This article was downloaded by: [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen]On: 27 November 2014, At: 08:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies inReligion & EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjbv20

Parental belief and parentalengagement: how do they interact?Janet Goodall aa Institute of Education , University of Warwick , Coventry , UKPublished online: 21 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Janet Goodall (2013) Parental belief and parental engagement: how dothey interact?, Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & Education, 34:1, 87-99, DOI:10.1080/13617672.2013.759352

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2013.759352

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

LITERATURE REVIEW

Parental belief and parental engagement: how do they interact?

Janet Goodall*

Institute of Education, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Previous literature has shown the importance of parental engagement forchildren’s outcomes; a largely separate body of literature has shown that thereare clear effects on children’s outcomes related to parental religion. This articleis a literature review of these two fields, with the aim of relating them to eachother. The article suggests two possible explanations, behavioural and economic,for the differences in outcomes related to differences in parental engagementarising from differences in religion, but incorporating knowledge from the fieldof parental engagement. Finally, it sets out a research agenda for the future.

Keywords: parental engagement; religion; faith; achievement

This literature review seeks to marry two strains of literature, or at least to effect abetrothal between them. The two strains of literature are that which refers to theeffects of parental engagement in children’s learning, and effects of religion onchildren’s educational outcomes. Both literature bases show profound effects forchildren’s education.

Review process

This review was conducted over a period of three months in 2011; however, theparental engagement literature review builds on an exhaustive literature review con-ducted in 2010–2011 for the Department of Education (Goodall and Vorhaus 2011).Academic databases were used, as was Google Scholar. Other websites usedincluded that of the Department for Education, the National College and the Har-vard Family Research Project. Full information for the literature review for parentalengagement is given in the above cited review (Goodall and Vorhaus 2011).

The original trawl using search terms related to parental engagement andparental belief yielded over 400,000 titles, of which over 500 were investigated asbeing more related to the aims of this study.

Parental engagement with children’s learning

‘Parental engagement’ here is used to mean ‘parental participation in the learningprocesses and experiences of their children’ (based on Jeynes 2005). Researchhas shown that parental engagement with children’s learning is a powerful force tosupport achievement (Jeynes 2007; Fan and Williams 2010; Spera 2005;

*Email: janet.goodall@warwick.ac.uk

Journal of Beliefs & Values, 2013Vol. 34, No. 1, 87–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2013.759352

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Strand 2007; De Gaetano 2007; Jackson and Remillard 2005; Martinez and Velaz-quez 2000; Snell, Miguel, and East 2009; Sylva et al. 2008).

The focus of the most effective parental engagement is with the learning of thechild (Desforges and Abouchaar 2003; Harris and Goodall 2008). What matters tochildren’s outcomes is the attitude toward learning in the home (Desforges andAbouchaar 2003). Steinberg and Spera have shown that the elements of parentalengagement work together; specific interventions may have little or no effect, or anegative effect, if they are not grounded in an effective emotional background(Spera 2005; Steinberg 2001).

This background will be discussed under the headings of authoritative parenting,the need for independence, and parental aspiration. We will then examine the effectsof parental belief on educational outcomes. The two strands of literature will thenbe brought together to offer possible explanations of these effects. Finally, sugges-tions for a research programme will be offered, to explore the direct effects ofparental religion on interaction with children’s learning.

Authoritative parenting

Baumrind suggests three classifications of parenting practice: non-controlling, non-demanding, relatively warm parents (permissive parenting), detached, controlling,less warm (authoritarian parenting) and controlling, demanding, warm, rational andreceptive to children’s communication (authoritative parenting). This final type ofparenting combines a high level of control with practices which encourage auton-omy on the part of the child, and is related to having children who are self-reliant,able to exercise self-control and interested in exploring the world around them(Baumrind 1971). Authoritative parenting is considered to be the ideal and has beenpositively associated with academic achievement (Dornbusch et al. 1987; Fan andWilliams 2010). Authoritative parenting is not simply a set of actions; it is rather away of being a parent (Darling and Steinberg 1993). It is an attitude toward parent-ing and toward the child that underlies all other actions. This means that the sameaction may well have different outcomes, depending on the style of parenting fromwhich is arises (Spera 2005).

Authoritative parents have expectations for their children which are appropriateto their age (Baumrind 1971; Steinberg 2001). They encourage communication withchildren and explain the reasons for parental decisions; while enforcing rules, theauthoritative parent recognises that the child is an individual with interests of theirown (Brown and Iyengar 2008) and does not undermine children’s sense ofcompetence and autonomy (Aunola and Nurmi 2005).

Research has shown that children of authoritative parents tend to be moremature, more independent, more social and achievement oriented than the childrenof non-authoritative parents (Baumrind 1967, 1989). Authoritative parenting islikely to increase children’s positive self concepts, and is ‘associated with the mostpositive social-emotional developmental characteristics in adolescents’ (McClun andMerrell 1998, 388).

Young people who describe their parents as falling within the authoritative spec-trum were found to be more likely to develop positive attitudes toward achievementand thus to be do better in school (Steinberg, Elmen, and Mounts 1989).

Showing emotional warmth and support is a part of authoritative parenting, andhas been positively related to student achievement. The demands made of children

88 J. Goodall

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

through authoritative parenting are reasonable ones, based on the abilities of thechild, rather than demands made in relation to external standards (Heaven andCiarrochi 2008).

Independence

The aim of parental engagement is to allow the child to grow into an independentlearner, with the emotional, physical and intellectual resources to learn on their own(Rosenzweig 2001; Hattie and Timperley 2007). However, this process is not usu-ally complete until late on in a child’s school career. In adolescence, young peopleexperience changing levels of freedom and demands. The family changes alongwith the child (Spera 2005). Parental engagement has been shown to be particularlyimportant at these times of transition (Quinton 2004; Sanders 2003, 2008; Sylvaet al. 2004; McDonald et al. 2006; Evangelou and Sylva 2003; Department forChildren 2008; Harris and Goodall 2009).

Parents need to balance the growing autonomy of the young person against theresponsibilities of parenting, and encourage appropriate autonomy. This has beencalled ‘autonomy support’ (Grolnick and Ryan 1989); as parents support children totake initiatives, and to make decisions on their own (Rosenzweig 2001). It isimportant for parents to engage in what has been termed ‘psychological autonomygranting,’ that is, encouraging teenagers to develop their own opinions and ideas,and accepting those as they come into being (Steinberg 2001).

Parental aspirations

Parental aspirations are one of the strongest predictors of school grades and beliefsabout their own capability for young people (Juang and Silbereisen 2002; Catsambis2001). If parents value education highly, their children are more likely to do so, andthus more likely to try to achieve (Fan and Williams 2010; Flouri and Buchanan2004). There is evidence of a strong relationship between the aspirations of parentsfor their children and those of the children themselves (Gutman and Akerman 2008).Parental aspirations and goals have been shown to be related to persistence in schooland continuing in education (Spera 2005); conversely, low parental aspirations havea negative impact on children’s predicted scores in secondary school (Departmentfor Children Schools and Families 2010). Catsambis has shown that the influence ofparental educational aspirations is almost equal to the coefficients of socioeconomicstatus (Catsambis 2001). Communication of high aspirations and expectations, aswell as discussion of future plans, has been positively correlated to achievement forstudents during middle school (Hill and Tyson 2009).

Strand (2007) found that pupils with parents who had high educationalaspirations, provided a home computer or private tuition, were involved in moreschool activities, and infrequently quarrelled with their children, all achieved greaterthan expected scores at KS3 even after taking into account family background.These are all elements of authoritative parenting.

This brief overview of the literature about parental engagement has made clearthe value of parental engagement in children’s learning, particularly when supportedthrough a framework of authoritative parenting.

Research has shown that at least in the United States, parental religion also hasa distinct impact on children’s educational outcomes.

Journal of Beliefs & Values 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Parental religion

‘Parental religion’ is used here as a term to cover a variety of concepts used in theliterature. Some authors investigate outcomes based on parental self report of affilia-tion. This is of course valid but it not precisely the same as parental affiliation asmeasured by attendance. And neither of these is entirely the same as ‘belief’ asmeasured using scales relating to specific theological concepts. ‘Parental religion’will be used as a phrase to encapsulate all of these concepts, with the understandingthat it must not be understood as always signifying the same methodological reality.Differences will be highlighted when appropriate.

Research on the effects of parental religion on children’s outcomes stretchesback at least 50 years, to Lenski’s work on the difference between Roman Catholicand Protestant outcomes (Lenski 1963). Lenski suggested that these differencesmight arise from an anti-intellectualism to be found within Catholicism, which ledto lower educational outcomes for children. Featherman continued the theme, inves-tigating not only religious groupings but also national background. He found thatJewish people of any ancestry attain more years of schooling than any other group-ing; Protestants from Anglo-Saxon backgrounds had more education than any othergroup of Protestants, and Italian- and Mexican-American Catholics achieved less(Featherman 1971).

Interest has shifted from the Catholic/Protestant divide, partially becauseCatholics seem to have closed the gap. Not only has the Catholic population movedinto second and third generation status, but the institutionalisation of a Catholicschool system in the US has tended to increase children’s results (Regnerus 2000).

The research reported here is almost entirely confined to the US. Studies doexist in other countries (Abbas 2003; Barber 2002; Hajj and Panizza 2009; Nortonand Tomal 2009) but there is not enough of an international literature base to makedefinitive statements or judgements.

Student religion

Young people have religious lives as well as their parents, and there is evidence toshow that religious commitment, affiliation and practice on the part of young peoplehas an effect on educational outcomes. There are a number of studies which exam-ine the relationship between young people’s religious beliefs and general outcomessuch as anti social behaviour, crime, early pregnancy and risk behaviours (Smith2003; Sherkat and Ellison 1999; Waite and Lehrer 2003; Lehrer 2004a; Smith2003; Haynie and Pearce 2004; Wong, Rew, and Slaikeu 2006). This review willconcentrate on those studies which have focused on the effect of religion on educa-tional outcomes.

Jeynes evaluated the effects of religious commitment (attendance at church andself report of religiosity) on the academic achievement of black and Hispanic chil-dren in the US. The research found that religious commitment correlated positivelyto completing a core curriculum, and better performance on standardized academictests (Jeynes 1999). Further, Jeynes found that when young black and Hispanic stu-dents lived in an ‘intact’ family, and had a high level of religiosity (who selfdefined as ‘very religious,’ who were actively involved in a church youth groupand who attended church at least three times a month), they achieved as well aswhite students, regardless of socioeconomic background.

90 J. Goodall

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Mooney’s research (2010) dealt with a survey of 4000 freshman (first year)undergraduate students in elite US universities, and found that students whoreported regular religious observance in high school said that they had highergrades at university than those who did not attend. Students classed as religiousreported that they spent more time studying, and less time in activities likely todetract from achievement. Mooney found that both the factors of religious atten-dance and observance had a positive effect on students’ satisfaction with university.

Loury (2004) used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979, aswell as local data on religious adherence and the 1980 Survey of Churches toexamine the relationship between student religious practice and the number of yearsyoung people persist in education. Attendance during the adolescent years has a sig-nificant positive effect on the educational persistence.

Jewishness

What is clear throughout the literature is the unwavering superiority of educationaloutcomes for students from Jewish homes (Lehrer 1999; Beyerlein 2004; Burstein2007; Chiswick and Huang 2008; Cohen 1974; Fejgin 1995; Featherman 1971;Keysar and Kosmin 1995). Chiswick examined educational levels among Jews, inrelation to those among non-Jews. Statistically adjusted, Jews had two years moreeducation than non-Jews overall (Chiswick 1993).

Smith and Faris (2005) found that Jews and Unitarians had the highest levels ofuniversity degrees, with over 60% each. Beyerlein found that Jews were far morelikely to earn university degrees than other groups, being 2.4 times more likely toearn a degree than evangelical students; controlling for demographic factors, theseodds reduced to 1.6 (Beyerlein 2004). In comparison, of those who reported them-selves as non-religious, only 20% had completed university, and at the bottom ofthe range were Pentecostals (10%) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (7%). Keysar and Kos-min found that Jewish women had 2.89 times greater odds of acquiring higher edu-cation than did women who professed no religion (Keysar and Kosmin 1995).

Lehrer finds that even when societal variables are controlled, coming from aJewish home adds two years to young people’s education average for both men andwomen (1.330 years and 1.219 years respectively) (Lehrer 1999). In 2004, Lehrerfound that Jews attained, on average, 15.8 years of education, while mainline Prot-estants and Catholics averaged 13.5–13.6 years and conservative Protestantsattained 12.4 years (Lehrer 2004b).

Hartman and Hartman examined educational attainment among Jews in relationto aspects of Jewishness, and found that those who were most attached toperforming social rituals, were most involved in Jewish associations and had thehighest degree of Jewish background had the highest educational levels; those whowere closer to the more Orthodox denominations and who kept ritual practiceswhich were closer to Orthodox practices had the lowest educational attainment(Hartman and Hartman 1996).

Parental religion and educational outcome

Researchers have differentiated among US Protestant groups, in an attempt to gainmore finely tuned data. Darnell and Sherkat delineate between Biblical inerrantistand conservative Protestants and other groups, based on how respondents answers

Journal of Beliefs & Values 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

specific theological questions. Conservative and Biblical inerrantist Protestants werefound to have significantly lower educational aspirations than other respondents,and significantly lower education attainment. Conservative Protestant students couldnot be distinguished from other students in relation to their grade point averages,yet even when societal factors were controlled, conservative Protestant students stillhad lower aspirations than others, while such controls allow the low aspirations ofinerrantist students to disappear. With background data accounted for, both groupsremained significantly less likely to take university (college) preparatory courses inhigh school (Darnell and Sherkat 1997).

Wiehe (1990) continued to use a literalist – non-literalist divide, when examin-ing the effect of parental beliefs on attitudes toward corporal punishment. Thosewho subscribed to a literal interpretation of the Bible had strong beliefs in the useof corporal punishment, less empathy toward children’s needs and less appropriateexpectations of their children than did parents from non-literalist groups.

Lehrer kept the same division among Protestants, and investigated the educa-tional attainment of Jews, Catholics and Protestants, recognising within her samplethe four groups of Catholics, Jews, mainline and fundamentalist Protestants. Evenwhen using multiple regressions, and controlling for variables such as socialeconomic status and gender, significant differences were still uncovered (1999).

Lehrer makes the comparison that coming from a fundamentalist Protestantbackground can be equated to the effect of having one parent with less than 12years of schooling as opposed to a parent who completed secondary education, orhaving to compete with an extra sibling (1999). Lehrer continued this work in2005. Mainline Protestants and Catholics are at the centre of the distribution, Jewishwomen enjoy 2.3 years more education than the median and conservative Protes-tants lag by approximately 1.2 years. When all variables are considered, conserva-tive Protestants attain half a year less schooling than mainline Protestants, andJewish women attain about half a year more. High religiosity resulted in a yearextra schooling for conservative Protestants and Catholics (2005b).

Lehrer examined the relationship between religion and high school graduationfor women. Even when variables are controlled, conservative Protestants and theunaffiliated are less likely to complete high school than are mainline Protestants. Inthe white sample, the Catholic and mainline Protestant women have similar rates ofhigh school completion; in the sample of black women, however, Catholicprobability of completion reduces to that of conservative Protestants (2006).

Keysar and Kosmin divided their sample of 19,000 women according to broadgroupings: liberal, middle ground groups, conservatives, and more conservative.They found that Jewish women were far more likely to acquire higher educationthan were women of no religion, and that there were advantages also forEpiscopalian women, who were 2.59 times more likely to acquire higher educationthan women of no religion. Pentecostal and Baptist women, on the other hand, hadodds of only 48% and 33% of continuing their education after high school. Amongolder women (aged 25–44), Jewish women were 4.41 times more likely to havehigher education than women of no religion (Keysar and Kosmin 1995).

Beyerlein found that Evangelical Protestants were more than five times morelikely to earn a four year university degree than were Pentecostal Protestants, andmore than 2.5 times more likely to earn a degree as Protestants who identified asfundamentalist. When demographic variables were included, Pentecostal Protestantsstill decreased the odds of earning a degree by 74% and fundamentalist Protestants

92 J. Goodall

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

by 56%. Other Protestants, Catholics and those without religious affiliation also haddecreased odds of completing a degree (by 63%, 62% and 56%, respectively)(Beyerlein 2004).

Sherkat and Darnell (1999) examined the effect that parental fundamentalistbelief had on educational attainment. Fundamentalist parents had a significantnegative impact on the chances that their daughters would take the courses in highschool which are designed to prepare them for university; controlling for otherfactors, parental fundamentalism reduced the odds of young women taking collegepreparatory courses by 42%.

Why should these disparities exist?

The evidence seems strong that parental belief can have a significant effect onyoung people’s educational attainment and persistence in education. The question,however, remains why this should be, and as a corollary, what can be learned fromhigh achieving groups to support those which do not achieve so highly.

In relation to the high achievement of young people from Jewish homes, differ-ent explanations have been offered, all of which relate to Judaism as a cultural, aswell as a religious category. Burstein (2007) suggests four interrelated explanations:human capital, Jewish peculiarity, marginality and social capital. By Jewish pecu-liarity, he means that success accrues from beliefs and/or behaviours which are spe-cific to this population, such as the Rabbinic value placed on education (Chiswick1993; Lehrer 2004a; McDermott 2002), or an orientation toward the present worldrather than the future (Lehrer 2004a; Featherman 1971). Burstein also cites mutualassistance arising out of the Diaspora experience (Kahan 1978) but this actually fitsin better under the heading of social capital.

Brown and Grey (as cited in Barrett 2010) discuss the concept of ‘religious soci-alisation’ by which they mean ‘the process by which an individual learns and interna-lised attitudes, values, and behaviours within the context of a religious system ofbeliefs and practices’ (412). Although Barrett is reporting on work done among asample of African American students, this idea could also be used as an alternativeconceptualisation of what Burstein calls ‘Jewish peculiarity’ (Brown and Gary 1991).This idea of the inculcation of values as leading to better outcomes for children has adirect relation to the parental engagement literature. Parental aspirations are a strongpredictor of children’s educational outcomes. In this area, the two streams of litera-ture come together, with the literature on parental engagement providing at least atentative explanation for the findings from research on parental beliefs.

The Diaspora experience is also related to Burstein’s third explanation, that ofJewish marginality. Being caught between the two cultures of traditional Judaismand modern secularity has stimulated members of these groups toward creativity,leading to intellectual excellence. Marginality may also explain the emphasis placedon portable goods, such as education. However, it also seems that Jews get a betterreturn on their investment in education (Ayal and Chiswick 1983; Lehrer 2004b;Chiswick 1983, 1988), which as Burstein points out, undermines the marginalityapproach. Finally, Burstein suggests out that the explanation of social capital formsa bridge between all the others (2007); perhaps a better metaphor is that of anumbrella under with all the others shelter.

The literature in effect offers two different types of answers to the question ofwhy these differences in outcome might exist, economic and behavioural.

Journal of Beliefs & Values 93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Economic explanations

The literature which takes an economic view relies on the concept of investment.Jewish families are reported to get a better than average return for investment in edu-cation. Meng and Sentance found that Jewish students gain substantially higherreturns from schooling than do members of other religious groups (1984). Over a ser-ies of publications, Lehrer has investigated religion as an economic determinant inrelation to educational attainment (Lehrer 1999), as a determinant of women’s educa-tion and wages (Lehrer 2005a), and as a factor in relation to high school graduationfor black and white women (Lehrer 2006). In all of these, Lehrer uses a human capi-tal model, based on the work of Becker and Chiswick (1966). This model can beginto provide insights into why differences in religion might lead to differences in edu-cational outcomes. This model holds that there is an optimal level of schooling foreach individual, to be found where the demands for funds for investment for school-ing intercepts the supply; Lehrer analyses her data to find which side of this equationis more important. For Jewish families, the demand side predominates (leading tohigh educational attainment), while at the other end of the scale, supply and demandappear to be of similar strength for fundamentalist Protestants (Lehrer 1999).

Investment in schooling, while seen as economic investment in the work ofscholars such as Lehrer, can also be understood more broadly, to mean investmentof time, effort, or interest. This clearly links to the body of parental engagementliterature, which taken as a whole, shows benefits accrued when parentsinvest – broadly speaking – in their children’s education.

Behavioural explanations

The following explanations attempt to show how parental behaviours, founded inparental belief, may impact on children’s achievement. King (2003) found that reli-gious fathers were more involved with their children, have greater expectations forpositive relationships in the future, feel greater responsibility to keep in contact withtheir adult children, and are more likely to provide support and unpaid assistance tochildren and grandchildren. The only significant difference among the religiousgroups found was that conservative Protestant fathers were less likely to providefinancial assistance to their children than were other Protestant fathers.

Ellison and Sherkat found that Conservative Protestant and Catholic parents val-ued obedience in children more than other Americans, and that belief in biblical lit-eralism has a significant positive association with preferences for obedience, as dothe beliefs that human nature is evil and that sinners must be punished (Ellison andSherkat 1993).

Conservative Protestant parents are exhorted toward a warm parenting style bypopular manuals (Wilcox 1998); parents are told to create an ‘enclave of lovingauthority’ (Walton 1975, 48, as quoted in Wilcox). Parents are told by such manualsthat they must represent the love of God to their children. This is balanced againstthe need to save children from their own, innate sinful nature; this requires carefuland strict discipline. Wilcox has found that theological conservatism, rather thanaffiliation, was a significant and constant predictor of positive emotional work(Wilcox 1998).

Bartkowski and Ellison (1995) examined the work of bestselling Protestantchildrearing experts, both mainstream and Conservative. The mainstream authors

94 J. Goodall

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

emphasised that the outcome of childrearing was the development of a healthypersonality and social competence, while for the Conservative authors, these weresecondary to embracing the principles of authority and hierarchy which are divinelyordained. Children must be trained to submit their wills to God to overcomehandicaps to holiness; parents are to expect conflict with their children and respondfirmly, including the use of physical force. Parents are to be held accountable forany ways in which they deviate from the parenting guidelines laid out in the Bible,including the use of the ‘rod’ for discipline purposes. Parents are to present to theirchildren an image of God, who is at the same time loving and forgiving, but alsocapable of punishing sin.

Convergence

From the parental engagement literature, it is clear that engagement in children’slearning, defined as parental participation in the learning processes and experiencesof their children, has a clear and beneficial effect on children’s achievement.

From the parental belief literature, it is clear that this belief has an effect on out-comes which is most positive for children from Jewish backgrounds and least posi-tive for those from Conservative Protestant homes.

Linking these two streams of literature is not an easy task. Tentatively, it wouldseem that the parental engagement literature may provide explanations for some ofthe findings in relation to parental belief: that parents who show that they valueeducation, and have high aspirations for their children, and support children’smoves toward independence, provide the best support for learning. These traitsseem most likely to be found among Jewish and relatively liberal Christian parents,and least likely to be found among Conservative Protestant parents. There is still,however, a very great deal to be learned.

The need for further research

These are speculations at best. The literature surveyed here does not allow the for-mation of clear conclusions about what it is that happens in Jewish homes, to allowchildren to achieve and stay on in education, which does not occur in conservative/fundamentalist Protestant homes. Only more in-depth research can address this dis-parity.

The need to address the difference in outcome is clear; all children deserve thechance to achieve as well as they are able. What is needed, then, is research whichlooks not only at the large scale, macro level of religious affiliation or theologicalbelief among parents, but also at the micro level, of what goes on in homes of dif-ferent groups.

Such research must be undertaken with due respect to the religious views of allconcerned; the ultimate aim would not be to achieve a state of uniformity acrossvarious faith groups in relation to parental engagement, but to find where supportmight be needed and specifically to find sensitive ways of supporting children whilepaying due respect to their familial choices of religion and belief.

A research programme such as this should be mixed methods, taking intoaccount large scale surveys as well as in-depth qualitative work, including observa-tions of familial practice. Further, there is an urgent need for research which takesinto account the realities of countries other than the United States. There is a needfor research in the UK and other countries which will support the parents of allfaiths and none, in their engagement with their children’s learning.

Journal of Beliefs & Values 95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Notes on contributorDr. Janet Goodall is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Education, University of Warwick.Having first trained in theology, she has a doctorate in Education and has worked in thefield of school leadership and parental engagement for the last eight years.

ReferencesAbbas, T. 2003. “The Impact of Religio-Cultural Norms and Values on the Education of

Young South Asian Women.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 24 (4):411–428.

Aunola, K., and J.-E. Nurmi. 2005. “The Role of Parenting Styles in Children’s ProblemBehavior.” Child Development 76 (6): 1144–1159.

Ayal, E. B., and B. R. Chiswick. 1983. “The Economics of the Diaspora Revisited.” Eco-nomic Development and Cultural Change 31 (4): 861–875.

Barber, N. 2002. “Parental Investment, Human Capital, and Cross-National Differences inWealth.” Cross-Cultural Research 36 (4): 338–361.

Barrett, B. 2010. “Religion and Habitus: Exploring the Relationship Between ReligiousInvolvement and Educational Outcomes and Orientations Among Urban AfricanAmerican Students.” Urban Education 45 (4): 448–479.

Bartkowski, J. P., and C. G. Ellison. 1995. “Divergent Models of Childrearing in PopularManuals: Conservative Protestants vs. the Mainstream Experts.” Sociology of Religion56 (1): 21–34.

Baumrind, D. 1967. “Child Care Practices Anteceding Three Patterns of PreschoolBehavior.” Genetic Psychology Monographs 75 (1): 43–88.

Baumrind, D. 1971. “Current Patterns of Parental Authority.” Developmental Psychology 4(1): 1–103.

Baumrind, D. 1989. “Rearing Competent Children. Child Development Today andTomorrow.” In Child Development Today and Tomorrow, edited by W. Damon. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Becker, G. S., and B. R. Chiswick. 1966. “Education and the Distribution of Earnings.” TheAmerican Economic Review 56 (1/2): 358–369.

Beyerlein, K. 2004. “Specifying the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on EducationalAttainment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 43 (4): 505–518.

Brown, D. R., and L.E. Gary. 1991. “Religious Socialization and Educational AttainmentAmong African Americans: An Empirical Assessment.” The Journal of Negro Education60 (3): 411–426.

Brown, L., and S. Iyengar. 2008. “Parenting Styles: The Impact on Student Achievement.”Marriage & Family Review 43 (1): 14–38.

Burstein, P. 2007. “Jewish Educational and Economic Success in the United States: ASearch for Explanations.” Sociological Perspectives 50 (2): 209–228.

Catsambis, S. 2001. “Expanding Knowledge of Parental Involvement in Children’sSecondary Education: Connections with High School Seniors’ Academic Success.”Social Psychology of Education 5: 149–177.

Chiswick, B. R. 1983. “The Earnings and Human Capital of American Jews.” The Journalof Human Resources 18 (3): 313–336.

Chiswick, B. R. 1988. “Differences in Education and Earnings Across Racial and EthnicGroups: Tastes, Discrimination, and Investments in Child Quality.” The QuarterlyJournal of Economics 103 (3): 571–597.

Chiswick, B. R. 1993. “The Skills and Economic Status of American Jewry: Trends Overthe Last Half-Century.” Journal of Labor Economics 11 (1): 229–242.

Chiswick, B. R., and J. Huang. 2008. “The Earnings of American Jewish Men: HumanCapital, Denomination, and Religiosity.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47(4): 694–709.

Cohen, S. M. 1974. “The Impact of Jewish Education on Religious Identification andPractice.” Jewish Social Studies 36 (3/4): 316–326.

Darling, N., and L. Steinberg. 1993. “Parenting Style as Context: An Integrative Model.”Psychological Bulletin 113 (3): 487–496.

96 J. Goodall

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Darnell, A., and D. E. Sherkat. 1997. “The Impact of Protestant Fundamentalism onEducational Attainment.” American Sociological Review 62 (2): 306–315.

De Gaetano, Y. 2007. “The Role of Culture in Engaging Latino Parents’ Involvement inSchool.” Urban Education 42 (2): 145–162.

Department for Children, Schools and Families. 2008. The Impact of Sure Start Local Pro-grammes on Three Year Olds and Their Families. London: Department for Children,Schools and Families.

Department for Children, Schools and Families. 2010. Identifying Components of AttainmentGaps. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Desforges, C., and A. Abouchaar. 2003. The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Sup-port and Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment: A Literature Review.London: Department for Education and Skills.

Dornbusch, S. M., P. L. Ritter, P. H. Leiderman, D. F. Roberts, and M. J. Fraleigh. 1987.“The Relation of Parenting Style to Adolescent School Performance.” Child Develop-ment 58 (5): 1244–1257.

Ellison, C. G., and D. E. Sherkat. 1993. “Obedience and Autonomy: Religion and ParentalValues Reconsidered.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32 (4): 313–329.

Evangelou, M., and K. Sylva. 2003. The Effects of the Peers Early Educational Partnership(PEEP) on Children’s Developmental Progress. London: Department for Education andSkills.

Fan, W., and C. M. Williams. 2010. “The Effects of Parental Involvement on Students’Academic Self-efficacy, Engagement and Intrinsic Motivation.” Educational Psychology:An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology 30 (1): 53–74.

Featherman, D. L. 1971. “The Socioeconomic Achievement of White Religio-EthnicSubgroups: Social and Psychological Explanations.” American Sociological Review 36(2): 207–222.

Fejgin, N. 1995. “Factors Contributing to the Academic Excellence of American Jewish andAsian Students.” Sociology of Education 68 (1): 18–30.

Flouri, E., and A. Buchanan. 2004. “Early Father’s and Mother’s Involvement and Child’sLater Educational Outcomes.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 141–153.

Goodall, J., and J. Vorhaus. 2011. Review of Best Practice in Parental Engagement. London:Department of Education.

Grolnick, W. S., and R. M. Ryan. 1989. “Parent Styles Associated with Children’s Self-regu-lation and Competence in School.” Journal of Educational Psychology 81 (2): 143–154.

Gutman, L. M., and R. Akerman. 2008. Determinants of Aspirations. London: Centre forthe Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute for Education.

Hajj, M., and U. Panizza. 2009. “Religion and Education Gender Gap: Are MuslimsDifferent?” Economics of Education Review 28 (3): 337–344.

Harris, A., and J. Goodall. 2008. “Do Parents Know they Matter? Engaging all Parents inLearning.” Educational Research 50 (3): 277–289.

Harris, A., and J. Goodall. 2009. Helping Families Support Children’s Success at School:Review of the Evidence. London: Save the Children.

Hartman, H., and M. Hartman. 1996. “More Jewish, Less Jewish: Implications for Educationand Labor Force Characteristics.” Sociology of Religion 57 (2): 175–193.

Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of EducationalResearch 77 (1): 81–112.

Haynie, D. L., and L. D. Pearce. 2004. “Intergenerational Religious Dynamics and Adoles-cent Delinquency.” Social Forces 82 (4): 1553–1572.

Heaven, P., and J. Ciarrochi. 2008. “Parental Styles, Gender and the Development of Hopeand Self-esteem.” European Journal of Personality 22 (8): 707–724.

Hill, N. B., and D. F. Tyson. 2009. “Parental Involvement in Middle School: A Meta-Ana-lytic Assessment of the Strategies That Promote Achievement.” Developmental Psychol-ogy 45 (3): 740–763.

Jackson, K., and J. T. Remillard. 2005. “Rethinking Parent Involvement: African AmericanMothers Construct Their Roles in the Mathematics Education of Their Children.” SchoolCommunity Journal 15 (1): 51–73.

Jeynes, W. H. 1999. “The Effects of Religious Commitment on the Academic Achievementof Black and Hispanic Children.” Urban Education 34 (4): 458–479.

Journal of Beliefs & Values 97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Jeynes, W. H. 2005. “Effects of Parental Involvement and Family Structure on the AcademicAchievement of Adolescents.” Marriage & Family Review 37 (3): 99–116.

Jeynes, W. H. 2007. “The Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Urban SecondarySchool Student Academic Achievement: A Meta-analysis.” Urban Education 42 (1):82–110.

Juang, L. P., and R. K. Silbereisen. 2002. “The Relationship Between Adolescent AcademicCapability Beliefs, Parenting and School Grades.” Journal of Adolescence 25 (1): 3–18.

Kahan, A. 1978. “Economic Opportunities and Some Pilgrims’ Progress: Jewish Immigrantsfrom Eastern Europe in the U.S., 1890–1914.” The Journal of Economic History 38 (1):235–251.

Keysar, A., and B. A. Kosmin. 1995. “The Impact of Religious Identification on Differencesin Educational Attainment Among American Women in 1990.” Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion 34 (1): 49–62.

King, V. 2003. “The Influence of Religion on Fathers’ Relationships with Their Children.”Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (2): 382–395.

Lehrer, E. L. 1999. “Religion as a Determinant of Educational Attainment: An EconomicPerspective.” Social Science Research 28 (4): 358–379.

Lehrer, E. 2004b. “Religiosity as a Determinant of Educational Attainment: The Case ofConservative Protestant Women in the United States.” Review of Economics of theHousehold 2 (2): 203–219.

Lehrer, E. L. 2004b. “Religion as a Determinant of Economic and Demographic Behavior inthe United States.” Population and Development Review 30 (4): 707–726.

Lehrer, E. L. 2005a. Religious Affiliation and Participation as Determinants of Women’sEducational Attainment and Wages. IZA Discussion Papers.

Lehrer, E. L. 2005b. Young Women’s Religious Affiliation and Participation as Determinantsof High School Completion. IZA Discussion Papers.

Lehrer, E. L. 2006. “Religion and High-school Graduation: A Comparative Analysis of Pat-terns for White and Black Young Women.” Review of Economics of the Household 4(3): 277–293.

Lenski, G. E. 1963. The Religious Factor. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Loury, L. D. 2004. “Does Church Attendance Really Increase Schooling?” Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion 43 (1): 119–127.Martinez, Y. G., and J. A. Velazquez. 2000. “Involving Migrant Families in Education” ERIC

Digest. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.McClun, L. A., and W. Kenneth Merrell. 1998. “Relationship of Perceived Parenting Styles,

Locus of Control Orientation, and Self-concept Among Junior High Age Students.” Psy-chology in the schools 35 (4): 381–390.

McDermott, M. 2002. “Trends in the Race and Ethnicity of Eminent Americans.” Sociologi-cal Forum 17 (1): 137–160.

McDonald, L., D. P. Moberg, R. Brown, and I. Rodriguez. 2006. “After-school MultifamilyGroups: A Randomized Controlled Trial Involving Low-Income, Urban, Latino Chil-dren.” Children & Schools 28 (1): 25–34.

Meng, R., and J. Sentance. 1984. “Religion and the Determination of Earnings: Further Results.”The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’Economique 17 (3): 481–488.

Mooney, M. 2010. “Religion, College Grades, and Satisfaction Among Students at EliteColleges and Universities.” Sociology of Religion 71 (2): 197–215.

Norton, S. W., and A. Tomal. 2009. “Religion and Female Educational Attainment.” Journalof Money, Credit and Banking 41 (5): 961–986.

Quinton, D. 2004. Supporting Parents: Messages from Research. London: Jessica Kingsley.Regnerus, M. D. 2000. “Shaping Schooling Success: Religious Socialization and Educational

Outcomes in Metropolitan Public Schools.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion39 (3): 363–370.

Rosenzweig, C. 2001. A Meta-Analysis of Parenting and School Success: The Role ofParents in Promoting Students’ Academic Performance. WA: Paper read at AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association at Seattle.

Sanders, M. 2008. “Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a Public Health Approach toStrengthening Parenting.” Journal of Family Psychology 22 (3): 506–517.

98 J. Goodall

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sanders, M. R. 2003. “Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A Population Approach toPromoting Competent Parenting.” Australian eJournal for the Advancement of MentalHealth 2 (3): 127–143.

Sherkat, D. E., and A. Darnell. 1999. “The Effect of Parents’ Fundamentalism on Children’sEducational Attainment: Examining Differences by Gender and Children’s Fundamental-ism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38 (1): 23–35.

Sherkat, D. E., and C. Ellison. 1999. “Recent Developments and Current Controversies inthe Sociology of Religion.” Annual Review of Sociology 25: 363–394.

Smith, C. 2003. “Religious Participation and Network Closure Among AmericanAdolescents.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42 (2): 259–267.

Smith, C., and R. Faris. 2005. “Socioeconomic Inequality in the American Religious System:An Update and Assessment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (1): 95–104.

Snell, P., N. Miguel, and J. East. 2009. “Changing Directions: Participatory Action Researchas a Parent Involvement Strategy.” Educational Action Research 17 (2): 239–258.

Spera, C. 2005. “A Review of the Relationship Among Parenting Practices, Parenting Styles,and Adolescent School Achievement.” Educational Psychology Review 17 (2): 125–146.

Steinberg, L. 2001. “We Know Some Things: Parent–adolescent Relationships in Retrospectand Prospect.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 11 (1): 1–19.

Steinberg, L., J. D. Elmen, and N. S. Mounts. 1989. “Authoritative Parenting, PsychosocialMaturity, and Academic Success Among Adolescents.” Child Development 60 (6):1424–1436.

Strand, S. 2007. Minority Ethnic Pupils in the Longitudinal Study of Young People inEngland (LSYPE). Department for Education and Skills, London: DfES Publications.

Sylva, K., E. C. Melhuish, P. Sammons, I. Siraj-Blatchford, and B. Taggart. 2004. The Effec-tive Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 12 - The FinalReport: Effective Pre-School Education. London: DfES / Institute of Education, Univer-sity of London.

Sylva, K., S. Scott, V. Totsika, S. K. Ereky, and C. Crook. 2008. “Training Parents to HelpTheir Children Read: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” British Journal of EducationalPsychology 78 (3): 435–455.

Waite, L. J., and E. L. Lehrer. 2003. “The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the UnitedStates: A Comparative Analysis.” Population and Development Review 29 (2): 255–275.

Walton, R. 1975. One Nation Under God”. Washington: Third Century Publishers.Wiehe, V. R. 1990. “Religious Influence on Parental Attitudes Toward the Use of Corporal

Punishment.” Journal of Family Violence 5 (2): 173–186.Wilcox, W. B. 1998. “Conservative Protestant Childrearing: Authoritarian or Authoritative?”

American Sociological Review 63 (6): 796–809.Wong, Y. J., L. Rew, and K. D. Slaikeu. 2006. “A Systematic Review of Recent Research

on Adolescent Religiosity/Spirituality and Mental Health.” Issues in Mental Health Nurs-ing 27: 161–183.

Journal of Beliefs & Values 99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

08:

03 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014