1984, Vol. 18, No. 3, 100-105
PARENT EDUCATION: CURRENT STATUS SHARON E. ROBERTSON
University of Calgary
Abstract
The current status of parent education is critically examined in terms of contemporary definitions, programs, methods, potential audiences, research problems, and issues in leadership.
Résumé
Cet article fait Ie point sur l'éducation des parents. Il s'agit d'une analyse cri-tique portant sur les définitions courantes, les programmes et les techniques
d'inter-vention, les populations cibles, les problèmes de recherche et les questions relatives au leadership.
Educational programs for parents have existed in the United States since the early 1800's and there has been an uninterrupted expansion of such programs since about 1880 (Croake & Glover, 1977). In Canada, the St. George's School for Child Study which was founded in 1925 became involved in parent education and later prepared outlines for discussion groups along with bibliographies for parents and leaders (Stern, 1960). From these beginnings, there has been an increasing pro-liferation of programs, books, films, and other educational materials for parents which vary considerably in the assumptions and theoretical frameworks on which they are based as well as in the fundamental concepts and procedures which they promote.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Sharon E. Robertson, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4.
There are a number of reasons for the continuing rise of the parent education move-ment. Originally, parents sought better ways to rear their children and professionals sup-ported them, and continue to support them, in the belief that "better" methods of child management can be acquired. In fact, an argument for parent education which frequent-ly is put forward today is that parenting is one of the most important roles which anyone can undertake and it is also the one for which he or she is least prepared. A second factor contributing to the rise of parent education lies in the increased stress which families face with the accelerated technological, environmental, and societal shifts which have occurred over the past 30 years. Breakdown in cultural traditions, changes in the status of women, and increased mobility are but a few of the factors which place pressure on all families. Advocates of parent education hope to prevent or alleviate some of the stress for parents by assisting them in their parental role.
Confronted with a need to help parents, many counsellors, psychologists, family life educators, and social service program planners continually are faced with the issue of "who" should teach "what" in parent education and programs are offered as expediently as possible, often from readily available "packages". By examining contemporary definitions of parent education, current programs, potential audi-ences, methods, research problems, and issues in leadership, the author argues that it is time to re-examine what is being offered in the parent education field so that a more integrated and effective approach to parent education may be developed. Further, until such basic issues as (a) what effective parenting is, and (b) how it should be taught, are dealt with, the question of "who" should teach "what" parenting skills cannot be addressed adequately.
Contemporary Definitions
Most often the term "parent education" is used to refer to any form of assistance to parents which will help them carry out their parental role. Such a definition is extremely broad in scope as it includes various methods of acquiring information (e.g., mass media, small group participation, one-to-one contact with a professional) as well as various treatment modalities (e.g., therapeutic, educational). In an attempt to define the area more
clearly, Brim (1959) referred to parent educa-tion as "an activity using educaeduca-tional tech-niques in order to effect change in parental role performance" (p. 20) and "in the last analysis... to influence parent behavior in a way which is beneficial to the child" (p. 29). Brim distinguished between therapy and parent education by arguing that although therapy and education are at times one and the same, in an educational program no attempt is made to expose, explore, and work through the pathology of members.
Buckland (1971) delimited the field
further in defining parent education as "organized discussion groups or classes for parents in an adult education setting, extending over a series of regularly scheduled meetings, and conducted by a trained leader" (p. 27). Here, the emphasis is on education in a group setting. Children might be included, as in child observation programs. However, Buckland did exclude elementary and secondary school classes in family life education, lecture series, mass media programs, programs limited to sex education, and programs designed for special groups of parents.
McAffee and Nedler (1976) referred to parent education as "any type of educational program, involvement or interaction designed to increase potential competence and self-esteem in the parenting role" (p. 2). Schloss-man (1976) regarded parent education as "any and all programs sponsored by lay groups or governments to up-grade child-care practices in the home" (p. 436). This includes parental involvement in the education of their children through home start and early childhood educa-tion programs. More recently, Earhart (1980) extended the definition to include education for parenthood. Parenting education was defined as "any types of activities and expe-riences that provide information and guidelines for the parent role. The individual may not be a parent yet but can store knowledge gained for future use" (p. 39).
Thus, wide diversity exists in the definition of parent education, its purposes, methods, and potential audiences. Nevertheless, many definitions have as their goal, increased competence in parental performance. Often missing, however, is a definition of what such competence entails.
Concerns About Content
The various parent group education
approaches currently in existence deal with topics such as concepts in child growth and development, developmental norms, child-rearing practices, methods of discipline, communication skills, values, principles of personality development and behavior change, first aid and health maintenance, human sexuality, nutrition, cultural stimulation and play activities, and use of community resources (Authier, Sherrets, & Tramontana, 1980; Hicks & Williams, 1981). There are groups in which parents set their own agendas and their own goals such as those developed by the Child Study Association of America (Auerbach, 1968) and others in which a didactic approach is combined with child-observation and discus-sion (Pickarts & Fargo, 1971). Still others offer highly structured programs and agendas. In most cases, group leaders come from different disciplines (e.g., education, medicine, nursing, social work); however, an interdisciplinary team approach usually has not been utilized in actual program development so that most offerings lack an interdisciplinary base.
Apart from observation nurseries, the most common and popular approaches are those based upon one theoretical model. Programs which promote democratic principles of
child-rearing such as Gordon's (1970) Rogerian-based Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) and Drei-kurs' Adlerian-based parent study groups (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1976; Dreikurs & Soltz, 1964) are included here. The most common structured parent group program based upon behavioral principles is Becker's (1971) Parents are Teachers; most studies report training parents to become behavior modifiers for abnormal or deviant problems either individually or in pairs (Cone & Sloop,
1974; Moore & Claerhout, 1977;0'Dell, 1974). Other less common group approaches based upon one theoretical orientation are those relying on systems (Benson, Berger, & Mease, 1973) and transactional analysis (Harris, 1967) theories.
While adherance to one theoretical model offers the advantage that guidelines adopted by parents will be consistent within an overall philosophy of child-rearing, there are problems in programs based on a single theory:
1. Consistent with criticisms cited in the counselling and psychotherapy literature, most theories have not been validated adequately. Thus, although certain prescribed behaviors and guidelines are offered to parents, those who follow a given set of guidelines cannot be sure of the effects on the child. A prime target for such criticism is Adlerian theory upon which Dreikursian parent study groups are based. Recently, Adlerians have been strongly criti-cized for their failure to scientifically test their theory (Kelly & Main, 1978). Efforts to assess the effects of Adlerian theory taught through parent group education have increased over the past five years but the results are equivocal at best. Apart from the behavioral orientation, a similar comment might be directed to other approaches as well.
2. Doherty and Ryder (1980) have been particularly critical of the P.E.T. program stating that it not only presents a naive view of family dynamics but that it also offers a simplistic picture of parent-child relationships. In their words, "P.E.T. theory and techniques constitute a universal formula intended not only for all families (including every cultural group, and every developmental level of children) but also for every type of human relationship" (p. 413). Such criticisms might well be directed toward programs other than P.E.T. as they too do not incorporate findings from the child and family development litera-ture. Inconsistency in findings on the effects of parental variables on child behavior and a
lack of generalizability of findings across situations and contexts could contribute to this state of affairs (Griffore, 1980). Never-theless, ignoring what information does exist does not solve the problem. For example, some issues such as discipline do continue across age levels; however, the manner in which they are dealt with could differ from one develop-mental level to another. In a similar vein, programs usually do not take into account the age, socio-economic status, ethnic and cultural background, or marital status of the parents. Teenage parents, for example, have some very different needs from older parents and families at other stages of the life cycle. Further, programs are geared towards and attended by parents, mostly mothers, from the middle class; groups for mothers and fathers at various socio-economic levels are needed. Only recently have groups for those at lower socio-economic levels begun to emerge. Finally, although there are sessions for special groups (e.g., single parents, parents of handicapped children), programs based on a single theoreti-cal orientation usually are not adapted to meet the needs of these people. The needs of many diverse groups should be identified and addressed.
In addition to those problems associated with adherence to a single theoretical model, other difficulties pervade the parent education field. In some programs such as Green's (1975) Positive Parenting, different approaches (behavior modification, Dreikurs, and P.E.T.) with different assumptions and guidelines are combined for presentation and integration in a very short time span. The confusion which may result is similar to the bewilderment experienced by parents who enrol in several different programs seeking answers as to the "best" way to parent. The overall effect may be promotion of inconsistency, rather than a coherent style of child-management. Integra-tion of skills, attitudes, and knowledge so that the behavior manifested by the parent is congruent would seem to be of prime importance. Communication skill training, for example, which provides little or no opportu-nity for observation, practice, and feedback may promote covert manipulation rather than more effective relating. Skills become an "overlay" while fundamental attitudes may remain the same. Up to this point in time, most programs attempt to change parent-child interaction by training the parent alone. Increasingly, parent-child relationships are being seen as dynamic two-way interactions; parent programs would do weil to adapt to
this view also. This might be done by including both parents and children in the actual sessions or by developing parallel programs for parents and their children. In the latter approach, the same topics are discussed by each group and supplementary activities are available to do together at home. This approach is currently being used in some school districts which have Family Life Education programs. Perhaps what is being used most beneficially by parents up to this point in time is the support which a group discussion milieu can offer. Studies of critical incidents in parent education programs may help to clarify what is most and least beneficial to parents.
Concerns About Process
As with goals, content, and assumptions, current methods of teaching parenting skills vary considerably and include the following: (a) one-to-one behavior change processes, (b) group discussion, (c) lectures, (d) demon-strations and modeling, (e) role-playing, (f) listening to tapes, (g) reading, and (h) observa-tion. Assessments of which of these ap-proaches individually or in combination is most effective have not been conducted to the author's knowledge. Rather, recent research has centred on demonstrating the effectiveness of a particular program as a package compared with a control or placebo and sometimes with no controls at all. A few studies have compared the outcomes of one program with another (Anchor & Thomason, 1977; Beutler, Oro-Beutler, & Mitchell, 1979; Frazier & Matthes,
1975; Sadler, Seyden, Howe, & Kaminsky, 1976) and a number of comprehensive reviews of research in parent education have appeared (Croake & Glover, 1977; McDonough, 1976; O'Dell, 1974; Rinn & Markle, 1977; Tavormina, 1974; Tramontana, Sherrets, & Authier, 1980). Confusion in outcomes may be the result
of difficulties in conducting research in parent education as much as from the program content and methods themselves. Evaluation studies are hampered by problems such as how to select participants, who to assess (parent, child, both), what to assess (abilities, know-ledge, attitudes, practices, behaviors), when to assess (before participation, immediately after termination, months later), and where to assess outcomes (at home, at school). How to assess drop-outs and possible negative side effects is also an issue.
Researchers, then, are faced with problems in sampling, instrumentation, definition of treatment, and research design. Specification of
parental competencies for various age levels and stages of the family life cycle would make it more possible to assess which methods are most effective and with whom.
Concerns About Delivery
Questions regarding who should be in-volved in offering parent education programs to the public revolve around issues such as (a) whether instructors should come from a single or many disciplines, (b) whether they should be lay persons or professionals or both, and (c) whether they should offer programs through schools or non-school agencies. It should be obvious that no clear-cut answer to these issues exists and that the views presented here reflect the author's own biases. As the needs of families do not fall clearly
into a particular disciplinary base, programs which are developed should reflect the inter-disciplinary nature of parents' needs. Currently, those offering programs include counsellors, family specialists, medical personnel, psychol-ogists, social workers, and teachers. This trend should continue although more interaction among the disciplines is needed to facilitate integration of information and to use expertise to best advantage. What is of more concern than the actual disciplinary affiliation itself, is that the instructor has the expertise to carry out the program.
A more contentious issue than that of disciplinary background is that of lay versus professional training. Few studies have examined the results of programs offered by lay versus professional leaders and among those which have appeared just recently, the results are inconclusive and conflicting. Further, in most studies of parent education groups, the level and kind of training of the leader(s) have
not been specified. Arguments favoring the use of paraprofessionnals include greater empathy for participants among lay personnel who have no professionnal role to maintain. Further, the services of lay leaders are less costly than those of professionals. Certainly, such factors cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, where paraprofessionals are used, it is usually recommended that they be carefully selected and trained to offer specific programs with explicit content, directions, and activities (Ganong & Coleman, 1983).
The field of family life education has been strongly criticized for lack of sufficient expertise among those offering programs. Increasingly, the family life literature reflects
a move towards higher standards and more training for family life educators in order to gain credibility with the public and profes-sionals alike. As a subgroup, parent educators need to attend to this issue as well.
At the heart of the parent education movement is the assumption that parents are likely to have better relationships with their children through education; so too are those who work with parents likely to be more effective as a result of education and training. We live in a complex world and the people who work with parents must be informed about and actively involved in the world around them. They should possess a sound conceptual understanding of issues in a number of areas including family theory, life-span development, parenting, behavior change, motivation of human behavior, sexuality and sex education, group processes, and group leadership. They also should possess the attitudinal and in-structional skills to implement what they know. As in other areas where interpersonal relation-ships are important, parent educators should possess a number of personal characteristics including awareness of self and others, a healthy self concept, tolerance and flexibility — t o name a few. In addition, they should be able to deal with ambiguity and criticism. Thus, careful selection and training are central to the question of who should teach in parent education.
A final question arises out of whether instructors should offer programs through schools or other agencies. Although this matter may be debated extensively, the issue appears to be a moot one; programs should be offered wherever parents are likely to attend and instructors/leaders and facilities are available. What is important is not jurisdictions but the receipt of valued services and programs. Conclusion
What sounds like a relatively simple question, namely, "Who Should Teach What In Parent Education?" is really much more complex than one might initially anticipate. The author contends that the parent education movement is based on two unfounded assump-tions: (a) that we know what parent education is or should be, and (b) that we know what should be taught. By examining contemporary definitions of parent education, current programs, subjects toward which parent educa-tion is directed, methods, and research problems, it is argued that the area is not clearly defined and that there is a need to
develop a comprehensive theoretical model of parent education indicating (a) what effec-tive parenting entails, (b) what should be taught to whom, and (c) what methods are most effective under what circumstances. Such a theoretical model would have an inter-disciplinary base in the biological and social sciences and would incorporate research and literature on life-span and family development. Such a theoretical model would also specify what parental competencies are important at what ages and under what circumstances. By conducting needs assessments and by identifying critical incidents with parents and children at various stages of the life cycle, it should be possible to identify what should be taught to whom. The challenges to parent educators are great and there is a need for fresh and innovative ideas in this important field. Hopefully, by addressing some funda-mental issues, a more comprehensive concep-tion of parent educaconcep-tion may emerge together with improved psychoeducational programs for all family members.
References
Anchor, K.N., & Thomason, T.C. A comparison of two parent training models with educated
parents. Journal of Community Psychology, 1977, 5, 134-141.
Auerbach, A.B. Parents learn through discus-sion: Principles and practices of parent group education. In cooperation with the Child Study Association of America. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968.
Authier, K.J., Sherrets, S.D., & Tramontana, M.G. Methods and models of parent education. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 1980, 9(1), 38-40. Becker, W.C. Parents are teachers: A child
manage-ment program. Champaign, 111.: Research Press, 1971.
Benson, L., Berger, M., & Mease, W. Family commu-nication systems. Elementary School Guidance and Counselling, 1973, 1, 222-226.
Beutler, L.E., Oro-Beutler, M.E., & Mitchell, R. Systematic comparison of two parent training programs in child management. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1979, 26(6), 531-533. Brim, O.G. Education for child-rearing. New York:
The Free Press, 1959.
Buckland, CM. Toward a theory of parent education: A comparative qualitative analysis of learning
models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1971. Cone, J.D., & Sloop, E.W. Parents as agents of change.
In A. Jacobs & W. Spradlin (Eds.), The group as agent of change. New York: Behavioral Publications, 1974.
Croake, J.W., & Glover, K.E. A history and evaluation of parent education. Family Coordinator, 1977, 26(2), 151-158.
Dinkmeyer, DC, & McKay, G.D. Systematic training for effective parenting. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service, 1976. Doherty, W.J., & Ryder, R.G. Parent Effectiveness Training (P.E.T.): Criticisms and caveats. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 1980, 10, 409-418.
Dreikurs, R., & Soltz, V. Children: The Challenge. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1964.
Earhart, E.M. Parent education: A lifelong process. Journal of Home Economics, 1980 , 72(1),
39-43.
Frazier, F., & Matthes, W.A. Parent education: A comparison of Adlerian and behavioral approaches. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1975, 70(1), 31-38.
Ganong, L.H., & Coleman, M. An evaluation of the use of volunteers as parent educators. Family Relations, 1983, 32, 117-122.
Gordon, T. P.E.T.: Parent effectiveness training. New York: Peter H. Wyden, Inc., 1970. Green, K.A. Positive parenting: Parent's guide. Menlo
Park, California: Kenneth A. Green and the Family Communications Skills Centre, 1975. Griffore, R.J. Toward the use of child development
research in informed parenting. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 1980, 9, 48-51. Harris, T.A. Fm OK ~ You're OK. New York: Harper
& Row, 1967.
Hicks, M.W., & Williams, J.W. Current challenges in educating for parenthood. Family Relations, 1981, 30, 579-584.
Kelly, F.D., & Main, F.O. Ideographic research in Adlerian psychology: Problems and resolutions. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1978, 34(2), 221-231.
McAffee, O., & Nedler, S. Education for parenthood: A primary prevention strategy for child abuse and neglect. Denver: Education Commission of the States, 1976.
McDonough, J.J. Approaches to Adlerian family education research. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1976, 52(2), 224-231.
Moore, M.C., & Claerhout, S.J. Behavioral approaches in training parents to modify their children's behavior: A bibliography. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1977, 1, 76.
O'Dell, S. Training parents in behavior modification: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 418-433.
Pickarts, E., & Fargo, J. Parent education: Toward parental competence. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.
Rinn, R.C., & Markle, A. Parent effectiveness training: A review. Psychological Reports, 1977, 41(1), 95-109.
Sadler, O.W., Seyden, T., Howe, B., & Kaminsky, T. An evaluation of groups for parents: A standard-ized format encompassing both behavior modification and humanistic methods. Journal of Community Psychology, 1976, 4(2), 157-163. Schlossman, S.L. Before home start: Notes toward
a history of parent education in America, 1897-1929. Harvard Educational Review, 1976, 46, 436-467.
Stern, H.H. Parent education: An international survey. Journal of the Institute of Education Monograph. Hamburg: The University of Hull and the UNES-CO Institute for Education, 1960.
Tavormina, J.B. Basic models of parent counseling: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 827-835.
Tramontana, M.G., Sherrets, S.D., & Authier, K.J. Evaluation of parent education programs. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 1980, 9(1), 40-43. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sharon E. Robertson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Calgary where she is actively involved in the counselling psychology and family life education programs. Sharon received her PHD from the University of Alberta in 1976 and has maintained an interest in the development and evaluation of parent education programs.
