the right environment to share parenting experiences with other parents. This chapter will look at the aspects of the environment that the parents considered particularly important. Finally in Chapter 8 I will summarise the key findings from my study and look at how aspects of my methodological approach might be applicable more widely within social science research.

References Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Walls, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; distributed by Halsted Press Division of Wiley. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88. Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books Ltd. Bhaskar, R. (1991). Philosophy and the idea of freedom. Oxford: Blackwell. Bhaskar, R. (1998). Critical realism and dialectic. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge. Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge. Blanden, J., Gregg, P., & Machin, S. (2005). Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America. Report supported by the Sutton Trust, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics. London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.

1

INTRODUCTION

15

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss III: Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books. Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2002). A student’s guide to methodology: Justifying enquiry. London: Sage. Collier, A. (1998). The power of negative thinking. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge. Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES Publications. Dowling, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Doing research/reading research: Reinterrogating education. London: Routledge. Feinstein, L., & Symons, J. (1999). Attainment in secondary school. Oxford Economic Papers, 51, 300–321. Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The report of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances. London: Cabinet Office. Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London: Department of Education. Gottman, J. (1997). Raising an emotionally intelligent child. Seattle, WA: Gottman Institute. Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they matter?: A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Warwick: University of Warwick. Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, A. M., Band, S., Cullen, S., et al. (2009). Parent support advisor pilot evaluation: Final report. Warwick: University of Warwick. Murray, L., & Cooper, P. J. (1997). Effects of postnatal depression on infant development. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 77, 99–101. Patomäki, H., & Wight, C. (2000). After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 213–237. Shuffelton, A. (2015). Re-privatizing the family: How “opt-out” and “parental involvement” media narratives support school privatization. Critical Education, 6(12). Sims-Schouten, W., & Riley, S. (2014). Employing a form of critical realist discourse analysis for identity research: An example from women’s talk of motherhood, childcare, and employment. In P. Edwards, J. O’Mahoney, & S. Vincent (Eds.), Studying organizations using critical realism: A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smart, C. (2003). The effects of educational provisions on teenage pregnancies. Master of Education: University of Bristol.

CHAPTER 2

The Parents

Abstract This book focuses on the voices of parents. It gives them the opportunity to share their views around the process and outcomes associated with attending a parenting programme. This chapter introduces the parents who supported my research, in particular those who took part in the interview phase, and describes the methodologies I employed to collect and analyse their perspectives. Keywords Parenting · Fathers · Teenage mothers · Socio-economic status

Meet the parents: Adelajda, Ava, Emily, Emma, Isabella, Jacob, Olivia, Sophia. The whole purpose of my research, and this book, is to capture the voices of the parents who attended a parenting programme. My research was all about understanding what they had to say about the programmes and how they perceived the programmes had made an impact on them and their families. Therefore I consider it important that I dedicate this chapter to introducing the parents who formed the core of my study, describing the process by which I selected the parents, particularly those who took part in my interviews, the techniques I used to collect their views and the methodologies I adopted to analyse what they told me. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_2

17

18

K. SMART

Before I go on to talk about my research design in more detail and how I selected the parents to take part in the interview phase of the study, I would like to briefly share some of the research literature around the groups of parents that were identified as those who would particularly benefit from attending a parenting programme (DfES 2007). These Government targeted groups comprise of fathers, teenage mothers and parents with a low socio-economic status. Understanding why these specific parent categories were identified as target recipients for the programmes is especially important as it was essential that I listened effectively to the voices from each of these demographic groups.

Targeted Groups Fathers and Parenting Programmes The first group that were targeted by local authorities were fathers. With increases in the number of women working and the time fathers spend with their child (DfES 2007), along with the recognition of the importance of the role of the father and the strong links between the father’s interest in their child’s schooling and their subsequent educational outcome (DfES 2007; Field 2010), children’s centres were charged with actively designing and promoting services for fathers (DfES 2007). Although parenting programmes in general are designed to prepare both mothers and fathers for parenthood, from both my own professional experience and from research carried out on parenting programmes it is evident that it is mostly mothers who attend. It could be argued that it is easier for mothers to attend as the programmes are often delivered in the day whilst the fathers are at work. However even with increasing numbers of mothers going out to work and more fathers becoming the main carer it still appears very few fathers attend parenting programmes. To establish whether a fathers-only group would encourage fathers to engage in an Incredible Years programme, Helfenbaum-Kun and Ortiz (2007) arbitrarily assigned 39 fathers to either an eight-week programme or to a control group. Although at the start the fathers expressed an interest and attendance on the programme was good, by the end of the course 70% of the registered fathers had attended fewer than half the sessions. The European Union Platform for Investing in Children (European Union Platform 2015) found that, in 2012, the rate of women in work in

2

THE PARENTS

19

Sweden (71.8%) was approaching that of men (75.6%). In fact the proportion of mothers with children under the age of six who were in work was even higher at 76.8%. Axberg and Broberg’s (2012) study into whether The Incredible Years programme is transferrable to Swedish parents, with children between the ages of four and eight, supports this high rate as they found that 80% of their mothers were employed. Sweden certainly appears to be leading the way forward to equal gender parenting and offers 16-months of leave for parents that can be used by either the father or mother, two months of which is exclusively for fathers (France-Presse 2015). Although the focus of Axberg and Broberg’s study was the transferability of The Incredible Years programme from American to Swedish parents, I was particularly interested in whether father participation in a parenting programme would be higher in a country where there was such a focus on equal gender parenting. Surprisingly all the participants in this study were mothers even though 63% of the children lived with both their parents. In Australia, Gray et al. (2003) quote 65.5% of all two-parent families with children under 15 as having both parents working. To give working parents easier access to a parenting programme Sanders et al.’s (2011) study, with the support of a number of organisations in the Brisbane metropolitan area in Australia, recruited parents to take part in their research through workplace notice boards and letters attached to payslips. From the 152 employees who expressed an interest in taking part in the research 121 working parents with children between the ages of one and 16 met the study’s criteria; each parent was arbitrarily assigned to either a Workplace Triple-P programme or to a control group. Even though the programme was delivered in the workplace, 72.4% of participants were mothers. This cannot be attributed to mothers working fewer hours as the programme was delivered during the working day. This suggests even taking a parenting group into the workplace does not increase father participation. Teenage Mothers and Parenting Programmes One group of parents that children’s centres were encouraged to engage were teenage parents. Compared to older parents, teenage mothers and fathers are more likely to experience a wider range of challenges (DCSF 2008) such as coming from a deprived background, unemployment, own

20

K. SMART

mother was a teenage mother, repeated unplanned pregnancies, educational problems, poor health, unstable relationship. To help support teenage parents the UK Government (DfES 2007) asked children’s centres to provide support and advice including support in parenting. Young mothers, or more specifically teenage mothers, have been a strong focus of UK Government policy (DfES 2007; DCSF 2008, 2009) as it is suggested that teenage parents are often from very deprived backgrounds (DCSF 2009; Barlow et al. 2011). Statistics show that numbers of teenage pregnancy are known to be higher in areas of greater socioeconomic deprivation, although reduced numbers of teenage pregnancy have been noted in areas with proximity to youth family planning clinics (Diamond et al. 1999). McLeod’s (2001) study of the shifting patterns of teenage pregnancy highlights results from the 1980s and the 1990s showing an increased disparity depending on local deprivation. The Social Exclusion Unit (1999) found that teenagers in socio-economically disadvantaged areas were less likely to terminate their pregnancy, as they appeared to strongly disapprove of this practice and felt it would stigmatise them in the eyes of others. In contrast, the teenagers from a more affluent region were more likely to have an abortion. This divergence of preference between classes is aligned with reported differences between the middle-class girl and her working-class equivalent in their future aspirations (Dawson and Meadows 1995). My earlier research (Smart 2003) investigated the effects of three different educational provisions (home tutoring; school; pupil referral unit [PRU]) for teenage pregnancies and mothers who studied for their GCSEs. The findings from this research suggest the best educational provision was offered at the PRU as this provided knowledge on childcare and an on-site nursery provision for their babies. However a limitation of this research was the small number of teenage mothers included; there were only three case-studies, one for each provision. During my professional experience of talking to teenage mothers and other professionals who worked with them I learnt that in many cases the teenagers’ own experiences of being parented had not been positive. I have observed during visits to PRUs that although there may be no formal parenting programme sessions the teenagers all had to attend lessons on childcare—the intention here was to break the cycle of negative parenting. Additionally parenting skills were learnt by the teenagers as they interacted with the nursery staff when they joined their baby in their breaks throughout the day.

2

THE PARENTS

21

Poverty and Parenting Parents that came from areas with a low socio-economic status (SES) were also prioritised by local authorities; the first phases of children’s centres were built in these areas to support the local families. Field (2010) summarised in his report on “The Foundation Years: Preventing Poor Children Becoming Poor Adults” by acknowledging that the most important element in a child’s development is what parents do with their child. Further he recommended supporting services for parents in developing new parenting skills with increased funding for families living in areas of socio-economic deprivation. This additional support and funding enabled local authorities and children’s centres to deliver parenting programme groups. A number of studies have investigated the relationship between poverty and parenting. Simons et al.’s (1992) study, with a participant sample of 451 two-parent families, suggests that the effects of socio-economic disadvantage can have a negative impact on parenting for both mothers and fathers. Although a significant number of children who grow up in socially disadvantaged households receive good care and consequently experience positive developmental outcomes, extreme poverty is often associated with inadequate nutrition and housing leading to developmental problems (Goldberg 2000). Wetz (2009) also found that there is a correlation between families experiencing poverty and attachment difficulties. Blanden et al. comment “that family income in the childhood years does make a genuine difference to educational outcomes” (Blanden et al. 2005, p. 3). Gregg and Washbrook (2009) used the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) data of 14,000 children born in Avon in the early 1990s to investigate the effects of socio-economic position on educational attainment. They found that child attainment at age seven was generally lower for children from socio-economically disadvantaged families and, even if they did well at age seven, their performance was more likely to slip as they progressed through primary school. Children from poor backgrounds tended to view themselves as academically less able. However Gregg and Washbrook’s findings indicate that it is not simply the family’s economic status that has a direct impact but rather the parental attitudes towards education. Feinstein and Symons (1999) also suggest that parental interest in education is four times more significant than social and economic status in influencing attainment at 16.

22

K. SMART

The implication here is that, as far as the child is concerned, it is their parents’ engagement rather than living in poverty that can influence their outcome; but for parents, living in poverty appears to have a profound effect on the attention they give to their child’s education. This was supported by Field’s review which found that: It is family background, parental education, good parenting and the opportunities for learning and development in those crucial years that together matter more to children than money. (Field 2010, p. 5)

The significance of specifically mentioning these groups is that they were actively targeted and encouraged to take part in a parenting programme. I factored this in to my research design by incorporating several demographic questions in the pre-programme questionnaire. This enabled me to ensure that I invited parents from each of these targeted groups to take part in the interview phase of my research.

Research Design With clear aims for what I wanted to investigate, and a philosophical perspective to back up my approach, I now had to design exactly how I was going to go about performing the research. I recruited a total of 136 parents across 20 courses (Table 2.1) in the south-west of the UK to take part in my study, the majority of which had preschool-aged children (0–4 years). Access to participants was through local authorities, schools, children’s centres and parent programme facilitators. Through my work as both a teacher and local authority advisor I had already developed a number of contacts in each of these areas who were able to assist me in accessing parenting groups. Additionally I was able to use my knowledge of the local authority structure to contact advisors who were also able to help me access the parenting programmes that were included in my research. I employed a mixed methods research approach utilising questionnaires, featuring both quantitative and qualitative questions, as well as semi-structured interviews. The use of questionnaires was chosen as one of the main methods of collecting data as it allowed me to recruit a large number of parents. The use of interviews enabled me to probe further, collecting rich data around the parents’ experiences.

2

THE PARENTS

23

Table 2.1 Parents recruited per programme Parenting programme Triple-P

Number of parents

Number of courses

7

2

17

4

PEEP

112

14

Total

136

20

The Incredible Years

Age groups of children One parent attended Primary Triple-P and had at least one child that attended primary school. Six parents attended Teen Triple-P and had at least one child attending a secondary school Seven parents accessed the baby programme; four attended the preschool programme; six went to a primary programme All parents had at least one child under the age of four

I firstly devised a pre-programme questionnaire whose purpose was to record demographic data and to establish parental practices and expectations pre-intervention; I will refer to this as “Q-pre” for short. This was then supplemented by a follow-up questionnaire at the end of the programme (“Q-post”) to explore parents’ initial perspectives, having attended the course, regarding what they then did differently and what they thought they had gained from the course. Questions included: “How much time are you able to spend playing with your children?”, “What activities do you share with your children?”, “How do you support your children’s nursery, pre-school or school?”, “How confident are you in each of these areas?”. Additionally I incorporated several qualitative questions to increase the availability of parental subjective views. To provide participants with maximum protection I devised a system where parents could remain anonymous to me whilst also ensuring that the trainers did not see their data. This was a particularly important aspect of my data

24

K. SMART

collection design and one that I hope will help future researchers. I will discuss this system in greater detail in Chapter 5. The findings from an analysis of the questionnaire responses were then used to direct a series of post-programme semi-structured interviews with parents (referred to later as “I-post”). I devised an interview schedule based on the questionnaire responses to examine parents’ views on the parenting programme process, how it impacted their behaviour and how this subsequently affected their child. My study explored the longitudinal perspective by revisiting the families one year after they had completed the programme with a third questionnaire (“Q-year”) to examine the parents’ perceptions of any lasting impact. The one-year-on questionnaire included both quantitative and qualitative questions that were asked on the pre- and post-programme questionnaires to establish whether there had been any lasting parental behaviour changes since attending the programme and whether there had been any longer-term impact on the child. I also carried out one-yearon interviews (“I-year”) with the original interview participants following up on the themes which developed from the post-programme analysis. A visual representation of the overall process is shown in Fig. 2.1. I selected a subset of eight parents (Table 2.2) to take part in interviews, allowing me to gain a deeper insight into their perspectives. The selection process was based on criteria derived from the information provided on the pre- and post-programme questionnaires and comprised four key factors: • • • •

contactability of parents; parental confidence levels; representation from all three of the parenting programmes; representation from both local authority targeted groups (low socioeconomic status, teenage parents, fathers) and non-targeted groups.

Regarding contactability, the selection criterion was that the parent was happy to be contacted again in connection with my research. Parents had been invited on the questionnaires to provide their contact details if they were happy for me to send subsequent questionnaires directly to them; this was particularly important for the one-year-on questionnaires as it would be expected that the majority of parents would no longer be in contact with the trainers at this time.

2

Fig. 2.1 Research timeline

THE PARENTS

25

Recruit Parcipants

Q-pre

Aend parenng programme

Q-post

I-post

1 year later…

Q-year

I-year

Research suggests that there is an association between parental confidence and parental engagement—the more confident that parents feel regarding their ability to fulfil their parenting role, the more engaged with their child’s education and development they are likely to be (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2007). I looked at the preprogramme questionnaire responses to the question “How confident are you in each of these areas?” and employed a selection criterion of low confidence on course entry, defined by the parent reporting a degree of confidence lower than the top two levels. I wanted to focus on parents who were in most need of support and advice; those who might otherwise have been disengaged with their child’s development and education.

26

K. SMART

Table 2.2 Parents selected for interview Pseudonym

Relationship to child

Adelajda Ava

Mother Grandmother

Emily Emma Isabella Jacob Olivia

Mother Mother Mother Father Mother

Sophia

Mother

Teenage parent?

Yes

Low SES?

Yes Yes Yes

Programme attended

Children

PEEP The Incredible Years Triple-P PEEP Triple-P PEEP The Incredible Years PEEP

2 4

2 2 2 2 4

1

For this phase of my research it was important that I interviewed parents from each of the parenting programmes. For the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes I had fewer participants to select from; for The Incredible Years programme I had only three participants and for the Triple-P programme I had six parents who had completed both the pre- and post-programme questionnaires. Although initially I had interest from several local authorities delivering these programmes, at the point of rolling out the pre-programme questionnaire the withdrawal of Government funding meant that local authorities had to cancel their planned delivery. However even with this limitation, I was still fortunate enough to be able to recruit parents from all three programmes covered in my study. The final selection factor was based on participants’ responses to the demographic questions from the pre-programme questionnaire to establish whether the parent fell into one of the local authority identified target groups: teenage parents, parents with a low socio-economic status and fathers. Taking these groups into consideration, it was important that I tried to capture the perspectives from both targeted and non-targeted parents to see if there was any evidence to suggest that parents and children from targeted families were impacted differently to those who were not targeted. Therefore I selected parents who represented each of these target groups in addition to ones who did not fall into any of these categories.

2

THE PARENTS

27

The Parents for Interview Using the selection criteria discussed above, a total of eight parents were invited to take part in the interview phase of my research. Before we look at this in more detail let us get to know the parents a little better. All the names of the parents are pseudonyms; I also provided pseudonyms for the children who were mentioned, by name, by the parents during their interviews. Adelajda and her husband both came from Poland and both had attended university. Adelajda’s husband worked full-time and although she did not work herself she recorded on her questionnaire that they did not have any money worries. They had two daughters who on my first visit to the children’s centre both attended the PEEP group; by the time we had our first interview the eldest daughter had started school. At home the family only spoke Polish, so initially the only time the girls were encouraged to speak English was at the PEEP group. Adrianna was the eldest daughter. Olivia and her husband both left school with five GCSEs. They had four children who Olivia referred to as child one, two, three and four. From the interview it became apparent that Olivia had difficulty with the behaviours of child one and child four; both children exhibited Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) traits. Between the pre-programme questionnaire and the interview data, I learnt that child number one was a girl and in the junior years at primary school. Child number two was also a junior but their sex was never referred to. Child three and child four were both boys, one was in an infant class and the other at preschool. Ava was Olivia’s mum. Both Ava and her husband left school before they were sixteen. They are now both retired and often look after their grandchildren, Olivia’s children, after school. Ava was keen to attend The Incredible Years programme to both support her daughter and also to help her in learning strategies to promote more positive behaviours from her grandchildren, in particular the eldest and youngest. Emily and her husband had two sons William and Liam. Both Emily and her husband had a university education; Emily in psychology and child development. Emily’s husband was in full-time employment and they had no money worries at the time of completing the preprogramme questionnaire. William attended primary school and Liam went to nursery.

28

K. SMART

Emma was a single teenage mum with two children. Her eldest, Ella, and a younger son, both attended PEEP sessions at their local children’s centre. Emma did not fill in the section around her qualifications or whether she had any money worries. Both of her children attended nursery whilst Emma was studying for a childcare qualification. Ella was due to start school in the September. Isabella and her husband had two sons. Isabella’s husband was university educated and Isabella joined an Open University programme later. Although her husband worked full-time and Isabella 28 hours a week, they still had money concerns. Their eldest child, at the time of completing the pre-programme questionnaire attended college and the youngest secondary school. Isabella had been concerned about her youngest child’s behaviour since he had been in primary school. Jacob and his wife also had two sons, Ethan and Noah. Both Jacob and his wife had attended university. Jacob worked ten hours a week and his wife, the main wage earner, 20 hours a week. Money was a worry. Even though Jacob’s mother-in-law was a teacher they had decided that they would home educate their children. Ethan who had previously attended PEEP groups was now being home-schooled. Noah still attended PEEP groups. Sophia had attended college and her husband university. They both worked; Sophia two days a week and her husband full-time. Whilst Sophia was at work their son Mason, who was one, went to a childminder. Sophia did not fill in the question regarding whether they were experiencing any money issues. The Interviews Having got to know the parents who took part in the interviews, we now need to look at the interview process. It was essential that I created the right atmosphere where parents would feel comfortable to talk freely and so I ensured that the parents had a say in where they wished the interview to take place. As important as it was that the participant should feel comfortable, it was also essential that I, the researcher, felt safe. I addressed this by suggesting we met in public places such as cafes, schools or children’s centres rather than, for example the parent’s home. I believe giving the parents this choice helped them feel more in control as well as at ease in their environment.

2

THE PARENTS

29

The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and then analysed using a thematic approach based on Braun and Clarke’s (2006) model. Prior to commencing the analysis, I created a provisional start list of thematic codes; the interviews were then analysed to extract further themes, moving from a deductive to an inductive paradigm. Using a commercially available qualitative data management software package, I was able to go through each transcript in turn creating descriptive codes, or nodes, each corresponding to a short section of the transcript. This analysis drew upon a mixture of semantic coding, capturing the surface meaning of the data, and latent coding capturing deeper assumptions and interpretations. In all, 388 nodes were created from three hours 49 minutes of post-programme interview recordings with the parents. The next phase of analysing the data was to group together the nodes representing common areas. Some I was able to place into groupings that I had already identified (deductive) from my professional experience and the literature review, whilst others were generated solely from the data (inductive). As a tactile, visual learner I found that I was more comfortable with the data printed out on individual strips of paper, each representing one of the nodes from the transcript analysis, and laid out on a large table— rather than attempting to manipulate the data within the constraints of a computer screen. This was a time-consuming exercise, however by having the nodes on paper it enabled me to move them around easily and search for groupings and commonalities, see Fig. 2.2. It also allowed me to become fully immersed in the data, gaining more familiarity with it. It is important to note that the number of occurrences of a topic does not alone make it a theme; rather it is about whether the topic has captured something important that is related to the research question (Braun and Clarke 2006). Braun (2015) posits that it comes back to the judgement of the researcher, me, to what determines a theme. I chose to identify the themes that were important to the parents and that addressed my research questions through a more subjective and personal approach. Once the nodes had formed groups, then consideration was given to the relationships between these groupings and the identification of appropriate labels or titles for these clusters. As related groups became increasingly clustered together so their identifying labels began to crystallise into themes. To ensure that I did not miss any potentially important themes it was necessary to spend time away from the data and then revisit

30

K. SMART

Fig. 2.2 Initial groupings of nodes

it with fresh eyes to ensure I had not lost sight of the research questions (Braun and Clarke 2006). It was also necessary to revisit the source of the data to make sure that I did not take any element of data out of context. Repeated hierarchical phases of this grouping procedure eventually resulted in a final set of themes being created from the parents’ interview data. A visual representation of the overall analysis process is shown in Fig. 2.3.

Summary This research study was carefully designed to ensure it included parents’ views from all the targeted categories associated with parenting programmes: fathers, teenage mothers, low socio-economic status. It was also important to capture the perspectives of parents who did not fall into one of these categories and so my selection criteria allowed for this.

2

THE PARENTS

31

Transcript

Descripve nodes

Groups of common nodes

iterate & refine

Clusters of groups

iterate & refine

Key themes developed Fig. 2.3 Analysis process from transcript to themes

This book presents the findings from my research in terms of the themes that developed from the rigorous qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts. I will illustrate these themes making use of quotations from parents’ questionnaires, as completed by all 136 participants, and interviews with the sub-sample of eight parents. All names used are pseudonyms. Although I won’t be discussing it further in this book, it is important to mention that data was also collected from parenting programme trainers. This ensured a degree of triangulation and promoted trustworthiness in the data. I had no personal vested interest in parenting programmes, and by giving the data time and care to allow the themes to develop, I ensured that it was the parents’ views and opinions that emerged rather than mine. Over the next five chapters we will be hearing more from Adelajda, Ava, Emily, Emma, Isabella, Jacob, Olivia and Sophia, as well as other questionnaire parents, as I explore each of the five themes that developed from the parents’ data. I will make extensive use of quotations taken from both the parents’ questionnaires and interviews in order that their voices can really be heard:

32

K. SMART

• Chapter 3 The importance of learning and using parenting strategies. • Chapter 4 The value of spending quality time with their child. • Chapter 5 How children benefit from opportunities that promote their development. • Chapter 6 The significance of the family working together. • Chapter 7 The importance of the right environment to share parenting experiences with other parents.

References Axberg, U., & Broberg, A. G. (2012). Evaluation of “the incredible years” in Sweden: The transferability of an American parent-training program to Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 224–232. Barlow, J., Smailagic, N., Bennett, C., Huband, N., Jones, H., & Coren, E. (2011). Individual and group based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Blanden, J., Gregg, P., & Machin, S. (2005). Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America. Report supported by the Sutton Trust, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics. London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics. Braun, V. (2015, July 16). Doing thematic analysis doing and communicating qualitative research. London: Kingston University. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Dawson, N., & Meadows, S. (1995). The education of pregnant schoolgirls and schoolgirl mothers (Bristol Papers in Education). University of Bristol, Bristol. DCSF. (2008). Families in Britain: An evidence paper. Nottingham: Department for Children Schools and Families Publications. DCSF. (2009). Getting maternity services right for pregnant teenagers and young fathers. Nottingham: Department for Children Schools and Families Publications. Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES Publications. DfES. (2007). Every parent matters. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills Publications. Diamond, I., Clements, S., Stone, N., & Ingham, R. (1999). Spatial variation in teenage conceptions in south and west England. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 162, 273–289.

2

THE PARENTS

33

European Union Platform. (2015). Sweden: Successful reconciliation of work and family life [Online]. Available: http://europa.eu/epic/countries/sweden/ index_en.htm. Accessed 28th July 2016. Feinstein, L., & Symons, J. (1999). Attainment in secondary school. Oxford Economic Papers, 51, 300–321. Field, F. (2010). The Foundation Years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The report of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances. London: Cabinet Office. France-Presse, A. (2015, May 28). Swedish fathers to get third month of paid paternity leave. The Guardian. Gray, M., Qu, L., Renda, J., & De Vaus, D. (2003). Changes in the labour force status of lone and couple Australian mothers, 1983–2002. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Gregg, P., & Washbrook, E. (2009). The socio-economic gradient in child outcomes: The role of attitudes, behaviours and beliefs: The primary school years. Bristol: University of Bristol. Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and development. London: Arnold. Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they matter?: A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Warwick: University of Warwick. Helfenbaum-Kun, E. D., & Ortiz, C. (2007). Parent-training groups for fathers of head start children: A pilot study of their feasibility and impact on child behavior and intra-familial relationships. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 29, 47–64. McLeod, A. (2001). Changing patterns of teenage pregnancy: Population based study of small areas. BMJ, 323, 199–203. Sanders, M. R., Stallman, H. M., & McHale, M. (2011). Workplace Triple P: A controlled evaluation of a parenting intervention for working parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 581–590. Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., & Wu, C. I. (1992). Support from spouse as mediator and moderator of the disruptive influence of economic strain on parenting. Child Development, 63, 1282–1301. Smart, C. (2003). The effects of educational provisions on teenage pregnancies (Master of Education). University of Bristol, Bristol. Social Exclusion Unit. (1999). Teenage pregnancy: Report. London: Stationery Office. Wetz, J. (2009). Urban village schools: Putting relationships at the heart of secondary school organisation and design. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

CHAPTER 3

The Importance of Learning and Using Parenting Strategies

Abstract This chapter examines the first theme that developed from my research: “the importance of learning and using parenting strategies”. It examines the difference between parents who attended the PEEP programme and those who attended The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes. Parents reported positive changes, especially the effective adoption of parenting and behaviour management strategies, along with increased parental confidence. Keywords Parenting strategies · Bronfenbrenner · Triple-P · The Incredible Years · PEEP · Parental confidence

This chapter discusses how the parents valued the parenting strategies that they had learnt and the impact it had on their parenting and their relationship with the child. This is the first of five chapters each of which will share one of the key findings that developed from my research. This chapter will look at the theme the importance of learning and using parenting strategies . This is not my thesis and I don’t want to put off the reader with an extensive literature review; however it is important to provide a basic grounding of what previous research had already been carried out and what it found. So to help gain a better understanding of the importance © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_3

35

36

K. SMART

of the findings from the parents’ data and put it into context, this chapter will start by focusing on the literature around parenting and the key factors that affect it, including parenting skills, parental confidence and the theory of what is considered by many, such as Field and Desforges and Abouchaar, to constitute “good parenting”. I will then go on to introduce more fully the three parenting programmes that my research included. The chapter will then focus on the first key theme from the parents’ data that I will be discussing: The importance of learning and using parenting strategies . This theme addressed my second research question What are the views of parents regarding the changes that parents have made as a result of attending a parenting programme? The purpose of this question was to establish an understanding of any behavioural changes that parents may have made, when interacting with their child, associated with knowledge and skills that they had acquired from attending a group-based programme.

Theory of Good Parenting To help us better understand what “good parenting” may look like first we need to understand what a child needs to flourish and grow. To define what constitutes “good parenting” is somewhat problematic as there is no single definition; however there are a number of factors that might generally expect to be included. These include providing the basic needs of a child: love, warmth, food, shelter, physical safety and emotional security. Additionally good parenting includes nurturing and encouraging the child’s developmental and learning needs: physical, social, emotional and cognitive (Field 2010). A child should expect the “provision of a secure and stable environment, intellectual stimulation, parent–child discussion, good models of constructive social and educational values and high aspirations relating to personal fulfilment and good citizenship” (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003, p. 4). I would also add to these the factor of consistency and continuity of parenting, the use of positive praise, the sharing of quality parent/child activities and interactions appropriate to the child’s age, creating a stimulating home learning environment, and clear, consistent use of boundaries. However it needs to be recognised and acknowledged that there are cultural differences in what is considered good parenting. A number of major child development theories have contributed to our understanding of what a child needs to develop. Given that my research

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

37

examined the impact of an external intervention on the child, specifically parenting programmes, I focused here on Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979) as it provided a framework within which this impact could be discussed. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory explains how everything in a child’s immediate and also more remote environment can affect how a child grows and develops socially, emotionally, physically and cognitively. Bronfenbrenner developed this multi-levelled system to demonstrate how the different aspects of the environment impact on children’s development. The four levels are identified as the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem and the macrosystem (refer to Fig. 3.1). The microsystem is the immediate environment in which the child lives. A child’s microsystem includes any direct relationships or group they interact with, for example their immediate family or caregivers and their nursery or school. How these organisations interact with the child will have an impact on how the child grows; the more positive and nurturing these interactions and places are, the better the child will be able to develop. The second level, the mesosystem, affects how the different aspects of a child’s microsystem work together in the interest of the child. A positive example of this would be if the child’s parent or carer took an active interest in the child’s school—this could be attending parents evening or watching their child in the school’s concert—this will help promote

macrosystem exosystem mesosystem microsystem child

Fig. 3.1 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model

38

K. SMART

the child’s development. A negative example from the child’s mesosystem would be to find their mother and step-mother fighting on the playground on whose turn it is to pick up the child and whether staying up to 9 p.m. was acceptable. The third level, the exosystem, takes account of the other people and places that the child may not interact directly with but which will often still have a significant effect on them; for a child this could include the parents’ workplaces and extended family members. For example, in a time of employment uncertainty the main wage-earning parent is made redundant and finds it difficult to pay the mortgage, bills or even to afford the weekly food shop; this could have a negative effect on the child. Conversely if a parent finds a job having been unemployed for a period of time this could result in a positive effect as the family would be in a better position to provide for the child’s physical needs such as food, warmth and clothing. The final level is the largest, most distant environment and set of people from the child; however it will still have a significant influence on their development. The macrosystem includes factors such as the economic background, the political system and the socio-cultural environment in which the child and the lower levels of the model are situated. As with these lower levels, the macrosystem can affect a child’s development either positively or negatively through examples such as economic instability, political legislation and national conflict. How does this tie in with theories on good parenting? Central to Bronfenbrenner’s model is the interaction between the layers making it a very complex environment that the child grows up in. Family, specifically parents, are usually the people who have the greatest contact with the child and also create the environment where the child spends the greatest amount of time. Specifically, moving through the first three of Bronfenbrenner’s systems, from the microsystem to the mesosystem to the exosystem, the interactions and environment the parents create and are involved in impact hugely on the child. This is further echoed by Meadows: “The proximal processes of the parent-child microsystem account, I think, for an enormous part of the child’s chances of growing up to be a well-functioning social person” (Meadows 2010, p. 157). Williams et al. (2014) studied the perceptions of 30 preschool teachers in Sweden regarding children’s learning in preschool; they developed a theoretical framework that drew upon Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. They suggest the interactions between the different layers (the

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

39

preschool curriculum, the teachers’ educational approaches, children’s learning, and the changes in the practices of the setting) demonstrate how children’s learning is impacted not only through their interactions with the immediate environment, but also the interactions between the other layers—this includes how the preschool curriculum and the teachers’ pedagogical style influences the child’s immediate environment. Bronfenbrenner points out the importance of the linkage between the different systems to maximise the impact on child development. Seginer (2006) employed Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework, specifically the microsystem and mesosystem levels, in her review to examine parental engagement both at home and at school. Her analysis of 60 studies looked at the relationship between parental engagement and child outcomes, with the studies being categorised into three age-related sections: preschool; elementary school; middle, junior and senior high school. Seginer’s analysis suggests that both home and school based parental engagement is positively related to educational outcomes across the age ranges and social groups. My own personal experience as a teacher also supports that where there is good relationship between the school and the family it promotes consistency and continuity for the child both socially and educationally. This is achieved through information sharing which can help both schools and parents in better supporting children.

Developing Parenting Skills Researchers have often tried to categorise parenting styles in order to better understand their impact on the child. For my research the identification of parenting styles has helped inform the development of the parenting programme content, how the programme is delivered and how the trainers can tailor the programme to meet the individual parental requirements. Here “parenting styles” refers to the broader pattern of parenting practices relating to the behaviours and interactions between the parent and their child. For example, Baumrind (1967) described four styles of parenting in her research as neglectful parenting, permissive parenting, authoritarian parenting and authoritative parenting. Gottman’s (1997) research also identifies four central parenting styles: the dismissing parent, the disapproving parent, the laissez-faire parent and the emotioncoaching parent. He goes on to suggest that it is by parents recognising their own individual parenting styles that they would be better able to understand and address the quality and type of the interaction they have

40

K. SMART

with their child. Miller (2010) agrees that if parents recognise their own parenting style this can be the initial step to changing how they engage with their child. However she suggests that although parents are able to take on any of these parenting styles, the reality of daily life is frequently that we revert back into habitual behaviours that come most naturally to us, whether it is because of our inherited disposition and personalities or because of our own childhood and surroundings. A key component of my own professional experience in promoting children’s development and education has been the importance of working with parents and valuing the knowledge and experience they bring with them. Pugh (2010) emphasises the importance of professionals working in partnership with parents, with both parties equally contributing their knowledge. It is then that outcomes for the child can be improved. Mezirow (1994) agrees that both parents and professionals could view things differently if they listen and share their knowledge with one another. When a woman has a baby there is no sudden rush of knowledge on how to be the perfect parent. The reality is that most parents have very little experience or preparation on how to be a parent. Parenting programmes aim to fill in this gap by providing a structured process and training to prepare mothers and fathers to become a better parent. As part of her invited address to the International Congress on Cognitive Psychotherapy, Crittenden suggests that if a longitudinal study was adopted and followed the journey of parents and their children, “parents would be seen to be well-intentioned, but sometimes misdirected” (Crittenden 2005, p. 6). The implication here is that on the whole parents do not choose to be “bad” parents, indeed they want to do their best for their child; it could simply be that they do not know how to be a “good” parent or it may be that there is no single definition of what a “good” parent looks like. This is further supported when Moran et al. state that “it also becomes clear that we must be prepared to find many different views of what makes for ‘good parenting’” (Moran et al. 2004, p. 18). Attending a parenting programme has the aim of changing how a parent interacts with their child and by following parents through their experience it will help us understand whether this is the case and whether this has impacted on their child’s development and attainment. Worldwide a number of different programmes have been devised to provide support in becoming better parents and to improve both parent and child outcomes, and numerous reviews into these programmes have

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

41

been carried out. Furlong et al.’s (2012) review found that group-based parenting programmes, programmes that run for parents in groups rather than one-to-one, are particularly effective in supporting parents learning how to manage their children’s behaviour and improving their parenting skills including techniques on how to praise, play, reward and discipline their children. This is further supported by Coren and Barlow’s (2009) review of parenting programmes for teenage parents; not only did they conclude positive outcomes for the parents but also for their children. Stevens (1984) found that, in general, parents who had a good understanding of child development displayed good parenting skills; for example, parents who were aware of the importance of a positive physical environment for development were the ones who were found to have provided concept development toys and books. From my own professional experience of working in the early years I found that this acquired understanding of the importance of play in the child’s development encouraged parents to value, actively promote and even participate in play opportunities with their child where previously they may have been negative, dismissive and uninterested in this type of interaction. I have also found that an understanding of child development can promote the parent-child relationship as it helps a parent know how to interact and treat children and the importance of doing so. This was certainly the finding from Coren and Barlow’s review of eight parenting programme studies; both the individual and groupbased parenting programmes targeted at teenage parents found significant improvement in mother–child interaction, parental knowledge, maternal identity and attitudes to mealtimes. More recently Lindsay and Cullen’s (2011) report of the Parenting Early Intervention Programme, which included both Triple-P and The Incredible Years , found attendance on the programme did improve parenting skills; these outcomes were maintained one year on. An approach adopted in many parenting programmes is to include elements around improving knowledge on children’s development and better ways to manage behaviour. Al-Hassan and Lansford’s (2011) study on the Better Parenting Programme (BPP) in Jordan used both experimental and control groups to compare whether attending the parenting programme made any difference. They found that parents who had attended this programme showed a significant increase in their knowledge on child development, whereas parents in the control group showed no significant increase. Although both groups showed an increase in using

42

K. SMART

positive parenting to address their child’s behaviour only the parents who attended the parenting programme explained to their child why their behaviour was wrong. Parents in the experimental group also showed a significant increase in parental engagement in activities with their children and recognition of behaviours such as leaving the child at home alone, having someone underage looking after their child and not buying them new clothes that could amount to neglect. An important point to note is that the study’s data collection methods relied solely on selfreports from parents which could impact heavily on the trustworthiness of this research. Parents may record what they think would please the researcher; their responses could depend on how they are feeling on the day of completing the questionnaire; they may circle responses randomly as they are unable to read and understand the questions or do not have the time or inclination to read through it properly. Evidence from these reviews and studies would suggest that parenting programmes are not only good at developing parenting skills but also have a positive impact on outcomes for the children.

The Importance of Parental Confidence Research suggests that there is an association between parental confidence and parental engagement—the more confident that parents feel regarding their ability to fulfil their parenting role, the more engaged with their child’s education and development they are likely to be (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2007). Hallam et al. (2004) agree that parental confidence and parental perception of their role are contributory elements associated with the level of parental engagement with their child. One of the key findings reported by parents was increased confidence in understanding and in interacting with their child. However, it should be noted that parents who considered the parenting programme to be beneficial are more likely to respond to a questionnaire than those who did not; further research on the views of parents who did not complete the questionnaire would be necessary to draw any definitive conclusion. Desforges and Abouchaar go on to establish that increased parental engagement can lead to improved educational outcomes for the child, and so a positive link can be established between parental confidence and the child’s achievement. Research also suggests that parental confidence can play a role in promoting positive parent–child attachment. Leckman et al.’s (2004)

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

43

review reported that mothers of premature babies who expressed confidence in their parenting ability, as well as having positive feelings towards their baby, were more receptive to the signals from their child during their interactions with them and were more affectionate in their touching— these are indicators of a secure attachment (Ainsworth et al. 1978). I will discuss the impact of attachment on parenting further in the next chapter. A key element associated with a range of characteristics of child development and well-being as proposed by Barlow et al. (2014) is parental psychosocial functioning, with depression and anxiety, parental confidence and parental conflict being some of the contributory components. In their meta-analysis looking into parenting programmes for improving parental psychosocial health, 16 out of the 48 studies they reviewed assessed for parental confidence. From these studies they found that there was a significant improvement in parents’ confidence immediately after attending a parenting programme, however the results at short term follow-up were mixed. This suggests that although parenting programmes can improve the psychosocial functioning of parents, including improving parental confidence, follow-up support is needed to maintain these improvements. Sanders et al. (2003) suggest that by promoting parenting confidence, along with increasing their knowledge and skills, this can help parents to avoid severe behavioural, emotional and developmental difficulties in their child. To this end, the Triple-P parenting programme aims to promote parental confidence through developing parenting knowledge and skills (Moran et al. 2004). In an evaluation of group-based Triple-P, Sanders et al.’s (2003) meta-analysis reported on 11 studies that included parental confidence as a measure: seven of these studies reported improved parental confidence as an outcome on completing the programme; results for parental confidence for the other four studies were not included in this paper. Further it was noted that, on the whole, this confidence was maintained at the six-month follow-up. Sanders et al. went on to suggest that parents with increased parental confidence had a more positive attitude towards their child and adopted more positive parenting skills. Martin et al. (2000) agree that there is a correlation between maternal confidence and their child’s aggression. In their study of 248 mothers of preschool children in Australia, Martin et al. examined the relationship between children’s behaviour, mothers’ confidence in managing their children’s behaviour and the mother–child relationship. The study reported that the child’s aggressive behaviour negatively

44

K. SMART

predicted the mother’s confidence. Furthermore, a mother–child relationship characterised by anxiety and guilt was found to be a strong predictor of the child’s aggression. Evidence from these reviews and studies would suggest that parental confidence could be an important contributory factor in developing parental engagement and positive parent–child relationships. As part of my research it was useful that I explored this further and so I looked at the impact on parental confidence having attended a parenting programme and any associated effect this had on the child. The next sections will look specifically at the parenting programmes that I focused on for my research: Triple-P , The Incredible Years and PEEP . All three of these parenting programmes are run by trained and experienced practitioners and are standardised in how they are delivered with the expectation that parents attend all the sessions. The aims of these programmes include improving knowledge on child development and parenting skills, improving parent–child relationships and promoting appropriate behaviour.

The Parenting Programmes in This Research Triple-P Triple-P (Positive Parenting Programme) is an evidence-based programme developed by Matthew Sanders at the University of Queensland in Australia (Sanders et al. 2003). This programme has been developed through 30 years of research providing confidence that this is a sound programme to adopt and is widely used across the UK. There are five levels of intervention in the Triple-P programme: these progress from Level 1, a universally applicable scheme, through Levels 2 and 3, aimed at supporting parents of children with mild to moderate behavioural difficulties, to Levels 4 and 5 targeting families with severe and serious problems. These levels are coupled with both one-to-one and group delivery styles. The rationale for the development of this programme was to provide parents with a better quality of advice around parenting. The five main principles that form the basis of Triple-P are: ensure a safe and stimulating environment; create a positive learning environment; use assertive but non-coercive discipline; have realistic expectations; take care of oneself as a parent.

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

45

Triple-P is probably the most researched of the parenting programmes included in my study, however this has been conducted mostly outside of the UK. This may be attributed firstly to the research carried out at the University of Queensland where Sanders is based and secondly as it is a widely used programme other researchers have also become interested in the impact it has on both parents and children. However most of this research is around the impact on children’s behaviour and not around the impact of the programme on the home learning environment or children’s development and attainment. Webster Stratton’s The Incredible Years Similar to Triple-P , The Incredible Years has several different programmes under its umbrella. The Incredible Years has six distinct evidencebased programmes: Parents and Babies; Parents and Toddlers; Early Childhood Basic Parent Training; Advanced Parent Training (6–12); Support Your Child’s Education Parent Training; School-Age Basic Parent Training (Incredible Years 2012). The main aims of The Incredible Years programmes are to increase children’s social and emotional learning and self-control skills, reduce challenging behaviours in children, strengthen parent–child relationships and promote school readiness. The Incredible Years, like Triple-P , is one of the most rigorously evaluated of the behavioural programmes; however this research has again mostly been conducted outside of the UK. PEEP The Peers Early Education Partnership ( PEEP ) is a parenting programme that was developed in Oxford in the UK and which aims to improve the life chances of children by raising educational attainment, particularly in disadvantaged areas, by supporting parents. This is achieved through group activities that promote parents’ awareness of children’s development and the importance of maximising early learning opportunities (PEEP 2012, 2015). In most parts PEEP groups are run weekly and children attend with their parents. Groups may be universal or targeted; some may also be universal groups where a number of places are reserved for targeted families. Like both Triple-P and The Incredible Years there are several different elements to this programme, in this case they are

46

K. SMART

based around the age of the child. There are five PEEP Learning Together programmes: Baby; Ones; Twos; Threes; Fours. Having been devised in Oxford it is not then surprising to find that much of the research around the effectiveness of the PEEP programme has been carried out by the University of Oxford Department of Education. Evangelou and her colleagues have been involved in much of this. One particular study focused on early intervention for children at risk of educational underachievement (Evangelou et al. 2007); this is one of the very few studies that looks at the correlation between parents attending a parenting programme and education which has a longitudinal perspective. With an understanding of the research into parenting skills and good parenting, we will now move on to look at what I found out about the parents’ views on learning and using parenting strategies.

What the Parents Say Each of the chapters around the themes that developed from my research will follow the same structure in that there will be a section on What the parents say followed by What this tell us. Although all three questionnaires were analysed you will note that quotations come from the post-programme and one-year-on questionnaires. The pre-programme questionnaire’s purpose was to get a baseline of quantitative data: how the parents spent time with their child; their child’s educational setting and parents contact with provision; confidence levels around a number of parent/child scenarios; reasons for attending the parenting programme; and finally a series of demographic questions to ensure that I selected a cross section of parents to interview. The post-programme and one-year-on questionnaires contained the same quantitative questions, minus the demographic ones, so that I could carry out appropriate statistical tests to measure any differences in parental confidence, activities shared with children and time spent playing with them. However it was the qualitative questions on the post-programme and one-year-on questionnaire that gave the parents a greater opportunity to express their views about the parenting programme, providing quotations for What the parents say. I will also be using quotations from the semi-structured interviews with the eight parents—these enabled me to probe further, collecting rich data around their experiences. The questions were open-ended promoting a deeper insight to their views and enabling the voices of the parents to

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

47

be heard. The advantage of using semi-structured interviews is that I did not have to rigidly adhere to my pre-prepared interview schedules as I wanted to allow parents the chance to share their perspectives around the parenting programmes, and this required the conversation to develop into areas that I had not considered. An essential element to gaining as many parental voices as possible was by actually visiting and taking part in the parenting groups. This enabled me to introduce my research to the parents and for them to ask questions. It was here that I was able to reassure them that their opinions would be confidential and to be able to offer them the opportunity to have their say anonymously. By taking part in the groups it also enabled me to listen to parents passing comments. I would definitely recommend to other researchers the time you invest at the start of your research and the effort you put in giving time to answer questions, promote confidentiality and to devise systems to allow for anonymity really could make the difference to the number of participants taking part in your study. The purpose of my research was to gain the parents’ perspectives and for the parents who took part in the interviews I reassured them that I would use pseudonyms when reporting my findings. Usually participants need confirmation that you will assure this. I say “usually” as I did have one colleague who had a parent who wanted their name to be known. In this case it was discouraged as it would also have identified the child the research was about. It also potentially would have identified other participants as many of them came from the same area, and they did not want to be recognised in the research. Although some participants want their story and identity known, researchers need to be careful if a participant wants to be known; think about the knock-on effect. When I designed the questionnaires, I took great care to ensure every question was relevant to my research. A vital part of the research process is piloting and it is through this that I made sure that each question was used and that each question would enable me to address my research questions. It was also important that I followed certain questions through from pre-programme, to post-programme to one-year-on. I followed the same process with my interview questions although as they were semistructured interviews there was scope for discussions to go in various directions; all with the view of addressing the research questions. This was especially valuable as conversations travelled down pathways that had not been raised in the literature. So, on to the parents’ voices.

48

K. SMART

An interesting aspect of this theme is that parental reports differed between parents who attended the PEEP programme and those who attended The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes. This difference could align with the main reasons why parents attended the programmes in the first place: PEEP parents tended to go to the groups to spend time playing with their young child, interact with other parents and for their child to socialise with other children, whereas many of the parents on The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes attended because they had concerns around their child’s behaviour. For PEEP parents, they reported that after attending the programme they placed more emphasis on creating a safe and healthy environment for their child: They eat more healthy. PEEP (Q-post) My daughter, she didn’t really eat that much fruit but since coming to the group she’s like tried a lot more fruit and that. She now does eat a lot more fruit. I think that’s really like seeing other children eating and like just trying out new things, I think she’s enjoyed. Emma I am more aware of healthy food and physical play. PEEP (Q-post) I intend to attend … the local swimming pool. PEEP (Q-post) More careful about having hot drinks around children. PEEP (Q-post)

Emily also realised that she needed to take precautions to ensure the safety of her children when they went out: It’s like when we went we went for a walk and they scooted too far out of sight and my partner was getting cross with them. I said well you can’t really get, you can get cross with them until a point, because they have done that, but we didn’t say before they went off ‘stop at a certain point’; they need to have some guidance. They can’t necessarily just think for themselves about the dangers. I said you can’t always blame them for

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

49

running off when we don’t give them a guidance first to say where to stop.

Emily has also found that proactively anticipating situations, talking to her children about where they were going and what was expected of them, had helped: … you can tell your child this is where you’re going, this is what we doing, you need to hold mummy’s hand … I did that going to the dentist, um because my little one had trouble with the dentist and he’d been about five times and never shown the dentist his teeth. So I did the whole going to the dentist, you’re going to do this, you’ve got a busy road to cross, you need to hold my hand, um and that was the first time he showed the dentist his teeth.

PEEP parents also reported that they spent more time with their child particularly singing, counting and reading stories, activities that could all contribute to promoting the child’s language development: I read more books, we don’t have the TV on for so long. PEEP (Q-post) I intend to attend the local library at least fortnightly. PEEP (Q-post)

The data suggested parents were beginning to recognise the benefits of reading stories and singing to babies and toddlers. During my visits to groups I spoke to a number of parents who prior to attending a PEEP group had not considered it necessary to engage in these activities as they had felt their child was too young to benefit from this type of interaction. In some extreme cases parents had minimal language interaction with their child. Responses from the post-programme questionnaires and interviews suggested parents were learning the importance of the role of play in a child’s development: I am understanding that young children are learning while playing. PEEP (Q-post)

50

K. SMART

Understand what children do and little children can learn. PEEP (Q-post) I feel like I’ve learnt more ways to play, new ideas I would have never thought of before. PEEP (Q-year) More patient and more confident in playing with my child. PEEP (Q-year) … some good ideas that I hadn’t wouldn’t have thought about probably otherwise. Some of the stuff we have played like having a tray of rice and things like that, it’s such a simple thing and it means they can kinda make a mess that isn’t really messy because it’s so easy to clear up so that’s quite a good idea so I think I’ve probably picked up a few good activities. Jacob Talking more about everyday things to help speech progression, counting during everyday tasks, e.g. Putting 2 shoes on, you’ve got 1 nose. PEEP (Q-year)

One year on, parents continued to report that they were spending more time playing with their child and using the ideas learnt on the programme. One of the main reasons why parents attended a PEEP group was for their children to interact and socialise with other children. Postprogramme questionnaire responses revealed that parents found the course helped them achieve this: Meeting new people, helping my child develop. PEEP (Q-post) To help us with making new friends in the area, PEEP (Q-post) Help me and my children become more confident and make new friends. PEEP (Q-post) Give her more confidence in herself and playing with other children. PEEP (Q-post)

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

51

For this mother the impact of attending a PEEP group not only changed her behaviours but also how she felt as a parent: I feel like a better mum and I am more patient, I have learnt loads, I like my child more because we play in a more structured way and we both have input and I watch him more rather than try to lead everything. PEEP (Q-post)

This suggested that although parents may have had very specific reasons for attending a programme, for example meeting other parents, social interaction for their child, helping manage their child’s behaviour, they were finding that they were coming away with unexpected outcomes. Parents on the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes came away with a largely different set of parenting strategies more appropriate to the ages and needs of their children, particularly in terms of behaviour management. One Triple-P trainer shared that parents who attended her Teen Triple P groups often arrive saying “they’ve in their opinion got the worse teen that ever walked the earth”, sometimes even having police involvement. On attending the group, the parents realise that they are not alone with the challenges they face. The trainer went on to say that having attended the parenting programme “they’ve [the parents] changed and they’ve realised the way they react is how the children reacted to that so hence they change”. Parents were learning how to promote positive behaviour by encouraging independence and giving their child responsibility: Getting them to take ownership of their behaviour/actions, e.g. not completing homework, accepting consequences from school and discussing why and how we can improve. Triple-P (Q-post) Trying to encourage small independent steps. Triple-P (Q-post) Try to give options so they make the decision. Triple-P (Q-year) Listen to them. Value them more. Allow them to make choices. The Incredible Years (Q-post)

52

K. SMART

For some parents, where they felt as though they were in a constant battle with their child, they learnt to evaluate which issues were the important ones that need addressing and which behaviours to ignore: Not trying to correct every behaviour. By picking the battles. The Incredible Years (Q-post)

Ava has also experienced the benefits of choosing her battles: You let things go and concentrate on the things that you do need to address …They poke their tongue out at you - you can sort of ignore them rather than try to reprimand them so I think it’s happier all round … a calmer atmosphere.

Olivia, a mother of four, also found it to be a matter of choosing which battles to fight but then was able to turn the battles into a game: picking the battles and actually you know it’s… it’s not you know ‘don’t do this’. I don’t feel myself going ‘la-la-la’ you know, and I don’t find myself shouting ‘cause um I remember going to the very first group and having to shout at them to put their shoes on and stuff, you know. And just like this morning um child number three didn’t want to get dressed and so ‘let’s have a race then’. So then it was a game. So then he was dressed you know and fabulous.

It was interesting to note that the use of praise was one of the key strategies that was widely identified. The indication is that parents were beginning to realise that they were quick to tell off their children if their behaviour was not appropriate but less quick to praise their child when they were behaving or helping out. Give more ‘I’ messages. Give plenty of reward. The Incredible Years (Q-post) More communication and specific praise. The Incredible Years (Q-post) The kindness chart has done wonders. The Incredible Years (Q-post)

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

53

Praise children more for good behaviour. Triple-P (Q-post) I try to be more patient. More positive praise. PEEP (Q-year) They do respond well to the positive praise. Triple-P (Q-year) The ones I mainly try and use are the positive praise one…they really like being praised so it does have an impact. Emily

These last three quotations come from the one-year-on questionnaires and interview and show that parents were still using the positive strategies learnt on the programme and were continuing to see the benefits of doing so. Parents were not only coming away with strategies to help them promote positive behaviour, they were also realising the importance of continuity and consistency in the application of these strategies—by their partner as well as themselves: Deal with discipline more consistently. Triple-P (Q-post) But unfortunately the way you get with families, one day dad has the problem and mum says ‘go away and calm down dad’, and another day mum has the problem and dad says ‘go away and calm down mum’… You know I have a problem with when I come home from work and I find the other half on his laptop, and one watching the telly and the other on the computer and nobody’s checked if the homework’s been done. And every week mum’s bad guy… The status quo gets disrupted when mum comes in and says ‘right this, this, this, this, this, this, de de da’ and they’ve all been sat doing their own thing and not doing what they should’ve been doing. Isabella I’m trying to sort of say to my partner that. Trying to stop them shouting and flying off the handle so much because he’s got less patience than me.

54

K. SMART

And trying to tell him about the positive praise and make, try and make, you know, get him on board as well so that it’s consistent. Emily

An important outcome is that parents are recognising that it is a change in their own behaviour that is influencing the change in their child’s. Both Emily and Olivia recognised that by changing how they addressed certain behaviours they could have a positive effect on their children: …’cause sometimes you don’t think about your, the impact of your behaviour on your children. Emily I’m trying to be calmer and think that does have an impact on how they respond to you. If you’re telling them off and everything, I think that then makes more negative behaviour. Emily …for me I find the top of the pyramid, the actual punishment, that has reduced down. Definitely, it’s, it very rarely gets to the point where we’re at the top of the pyramid where we’re having to use punishment. Olivia …more patient and understanding of why my children behave in a certain way. More confident to challenge behaviour and not give into tantrums. PEEP (Q-post)

This suggests that by adopting positive parenting strategies, parents were resorting less to punitive measures and they were seeing the positive results of doing so: I think it builds up a better relationship with the child. Olivia

Not only were parents realising that they were changing their behaviour but others around them were seeing the changes too. Emma had other people notice the change in how she interacted with her children:

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

55

I can’t remember who it was but I was um playing with the children and they wasn’t listening and I said ‘right if you don’t listen we’ll have to put it away’ and someone said to me they can tell that I have learnt that through coming to the group. So others have noticed that I’m more confident with them as well with their behaviour. Emma

Another suggestion from the responses to the questionnaires and interviews was that by adopting positive parenting strategy families were discovering a more harmonious home life: By stay calm and reduced level of shouting in our house becoming a happier home. The Incredible Years (Q-post)

Equipped with the appropriate strategies and knowledge, parents reported that they left the course with increased confidence: Probably gives me the confidence to go back to the secondary school to ask for more help. Isabella

Ava considered her confidence in managing her grandchildren’s behaviour had increased “dramatically” since attending the programme. She could “cope with that now – before I didn’t know what to do”. Particularly with one of her grand-daughters, Ava could now “understand what she’s going through and calm her down quite quickly; before it would be a meltdown”. Olivia also reported that her confidence in managing her children’s behaviour had increased since adopting parenting strategies learnt on the course: …it’s the being able to deal with the challenging behaviours around doing it.

Interestingly the analysis of the quantitative Likert scale postprogramme data showed little change in reported parental confidence. In contrast, when parents were asked on the same post-programme questionnaire the open question “What element from this parenting programme do you feel has helped you the most?” they frequently commented on how the programme had increased their confidence:

56

K. SMART

Having the confidence to take my child to play groups with people I don’t know. PEEP (Q-post) I am more confident in general with my child. I take him out and about more and also enjoy more quality time with him at home. PEEP (Q-post) Socialising with other mothers and becoming more confident with my baby. PEEP (Q-post)

Perhaps the implication is that parents found the programme increased their general parenting confidence, but were unable to quantify this in regard to the specific scenarios on the questionnaire. It could be that they found it difficult to measure this in relation to scores on their previous questionnaire; the pre-programme. The single notable change in reported parental confidence in regard to a listed set of scenarios, all came from the one-year-on questionnaire and were all related to the same theme: supporting their child’s education. Interestingly this theme did not emerge as important from the qualitative questionnaire and interview analysis, but is possibly related to the parents’ greater exposure to their child’s educational provision one-year-on. Six out of the eight parents interviewed talked about how they felt better equipped to support their child’s development and manage their child’s behaviour. For Sophia, going to PEEP with her son Mason has helped increase her knowledge around child development, making her feel more confident as a parent: That’s what’s quite nice is that um I kinda come to these groups and because you don’t have a manual of how to do it and so you need that bit of extra confidence of of other parents and children around and seeing, you know, things you kinda play with and seeing how they develop as well that it gives you kinda confidence to be able to kinda do more with your child. …we can go out and you can learn things with them and then that gives you confidence to help them develop.

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

57

Emily who attended a Triple-P programme also commented on how you do not get a manual when you give birth: I think it acts as a sort of a reminder, when you have a child you don’t get a manual do you, what you’re supposed to do with them. I know I’ve done child development but in my degree it doesn’t tell you about discipline it’s more about nature versus nurture and things like that isn’t it rather than how to deal it with all the other things.

Olivia attended The Incredible Years programme and found the positive parenting strategies had not only helped with the two children who were exhibiting inappropriate behaviour but was also benefiting her other two children: It encompassed children number two and number three who weren’t showing challenging behaviours but were able to um bring out the better in them. Um for instance the praising, and spending one-on-one time, those kind of things. So it was, it was er a complete balance for both spectrums you know, of both ends really. For children with the most challenging and also to try and sort of grow and work on those relationships of the ones who tend to get left in the middle because they’re not shh, you know not demonstrating that challenging behaviour.

Olivia now even shares her newly learnt strategies with friends who are experiencing undesired behaviour from their children: …a friend of mine has twins and they were refusing to put their shoes on and you know it was getting fraught, and I just said ‘do you want me to put your shoes on or you going to put your shoes on?’

Parents consider that many of the strategies they had learnt on the programme, such as giving more positive praise and picking their battles, could be effective and have a positive impact on their child and their family.

What This Tells Us What I heard from the parents here addressed my second research question: What are the views of parents regarding the changes that parents have made as a result of attending a parenting programme? Parents reported

58

K. SMART

positive changes in parental behaviour, especially the effective adoption of parenting and behaviour management strategies, along with increased parental confidence. This was seen to also impact other aspects of their lives, including giving parents the confidence to approach their child’s school with concerns or going on to further training to develop their career, all of which was having a direct impact on the child. This outcome aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model (Bronfenbrenner 1979) whereby factors with which the child does not directly interact can still have an impact on them. In the context of my study, Bronfenbrenner’s exosystem would include the two parenting programmes where the child does not attend with their parent: The Incredible Years and Triple-P . According to Bronfenbrenner, interactions within the exosystem, in this case between parents and trainers, have the potential to indirectly impact the child through induced changes in parental approach, attitude and behaviour. Although the child did not attend the sessions, the strategies parents learnt and were using at home were having a positive impact on their child and their family. Similarly the PEEP programmes would fall into Bronfenbrenner’s mesosystem, where the parents and trainers interacted with each other and also directly with the child. Here the parents were interacting with the trainers, growing their knowledge on child development and positive parenting strategies, and then using what they had learnt not only during group sessions but also at home. My findings add further support to the evidence (Coren and Barlow 2009; Al-Hassan and Lansford 2011; Lindsay and Cullen 2011; Furlong et al. 2012) that parenting programmes can be successful in encouraging the learning and adoption of new parenting skills and strategies. One key parenting skill reported by the parents in my research was the use of positive parenting techniques to manage children’s behaviour; strategies included verbal praise, kindness chart, listening to their child, negotiation and providing options. Additionally parents reported a new understanding on the value of play in their child’s development. The outcome of this new knowledge has led to parents reporting changes around the time and activities they share with their child; these included sharing stories, singing, cooking and playing with their child. My research also demonstrated two key outcomes arising from the adoption of these positive parenting strategies: firstly an improved parent–child relationship, again echoing the findings of Coren and Barlow; secondly a reported increase in general parental confidence, supporting the findings of Manby

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

59

(2005) who reported improvements in parental confidence as they were able to successfully apply strategies to address their children’s behaviour. In addition to the learning of new parenting skills, these findings demonstrated that parents were also learning more about child development and the importance of the role they play in this area. This supports the earlier findings of Al-Hassan and Lansford (2011). The subsequent parental behavioural changes reflect how an increased understanding of their child’s development can help improve their parenting skills, as identified by Stevens (1984); in particular it helps them to create a safer and more stimulating environment within which their child can thrive. This ranged from an understanding of healthy eating and physical play to the value of singing, reading stories and playing even with the very youngest infants. From my professional experience I have found that most parents want to do their best for their child; this is further supported by them agreeing to or choosing to attend a parenting programme, often to help them develop their knowledge around child development and positive parenting strategies. I have also found in the years that I have been in the education system, specifically early years and primary, that working in partnership with parents and respecting their knowledge as a parent, helps encourage them to develop their parenting skills. There have been many occasions where I have found parents wanting to do their very best for their child but not knowing how to go about it and have welcomed the opportunity to work in partnership with me to help improve their knowledge in this area. My findings relating to this research question demonstrate that parents are adopting positive strategies learnt on the programmes and are becoming more confident in their role. This is important because it demonstrates how the desire of parents to do their best for their child is being met by the parenting programmes; they are being supported in improving their knowledge on child development and positive parenting strategies resulting in increased parental confidence.

References Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Walls, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; distributed by Halsted Press Division of Wiley.

60

K. SMART

Al-Hassan, S. M., & Lansford, J. E. (2011). Evaluation of the Better Parenting Programme in Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 587–598. Barlow, J., Smailagic, N., Huband, N., Roloff, V., & Bennett, C. (2014). Groupbased parent training programmes for improving parental psychosocial health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6, CD002020. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Coren, E., & Barlow, J. (2009). Individual and group-based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD002964. Crittenden, P. M. (2005). Attachment and cognitive psychotherapy. International Congress on Cognitive Psychotherapy. Gøtengorg, Sweden. Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DFES Publications. Evangelou, M., Brooks, G., & Smith, S. (2007). The birth to school study: Evidence on the effectiveness of PEEP, an early intervention for children at risk of educational under-achievement. Oxford Review of Education, 33, 581– 609. Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The report of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances. London: Cabinet Office. Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, CD008225. Gottman, J. (1997). Raising an emotionally intelligent child. Seattle, WA: Gottman Institute. Hallam, S., Rogers, L., & Shaw, J. (2004). Improving children’s behaviour and attendance through the use of parenting programmes: An examination of good practice. Nottingham: DFES Publications. Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they matter?: A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Warwick: University of Warwick. Incredible Years. (2012). The Incredible Years. Available: http://incredibleyears. com. Accessed 31 July 2012. Leckman, J. F., Feldman, R., Swain, J. E., Eicher, V., Thompson, N., & Mayes, L. C. (2004). Primary parental preoccupation: Circuits, genes, and the crucial role of the environment. Journal of Neural Transmission, 111, 753–771.

3

THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNING AND USING PARENTING STRATEGIES

61

Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the Parenting Early Intervention Programme: A short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education. Manby, M. (2005). Evaluation of the impact of the Webster-Stratton ParentChild Videotape Series on participants in a Midlands town in 2001–2002. Children and Society, 19, 316–328. Martin, A. J., Linfoot, K., & Stephenson, J. (2000). Exploring the cycle of mother-child relations, maternal confidence, and children’s aggression. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52, 34–40. Meadows, S. (2010). The child as social person. London: Routledge. Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 44, 222–232. Miller, S. (2010). Supporting parents: Improving outcomes for children, families and communities. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press. Moran, P., Ghate, D., & Van Der Merwe, A. (2004). What works in parenting support?: A review of the international evidence. London: Department for Education and Skills. PEEP. (2012). Peers Early Education Partnership. Available: www.peep.org.uk. Accessed 31 July 2012. PEEP. (2015). Peers Early Education Partnership. Available: http://www.peeple. org.uk/. Accessed 11 May 2015. Pugh, G. (2010). Principles for engaging with families: A framework for local authorities and national organisations to evaluate and improve engagement with families. London: NCB. Sanders, M. R., Markie-Dadds, C., & Turner, K. M. (2003). Theoretical, scientific and clinical foundations of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A population approach to the promotion of parenting competence. Brisbane: Parenting and Family Support Centre, The University of Queensland. Seginer, R. (2006). Parents’ educational involvement: A developmental ecology perspective. Parenting, Science and Practice, 6, 1–48. Stevens, J. H., Jr. (1984). Child development knowledge and parenting skills. Family Relations, 33, 237–244. Williams, P., Sheridan, S., & Sandberg, A. (2014). Preschool—An arena for children’s learning of social and cognitive knowledge. Early Years, 34, 226–240.

CHAPTER 4

The Value of Spending Quality Time with Their Child

Abstract This chapter discusses the second theme that developed from my research: “the value of spending quality time with their child”. Parents recognise the importance of ensuring that their interactions with their child are enjoyable and productive rather than confrontational and negative. As a result they are forming improved relationships and experiencing a more harmonious home life. Keywords Parenting · Quality time · Bronfenbrenner · Attachment · Behaviour · Critical realism

This chapter shows that having attended a parenting programme, parents are now appreciating spending quality time with their child. This theme the value of spending quality time with their child addressed my third research question: From the perspective of parents, what impact has the parenting programme had on the children? The purpose of this question was to establish an understanding of any impact that the parenting programme had on the child, through a critical analysis of the parents’ views. One of the main things that I heard from the parents was how they described the ways in which they interacted with their child. Specifically, the post-programme questionnaire responses suggest that since attending © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_4

63

64

K. SMART

a programme parents are spending more quality time with their child. This chapter will start by looking at the impact and the importance of attachment on parenting. Next it will look at the impact of parenting on children’s behaviour before moving on to discover what the parents had to say. I will then finish the chapter by discussing what this tells us.

The Impact of Attachment on Parenting Research has indicated that there are many contributory factors in the development of attachment between parent and child, and the subsequent impact of this relationship on the child’s progress. A number of factors could contribute to why what should be an automatic attachment to the infant does not always present itself; these are usually attributed to how the mother or caregiver responds to the infant. A securely attached child usually receives consistent, sensitive, accepting and co-operative attention from their mother or caregiver (Ainsworth et al. 1978). An infant who receives inconsistent responses to their communication and signals can often become anxiously attached and will tend to cry more and for longer periods of time; characteristics of anxious attachment also include smiling less, not responding positively to being held and reacting negatively to being put down. For the anxious/avoidant child, the mother or caregiver tends to be particularly rejecting of the infant to the extent where the mother often exhibits a strong aversion to any physical contact. Research into the changes that occur in the brain during pregnancy, the neural circuitry of parenting, and on the changes that occur during the first months postpartum suggests that the way in which adults respond to their babies can result in lasting consequences for the child (Mayes 2010). Shuffelton (2015) considers that the “mother/child bond is uniquely tight, and lasting, and essential to a child’s healthy psychological development. Only a mother (not a father, other family member, or paid caretaker) can provide this care” (p. 2). Bowlby (1982) however considers attachment can also be found beyond the mother–infant relationship and recognised a secure attachment could be established by any person, father or any other caregiver, who regularly gives their time and attention. Howes (1999) agrees with Bowlby that a similar attachment to that of the mother–child relationship can be formed between the child and an alternative caregiver. Ainsworth (1985) proposes that the most important factors in a person’s social support system are those that have attachment elements that bring with it a sense of security. That these are not solely

4

THE VALUE OF SPENDING QUALITY TIME WITH THEIR CHILD

65

restricted to parent–child and caregiver–child relationship and that they can be established beyond infancy; it could be formed between sexual partnerships and between siblings. Veríssimo et al.’s (2011) study of 35 families in Lisbon (where in this case a “family” consists of both parents living together and one child attending a private day-care programme) found that even though the children involved in the study had a secure attachment with both parents, the security with each may correlate to different developmental outcomes. For example, it was suggested that a secure attachment with their father resulted in an increased number of friendships and an improved ability to cope with aggressive behaviours. This may be attributed to the different types of play and interaction between the child and father compared to the mother; a father’s play was typically more physically stimulating whilst a mother’s play was characterised by calmer interactions. Improvement in parent–child attachment relationships is often one of the goals of parenting programmes, particularly those offered to atrisk parents such as teenagers. Barlow et al.’s review (2011), which included eight studies with 513 participants, looked at the outcomes from teenage parents attending parenting programmes. The results suggest that both just after attending the parenting programme and at followup there was an improvement in the parent’s responsiveness to the infant and the child’s responsiveness to the mother, both measured using the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (Sumner and Spietz 1994). There was also evidence, using the same scale, that there was an improvement in the parent–child interaction, such as mealtime communication. This would suggest that by attending a parenting programme you can develop or improve an attachment between parent and child where there had been little positive attachment in place. Although Miller (2010) agrees that supporting parents with activities that could promote the parent–child relationship further research would be needed to see whether this improved the parent–child attachment and whether this could also have a positive impact on the child’s development and attainment. Bohr and BinNoon’s (2014) study of teenage parents in Canada attending Right From the Start, an attachment-focused parenting programme which included sessions on teaching specific parenting skills, found that overall parental sensitivity did improve. However a major limitation of this study was that out of the 11 teenage parents who started the programme only four parents continued to the end of study. Egeland and Farber’s (1984) data also supports that the attachment relationship can be changed

66

K. SMART

after the child’s first year. Research carried out by Simoniˇc and Poljanec (2014) exploring the mothers’ views of any changes having attended a weekly structured young mothers’ group, focusing on developing their awareness of the importance of the mother–child bond and supporting them through any difficulties in establishing this, suggests that mothers became more relaxed in relation to their expectations around motherhood resulting in an improved mother–child bond. The impact of the parenting programme on the parent–child attachment relationship was one of the key aspects that I focused on in my research study.

The Impact of Parenting on Children’s Behaviour Barlow and Parsons’ (2005) meta-analysis of five studies found that group-based parenting programmes for parents with children up to three years of age did show improvement in children’s behaviour. This is further supported by Thomas et al.’s (1999) review of 14 studies, with children aged birth to six years, which also reported significant improvement in both parent and child behaviour, especially where the emphasis was on parental empowerment. Hutchings et al. (2007) investigated the impact of a specific parenting programme, The Incredible Years , in Sure Start services for parents of children aged three and four years considered at risk of developing conduct problems. Their findings showed that children’s behaviour improved significantly. Results measured included both parents’ self-reports and direct observations carried out by the research team, promoting the trustworthiness of the study, furthered by using a randomised controlled experiment using a block design allocated by area. The results of this study suggest that it is possible to mediate children’s behaviour by teaching parents key parenting skills and modifying how the parents behave. Looking at programmes delivered to parents of slightly older children, Furlong et al.’s (2012) more recent review of parenting programmes found that for children aged three to 12 years who were showing signs of early onset conduct problems, group-based parenting programmes helped parents to develop their parenting skills resulting in improved behaviour of their children. Results only report on the short-term effects; evidence of longer-term effects was not available. This appears to be quite a common factor in many studies investigating the impact of parenting programmes. Menting, de Castro and Matthys’ (2013) review of 50 studies covering 4754 participants, also looking at a wider age range,

4

THE VALUE OF SPENDING QUALITY TIME WITH THEIR CHILD

67

again found that the parent-training programme was an effective intervention as measured immediately after the course; no longer-term results were reported. There certainly seems to be a substantial level of research into the effects of parenting programmes on children’s behaviour and it appears to be very positive across the board—including that from UK studies. Rogers, Hallam and Shaw’s (2008) study across 134 local authorities in England found that in almost all cases parents reported an improvement in children’s behaviour at home. A one-year-on study on the parenting programme Parents Altogether Lending Support (PALS) in Dundee conducted by Zeedyk et al. (2008) found that parents felt they were still able to manage their children’s behaviour one year after they attended the programme. It must be noted the results of this study came from parents’ perceptions and there was no independent input or triangulation. Lindsay and Cullen’s (2011) evaluation of the recent Parenting Early Intervention Programme (PEIP), a national UK Government initiative, also found that there was a considerable improvement in children’s behaviour. There is much evidence to support the view that by attending a parenting programme parents can improve their children’s behaviour and this is still an area being actively researched, including the three specific parenting programmes included in my study. Taking this into consideration I did not further explore the direct impact on children’s behaviour but instead focused on the parenting programme process, changes in the behaviours of parents and the impact, other than behaviour, this had on the children. Having looked at the research literature it is now time to listen to what the parents have to say about how attending the parenting programme helped them discover the value of spending quality time with their child.

What the Parents Say In this section you will hear the parents’ views on parenting programmes. 136 parents took part in the questionnaire phase of my research, from this eight were selected using the information they provided on their demographics to offer a range of views for the interview stage. Parents completed questionnaires before, after and one-year-on having completed a parenting programme. Those who were selected for an interview shared their experiences after having completed a parenting programme and

68

K. SMART

again one-year-later. It was important to catch up with the parents oneyear-on to establish whether they considered the parenting programme had a long-lasting effect. The data was then analysed giving us the five themes that I will be sharing with you in this book. I would like to reiterate that all participants are fully anonymised and no real names have been used or referred to at any point. Pseudonyms for the participants were selected from the top 100 names for girls and boys. One of the parents interviewed was from Eastern Europe, a common heritage within the south-west region; I considered it important that I should randomly select a name from this part of the world to maintain her heritage. You will recall that my third research question was all about the parents’ views on how attending the programme had impacted their children. Some of the most interesting and relevant findings from the parents were that they, the parents, identified the value of spending quality time with their child. I’m not suggesting that these parents said they didn’t spend time with their child prior to attending a parenting programme. Rather, what came out of the data was that parents demonstrated a discovery for the value of spending quality time with their child: The group has also been able to help me try new activities with my children and share new experiences with them PEEP (Q-post) Sing a lot more with her at home daily. PEEP (Q-post) Bonding with my child through song and playing PEEP (Q-post) Listen and learn. I like to spend time with my children PEEP (Q-post) Play more and do more crafts, cooking PEEP (Q-post) Spend more time playing and the importance of play. Some great creative ideas PEEP (Q-post)

4

THE VALUE OF SPENDING QUALITY TIME WITH THEIR CHILD

69

Playing, reading more with my child PEEP (Q-post) I spend more time playing with her and focusing on a single topic and involve stories/TV programs to support that theme. PEEP (Q-year) Yesterday we came home from school and made quiches for tea and things like that. We try and do quite a lot with him. My eldest likes drawing so quite often sit down and do drawing with him Emily

These last two quotations came from a one-year-on parental questionnaire and Emily’s one-year-on interview and demonstrate that parents still valued spending quality time with their child 12 months after completing the programme. Triple-P parents with younger children also reported that they are now making more time to spend with their child: Have a set ‘play 1:1’ time once a week Triple-P (Q-post)

In addition to parents reporting that they are spending more time with their child, they are finding that they are more relaxed during this interaction: I am a lot calmer and spend more time with him Triple-P (Q-post)

Sophia is very conscious that time passes by quickly and it is too easy to neglect their interaction with their child: …you’re busy kinda doing other things. Sometimes you do actually forget that they just need that time, just to sit down on a one-to-one basis.

Jacob also recognises the danger of getting caught up in the housework: It’s too easy to get caught up in the domestic routine, there’s always washing up, laundry and DIY jobs and all kinds of stuff you’ve got to do when you’re at home.

70

K. SMART

Both Jacob and Sophia are very conscious of now making time to play with their sons: …it’s trying to kinda, er, you want the structure but you also want to have a bit of playtime for them. Because, you know, we all know that, er, you know children aren’t children for long really, and then we’ve got to get into this whole ‘you’re not meant to do that because you’re now a grown up’ or like that, you know … that’s why I try and do things right now. Sophia

Jacob was very aware that he had spent a lot of quality time with his older son but less time with his younger son; coming to PEEP gave them special time to play together: It gives me and Ethan something that’s about us going out to something together, which is something I had a lot of with his brother, Noah, and less of with him.

With Jacob spending some quality time by taking Ethan to PEEP , this in turn allowed Jacob’s partner to spend some quality time with their older son, Noah: It gives, it gives his brother a chance to spend some time with his mum as well, which is something that’s important. For him that was, um, really noticed when Ethan was born, that Noah was quite put out because suddenly he’s got to share his time, share his parents, general space and all that kind of stuff. So he needs to have some time to spend on his own with his mum every now and then, which he gets when I take Ethan out.

For Sophia, her “… partner is quite a clean freak”, so coming to PEEP allows her to have time to enjoy messy play together without the mess at home: That’s what’s brilliant, you can get the messy here, they can tidy up afterwards and it’s not in your house [laughs].

All the PEEP parents interviewed reported that they are using at home the activities they have shared during the sessions:

4

THE VALUE OF SPENDING QUALITY TIME WITH THEIR CHILD

71

…there’s been some good stuff, some good ideas that I hadn’t wouldn’t have thought about probably otherwise.” Jacob I’ve got to know a lot more songs. I can do more stuff with them and activities, like different ideas like I wouldn’t think of before I seen here and I’ve used it at home, they’ve really enjoyed it … they enjoy me doing things with them. Emma

The data analysis also suggests that parents are changing how they communicate with their child; parents are listening to what their child says and responding in a way that makes the child feel valued. It appears that this in turn means that the child will then talk more to their parent improving both communication and the quality of interaction they have with their parent: Listening skills - they confide more The Incredible Years (Q-post) Listen to her more and let her lead when playing PEEP (Q-post) …we talk to each other more and communicate more Triple-P (Q-post) I listen to them more and allow them to be more independent. PEEP (Q-year)

PEEP sessions actively encourage parents to play with their child and continue at home the activities and skills learnt on the course. The data analysis suggests parents are doing this and as a result are forming improved relationships with their child: I am more confident in general with my child. I take him out and about more and also enjoy more quality time with him at home PEEP (Q-post) We get on better. PEEP (Q-post)

72

K. SMART

What This Tells Us Key to my research has been the role the parents play in their child’s development and this maps to the first level of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model, the microsystem, which represents the immediate environment surrounding the child. In the context of my research, this level maps primarily to include the child’s interaction with their parents, although for those who attend the PEEP programmes this would also include the exchanges between the trainer and child during the programme sessions. It is through the interactions between the layers in this model, from the exosystem through the mesosystem to the microsystem, that the parenting programme can be seen to have an impact on the children of the parents attending. Answering my third research question, From the perspective of parents, what impact has the parenting programme had on the children?, one of the key outcomes identified is an improved relationship between parent and child. The views of the parents suggest that they recognise the value of ensuring that their interactions with their child are enjoyable and productive rather than confrontational and negative. This is facilitated and supported by the parent learning new skills and strategies coupled with them spending more quality time together. In addition to parents reporting that they are spending more time with their child, they are finding that they are more relaxed during this interaction. PEEP sessions actively encourage parents to play with their child and continue at home the activities and skills learnt on the course. The data analysis suggests parents are doing this and as a result are forming improved relationships with their child. The data analysis also suggests that parents are changing how they communicate with their child; parents are listening to what their child says and responding in a way that makes the child feel valued. It appears that this in turn means that the child will then talk more to their parent improving both communication and the quality of interaction they have with their parent. Adoption of strategies learnt on the programme is found to be contributing to an improved bond between parent and child, with their relationship being reported as happier, less stressful and more constructive. This key outcome of attendance on a parenting programme further supports the findings of Simoniˇc and Poljanec (2014) who researched mothers’ views having attended a young mother’s group. This outcome

4

THE VALUE OF SPENDING QUALITY TIME WITH THEIR CHILD

73

is important to note because this improved relationship feeds back into promoting the child’s behaviour and confidence, and indirectly increases their school readiness. An important strength of my research was how I used Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy Critical Realism (1975), in particular his MELD framework (2008), to guide my research methodology. My ontological and epistemological perspectives sit comfortably within Bhaskar’s Critical Realism: ontologically I recognise that objects exist in and of themselves, independently of our knowledge of them; further I acknowledge that our understanding of them may change over time, or between observers, but that the underlying reality remains constant. My epistemological approach, which aligned with Bhaskar’s Dialectical Critical Realism (DCR), was to collect information from multiple perspectives, specifically different individuals, different methodologies, different times, in order to assemble a full picture of the “actual” events, leading to an understanding of the underlying reality. DCR further provided me with a framework, MELD, to guide my methodology to the goal of using the new knowledge and understanding of parenting programmes to pursue real change. If we take a look back to how my research fitted within the MELD model as I outlined in Chapter 1, we can see how the parents’ views help me reach 4D: • 1M I observed and collected the perspectives of parents and trainers on the parenting programme process, changes in parental behaviour and impact on the child, and used these to help understand how each individual’s experience is one manifestation of the underlying reality. • 2E identified what were the nature of the changes reported by parents, recognised the nature of both becoming and “be-going”. What is or was missing in regard to parenting behaviours and child development. I looked at whether there were any contradictions in what parents and trainers were saying. Although this book does not include the trainers’ perspectives this was an important element of my research as it provided triangulation to the data and promoted trustworthiness of the findings. The trainers’ views aligned with what the parents were reporting. • 3L looked at the whole picture, the totality, of the impacts of the parenting programme process. I examined this totality through multiple time points, multiple perspectives, both parents

74

K. SMART

and trainers, and multiple methodologies (questionnaires and interviews). • 4D use this new knowledge and understanding to pursue real change; refocus the Government and local authority attention to addressing these changes. Using this as a model I took individual parent’s feedback, combined it with others, analysed it critically looking for deeper implications and meanings. I now share the knowledge and understanding that I have gained with others through conferences and my written work. I believe that my use of Bhaskar’s MELD to frame my methodology provides valuable knowledge to future researchers and professionals, and that it can act as an example for how Critical Realism can be applied within social science research.

References Ainsworth, M. D. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 61, 792. Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Walls, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; distributed by Halsted Press Division of Wiley. Barlow, J., & Parsons, J. (2005). Group-based parent-training programmes for improving emotional and behavioural adjustment in 0–3 year old children. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Barlow, J., Smailagic, N., Bennett, C., Huband, N., Jones, H., & Coren, E. (2011). Individual and group based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books Ltd. Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge. Bohr, Y., & BinNoon, N. (2014). Enhancing sensitivity in adolescent mothers: Does a standardised, popular parenting intervention work with teens? Child Care in Practice, 20, 286–300. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its development and changes over time. Child development, 55(3), 753– 771. Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting

4

THE VALUE OF SPENDING QUALITY TIME WITH THEIR CHILD

75

interventions for early-onset conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Howes, C. (1999). Attachment relationships in the context of multiple caregivers. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical application (2nd ed.). New York: Guildford Press. Hutchings, J., Bywater, T., Daley, D., Gardner, F., Whitaker, C., Jones, K., et al. (2007). Parenting intervention in Sure Start services for children at risk of developing conduct disorder: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 334, 678. Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the Parenting Early Intervention Programme: A short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education. Mayes, L. C. (2010). Introduction. In T. Baradon (Ed.), Relational trauma in infancy: Psychoanalytic, attachment and neuropsychological contributions to parent-infant psychotherapy. New York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group. Menting, A. T., de Castro, B. O., & Matthys, W. (2013). Effectiveness of the incredible years parent training to modify disruptive and prosocial child behavior: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 901–913. Miller, S. (2010). Supporting parents: Improving outcomes for children, families and communities. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press. Rogers, L., Hallam, S., & Shaw, J. (2008). Parenting programmes: Do generalist parenting programmes improve children’s behaviour and attendance at school? The parents’ perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 35, 16–25. Shuffelton, A. (2015). Re-privatizing the family: How “opt-out” and “parental involvement” media narratives support school privatization. Critical Education, 6(12). Simoniˇc, B., & Poljanec, A. (2014). Building motherhood in the young mothers’ group. Child Care in Practice, 20, 270–285. Sumner, G., & Spietz, A. (1994). NCAST Care-giver/parent-child interaction teaching manual, Seattle, WA: NCAST . Seattle, WA: University of Washington, School of Nursing. Thomas, H., Camiletti, Y., Cava, M., Feldman, R., Underwood, J., & Wade, K. (1999). Effectiveness of parenting groups with professional involvement in improving parent and child outcome. Effective Public Health Practice Project. Toronto: Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health. Veríssimo, M., Santos, A. J., Vaughn, B. E., Torres, N., Monteiro, L., & Santos, O. (2011). Quality of attachment to father and mother and number of reciprocal friends. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 27–38. Zeedyk, M. S., Werritty, I., & Riach, C. (2008). One year on: Perceptions of the lasting benefits of involvement in a parenting support programme. Children and Society, 22, 99–111.

CHAPTER 5

How Children Benefit from Opportunities That Promote Their Development

Abstract This chapter discusses how parental behavioural changes, having attended a parenting programme, can benefit their child. Parents report an increased awareness of how their interactions can promote child development and school readiness, with outcomes aligning well with the Early Years Foundation Stage targets. Additionally, this chapter captures the system I devised to provide anonymity and confidentiality to the participants in my research. Keywords Child development · Speech and language · Social · Behavioural · School readiness · Improved confidence

This chapter goes on to demonstrate the benefit to children arising from parental behavioural changes having attended a parenting programmes.

Assuring Confidentiality and Anonymity Before I dive straight into discussing the third theme, I would like to talk about one of the big problems that faces many researchers, in particular those investigating potentially sensitive or personal issues in social science—that of recruitment and retention of participants. This is particularly effective for those potential participants who may, for any number of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_5

77

78

K. SMART

reasons, rather not take part because of becoming known especially if they would like to share unfavourable comments. Before I continue, I would like to be clear in how I define and use the two terms confidentiality and anonymity. I consider this to be important as I often encounter these terms being used interchangeably which I feel can be very misleading. Confidentiality When I use the term confidentiality I am ensuring that the identity of the participants who took part in my research is not revealed. I know who the participants are but no-one else will know. This requires more than simply removing any references to their name—I must also ensure that I do not share any personal details which could lead to their identity being recognised. Anonymity The term anonymity differs from confidentiality; when I offer anonymity to potential participants, I am saying that I too will not know who they are. I will not have any record of their name or any contact information. It is so important that research captures all the voices and not just a select few. To overcome this and to promote parental participation and honesty, as well as providing participants with maximum protection, I devised a system where: i. parents could remain anonymous to me; ii. the trainers could not see their confidential data; iii. I was able to compare pre- and post-intervention data from individual participants without loss of anonymity. Firstly I allocated index numbers to the pre-programme questionnaires before they were handed out. The gatekeeper within each group, typically the programme trainer, would then complete and retain a list that mapped parent names to index numbers. The parents completed the questionnaires and returned them in sealed envelopes to the gatekeeper, ensuring that their responses were kept confidential. When I issued the subsequent post-programme questionnaires, again with index numbers, the gatekeepers were able to refer to their lists and ensure that each

5

HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES …

79

parent received a correctly numbered questionnaire. And again they were returned via the gatekeeper in sealed envelopes. The consistent mapping of parent to index number meant that I was able to match pre- and postprogramme responses from individual parents, for comparison purposes, without having visibility of the parent’s identity. I believe that this approach can be widely applicable to the field of collecting longitudinal data. By assuring the parents of anonymity whilst still providing a mechanism to collect further data from them at a later date, this allowed anonymous comparisons between pre-intervention and post-intervention data. Further, by providing envelopes in which the questionnaires were to be returned, I ensured that the parents’ responses were kept confidential from the gatekeepers so promoting honesty of opinions. This combination of anonymity and confidentiality helped to minimise any concerns on the side of the parents and so maximise participation. This novel approach will, I hope, support future researchers and professionals in promoting participation rates, particularly amongst more vulnerable groups. My research aimed to be as inclusive as possible by looking at a range of parenting programmes in a range of geographical locations and venues, but it was by its very nature constrained to examine the views of only those parents who actually took part in the programmes. This is an important point to highlight as I have not included in my research the voices of those who chose not to participate in a parenting programme, and it would be valuable to hear why parents might make such a choice. Was it because of the practicalities of attending or was it because of some negative perceptions associated with parenting programmes? Additionally, it would have been beneficial to ascertain why some parents did not complete the course. However because of the anonymity offered to parents, such that they were not required to provide their names or contact details on the questionnaires, this meant that I was unable to pursue the reasons why some parents had not completed the course. This is certainly an area that needs further research. Now on to what the literature has to say about the impact of parenting on children’s development and attainment.

80

K. SMART

The Impact of Parenting on Children’s Development and Attainment The engagement and interaction of families is a key component in children’s development (Feinstein et al. 2004) and education (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003). Here development, as outlined in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework, includes: personal social and emotional; literacy; communication and language; mathematics; understanding the world; physical; expressive arts and design. These elements are the precursors to, and foundation blocks of, the child’s subsequent educational attainment. The rationale for combining “development” and “attainment” in this section is that between them they cover the entire age range from young infants, through preschool and into primary and secondary education. Desforges and Abouchaar’s review found that at home parenting had a bigger impact regarding variations in child attainment than the quality and composition of primary schooling. Parents were found to be the key influences on the choices young people make at ages 14 and 16. This further supports the importance of the parent–child relationship and the investment of developing this through such initiatives as parenting programmes. Research such as that of Desforges and Abouchaar suggests that parental input impacts on children’s lifelong learning, behaviour and developmental outcomes. They make a strong argument that parental engagement with their child at home “is much more significant than any other factor open to educational influence” (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003, p. 91). Hattie’s (2009) meta-analysis into the contributions from the home on their child’s education agrees with Desforges and Abouchaar’s findings in that the effect of parental engagement in their child’s learning over a child’s school career can make a difference equivalent to adding an extra one to one-and-a-half years to their child’s education. Harris and Goodall (2007) also agree that parents who support their child’s learning have the largest influence on their child’s educational achievements; they found that when parents and teachers worked together to support the child’s education there was a significant improvement in the child’s learning, further supporting the role of the parent in their child’s educational development. Harris and Goodall suggest that:

5

HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES …

81

Parents have the greatest influence on the achievement of young people through supporting their learning in the home rather than supporting activities in the school. It is their support of learning within the home environment that makes the maximum difference to achievement. (Harris and Goodall 2007, p. 5)

They consider that the most significant forms of parental engagement are frequently invisible to schools. This is more about the general support parents provide such as trips to the library which the school may not be aware of. Further, Pomerantz et al. (2007) propose that: Parents’ involvement may be particularly beneficial for children when it is autonomy-supportive, process focused, characterized by positive affect, or accompanied by positive beliefs. However, parents’ involvement may have costs for children if it is controlling … characterised by negative affect, or accompanied by negative beliefs. (Pomerantz et al. 2007, p. 388)

This is supported by Hong and Ho (2005) who discovered that for parents of adolescents, excessive parental monitoring of their homework and social life had a negative effect on their teenager’s educational aspirations. Hattie’s meta-analysis agreed that parents adopting “a surveillance approach” (Hattie 2009, p. 68) regarding their adolescent son or daughter’s homework and social life could result in a negative impact on their child’s learning. Interestingly Hong and Ho (2005) also suggest that it was parental aspirations that had the most significant influence on children’s achievement. Hattie (2009), whose meta-analysis included Hong and Ho’s study, found that the strongest correlation with children’s achievement was indeed parents having high expectations and aspirations for their children, resulting in adding the equivalent of an extra two to three years to their child’s education. Russell and Granville (2005) recognise that there are a number of factors that can affect how parents support their child’s education and have identified seven different types of parental involvement—informal, semi-formal, formal, active, less active, home based and school based. They were surprised by the amount of impact that parental support in the home can have on the child’s educational attainment. Input at home could range from helping with homework and providing learning

82

K. SMART

resources through to simply talking to their child about their day. Based on my professional experience I consider that parents should be encouraged to value the importance and impact of the time they spend simply talking to their child about their school day or activities or tasks they share at home. This interest in their child especially if coupled with parental aspirations (Hong and Ho 2005; Hattie 2009) could have a positive effect on their child’s education. For some parents where they may be living in crisis (Sampson 2007) pressure to support their child’s homework could add to what already may be a very difficult time. From my professional experience, working with a young woman who was coming to terms with having lost her mother and suddenly finding herself to have effectively become the parent of her brother, I found that she was in a constant battle with him as she tried to encourage and support him to do his homework; a battle that neither of them enjoyed. It was only after agreeing with the school that this family did not need the additional pressure of having to get the child to complete his homework and then discussing with the sister the importance of what she was already doing with her brother, sharing activities and tasks in the home and talking about those, that she realised she was still supporting his education. Russell and Granville found that for some parents supporting their child’s education meant paying tutors to teach their child, particularly around exam time. I have also found in my professional experience that more parents are employing tutors to support their child’s education but not just at exam time or in secondary school but starting whilst at primary school. Additionally I have found more parents making arrangements with school to take their child out during the school day to have these sessions rather than after school. It may be the case that the child is benefitting educationally from these sessions, but the constant pressure and time spent on literacy and maths raises concerns as to whether the child is missing out on other important subjects which would give them the chance to discover areas of expertise and passion, in addition to the lack of essential play opportunities when they have to go to additional classes after school. School test and exam results may improve but what about the child’s well-being? This is an area for further research, however it is not one that will be addressed in this study. As a direct outcome of Desforges and Abouchaar’s (2003) report, local authorities country-wide received funding to recruit Parent Support Advisors (PSA) whose role included delivering parenting programmes. The

5

HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES …

83

remit of the PSA was to assist in tackling underachievement by working in partnership with families in a school context to enable pupils to have full access to educational opportunities and overcome barriers to learning and participation. The principle behind the PSA role is one of preventative and early intervention (Lindsay et al. 2009). Their role includes targeting parents of children and young people whom local agencies agree to be at risk or those parents with problems that are known to put their children at risk; for example, parents who are offenders or who have mental health, drug or alcohol problems. A key focus of their role is to ensure that they engage with parents and where appropriate refer them to a parenting programme, often one which has been specifically tailored by the local authority. Following Desforges and Abouchaar’s (2003) review, a few years later Goodall and Vorhaus (2011) carried out a follow-on review to establish what interventions best supported and improved parental engagement in their child’s education. Interventions included in the review were those that were aimed at supporting parental engagement in the education of children from five years of age through to 19. Goodall and Vorhaus summarised the importance of ensuring that a parental engagement strategy needed to be integrated as part of the ethos of the whole school approach. They also stressed the importance of understanding what a parent already does with their child and how they are more likely to work with the school when they try to engage them further in their children’s learning. Goodall and Vorhaus proposed that interventions should be targeted at certain groups of parents and importantly families’ cultures and expectations should be taken into account when considering appropriate interventions. Returning to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model and the effects of the parent on the child’s development and attainment, we see that proximal interactions between the parent and their child have the most immediate and earliest influence on the child. Kiernan et al. (2008) recognised the importance of the parents’ role in their children’s lives when they examined the factors that contributed to the school readiness of children living in a disadvantaged area. The findings from Kiernan et al.’s (2008) study have contributed to the design of new services in three disadvantaged areas of North Dublin in Ireland to help develop parenting skills with the intention that this will improve school readiness. Sampson (2002, 2003, 2004, 2007) has carried out extensive research in the USA around family interventions and children’s attainment for poor

84

K. SMART

black and Latino families; much of his work has focused on promoting a positive learning environment. Evidence supports that home life can have a huge impact on the child and their education. Sampson (2007) proposes that children who receive help with their homework and live in a more positive home environment will do well in school. However, Sampson (2007) found that many families live in crisis and although in most cases parents do want to support their children other priorities are at the forefront, including how to pay the bills. Some existing research into parenting programmes has touched on the impact they have on the child’s development and attainment. Furlong et al.’s (2012) review of parenting programmes for parents with children aged two to 12 included child educational or cognitive abilities as a secondary outcome, however only four out of the 13 studies included in the review had data for this and one of those was excluded as some of the information was missing. All measures were of short-term impact and none of the studies were carried out in the UK. Furlong et al. (2012) were unable to draw any conclusions on the effectiveness of the parenting programme’s impact with regards to educational and cognitive abilities; this could be attributed to the short-term nature of the studies. Although attainment was not the focus of Hallam, Rogers and Shaw’s study (2006) it was recognised that where parenting programmes had an educational focus promoting home-school links, it was beneficial to children in school. School attendance was not one of the reasons for parents attending the programmes examined by Rogers et al. (2008), but they suggest that a positive approach to morning routines at home resulted in improved school attendance. As part of their research for their book “Educating Ruby: what our children really need to learn” (2015) Claxton and Lucas interviewed parents and were particularly struck by one letter where a parent thanks the school for running a workshop for parents which they found invaluable in providing them with the correct language, tools and ideas to support their child’s education. This appears to further demonstrate that parents want to be good parents and to be better able to support their child’s education, however sometimes they need help in achieving this; parenting workshops or programmes could be the means to provide this support. Hattie (2009) also raises the importance around parents being able to “speak the language of schooling” (Hattie 2009, p. 71) to help parents support and develop their child’s learning.

5

HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES …

85

Claxton and Lucas go on to suggest that before we can look at how to shape the education system we need to first look at what parents can provide for children at home to support their education: “the informal ‘domestic curriculum’” (Claxton and Lucas 2015, p. 154). Here they talk about how the parent can model and coach engagement in learning using the example of a Scrabble game to illustrate how the parent could support their child with developing words from the letters in a fun way, and of course remembering to praise the child when they formed their letters into a word; this will not only help the child with their language and spelling but also help promote the child’s confidence and self-belief in their own ability. Parents do not necessarily mean to but inadvertently they can dampen their child’s curiosity when they get frustrated with answering their child’s questions and no longer bother to respond. At the heart of our learning is curiosity and parents hold a key role in nurturing and developing this by answering their child’s questions about the world; however silly or obvious they may seem to the parent, to the child they are still learning about the world. Games can be played to promote the child’s curiosity and of course this will also help develop the child’s language and communication skills. Claxton and Lucas suggest that a great deal of unhappiness comes from poor explanation or unintentional misinterpretations; in other words poor communication. To help children to develop their communication skills and have their opinions valued, parents could develop opportunities where their child could practise this skill, around the dinner table or with a game of “Just a minute” (Claxton and Lucas 2015). Many of these ideas sound obvious but evidence has shown that not all parents are actively engaging in conversations with their child. Clearly parenting can have a considerable impact on children’s development and attainment. My research included an investigation of if and how parenting programmes have a role to play in this regard.

What the Parents Say Going back to the parents who participated in my research, all eight parents interviewed reported that since attending the programme they had observed an improvement in one or more areas of their child’s development. This sits comfortably within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, specifically the microsystem where there is a direct interaction between parent and child.

86

K. SMART

Sophia was one of the parents who recognised that by attending a PEEP group she was learning how she could promote her son’s development: I think it’s the fact you can see him developing, it’s also you having the ideas to be able to help develop.

The areas of development reported by parents are: speech and language; social; behavioural; confidence; school readiness and education. Each of these areas will be investigated individually below. Speech and Language Development An integral element of the PEEP programme is promoting speech and language development through songs and rhymes in addition to sharing books and stories, so it is not surprising that so many of the PEEP parents report an improvement in their child’s speech and language: She is talking more clearly, using longer sentences and able to tell me stories nearly word for word PEEP (Q-post) Talking more, using more words PEEP (Q-post) Her vocabulary has broadened. Found her voice, so expresses herself at home with her two loud older brothers! PEEP (Q-post) Seems to be developing fast … verbal communication better PEEP (Q-post) Speech has improved PEEP (Q-post)

Emma recognises how her son’s speech has improved: His speech – because before he started nursery and coming up here his speech wasn’t that well, and since he’s been going to nursery and coming

5

HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES …

87

up here he’s started saying so many more words. And now he’s like saying sentences and it’s more clearer; before he wasn’t that well with his speech Emma

For Adelajda attending PEEP has been key in developing her daughters’ spoken English. At home the family only spoke their native tongue, so coming to the group was the girls’ main exposure to taking part in English speaking interactions. Emma had noticed a difference in her son’s language development since reading and sharing stories with him: …he’s more interested in books. Before if I showed him a book he didn’t want to read it, he’d just want to play with a car or something. But now he actually sits down and I read the book to him and he like points out things in the book and says what it is, so I think it has helped him.

Mirroring singing and reading activities at home, as promoted during PEEP sessions, appears to be supporting speech and language development in the child. The data analysis suggests not only are PEEP parents reporting an improvement in their child’s speech and language, they have also identified the value of singing rhymes and sharing stories and books with their child, even babies, in promoting this. For The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes the questionnaire and interview data analysis has not identified activities that could promote speech and language development as important components of the programmes. This could be attributed to two factors: firstly the focus of attending the programme for parents is usually around improving their child’s behaviour and secondly the children are mostly older and in school. Social Development One of the main outcomes reported by parents on the post-programme questionnaire after attending a PEEP group is improved child social development: My children have become more sociable with others and are able to sit still for longer PEEP (Q-post)

88

K. SMART

They are more happy. They like to play. They like other children PEEP (Q-post) He is more confident and plays nicer with children of his age. PEEP (Q-post) I find he behaves better and plays with other children and getting better at sharing. It nice seeing him playing PEEP (Q-post)

Recognising the value of their child socialising with other children was also a common response from the PEEP parents interviewed: I think those groups are really brilliant because they can like prepare you for it so, so kids are really prepared for to play with kids Adelajda …they’re getting the confidence to be um … with other children, learn to share, sit down, snack time and it’s kinda routine Sophia …social development – they’re a lot more sociable Emma …interaction with other kids, so he’s developed. Jacob

For Emma, and many other parents that I spoke to in the groups, she felt: If they didn’t come here then they wouldn’t like socialise with many other children

For The Incredible Years and Triple-P parents, socialising is viewed through a different lens; for these parents the data suggest it is more about how their child’s behaviour can have a negative impact on how their child socialises with other children. This will be discussed further in the next section on behaviour.

5

HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES …

89

Behavioural Development One of the most noteworthy areas of development that was evident from the data analysis across all three programmes was behavioural. This was especially notable from parents who attended The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes and could be attributed to parental attendance on these programmes being largely motivated by concerns around their child’s behaviour. …they are a lot calmer and enjoy playing with a variety of things PEEP (Q-year) They are able to talk about their feelings, and be kinder The Incredible Years (Q-post) …much happier and more compliant The Incredible Years (Q-post)

The questionnaire responses suggest that behavioural development is being assisted by parents adopting strategies taught on the programme: …they are taking more notice of what I say. Their faces light up with positive praise. Triple-P (Q-post)

The parents interviewed also report how a change in their own behaviour is having an impact on their child’s behaviour: It does seem to have more of an impact if you say ‘right you’ve done this, now I’m going to take away something’, and they’re like [in squealy voice] ‘no’. Whereas if you’re shouting at them they start shouting back, and I think it then escalates the whole situation. Emma

Isabella tries to employ many of the strategies learnt during her sessions and has found they have helped her son better manage “tricky” situations. Olivia considers using the strategies has had a positive impact on all of her children’s behaviour, not just the two she had concerns with. Ava agrees with Olivia and has found that since adopting the strategies she has observed a positive difference in her grandchildren’s behaviour.

90

K. SMART

From the questionnaires and interviews we can conclude that parents, across all three programmes, have reported improvements in their child’s behavioural development since they attended the programme. Improved Confidence Many PEEP parents reported an increase in their child’s confidence since attending sessions with their child, particularly regarding socialising with other children: Gaining confidence and making friends PEEP (Q-post) They are more confident while playing with other children PEEP (Q-post) Confidence and we have made some friends for life PEEP (Q-post) More confident in playing with other children PEEP (Q-year) She became more confident around new people PEEP (Q-year)

These last two quotations came from the one-year-on questionnaire and suggest that improved confidence was still a noteworthy factor for the parents 12 months after completing the programme. Sophia found other parents had also noted and commented on her son’s increase in confidence: Other people who have seen him at the child-minder’s see him, oh it’s great, oh suddenly ‘couldn’t see you with him but he was confident’, … and that’s what’s great, is that you kinda, um, you can’t always be with them so it’s nice to sometimes hear that kinda, actually yeah, he looks really confident.

Jacob had observed that an increase in his son Ethan’s confidence had resulted in his son becoming more independent, and he no longer felt the need to be holding on to him all the time at PEEP . During my initial

5

HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES …

91

visits to this particular PEEP group, Ethan would be next to his father all the time—however during the post-programme interview he moved freely between the two group rooms: …he wouldn’t have been happy with me going off into another room, he’d miss me a lot quicker Jacob

At his one-year-on interview Jacob talked about when he first attended a group with his older son: Noah was really quite … a lot quieter when we first started coming here with him but now he’s quite self-confident

Jacob’s older son, Noah, is home-schooled and their youngest Ethan will be too. Although Jacob takes his sons to a weekly home-school group, contact with other children is limited compared to going to school. However having attended PEEP session both sons appears to have developed their confidence which seems to have helped them interact with other children. When she started PEEP , Emma’s daughter Ella would not speak during group activities. However at the post-programme interview Emma reported how she will now contribute: …my daughter is her confidence. Because she was really shy before, and she didn’t like to have her say in like what song she would want to sing or anything like that. But now she like, she if, when we come up here they say ‘do you want any songs’ she’ll speak up and she’ll choose a song she wants to sing. So I think definitely with her it’s her confidence.

Ella was due to start school the September following this interview so having the confidence to say what she wants and how she is feeling was going to be important during this transition phase and thereafter. Emily reported that: …my eldest is quite confident now at school.

For Adelajda she found that an increase in her daughter’s confidence meant that when she started school she was able to explain to her mother that she was unhappy:

92

K. SMART

She’s more confident with that because she- she- she can explain whatwhat- what was really happening.

Adelajda was then able to work in partnership with the school to resolve this. School Readiness and Education Analysis of the questionnaire and interview data has already identified increased confidence as being a key element in helping a child settle in school: He settled better into pre-school and became more confident about attending the new school. PEEP (Q-year)

PEEP parents have reported a number of other developmental skills learnt from attending sessions with their child that have also contributed to their child’s school readiness: Concentration has improved and my child enjoys playing with toys in an appropriate way not just trashing everything! PEEP (Q-post) New ideas on how to play and ways to encourage learning in a way that appeals to her PEEP (Q-post) Play different learning games at home PEEP (Q-post) She’s better with numbers and colours PEEP (Q-post)

One year on, this parent reported how skills learnt on the PEEP programme were helping now her child was in school: …better in school with listening, just into other activities PEEP (Q-year)

5

HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES …

93

For many of the parents who attended The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes their children were already in school—these parents reported that adopting positive parenting strategies had a positive impact on their child’s schoolwork: A more calmer environment to do homework et cetera The Incredible Years (Q-post)

Emily shared that: …my eldest is quite confident now at school and I try and praise him. And I try and do his homework in a positive frame rather than try and force him if he doesn’t want to do it. I’m trying to keep everything on a positive as he does get really, both of them do, get really excited if you do say [puts on more enthusiastic voice] ‘well done’. They get really excited about them achieving something rather than just brush it under the carpet; they really, like, beam.

From the data it appears that children whose parents have attended a parenting programme are well-prepared for learning in schools. However my research could not tell us if there was an impact to their educational attainment; this would require a more longitudinal study following the children into the school system.

What This Tells Us An interesting observation within this theme, “How children benefit from opportunities that promote their development ”, is that many of the developmental areas spontaneously highlighted by PEEP parents align well with the targets identified in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) standards: communication and language; physical; personal, social and emotional; literacy; mathematics; understanding the world; expressive arts and design. This suggests that PEEP groups are in general succeeding in addressing the EYFS goal of preparing children for school. Parents have observed developmental improvements in the areas of their child’s speech and language, social skills, behaviour and confidence.This is important because these are the mechanisms which will help support the child with their transition into, and subsequent progression through, the education system. This finding supports Kiernan et al.’s

94

K. SMART

(2008) research which recognised the importance of the parents’ role in their child’s school readiness. Whilst the findings of this study are unable to draw any direct conclusions regarding the impact of the parenting programmes on educational attainment outcomes, the findings do demonstrate that parents, having attended a parenting programme, recognise the advantages of providing opportunities to promote their child’s development. This not only further supports the findings of Hattie (2009) and Desforges and Abouchaar (2003) on the importance of parental engagement in the child’s developmental and lifelong learning outcomes but also demonstrates that having attended a parenting programme parents, themselves, recognise the impact of their engagement. This is important as it advocates the value of the role of parenting programmes in improving child outcomes. The research literature suggests that parental engagement with a child’s education can have a positive impact on their behavioural, developmental and educational outcomes (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2007; Hattie 2009; Claxton and Lucas 2015). From my own professional experience of teaching both in the early years and primary, I have found that parental engagement in a child’s education can and does have a positive effect on these outcomes. A child who has spent quality time playing with their parent, where the play has been structured and reinforced by a parental appreciation of child development, or who has had support at home with their homework often reaches developmental and educational milestones ahead of their peers. Hattie (2009) goes further and suggests that parental support could add the equivalent of an extra two to three years to the child’s education. Although parents may not directly identify the changes in their behaviour and interactions with their child as necessarily supporting their child’s education, from my professional experience I have found that indirectly they are making a positive impact in this area. Finally, and most importantly, the parents who took part in this research, are themselves reporting a difference in how they are interacting with their child and the positive impact this is having on their child. They are seeing how their child has benefitted from how they interact and how this in turn has promoted the child’s development.

5

HOW CHILDREN BENEFIT FROM OPPORTUNITIES …

95

References Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Claxton, G., & Lucas, B. (2015). Educating Ruby: What our children really need to learn. Carmarthen, Wales: Crown House Publishing. Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES Publications. Feinstein, L., Duckworth, K., & Sabates, R. (2004). A model of the intergenerational transmission of educational success (Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report No. 10). London: Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of Education, University of London. Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London: Department of Education. Hallam, S., Rogers, L., & Shaw, J. (2006). Improving children’s behaviour and attendance through the use of parenting programmes: An examination of practice in five case study local authorities. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 107–113. Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they matter? A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Warwick: University of Warwick. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, London. New York: Routledge. Hong, S., & Ho, H.-Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 32. Kiernan, G., Axford, N., Little, M., Murphy, C., Greene, S., & Gormley, M. (2008). The school readiness of children living in a disadvantaged area in Ireland. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6, 119–144. Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, A. M., Band, S., Cullen, S., et al. (2009). Parent support advisor pilot evaluation: Final report. Warwick: University of Warwick. Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373–410. Rogers, L., Hallam, S., & Shaw, J. (2008). Parenting programmes: Do generalist parenting programmes improve children’s behaviour and attendance at school? The parents’ perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 35, 16–25.

96

K. SMART

Russell, K., & Granville, S. (2005). Parents’ views on improving parental involvement in children’s education: Executive summary and conclusions. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Sampson, W. A. (2002). Black student achievement: How much do family and school really matter? Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Sampson, W. A. (2003). Poor Latino families and School Preparation: Are they doing the right things? Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Sampson, W. A. (2004). Black and Brown: Race, ethnicity, and school preparation. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Sampson, W. A. (2007). Race, class, and family intervention: Engaging parents and families for academic success. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

CHAPTER 6

The Significance of the Family Working Together

Abstract This chapter presents a new and unexpected finding from my research regarding the importance of whole family engagement with the parenting programme. Parents report the need for consistency and continuity in their parenting and how this is best assured by both parents adopting the same positive strategies. This highlights the danger of one parent becoming the “expert” and the other feeling disempowered. Keywords Transplant Model · Expert Model · Family engagement · Triple-P · The Incredible Years · PEEP

This chapter looks at the importance of the family working together to adopt these new strategies and the potential consequences of not doing so. In most parts whether it is Triple-P , The Incredible Years or PEEP , usually only one parent attends the parenting group. However as part of my study I did meet several parents, especially for the PEEP programme, where either both parents attended together or they alternated around their work schedules. One PEEP parent commented that her partner wanted to see what all the fuss was about and co-ordinated his work so that he could join a session. He enjoyed it so much that he decided to factor this in when booking in his work. During my visits, specifically PEEP ones, it was really good to see that it was not only the mums, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_6

97

98

K. SMART

childminders or grandparents that were taking their children along but also the dads. For many it was that they had taken on the role of the main carer whilst their partner went to work; for others it was a shared role and was dependent on work timetables and for some it was because they wanted to take an active role in their child’s activities. The interview data revealed that some of the parents considered that whole family engagement was an important element in ensuring the success of parenting programmes. Parents reported that different styles of parenting could become a contentious issue and put further pressures on a family who may already be experiencing difficulties, as parents disagree or even argue in front of the children, displaying a fractured unit—one that the children could play upon. When only one parent attends a parenting programme my research highlighted that there is the danger of that parent becoming the “expert”, leading to an imbalance in parenting. An interesting aspect of this theme, the significance of the family working together, is that it developed from the analysis of interviews where the parents had attended the Triple-P or The Incredible Years parenting programme. It is often the case that parents who attend these programmes do so as they have concerns around their child’s behaviour and feel that it would be helpful if all family members are working together to address this. Before I share the parents’ views which led to the development of this theme, I will first refer to the literature which discusses some of the concerns around parenting programmes.

Parenting Programme Critique There have been a number of research findings that have identified potentially negative aspects of parenting programmes. In terms of such critiques, Furedi (2008) proposes that research into parenting is inevitably influenced by what is considered to be culturally normal. Forehand and Kotchick (1996) also identify that the significance of cultural values on parenting is not yet taken into account within parenting training. This highlights the danger of parenting programmes being designed with one view of what is culturally normal and applied universally without taking into consideration local social expectations. This sense of normalisation implies there is a need to correct the individuals and turn them into normal parents (O’Malley 1996)—although referring to schools, Foucault’s (1977) description of “disciplinary power” could equally be

6

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER

99

applied to parenting programmes as they are trying to ensure parents comply with the criteria of the programmes. The prescriptive nature of many accredited structured parenting programmes means that they are not designed in a way that allows trainers the flexibility to respond or adapt the programme in acknowledgement of what a parent already knows, how they already interact with their child or even their cultural or religious background. In fact they tend to operate from the microsystem paradigm, mainly focusing on “changing or improving the one-on-one interaction between child and parent” (Mapp and Hong 2010, p. 350) suggesting that they bring skills to the parent. This would place parenting programmes within the Expert classification of Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert , Transplant and Consumer models: “Professionals use this model if they view themselves as having total expertise in relation to the parent. Here essentially professionals take total control and make all the decisions” (Cunningham and Davis 1985, p. 10). In my experience trainers often identify more with the Transplant model “where they view themselves as having expertise, but also recognize the advantage of the parent as a resource” (Cunningham and Davis 1985, p. 11), however the prescriptive nature of many programmes can make this difficult. Ideally a parenting programme would have sufficient structure to ensure that the relevant expertise was passed on but would be flexible enough to take account of parents’ existing knowledge and accommodate alternative social and cultural norms. West et al.’s (2013) exploratory study of three major evidence-based parenting programmes (Strengthening Multi-Ethnic Families, Triple-P and The Incredible Years ) found that the six urban local authorities taking part in the study did try to address the diverse range of cultures and faith of the families within their community. For those local authorities that had a particularly large ethnically mixed community they chose the Strengthening Multi-Ethnic Families programme as it was considered more flexible in meeting the needs of families from different faiths, cultures and settings. Miller (2010) suggests the need for trainers to look for opportunities to tailor the support so that they meet the individual circumstances of the parents. Another concern with parenting programmes is the potential for them to be perceived as a corrective measure for “inadequate parents”. Recommending attendance on a programme suggests that the parent is not doing their best for their child or that they lack the basic skills required in parenting. Indeed it could be seen as though the parent is failing

100

K. SMART

their child thus disempowering them in their parental role (Furedi 2008; Cottam and Espie 2014). Such a perception could then result in lower parental engagement with the programme leading to poorer outcomes or potentially the parent dropping out of the programme altogether. Furthermore the parent is often perceived as “hard-to-reach” (Feiler 2010; Mapp and Hong 2010), a secondary negative implication towards the parent. Miller (2010) proposes that all parents at some point could find that they do not have the finances or physical, mental or emotional energy to meet their child’s needs. This idea that parents are failing in their role and need to attend specialised classes characterises parenting programmes within a deficit model; this is supported by Goldberg who found parenting programmes assumed “a parenting skills deficit” (Goldberg 2000, p. 358) through their delivery. Goodall and Vorhaus (2011) agree that parents seemed to consider that by attending a parenting programme this would be considered as an admission of failing as a parent. However Miller (2010) suggests that parents should be encouraged to seek out help when they need it and that by doing so it is not an indication that they are failing in their role. Crozier (1998) raises the issue that sometimes partnership with parents actually looks like surveillance on the ground and that professionals have a deficit view of parents and that they, the professionals, know best; this sits comfortably within Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert model. This deficit view of parents was something I needed to be very cautious about addressing in my research: I specifically constructed my interview schedules with parents to examine the extent to which this theme emerged and the extent to which this was perceived as a negative aspect of the programme. Additionally I included opportunities for parents to discuss any elements from the programme that they liked or disliked and whether they felt their own skills were taken into account, moving away from the Expert model and instead towards the Transplant model (Cunningham and Davis 1985). Although many programmes try to be pre-emptive rather than purely applied to “failing” parents, in my experience such an aspiration is frequently unsuccessful because of the constraints of budgets, resources and the prerequisite to target certain parental categories. Miller also suggests that although attending a parenting programme could potentially be useful to any parent, they tend to be accessed by parents “with a very wide range of needs” (Miller 2010, p. 67). The issue then becomes self-sustaining; once in the mind-set that the programme is there for

6

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER

101

targeted parents it becomes much harder to change that view. My research accommodated these potentially negative issues by soliciting parents’ own perspectives on the value and effectiveness of the programmes; if the parents were made to feel disempowered by attending the course this may well have had implications on their engagement with the programme and subsequent interaction with their child. In my professional experience I have found that most parents, not just those who have a wide range of needs, experience at some time a need for advice and support but find that they often do not know where they can go for it. Miller (2010) adds: The ride is never straight-forward, there will be good times and bad ones and parents will, at times, feel elated and at others desperate. (Miller 2010, p. 72)

Miller and Sambell (2003) interviewed 37 parents (25 parents with teenage children, six parents with children with special needs, four parents with preschool and primary aged children and two parents who were teenagers themselves) from seven focus groups to find out their views on their parenting needs and their perceptions of how they felt they were being addressed. From the analysis of the interview data Miller and Sambell (2003) reported that parents identified three distinct models of parenting support and learning: the dispensing model, whereby the child is targeted directly; the relating model, where the parent is the recipient of the attention and the reflecting model, in which the parent develops an understanding of the parent–child relationship. My research similarly sought the views of parents regarding the effectiveness of the parenting programmes, and investigated the subsequent changes in parental behaviour and child development. Given the potential for a parenting programme to be disempowering, it was particularly interesting that the significance of the family working together was a notable finding that developed within my research. This was highlighted by the unforeseen consequence of one parent attending the programme, creating an imbalance in the parenting structure within the family; inconsistent parenting and the perception of one parent being the “expert” could potentially lead to conflict. But what do the parents say?

102

K. SMART

What the Parents Say Some of the parents considered that whole family engagement is an important element in ensuring the success of the strategies learnt on the parenting programmes; this was particularly evident in the responses from parents attending The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes. Although there was no explicit question asking whether the parents felt it important or necessary that there was a whole family engagement in the parenting programme, three out of the eight parents spontaneously referred to this topic, commenting on the importance of both parents being engaged in the programme. Isabella, a mother of teenage boys who attended a Triple-P Teens programme, felt particularly strongly that it would be beneficial: “this is where I think you need something where you do as a famil y”, identifying that “some aspects of the programme more with the child” should be attended together. One benefit she considered of involving the whole family was: The older sibling as well, so that actually if we’re not rememb-, you know if different members of the family are not remembering the right strategy someone else can say ‘mum go away and sit down’.

Isabella not only felt this about the Triple-P programme she attended during this research but also for the ASK programme she had previously attended. Well when I did the ASK one we took it in turns to go, so that the other half had some exposure, um and that’s why I’m thinking now, I think you need to do things, you need probably a couple of sessions as a whole family. So.. so that the.. the child can see that these are some of the suggestions for parents got to follow. So that the child could come along and say to mum ‘you haven’t been following that strategy; you haven’t been putting my rewards up on the wall. Why haven’t you been putting my rewards up on the wall? You should be!’ I would really like some family sessions.

Isabella identifies here one important aspect of family engagement; that is the recognition that sometimes you can forget to use the strategies and may need the occasional prompt. This was something that Emily,

6

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER

103

who attended the Triple-P Primary programme, also brought up at her one-year-on interview: When I forget it’s more chaotic because they haven’t got any expectations of what they they’re supposed to be doing when you go somewhere.

Strategies which Emily had previously used which were effective, but had not used for several months, were now forgotten. Had her partner attended then maybe these would not be lost. Olivia, a mother of four who attended The Incredible Years parenting programme, also commented that “it would be beneficial for partners ” to attend the programme. Emily, a mother of two young sons (one in nursery and one in Key Stage 1 primary) suggested at her post-programme interview that: I think it’s helpful if you both to go ‘cause it’s harder for one parent to tell the other parent what to do.

Emily went on to share that she had a very different parenting style to her partner, however for her it would always be her partner’s position that would be enforced. Different styles of parenting could become a contentious issue and put further pressures on a family who may already be experiencing difficulties, as parents disagree or even argue in front of the children. Continuity and consistency was certainly a contentious issue for Isabella and one which she thought the course could help address: Um I realise now when he starting to get tired, that’s a flash, that’s a real anger flash point when he’s starting to get tired. So because he had a very sporty day yesterday, I tried to get him to bed early; I say early I mean eight o’clock. And at quarter to nine I’m telling his dad off because they’ve been up there playing games, and I said ‘I’m trying to get him to go to bed’… That’s why I think the group, the group work, the family and child together is probably quite important.

Olivia’s husband, at the time of this interview, was working with the trainer on a one-to-one basis on the strategies that were taught on The Incredible Years programme. For Olivia this:

104

K. SMART

…was absolutely brilliant, ‘cause all these changes were happening and I felt I was equipped but he wasn’t, and it’s a very difficult um time to tell your husband… it can be a bit condescending isn’t it.

From talking to one of the other mothers on this programme, it became evident that her husband was also going to be working with the same trainer on a one-to-one basis. Having both parents taking part in the programme and adopting the same positive strategies would certainly promote continuity and consistency in their parenting. Although this theme developed from the interviews with parents attending the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes, PEEP parents could equally find it important. The reason it was not discussed was that there were no specific questions included in the interview schedule that investigated their thoughts around this. A note to self or other interested researchers in this area: this would certainly be worth further exploration.

What This Tells Us An interesting aspect of this theme is that it developed from the analysis of interviews where the parents had attended the Triple-P or The Incredible Years parenting programme. It is often the case that parents who attend these programmes do so as they have concerns around their child’s behaviour and feel that it would be helpful if all family members are working together to address this. Conversely, at this stage of the data gathering, PEEP parents did not mention during their interview that they considered it important that the whole family took part or were involved in the programme. This could be attributed to the parents not considering PEEP to be a parenting programme; several parents wrote on their questionnaire that they did not realise or did not know it was a parenting programme. However on one of my visits a mum commented on how her husband adjusted his work hours one week to attend the PEEP group as he was keen to find out what all the excitement was about. He enjoyed it so much that he regularly co-ordinated his hours so that he could attend the group. From both the literature review and my own professional experience, it was expected that certain themes would probably develop from the analysis of the questionnaire and interview data as they had been the focus of previous research: themes such as an improvement in children’s behaviour

6

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER

105

(Thomas et al. 1999; Barlow and Parsons 2005; Hutchings et al. 2007; Furlong et al. 2012) or parents adopting positive parenting strategies (Coren and Barlow 2009; Lindsay and Cullen 2011; Furlong et al. 2012). What was interesting from the interviews with Triple-P and The Incredible Years parents was the emphasis that they placed on whole family engagement in the programme; a completely new and unexpected finding. This is important because it is about providing continuity and consistency in parenting and reducing family conflict, and was identified by the parents as being more likely to take place if both parents adopted the same positive parenting strategies. For one parent to be perceived as the expert, telling the other how they should be parenting, could place a strain on their relationship or possibly make the other parent feel disempowered. It seems the concerns raised in the literature review around Cunningham and Davis (1985) Expert model could apply more to the inter-parent relationship rather than the parent–trainer relationship. You may ask how could I identify this as a theme when it arose in just three out of the eight interviews. It is important to note that the number of occurrences of a topic does not alone make it a theme; rather it is about whether the topic has captured something important that is related to the research question (Braun and Clarke 2006). The questions on the questionnaires and the interviews did not specifically ask anything around whole family engagement yet the subject was introduced by three of the parents during their interview; three out of the four Triple-P and The Incredible Years interviews. You will have noted from Chapter 2 that I carried out a rigorous analysis of both the questionnaire and interview data, and seeing this theme develop from the data and the significance and impact it can have on the family, I made sure this was recognised within my findings. My research progress was guided by Bhaskar’s (2008) MELD model: from the First Moment (1M) of collecting the experiences of parents and trainers to understand more about the underlying reality of parenting programmes; through the Second Edge (2E) of analysing the data with a recognition of how absences and negative power are an important part of the process regarding changes in parenting behaviours and child development; to the Third Level (3L) of looking at the whole picture through multiple perspectives, identifying themes that represent the totality. This finding, of the value placed on whole family engagement in the parenting programme, is an important aspect of my research and has taken me towards the Fourth Dimension (4D) of Bhaskar’s MELD model: it

106

K. SMART

provides us with new knowledge and understanding which could lead to the refocusing of how parenting programmes are offered and delivered by integrating a whole family philosophy into their design. To summarise, parents, particularly those who attended the Triple-P and The Incredible Years programmes, consider it important that both parents should have the opportunity to attend at least some parts of the programme, be it in a joint group or separate one-to-one sessions. This would promote continuity and consistency in parenting. This in turn could promote a more relaxed, calm home environment.

References Barlow, J., & Parsons, J. (2005). Group-based parent-training programmes for improving emotional and behavioural adjustment in 0–3 year old children. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1, 1–59. Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Coren, E., & Barlow, J. (2009). Individual and group-based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD002964 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002964. Cottam, S., & Espie, J. (2014). Discourses underpinning parenting training programmes: Positioning and power. Children & Society, 28, 465–477. Crozier, G. (1998). Parents and schools: Partnership or surveillance? Journal of Education Policy, 13, 125–136. Cunningham, C., & Davis, H. (1985). Working with parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Feiler, A. (2010). Engaging ‘hard to reach’ parents: Teacher-parent collaboration to promote children’s learning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1996). Cultural diversity: A wake-up call for parent training. Behavior Therapy, 27, 187–206. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage. Furedi, F. (2008). Paranoid parenting: Why ignoring the experts may be best for your child. London: Continuum. Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8, 1–239. Goldberg, S. (2000). Attachment and development. London: Arnold.

6

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAMILY WORKING TOGETHER

107

Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2011). Review of best practice in parental engagement. London: Department of Education. Hutchings, J., Bywater, T., Daley, D., Gardner, F., Whitaker, C., Jones, K., et al. (2007). Parenting intervention in Sure Start services for children at risk of developing conduct disorder: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 334, 678. Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the parenting early intervention programme: A short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education. Mapp, K. L., & Hong, S. (2010). Debunking the myth of the hard to reach parent. In S. L. Christenson & A. L. Reschly (Eds.), Handbook of school-family partnerships. New York: Routledge. Miller, S. (2010). Supporting parents: Improving outcomes for children, families and communities. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press. Miller, S., & Sambell, K. (2003). What do parents feel they need? Implications of parents’ perspectives for the facilitation of parenting programmes. Children & Society, 17, 32–44. O’Malley, P. (1996). Risk and responsibility. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and the rationalities of government. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Thomas, H., Camiletti, Y., Cava, M., Feldman, R., Underwood, J., & Wade, K. (1999). Effectiveness of parenting groups with professional involvement in improving parent and child outcome. Effective Public Health Practice Project. Toronto: Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health. West, A., Mitchell, L., & Murphy, T. (2013). Implementing evidence-based parenting programmes in a small sample of English urban local authorities: Eligibility, fidelity and intensity. Children & Society, 27, 471–483.

CHAPTER 7

The Importance of the Right Environment to Share Parenting Experiences with Other Parents

Abstract This chapter captures the final theme that developed from my study, where parents reported that one of the most important aspects of the parenting programme was the opportunity to meet, share with and learn from other parents. This demonstrates how trainers were successfully adopting a Transplant model of parent-professional practice, creating the right environment for parents to share information and then build on that existing knowledge. Keywords Parenting programme · Learning environment · Transplant Model · Triple-P · The Incredible Years · PEEP

This chapter discusses the significance of the right parenting programme environment , one in which participants are encouraged to share parenting experiences with other parents—what aspects of the environment did the parents consider to be particularly important? The last, but perhaps the most surprising and encouraging theme that developed from my analysis of parents’ data was the importance of the right learning environment. What I’m talking about here is the way in which the parenting programme was delivered, how the trainer approached the subject, and how the parents taking part were made to feel, rather than, say, the details of the venue in which the course was © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_7

109

110

K. SMART

held. With this in mind I found that what parents were telling me could be summarised into three phases: the recognition of the importance of parents’ pre-existing knowledge; the facilitation of the sharing of this knowledge with other parents; the building on this knowledge-base by application of a Transplant as opposed to an Expert model of parentprofessional practice. In this chapter I’ll be using the parents’ voices to explain more about what I mean by each of these three phases. This was one of the key themes that developed from the parents’ interviews to help answer my first research question, and a particularly noteworthy theme; the parents’ perception that the environment needs to be right to share parenting experiences with other parents. This theme developed from seven of the parents’ interviews making this an especially important aspect of the parenting programme. The parents talked about the importance of a number of factors such as friendly, approachable and helpful staff; a clean and safe place for children to play; the structure and calmness of group and being able to spend quality time with their child—all of which contributed to an environment in which they could get together to share experiences and ideas. Without this opportunity they could feel isolated, as if they are the only one who was experiencing these difficulties and, in some cases, even doubt their abilities to be a good parent. This was a particularly interesting finding as the importance of the environment where the parenting programme is delivered was not an area that was discussed in the literature. One key aspect of this theme was having the right environment to talk to and learn from other parents. The Government had specific targets at whom they aimed these programmes, fathers, teenage mothers and parents with low socio-economic status, and although all the programmes I attended actively encouraged participation from each of these targeted groups they did however also allow parents who did not come under any of these specific categories to attend. From what I saw and heard from the parents, this wider and more inclusive approach to attendance created a much more fertile environment in which a broader range of parental experiences were brought together to be shared for the benefit of all. This new knowledge of the importance the parents place on the trainers creating the right environment is especially valuable as it could help trainers in ensuring that they are creating a space where parents want to come to and don’t feel threatened or undermined in their role.

7

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT …

111

What the Parents Say To ensure that I had parents representing all the government targeted groups (fathers, teenage mothers and parents with low socio-economic status) in the interview phase of my research, I included a series of demographic questions on the pre-programme questionnaire. You will note a representation from all the demographic groups in the quotations below; all adding evidence to the importance of the right environment to share parenting experiences. A key element in creating the right atmosphere where parents feel comfortable and safe to share their experiences is the staff. One parent wrote on her post-programme questionnaire: The staff have been amazing and the structure has been really good. PEEP (Q-post)

Another added: Chatting to the staff and other parents regarding everything from sleep to diet, behaviour etc. PEEP (Q-post)

A year after the first interview Jacob still remembered the value of being able to talk to other parents: I think you can kind of just exchange ideas and just be comforted to know that everybody’s just got the same problems.

This was a common theme that was evident both in the questionnaires and during the interviews. For some parents having the right environment gave them somewhere to go where they could meet other parents: PEEP was hugely beneficial to both Lily and me. Always stimulating and friendly. Much of Lily’s childcare has always fallen to me due to my wife’s severe illnesses since Lily’s birth. Organised groups were fun in themselves and also gave me good contact with other parents. PEEP (Q-year)

For many parents, not just dads, the parenting groups might be the only time they get to meet other parents. This was especially the case

112

K. SMART

with PEEP parents who did not have an older child as they would not get to meet other parents at the school gate. For some parents these sessions could become a lifeline to help them through some very difficult times: Making friends as I suffered from postnatal depression. PEEP (Q-post)

Although not one of the government’s specific targets, it was recognised by professionals working with parents that mothers suffering from postnatal depression could also benefit from joining a parenting programme. As this was a particularly sensitive area to include on a questionnaire, and as it was not the focus of my research, I did not incorporate any questions either on the questionnaire or in the semi-structured interview schedule around mental health. However a couple of parents shared how attending a parenting programme helped support them during this difficult time. Meeting and sharing parenting experiences with other parents is so very important in supporting mums and dads through some very difficult times. Having the trainer can also mean that vital help can be signposted. Attending a session with other mothers with children of a similar age to my son to talk through concerns. PEEP (Q-post) That I am not the only one with dealing with sharing and tantrums. PEEP (Q-post) Meeting new people. Sometimes I thought I was not good with my children, I trying. PEEP (Q-post) Making new friends and discussing how people deal with different situations that arise with the child. PEEP (Q-post)

Emma, a young mother of two, found that by talking to other parents she was able to add to her toolkit of strategies in managing her children’s behaviour:

7

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT …

113

…for me speaking to other adults has helped me as well because I have learnt like different ways to manage their behaviour and stuff, and obviously at that age like to put rules down and I learnt and feel more confident and that.

For many parents the analysis of the data suggests that without groups where they can get together to share experiences and ideas, they could feel isolated, as if they are the only one who is experiencing these difficulties and, in some cases, even doubt their abilities to be a good parent. For Jacob, his wife worked from home and was the main wage earner. Jacob home tutored his sons and looked after the main household chores. He shared that if it was not for attending the children’s centre he “wouldn’t see anybody during the day”. Jacob went on to say that the PEEP group was a “calmer group, there’s more opportunity to talk to each other” and for Jacob this was one of the three key themes that developed from his interview, being able to share and talk to other parents: …but at this group the people talk to each other more so I think that’s an important thing about coming to these groups as well, for the parents to get out and talk to each other as well as children.

Adelajda also felt that the PEEP group was an important part of her weekly routine: If it wasn’t for groups like that I would be just at home because I cannot afford to pay for, I dunno, softplace every day, it’s horrendous it’s like £7 now. So this is great, this is for free, it’s always open.

For Adelajda she found talking to other parents especially valuable, having come from Eastern Europe she did not have any family nearby so turned to these sessions to extend her knowledge around child development and also the English school system. As a primary school teacher I have found parents who have moved to England often find our school system very different from that in their own countries and their own childhood experience; unless a relationship between the parent and the educational setting has been developed this can be overlooked.

114

K. SMART

What This Tells Us Having the right environment to share information with other parents was a recurring theme across all three parenting programmes. The data suggest one of the most important benefits of attending a parenting programme is the meeting, sharing, talking and learning from other parents. Seven out of the eight parents’ data had this as a developing theme, despite there being no questions specifically asking whether parental interaction was an important aspect of the parenting programme. The one exception was Ava, a grandmother who attended the programme with her daughter Olivia (a mother of four children); although this theme did not develop from the analysis of Ava’s interview, she did however comment that she would have welcomed the opportunity to have attended a parenting programme when her own children were young. It is interesting to note that this theme, the importance of other parents on the programme, was not found to diminish the role of the parenting programme trainer. The parents recognised the role of the trainer in “setting the scene” and supporting them through challenging times in addition to providing general parenting advice and information. Concerns expressed in the literature around parenting programmes being regarded as an Expert model (Cunningham and Davis 1985) with parents being told what to do by the parent programme trainer, was not evident in my research. Conversely the data strongly suggest that the parenting programmes I studied fall within the domain of being a Transplant model, with parents and parenting programme trainers working in partnership. Further analysis of the parents’ post-programme interviews revealed other aspects of parental preference regarding the environment in which the programme was delivered. Interestingly for Olivia, reflecting back on what elements she would have liked from a parenting programme which she could have attended when her children were toddlers, she was quite adamant that she would have preferred for it to be held in a village or church hall rather than a children’s centre. This was quite contrary to all the parents I spoke to who attended a PEEP group, not just in the post-programme interviews but also during the groups I visited. This could suggest that perhaps Olivia had a negative previous experience or her preconception of a children’s or family centre was not a positive one. Interestingly Ava, Olivia’s mother, also agreed that had she had the opportunity to attend a group with her children when they

7

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT …

115

were toddlers, she would have preferred a village or church hall, however she gave no indication that she had recently visited a children’s centre. Were the daughter’s views regarding a children’s centre those passed on from the mother, or had the daughter passed on a negative experience to the mother? This aspect, the nature of the course setting, could be an area for further exploration in a follow-on study, with parents who attend parenting groups held in children’s centres or alternative venues. Another important point raised by Isabella was around who could access the programme: …if you come from a particular socio-economic group there will be support there for you; if you come from different socio-economic groups you are not perceived as requiring any support and there are not any issues.

She was not the only parent who raised this as an issue: If you have got enough money coming in and got enough things you’re meant to be able to just kinda, sometimes I just feel like you just get on with it. Where’s if I was someone who had more issues kinda going on I would get more support of how to bring up my child. Sophia

From the interviews we can conclude that parents value parenting programmes as an opportunity for them to meet and share information with other parents at least as much as they appreciate them for their intrinsic educational value. Additionally for some parents, particularly those with preschool children, it might be the only opportunity they get to interact with other parents and indeed “get out of the house”. For The Incredible Years and Triple-P programmes, parents in most cases attend because they have concerns around their child’s behaviour and by the end of the programme they have developed a toolkit of strategies to support them. For PEEP parents the suggestion is it is more about going to a toddler group to meet other parents, play with their child and for their child to socialise. However from talking to parents and analysing the data it seems that they come away with much more; they have learnt about child development, the importance of sharing stories and rhymes, healthy eating and a myriad of other topics that are covered in the programme. Parents value the role of the trainers in creating the right environment: trainers need to be friendly, approachable, non-judgemental and

116

K. SMART

helpful. Parents feel that trainers create the right environment where they can share their parenting experiences and support each other within the structure of the group. It is the interaction with the other parents on the programme that is particularly important to them. During my research I witnessed the effects of Government and local authority withdrawal of funding, resulting in a complete or partial reduction in parenting programmes offered. First, funding for PSAs was withdrawn resulting in a dramatic reduction in parenting programmes being offered to parents of school-aged children. For many of the children’s centres which were still able to offer parenting programmes, this meant that the groups they ran had to be restructured so that they were now predominantly for targeted parents—specifically parents living in areas of socio-economic deprivation, teenaged parents and fathers. The danger of this is that the perception of children’s centres and parenting programmes could return to the view that they are there for “failing” parents, an erroneous view that I have found has taken years to overcome since the roll out of Phase One children’s centres which were built only in disadvantaged areas. During my time as a local authority Parent Support and Children’s Centre Advisor, and throughout this research, I witnessed how hard children’s centre staff had worked to counter this image. From the one-year-on questionnaire data and my more recent visits to children’s centres, it was quite apparent that parents were well aware of the changes that were happening in their area. This process of reduction and re-targeting of parenting programmes will not only limit the attendance of middle-class parents, who for some reason are viewed as not needing parenting support, but would also discourage targeted parents who do not want to be viewed as failing in their role. This will result in a negative change to the environment for parents, which they value so highly, to one in which they can no longer benefit so much from sharing information with other parents. During one of my last visits to a group for this research I met two parents who had previously been to and enjoyed attending a PEEP group with their older children, and had found it incredibly difficult to find one to go to with their younger children. In another group attended by a mix of mothers and fathers, cut-backs meant that the children’s centre decided to close this group and replace it with a fathers-only group. Sophia, one of the parents I interviewed, met with one of the fathers from the group they both used to attend and asked how he found the new group; his reply was “like tumbleweed”, with the new fathers-only group apparently

7

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT …

117

suffering from very low numbers and limited group interaction. Maybe this group grew since I carried out that interview and maybe more fathers attended, but what happened to all the mothers and their children? None of the fathers had asked for a specific group for them, no-one asked them if they wanted it, Government funding and targets had simply dictated it. From the one-year-on questionnaire responses it was evident that the parents who could no-longer attend these targeted groups struggled to find PEEP groups that they were able to attend. To summarise, there are two key findings from this theme that address my first research question about parents views of the parenting programme process: firstly how parents valued the role of the trainers in creating the right environment, where they could share their parenting experiences and support each other within the structure of a parenting group; secondly how parents valued the role of other parents on the programme. Importantly, although the perspectives and experiences of other parents were viewed as a critical element of the programme, this was not found to diminish the role of the parenting programme trainer. Seven out of the eight parents interviewed recognised the role of the trainer in “setting the scene” and supporting them through challenging times in addition to providing general parenting advice and information. The parents spoke positively of their experience of attending a parenting programme and considered that they worked in partnership with the trainers rather than being told what they should or should not be doing. I would like to emphasise this point because it suggests trainers are not adopting the role of an expert, as in Cunningham and Davis’ Expert model, but rather are working in partnership with parents as in their Transplant Model. For one particular PEEP group I visited, it could be suggested that they had gone one step further and were moving towards the Consumer model where participants choose what they want included in their session, as there was provision for parents to suggest what topics were covered in the group. This is important because it suggests that parents are being empowered by the approaches to learning being adopted by the trainers, rather than disempowered by being made to feel inadequate as suggested could be the case (Cottam and Espie 2014). This also indicates that the concerns raised by Crozier (1998), whereby trainers view themselves as the expert and have a deficit view of the parents, may have been successfully overcome—at least on the programmes which formed part of my research. Consequently, as a result of adopting this Transplant model, trainers are reporting that parents are

118

K. SMART

leaving the course with increased confidence, not only in parenting but also in other aspects of their lives.

References Cottam, S., & Espie, J. (2014). Discourses underpinning parenting training programmes: Positioning and power. Children and Society, 28, 465–477. Crozier, G. (1998). Parents and schools: Partnership or surveillance? Journal of Education Policy, 13, 125–136. Cunningham, C., & Davis, H. (1985). Working with parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

CHAPTER 8

Discussion and Conclusion

Abstract This final chapter revisits the key findings from my research, presenting them in the context of the existing literature and my own experience, and proposes that parenting programmes are an effective example of the Transplant model of parent-professional practice. Additionally, I go on to highlight some key components of my methodology which I feel can be beneficial to other social science researchers. Keywords Parenting programme · Transplant model · Learning environment · Family engagement · Critical realism · Social science

What I’ve learned, what went well, what this means and what we can do next. In this, the last, chapter I will summarise the key findings from my research. This doesn’t just include the specific answers to my research questions, but also relates to how my research is part of a bigger picture. With that in mind I will organise my findings into three distinct categories. Firstly, I will summarise what the parents thought about the parenting programmes. Secondly, I will propose how parenting programmes are a real-world example of a Transplant model in practice. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9_8

119

120

K. SMART

And finally, I will look at ways in which elements of my methodology can be applied more widely within the context of general social science research. In the first section I will be discussing what the parents thought about the parenting programmes in the context of my second and third research questions: • What are the views of parents regarding the changes that parents have made as a result of attending a parenting programme? • From the perspective of parents, what impact has the parenting programme had on the children? I will discuss how these questions are addressed by the key findings from my study, in the context of other relevant literature and my own professional experience.

What Parents Thought About the Impact of Parenting Programmes Research Question 2: Parents’ Views Regarding Parental Changes Addressing my second research question, we can see from Chapter 3 that parents reported positive changes in parental behaviour, especially the effective adoption of parenting and behaviour management strategies, along with increased parental confidence. This was seen to also impact other aspects of their lives, including giving parents the confidence to approach their child’s school with concerns or going on to further training to develop their career, all of which will have a direct impact on the child. This outcome aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model (1979), whereby factors with which the child does not directly interact can still have an impact on them. In the context of my study, Bronfenbrenner’s exosystem would include the two parenting programmes where the child does not attend with their parent: The Incredible Years and Triple-P . According to Bronfenbrenner, interactions within the exosystem, in this case between parents and trainers, have the potential to indirectly impact the child through induced changes in parental approach, attitude and behaviour. Although the child does not attend the sessions, the strategies parents are learning and using at home are

8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

121

having a positive impact on their child and their family. Similarly, the PEEP programmes would fall into Bronfenbrenner’s mesosystem, where the parents and trainers interact with each other and also directly with the child. Here the parents are interacting with the trainers, growing their knowledge on child development and positive parenting strategies, and then using what they have learnt not only during group sessions but also at home. My findings add further support to the evidence (Coren and Barlow 2009; Al-Hassan and Lansford 2011; Lindsay and Cullen 2011; Furlong et al. 2012) that parenting programmes can be successful in encouraging the learning and adoption of new parenting skills and strategies. One key parenting skill reported by parents in my research was the use of positive parenting techniques to manage children’s behaviour; strategies included verbal praise, kindness chart, listening to their child, negotiation and providing options. Additionally, parents reported a new understanding on the value of play in their child’s development. The outcome of this new knowledge has led to parents reporting changes around the time and activities they share with their child; these included sharing stories, singing, cooking and playing with their child. My research also demonstrated two key outcomes arising from the adoption of these positive parenting strategies: firstly an improved parent–child relationship, again echoing the findings of Coren and Barlow (2009); secondly a reported increase in general parental confidence, supporting the findings of Manby (2005) who reported improvements in parental confidence as they were able to successfully apply strategies to address their children’s behaviour. In addition to the learning of new parenting skills, my findings demonstrated that parents were also learning more about child development and the importance of the role they play in this area. This supports the earlier findings of Al-Hassan and Lansford (2011). The subsequent parental behavioural changes reflect how an increased understanding of their child’s development can help improve their parenting skills; in particular it helps them to create a safer and more stimulating environment within which their child can thrive. This ranged from an understanding of healthy eating and physical play to the value of singing, reading stories and playing even with the very youngest infants. From my professional experience I have found that most parents want to do their best for their child; this is further supported by them agreeing to or choosing to attend a parenting programme, often to help them develop their knowledge around child development and positive

122

K. SMART

parenting strategies. I have also found in the years that I have been in the education system, specifically early years and primary, that working in partnership with parents and respecting their knowledge as a parent, helps encourage them to develop their parenting skills. There have been many occasions where I have found parents wanting to do their very best for their child but not knowing how to go about it and have welcomed the opportunity to work in partnership with me to help improve their knowledge in this area. This is supported by Crittenden (2005) who agrees that parents have a desire to do the right thing but sometimes do not know how. My findings relating to this research question demonstrate that parents are adopting positive strategies learnt on the programmes and are becoming more confident in their role. This is important because it demonstrates how the desire of parents to do their best for their child is being met by the parenting programmes; they are being supported in improving their knowledge on child development and positive parenting strategies resulting in increased parental confidence. Research Question 3: Parents’ Views on the Impact to the Children Key to my research has been the role the parents play in their child’s development and this maps to the first level of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model, the microsystem, which represents the immediate environment surrounding the child. In the context of my research, this level maps primarily to include the child’s interaction with their parents, although for those who attend the PEEP programmes this would also include the exchanges between the trainer and child during the programme sessions. It is through the interactions between the layers in this model, from the exosystem through the mesosystem to the microsystem, that the parenting programme can be seen to have an impact on the children of the parents attending. Answering this third research question, two key outcomes regarding impact on the child are identified: an improved relationship with their parent (Chapter 4) and an increased degree of school readiness (Chapter 5). The first of these is facilitated and supported by the parent learning new skills and strategies coupled with them spending more quality time together. Adoption of strategies learnt on the programme is found to be contributing to an improved bond between parent and child, with their relationship being reported as happier, less stressful and more constructive. This is another key outcome of attendance on a parenting

8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

123

programme and further supports the findings of Simoniˇc and Poljanec (2014) who researched mothers’ views having attended a young mother’s group. This outcome is important to note because this improved relationship feeds back into promoting the child’s behaviour and confidence, and indirectly increases their school readiness. Improvement in school readiness is the second notable outcome for children; an increase in positive parenting skills and parental knowledge of child development can lead to an improvement in the child being ready to start school. Examples of school readiness include language development, social development, confidence and behaviour. These are the foundations which will help support the child as they move into and subsequently through the education system. This finding supports Kiernan et al.’s (2008) research where the importance of the parents’ role in their child’s school readiness is recognised. Although the findings of this study are unable to capture any association between parenting programmes and educational attainment outcomes, the findings do demonstrate that having attended a parenting programme, parents are recognising the advantages of providing opportunities to promote their child’s development. This supports the findings of Hattie (2009) and Desforges and Abouchaar (2003) on the importance of parental engagement in the child’s developmental and lifelong learning outcomes, and also demonstrates that having attended a parenting programme parents, themselves, recognise the impact of their engagement. This further advocates the value of the role of parenting programmes in improving child outcomes. From the literature review the suggestion is that parental engagement with a child’s education can have a positive impact on their behavioural, developmental and educational outcomes (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2007; Hattie 2009; Claxton and Lucas 2015). From my own professional experience of teaching both in the early years and primary, I have found that parental engagement in a child’s education can and does have a positive effect on these outcomes. A parental appreciation of child development can help lead to structured quality play opportunities for the child and is likely to promote a home environment where educational support is more forthcoming—a child raised in this environment often reaches developmental and educational milestones ahead of their peers. Hattie (2009) goes further and suggests that parental support could add the equivalent of an extra two to three years to the child’s education. These changes in parental behaviour and interactions with their child may not necessarily be seen by the parents as

124

K. SMART

directly supporting their education, however from my professional experience I have found that indirectly they are making a positive impact in this area. In the next section I will look at the findings that address my first research question: • What are the views of parents regarding the parenting programme? Specifically, I will focus on what the parents told me about the learning environment and how this enabled them to get the most out of the programmes.

Parenting Programmes as a Real-World Example of a Transplant Model in Practice Research Question 1: Parents’ Views on Parenting Programmes My first research question was addressed by two key findings: firstly how parents valued the role of the trainers in creating the right environment, where they could share their parenting experiences and support each other within the structure of a parenting group, and secondly how parents valued the role of other parents on the programme. It is however important to note that although the views and experiences of other parents were seen as a vital component of the programme, this did not reduce the importance of the role of the parenting programme trainer. The vast majority of the interviewed parents identified the role of the trainer in “setting the scene” and supporting them through challenging times as well as providing general parenting advice and information. The parents considered that they worked in partnership with the trainers rather than being dictated to. It is important that I highlight this point again because it suggests the trainers were not adopting the role of an expert, as in Cunningham and Davis’ Expert model, but rather were working in partnership with parents as in their Transplant model (Cunningham and Davis 1985). As I mentioned in Chapter 7 for one of the PEEP groups I visited, it could be suggested that they had even gone one step further and were moving towards the Consumer model where parents were encouraged to choose what they want included in their session. This is important because it suggests that parents are being empowered by the

8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

125

approaches to learning being adopted by the trainers, rather than disempowered as indicated in Cottam and Espie’s (2014) research. Further this also suggests that, for the programmes that formed part of my research, the concerns regarding trainers identifying themselves as the expert and having a deficit view of the parent were unfounded. As highlighted in Chapter 6 I anticipated that a number of themes, such as an improvement in children’s behaviour, would probably develop from the analysis of the data especially as they had been a focus of previous research. However what was particularly interesting from the interviews with the Triple-P and The Incredible Years parents was the emphasis that they placed on whole family engagement in the programme. This is not only important because it would provide continuity and consistency in parenting and reduce family conflict but also because it was reported that for one parent to be perceived as the expert, telling the other how they should be parenting could place a strain on their relationship or possibly make the other parent feel disempowered. Interestingly the concerns raised in the literature review around Cunningham and Davis Expert model appear to apply more to the inter-parent relationship rather than the parent–trainer relationship. Bhaskar’s (2008) MELD model guided my research process. MELD took my research from the First Moment (1M) of collecting the perceptions of parents through the Second Edge (2E) of analysing the data with an acknowledgement of how absences and negative power are a vital part of the process regarding changes in parenting behaviours and child development; to the Third Level (3L) of looking at the whole picture through several perceptions, identifying themes that represent the totality. The key findings uncovered by my research, specifically the importance of the right learning and sharing environment and the value placed on whole family engagement in the parenting programme, have taken me towards the Fourth Dimension (4D) providing us with new knowledge and understanding. This new knowledge could be capitalised on in terms of the delivery of not only parenting programmes but also other parent focused initiatives through sharing groups rather than one-to-one interventions and by encouraging whole family engagement. I will now move on to the third stage of my conclusion and look at how elements of my methodology can provide valuable knowledge in a wider social science research context.

126

K. SMART

How My Methodology Can Serve as an Example for General Social Science Research Critical Realism as a Philosophy As discussed in Chapter 4, an important strength of my research was how I used Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy Critical Realism to guide my research methodology. Ontologically I acknowledge that objects exist in and of themselves, independent of our knowledge of them. Additionally I recognise that our understanding of them might change over time, or between observers, but that the underlying reality remains constant. By collecting multiple perspectives, specifically different individuals, different methodologies, different times, in order to assemble a full picture of the “actual” events, leading to an understanding of the underlying reality, aligned perfectly with Bhaskar’s Dialectical Critical Realism. DCR also offered me with a framework, MELD, to guide my methodology to the desire of using the new knowledge and understanding of parenting programmes to pursue real change. Revisiting how my research fitted within the MELD framework, we can see how the parents’ views helped me reach 4D: • 1M was the start of the MELD process. Here I observed and collected the views of parents and trainers on the parenting programme process, changes in their parental behaviour and the impact on the child. I used these to help understand how each individual’s experience is one manifestation of the underlying reality. • 2E was where I identified what was the nature of the changes reported by parents, and recognised the nature of both becoming and “be-going”. I looked for what was missing in regard to parenting behaviours and child development. I compared the data from the parents and trainers to see whether there were any contradictions in what they were saying. Although this book does not include the trainers’ perspectives this was an important element of my research as it provided triangulation to the data and promoted trustworthiness of the findings. The trainers’ views aligned with what the parents were reporting. • 3L is the point where I looked at the whole picture, the totality, of the impacts of the parenting programme process. I examined

8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

127

this totality through multiple time points, multiple views, both parents and trainers, and multiple methodologies (questionnaires and interviews). • 4D is the final stage where I am now using this new knowledge and understanding to pursue real change; I want to refocus the Government and local authorities’ attention to addressing these changes. By using Bhasker’s MELD I have taken individual parent’s perspectives, combined it with others, analysed it critically looking for deeper implications and meanings. To really embrace 4D and to pursue real change I now share the knowledge and understanding that I have gained with others, this book being one important example. I hope that by sharing how I used Bhaskar’s MELD to provide structure to my methodology this will provide valuable knowledge to future researchers and professionals, and that it can act as a real example for how Critical Realism can be applied within social science research. Maximising Participation Through Anonymity and Confidentiality An additional strength of my methodological approach is the technique I discussed in Chapter 5 for helping to increase questionnaire returns through anonymity, and I believe that it may provide new knowledge to the field of collecting longitudinal data, particularly from possibly vulnerable groups. By assigning index numbers to questionnaires and having the gatekeeper allocate a parent to an index, I guaranteed the parents anonymity whilst still providing a system to gather further data from them at a later date, thus allowing anonymous comparisons between pre-intervention and post-intervention data. Additionally, by providing envelopes in which the questionnaires were to be returned, I guaranteed that the parents’ responses were kept confidential from the parent programme trainers. This combination of anonymity and confidentiality helped reduce any worries the parents may have had and so promoted participation. This novel approach will, I hope, support future researchers and professionals in maximising participation rates, especially amongst more vulnerable groups.

128

K. SMART

Engaging to Maximise Participation Another particular strength of my questionnaire data collection was investing time to visit the parenting groupspersonally to introduce my research and spend time interacting with the parents and children. Although I emphasised that taking part in my research was completely voluntary and that there would be no negative implications if they did not, the questionnaire returns from these visits were almost 100%. One of the poorest responses I had was from a Baby PEEP group where there were 19 parents with their babies, all moving around various rooms to complete activities between feeding their babies; it was a particularly hectic session for the trainers and there was understandably little opportunity for parents to complete questionnaires, however I still received 16 (84%) completed forms. Although I offered a visit to all the groups taking part in my research, some of the trainers chose to tell their parents about my research themselves; in these instances I provided a briefing sheet outlining my research. For these groups the returns were not so high. This could be attributed to a number of reasons: not being present meant that I was unable to provide any additional information to answer parents’ questions or address their particular concerns, and did not give me the opportunity to convey the enthusiasm I brought to my research when I talked about it. For one local authority, I visited a The Incredible Years group and received 100% returns on the pre-programme questionnaire. However for the post-programme questionnaire, and pre-programme questionnaire for subsequent groups, the local authority advisor decided that the trainers would co-ordinate the questionnaires on my behalf; the returns were very poor. This is important as it demonstrates that by investing time and going into groups to talk to parents and explain the value of the research, the level of parents’ engagement is increased and they are much more likely to complete the associated questionnaires. It is recognised and expected that for a longitudinal study there will be a natural loss of participants during the research (Robson 2002; Oppenheim 2005; Thomas 2009), so by maximising participant engagement at the start of the research process it is more likely that there will continue to be a sufficient number of participants taking part in the final stage of data collection.

8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

129

Respecting the Data The final point I would like to emphasise is another particular strength of my research method, which was the combination of using open-ended questions in the questionnaires and interviews, coupled with the adoption of a thematic approach to analyse the data. This enabled parents to express their views in areas which I may not have considered as they had not arisen during my professional experience or during the literature review, and which could have easily been overlooked had I used different methods of collecting and analysing the data. This is important because it provided me with a more complete picture of the value parents have placed on being able to attend a parenting programme. To promote trustworthiness of the data I analysed responses from both parents and, although not discussed in this book, trainers on some common issues; this helped make my analysis more robust. This process of triangulation, in combination with coding of the data, helped minimise any biases in my interpretation which could potentially arise coming to this study with 30 plus years of professional experience. Methodological triangulation was achieved as results from the interview analysis were reinforced by considering questionnaire responses too. Braun and Clarke acknowledge that as a qualitative researcher you come with “identities and experiences” (Braun and Clarke 2013, p. 21) and do not consider that you should try to be rid of it but rather take account of it. It was important for me to look for indicators that bias might be creeping into the analysis and then influencing the rest of the research design; at any point where I considered this appeared to be happening it was necessary to step back and re-evaluate the analysis with a more objective perspective. I used this self-awareness to minimise any bias in my analysis. Working with recorded interviews is a time-consuming process. Having typed up the transcripts I embraced the familiarisation phase and devised nodes of data which I then cut out on strips of paper and physically moved around my dining room table, creating groups and then themes. Looking back at these nodes I can see effective initial coding identifying features of the data which eventually led to the development of the themes discussed in this book. I am confident that the themes that developed from the data are robust, supported by data collection from both parents and trainers. This stage took many weeks as I would step away from the data and then revisit it, looking through a fresh lens, making sure that I really captured the essence of what the parents said in the themes that I developed. As a

130

K. SMART

result of this extended duration and the physical tactile nature of moving conversational snippets around in space, I became totally immersed in the data and far more familiar with it than I feel would have been possible in a purely digital environment. I urge researchers to respect their data and factor in sufficient time to properly analyse it. The danger of rushing this stage of the process is the researcher potentially “cherry picking” the themes that they expected, or even worse mistakenly imposing their own meaning on what has been said. As researchers it is important that we demonstrate rigour and trustworthiness in our analysis. Stepping away and giving time before revisiting the data again can help to minimise biases and promote objectivity in the analysis.

Current Parenting Programme Availability Although the Government policy of introducing parenting programmes provision may appear to be removed from the child, in that the child is not the direct recipient of the programme, my research has shown that it can still have an impact on them. This aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system model, where the interactions within and between the macrosystem, exosystem and mesosystem have an ultimate impact on the microsystem. What becomes evident from my research is the causal relationship between Government policy focus, funding of parenting programmes, parents attending those programmes, parents applying the knowledge and strategies learnt at home—and how this interplay between the levels can impact the child. This is important because changes in Government focus frequently lead to a change in where funding is allocated: Following the evaluation of the PEIP the government decided to fund a further roll out across all 150 LAs in England, the Parenting Early Intervention Programme (2008-2011). One of the roles expected to be fulfilled by PSAs was to support the delivery of parenting programmes. (Lindsay et al. 2009, p. 22)

From the themes that developed through my research, there is a clear overlap around several aspects of the parenting programmes including changes in parental behaviours and the associated positive impact on the child. What can be concluded is that almost all parents are reporting a

8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

131

positive impact for the parent, for the child and in many cases for the family of the parent attending the parenting programme. I would like to emphasise this point because it suggests that there is a real need for parenting programmes; a need that should be addressed across all parents and not just targeted at a specific group. I would agree with Field (2010) when he says: There is an increasing range of specific programmes aimed at disadvantaged families with young children which demonstrate that improvements can be made to the home learning environment, parenting, and child outcomes more widely. (Field 2010, p. 58)

I would however suggest that this support should not only be offered to a limited group of targeted parents but that it should be universally available. The Government’s objective of targeting certain parents has imposed restrictions on trainers regarding how many parents they can accept who do not fall within these target groups—and these restrictions are becoming increasingly tight as further cuts are made to funding. Yet in my interviews, parents spontaneously commented on how they felt it important that the programmes need to be available to all parents; the need for practical parenting skills is universal and not just confined to specific target groups. Back in 2011, a UK Government report from the House of Commons Education Committee stated that: The Sure Start programme as a whole is one of the most innovative and ambitious Government initiatives of the past two decades. We have heard almost no negative comment about its intentions and principles; it has been solidly based on evidence that the early years are when the greatest difference can be made to a child’s life chances, and in many areas it has successfully cut through the silos that so often bedevil public service delivery. Children’s Centres are a substantial investment with a sound rationale, and it is vital that this investment is allowed to bear fruit over the long term. (House of Commons 2011, p. 4)

And yet throughout this research I watched the acceleration of cuts to Government and local authority funding. Millions of pounds had been invested across the country in children’s centre builds and training staff

132

K. SMART

and yet within only a few years these centres were being closed down (Sylva et al. 2015). The result was that closures to children’s centres impacted on the very families that the Government and local authorities said they were trying to support; these families are now expected to travel further to access centres. One head-teacher whose school is considered to be in a more deprived area shared that her families will simply not cross town to access a group. In December 2015 (BBC 2015) a county council in the south-west of the UK released its plans to close half of its 30 children’s centres. In the same article one of its local authorities announced that it proposed to close its last five remaining children’s centres; there had been 14 in 2013. The resulting consultation with local parents in January 2016 demonstrated that there was overwhelming support to keep the children’s centres open (Smith 2016). Despite pleas from parents, in February 2016 it was announced (BBC 2016) that all five children’s centres, along with their parenting classes and support groups, would be closing. Services to support vulnerable children would now be through health visitors and home visits. This directly contradicts one of the key findings from my research where parents reported the importance of parents being able to get together and share their experiences in a friendly and supportive environment. In addition to learning parenting skills, parents, both mothers and fathers, shared stories of how attending a group had: helped them cope with postnatal depression; make new friends; improve their relationship with their child; realise that they were not the only one with questions around parenting. There were reports that without the group they would be isolated and not see anyone all day. The recommendations from NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence 2006) provide further supporting evidence of the importance of group-based parenting programmes rather than individual-based programmes. It is essential to maintain offering parenting support within a group environment; this was one of the most important themes arising from my research, and emphasises the value that parents place on sharing experiences and knowledge with other parents. The important points here, based on the evidence from my research, are that funding needs to be restored for community-based parenting programmes and that the programmes need to be made more universally available.

8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

133

Conclusion The purpose of this research was to provide parents the opportunity to express their views on parenting programmes; this is also the strength of this study. The reason for this book was to make sure those voices were heard. This is important as my research gave parents the opportunity to express what they thought of the parenting programme process, whether they considered there had been any changes in their parenting since attending a course and whether they felt it had benefitted their child—an opportunity that had been seriously neglected. I think it is important to emphasise again that the methodological strategy that I developed meant that parents were provided with the opportunity to complete questionnaires anonymously thereby not only maximising participation, whilst still being able to collect data over multiple time points, but also promoting honest views. Parents were also given the chance to speak freely at interviews knowing that their identity would not be disclosed. I made it clear when introducing my research that I was not trying to advocate or promote parenting programmes I simply wanted to hear their perspectives. There was no indication from any of the parents that they felt disempowered since attending the programme, on the contrary parents reported feeling more confident. Positive outcomes reported by parents have included a better understanding of supporting their child’s development, spending more quality time with their child and an improved parent-child relationship. From my own professional experience I would suggest that a positive parent–child interaction is the key to promoting the child’s educational, behavioural and developmental outcomes. My research has also highlighted some valuable new knowledge regarding the delivery of parenting programmes and similar initiatives, re-iterating the importance of the Transplant model. Information is best delivered in an environment which acknowledges and builds on parents’ pre-existing knowledge and skills, allowing them to share with others whilst embracing the new ideas being presented on the programme. I have also uncovered the importance of whole family engagement in such initiatives; the most effective dissemination of information needs to reach into the whole family and not just attempt to create a single expert within the household. It is important that these aspects of my findings are taken into consideration by local authorities and other organisations when designing and delivering parent-facing programmes.

134

K. SMART

In conclusion, given the right learning environment, parenting programmes can offer a successful route to increasing parental knowledge on child development as well as introducing strategies and techniques to support and promote the child’s behaviour, development, school readiness and education. This increase in parental knowledge and subsequent change in parental behaviour often results in a more harmonious home atmosphere, an improved parent–child relationship and a more supportive home learning environment. I hope my research and this book help to promote the principle that the evaluation of a policy or intervention needs to consider the impact on the individuals concerned and that it is important to spend time to actually listen to what they say.

References Al-Hassan, S. M., & Lansford, J. E. (2011). Evaluation of the better parenting programme in Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 587–598. BBC. (2015). Swindon council set to close all its children centres [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-34983055. Accessed 1st April 2016. BBC. (2016). Swindon budget: Children centres axed as council tax rises [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-356 66916. Accessed 1st April 2016. Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. London: Routledge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative Research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Claxton, G., & Lucas, B. (2015). Educating Ruby: What our children really need to learn. Carmarthen, UK: Crown House Publishing. Coren, E., & Barlow, J. (2009). Individual and group-based parenting programmes for improving psychosocial outcomes for teenage parents and their children (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cottam, S., & Espie, J. (2014). Discourses underpinning parenting training programmes: Positioning and power. Children and Society, 28, 465–477. Crittenden, P. M. (2005). Attachment and Cognitive Psychotherapy International Congress on cognitive psychotherapy. Sweden: Gøtengorg. Cunningham, C., & Davis, H. (1985). Working with Parents: Frameworks for collaboration. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

8

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

135

Desforges, C., & Abouchaar, A. (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A review of literature. Nottingham: DfES Publications. Field, F. (2010). The foundation years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The report of the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances. London: Cabinet Office. Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting interventions for early-onset conduct problems in children age 3–12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2007). Engaging parents in raising achievement: Do parents know they matter?: A research project commissioned by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Warwick: University of Warwick. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London and New York: Routledge. House of Commons. (2011). Sure start children’s centres: Government response to the fifth report from the Children, Schools and Families Committee, Session 2009–10. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Kiernan, G., Axford, N., Little, M., Murphy, C., Greene, S., & Gormley, M. (2008). The school readiness of children living in a disadvantaged area in Ireland. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 6, 119–144. Lindsay, G., & Cullen, M. A. (2011). Evaluation of the Parenting Early Intervention Programme: A short report to inform local commissioning processes. London: Department for Education. Lindsay, G., Davis, H., Strand, S., Cullen, A. M., Band, S., Cullen, S., et al. (2009). Parent support advisor pilot evaluation: Final report. Warwick: University of Warwick. Manby, M. (2005). Evaluation of the impact of the Webster-Stratton ParentChild Videotape Series on participants in a Midlands town in 2001–2002. Children and Society, 19, 316–328. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2006). Parent training/education programmes in the management of children with conduct disorders. London: A Health Technology appraisal. Oppenheim, A. N. (2005). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Continuum. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Simoniˇc, B., & Poljanec, A. (2014). Building motherhood in the young mothers’ group. Child Care in Practice, 20, 270–285. Smith, S. (2016). Desperate parents plead with council not to close children’s centres [Online]. Available: http://m.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/142

136

K. SMART

18326.Desperate_parents_plead_with_council_not_to_close_childrens_cen tres/. Accessed 1st April 2016. Sylva, K., Goff, J., Eisenstadt, N., Smith, T., Hall, J., & Evangelou, M. (2015). Organisation, services and reach of children’s centres. Oxford: University of Oxford. Thomas, G. (2009). How to do Your Research Project: A guide for students in education and applied social sciences. London: Sage.

Index

A Abouchaar, Alberto, 2, 5, 7, 36, 42, 80, 82, 83, 94, 123 achievement, 2, 3, 42, 46, 81 Ainsworth, Mary, 8, 43, 64 anonymity, 23, 47, 78, 79, 127, 133 anonymous. See anonymity attachment, 8, 21, 42, 64, 65 attainment, 2–5, 7, 21, 40, 45, 65, 79–81, 83–85, 93, 94, 123 attendance, 3, 18, 41, 72, 84, 89, 99, 110, 116, 122 B basic needs of a child, 2, 36 behaviour, 3, 7, 24, 27, 28, 41, 43–45, 48, 51–58, 64–67, 73, 80, 87–89, 93, 94, 98, 104, 111–113, 115, 120, 121, 123–125, 134 Bhaskar, Roy, 9–12, 73, 74, 105, 125–127 boundaries, 4, 36 Bowlby, John, 8, 64

Braun, Virginia, 29, 30, 105, 129 Bronfenbrenner, Urie, 37–39, 58, 72, 83, 85, 120–122, 130 C child development, 1, 3, 5–7, 12, 21, 25, 27, 36–41, 43–45, 49, 56–59, 65, 72, 73, 79, 80, 83–85, 94, 101, 105, 113, 115, 121–123, 125, 126, 133, 134 childminders, 98 children’s centres, 5, 6, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 115, 116, 132 children’s development. See child development Clarke, Victoria, 29, 30, 105, 129 Claxton, Guy, 84, 85, 94, 123 cognitive, 4, 5, 36, 84 confidence, 24, 25, 36, 42–44, 46, 50, 55, 56, 58, 59, 73, 85, 86, 88, 90–93, 118, 120–123 confidential. See confidentiality confidentiality, 47, 78, 79, 127 Consumer Model, 99, 117, 124

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 K. Smart, Parenting Programmes: What the Parents Say, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59502-9

137

138

INDEX

Critical Realism, 9–13, 73, 74, 126, 127 Actual, 10 Empirical, 10 epistemic fallacy, 11, 12 Real, 9–11 underlying reality, 9, 11, 12, 73, 105, 126 cultural, 36, 38, 98, 99 Eastern Europe, 68, 113 Cunningham, Cliff, 99, 100, 105, 114, 117, 124, 125 D dad. See father Davis, Hilton, 99, 100, 105, 114, 117, 124, 125 deductive, 29 deficit model, 100 Desforges, Charles, 2, 5, 7, 25, 36, 42, 80, 82, 83, 94, 123 Dialectical Critical Realism (DCR), 73, 126. See also MELD disadvantaged, 6, 20, 21, 45, 83, 116, 131 disempowered, 101, 105, 117, 125, 133 disempowering. See disempowered domestic violence, 8 E early years, 6, 41, 59, 94, 122, 123, 131 Early Years Foundation Stage, 80, 93 ecological system model. See ecological systems theory ecological systems theory, 37, 38, 58, 72, 120, 122, 130 emotional, 4, 5, 7, 36, 43, 45, 80, 93, 100 engagement. See parental engagement

environment, 5, 6, 14, 28, 32, 36–38, 41, 44, 45, 48, 59, 72, 84, 93, 109–111, 114–117, 121, 122, 124, 125, 130–134 epistemological, 11, 73 exosystem, 37, 38, 58, 72, 120, 122, 130 expert, 98, 101, 105, 117, 124, 125, 133 Expert Model, 99, 100, 105, 110, 114, 117, 124, 125 F family, 2, 14, 20–22, 27, 32, 37–39, 57, 58, 64, 65, 82, 83, 87, 97, 98, 101–105, 113, 114, 121, 125, 131, 133 whole family engagement, 98, 102, 105, 125 father, 4, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 30, 40, 53, 98, 103, 110–112, 116, 117, 132 fathers’ group, 18, 24, 26 Field, Frank, 6, 18, 21, 22, 36, 131 G gatekeeper, 78, 127 Goodall, Janet, 4, 5, 25, 42, 80, 81, 83, 94, 100, 123 good parenting, 22, 36, 38, 40, 41 Government policy, 20, 130 grandparents, 98 group-based, 36, 41, 43, 44, 47, 66, 106, 110, 111, 116, 121, 125, 132 H Harris, Alma, 4, 25, 80, 81, 94, 123 Hattie, John, 80–82, 84, 94, 123 home environment, 81, 84, 106, 134 home learning, 5, 6, 36, 45, 131, 134

INDEX

139

I Incredible Years. See The Incredible Years The Incredible Years, 7, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 66, 71, 87–89, 93, 97–99, 102–106, 115, 120, 125, 128 inductive, 29 interviews, 9, 13, 17, 22, 24, 27–29, 31, 47, 49, 55, 74, 90, 98, 104, 105, 110, 111, 114, 115, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133 involvement. See parental involvement

totality, 11–13, 73, 105, 125–127 mental health, 8, 83, 112 postnatal depression, 112, 132 mesosystem, 37–39, 58, 72, 121, 122, 130 microsystem, 37–39, 72, 85, 99, 122, 130 mixed methods, 22 mother, 3, 4, 8, 18–21, 27, 28, 38, 40, 41, 43, 49, 51–53, 56, 64–66, 70, 72, 82, 91, 97, 102–104, 112, 114, 116, 117, 123, 132 mum. See mother

K Key Stage 1, 103

N nursery, 20, 23, 27, 28, 37, 86, 103

L learning environment, 36, 44, 134 longitudinal, 7, 24, 40, 46, 79, 93, 127, 128 Lucas, Bill, 84, 85, 94, 123

O one-year-on, 9, 24, 46, 47, 53, 56, 67, 69, 90, 91, 103, 116, 117 ontological, 9–12, 73, 126 ontologically. See ontological

M macrosystem, 37, 38, 130 Meadows, Sara, 20, 38 MELD, 11, 12, 73, 74, 105, 125–127 absences, 11, 105, 125 be-going, 12, 73, 126 First Moment, 11, 12, 73, 105, 125, 126 Fourth Dimension, 12, 13, 73, 74, 105, 125–127 negative power, 11, 105, 125 positive power, 12 Second Edge, 11, 12, 73, 105, 125, 126 Third Level, 11–13, 73, 105, 125, 126

P parent–child, 2, 4, 7, 36, 41, 42, 44, 45, 58, 65, 80, 101, 121, 134 parental behaviour, 7, 9, 12, 24, 58, 67, 73, 101, 120, 126, 134 parental confidence, 42–44, 46, 56, 59, 121 parental engagement, 2–5, 13, 22, 25, 39, 42, 44, 80, 81, 83, 85, 94, 100, 123 parental involvement, 2, 4, 5, 81 parental knowledge, 41, 123, 134 parental support, 2, 81, 94, 123 parent-child, 38, 133 parenting behaviour, 12, 40, 42, 51, 73, 105, 125, 126, 130

140

INDEX

parenting group, 47, 78, 97, 111, 113, 115–117, 124, 128 parenting programmes, 5–11, 13, 18, 22, 24, 26, 30, 31, 36, 37, 41– 45, 47, 58, 59, 65–67, 73, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 94, 98, 99, 101, 102, 105, 114–116, 119–123, 125, 126, 130, 132–134 parenting skills, 3, 7, 20, 21, 36, 41–44, 58, 59, 65, 66, 83, 100, 121–123, 131, 132 parenting strategies, 14, 32, 35, 36, 46, 51, 54, 55, 57–59, 93, 105, 121, 122 positive parenting strategies, 105, 122 positive strategies, 53, 59, 104, 122 parenting styles, 4, 39 parenting support, 101, 116, 132 parent programme trainer, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 22–24, 31, 39, 51, 58, 72–74, 78, 99, 103–105, 109, 111, 112, 114–117, 120–122, 124–129, 131 parents’ perspectives, 7–9, 11–13, 17, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 36, 42, 46, 47, 57, 63, 66–68, 72, 73, 79, 98, 101, 105, 110, 115, 117, 120, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 133 parents’ views. See parents’ perspectives parents’ voice. See parents’ perspectives Parent Support Advisor, 5, 6, 82, 83, 116, 130 partnership with parents, 40, 59, 100, 117, 122, 124 PEEP, 7, 23, 26–28, 44–46, 48–51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 68–72, 86–93, 97, 104, 111–117, 121, 122, 124, 128 Peers Early Education Partnership. See PEEP

physical, 4, 5, 36, 38, 41, 48, 59, 64, 80, 93, 100, 121, 130 pilot, 5, 47 positive parenting, 3, 7, 42, 43, 54, 55, 57–59, 93, 105, 121–123 positive praise, 4, 36, 53, 54, 57, 89 post-intervention, 78, 79, 127 post-programme, 9, 24, 26, 29, 46, 47, 49, 55, 63, 78, 87, 91, 103, 111, 114, 128 poverty, 6, 8, 21, 22 pre-intervention, 23, 79, 127 pre-programme, 22, 23, 25–28, 46, 47, 56, 78, 111, 128 preschool, 2, 3, 22, 23, 27, 39, 43, 80, 92, 101, 115 primary school, 2, 3, 6, 21, 23, 27, 28, 59, 80, 82, 94, 101, 103, 113, 122, 123 PSA. See Parent Support Advisor

Q qualitative, 22–24, 29, 31, 46, 56, 129 quality time, 14, 32, 56, 63, 64, 67–72, 94, 110, 122, 133 quantitative, 22, 24, 46, 55 questionnaire, 9, 22–28, 31, 42, 46, 50, 55, 56, 63, 67, 69, 79, 87, 89, 90, 92, 104, 105, 111, 112, 116, 117, 127–129

R reading, 3, 49, 59, 69, 87, 121 rhymes, 86, 87, 115

S Sanders, Matthew, 19, 43–45 school attendance, 84

INDEX

school readiness, 7, 45, 73, 83, 86, 92, 123, 134 secondary school, 6, 23, 28, 55, 80, 82 secure attachment, 43, 64, 65 self-belief, 85 semi-structured interviews, 22, 24, 46, 47 singing, 49, 58, 59, 87, 121 social, 2–5, 7, 11–14, 21, 36, 38, 39, 45, 51, 64, 74, 77, 80, 81, 86–88, 93, 98, 99, 120, 123, 125, 127 social development, 87, 88, 123 socio-economic status, 8, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, 110, 111, 115, 116 songs, 71, 86, 91 speech and language, 86, 87, 93 stories, 3, 49, 58, 59, 69, 86, 87, 115, 121 Sure Start, 66, 131

T targeted group, 18, 22, 24, 26, 110, 111, 116, 131 teenage mother, 18–20, 30, 66, 72, 110–112

141

teenage mothers’ group, 66, 72, 123 teenage parents, 19, 20, 24, 26, 41, 65 teenage parents’ group, 19, 65 teenage pregnancies, 8, 20 teenager, 101 thematic approach, 29, 129 toddler, 115 Transplant Model, 99, 100, 110, 114, 117, 119, 124, 133 triangulation, 8, 31, 67, 73, 126, 129 Triple-P, 7, 19, 23, 26, 41, 43–45, 48, 51, 53, 57, 58, 69, 71, 87–89, 93, 97–99, 102–106, 115, 120, 125 trustworthiness, 8, 31, 42, 66, 73, 126, 129, 130 V vulnerable, 79, 127, 132 W Webster-Stratton, Carolyn, 7 Y young mother. See teenage mother